 |
||
 |
        |
 |
|
||
| MP3 Radio | Website News Briefs: | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
 |
1. Netanyahu is 3rd on YouTube World View Series
by Hillel Fendel
A Wednesday interview with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appears on the YouTube World View series, based on questions from viewers around the world.
The 25-minute long interview with the Israeli leader, featuring a clear and succinct presentation of Israel’s stance on critical issues, is the third in the YouTube World View series. The series features interviews with world leaders based on questions from viewers around the world; Netanyahu follows U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron.
The interview was held in Netanyahu’s home in Jerusalem, and was screened live on Channel Two news, whose star interviewer, Dana Weiss, asked the questions. The queries were asked and voted upon by the YouTube community around the world. A record number of questions - 3,673 - from a record number of countries - 90 - were asked of PM Netanyahu.
Brother's Death Steered His Life
Asked what experience most changed his life, Netanyahu said that it was the fall in battle of his brother Yoni as he commanded the Entebbe rescue of Israeli hostages from the hands of German and Arab terrorists.
“That event changed my life and steered it towards its present course,” Netanyahu said. “Yoni believed that the war against terrorism was not merely military, but also political and moral - and that is the war that I have been waging for these 35 years… When I go to visit a bereaved family [of Israelis murdered by terrorists or killed in battle] and I see a mother grieving for her son, I say, ‘That’s my mother.’ And when I see a father grieving for his son, I say, ‘That’s my father.’ And when I see a brother grieving for her son, I say, ‘That’s me.’ When I have to send our soldiers into harm’s way, I think [an extra time], and I think it makes me a more responsible leader.”
How to Wake Up the World
He was similarly asked, as were Obama and Cameron before him, “If you could ask one question of a world leader, what it would be and to whom?”
Netanyahu said, “I would ask Winston Churchill, the prime minister of Britain during World War II, ‘Is there anything you could have done differently to persuade the world to act in time against Nazism?’ Because even though he was a great leader, he failed in this task of getting the world to wake up to Nazism in time. Perhaps his answer would be, 'Naah, nothing could have been done differently, because ultimately there’s such a thing as the slumber of democracies, they have to be banged on the head.' I feel that same frustration now, because I’ve been talking for 15 years about the danger of Iranian nuclear terrorism, how they could control the world’s oil supply, and how they threaten our country with obliteration and could do the same with others. You try, and you try, and you try, and I don’t want to say that there’s been no progress - but not the kind of mobilization that is required against something so great.”
One question dealt with the violence and uprisings in Middle Eastern countries: “What side are you [Israel] on, and do you feel threatened?”
Netanyahu: “We’re all on the same side – Israel, America, the democratic world, we all want to see the triumph of democracy. This includes the people of Iran, where it really all began a year and a half ago – not in Tunisia, as is widely thought. The Iranians stormed the streets because they had a fake election there. So we want democracy, but we’re all concerned, I suppose, that the democracy will be hijacked by radical or militant Islamic regimes. That’s what happened five years ago in Lebanon. People there wanted to see a liberal, open, tolerant Lebanon – but five years later, we don’t have that kind of democracy: we rather have a theocracy, with Iran and Hizbullah controlling Lebanon. We don’t want militant theocracies.”
Netanyahu reiterated several times that Israel “is the only country in the Middle East where Arabs and Muslims enjoy full civil rights.”
The Real Issue: PA Refusal
The top vote-getting question was this: “Do you believe that approving more homes in the settlements in response to the slaughter in Itamar will bring peace, and if so, how?”
Netanyahu: “Well, look, first of all, I think that a few houses is not the real issue. I think the real issue is –"
At this point, interviewer Weiss interrupted and said, “One second. Because the asker is not here, I’m going to ask you to answer his question, and not the question that you think is the main issue.”
Netanyahu: “No, no, I’m answering: He asks if the settlements will stop peace, and I’m saying that this is not the reason we don’t have peace! The reason we don’t have peace is because the Palestinian Authority, so far, refuses to recognize a Jewish State in any borders.
“They negotiated for 18 years when there was plenty of settlement construction, and they didn’t make it a pre-condition, so a few houses on less than 1% of 1% of the land is not a big thing. Yes, it’s disputed land – we have a historical connection to it. My name is Benjamin; the first Benjamin, the son of Jacob, walked these hills 4,000 years ago, so we have some connection with this land. The Palestinians claim it, so we have to sit down and discuss it, we’re prepared to negotiate; they’re not.”
Every Fair-Minded Person Knows
Netanyahu also explained that the new units are being built “in areas that every fair-minded person knows will remain in our hands - suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.” Reminded that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had just called for an end to settlement construction, Netanyahu said, “Any one in his right mind knows that this is part of the ancestral Jewish homeland; it’s in the Bible. We have to reach a compromise, everyone knows we can’t kick out 350,000 or 400,000 Jews from their homes; many of them, by the way, were kicked out [from their homes in Arab countries] before the founding of Israel by hostile Arab armies…”
Continuing to attack the PA obstinacy of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, Netanyahu said, “We had 50 years of conflict before there was a single Israeli in any of these settlements – what was that all about? For decades, when [Judea and Samaria] was in Arab hands, they attacked us again and again, even though there were no Jewish settlements [in Judea and Samaria].”
Jewish day school students in Ohio asked Netanyahu if he was concerned about a new Palestinian intifada – apparently a reference to the plans to march on Israel on May 15 - and what can be done to stop it. He did not address the question directly, but said only that he hopes the Palestinians will choose peace and not alliance with Hamas.
Are You Kidding?
Asked what the United States gains from its alliance with Israel, the prime minister said, “My answer would be: Are you kidding? The entire Middle East all the way up to India is shaking and rocking, and the only stable country in the whole place is Israel! … If we didn’t exist, America would have to invent us! If not for Israel, the entire Middle East would simply collapse.”
He concluded by listing what he felt were the two great missions facing our generation and the next one: “We must make sure Iran and other radical regimes do not get nuclear weapons, and we must find a substitute for oil.”
Comment on this story
by Hillel Fendel
A Wednesday interview with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appears on the YouTube World View series, based on questions from viewers around the world.
The 25-minute long interview with the Israeli leader, featuring a clear and succinct presentation of Israel’s stance on critical issues, is the third in the YouTube World View series. The series features interviews with world leaders based on questions from viewers around the world; Netanyahu follows U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron.
The interview was held in Netanyahu’s home in Jerusalem, and was screened live on Channel Two news, whose star interviewer, Dana Weiss, asked the questions. The queries were asked and voted upon by the YouTube community around the world. A record number of questions - 3,673 - from a record number of countries - 90 - were asked of PM Netanyahu.
Brother's Death Steered His Life
Asked what experience most changed his life, Netanyahu said that it was the fall in battle of his brother Yoni as he commanded the Entebbe rescue of Israeli hostages from the hands of German and Arab terrorists.
“That event changed my life and steered it towards its present course,” Netanyahu said. “Yoni believed that the war against terrorism was not merely military, but also political and moral - and that is the war that I have been waging for these 35 years… When I go to visit a bereaved family [of Israelis murdered by terrorists or killed in battle] and I see a mother grieving for her son, I say, ‘That’s my mother.’ And when I see a father grieving for his son, I say, ‘That’s my father.’ And when I see a brother grieving for her son, I say, ‘That’s me.’ When I have to send our soldiers into harm’s way, I think [an extra time], and I think it makes me a more responsible leader.”
How to Wake Up the World
He was similarly asked, as were Obama and Cameron before him, “If you could ask one question of a world leader, what it would be and to whom?”
Netanyahu said, “I would ask Winston Churchill, the prime minister of Britain during World War II, ‘Is there anything you could have done differently to persuade the world to act in time against Nazism?’ Because even though he was a great leader, he failed in this task of getting the world to wake up to Nazism in time. Perhaps his answer would be, 'Naah, nothing could have been done differently, because ultimately there’s such a thing as the slumber of democracies, they have to be banged on the head.' I feel that same frustration now, because I’ve been talking for 15 years about the danger of Iranian nuclear terrorism, how they could control the world’s oil supply, and how they threaten our country with obliteration and could do the same with others. You try, and you try, and you try, and I don’t want to say that there’s been no progress - but not the kind of mobilization that is required against something so great.”
One question dealt with the violence and uprisings in Middle Eastern countries: “What side are you [Israel] on, and do you feel threatened?”
Netanyahu: “We’re all on the same side – Israel, America, the democratic world, we all want to see the triumph of democracy. This includes the people of Iran, where it really all began a year and a half ago – not in Tunisia, as is widely thought. The Iranians stormed the streets because they had a fake election there. So we want democracy, but we’re all concerned, I suppose, that the democracy will be hijacked by radical or militant Islamic regimes. That’s what happened five years ago in Lebanon. People there wanted to see a liberal, open, tolerant Lebanon – but five years later, we don’t have that kind of democracy: we rather have a theocracy, with Iran and Hizbullah controlling Lebanon. We don’t want militant theocracies.”
Netanyahu reiterated several times that Israel “is the only country in the Middle East where Arabs and Muslims enjoy full civil rights.”
The Real Issue: PA Refusal
The top vote-getting question was this: “Do you believe that approving more homes in the settlements in response to the slaughter in Itamar will bring peace, and if so, how?”
Netanyahu: “Well, look, first of all, I think that a few houses is not the real issue. I think the real issue is –"
At this point, interviewer Weiss interrupted and said, “One second. Because the asker is not here, I’m going to ask you to answer his question, and not the question that you think is the main issue.”
Netanyahu: “No, no, I’m answering: He asks if the settlements will stop peace, and I’m saying that this is not the reason we don’t have peace! The reason we don’t have peace is because the Palestinian Authority, so far, refuses to recognize a Jewish State in any borders.
“They negotiated for 18 years when there was plenty of settlement construction, and they didn’t make it a pre-condition, so a few houses on less than 1% of 1% of the land is not a big thing. Yes, it’s disputed land – we have a historical connection to it. My name is Benjamin; the first Benjamin, the son of Jacob, walked these hills 4,000 years ago, so we have some connection with this land. The Palestinians claim it, so we have to sit down and discuss it, we’re prepared to negotiate; they’re not.”
Every Fair-Minded Person Knows
Netanyahu also explained that the new units are being built “in areas that every fair-minded person knows will remain in our hands - suburbs of Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.” Reminded that U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had just called for an end to settlement construction, Netanyahu said, “Any one in his right mind knows that this is part of the ancestral Jewish homeland; it’s in the Bible. We have to reach a compromise, everyone knows we can’t kick out 350,000 or 400,000 Jews from their homes; many of them, by the way, were kicked out [from their homes in Arab countries] before the founding of Israel by hostile Arab armies…”
Continuing to attack the PA obstinacy of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, Netanyahu said, “We had 50 years of conflict before there was a single Israeli in any of these settlements – what was that all about? For decades, when [Judea and Samaria] was in Arab hands, they attacked us again and again, even though there were no Jewish settlements [in Judea and Samaria].”
Jewish day school students in Ohio asked Netanyahu if he was concerned about a new Palestinian intifada – apparently a reference to the plans to march on Israel on May 15 - and what can be done to stop it. He did not address the question directly, but said only that he hopes the Palestinians will choose peace and not alliance with Hamas.
Are You Kidding?
Asked what the United States gains from its alliance with Israel, the prime minister said, “My answer would be: Are you kidding? The entire Middle East all the way up to India is shaking and rocking, and the only stable country in the whole place is Israel! … If we didn’t exist, America would have to invent us! If not for Israel, the entire Middle East would simply collapse.”
He concluded by listing what he felt were the two great missions facing our generation and the next one: “We must make sure Iran and other radical regimes do not get nuclear weapons, and we must find a substitute for oil.”
Comment on this story
2. America: Beware Giving in to the False Concept of Islamophobia
by Prof. Phyllis Chesler
We are drowning in anti-Israel propaganda, and still it never stops coming.
Simultaneously, the “Palestinian narrative” appears to us as if in a dream, over and over again, always slightly surreal and yet overly familiar. By now the “Palestinian narrative” is a brand and we have all been hypnotized. This is not surprising.
For more than 40 years, the Soviet, Arab, and Saudi Lobbies, eventually joined by the Iranian Lobby, have funded the demonization of Israel and the popularization of Palestine. The condemnation of Israel for crimes it has never committed (“ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” “apartheid”) and the call for a Palestinian one-state solution is echoed, similarly, in films, books, poems, academic papers and lectures; we see and hear this on television, at conferences, at campus demonstrations, in the halls of the United Nations, the European Union, in Parliaments, and, of course, in the Arab and Islamic worlds.
By now, the “Palestinian narrative” has effectively rendered Jews unsafe and unwelcome in Europe. Jews who look “Jewish” or “religious” are not safe on the streets of certain European countries such as England, France, Holland, Belgium, and Scandinavia. European pagan, Christian, and Nazi-era Judeophobia has found a new outlet in the obsessive demonization of Israel, the only Jewish state. This is also the way Europeans hope to appease Muslim immigrants who live in Europe but in parallel universes, who are hostile to the Western enterprise, and who demand the right to be brutally intolerant as a Western civil right.
This same false Palestinian narrative has morphed into a belief that all Muslims—who are, themselves, the largest practitioners of religious apartheid in the world, and who persecute all non-Muslims—are, as Muslims, being persecuted in the West. This may be because Islam is not (yet) dominant in the West.
In my opinion, the success of the “Palestinian” narrative is what has led to the unquestioning acceptance of the false concept of “Islamophobia.”
Those Europeans who have challenged the idea of “Islamophobia” and who have told the truth about Islam in Europe—or who have chosen to leave the Religion of Peace—have put themselves in harm’s way. Either they are sued for blasphemy or defamation—or they must live in exile and with bodyguards. Some have been murdered, even butchered.
What about America? Surely that is not true here.
In 2008, America’s FBI found that 66.1% of religious hate crimes targeted Jews, but only 7.5% of religious hate crimes targeted Muslims. On March 29, 2011, The Center for Security Policy released a revised edition of their groundbreaking longitudinal study, Religious Bias Crimes 2000-2009: Muslim, Jewish and Christian Victims — Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization. It is based on annual FBI statistics and contradicts the assertions that religious bias crimes against Muslims have increased in America and that the alleged cause is widespread “Islamophobia.” In fact, the study shows that religious bias crimes — also known as hate crimes — against Muslim Americans, have remained relatively low with a downward trend since 2001, and are significantly less than the numbers of bias crimes against Jewish victims.
According to the Center’s analysis, in 2009, Jewish victims of hate crimes outnumbered Muslim victims by more than 8 to 1 (1,132 Jewish victims to 132 Muslim victims). From 2000 through 2009, for every one hate crime incident against a Muslim, there were six hate crime incidents against Jewish victims (1,580 Muslim incidents versus 9,692 Jewish incidents). Even in 2001 when religious bias crimes against Muslims increased briefly for a nine-week period, total anti-Muslim incidents, offenses and victims remained approximately half of the corresponding anti-Jewish totals.”
Nevertheless, American Muslims have alleged rampant “Islamophobia” in America. Countless number of Talking Heads have taken this allegation seriously.
Thus, it is not surprising that CNN just aired a documentary which was titled Not Welcome: The Muslims Next Door.
On camera, the Muslims are all so very…peaceful. There is not one angry or hate-filled Muslim man on camera. Not one. Despite the fact that we have seen hundreds, possibly thousands of angry, frightening, violent Muslim demonstrations, including prayer services, all across America and across the Islamic world, and many hate-filled captured Islamic and Palestinian terrorists on camera, CNN’s chosen Muslim-American men of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, including the Sheikh of the planned Islamic Center, are all soft-spoken, emotional, tearful, non-violent. Except for the Sheikh’s American wifewho converted to Islam, the Muslims on camera are all innocent, good, non-white people.
Soledad O’Brien, CNN’s special anchor, likes them, and, as someone with Afro-Cuban as well as Caucasian Australian parents, perhaps she even identifies with them. In any event, O’Brien questions them very politely, sympathetically.
However, the white, Christian-Americans on camera—all of them, without exception—are portrayed as hateful, cruel, insidious, dislikable, selfish, phobic, and no doubt racist. O’Brien interviews them with barely disguised hostility and contempt.
At issue, according to CNN’s website are America’s post-9/11 fears about radical Islam, terrorism, and “Sharia Law.” As CNN sees it:
“Murfreesboro, Tennessee has just over 100,000 people, 140+ churches, and one mosque. For decades, Muslims have lived and prayed in Murfreesboro without incident, but last May, when the Muslim community gained county approval to build a new 52,000 square foot Islamic center in town, hundreds of Murfreesboro residents took to the streets in protest…. O'Brien chronicles the dramatic fight to block the mosque project in Murfreesboro and the fight over religious freedom; a fight that would ultimately include protests, vandalism, arson and an explosive lawsuit that would involve the U.S. Department of Justice.”
What’s wrong with Murfreesboro is that it is too damn Christian and too damn white. It is not diverse enough.It is not Middle Eastern enough.
O’Brien, herself a Harvard graduate, dresses as a modern American woman. She has absolutely no comment to make about the fact that most of the adult Muslim women on camera are all wearing long, shapeless dresses and severe hijab—while the Muslim men are all dressed in modern, American style. The Sheikh’s wife insists that women are not “oppressed” under Sharia Law, that she is not oppressed, that no Muslim woman she knows has ever been oppressed, etc.
Interestingly enough, the Sheikh has a foreign accent. One wonders why so many Sheiks have been imported from the Middle East to America. Asra Nomani is a religious Muslim feministwho was born in India and raised in America. Her father founded the mosque of Morgantown, West Virginia. Nomani tried to persuade her mosque to become more woman-friendly. She failed. In a PBSdocumentary about this story, Nomani claimed that when Arab Muslims joined her mosque, her battle to bring it into the 21st century failed. On camera, she says:
“Extremists — mainly Arabs — led by one rather physically and verbally violent Egyptian, Hany Ammar, took over. At that point, I began hearing really scary sermons. An unchaste woman is worthless. The West is on a bad path. We must hate those who hate us. Women should be silent in a mosque. Jews are descendants of apes and pigs.”
Incredibly, on camera, Ammar says: “I pray to Allah that you be punished. May Allah get revenge for Ammar.” Ammar is also heard, but not seen, physically attacking a young moderate Muslim man. Ammar’s wife Mona is even more conservative, more aggressive than he is. She minces no words in expressing her contempt, even hatred for Nomani. Like certain kinds of religious women, she is even more zealous in upholding the patriarchal status quo, more aggressively empowered to strike down any other woman who dares challenge male supremacy or Islamic gender apartheid.
Ultimately, Ammar tries to ban Nomani from the mosque. Eventually, both she and her family leave.
Why do I even bring this in? Because Murfreesboro’s Sheikh Ossama Mohamed Bahloul is also a foreign-born Arab Muslim. All this means is that he may (or may not) be a religious Muslim supremacist or an Islamist. Bahloul is an Egyptian-born graduate of Al-Azhar University in Cairo. He was the Imam of the Islamic Society of Southern Texas, in Corpus Christi, and then the visiting Imam for the Islamic Center of Irving, Texas.
Sheikh Bahloul is not a terrorist, nor did he have anything to do with the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, an organization which raised money for Hamas and was based in a suburb of Dallas, Texas. However, he was summoned from Egypt to work in Texas, and left for Murfreesboro a year after the Holy Land trial began. Texas is known as a hotbed of increasingly fundamentalist Islam. Perhaps Bahloul was chosen for his radical beliefs and for his ability to mask them as something else. After all, his wife is dressed as if they live in Cairo, not in America.
To me, this is a sign and signal of a desire to live in a parallel universe, one in which Muslims are taught that they are superior to non-Muslims; one in which Muslims are taught to hate Jews and other infidels;one in which Muslims are taught that Sharia Law is, indeed, superior to American law. That is why CNN invites Harvard Professor Noah Feldman on. He assures people that “Our constitution prohibits any religion from becoming the law of the land.”
It does. But look at how Sharia law and/or Islamic custom has usurped the law of the land both in Europe and in America, where female genital mutilation, child arranged marriage, polygamy, the burqa and honor killings are pandemic.
An Egyptian father killed his two American daughters in Irving, Texas. Yaser Said came from Egypt, married his American-born wife when she was fifteen years old, honor murdered their daughters in 2008, and then fled. He has yet to be found.
A series of attacks were perpetrated against the building of the mosque. “Not Welcome” was spray painted on the sign which announced the mosque opening, arson was perpetrated, a lawsuit was brought. The graffiti and the arson are unacceptable. But no one who opposes the mosque is given a fair hearing or the slightest respect on camera. And, Sheikh Bahloul may be as clever as he is soft-spoken. In a very emotional but determined voice, pitched precisely to gain sympathy for his causehe says: “This is America. This is too much.”
Ah, so the Egyptian-born Sheikh understands America and fully knows what his rights are here. Funny, he only arrived here post 9/11. Actually, for all I know, he could have arrived here sooneror more recently. None of his many biographies and interviews share this information with us.
Is he, perhaps, asecret lover of Zion, an admirer of the American way of life, a Sufi-style peaceful Sunni Muslim? He graduated from the most prominent school of Islamic learning in the Sunni world. If he is really a man for the 21st century, he will have to take some very prominent and public stands which prove that this is so.
Comment on this story
by Prof. Phyllis Chesler
We are drowning in anti-Israel propaganda, and still it never stops coming.
Simultaneously, the “Palestinian narrative” appears to us as if in a dream, over and over again, always slightly surreal and yet overly familiar. By now the “Palestinian narrative” is a brand and we have all been hypnotized. This is not surprising.
For more than 40 years, the Soviet, Arab, and Saudi Lobbies, eventually joined by the Iranian Lobby, have funded the demonization of Israel and the popularization of Palestine. The condemnation of Israel for crimes it has never committed (“ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” “apartheid”) and the call for a Palestinian one-state solution is echoed, similarly, in films, books, poems, academic papers and lectures; we see and hear this on television, at conferences, at campus demonstrations, in the halls of the United Nations, the European Union, in Parliaments, and, of course, in the Arab and Islamic worlds.
By now, the “Palestinian narrative” has effectively rendered Jews unsafe and unwelcome in Europe. Jews who look “Jewish” or “religious” are not safe on the streets of certain European countries such as England, France, Holland, Belgium, and Scandinavia. European pagan, Christian, and Nazi-era Judeophobia has found a new outlet in the obsessive demonization of Israel, the only Jewish state. This is also the way Europeans hope to appease Muslim immigrants who live in Europe but in parallel universes, who are hostile to the Western enterprise, and who demand the right to be brutally intolerant as a Western civil right.
This same false Palestinian narrative has morphed into a belief that all Muslims—who are, themselves, the largest practitioners of religious apartheid in the world, and who persecute all non-Muslims—are, as Muslims, being persecuted in the West. This may be because Islam is not (yet) dominant in the West.
In my opinion, the success of the “Palestinian” narrative is what has led to the unquestioning acceptance of the false concept of “Islamophobia.”
Those Europeans who have challenged the idea of “Islamophobia” and who have told the truth about Islam in Europe—or who have chosen to leave the Religion of Peace—have put themselves in harm’s way. Either they are sued for blasphemy or defamation—or they must live in exile and with bodyguards. Some have been murdered, even butchered.
What about America? Surely that is not true here.
In 2008, America’s FBI found that 66.1% of religious hate crimes targeted Jews, but only 7.5% of religious hate crimes targeted Muslims. On March 29, 2011, The Center for Security Policy released a revised edition of their groundbreaking longitudinal study, Religious Bias Crimes 2000-2009: Muslim, Jewish and Christian Victims — Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization. It is based on annual FBI statistics and contradicts the assertions that religious bias crimes against Muslims have increased in America and that the alleged cause is widespread “Islamophobia.” In fact, the study shows that religious bias crimes — also known as hate crimes — against Muslim Americans, have remained relatively low with a downward trend since 2001, and are significantly less than the numbers of bias crimes against Jewish victims.
According to the Center’s analysis, in 2009, Jewish victims of hate crimes outnumbered Muslim victims by more than 8 to 1 (1,132 Jewish victims to 132 Muslim victims). From 2000 through 2009, for every one hate crime incident against a Muslim, there were six hate crime incidents against Jewish victims (1,580 Muslim incidents versus 9,692 Jewish incidents). Even in 2001 when religious bias crimes against Muslims increased briefly for a nine-week period, total anti-Muslim incidents, offenses and victims remained approximately half of the corresponding anti-Jewish totals.”
Nevertheless, American Muslims have alleged rampant “Islamophobia” in America. Countless number of Talking Heads have taken this allegation seriously.
Thus, it is not surprising that CNN just aired a documentary which was titled Not Welcome: The Muslims Next Door.
On camera, the Muslims are all so very…peaceful. There is not one angry or hate-filled Muslim man on camera. Not one. Despite the fact that we have seen hundreds, possibly thousands of angry, frightening, violent Muslim demonstrations, including prayer services, all across America and across the Islamic world, and many hate-filled captured Islamic and Palestinian terrorists on camera, CNN’s chosen Muslim-American men of Murfreesboro, Tennessee, including the Sheikh of the planned Islamic Center, are all soft-spoken, emotional, tearful, non-violent. Except for the Sheikh’s American wifewho converted to Islam, the Muslims on camera are all innocent, good, non-white people.
Soledad O’Brien, CNN’s special anchor, likes them, and, as someone with Afro-Cuban as well as Caucasian Australian parents, perhaps she even identifies with them. In any event, O’Brien questions them very politely, sympathetically.
However, the white, Christian-Americans on camera—all of them, without exception—are portrayed as hateful, cruel, insidious, dislikable, selfish, phobic, and no doubt racist. O’Brien interviews them with barely disguised hostility and contempt.
At issue, according to CNN’s website are America’s post-9/11 fears about radical Islam, terrorism, and “Sharia Law.” As CNN sees it:
“Murfreesboro, Tennessee has just over 100,000 people, 140+ churches, and one mosque. For decades, Muslims have lived and prayed in Murfreesboro without incident, but last May, when the Muslim community gained county approval to build a new 52,000 square foot Islamic center in town, hundreds of Murfreesboro residents took to the streets in protest…. O'Brien chronicles the dramatic fight to block the mosque project in Murfreesboro and the fight over religious freedom; a fight that would ultimately include protests, vandalism, arson and an explosive lawsuit that would involve the U.S. Department of Justice.”
What’s wrong with Murfreesboro is that it is too damn Christian and too damn white. It is not diverse enough.It is not Middle Eastern enough.
O’Brien, herself a Harvard graduate, dresses as a modern American woman. She has absolutely no comment to make about the fact that most of the adult Muslim women on camera are all wearing long, shapeless dresses and severe hijab—while the Muslim men are all dressed in modern, American style. The Sheikh’s wife insists that women are not “oppressed” under Sharia Law, that she is not oppressed, that no Muslim woman she knows has ever been oppressed, etc.
Interestingly enough, the Sheikh has a foreign accent. One wonders why so many Sheiks have been imported from the Middle East to America. Asra Nomani is a religious Muslim feministwho was born in India and raised in America. Her father founded the mosque of Morgantown, West Virginia. Nomani tried to persuade her mosque to become more woman-friendly. She failed. In a PBSdocumentary about this story, Nomani claimed that when Arab Muslims joined her mosque, her battle to bring it into the 21st century failed. On camera, she says:
“Extremists — mainly Arabs — led by one rather physically and verbally violent Egyptian, Hany Ammar, took over. At that point, I began hearing really scary sermons. An unchaste woman is worthless. The West is on a bad path. We must hate those who hate us. Women should be silent in a mosque. Jews are descendants of apes and pigs.”
Incredibly, on camera, Ammar says: “I pray to Allah that you be punished. May Allah get revenge for Ammar.” Ammar is also heard, but not seen, physically attacking a young moderate Muslim man. Ammar’s wife Mona is even more conservative, more aggressive than he is. She minces no words in expressing her contempt, even hatred for Nomani. Like certain kinds of religious women, she is even more zealous in upholding the patriarchal status quo, more aggressively empowered to strike down any other woman who dares challenge male supremacy or Islamic gender apartheid.
Ultimately, Ammar tries to ban Nomani from the mosque. Eventually, both she and her family leave.
Why do I even bring this in? Because Murfreesboro’s Sheikh Ossama Mohamed Bahloul is also a foreign-born Arab Muslim. All this means is that he may (or may not) be a religious Muslim supremacist or an Islamist. Bahloul is an Egyptian-born graduate of Al-Azhar University in Cairo. He was the Imam of the Islamic Society of Southern Texas, in Corpus Christi, and then the visiting Imam for the Islamic Center of Irving, Texas.
Sheikh Bahloul is not a terrorist, nor did he have anything to do with the trial of the Holy Land Foundation, an organization which raised money for Hamas and was based in a suburb of Dallas, Texas. However, he was summoned from Egypt to work in Texas, and left for Murfreesboro a year after the Holy Land trial began. Texas is known as a hotbed of increasingly fundamentalist Islam. Perhaps Bahloul was chosen for his radical beliefs and for his ability to mask them as something else. After all, his wife is dressed as if they live in Cairo, not in America.
To me, this is a sign and signal of a desire to live in a parallel universe, one in which Muslims are taught that they are superior to non-Muslims; one in which Muslims are taught to hate Jews and other infidels;one in which Muslims are taught that Sharia Law is, indeed, superior to American law. That is why CNN invites Harvard Professor Noah Feldman on. He assures people that “Our constitution prohibits any religion from becoming the law of the land.”
It does. But look at how Sharia law and/or Islamic custom has usurped the law of the land both in Europe and in America, where female genital mutilation, child arranged marriage, polygamy, the burqa and honor killings are pandemic.
An Egyptian father killed his two American daughters in Irving, Texas. Yaser Said came from Egypt, married his American-born wife when she was fifteen years old, honor murdered their daughters in 2008, and then fled. He has yet to be found.
A series of attacks were perpetrated against the building of the mosque. “Not Welcome” was spray painted on the sign which announced the mosque opening, arson was perpetrated, a lawsuit was brought. The graffiti and the arson are unacceptable. But no one who opposes the mosque is given a fair hearing or the slightest respect on camera. And, Sheikh Bahloul may be as clever as he is soft-spoken. In a very emotional but determined voice, pitched precisely to gain sympathy for his causehe says: “This is America. This is too much.”
Ah, so the Egyptian-born Sheikh understands America and fully knows what his rights are here. Funny, he only arrived here post 9/11. Actually, for all I know, he could have arrived here sooneror more recently. None of his many biographies and interviews share this information with us.
Is he, perhaps, asecret lover of Zion, an admirer of the American way of life, a Sufi-style peaceful Sunni Muslim? He graduated from the most prominent school of Islamic learning in the Sunni world. If he is really a man for the 21st century, he will have to take some very prominent and public stands which prove that this is so.
Comment on this story
3. Intel Sources Say Abu Sisi Had Vital Info On Gilad Shalit
by Gavriel Queenann
On a crisp February morning, Israel's Mossad nabbed an Dirar Abu Sisi from his Ukrainian train-carriage, Der Spiegel reports.
While Israel Radio reported Abu Sisi, an Arab engineer fro Gaza, had mysteriously appeared in an Israeli jail after going missing in Ukraine, they did not report the apparent motive for his abduction. But in western Intelligence circles, suspicion is mounting the man is a Hamas insider with vital information on the status of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
Abu Sisi, who was staying with in-laws in the eastern town of Kharkiv while making plans to re-settle his Ukranian wife and children from the Gaza strip, boarded a train on February 18 headed for Kiev. He intended to meet his brother, who had lived in Amsterdam for years and flew in for the reuinion. But Abu Sisi never arrived.
The exact details are vague, but according to the train's conductor and porter, two men in civilian clothing stepped into Abu Sisi's carriage on the night of February 19. At around 1 AM, they told security personnel who interviewed them after the incident, the strangers escorted him off the train. However, the men later retracted these statements saying they saw "nothing."
Some Intelligence insiders assert the witnesses' retraction has a simple explanations: that Ukranian agents kidnapped Abu Sisi nad turned him over to Israel's Mossad who requested the extreme rendition. One informant told Der Spiegel on the condition of anonymity, "If Mossad goes to such an expense, and interrogates the man for six weeks, then he must know something Israel absolutely wants to hear."
Another uncorroborated source asserted officials in Jerusalem believe that Abu Sisi had vital information relating to Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped four and a half years ago by Hamas. Since Shalit, now 24, was kidnapped, Israel and Hamas have discussed a prisoner exchange, but Hamas wants 1,000 terror-prisoners released in exchange for him. Israeli leaders fear this would lead to the muder of more Israelis and hold out hope of liberating Shalit with a commando opration.
Abu Sisi's wife Veronika immediately feared a political assassination had taken place when she learned her husband had not reached his brother in Kiev, which seemingly implies she herself knew her husband was a target. A day later she contacted UN officials and representatives from Israeli human rights groups. She asked them to find out her husband's fate. But eight days after his appearance, on February 27, Abu Sisi contacted his wife by telephone and informed her he was in prison in Ashkelon.
On March 20 Israel official admitted it had Abu Sisi in custody. Prior to that a gag-order had forbidden Israel's media and local correspondents from reporting on the affair. Beyond the flat admission of Abu Sisi's presence in it jail, Israel has released no further information on Abu Sisi, while the Ukranian government has denied involvement in his abduction.
Last week two Israeli lawyers met with Abu Sisi, who is being held in 'administrative detention', a legal holdover from British Colonial Law that was used during the British Mandate Era and is often invoked for security prisoners of both sides. No date for his release has been given.
Comment on this story
by Gavriel Queenann
On a crisp February morning, Israel's Mossad nabbed an Dirar Abu Sisi from his Ukrainian train-carriage, Der Spiegel reports.
While Israel Radio reported Abu Sisi, an Arab engineer fro Gaza, had mysteriously appeared in an Israeli jail after going missing in Ukraine, they did not report the apparent motive for his abduction. But in western Intelligence circles, suspicion is mounting the man is a Hamas insider with vital information on the status of kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.
Abu Sisi, who was staying with in-laws in the eastern town of Kharkiv while making plans to re-settle his Ukranian wife and children from the Gaza strip, boarded a train on February 18 headed for Kiev. He intended to meet his brother, who had lived in Amsterdam for years and flew in for the reuinion. But Abu Sisi never arrived.
The exact details are vague, but according to the train's conductor and porter, two men in civilian clothing stepped into Abu Sisi's carriage on the night of February 19. At around 1 AM, they told security personnel who interviewed them after the incident, the strangers escorted him off the train. However, the men later retracted these statements saying they saw "nothing."
Some Intelligence insiders assert the witnesses' retraction has a simple explanations: that Ukranian agents kidnapped Abu Sisi nad turned him over to Israel's Mossad who requested the extreme rendition. One informant told Der Spiegel on the condition of anonymity, "If Mossad goes to such an expense, and interrogates the man for six weeks, then he must know something Israel absolutely wants to hear."
Another uncorroborated source asserted officials in Jerusalem believe that Abu Sisi had vital information relating to Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped four and a half years ago by Hamas. Since Shalit, now 24, was kidnapped, Israel and Hamas have discussed a prisoner exchange, but Hamas wants 1,000 terror-prisoners released in exchange for him. Israeli leaders fear this would lead to the muder of more Israelis and hold out hope of liberating Shalit with a commando opration.
Abu Sisi's wife Veronika immediately feared a political assassination had taken place when she learned her husband had not reached his brother in Kiev, which seemingly implies she herself knew her husband was a target. A day later she contacted UN officials and representatives from Israeli human rights groups. She asked them to find out her husband's fate. But eight days after his appearance, on February 27, Abu Sisi contacted his wife by telephone and informed her he was in prison in Ashkelon.
On March 20 Israel official admitted it had Abu Sisi in custody. Prior to that a gag-order had forbidden Israel's media and local correspondents from reporting on the affair. Beyond the flat admission of Abu Sisi's presence in it jail, Israel has released no further information on Abu Sisi, while the Ukranian government has denied involvement in his abduction.
Last week two Israeli lawyers met with Abu Sisi, who is being held in 'administrative detention', a legal holdover from British Colonial Law that was used during the British Mandate Era and is often invoked for security prisoners of both sides. No date for his release has been given.
Comment on this story
4. Yemenite Jews Refuse to Leave
by Chana Ya'ar
The tiny Jewish community of Yemen is not afraid and does not feel compelled to flee the political upheaval wracking their country.
Despite calls from concerned relatives and friends living abroad, Yemeni Jews say there is no threat to their lives.
Jewish organizations in Israel and the United States have also reached out to the community, which is comprised of some 250 people. Most of the Jews live today in the capital, San'a, although a few -- who receive financial aid from the Satmar Chassidic group -- still live in Amran and Raida.
Nevertheless, “they absolutely will not budge,” said the head of a Jewish group trying to persuade the Jews to leave, who requested anonymity. “Even calls from Yemenite rabbis who once lived there and have left have been unsuccessful.”
Despite this, a small number of Jews in Yemen do appear to be making contingency plans to leave, according to the source. As in Tunisia, the Yemeni border is “completely open,” the Jews say, and they are “free to leave” anytime they want – at least for now.
Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has long enjoyed a warm relationship with the country's Jews and has in the past protected them when necessary.
At the start of 2009, Yemeni Jewish leader Rabbi Moshe bin Yahya bin Ya'aish al-Nahari was murdered in the grand market in Amran. The killing, which drew widespread international condemnation, prompted the president to order the Jews evacuated from the city.
Saleh arranged for the 50 families to each receive a plot of land in an area east of the capital, San'a. He also allocated to each a grant of $10,000 with which to rebuild their households.
He arranged a similar transfer for the Jews of the Bani Salem district in Sa'ada governorate after they were harassed by Houthi followers earlier in the year.
However, Saleh's 32-year reign is nearly done; protesters have been calling for his ouster since the end of January.
Earlier this week, he met with Islamist opposition forces to work out a compromise that will allow him to hang on to his seat at least until elections are held.
Comment on this story
by Chana Ya'ar
The tiny Jewish community of Yemen is not afraid and does not feel compelled to flee the political upheaval wracking their country.
Despite calls from concerned relatives and friends living abroad, Yemeni Jews say there is no threat to their lives.
Jewish organizations in Israel and the United States have also reached out to the community, which is comprised of some 250 people. Most of the Jews live today in the capital, San'a, although a few -- who receive financial aid from the Satmar Chassidic group -- still live in Amran and Raida.
Nevertheless, “they absolutely will not budge,” said the head of a Jewish group trying to persuade the Jews to leave, who requested anonymity. “Even calls from Yemenite rabbis who once lived there and have left have been unsuccessful.”
Despite this, a small number of Jews in Yemen do appear to be making contingency plans to leave, according to the source. As in Tunisia, the Yemeni border is “completely open,” the Jews say, and they are “free to leave” anytime they want – at least for now.
Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh has long enjoyed a warm relationship with the country's Jews and has in the past protected them when necessary.
At the start of 2009, Yemeni Jewish leader Rabbi Moshe bin Yahya bin Ya'aish al-Nahari was murdered in the grand market in Amran. The killing, which drew widespread international condemnation, prompted the president to order the Jews evacuated from the city.
Saleh arranged for the 50 families to each receive a plot of land in an area east of the capital, San'a. He also allocated to each a grant of $10,000 with which to rebuild their households.
He arranged a similar transfer for the Jews of the Bani Salem district in Sa'ada governorate after they were harassed by Houthi followers earlier in the year.
However, Saleh's 32-year reign is nearly done; protesters have been calling for his ouster since the end of January.
Earlier this week, he met with Islamist opposition forces to work out a compromise that will allow him to hang on to his seat at least until elections are held.
Comment on this story
5. Landau: Arabs in Israel Already Have Equal Rights
by Elad Benari
National Infrastructure Minister Dr. Uzi Landau said on Wednesday that he expects the attorney general to investigate the events that took place in Lod on Tuesday and examine whether the law was violated there.
Landau, who was interviewed on Arutz Sheva’s Hebrew website, was referring to the rally by Israeli Arabs which took place in Lod and in which the demonstrators burned Israeli flags and posters of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
The protests took place to mark the Arab “Land Day”, which marks the anniversary of the massive Arab riots in March 1976 over the confiscation of land near Arab villages, during which six protesters were killed.
In the interview, Landau referred to the leaders of the Arab public as “an anti-Semitic group that seeks to undermine our right to exist here.” He brought as evidence for this statement the constitution proposed by the Arab leaders, which asserts in its first lines that the proposed law is the Muslim Sharia law.
He said that he is disappointed in the conduct of the government and believes that the time has come that the government talk less and do more, both against the Arab incitement as well as in dealing with infiltrators from Egypt.
Landau attacked the Arab leadership in Israel, calling them a “itinerant band” which accuses Israel of being an apartheid state yet travels to Libya and Syria and praises the leaders there.
He also addressed the claims made by the Arab public against Israel and said: “They accuse us of expropriation of land while at the same time they rob lands. They accuse us of the fact that their youths have nowhere in which to develop, but we see that as our housing prices go higher and we are building higher structures they insist on building one family homes on plots of land. They accuse us of apartheid and yet go to praise the leaders of Syria and Libya.”
Landau added that he thinks it is time for the Arab leaders to open their eyes and admit that equal rights are given to the entire population in Israel, including the Arabs.
Landau also addressed the Nakba Law which was approved in the Knesset last week, and which stipulates that the Minister of Finance may withhold or reduce budgets from government-funded bodies who deny Israel’s existence. The law came under fire by Arab MKs who termed it “anti-democratic.”
Another person who expressed his opposition to the Nakba Law is Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Kremnitzer published an article in which he wrote that the Nakba Law prevents freedom of expression and encourages collective punishment.
Landau addressed Kremnizter’s statements and said that “one must be a professor to say such nonsense. No one is preventing freedom of expression but it is important to remember what the Nakba is. Nakba is them marking what they see as a disaster that they failed to kill us with axes as they did in Itamar. They want to refer to this so they can implement it in the future. Their aim is the destruction of Israel, and they want us to sponsor them using the budget of the State of Israel?”
Landau also noted the German law against Holocaust denial and similar laws that prohibit Neo-Nazi expressions in countries like Britain and Russia, and added that in those countries one would never even suggest that such organizations receive government funding.
Comment on this story
by Elad Benari
National Infrastructure Minister Dr. Uzi Landau said on Wednesday that he expects the attorney general to investigate the events that took place in Lod on Tuesday and examine whether the law was violated there.
Landau, who was interviewed on Arutz Sheva’s Hebrew website, was referring to the rally by Israeli Arabs which took place in Lod and in which the demonstrators burned Israeli flags and posters of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.
The protests took place to mark the Arab “Land Day”, which marks the anniversary of the massive Arab riots in March 1976 over the confiscation of land near Arab villages, during which six protesters were killed.
In the interview, Landau referred to the leaders of the Arab public as “an anti-Semitic group that seeks to undermine our right to exist here.” He brought as evidence for this statement the constitution proposed by the Arab leaders, which asserts in its first lines that the proposed law is the Muslim Sharia law.
He said that he is disappointed in the conduct of the government and believes that the time has come that the government talk less and do more, both against the Arab incitement as well as in dealing with infiltrators from Egypt.
Landau attacked the Arab leadership in Israel, calling them a “itinerant band” which accuses Israel of being an apartheid state yet travels to Libya and Syria and praises the leaders there.
He also addressed the claims made by the Arab public against Israel and said: “They accuse us of expropriation of land while at the same time they rob lands. They accuse us of the fact that their youths have nowhere in which to develop, but we see that as our housing prices go higher and we are building higher structures they insist on building one family homes on plots of land. They accuse us of apartheid and yet go to praise the leaders of Syria and Libya.”
Landau added that he thinks it is time for the Arab leaders to open their eyes and admit that equal rights are given to the entire population in Israel, including the Arabs.
Landau also addressed the Nakba Law which was approved in the Knesset last week, and which stipulates that the Minister of Finance may withhold or reduce budgets from government-funded bodies who deny Israel’s existence. The law came under fire by Arab MKs who termed it “anti-democratic.”
Another person who expressed his opposition to the Nakba Law is Professor Mordechai Kremnitzer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Kremnitzer published an article in which he wrote that the Nakba Law prevents freedom of expression and encourages collective punishment.
Landau addressed Kremnizter’s statements and said that “one must be a professor to say such nonsense. No one is preventing freedom of expression but it is important to remember what the Nakba is. Nakba is them marking what they see as a disaster that they failed to kill us with axes as they did in Itamar. They want to refer to this so they can implement it in the future. Their aim is the destruction of Israel, and they want us to sponsor them using the budget of the State of Israel?”
Landau also noted the German law against Holocaust denial and similar laws that prohibit Neo-Nazi expressions in countries like Britain and Russia, and added that in those countries one would never even suggest that such organizations receive government funding.
Comment on this story
6. Japan: IDF Team Treats Homeless Baby Girl
by Gil Ronen
A medical team from the IDF emergency delegation to Japan is treating a sick 11-month baby girl who has lost her home in the tsunami disaster. The girl, Sanae, was brought on Wednesday by her grandmother to the IDF clinic at Minami Sanriku, a town that has been obliterated in the catastrophe.
Sanae, who has an eye infection, was treated by Dr. Amit Asa, the clinic's pediatrician, and by ophtalmologist Lt.-Col. Orli Weinstein, with the aid of Captain Galit Bidner, the clinic nurse.
Sanae's grandmother received medicine and instructions on how to continue treatment, and was invited to return to the clinic with Sanae two days from now. She was also equipped with diapers and toys for Sanae.
Other patients who received care at the IDF clinic suffered from a variety of conditions and received a comprehensive medical response from the multi-specialty crew at the advanced medical clinic. The doctors were assisted by translators, both local and Israeli.
As the clinic opened Wednesday morning, the delegation commander met with the local mayor and district physician.
Comment on this story
by Gil Ronen
A medical team from the IDF emergency delegation to Japan is treating a sick 11-month baby girl who has lost her home in the tsunami disaster. The girl, Sanae, was brought on Wednesday by her grandmother to the IDF clinic at Minami Sanriku, a town that has been obliterated in the catastrophe.
Sanae, who has an eye infection, was treated by Dr. Amit Asa, the clinic's pediatrician, and by ophtalmologist Lt.-Col. Orli Weinstein, with the aid of Captain Galit Bidner, the clinic nurse.
Sanae's grandmother received medicine and instructions on how to continue treatment, and was invited to return to the clinic with Sanae two days from now. She was also equipped with diapers and toys for Sanae.
Other patients who received care at the IDF clinic suffered from a variety of conditions and received a comprehensive medical response from the multi-specialty crew at the advanced medical clinic. The doctors were assisted by translators, both local and Israeli.
As the clinic opened Wednesday morning, the delegation commander met with the local mayor and district physician.
Comment on this story
7. Deputy PM Yaalon: "Skullcaps are a Non-Issue"
by Gavriel Queenann
"The freeze [on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria] was a mistake," Minister Moshe Yaalon told Israel LIVE in a candid interview on Tuesday. "We will work to continue building Judea and Samaria and approve plans."
Yaalon, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs, fielded questions from online users, which were fed live to the Internet via the My Israel Facebook page. Topics ranged from Yaalon's experiences as IDF chief of staff to regional security, politics, diplomatic realities for Israel, settlement in Judea and Samaria, Gilad Shalit, the Bedouin takeover in some southern areas, whether he was cleaning for Passover ("Yes!"), and other topics.
During the interview Yaalon protested the press's preoccupation with the fact that the new Shin Bet chief, Yoram Cohen, wears the skullcap favored by religious Jews: "I think wearing a skullcap is a non-starter as an issue. Unfortunately, it was also raised during the appointment of Yaakov Amidror. It really does not matter."
He noted with some amusement that some are asking whether religious security officials would answer their phone on the Sabbath. "There are religious army officers and soldiers at all levels," he said, citing a famous precept in Jewish Law, "the saving of a life overrides the Sabbath."
Yaalon added, "the question of political opinions isn't really relevant. The IDF and Shin Bet are government bodies and people know how to make the distinction between their political opinions - as you know, my positions have not compromised my service - and professional opinions."
About the challenges facing Cohen, Yaalon said the Shin Bet's prime challenge is preventing terrorism. "The achievements of the IDF and Shin Bet are not always obvious to the public, and Yoram Cohen will have to continue to lead and ensure the Shin Bet stays on the cutting cutting edge," he opined, adding, "There are also counter-espionage efforts, and Jewish organizations that operate outside the law. I think Yoram know to lead the Shin Bet."
"As long as Gilad Shalit is in captivity we have not completed our task," Yaalon said in response to numerous questions about the chances of mounting a rescue operation to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. "The Israeli government is responsible for extracting him and I hope for an opportunity to rescue him."
"The question raised in public debate," Yaalon continued. "Is whether you exchange a thousand terrorists for one soldier? This is not simple. We are stuck. Hamas insists on 1,000, but in our experience this will bring the murder of more Israelis. Do we release prisoners knowing hundreds of Israelis will be murdered?... there is an concern over encouraging more kidnappings, and an aspect of deterrence to consider. This is not a simple issue that we are debating it but we have a clear policy on the matter. The Prime Minister set conditions and Hamas rejected them."
When asked whether Israel will create a more austere environment for terror prisoners held in Israeli jails due to Hamas' refusal to allow the Red Cross to verify Gilad Shalit's status and conditions, Yaalon said, "We are doing so, but some things are better left unsaid."
"We, as a government, did not care which of the groups was firing the rockets," Yaalon said of the escalation of rocket and mortar attacks on Israel's southern cities. "Hamas is responsible for the escalation, the firing at Israel. Hamas demurred after our strong reactions and worked to calm the situation. This way our deterrence is maintained."
"The claim that settlements are an obstacle to peace," Yaalon said of the popular land-for-peace paradigm, "is primarily a problem rooted in our domestic discourse. Of course the world is going to follow us. It cannot be that Arabs can walk and live freely where they choose while Jews are restricted from some parts of Israel."
As for the issue of construction in Judea and Samaria, Yaalon said, "The freeze was a mistake. I said it before and when the idea of extending the freeze was raised I vehemently opposed it. We are working to continue building the West Bank, and to approve urban construction plans in Judea and Samaria. With the latter there is some controversy. The authority lies in the hands of the Defense Minister, but there is talk of establishing a committee to oversee it."
"I strongly condemn these actions," Yaalon said of alleged 'price-tag' operations. "Its like shooting the State of Israel in the foot and the settlement enterprise in the head. The world is watching us. We are a nation with a rule of law and we cannot afford to have independent guerrillas running around. We have authority here and are armed with dual weapons, Law and the IDF. The price for these operations is paid by Israel and the settlements."
On Iran, Ya'alon said, "Iran is a threat to regional stability and is pulling strings behind the scenes. They are provoking Shi'ite leaders to challenge Arab regimes and stir the pot in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem is not just the Iranian nuclear program, but the Iranian regime's behavior. Iran should not have a military nuclear capability. This regime should not continue its terrorist activities without paying a price."
Comment on this story
by Gavriel Queenann
"The freeze [on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria] was a mistake," Minister Moshe Yaalon told Israel LIVE in a candid interview on Tuesday. "We will work to continue building Judea and Samaria and approve plans."
Yaalon, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Strategic Affairs, fielded questions from online users, which were fed live to the Internet via the My Israel Facebook page. Topics ranged from Yaalon's experiences as IDF chief of staff to regional security, politics, diplomatic realities for Israel, settlement in Judea and Samaria, Gilad Shalit, the Bedouin takeover in some southern areas, whether he was cleaning for Passover ("Yes!"), and other topics.
During the interview Yaalon protested the press's preoccupation with the fact that the new Shin Bet chief, Yoram Cohen, wears the skullcap favored by religious Jews: "I think wearing a skullcap is a non-starter as an issue. Unfortunately, it was also raised during the appointment of Yaakov Amidror. It really does not matter."
He noted with some amusement that some are asking whether religious security officials would answer their phone on the Sabbath. "There are religious army officers and soldiers at all levels," he said, citing a famous precept in Jewish Law, "the saving of a life overrides the Sabbath."
Yaalon added, "the question of political opinions isn't really relevant. The IDF and Shin Bet are government bodies and people know how to make the distinction between their political opinions - as you know, my positions have not compromised my service - and professional opinions."
About the challenges facing Cohen, Yaalon said the Shin Bet's prime challenge is preventing terrorism. "The achievements of the IDF and Shin Bet are not always obvious to the public, and Yoram Cohen will have to continue to lead and ensure the Shin Bet stays on the cutting cutting edge," he opined, adding, "There are also counter-espionage efforts, and Jewish organizations that operate outside the law. I think Yoram know to lead the Shin Bet."
"As long as Gilad Shalit is in captivity we have not completed our task," Yaalon said in response to numerous questions about the chances of mounting a rescue operation to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. "The Israeli government is responsible for extracting him and I hope for an opportunity to rescue him."
"The question raised in public debate," Yaalon continued. "Is whether you exchange a thousand terrorists for one soldier? This is not simple. We are stuck. Hamas insists on 1,000, but in our experience this will bring the murder of more Israelis. Do we release prisoners knowing hundreds of Israelis will be murdered?... there is an concern over encouraging more kidnappings, and an aspect of deterrence to consider. This is not a simple issue that we are debating it but we have a clear policy on the matter. The Prime Minister set conditions and Hamas rejected them."
When asked whether Israel will create a more austere environment for terror prisoners held in Israeli jails due to Hamas' refusal to allow the Red Cross to verify Gilad Shalit's status and conditions, Yaalon said, "We are doing so, but some things are better left unsaid."
"We, as a government, did not care which of the groups was firing the rockets," Yaalon said of the escalation of rocket and mortar attacks on Israel's southern cities. "Hamas is responsible for the escalation, the firing at Israel. Hamas demurred after our strong reactions and worked to calm the situation. This way our deterrence is maintained."
"The claim that settlements are an obstacle to peace," Yaalon said of the popular land-for-peace paradigm, "is primarily a problem rooted in our domestic discourse. Of course the world is going to follow us. It cannot be that Arabs can walk and live freely where they choose while Jews are restricted from some parts of Israel."
As for the issue of construction in Judea and Samaria, Yaalon said, "The freeze was a mistake. I said it before and when the idea of extending the freeze was raised I vehemently opposed it. We are working to continue building the West Bank, and to approve urban construction plans in Judea and Samaria. With the latter there is some controversy. The authority lies in the hands of the Defense Minister, but there is talk of establishing a committee to oversee it."
"I strongly condemn these actions," Yaalon said of alleged 'price-tag' operations. "Its like shooting the State of Israel in the foot and the settlement enterprise in the head. The world is watching us. We are a nation with a rule of law and we cannot afford to have independent guerrillas running around. We have authority here and are armed with dual weapons, Law and the IDF. The price for these operations is paid by Israel and the settlements."
On Iran, Ya'alon said, "Iran is a threat to regional stability and is pulling strings behind the scenes. They are provoking Shi'ite leaders to challenge Arab regimes and stir the pot in Afghanistan and Iraq. The problem is not just the Iranian nuclear program, but the Iranian regime's behavior. Iran should not have a military nuclear capability. This regime should not continue its terrorist activities without paying a price."
Comment on this story
8. Insurgent's Reverses Expose Strategy Contradictions in Libya
by Amiel Ungar
The retreat of the Libyan insurgents before the more heavily armed Qaddafi forces illustrated a lesson that is frequently ignored, especially by countries endowed with modern technology: It is difficult or almost impossible to decide a war exclusively from the air.
The coalition air offensive has so far not induced the forces loyal to the Libyan dictator to break or defect. On the other hand, President Obama has explicitly ruled out the use of American ground forces and no one else has volunteered to launch a ground assault.
This leaves the option of arming the insurgents so they can bring to bear firepower equal to that of the regime forces. The problem is how that coincides with UN Security Council resolution 1973 that was presumably only about protecting civilians. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, reacting to news reports about arming the insurgents, claimed the resolution was about protecting civilians and not arming them.
British Prime Minister David Cameron would like to exploit the broader meaning of the text of the resolution that allows "all necessary measures" to protect civilians and civilian populated areas. Since the insurgents are protecting civilians, one could say that this includes arming them so they could afford even better protection.
However, even within the British Prime Minister's own coalition there are voices urging caution. In the United States, administration sources were forced to concede that they were not quite sure with whom they were dealing when speaking of the insurgents. While this argument could be used in defending towns that were obviously anti-Qaddafi, it would be stretching things a bit when the action shifted to pro-regime bastions such as Sirte.
The idea of arming the rebels will not necessarily sit well with all 40 countries that attended yesterday's London conference. Now that leadership has been handed over to NATO, Turkey may very well object to such a policy. NATO's secretary general Anders Rasmussen told Reuters on Tuesday, "there's no military solution, solely, to the problems in Libya," meaning that "all parties involved" have to seek a political solution. Does the phrase all parties include Qaddafi?
The contradictions in American policy have become evident much sooner than Obama expected.
He has ruled out ground power but sees that air power alone won't do the job.
He wants a broad coalition, but decisive action to oust Qaddafi may lead to defections from the coalition.
He would like the intervention to carry a UN blessing.
However he is trying to push through a semitrailer truck on a bicycle lane. Future attempts to get a go-ahead via an ambiguously worded resolution are going to be rebuffed. Obama wanted the façade of NATO to show that this was not an American show, but what happens if the new NATO director decides to rewrite the script?
Many foresaw these difficulties and Obama supporters such as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman hoped that Obama would prove lucky and bring off a success in Libya despite his misgivings. As of now, it is not certain that Obama's luck is holding up.
Comment on this story
by Amiel Ungar
The retreat of the Libyan insurgents before the more heavily armed Qaddafi forces illustrated a lesson that is frequently ignored, especially by countries endowed with modern technology: It is difficult or almost impossible to decide a war exclusively from the air.
The coalition air offensive has so far not induced the forces loyal to the Libyan dictator to break or defect. On the other hand, President Obama has explicitly ruled out the use of American ground forces and no one else has volunteered to launch a ground assault.
This leaves the option of arming the insurgents so they can bring to bear firepower equal to that of the regime forces. The problem is how that coincides with UN Security Council resolution 1973 that was presumably only about protecting civilians. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, reacting to news reports about arming the insurgents, claimed the resolution was about protecting civilians and not arming them.
British Prime Minister David Cameron would like to exploit the broader meaning of the text of the resolution that allows "all necessary measures" to protect civilians and civilian populated areas. Since the insurgents are protecting civilians, one could say that this includes arming them so they could afford even better protection.
However, even within the British Prime Minister's own coalition there are voices urging caution. In the United States, administration sources were forced to concede that they were not quite sure with whom they were dealing when speaking of the insurgents. While this argument could be used in defending towns that were obviously anti-Qaddafi, it would be stretching things a bit when the action shifted to pro-regime bastions such as Sirte.
The idea of arming the rebels will not necessarily sit well with all 40 countries that attended yesterday's London conference. Now that leadership has been handed over to NATO, Turkey may very well object to such a policy. NATO's secretary general Anders Rasmussen told Reuters on Tuesday, "there's no military solution, solely, to the problems in Libya," meaning that "all parties involved" have to seek a political solution. Does the phrase all parties include Qaddafi?
The contradictions in American policy have become evident much sooner than Obama expected.
He has ruled out ground power but sees that air power alone won't do the job.
He wants a broad coalition, but decisive action to oust Qaddafi may lead to defections from the coalition.
He would like the intervention to carry a UN blessing.
However he is trying to push through a semitrailer truck on a bicycle lane. Future attempts to get a go-ahead via an ambiguously worded resolution are going to be rebuffed. Obama wanted the façade of NATO to show that this was not an American show, but what happens if the new NATO director decides to rewrite the script?
Many foresaw these difficulties and Obama supporters such as New York Times columnist Tom Friedman hoped that Obama would prove lucky and bring off a success in Libya despite his misgivings. As of now, it is not certain that Obama's luck is holding up.
Comment on this story
More Website News:
 |
Peres Challenges British Media to be Fair; Says Time For Peace  |
|
GOP Congressman Asks for Pollard Clemency  |
|
80 Ethiopian Jews Arrested at Protest in Addis Ababa |
|
Colombia Won't Recognize PA as a Country |
|
Japan's Creeping Meltdown: Optimism Evaporates |
