Hamas Imposes Islamic Dress Code On Students

With the commencement of the school year next week, The Middle East Newsline has confirmed that Hamas has imposed an Islamic dress code on female students.Hamas announced that female students must wear Islamic dress in schools starting from the current academic semester. The dress code stipulated head covering and full-length robes and required that teachers instruct only those of the same sex.

“Any female student that does not attend class in the proper attire will be sent home,” Hamas said on Aug. 24.

The Hamas regulation came in wake of numerous denials by the Islamic regime in the Gaza Strip of plans to impose a dress code for females. Hamas has also established a so-called modesty police force aimed to prevent the mixing of sexes at beaches or unmarried couples in cars.

Under the dress code, the head covering of the girls must be white, and wear a blue robe.

“The uniform should be as follows: Navy blue jilbab with white headscarf and black or white shoes,” said the announcement. “We request that all girls follow these instructions.”

The Palestinian Education Ministry has banned the employment of male teachers at girls’ schools and women teachers in boys’ schools. The regulations would directly affect the 250,000 students of government schools, which began the academic year on Aug. 23.

On Aug. 24, Palestinian sources said several girls were sent home when they arrived to school in jeans. The sources said Christian girls in government schools were also forced to observe the Muslim dress code.

In 2009, Hamas, amid the rise of Al Qaida, imposed Islamic law on the Gaza Strip, including forcing female attorneys to wear Islamic dress. Hamas has also been pressing the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), with 200,000 enrolled in its school system, to abide by the regulations.

Hamas controls recently won control of the UNRWA teachers association, winning 85 percent of the vote.

Israeli and Palestinian Leaders To Meet

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last week welcomed the statement made by Palestinian Authority Chairman Machmud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, who called for a resumption of negotiations with Israel. “If Abu Mazen stands behind that offer, then that is a positive thing and we’re talking about progress,” Netanyahu said in a meeting with Israeli journalists in Berlin following his meeting with German President Horst Koehler during his visit to Germany.”We have thought for a long time that there is reason to hold a meeting without reconditions and to begin taking steps that will bring about the promotion of the political process,” Netanyahu added.

Netanyahu underscored, however, that without Palestinian recognition of Israel’s Jewish character, it would be impossible to resolve the conflict.

“The root of the conflict isn’t the settlements, the borders or one area or another,” he said. “All of those issues will be raised for discussion and we are going to have to find solutions to them. The problem is the refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.”

However, judging by Abu Mazen’s statements yesterday before the Palestinian parliament, the differences between the two parties are larger than the mere question of whether Israel is recognized as a Jewish state. While Abu Mazen voiced his willingness to renew negotiations, he underscored that the condition for renewal was a suspension of all construction in the settlements. Moreover, Abu Mazen said that the negotiations needed to be resumed from the point at which they broke off during Ehud Olmert’s term in office.

“In talks with the Olmert government it was agreed that the borders of the Palestinian state would include the Gaza Strip in its entirety and the West Bank in its entirety, including Jerusalem, the Dead Sea and the River Jordan,” claimed Abu Mazen in his speech. “When we return to negotiations we will begin them from those points and not from zero.”

An official in Abu Mazen’s office added his own statements.

“We want negotiations in order to reach a solution of two states, but we want to discuss a final status arrangement and not waste time as occurred in the past,” he said.

Senior sources in Ramallah said that an agreement in principle has been reached for Abu Mazen to meet with Netanyahu in New York.

“Abu Mazen will meet with Netanyahu not in order to negotiate, but in order to establish the rules of the negotiations,” said one Palestinian official.

Sources in Prime Minister Netanyahu’s entourage said that no agreements have been reached on that matter yet. If Netanyahu and Abu Mazen do meet, in fact, that will be their fist meeting since Netanyahu assumed office as prime minister.

Prior to his departure for Germany, Netanyahu met in London with special US envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell. American officials said after the meeting that Israel had, in practice, agreed to a temporary construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, but that the parties remained divided over the duration of that construction moratorium. The United States has demanded that the freeze last for one year, whereas Israel has agreed to a freeze that will last a number of months. Another issue in contention pertains to Jerusalem. The Americans have demanded that Israel not build inside Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Israel has refused to make any such commitment.

Following the meeting, Netanyahu said that certain progress had been made in that meeting towards a renewal of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

“The discussions advanced us in the process, though a number of issues remain unresolved,” the Prime Minister said upon his arrival in Berlin from London. “The intention is to advance while striking a balance between maintaining the settlers’ basic needs of life and maintaining the basic conditions for launching the political process.”

Netanyahu vehemently denied reports in the Arab and British media yesterday as if Israel were prepared to accept a six-month-long settlement construction freeze in exchange for an American commitment to intensify the sanctions against Iran.

Netanyahu met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Thursday. At the center of their meeting will be the Iranian nuclear program and the German mediation efforts to bring about Gilad Shalit’s release from captivity. Prior to Netanyahu’s arrival in Berlin, Merkel said that she supported stiffening the sanctions against Iran, mainly in the realm of energy, in the event that Iran should refuse to meet the international community’s demand that it suspend its uranium enrichment activities.

“The German political position on Iran is a firm and consistent position,” said Netanyahu on the eve of his meeting with Merkel. “The volume of Germany’s trade with Iran has dropped by approximately one-quarter, and we will welcome another significant cutback.”

Despite optimism from Netanyahu and reports about a possible meeting with Abu Mazen, his party, Likud, is expressing displeasure over recent developments and plans to hold a meeting.

“The Americans are trying to create an imaginary partner for negotiations that does not want and is not capable of making peace with Israel,” said MK Danny Danon yesterday and added: “The Middle East is not a Hollywood movie.” He said, “Netanyahu’s capitulation to American pressure on the subject of construction in Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria will lead to further demands to make concessions, without our receiving anything in return from the Palestinian side.”

MK Ophir Akunis, a former Netanyahu adviser, also said that he would oppose any agreement from the meeting on a construction freeze.

“There will be no construction freeze in Judea and Samaria and we won’t stop the lives of the Israelis who live in the settlements,” he said.

Along with the talk, preparations began yesterday to oppose a settlement construction freeze. MK Tzippi Hotovely convened the top leaders of Judea and Samaria for a meeting described as “initial preparation to counter the messages emerging from the prime minister’s trip to Europe.”

Palestinian Judge: Jews Have No History In Jerusalem

Khaled Abu Toameh, Arab Affairs correspondent for The Jerusalem Post, reported that the Palestinian Authority’s chief Islamic judge, Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, has formally announced that that there was no evidence to back up claims that Jews had ever lived in Jerusalem or that the Temple ever existed.Tamimi claimed that Israeli archeologists have “admitted” that Jerusalem was never inhabited by Jews. Tamimi’s statement came in response to statements made earlier this week by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, who said that Jerusalem “is not a settlement,” and that “the Jews built it 3,000 years ago.”

“Netanyahu’s claims are baseless and untrue,” said Tamimi, the highest religious authority in the Palestinian Authority. “Jerusalem is an Arab and Islamic city and it always has been so.”

Tamimi claimed that all excavation work conducted by Israel after 1967 has “failed to prove that Jews had a history or presence in Jerusalem or that their ostensible temple had ever existed.”

He condemned Netanyahu and “all Jewish rabbis and extremist organizations” as liars because of their assertion that Jerusalem was a Jewish city. Tamimi accused Israel of distorting the facts and forging history “with the aim of erasing the Arab and Islamic character of Jerusalem.” He also accused Israel of launching an “ethnic cleansing” campaign to squeeze Arabs out of the city.

“By desecrating its holy sites, expelling its Arab residents and demolishing their homes and confiscating their lands and building settlements in Jerusalem, Israel is seeking, through the use of weapons, to turn it into a Jewish city,” he said. “This is a flagrant violation of all religious, legal, moral and human values.”

In another development, Hamas on Wednesday rejected the political platform of the Palestinian Authority’s Prime Minister, Salaam Fayad.The platform, which was published on Tuesday, pledges that the Fayad government would work toward establishing a de facto Palestinian state within two years even if no agreement was reached with Israel. The platformtalks about peaceful resistance against Israeli “occupation.” The two Islamic groups said in response that the only way to establish a state was through “armed struggle.” They said that Fayad’s plan was unrealistic and unclear, adding that it would be impossible to establish a state “under occupation.”

Israeli Minister Of Education: Unfreeze School Construction

Jerusalem, Israel – Current discussions about a freeze on expansion of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria have direct bearing on the future of the school system in these communities.Overcrowding in Judea and Samaria school classes is particularly problematic, and pupils often study in classes with leaking roofs. The Israel Education Ministry has granted permission to construct additional education facilities there, but due to the Israel Defense Ministry’s building freeze, construction has been prevented.

Israel Education Minister Gidon Saar recently demanded of Defense Minister Ehud Barak that he unfreeze the construction of those kindergartens and classrooms that are recognized by the Education Ministry in Samaria. Residents in Samaria are threatening to put the schools on strike next week. In a letter sent by Samaria Regional Council Chairman Gershon Mesika to the Knesset Education and Culture Committee, Mr. Mesika argues that the children are being used “as hostages of the policy of drying out the Jewish settlements in Samaria.”

The director of education in the council, Yohai Damari, said that the freeze was a political act harmful to the children.

“Thousands of students are learning in trailers, detached from their pedagogical environment,” Mr. Damari said.

According to Mr. Damari, the Israel Education Ministry has granted approval for 24 construction projects of school and kindergarten classes and even allocated funds for these after deeming them essential.

“Defense Minister Ehud Barak is discriminating against the children of Samaria because of a political agenda,” said Knesset Parliament Education and Culture Committee Chairman Zvulun Orlev. “As a result, many children are not being provided with a decent learning environment.”

According to Mr. Orlev, the children study in crowded classrooms that do not meet regulations, and often, due to scarcity of schools near their homes, are forced to take transportation that puts their lives in danger to study.

“There are in Samaria certain education facilities where conditions are worse than in refugee camps,” added Mr. Orlev. “This is an intolerable situation that cannot be allowed to continue.”

The Israel Defense Ministry issued a response saying that Mr. Saar’s complaint is “being examined by the professional officials in the Defense Ministry.”

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

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

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

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

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?”

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

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.