 |
||
 |
        |
 |
|
||
| MP3 Radio | Website News Briefs: | |||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
 |
1. Grapel Tells Egypt His ‘Spy Secrets’ Were on Internet
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Ilan Grapel, accused by Egypt of spying for Israel, told investigators all the that information he passed on to friends already was available on the Internet.
The American-born suspect, who served in the IDF as a paratrooper and was wounded in the Second Lebanon War, is in good condition and is being treated well, said. American officials who visited him on Tuesday.
Egypt still insists that he is a Mossad agent, but Grapel, whose adventurous past has included activism for Arabs, told Egyptian authorities that he served for the IDF for two years and three months and had no connection with Israeli intelligence.
The New York native added that that the information he sent to family and friends by email was available on the Internet and was broadcast in Egypt, the Egyptian Al-Masry Al-Youm newspaper reported.
Grapel was a frequent traveler to Arab countries and visited several sites in Egypt during and after the uprising that led to the ouster of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
He was photographed in a Muslim mosque and also visited Jewish community headquarters in Alexandria.
The Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram reported that Egyptian authorities emphasized his service in Lebanon and claimed there is evidence of connections with the Mossad.
Comment on this story
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Ilan Grapel, accused by Egypt of spying for Israel, told investigators all the that information he passed on to friends already was available on the Internet.
The American-born suspect, who served in the IDF as a paratrooper and was wounded in the Second Lebanon War, is in good condition and is being treated well, said. American officials who visited him on Tuesday.
Egypt still insists that he is a Mossad agent, but Grapel, whose adventurous past has included activism for Arabs, told Egyptian authorities that he served for the IDF for two years and three months and had no connection with Israeli intelligence.
The New York native added that that the information he sent to family and friends by email was available on the Internet and was broadcast in Egypt, the Egyptian Al-Masry Al-Youm newspaper reported.
Grapel was a frequent traveler to Arab countries and visited several sites in Egypt during and after the uprising that led to the ouster of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
He was photographed in a Muslim mosque and also visited Jewish community headquarters in Alexandria.
The Egyptian newspaper Al Ahram reported that Egyptian authorities emphasized his service in Lebanon and claimed there is evidence of connections with the Mossad.
Comment on this story
2. Senators Challenge Obama on Foreign Policy on Israel
by Elad Benari
Several U.S. senators have decided to challenge President Barack Obama’s policy towards Israel by introducing a resolution that opposes any Israeli withdrawal to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.
The resolution was introduced last Thursday by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah and independent Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut.
“It is contrary to United States policy and our national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967,” the resolution states.
It calls Israel “a liberal democratic ally of the United States” and notes that it has been “repeatedly attacked by authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that denied its right to exist.” It then acknowledges that the United States Government “remains steadfastly committed to the security of Israel, especially its ability to maintain secure, recognized, and defensible borders; Whereas the United States Government is resolutely bound to its policy of preserving and strengthening the capability of Israel to deter enemies and defend itself against any threat.”
The resolution then mentions the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 which recognized Israel’s “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force,” and acknowledges that “the United States has long recognized that a return to the 1967 lines would create a strategic military vulnerability for Israel and greatly impede its sovereign right to defend its borders.”
In his policy speech at the State Department on May 19, President Obama said, “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
Republican Party members were quick to criticize Obama for his statements, with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (a friend of Israel who recently declared his candidacy for president in 2012) saying Obama had “thrown Israel under the bus” and “disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace. He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends.”
After Obama’s speech, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave his own speech to Congress on May 24, in which he said that Judea and Samaria are part of the ancient Jewish homeland that our forefathers walked in and that the 650,000 Jews living there "are not ‘occupying’ the region.”
Netanyahu also stressed in his speech that Israel “will not return to the indefensible borders of 1967.”
In a statement he released after he submitted the resolution, Senator Hatch said, “Boundaries that existed on June 4, 1967 placed Israel in a precarious military situation that threatened regional stability. This resolution reaffirms that it is the policy of the United States to support and facilitate Israel in maintaining secure, recognized and defensible borders.”
In addition to Senator Lieberman, 29 other lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors, including Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden (Oregon) and Ben Nelson (Nebraska).
Comment on this story
by Elad Benari
Several U.S. senators have decided to challenge President Barack Obama’s policy towards Israel by introducing a resolution that opposes any Israeli withdrawal to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines.
The resolution was introduced last Thursday by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah and independent Senator Joe Lieberman from Connecticut.
“It is contrary to United States policy and our national security to have the borders of Israel return to the armistice lines that existed on June 4, 1967,” the resolution states.
It calls Israel “a liberal democratic ally of the United States” and notes that it has been “repeatedly attacked by authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that denied its right to exist.” It then acknowledges that the United States Government “remains steadfastly committed to the security of Israel, especially its ability to maintain secure, recognized, and defensible borders; Whereas the United States Government is resolutely bound to its policy of preserving and strengthening the capability of Israel to deter enemies and defend itself against any threat.”
The resolution then mentions the United Nations Security Council Resolution 242 of 1967 which recognized Israel’s “right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force,” and acknowledges that “the United States has long recognized that a return to the 1967 lines would create a strategic military vulnerability for Israel and greatly impede its sovereign right to defend its borders.”
In his policy speech at the State Department on May 19, President Obama said, “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
Republican Party members were quick to criticize Obama for his statements, with former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (a friend of Israel who recently declared his candidacy for president in 2012) saying Obama had “thrown Israel under the bus” and “disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace. He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by our friends.”
After Obama’s speech, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave his own speech to Congress on May 24, in which he said that Judea and Samaria are part of the ancient Jewish homeland that our forefathers walked in and that the 650,000 Jews living there "are not ‘occupying’ the region.”
Netanyahu also stressed in his speech that Israel “will not return to the indefensible borders of 1967.”
In a statement he released after he submitted the resolution, Senator Hatch said, “Boundaries that existed on June 4, 1967 placed Israel in a precarious military situation that threatened regional stability. This resolution reaffirms that it is the policy of the United States to support and facilitate Israel in maintaining secure, recognized and defensible borders.”
In addition to Senator Lieberman, 29 other lawmakers have signed on as co-sponsors, including Democratic Sens. Ron Wyden (Oregon) and Ben Nelson (Nebraska).
Comment on this story
3. Eli Security Extinguishes Arab Arson Libel
by Gavriel Queenann
A group of Arabs and left-wing provocateurs entered the Jewish town of Eli on Tuesday and started several fires, which subsequently spread to their own nearby olive groves.
The incident, which occurred Tuesday morning, is not the first in which Arabs from the adjacent village of Karayut have infiltrated Eli's perimeter to commit arson according to security officials who went to investigate the fire.
“We saw smoke near our security road shortly after 11:00 and went to investigate,” related a security official from Eli who spoke to Israel National News on condition of anonymity.
“At first we saw nothing to say the fire was man made, but we suspected arson because it is an area where fires have been set to damage our security equipment in the past. Then we saw a second fire, closer to Karayut, which is about 500 meters away from Eli,” the official explained.
Eli's security team reportedly raced to the scene of the second blaze to find that the flames were spreading to Arab olive groves and advancing on the village of Karayut itself.
“We went to the site of the second fire and immediately saw it was arson – tires had been set on fire – and that it had spread into the olive groves and was advancing on the [Arab] village itself. There were Arabs and leftists who were there before us but who were standing around filming [the fire] instead of trying to put it out,” the security official explained.
According to the official, Karayut's Muktar [village elder -ed.] arrived with leftist supporters and proceeded to blame the residents of Eli for setting the olive groves on fire, all the while watching Eli's security team fight to put the fire out.
“The local muktar brought his B'tzelem [leftist NGO -ed.] friends and stood around doing nothing while we put the fire out. Of course, he blamed us – the people from Eli – for the fire. That was the plan. No one from Eli has a reason to be out there [in the Arab groves], or to start a fire,” the security official told INN.
“We have a very sophisticated radar system around the perimeter [of Eli]. We reviewed the logs and no one from Eli had gone out there,” he added.
The IDF spokesperson's office declined to comment on the incident saying it was a matter for the Israeli Police.
“They [the Police] came,” the official related to INN. “But... they weren't very thorough. They came and went.”
Binyamin Regional Council Chairman Avi Roeh condemned the event as a reckless media stunt using arson that could have ended in a loss of human life.
"Today's event could have led to the loss of lives, both Jewish and Arab, and I condemn those who lit the fire and am shocked villagers would risk their lives simply to create a media event, in order to portray the Jewish residents in a negative light. At the same time, I commend Eli's security team for preventing a tragedy," Roeh said.
Standing and watching....
Just taking pictures....
Arab villager films as his village's crops burn...
Comment on this story
by Gavriel Queenann
A group of Arabs and left-wing provocateurs entered the Jewish town of Eli on Tuesday and started several fires, which subsequently spread to their own nearby olive groves.
The incident, which occurred Tuesday morning, is not the first in which Arabs from the adjacent village of Karayut have infiltrated Eli's perimeter to commit arson according to security officials who went to investigate the fire.
“We saw smoke near our security road shortly after 11:00 and went to investigate,” related a security official from Eli who spoke to Israel National News on condition of anonymity.
“At first we saw nothing to say the fire was man made, but we suspected arson because it is an area where fires have been set to damage our security equipment in the past. Then we saw a second fire, closer to Karayut, which is about 500 meters away from Eli,” the official explained.
Eli's security team reportedly raced to the scene of the second blaze to find that the flames were spreading to Arab olive groves and advancing on the village of Karayut itself.
“We went to the site of the second fire and immediately saw it was arson – tires had been set on fire – and that it had spread into the olive groves and was advancing on the [Arab] village itself. There were Arabs and leftists who were there before us but who were standing around filming [the fire] instead of trying to put it out,” the security official explained.
According to the official, Karayut's Muktar [village elder -ed.] arrived with leftist supporters and proceeded to blame the residents of Eli for setting the olive groves on fire, all the while watching Eli's security team fight to put the fire out.
“The local muktar brought his B'tzelem [leftist NGO -ed.] friends and stood around doing nothing while we put the fire out. Of course, he blamed us – the people from Eli – for the fire. That was the plan. No one from Eli has a reason to be out there [in the Arab groves], or to start a fire,” the security official told INN.
“We have a very sophisticated radar system around the perimeter [of Eli]. We reviewed the logs and no one from Eli had gone out there,” he added.
The IDF spokesperson's office declined to comment on the incident saying it was a matter for the Israeli Police.
“They [the Police] came,” the official related to INN. “But... they weren't very thorough. They came and went.”
Binyamin Regional Council Chairman Avi Roeh condemned the event as a reckless media stunt using arson that could have ended in a loss of human life.
"Today's event could have led to the loss of lives, both Jewish and Arab, and I condemn those who lit the fire and am shocked villagers would risk their lives simply to create a media event, in order to portray the Jewish residents in a negative light. At the same time, I commend Eli's security team for preventing a tragedy," Roeh said.
Standing and watching....
Just taking pictures....
Arab villager films as his village's crops burn...
Comment on this story
4. Why is Yale U. Shutting Its Anti-Semitism Study Institute?
by Fern Sidman, INN NY Correspondent
Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut was rocked with controversy last week when it was announced that the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) is to be closed.
In a statement issued by the institution, Donald Green, political science professor and Director of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, said that the decision was predicated upon YIISA's "generating little scholarly work that earned publication in highly regarded journals, and its courses attracted few students."
Citing the Center for the Study of Race, Inequality and Politics as another example of an "underachieving program". Dr. Green said that “YIISA suffered the same fate because it failed to meet high standards for research and instruction”.
The claim is disputed by resptected academics, Jewish leaders and political commentators who have suggested that the university acquiesced to the critiques of YIISA programs by leading Muslim personalities and organizations.
Referencing the 2010 YIISA sponsored conference entitled, "Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity," Abby Wisse Schachter writes in a New York Post op-ed of June 7 that studying "Christian anti-Semitism is fine; political Jew-hatred, like communist or fascist anti-Semitism, no problem. But get anywhere near Muslim or Middle Eastern anti-Semitism, as presenters at YIISA's conference did last year, and you've crossed the line."
Schachter reports that subsequent to the conference, "the PLO representative in America scolded the school's president, Richard Levin, complaining of the attention paid to anti-Semitism among Palestinians and Muslims."
The PLO "ambassador" in question, Maen Rashid Areikat, wrote to Levin in a letter saying, "It's shocking that a respected institution like Yale would give a platform to these right-wing extremists and their odious views. I urge you to publicly dissociate yourself and Yale University from the anti-Arab extremism and hate-mongering that were on display during this conference."
The conference addressed Islamic anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism in Western academia was also examined and hundreds of pages of research materials were produced on the topic.
Led by the sociologist Charles Small, YIISA was established in 2006 as the largest research unit in North America devoted to an exploration of anti-Semitism in its various forms with a focus on its urgent contemporary significance. Its defined stated mission was "to explore this subject matter in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary framework from an array of approaches and perspectives as well as regional contexts."
Each year, respected scholars who have published monographic studies on anti-Semitism have gathered for YIISA sponsored colloquiums. Among those scholars attached to YIISA programs include Irwin Cotler, the former Canadian Attorney General and Minister of Justice, David Hirsh of Goldsmiths College in London, Phyllis Chesler, emerita professor of psychology and women's studies at the City University of New York and Bassam Tibi, emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Goettingen.
In January 2010, Iran announced that it was instituting a boycott of 60 institutions. Yale was among them. Although the regime did not explain the reason for the boycott, university officials attributed Tehran’s decision to YIISA’s activities in spotlighting the regime’s role in promoting genocidal anti-Semitism. Due to the boycott, Yale professors involved in research in Iran were forced to end their activities. These professors reportedly blamed YIISA rather than Iran for the cancellation of their research projects
Ms. Schachter of the New York Post writes that in 2009 "a lecturer at Yale's new Jackson Center for Global Affairs (Hillary Mann Leverett) took her graduate students to New York to visit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad explained to the students that there is no hard scientific proof that the Holocaust happened."
As a participant at various YIISA conferences, Dr. Phyllis Chesler calls the closing "a tragedy" and remarks in a June 13th article entitled, "Islam and Anti-Semitism at Yale" that appeared on the Israelnationalnews and on FrontPage Mag web site, "Yale has rendered racism respectable, has contributed to the academic isolation of scholars of contemporary anti-Semitism, and snuffed out truth-telling, genuine dissent, free speech, and academic freedom. This will be a permanent stain on Yale and on American academia."
Alex Joffe, in a June 13th article titled, "Anti-Semitism and Man at Yale", said, "Yale has long been seeking support from wealthy Arab donors..In particular, it has wooed Saudi Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, who in 2005 gave $20 million apiece to Harvard and Georgetown for Islamic-studies programs." Yale, which competed vigorously for the prize, made it to the final round.
Mr. Joffe adds, "true to their donors' intent, such academic programs are faithful disseminators of the "narrative" of Muslim victimization. In the same connection, it should likewise be borne in mind that in 2009, alerted to the imminent publication by its own press of a scholarly book on the Danish-cartoons controversy, the Yale administration summarily intervened to yank images of the cartoons from the final product—on the grounds that their appearance might elicit 'violence'."
Jewish organizations criticized the decision to close YIISA. David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee said, “We hope Yale will review this unfortunate decision so that YIISA’s critical work can continue. In our experience working with YIISA, AJC has been impressed by the level of scholarly discourse, the involvement of key faculty, and the initiative's ability, through conferences and other programs, to bring a wide range of voices to the Yale campus.”
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith added, "Especially at a time when anti-Semitism continues to be virulent and anti-Israel parties treat any effort to address issues relating to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism as illegitimate, Yale's decision is particularly unfortunate and dismaying."
Comment on this story
by Fern Sidman, INN NY Correspondent
Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut was rocked with controversy last week when it was announced that the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA) is to be closed.
In a statement issued by the institution, Donald Green, political science professor and Director of the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, said that the decision was predicated upon YIISA's "generating little scholarly work that earned publication in highly regarded journals, and its courses attracted few students."
Citing the Center for the Study of Race, Inequality and Politics as another example of an "underachieving program". Dr. Green said that “YIISA suffered the same fate because it failed to meet high standards for research and instruction”.
The claim is disputed by resptected academics, Jewish leaders and political commentators who have suggested that the university acquiesced to the critiques of YIISA programs by leading Muslim personalities and organizations.
Referencing the 2010 YIISA sponsored conference entitled, "Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity," Abby Wisse Schachter writes in a New York Post op-ed of June 7 that studying "Christian anti-Semitism is fine; political Jew-hatred, like communist or fascist anti-Semitism, no problem. But get anywhere near Muslim or Middle Eastern anti-Semitism, as presenters at YIISA's conference did last year, and you've crossed the line."
Schachter reports that subsequent to the conference, "the PLO representative in America scolded the school's president, Richard Levin, complaining of the attention paid to anti-Semitism among Palestinians and Muslims."
The PLO "ambassador" in question, Maen Rashid Areikat, wrote to Levin in a letter saying, "It's shocking that a respected institution like Yale would give a platform to these right-wing extremists and their odious views. I urge you to publicly dissociate yourself and Yale University from the anti-Arab extremism and hate-mongering that were on display during this conference."
The conference addressed Islamic anti-Semitism, but anti-Semitism in Western academia was also examined and hundreds of pages of research materials were produced on the topic.
Led by the sociologist Charles Small, YIISA was established in 2006 as the largest research unit in North America devoted to an exploration of anti-Semitism in its various forms with a focus on its urgent contemporary significance. Its defined stated mission was "to explore this subject matter in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary framework from an array of approaches and perspectives as well as regional contexts."
Each year, respected scholars who have published monographic studies on anti-Semitism have gathered for YIISA sponsored colloquiums. Among those scholars attached to YIISA programs include Irwin Cotler, the former Canadian Attorney General and Minister of Justice, David Hirsh of Goldsmiths College in London, Phyllis Chesler, emerita professor of psychology and women's studies at the City University of New York and Bassam Tibi, emeritus professor of international relations at the University of Goettingen.
In January 2010, Iran announced that it was instituting a boycott of 60 institutions. Yale was among them. Although the regime did not explain the reason for the boycott, university officials attributed Tehran’s decision to YIISA’s activities in spotlighting the regime’s role in promoting genocidal anti-Semitism. Due to the boycott, Yale professors involved in research in Iran were forced to end their activities. These professors reportedly blamed YIISA rather than Iran for the cancellation of their research projects
Ms. Schachter of the New York Post writes that in 2009 "a lecturer at Yale's new Jackson Center for Global Affairs (Hillary Mann Leverett) took her graduate students to New York to visit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad explained to the students that there is no hard scientific proof that the Holocaust happened."
As a participant at various YIISA conferences, Dr. Phyllis Chesler calls the closing "a tragedy" and remarks in a June 13th article entitled, "Islam and Anti-Semitism at Yale" that appeared on the Israelnationalnews and on FrontPage Mag web site, "Yale has rendered racism respectable, has contributed to the academic isolation of scholars of contemporary anti-Semitism, and snuffed out truth-telling, genuine dissent, free speech, and academic freedom. This will be a permanent stain on Yale and on American academia."
Alex Joffe, in a June 13th article titled, "Anti-Semitism and Man at Yale", said, "Yale has long been seeking support from wealthy Arab donors..In particular, it has wooed Saudi Prince Alwaleed ibn Talal, who in 2005 gave $20 million apiece to Harvard and Georgetown for Islamic-studies programs." Yale, which competed vigorously for the prize, made it to the final round.
Mr. Joffe adds, "true to their donors' intent, such academic programs are faithful disseminators of the "narrative" of Muslim victimization. In the same connection, it should likewise be borne in mind that in 2009, alerted to the imminent publication by its own press of a scholarly book on the Danish-cartoons controversy, the Yale administration summarily intervened to yank images of the cartoons from the final product—on the grounds that their appearance might elicit 'violence'."
Jewish organizations criticized the decision to close YIISA. David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee said, “We hope Yale will review this unfortunate decision so that YIISA’s critical work can continue. In our experience working with YIISA, AJC has been impressed by the level of scholarly discourse, the involvement of key faculty, and the initiative's ability, through conferences and other programs, to bring a wide range of voices to the Yale campus.”
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League of Bnai Brith added, "Especially at a time when anti-Semitism continues to be virulent and anti-Israel parties treat any effort to address issues relating to anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism as illegitimate, Yale's decision is particularly unfortunate and dismaying."
Comment on this story
5. Document Exposes Syrian Planning for Marches on Golan Heights
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A London journalist has exposed a Syrian document revealing what Israel has claimed: Syria was behind the May 15 "Nakba Day" march on the Golan Heights and authorized ”shots in the air".
Michael Weiss, who blogs for the London Telegraph and monitors British media coverage of the Middle East, wrote that he was forwarded the document, which included the official government emblem and was dated May 14, 2011.
The following day, several hundred Syrians marched on the border, and approximately 200 of them infiltrated into the nearby Druze village of Majdal Shams in Israel. Thirteen people were killed in the incident, and Israel charged that Syrian President Bashar Assad was trying to divert world attention from his brutal suppression of peaceful protests against his regime.
Weiss said that the document proves the charge. It summarizes a meeting of intelligence and military officers near the Israeli border. He wrote, “I have good reason to believe [the document] is absolutely genuine – appears to represent the first piece of regime-created evidence that Assad has cynically tried to manipulate Western and Arabic media during three-month Syrian uprising.
The document stated, “All security, military, and contingent units in the province, Ain-el-Tina and the old al-Qunaitera are hereby ordered to grant permission of passage to all twenty vehicles (47 passenger capacity) with the attached plate numbers that are scheduled to arrive at ten in the morning on Sunday May 15, 2011 without being questioned or stopped until it reaches our frontier defense locations.
“Permission is hereby granted allowing approaching crowds to cross the cease fire line (with Israel) towards the occupied Majdal-Shamms, and to further allow them to engage physically with each other in front of United Nations agents and offices. Furthermore, there is no objection if a few shots are fired in the air.
“Captain Samer Shahin from the military intelligence division is hereby appointed to the leadership of the group assigned to break-in and infiltrate deep into the occupied Syrian Golan Heights with a specified pathway to avoid land mines.
“It is essential to ensure that no one carries military identification or a weapon as they enter with a strict emphasis on the peaceful and spontaneous nature of the protest.”
The document concluded, “May you be the source of prosperity for the nation and the party,” and it was signed by Dr. Khalil Mash-hadiya, Mayor of Al-Qunaitera.
Comment on this story
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A London journalist has exposed a Syrian document revealing what Israel has claimed: Syria was behind the May 15 "Nakba Day" march on the Golan Heights and authorized ”shots in the air".
Michael Weiss, who blogs for the London Telegraph and monitors British media coverage of the Middle East, wrote that he was forwarded the document, which included the official government emblem and was dated May 14, 2011.
The following day, several hundred Syrians marched on the border, and approximately 200 of them infiltrated into the nearby Druze village of Majdal Shams in Israel. Thirteen people were killed in the incident, and Israel charged that Syrian President Bashar Assad was trying to divert world attention from his brutal suppression of peaceful protests against his regime.
Weiss said that the document proves the charge. It summarizes a meeting of intelligence and military officers near the Israeli border. He wrote, “I have good reason to believe [the document] is absolutely genuine – appears to represent the first piece of regime-created evidence that Assad has cynically tried to manipulate Western and Arabic media during three-month Syrian uprising.
The document stated, “All security, military, and contingent units in the province, Ain-el-Tina and the old al-Qunaitera are hereby ordered to grant permission of passage to all twenty vehicles (47 passenger capacity) with the attached plate numbers that are scheduled to arrive at ten in the morning on Sunday May 15, 2011 without being questioned or stopped until it reaches our frontier defense locations.
“Permission is hereby granted allowing approaching crowds to cross the cease fire line (with Israel) towards the occupied Majdal-Shamms, and to further allow them to engage physically with each other in front of United Nations agents and offices. Furthermore, there is no objection if a few shots are fired in the air.
“Captain Samer Shahin from the military intelligence division is hereby appointed to the leadership of the group assigned to break-in and infiltrate deep into the occupied Syrian Golan Heights with a specified pathway to avoid land mines.
“It is essential to ensure that no one carries military identification or a weapon as they enter with a strict emphasis on the peaceful and spontaneous nature of the protest.”
The document concluded, “May you be the source of prosperity for the nation and the party,” and it was signed by Dr. Khalil Mash-hadiya, Mayor of Al-Qunaitera.
Comment on this story
6. Schocken Sells 20% of Ha'aretz; Media Agog
by David Lev
The sale of 20% of the leftist Ha'aretz newspaper to Russian oil tycoon Leonid Nevzlin has provoked much commentary and speculation in Israel's media, as commentators speculated on why the Schocken family would sell a large chunk of the paper to an individual likely to be at odds with their journalistic point of view – and whose extradition Russia has been demanding for several years, after he was convicted in absentia for several crimes, including murder.
Those charges are considered false – or at least without legal basis - by many, including Israel, which has refused to extradite Nevzlin.The charges stem from when Nezvlin was vice-President of the Yukos Oil Company, which was crushed by the Russian government several years ago. He was a partner in the business with Mikhail Khodorovksy, who is currently in jail in Russa.
In 2008, Navzlin, who made aliyah in 2003, was tried in absentia, found guilty of several counts of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Nevzlin called the court case a show trial orchestrated by Vladimir Putin.
Nevzlin was active in the Jewish community in Russia and Israel, and is chairman of the Nadav Foundation, which supports dozens of charitable causes. He is also chairman of the Diaspora Museum in Tel Aviv, and sits on the boards of directors of the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund, the Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University.
Nevzlin paid NIS 700 million (about $200 million) for his share of Ha'aretz, and joins fellow owners the Schocken family, as well as DuMont Schauberg of Cologne, Germany, which also owns 20% of the paper.
Commenting on the acquisition, Nevzlin said he was “happy” to be joining Ha'aretz. “I am convinced that together with the other board members of the company we will continue to develop the paper by further investments in core activities and the digital sphere, to the benefit of the readers and the advertisers in all platforms."
Veteran Ha'aretz publisher Amos Schocken said that the family decided to sell a share of the paper to Nevzlin after getting to know him for over a year, and that the paper would gain by having an individual with a fresh take on technology – and Judaism – on board.
Besides being close to Jewish causes, Nevzlin has a reputation in the Russian Jewish community of being more rightwing than Ha'aretz on many issues affecting the country. A reader of his Russian language website asked whether his purpose in joining Ha'aretz was to try and bring the paper closer to the center; Nevzlin said he couldn't comment.
One Israeli media report Tuesday said that before agreeing to sell to him, Ha'aretz made the new co-owner promise that he would not interfere with the editorial stance of the paper.
Writing in Globes, veteran columnist Matti Golan, giving voice to other opinion-makers in the Israeli media, questioned the deal, claiming that it is Nevzlin who was seeking a relationship with Ha'aretz in order to appear as a “proper businessman” and escape what Golan said was his reputation as a criminal.
“Russia has asked for his extradition, and the case is not yet over,” writes Golan. “Nevzlin may be a victim of persecution, as he claims, but still” the case is open. “What are such people looking for at Ha'aretz? ,” Golan added. “Since the newspaper is not a paying business, the prevailing view is that [Nezvlin] seeks to be identified with the paper's reputation as a respectable newspaper. In other words, something akin to laundering their past in exchange for their money - in the form of articles in Ha'aretz,” which makes a strong effort to make its new partners kosher.”
Comment on this story
by David Lev
The sale of 20% of the leftist Ha'aretz newspaper to Russian oil tycoon Leonid Nevzlin has provoked much commentary and speculation in Israel's media, as commentators speculated on why the Schocken family would sell a large chunk of the paper to an individual likely to be at odds with their journalistic point of view – and whose extradition Russia has been demanding for several years, after he was convicted in absentia for several crimes, including murder.
Those charges are considered false – or at least without legal basis - by many, including Israel, which has refused to extradite Nevzlin.The charges stem from when Nezvlin was vice-President of the Yukos Oil Company, which was crushed by the Russian government several years ago. He was a partner in the business with Mikhail Khodorovksy, who is currently in jail in Russa.
In 2008, Navzlin, who made aliyah in 2003, was tried in absentia, found guilty of several counts of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Nevzlin called the court case a show trial orchestrated by Vladimir Putin.
Nevzlin was active in the Jewish community in Russia and Israel, and is chairman of the Nadav Foundation, which supports dozens of charitable causes. He is also chairman of the Diaspora Museum in Tel Aviv, and sits on the boards of directors of the Jewish Agency, the Jewish National Fund, the Hebrew University and Tel Aviv University.
Nevzlin paid NIS 700 million (about $200 million) for his share of Ha'aretz, and joins fellow owners the Schocken family, as well as DuMont Schauberg of Cologne, Germany, which also owns 20% of the paper.
Commenting on the acquisition, Nevzlin said he was “happy” to be joining Ha'aretz. “I am convinced that together with the other board members of the company we will continue to develop the paper by further investments in core activities and the digital sphere, to the benefit of the readers and the advertisers in all platforms."
Veteran Ha'aretz publisher Amos Schocken said that the family decided to sell a share of the paper to Nevzlin after getting to know him for over a year, and that the paper would gain by having an individual with a fresh take on technology – and Judaism – on board.
Besides being close to Jewish causes, Nevzlin has a reputation in the Russian Jewish community of being more rightwing than Ha'aretz on many issues affecting the country. A reader of his Russian language website asked whether his purpose in joining Ha'aretz was to try and bring the paper closer to the center; Nevzlin said he couldn't comment.
One Israeli media report Tuesday said that before agreeing to sell to him, Ha'aretz made the new co-owner promise that he would not interfere with the editorial stance of the paper.
Writing in Globes, veteran columnist Matti Golan, giving voice to other opinion-makers in the Israeli media, questioned the deal, claiming that it is Nevzlin who was seeking a relationship with Ha'aretz in order to appear as a “proper businessman” and escape what Golan said was his reputation as a criminal.
“Russia has asked for his extradition, and the case is not yet over,” writes Golan. “Nevzlin may be a victim of persecution, as he claims, but still” the case is open. “What are such people looking for at Ha'aretz? ,” Golan added. “Since the newspaper is not a paying business, the prevailing view is that [Nezvlin] seeks to be identified with the paper's reputation as a respectable newspaper. In other words, something akin to laundering their past in exchange for their money - in the form of articles in Ha'aretz,” which makes a strong effort to make its new partners kosher.”
Comment on this story
7. Foreign Ministry Launches Salvo in PR War Against PA State
by Gil Ronen
The Foreign Ministry is preparing the ground for a diplomatic fight over the possible unilateral declaration of a Palestinian Authority state in September.
“A unilateral declaration harms true peace, challenging the most basic principles of Mideast peacemaking, and undermines all internationally accepted frameworks for peace,” the Ministry states. “All call for a mutually-negotiated and agreed resolution of the conflict. All reject unilateral actions.”
In a statement issued to the press, the Ministry says such a move by the PA it would violate agreements with Israel.
It warns that a declaration would intensify the conflict rather than end it because the PA “would no longer have any incentive to negotiate and compromise.” Moreover, because of the fact that Gaza is ruled by Hamas, recognition of a PA state at this time would constitute recognition of a terrorist entity, it explains:
Agreements should be respected. They certainly should be respected in the United Nations. Yet in just a few months time, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is expected to violate its agreements with Israel and all the international frameworks for Mideast peace by seeking premature recognition of a Palestinian state in the UN in September.
Israel remains dedicated to direct negotiations as the only method of resolving the conflict. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has long abandoned peace negotiations. Instead, the Palestinian leadership has embarked on the path of unilateral action, preferring to attempt to force their will on Israel through international pressure. It has long been the dream of the Palestinians to bypass a negotiated settlement, bypass the need for necessary compromises through the application of international coercion on Israel.
A unilateral declaration harms true peace, challenging the most basic principles of Mideast peacemaking. It undermines all internationally accepted frameworks for peace, including UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, 1850 and the Roadmap for peace. All call for a mutually-negotiated and agreed resolution of the conflict. All reject unilateral actions.
The declaration of Palestinian statehood outside the context of a negotiated settlement would violate existing bilateral Palestinian-Israeli peace agreements. The important Interim Agreement from 1995, which expressly prohibits unilateral action by either side to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza, would be breached.
A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood will do nothing to solve the conflict. Indeed, it would intensify rather than end it. The Palestinians would no longer have any incentive to negotiate and compromise. Unilateral measures will not settle any of the key permanent status issues, such as borders, Jerusalem and refugees. As has been agreed previously between the sides - and supported by the international community - these complicated issues can only be resolved in direct negotiations between the parties.
Premature recognition would ignore Israel’s legitimate concerns, especially regarding security issues. It would also allow the Palestinians to continue to avoid the important step of mutual recognition, which includes Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This issue lies at the core of the conflict and its avoidance will harm efforts to reach a genuine peace.
Moreover, recognition of Palestinian statehood at this time is an untenable move as the Palestinian Authority currently fails to meet the established legal tests for statehood. In particular, the PA does not pass the test of effective government: it does not rule the territory in question. According to existing agreements, the PA exercises varying degrees of control only over relatively small areas of the West Bank. Furthermore, the PA does not have effective control over the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, despite the recent reconciliation agreement among Palestinian factions.
Recognition at this time would constitute recognition of a terrorist entity. Hamas seeks Israel’s destruction and rejects the most basic conditions of the international community for recognition as a legitimate actor in the region (recognition of Israel’s right to exist, acceptance of existing agreements and an end to violence). In preparation for the unilateral declaration of a state, the Palestinian Authority has signed a reconciliation agreement with the Hamas. Supporting this agreement without any change in position by Hamas would serve as de facto international recognition of Hamas' legitimacy. It should be remembered that Hamas continues to be recognized as a terrorist organization, outlawed in numerous states throughout the world, including the UK and the US.
On the other hand, Israel has a long proven track record of making strategic concessions for peace. It has proved its willingness to negotiate land transfers, abandoning Sinai for peace with Egypt and leaving the Gaza Strip and South Lebanon. The fact that Israeli peace steps in the last two instances were answered with rockets and violent attacks should be a sobering warning about the risks Israel takes for peace and the importance of reaching a solution that serves the interest of all sides to the conflict.
Clearly, premature recognition of a Palestinian state would render the negotiating process and the ideals of compromise and dialogue meaningless. All who desire true peace in this region should reject Palestinian efforts to act unilaterally and forsake the negotiating process. Only through direct negotiations can a lasting peace agreement be reached.
Comment on this story
by Gil Ronen
The Foreign Ministry is preparing the ground for a diplomatic fight over the possible unilateral declaration of a Palestinian Authority state in September.
“A unilateral declaration harms true peace, challenging the most basic principles of Mideast peacemaking, and undermines all internationally accepted frameworks for peace,” the Ministry states. “All call for a mutually-negotiated and agreed resolution of the conflict. All reject unilateral actions.”
In a statement issued to the press, the Ministry says such a move by the PA it would violate agreements with Israel.
It warns that a declaration would intensify the conflict rather than end it because the PA “would no longer have any incentive to negotiate and compromise.” Moreover, because of the fact that Gaza is ruled by Hamas, recognition of a PA state at this time would constitute recognition of a terrorist entity, it explains:
Agreements should be respected. They certainly should be respected in the United Nations. Yet in just a few months time, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is expected to violate its agreements with Israel and all the international frameworks for Mideast peace by seeking premature recognition of a Palestinian state in the UN in September.
Israel remains dedicated to direct negotiations as the only method of resolving the conflict. Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority has long abandoned peace negotiations. Instead, the Palestinian leadership has embarked on the path of unilateral action, preferring to attempt to force their will on Israel through international pressure. It has long been the dream of the Palestinians to bypass a negotiated settlement, bypass the need for necessary compromises through the application of international coercion on Israel.
A unilateral declaration harms true peace, challenging the most basic principles of Mideast peacemaking. It undermines all internationally accepted frameworks for peace, including UN Security Council Resolutions 242, 338, 1850 and the Roadmap for peace. All call for a mutually-negotiated and agreed resolution of the conflict. All reject unilateral actions.
The declaration of Palestinian statehood outside the context of a negotiated settlement would violate existing bilateral Palestinian-Israeli peace agreements. The important Interim Agreement from 1995, which expressly prohibits unilateral action by either side to change the status of the West Bank and Gaza, would be breached.
A unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood will do nothing to solve the conflict. Indeed, it would intensify rather than end it. The Palestinians would no longer have any incentive to negotiate and compromise. Unilateral measures will not settle any of the key permanent status issues, such as borders, Jerusalem and refugees. As has been agreed previously between the sides - and supported by the international community - these complicated issues can only be resolved in direct negotiations between the parties.
Premature recognition would ignore Israel’s legitimate concerns, especially regarding security issues. It would also allow the Palestinians to continue to avoid the important step of mutual recognition, which includes Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. This issue lies at the core of the conflict and its avoidance will harm efforts to reach a genuine peace.
Moreover, recognition of Palestinian statehood at this time is an untenable move as the Palestinian Authority currently fails to meet the established legal tests for statehood. In particular, the PA does not pass the test of effective government: it does not rule the territory in question. According to existing agreements, the PA exercises varying degrees of control only over relatively small areas of the West Bank. Furthermore, the PA does not have effective control over the Hamas-run Gaza Strip, despite the recent reconciliation agreement among Palestinian factions.
Recognition at this time would constitute recognition of a terrorist entity. Hamas seeks Israel’s destruction and rejects the most basic conditions of the international community for recognition as a legitimate actor in the region (recognition of Israel’s right to exist, acceptance of existing agreements and an end to violence). In preparation for the unilateral declaration of a state, the Palestinian Authority has signed a reconciliation agreement with the Hamas. Supporting this agreement without any change in position by Hamas would serve as de facto international recognition of Hamas' legitimacy. It should be remembered that Hamas continues to be recognized as a terrorist organization, outlawed in numerous states throughout the world, including the UK and the US.
On the other hand, Israel has a long proven track record of making strategic concessions for peace. It has proved its willingness to negotiate land transfers, abandoning Sinai for peace with Egypt and leaving the Gaza Strip and South Lebanon. The fact that Israeli peace steps in the last two instances were answered with rockets and violent attacks should be a sobering warning about the risks Israel takes for peace and the importance of reaching a solution that serves the interest of all sides to the conflict.
Clearly, premature recognition of a Palestinian state would render the negotiating process and the ideals of compromise and dialogue meaningless. All who desire true peace in this region should reject Palestinian efforts to act unilaterally and forsake the negotiating process. Only through direct negotiations can a lasting peace agreement be reached.
Comment on this story
8. IDF to Conduct Home Front War Drill Next Week
by Elad Benari
The IDF is set to conduct a wide ranging war drill on Israel’s home front next week.
The drill, called “Turning Point 5” will begin on Sunday and continue for five days until Thursday. The drill will include all the national emergency agencies, including the Home Front Command, the National Emergency Authority (NEA), local authorities, government ministries, security and rescue organizations, the education and welfare systems, and public and private entities.
This will be the fifth consecutive year in which the “Turning Point” drill is being held (similar drills were held in May of 2009 and May of 2010). The purpose of the drill is to prepare the general public and local authorities for emergency situations, as well as to improve the national preparedness for a defense emergency on the home front.
During the drill, sirens will be tested, the mobile alert system will be examined, guidelines for choosing a safe space will be reviewed, emergency kits will be distributed, and coordination between emergency organizations will be improved.
As part of the drill, sirens will sound next Wednesday throughout Israel at 11:00am and 7:00pm local time. When the siren is heard, residents will be asked to practice entering a secure area which will be selected in advance and stay in it for ten minutes.
The IDF noted in a statement it released that simply listening to and following Home Front Command’s guidelines proved as being a life saving measure in both the Second Lebanon War in2006 as well as during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008.
During the drill, schools and kindergartens across the country as well as military bases, government agencies and public institutions will practice entering protected spaces.
The Home Front Command will also test out project “personal message”, which is a system which sends an early warning message directly to mobile devices in case of emergency. As part of the test, SMS messages will be received by residents, principals and others in managerial positions in certain areas of the country.
Comment on this story
by Elad Benari
The IDF is set to conduct a wide ranging war drill on Israel’s home front next week.
The drill, called “Turning Point 5” will begin on Sunday and continue for five days until Thursday. The drill will include all the national emergency agencies, including the Home Front Command, the National Emergency Authority (NEA), local authorities, government ministries, security and rescue organizations, the education and welfare systems, and public and private entities.
This will be the fifth consecutive year in which the “Turning Point” drill is being held (similar drills were held in May of 2009 and May of 2010). The purpose of the drill is to prepare the general public and local authorities for emergency situations, as well as to improve the national preparedness for a defense emergency on the home front.
During the drill, sirens will be tested, the mobile alert system will be examined, guidelines for choosing a safe space will be reviewed, emergency kits will be distributed, and coordination between emergency organizations will be improved.
As part of the drill, sirens will sound next Wednesday throughout Israel at 11:00am and 7:00pm local time. When the siren is heard, residents will be asked to practice entering a secure area which will be selected in advance and stay in it for ten minutes.
The IDF noted in a statement it released that simply listening to and following Home Front Command’s guidelines proved as being a life saving measure in both the Second Lebanon War in2006 as well as during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008.
During the drill, schools and kindergartens across the country as well as military bases, government agencies and public institutions will practice entering protected spaces.
The Home Front Command will also test out project “personal message”, which is a system which sends an early warning message directly to mobile devices in case of emergency. As part of the test, SMS messages will be received by residents, principals and others in managerial positions in certain areas of the country.
Comment on this story
More Website News:
 |
'Sheikh’ Peres Crowned in Bedouin Village  |
|
EU Parliament Against Unilateral Palestinian State |
|
Call Issued to Boycott Scottish Whiskey |
|
Chassidim Pray at Rav Ashi's Tomb  |
|
Paris Air Show to Feature Top Israeli Technology |
