Friday, April 19, 2024
Facebook Linkedin RSS Twitter

The fate of the new “enemies” of the Iranian revolution

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Another report about torture in Iran just surfaced. This time it was 19-year-old Mohammad K. who was arrested during Iran’s postelection unrest and was locked up in the Kahrizak detention facility. All but two of his upper teeth had been knocked out. His nails had been pulled out.

His head had been bashed in. His kidneys had stopped working. The stitches around his anus appeared to indicate a rape. He died shortly thereafter, at a Tehran hospital. But his story is still making waves.

Our newspapers and screens have been flooded with stories pictures of brave young men and women who protested in demand to get their stolen votes. Some pictures, like that of Neda, the 26 year old woman who was brutally shot dead by Iranian security forces, became iconic and reached almost every major screen in the world in a matter of hours. But it is interesting to note that all of this is happening while the Iranian government has blocked much of the country’s communications in an attempt to stop the flow of pictures and videos getting to the outside world.

Iran uses what the OpenNet Initiative calls “one of the most extensive technical filtering systems in the world.” Responding to the recent wave of protests, Iran unveiled a new high-tech apparatus that effectively instituted a three prong internet strategy based on blocking internet communications, the production of counter communications and intimidation of dissidents.

Iran’s blocking lists, containing tens of thousands of websites, are controlled by the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution. Following the disputed June 12 presidential election, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube were also added to the growing list of blocked websites.

In addition, the government has increased its tracking ability which now enables it to trace computers from which images and videos of Iran ‘s protests are sent out to the rest of the world – a technology that has led to the arrest of a number of bloggers and activists in the last few weeks. And as if this is not enough, the government has adopted a pro-active approach with websites such as http://www.gerdab.ir/ that posts pictures of demonstrators and asks people to identify them for the purpose of arrest and punishment.

Nevertheless, technologically speaking, blocking the internet is almost a futile battle. Iran’s internet environment is simply too large and too savvy to be blocked. There are over 600 internet providers in Iran and although they are all subject to the supervision of the Telecommunications Company of Iran (TCI), their manual installation of surveillance and filtering software means that they vary in terms of their filtering ability.

There is wide spread availability of software to overcome many of these filter systems, either by bypassing the software or by using a proxy server. Iranian dissidents such as Ahmed Batebi have helped develop a software application that enables users to trick some of the censorship systems while confusing the identification of local IP addresses.

The Global Internet Freedom Consortium (GIF) – an initiative that was originally started by Chinese-American practitioners of Falun Gong for bypassing the sophisticated Chinese internet filtering system, was also dispatched to Iran. This system, used by approximately 400,000 in Iran, has helped get many of the YouTube and Twitter pictures out despite Iranian censorship efforts.

The Iranian regime understands all of this and, hence, if they cannot shut down the message – their next best tactic is to shut down the messengers.

According to Reporters without Borders, Forty-one Iranian journalists and bloggers have been detained in the one month since the disputed June 12 presidential elections. Most of them are below 25 years of age.

The crackdown on the Iranian youth is so severe that even children of former or current officials of the regime are not immune. A case in point is the late Mr. Mohsen Najafabadi, whose father Dr. Abdulhossein Najafabadi was a close advisor to General Rezai, the former head of the Revolutionary Guards and a senior advisor to the minister of health in Ahmadinejad’s cabinet.
Mr. Mohsen Najafabadi, a computer major, was arrested during a street protest on the anniversary of the Student uprisings. According to his father, all his attempts to find and release him from prison came to nothing until last week when he received a call from prison officials informing him of his son’s death! Human rights groups have documented well over 100 such deaths since the election.Over 200 others, accused of being “agents of the unrest” and “members of anti-revolutionary groups” remain in prisons and detention centers.

These are the new enemies of the Islamic revolution: Young, determined and fearless.
Nobel laureate Pearl S. Buck once said that “The young do not know enough to be prudent, and therefore they attempt the impossible, and achieve it, generation after generation.” And this appears to be the case when it comes to Iran. This generation of young Iranians might achieve what only a few short weeks ago seemed impossible: fighting to end the evils of the Islamic regime in Iran and regain their freedom. They have a story to be told. It’s dramatic and passionate at times. But they must share their story as this may be their only way to win. Please watch and help to spread the word. You may well see history in its very making.

Sderot Sunday Encounters

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

The week started off with a telephone call to the organizers of a trip run by The Elders that is chauffeuring the co-founder of Google around Israel to “show both sides of the conflict.”

Three weeks ago, the “Elders” organizer contacted the Sderot Media Center to bring a Sderot resident to Jerusalem to talk to the influential group, which includes the co-founder of Google, about living under the rocket fire.

The Elders did not agree to the request: It would seem that if they wanted to “show both sides of the conflict” they wouldn’t only visit the worst Arab parts of the West Bank and the worst parts of the Gaza Strip, they would also visit Sderot, before going to the Gaza Strip, to meet with a some of the 500 families whose homes were hit by Gaza rockets.

We explained that it would not take that much time for them to visit Sderot, reminding them that it takes only 15 seconds away for any qassam rocket to hit Sderot from Gaza.

The Elders organizer insisted that the trip is structured to “show both sides of the conflict” and that is why they requested we bring a Sderot resident to speak in Jerusalem even though they did not have time to visit Sderot.

In a telephone conversation the “Elders” organizer on Sunday morning, she reiterated that the organizers of the trip refused to visit Sderot and even refused to cover the costs of bringing a Sderot resident to meet them in Jerusalem.

Soon after getting off the phone with the organizers of the The Elders’s who wanted to show “both sides of the conflict” trip, a scheduled group of European students from a very prominent worldwide Jewish organization came to Sderot to see the human side of the conflict.

After screening a video of kindergarten children running for their lives in the midst of an oncoming rocket attack, several students scoffed that the video saying it was “corny and stupid.”

The message for change in the way people look at the situation and the current acceptance of the reality of terrorists targeting innocent civilians was lost.

The group criticized the film for not supporting the suffering in the Gaza Strip by not opening a media center in the Gaza Strip.

When the group’s organizer was contacted and heard how the group related to Sderot, she was also stunned.

This was clearly a reflection on the environment in which these Jewish students interact, whom the group’s organizer described as as “intensive and militant”. It would seem that even the cream of the crop of European Jewish youth have been won over by the tentacles of Arab propaganda.

Studying with Prof. Neve Gordon at the University of Michigan

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

The anti-Israel climate at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor shot off the charts with the 2007-2008 addition of Professor Neve Gordon to the Political Science department.

Gordon is a tenured lecturer at Israel’s Ben Gurion University and was a visiting professor at the University of Michigan for two semesters.

As if the University of Michigan did not have enough outlandish anti-Israel professors that operate major courses at the university, Prof. Gordon taught the highly popular “Arab-Israeli Conflict” courses this past fall semester. Kathryn Babayan has been the professor for the 100 level “Peoples of the Middle East” course for almost ten years, a mandatory course for any student majoring in the Near Eastern studies department. Her anti-Semitic antics were spotlighted last fall with a charge of interfering in a police arrest while disrupting a Pro-Israel student group’s event. Michigan has also been the soapbox for outspoken anti-Israel Prof. Juan Cole for over twenty years. Cole’s scholarly status is now much criticized after his 2006 employment rejection from Yale and Duke University was made public. Prof. Gordon has produced an escalation to the onslaught of anti-Israel sentiment on the campus of the University of Michigan.

Neve Gordon is a venomously anti-Israel political scientist, who is best known for serving as an apologist for the anti-Semitic ex-professor from DePaul University Norman Finkelstein. Gordon is a regular columnist on the neo-Stalinist anti-Semitic web magazine Counterpunch and contributor to the web site of the deported Neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel. Last year, acclaimedProf. Alan Dershowitz wrote about him, “It is my opinion that Neve Gordon has gotten into bed with neo-Nazis, Holocaust justice deniers, and anti-Semites. He is a despicable example of a self-hating Jew and a self-hating Israeli.” Gordon led an international campaign of vilification against his own Israeli army officer, falsely accusing the officer of being a war criminal. As a result of Gordon’s campaign, the officer was unable to enter Britain for studies lest he b e falsely prosecuted. In 2006, to show solidarity with Arafat against the Israeli army, Gordon illegally snuck into Arafat’s Ramallah compound during an Israeli incursion. The editor of the Israeli daily Ma’ariv, Ben-Dror Yemini, accused Gordon and his ilk of “spreading] their articles dripping with anti-Zionist poison all over the world, some of which appear on anti-Semitic websites.”

Prof. Gordon’s playground this fall was the over 200 student Arab-Israeli Conflict course. Twice a week Gordon would have the opportunity to fill the fresh minds of University of Michigan students with skewed history and highly politicized anti-Israel rhetoric. To further legitimize his ideas he consistently embarrassed students who dared to question or object to his controversial and sometimes offensive claims.

In a lecture on November 14th, 2007 Gordon told the class that he wasn’t interested in giving an unbiased academic history of the Arab-Israeli conflict: “Jeremy asked why I would give a revisionist history. And I give a revisionist history because I think it’s true. What’s said in a textbook is not what it’s about.” His “revisionist” syllabus included the controversial book by Sandy Tolan The Lemon Tree: An Arab, A Jew, and the Heart of the Middle East, in which history is attempted to be told through the story of an Arab man who meets the woman who he claims took over his home after he was forced out by Israel. On November 19th Gordon was absent from class and instead had an appallingly biased film shown, on which the class was to take notes. “Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land” is a politically charged anti-Israel propaganda film that stars such anti-Israel celebrities as Noam Chomsky, Robert Fisk, Hanan Ashrawi, and Neve Gordon himself.

In a lecture on October 10th, 2007 which was supposed to be about the historical Suez Crisis, Gordon purposefully digressed at length to blame Israel for the current crisis with Iran. He explained to the class that Israel gained nuclear weapons as the20outcome of a deal with France at the end of the crisis in 1956. He then stepped away from his podium to drive home his message, “You can not understand what is happening with Iran today if you don’t understand what happened with Israel in `56.” As this comment was charged with controversial anti-Israel bias, Gordon was delighted to open the class to questions. When a student, who prefaced his statement with the premise that he was Jewish, challenged Gordon’s ridiculous blame of Israel for Iran’s actions today, Gordon disregarded the Jewish student’s challenge by smirking and stating to the class, “Ben is always trying to bring us back to the present.” It was in fact Prof. Gordon who clearly brought the class discussion to that of present times. Gordon then welcomed a question from a student who claimed Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust was “not a big deal.” By first demonizing Israel, then not allowing any student objections to his anti-Israel statements, then welcoming an out rightly anti-Semitic comment in his lecture hall, Gordon was in no way teaching an unbiased historical course, as one would have expected in an institution of higher learning.

In a lecture on November 5th, 2007 Gordon continuously used the term “Jewish roads” to refer to Israeli roads in the West Bank and formerly in the Gaza Strip from which Arabs are excluded. An Israeli student in the large class raised his hand and told Gordon that he was offended by his phraseology and said Gordon was bordering on anti-Semitism by deeming these roads “Jewish roads.” The student described for the class the complete freedom of movement of Israeli Arabs (Arabs with Israeli citizenship) on Israeli roads inside Israel and inside the West Bank. Therefore by calling the roads “Jewish” and not Israeli Gordon was being anti-Semitic. Gordon again simply disregarded the challenge to his biased teaching and appeared irritated.

The same Israeli student that challenged Gordon received a terse email after class that same day from Gordon requesting that the student come see him at his office at an appointment two days later. The student arrived at Gordon’s office and was surprised to see his Graduate Student Instructor (who directly grades the student) present as well. The student cordially greeted Gordon in Hebrew but did not receive the same warm greeting in return.

Gordon then proceeded to berate the student for publicly embarrassing and offending him during class. He belittled the student by telling him that he (Gordon) had been teaching for longer than the student20had been alive and that he had never been embarrassed and offended like that before. Behind closed doors, intimidated by his professor yelling at him, and in the presence of the person who decides his grade, the student quickly apologized and hoped the matter was put to rest. Much to the student’s dismay, in the next lecture Gordon attempted to clear his name and denounced the student’s challenging questions as unfair and unfounded, while publicly humiliating the student. Gordon’s Graduate Student Instructors further dissected the Israeli student’s challenge in the class discussion sections, and referred to the student by name without his consent.

Along with the history of scare-tactics used by Prof. Gordon in order to keep his classroom opposition quiet and disallowing any challenging of his anti-Israel positions, Gordon did not adhere to the tenet of an open environment within the structure of academic freedom. Before speaking in his class, Gordon directed students to state their name. In a large lecture hall this creates an uncomfortable environment for the students to express their own ideas. Gordon uses the students’ names in order to refute their statements or questions while referring back to each of their arguments. As a result, students were reluctant to speak up in the class.

Gordon did not attempt to hide his personal anti- Israel convictions in his teaching of the Arab-Israeli Conflict course. On December 5th Gordon discussed options for the future of the conflict. He referred to the conflict not as the Arab-Israeli Conflict but the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, disregarding the role of the region’s Arab states. When discussing the current political and strategic situation Gordon remarked, “Israel is the occupier, it is in Israel’s hands to change the status quo or not.” When discussing the outcome of changing the status quo Gordon said, “The other consequence is a continuing apartheid regime, leaving 4 million people without basic political rights.” One student challenged his use of the “apartheid” term in reference to Israel. Gordon again dismissed the question and refused to consider any opinion other than his own, bluntly saying “Those are the questions I am not going to answer.”

Gordon once again demonstrated his personal political bias with reference to proclaimed anti-Zionist author Joel Kovel. In response to the debacle over the printing of Kovel’s book Overcoming Zionism, a staunchly pro-Palestinian student group invited Kovel to speak on campus. On the day of the event, November 26th, Gordon wrote an email urging students to attend the event. At the20event one could observe the obviously friendly socializing between Gordon and Kovel, before Kovel began his speech. When politically pro-Israel distinguished Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes visited the campus on October 8th, Gordon did not show the same endorsement for his students to attend.

Prof. Neve Gordon’s first of two semesters at the University of Michigan bolstered the anti-Israel climate already present. His incessant demonizing of Israel using anti-Semitic rhetoric and his suppression of challenges to his ideas, presented a skewed course on the Arab-Israeli Conflict, unacceptable for an institute of higher learning

J Street’s Dangerous Detour on the Road to the White House

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Yasser Arafat sought peace with Israel, Jeremiah was a bullfrog, the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale, Brutus was an honorable man, and J Streetis a “pro-Israel” organization. Not.

As a long-time student of American politics and the U.S.-Israel relationship, I am fascinated by the “J Street” phenomenon and grateful for the Jerusalem Post’s recent exposé “Muslims, Arabs among J Street donors “ by Hilary Leila Krieger.

The Post’s revelation raises additional questions about the group: How can J Streetcall itself “pro-Israel” while advocating positions that are at odds with the traditional “pro-Israel” agenda? Who stands behind the organization? Who makes policy and decisions? Why hasn’t the organization drawn the attention of investigative reporters, or is the press reluctant to challenge an organization that has emerged as Obama’s “toy Jews?” How did an upstart organization get an invitation to a White House meeting with the President just one year after its founding?

Research leads to serious questions about the true mission and direction of the lobby.

As the Post story made clear, one aspect of the lobby’s fundraising is open to public scrutiny: the U.S. Federal Election Commission’s list of the J Street Political Action Committee donors. It appears that the majority of J Street PAC’s contributors are liberal American Jews, but, according to the Internet-accessible FEC lists and the Post story, the PAC donors also include the Saudi Embassy’s lawyer, Arab American leaders, several employees of Islamic Centers around the U.S., board members of the de facto Iranian lobby in the U.S., Arabist American foreign service officers, a board member of the anti-Israel and discredited Human Rights Watch, and many other individuals known for their anti-Israel opinions and activities. Among the organization’s advisory council are former U.S.diplomats and public officials who later became foreign agents in the pay of the Saudis, Egyptians and Tunisians.

There are many cases of such subterfuge, and here are but a few:

  • J Street lists on its FEC forms a contributor, Zahi Khouri of OrlandoFl orida (pictured). The Jerusalem Post’s exposé revealed that he is a very prominent Palestinian entrepreneur and investor in Palestinian companies and funds. But the obfuscation gets worse. The J Street contribution forms filed with the FEC actually list Khouri’s occupation as “not employed.” Khouri’s supposed unemployment hasn’t hindered him from excoriating Israel in Op-Ed columns in U.S. newspapers.
  • Mary El-Khatib is listed as a “teacher” in the J Street PAC’s list of contributors. That doesn’t reveal that she also writes for the virulently anti-Israel Muslim Link and that she was also a founder of an Islamic school in Virginia where she teaches and involves her students in “civic activities” such as saving Palestinian schools from Israeli “demolition.”
  • J Street’s director recently complained that critics of his PAC went looking for Arab surnames, but that’s not the case with PAC contributor James Vitarello. While Vitarello is listed by J Street PAC as a “housing specialist,” he is not identified as the national co-chairman of Middle East Network of United Methodists. He is highly critical of Israel and the author of a published ditty, “Palestine fought the battle of Gaza, Gaza, Gaza. Palestine fought the battle of Gaza. And the walls came tumbling down. Israel caged them in with impunity, Cut off gas and water, electricity, All with U.S. complicity, So the walls came tumbling down.”

J Street’s director must take the Post’s readers for fools when he claims “I think it is a terrific thing for Israelfor us to be able to expand the tent of people who are willing to be considered pro-Israel.”

J Street proclaims on its Web site that (out of $850,000 raised) it contributed $575,000 to candidates in the latest election cycle, “more than any other pro-Israel PAC in the country!” Do these well-known detractors of Israel in J Street’s PAC know they are giving to an organization that advertises itself as “pro-Israel?” Or do the Arab-American and pro-Iranian donors give precisely because they perceive that the goals of J Streetmatch their own: to weaken the State of Israel and undermine the U.S.-Israel relationship?

In the classic chicken-and-the-egg question: Does J Street set its policies to attract their donations, or do the contributors set J Streetpolicies?

At the same time, do the well-meaning progressive and true friends of Israel know who else is filling the coffers at J Street and its PAC? They should look up the records on the FEC website and enter J Street PAC’s ID number C00441949.

A “pro-Israel” organization’s bona fides should be judged by the company it keeps, and the FEC documents suggest that J Streetkeeps questionable company indeed.

Some of the donations to the PAC are small $10-25 amounts, but others are $10,000 per quarter. And some of the donors appear in more than one quarter, suggesting that they were not accidental contributors and that they were possibly solicited on more than one occasion. The listing of the donors’ occupation on the FEC forms also suggests that the J Street leaders knew who many of the donors were. J Street claims to be Washingtoninsiders, so clearly they knew that Nancy Dutton was the Saudi Embassy’s attorney and the widow and law partner of the long-time and well-known Saudi foreign agent, Fred Dutton.

It is difficult to find on J Street’s web pages the name of Genevieve Lynch, one of nine members of the board of the National Iranian American Council, a group that allegedly echoes the positions of the Iranian regime. Buried in Lynch’s NIAC biography is the fact that she serves on J Street’s elite 50-member Finance Committee (with its $10,000 contribution threshhold). Why would the NIAC board member give at least $10,000 to J Street PAC and another NIAC leader give at least $1,000? Perhaps it is because of the very close relationship between the two organizations. In June the directors of both organizations co-authored an article in the Huffington Post, “How Diplomacy with Iran Can Work,” arguing against imposing new tough sanctions on Iran.

The two organizations have worked in lockstep over the last year to torpedo congressional action against Iran. As one anti-Israel blogger wrote in September 2008, “J Street played a key role in dealing that astonishing defeat to AIPAC in Congress — in which a coalition of peace groups and religious groups spearheaded by the National Iranian American Council lobbied effectively against a belligerent resolution, House 362, that had been expected to pass overwhelmingly and that would have urged Bush to impose a kind of embargo on Iranian exports.”

Why would a supposedly “pro-Israel, pro-peace” organization work so hard to block legislation that would undermine the Iranian ayatollah regime? Ostensibly, any step to hinder Iran’s nuclear development and block aid to Hamas and Hizbullah would be a step toward regional peace. Deterring Iran through sanctions would lessen the need for military action against Iran. Therefore, blocking sanctions or championing Hamas’ cause just doesn’t make sense.

A cozy relationship between J Streetand Arab American organizations is also apparent in the FEC public records. One of the largest donors to the J Street PAC (more than $10,000) and a member of J Street’s elite Finance Committee is Richard Abdoo (pictured), a Midwest businessman who also serves on the Board of Governors of the Arab American Institute. In June, the director of J Street was a guest speaker at the annual conference of the Arab lobbying group, the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee. Appearing on the same panel was Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD), one the few Members of Congress who refused to support a congressional resolution in January 2009 that recognized Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas.

The same week as their joint appearance, J Street PAC announced that a blitz fundraising campaign for Edwards raised an impressive $30,000. In mid-June Edwards produced a film clip thanking J Streetfor their contribution. When Edwards’ and J Street PAC’s second quarter reports were recently filed with the FEC, Lynch, Abdoo and a board member of the controversial Human Rights Watch were among the largest contributors.

Supporters of J Street should know that their contributions to the PAC are a matter of public record. They owe it to their own reputations to see who’s on the roster alongside their names.

Does J Street’s leadership perpetrate fraud when they portrays themselves as “pro-Israel” to pro-Israel and anti-Israel audiences at the same time? The question should be left to legal authorities, J Street donors and the court of public opinion to decide. In Jewish law, however, there is a concept of gneyvat da’at – knowingly misrepresenting oneself. Of that, J Street is guilty.

J Street maintains three fiscal entities: its main organization, the political action committee, and a campus education organization. Only the last two are transparent under U.S. law, with contribution lists provided as public record to the Internal Revenue Service and the Federal Election Committee. But what of J Street’s non-transparent main organization? Are there contributions from Iranian-related or Arab-American sources as there are to the PAC? Does J Street solicit money from anti-Israel sources using the methods Human Rights Watch used to raise money in Saudi Arabia – bashing Israel? Do the contributions explain J Street’s opposition to Iranian sanctions, its “even-handed” policy on the issue of Israel’s war against Hamas, and its support for Caryl Churchill’s anti-Semitic play, Seven Jewish Children?

Only opening all of its financial books will give J Street the kosher certification the progressive, pro-Israel, pro-peace community deserves.

A shorter version of this article appears in The Jerusalem Post .

“Beat your swords into investment portfolios?”

By
​Center for Near East Policy Research
-

Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, Danny Ayalon, who is a former Israel Ambassaor to the U.S. and a leader of the Israel Beiteinu party told a group of about 70 Palestinian women – who arrived mainly from Bethlehem, Beit Jalla Beit Sahur, Bethany and El Azariya – that while “we can’t ignore political issues, we shouldn’t wait for everything to be solved,” before taking steps to develop the Palestinian economy.

Ayalon gave the opening address at the “Women Making Business” conference at the City Hotel in Tel-Aviv sponsored by the IPCC [Israeli-Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and Industry established in Oct. 2008], MASHAV [Israel’s National Agency for International Development Co-operation], and the Golda Meir Mount Carmel International Training Centre in Haifa.

The Palestinian participants, the vast majority of whom were Christian [and often tend to be more moderate than Moslems in their political views], all received special permits from Israel to attend the conference.

“I apologize to anyone present if any of you had problems in crossing the checkpoints. I hope there will be a day when there are no checkpoints…Most checkpoints have been removed [by the Netanyahu government]-from 41 checkpoints there are now only 14-and we hope to take more down… The West Bank economy is better and tourism is up.”

Ayalon called on the Arab world to also take responsibility for developing the Palestinian economy and fostering a climate of peace.

“…The Gulf Countries have billions of Petro dollars. If they put 10 billion dollars into the West Bank, it will create a new economy, with jobs…It will be a basis for a good statehood.”

In an interview following the conference, Ofer Gendelman, CEO of the IPCC was asked whether the injection of money by Gulf States would serve to merely promote the development of two separate Palestinian economies-an economy for the wealthy and an economy of ongoing poverty for Palestinian refugees living in UNRA camps, who would continue to relish ideas of returning to homes left in 1948. He responded:

“It is up to the Palestinian Authority to run its economy. It’s a country and they have a Minister of National Economy. How the money is directed is not an Israeli project. It’s up to the Palestinians to run their own affairs.”

When asked specifically what would be done to ensure that money injected into the Palestinian economy reached the bottom level of Palestinian society, Irena Etinger, Ayalon’s media advisor answered, “If they [the Gulf States] will put money into the Palestinian economy, there will be more jobs and infrastructure and industry. His[Ayalon’s comments] were general ones, and not specific about this. The idea is if there are more jobs, change will come from the people.”

In an interview, Robert Ilatov, Member of Knesset for Israel Beiteinu said in this regard,

“We know from the past that when Fatah has gotten money, it didn’t distribute it properly and lots was stolen. But, we can’t be responsible for what Fatah does when it gets money…There has to be some international supervision. The most we can do is to encourage the development of the Palestinian economy with the purpose of taking as many Palestinians as possible out of the cycle of poverty.”

Fatima Faroun, Chairperson of the Sharouq Society for Women, based in Bethany, expressed frustration at the conference of the fact that women entrepreneurs were given far less support from the PA than their counterparts in Israel were.

“In Palestine, there’s nothing to support us. There is no government money in Palestine given to women who want to start businesses. There is no justice. International organizations need to hear this.”

Most of the Palestinian women at the event were nodding their heads when she said this.

“I visited Oman to see what they do there. The Oman government supports women who want to open small businesses. If a women gets training and consultation with the government there, she can get a $20,000 dollar loan, and if she succeeds, she can get up to a $100,000 dollar loan. More money from the PA and NGO’s needs to go to women,” Faroun said.

Haim Divon, who was Israel’s Ambassador to Canada from 2000-2004 and heads MASHAV, welcomed the Palestinian women and said that “we all feel badly when we hear about difficulties at the checkpoints.” Divon stressed “we are sending a message to the international community that we are looking at ways to improve our economies.”

In an interview, Gindelman, said that in 2008, “Trade between Israel an the Palestinians amounted to 15 billion shekel[ over 3.5 billion U.S]. Of that 15 billion, 80% is Israeli exports to the Palestinians, while only 20% is Palestinian exports to Israel. Also, of that 15 billion, 13 billion consists of trade between the West Bank and Israel and 2 billion is trade between Israel and Gaza.”

These figures show how Israel, on the whole, benefits from trade relations with the Palestinian Authority.

“I expect that the amount of trade between Israel and the Palestinians will grow significantly this year, given the removal of many checkpoints, the improved security situation, and the developing Palestinian economy, among other factors,” said Gendelman.

When asked why there is no Palestinian co-CEO with him at the Israel-Palestinian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Gendelman responded:

“We would love to have a Palestinian-Israeli Chamber of Commerce but it is up to the Palestinian Authority to o this. We represent Israeli businesses first and foremost, but we also help Palestinian businesses that want our help. We have had a few dozen Palestinian businesses who have asked for our help, mostly in regard to security and customs issues.”

For example, Gendelman noted that “Coca-Cola in the Palestinian territories wants to import assets to clean its bottles, but the problem is that the assets could also be used to make bombs. Israel prevents dual use materials from entering the West Bank and Gaza, so they can’t import it. We are trying to find another product for them that isn’t dual use, so that way it is a win-win situation. We haven’t yet found the solution.”

Before becoming CEO of the IPCC, Gindelman was the Israeli Consul at the Embassy in Ottawa from 2003-2007, and following that worked as the Israeli government spokesperson to the Arab Press.

“I was Israel’s face to the Arab world, doing more than 2000 appearances on Arab T.V. Channels,” he said

PALESTINIAN WOMEN AT THE CONFERENCE EXPRESS HARD LINE VIEWS:

While there was a lot of talk about “peace “ and “economic growth” at the conference, the political views expressed by most of the Palestinian participants interviewed were hard-line

Sumayah Soboh, a Moslem sociologist from Bethlehem said she believes in a “one state” solution in the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. “Any Palestinian refugees who want can return to their land,” meaning that the Jews would live as a minority in a Palestinian majority. “ Maybe the one state could be called ‘Jew Palestina,’ she said.

Her sister, Mary Soboh, age 20, an occupational therapist, and her mother Jamileh Soboh, a speech therapist, who directs the Nur-Al Bara’ h Special Education centre in Bethlehem, both say they agree with Sumayah. “We all think the same,” said Jamileh.

When asked what she thought of the Fatah convention, Sumayah said “I am angry with Fatah for saying there could be two states- there shouldn’t be a Jewish state, but just one state, one leader, one G-d, one people.”

Another Moslem women living in Bethany whose “family are refugees from a village near Abu Gosh, on the way to Jerusalem” said “I want to be able to go back to my land.” She said the parties “must meet and find solutions.” She said the situation was “miserable- you can’t move Israel and the Palestinians can’t be moved,” but she doesn’t express any willingness to give up her right of return, or accept compensation in return, to enable a two-state solution.

Mari Sadi, a Christian Palestinian from Bethlehem, says “Israel should go back to the 67 lines.” Sadi owned land in front of Har Homa but “the Israelis took 15 dunams and they closed it off.”

When asked what she thinks ought to happen to the Jewish populations in Gilo and Har Homa, built over the 1967 lines near Bethlehem, she says clearly “ The Israelis have to leave Gilo and Har Homa, unless they want to be citizens of Palestine under Palestinian rule, then they can stay….We don’t need a weak peace”

Additionally Sadi said “we hope that all of the refugees will be able to come back.” When pressed on whether she would accept it if Palestinian refugees could return only to a Palestinian state, not Israel, she said “Some refugees can return back to Israel, and some back to a Palestinian state.”

But then, she also said “I have many relatives in Jordan and the U.S. and a lot of different lands. They are from Nazareth and Haifa and Jaffa and they should be able to come back. They will want to come back.”

Lorette Zoughbi, who runs a small patisserie in Bethlehem, said she thinks “Palestine should have its own state and Israel should have her own state. If we ask for everything, all we’ll get is nothing.”

As for Har Homa and Gilo, Zoughbi said “Israel should return it, but how can they return it-It’s such a big area?”

Zoughbi appeared to be more moderate than Sadi when spoken to one on one, but then in front of Sadi, she said “Refugees who have their land can return to Israel. My grandfather had a house in Katamon and in Jaffa. I still have the keys. We’ll never give up our land.”

Inam Mitwassi, a Christian Palestinian, who makes ceramics in Bethlehem, and Laila Nazzal, a Christian Palestinian who makes embroidery in Bethlehem indicated Israel should go back to the 67 lines and Palestinian refugees should be able to return to the pre-67 Israel.

Ms. Antionette George Youse Knezivich, a Christian Palestinian from Beit-Jalla was responsible for bringing 38 of the women to the conference. Knezivich is a member of the executive committee of Palestinian NGO’s. In her formal remarks she referred to 1948 as being the Al-Nakba.

In an interview afterward, she said 80 of her olive trees [30 dunam’s worth] were taken down to build the wall [security fence] around Bethlehem. “First the wall must be taken down, and all the checkpoints removed and then the ought to be negotiations.” When asked about whether the Palestinian refugees ought to be able to return only to a Palestinian state, not to Israel, she said “ there must be a just solution,” “we seek justice,” but she refuse to elaborate further. Later, over lunch, when Sadi took the position that refugees ought to be able to return to their homes they lost in 1948, Knezivich nodded in agreement.

There were two women spoken to who expressed genuinely more moderate opinions [whose names will not be given for their safety].

One was a young Christian Palestinian, who said that she believes any right of return for Palestinian refugees would be “to Palestine,” not Israel. She also said “Tel-Aviv is beautiful.” A Moslem Palestinian woman said she believed “there should be Palestine and Israel”, and “I think the right of return should be to Palestine.”

As she said before we parted, “They can all say they have their rights, but we must finish this conflict. To end it, refugees should return only to the Palestinian state.”

In an interview, Robert Ilatov, Member of Knesset for Israel Beitienu said he wasn’t surprised to hear that many of the Christian Palestinian women from Bethlehem at the conference expressed hard-line views. “They were probably afraid that if they expressed more moderate views they’d be killed. The Moslems in Bethlehem make life very difficult for them.”

About half the women present at the event were sponsored by MASHAV to spend a week in Israel, to undergo entrepreneurial training in Haifa. About 20 of the Palestinian women who arrived were in their 20’s and were students studying in Beir Zeit University, Bethlehem University and the University of Jordan.

ANTI SEMITIC FABRICATIONS: HOLLAND, GREECE, PHILADELPHIA & SWEDEN

By
David Bedein
-

Jerusalem, Israel; Dan Margalit, one of Israel’s leading news commentators, recently observed that “Holocaust deniers are out, anti-Semites and Jew-haters are in”

This week, a leading journalist from Holland claimed that who said Jews are responsible for the recent outbreak of swine flu. Holland’s largest daily, De Telegraaf, printed the allegations the ongoing global flu pandemic was part of an international Jewish conspiracy to reduce the world’s population, as were previous outbreaks of bird flu and other forms of flu.

De Telegraaf did not report that ten people in Israel have already died of swine flu.

And then there are the Gaza rumors spread in Athens. For the past two months, leading figures of the government, media and labor unions of Greece have organized protests over Israel’s destruction of the Christian hospital in Gaza. Except that there is no Christian hospital in Gaza.

Spreading rumors which denigrate Israel and Jews is not confined to the realm of non-Jews.

For the past several months, Rabbi Arthur Waskow of the Shalom Center in Philadelphia has organized nationwide fasts and protests against Israel’s “blockade” of food and medical supplies to Gaza – except that Israel has imposed no such “blockade” of food and medical supplies to Gaza. Israel has simply restricted the export of substances that could be used in the Gaza war machine, while cooperating with more than 100 humanitarian organizations to assure the steady flow of food and medical supplies into Gaza. Waskow will not answer questions about why he does not come to see the flow of Israeli humanitarian assistance to Gaza for himself.

Meanwhile, this week, the most popular newspaper in Sweden, fabricated an “exposé” this week, in which journalist Donald Bostrom claimed to have interviewed Palestinian families who reported that that Israeli soldiers kills Palestinian children in order to steal their organs for transplanting. At the end, Bostrom wrote: “We know that the need for organs in Israel is very great, that illegal organ trafficking takes place in Israel with the blessing of the authorities, and high-ranking physicians are involved. And we know that young Palestinians have disappeared, been held for five days and subsequently returned secretly at night after their corpses were abused. The time has come to shine a light upon this
terrible activity…”

Israel lodged a protest with the Swedish authorities over what the Israel Foreign Ministry characterized as an “anti-Semitic article” and demanded that the Swedish government condemn the report.

The Swedish Ambassador to Israel Elisabet Borsin Bonnier immediately issued a sharp condemnation of the article and apologized to the people of Israel.

The Swedish Foreign Ministry, however, disassociated itself from the ambassador’s condemnation.

In the wake of this reversal, Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman conveyed a pointed protest to Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt. Lieberman also instructed the Foreign Ministry personnel to examine the possibility of revoking the press card held by any representative of Aftonbladet in Israel, and in any case not to assist or cooperate on any matter with the newspaper or its representatives.

“It’s too bad that after the Swedish ambassador to Israel did the right thing and denounced the article, and thereby made it clear that his newspaper does not represent Sweden in any way, that the Swedish Foreign Ministry chose to dissociate itself from the ambassador instead of backing her,” said Lieberman. “The meaning of freedom of the press is the freedom to write the truth, not the freedom to lie and to malign. A country that truly wishes to defend its democratic values must firmly condemn any mendacious articles that smell of anti-Semitism of the kind that was published this week in the Aftonbladet newspaper. It’s unfortunate that the Swedish Foreign Ministry is not becoming involved when the matter is one of a blood libel against the Jews. This is reminiscent of Sweden’s position during World War II, when it also did not become involved. The article written this week is a natural continuation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and to the blood libels in which Jews were accused of adding the blood of Christian children to Passover matzos.”

Sweden currently chairs the European Union.

Iranian Rockets Attack U.S. Base

By
David Bedein
-
Jerusalem – In what may lead to a possible Iranian-American military confrontation, Pentagon sources have revealed that Shi’ite insurgents fired Iranian rockets in an attack on a U.S. military base in southern Iraq.Iranian-backed Shi’ites fired Iranian-origin rockets on a U.S. base near the southern Iraqi city of Basra. That rocket strike on Aug. 17 was the latest in a spate of Iranian backed attacks on the U.S. military presence in the Basra region in mid-2009.

On Aug. 18, Iraqi security forces found a launcher with 13 Iranian rockets in the eastern portion of Basra. The rockets appeared to have been smuggled from Iran to Iraq over the last few weeks.

In 2009, the U.S. military replaced the British contingent in Basra. Since then, U.S. forces have come under rocket attacks against their base.

The U.S. military sources say that they have determined that Iran continued to smuggle weapons and insurgents into southern Iraq throughout 2009 and that the Iranian smuggling effort was meant to prepare for a Shi’ite takeover of Iraq’s southern oil sector amid a U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq.

1,800-Year-Old Roman Building Discovered in Jerusalem

By
David Bedein
-
Jerusalem – A spacious edifice from the 3rd Century was recently exposed in the excavations the Israel Antiquities Authority that is carrying out a major excavation in the ‘City of David’, located in the heart of Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem.“Although we do not have the complete dimensions of the structure, we can cautiously estimate that the building covered an area of approximately 1,000 square meters,” said Dr. Doron Ben-Ami, the excavation director. “In the center of it was a large open courtyard surrounded by columns. Galleries were spread out between the rows of columns and the rooms that flanked the courtyard. The wings of the building rose to a height of two stories and were covered with tile roofs.”

A large quantity of fresco fragments was discovered in the collapsed ruins from which the excavators deduced that some of the walls of the rooms were treated with plaster and decorated with colorful paintings. The painted designs that adorned the plastered walls consisted mostly of geometric and floral motifs. Its architectural richness, plan and particularly the artifacts that were discovered among its ruins bear witness to the unequivocal Roman character of the building. The most outstanding of these finds are a marble figurine in the image of a boxer and a gold earring inlaid with precious stones.

The building was likely shaken by a tremor in the 4th Century, the results of which are clearly apparently in the excavation area: the walls of the rooms caved-in and their stone collapse, which was piled high, covered the walls of the bottom floor, some of which still stand to a considerable height. Architectural elements such as columns and capitals, as well as mosaics and the large amount of fresco fragments that were used in the rooms of the second story were discovered inside the collapsed ruins. The coins that were discovered among the collapse and on the floors indicated the building’s ruins should be dated to circa 360 AD. The structure appears to be archaeological evidence of the an earthquake that struck the Middle East in 363 AD.

“We know of no other buildings from the Roman period that were discovered in Israel which have a similar plan to that of the building from the City of David,” said Dr. Ben-Ami. “The closest contemporary parallels to this structure are located in sites of the second to fourth century that were excavated in Syria. Edifices such as these are ‘urban mansions’ from the Roman period that were discovered in Antioch, Apamea and Palmyra. If this parallel is correct, then in spite of its size and opulence, it seems that this building was used originally as a private residence.”

The exposure of the Roman building in the City of David is a significant contribution to understanding the extent of the construction in the Roman city in the 3rd to 4th Centuries AD. It constitutes extremely important archaeological evidence regarding the growth of the settlement at the end of the Roman period into the southern precincts of the city, and it shows that the prevailing supposition among scholars that the City of David remained outside the area of Roman settlement is no longer valid.

Swedish Government Stands Behind False News Report

By
David Bedein
-

Jerusalem, Israel – Following a Swedish news report in the newspaper Aftonbladet that reported the IDF kills Palestinians in order to traffic in their organs, Swedish Ambassador to Israel Elisabet Borsin Bonnier immediately issued a sharp condemnation of the article and apologized to the people of Israel.

The Swedish Foreign Ministry, however, disassociated itself from the ambassador’s condemnation.

In the wake of this reversal, Israeli Foreign Minister Lieberman conveyed a pointed protest to Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt. Lieberman also instructed the Foreign Ministry personnel to examine the possibility of revoking the press card held by any representative of Aftonbladet in Israel, and in any case not to assist or cooperate on any matter with the newspaper or its representatives.

“It’s too bad that after the Swedish ambassador to Israel did the right thing and denounced the article, and thereby made it clear that his newspaper does not represent Sweden in any way, that the Swedish Foreign Ministry chose to dissociate itself from the ambassador instead of backing her,” said Lieberman. “The meaning of freedom of the press is the freedom to write the truth, not the freedom to lie and to malign. A country that truly wishes to defend its democratic values must firmly condemn any mendacious articles that smell of anti-Semitism of the kind that was published this week in the Aftonbladet newspaper. It’s unfortunate that the Swedish Foreign Ministry is not becoming involved when the matter is one of a blood libel against the Jews. This is reminiscent of Sweden’s position during World War II, when it also did not become involved. The article written this week is a natural continuation of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion and to the blood libels in which Jews were accused of adding the blood of Christian children to Passover matzos.”

Egyptian President Murbarak Looks Ill During Visit

By
David Bedein
-
Jerusalem – Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak was received in a state visit in Washington last week. However, those who observed the 82-year-old Egyptian President on his first visit to the United States since 2004, said that he appears to be on his last legs.Mr. Mubarak has been struggling in his meetings in Washington. A participant in one meeting said Mr. Mubarak appeared to be in physical pain and unable to understand much of what was being said to him.

“He looks like a zombie,” the participant said.

In 2009, he underwent a battery of medical tests in Paris that identified heart illness, blood ailments and a serious back problem. Moreover, the president was said to have sunk into a depression when his favorite grandson died suddenly in May 2009.

“The doctors told him to take a long vacation abroad, but he felt he could not be outside Egypt for so long,” a Western diplomatic source said. For his part, Mr. Mubarak reassured the Obama administration that he would remain in office in the years to come. He did not rule out running for another term of office in 2011.

On Aug. 19, Mr. Mubarak met President Barack Obama for a review of bilateral relations and Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts. An official said Obama urged Mr. Mubarak to recruit Arab support for a peace agreement with Israel that would lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

“We are moving in the right direction,” Mr. Mubarak said after the meeting. “The Arab states are ready to help if the Israelis and the Palestinians returned to peace talks.”

Over the last few weeks, the administration has approved a series of Egyptian weapons requests and deliveries, including that of military helicopters and anti-ship missiles. The White House was also expected to approve an Egyptian request for the advanced F-16 Block 52+ multi-role fighters later in 2009.

“Relations between us and the United States are very good relations and strategic relations,” Mr. Mubarak said. “And despite some of the hoops that we had with previous administrations, this did not change the nature of our bilateral relations.”

During his visit, however, Mr. Mubarak appeared to concentrate on promoting his son and heir-apparent, Gamal, an economist and regarded as the No. 2 figure in Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party. In at least one private meeting,

1...798799800...1,171Page 799 of 1,171

Column from the Director

David Bedein
David Bedein
2465 POSTS6 COMMENTS
Michael Kuttner
Michael Kuttner
404 POSTS0 COMMENTS
Rochel Grosz
Rochel Grosz
1 POSTS1 COMMENTS
© A WEBstationONE.com production, partially funded by the Internet Development Fund and the IDF Link technology.

© 2003-2020 All rights reserved. Articles and Special Reports on IsraelBehindTheNews.com are copyrighted. Every reader is welcome to reprint any and all articles, and with citation.