Six clichés you are likely to hear constantly in the coming days, and why they’re false
Yigal Walt
1) “Israel’s response in Gaza is disproportionate”
Since when is war a mathematical equation? The basic objective of any warring party is to inflict maximal damage on the enemy while minimizing its own casualties. Was there anything proportional about the US war in Iraq? Or about Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait for that matter? Or about Russia’s recent war against Georgia? Israel is doing exactly what any other country has done in the past. This is how war works.
Would a British citizen complain that “too few” British soldiers are being killed in Iraq? Probably not.
And on a more elementary note: Palestinian military inferiority is not an indication of moral superiority. Palestinian insistence on resorting to violence despite this military weakness is an indication of poor judgment perhaps – yet it is by no means an indication of moral virtue. Being militarily weak does not make the Palestinians right.
2) “But Qassams don’t kill”
Actually, Qassams do kill. Not too often, perhaps, but dozens of Israelis were killed and wounded by rocket fire in recent years. Moreover, at this time the Palestinians are firing long-range Grad rockets with even greater explosive power. Such rockets killed 2 Israelis Monday.
Yet beyond the casualty figures, the psychological damage caused as result of living under an ongoing rocket threat is immeasurable. Would anyone in the West agree to have their family live under constant rocket attacks and be regularly woken up by sirens in the middle of the night? Would anyone living under such conditions appreciate being told that “these rockets don’t kill?” Probably not.
3) “It’s all because of Israel’s siege. Israel should allow aid into Gaza.”
Israel has allowed goods into Gaza regularly throughout the “siege”. Palestinians have been able to complement these deliveries with supplies smuggled through hundreds of tunnels (of course, they would likely be able to bring in even more food had they not used the tunnels to smuggle in missiles.).
The day before operation “Cast Lead” got underway, Israel allowed dozens of trucks carrying aid to enter the Strip. On Tuesday, another 100 trucks – double the normal number –are expected to enter Gaza after Defense Minister Barak approved the move.
In short, Israel is allowing aid into the Strip (but guess who has kept Gaza crossings mostly closed thus far? That’s right, Egypt.)
4) “Why didn’t Israel just agree to renew the Gaza truce?”
First, what truce? Terror groups continued to fire rockets throughout the lull, even if somewhat infrequently, and even if the world didn’t seem to care too much. Nonetheless, Israel clearly declared that it is interested in extending the truce. Our top officials made it clear time and again.
Yet Hamas leaders clearly declared that the truce has ended on December 19th, and proceeded to bombard southern Israeli communities with dozens of rockets daily. In short, it is no wonder that even the Egyptians are blaming Hamas this time.
5) “But Hamas was elected democratically – why can’t Israel accept it?”
Although Hamas won the Palestinian elections, it took Gaza by force, in the process hurling rival Fatah members down to their death from high-rises and shooting others in the knees with the declared aim of maiming them. Some democracy.
In any case, Israel in fact “recognizes,” de facto, Hamas’ rule in Gaza, which is precisely why it is justified in attacking the Hamas-ruled Strip, recognizing that it is indeed being governed by a terror entity. Israel did not launch the operation because Hamas is in power there – rather, it did so because Hamas is a terrorist organization that has deliberately targeted civilians with thousands of rockets over the past 8 years.
6) “Israel is targeting civilians”
You mean to say that “one of the most powerful armies in the world” has been bombing Gaza for days, deploying massive air power, dropping hundreds of bombs, and ultimately killing a grand total of 50 civilians or so in the “most crowded place on earth?”
There are two options here: A) The Israeli army is not targeting civilians, or B) Israeli pilots suck. We tend to go with option A.
Indeed, Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties, by deploying precise ammunition and specialized techniques. In fact, nobody in the world does this better than the Jewish State.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3647296,00.html
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Monday, December 29, 2008
THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY AND EGYPT BLAME HAMAS
During the press conference broadcast on Egyptian television yesterday, Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Aboul Gheit harshly criticized Hamas, and placed responsibility for the current situation on it. Gheit also blamed Hamas for not allowing wounded persons from Gaza to seek treatment in Egypt, saying Hamas were more interested in having the injured serve as pawns in their propaganda war on Western TV networks rather than allowing them to be treated. "The wounded are barred from crossing" he said, blaming "those who control Gaza. We are waiting for the wounded to cross."
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said yesterday that Hamas could have avoided the Israeli attacks on Gaza. "We talked to Hamas and we told them 'please, we ask you, do not end the truce. Let the truce continue and not stop' so that we could have avoided what happened," he said. Reuters reported these statements widely and yet certain international media such as the BBC have not reported them.
Egypt and other Arab leaders understand that Hamas, like Hizbullah, is increasingly allied with Iran and aims to foment regional instability and Islamic revolution. The harder Hamas is hit the greater the chances for Israeli-Palestinian peace. If the rockets don't stop from Gaza, almost no one in Israel will be prepared to relinquish territory from the West Bank that would merely then become rocket launching sites to fire at Israel.
Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah said yesterday that they were prepared to assume control over the Gaza Strip if Israel succeeds in overthrowing the Hamas government. A top PA official said: "We believe the people there are fed up with Hamas and want to see a new government."
www.tomgrossmedia.com
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said yesterday that Hamas could have avoided the Israeli attacks on Gaza. "We talked to Hamas and we told them 'please, we ask you, do not end the truce. Let the truce continue and not stop' so that we could have avoided what happened," he said. Reuters reported these statements widely and yet certain international media such as the BBC have not reported them.
Egypt and other Arab leaders understand that Hamas, like Hizbullah, is increasingly allied with Iran and aims to foment regional instability and Islamic revolution. The harder Hamas is hit the greater the chances for Israeli-Palestinian peace. If the rockets don't stop from Gaza, almost no one in Israel will be prepared to relinquish territory from the West Bank that would merely then become rocket launching sites to fire at Israel.
Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah said yesterday that they were prepared to assume control over the Gaza Strip if Israel succeeds in overthrowing the Hamas government. A top PA official said: "We believe the people there are fed up with Hamas and want to see a new government."
www.tomgrossmedia.com
Thursday, December 25, 2008
NETHERLANDS THREATENS BOYCOTT OF UN ANTI-RACISM CONFERENCE
This is a follow-up to the item about Canada and Israel pulling out of next
year's charade of a UN anti-racism conference in the dispatch "Jimmy Carter
pleads with Hizbullah to meet him, but Hizbullah refuse" (Dec. 12, 2008)
www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000993.html
The Netherlands became the latest country to say that it will boycott the
conference if anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements are not scrapped from
draft texts currently being circulated.
Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen told Dutch radio he would not "be
involved in anti-Semitism" at the meeting planned for April in Geneva. Israel
and Canada have already withdrawn from the forum, which is a follow-up to the
2001 UN anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa, which degenerated into
an anti-Semitic debacle. The United States has protested against the
conference, but has not yet decided if it will attend.
In 2001, then Secretary of State Colin Powell withdrew the U.S. delegation,
telling the UN organizers that you don't combat racism by singling out "only
one country in the world - Israel - for endless censure and abuse."
year's charade of a UN anti-racism conference in the dispatch "Jimmy Carter
pleads with Hizbullah to meet him, but Hizbullah refuse" (Dec. 12, 2008)
www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdispatches/archives/000993.html
The Netherlands became the latest country to say that it will boycott the
conference if anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements are not scrapped from
draft texts currently being circulated.
Dutch foreign minister Maxime Verhagen told Dutch radio he would not "be
involved in anti-Semitism" at the meeting planned for April in Geneva. Israel
and Canada have already withdrawn from the forum, which is a follow-up to the
2001 UN anti-racism conference in Durban, South Africa, which degenerated into
an anti-Semitic debacle. The United States has protested against the
conference, but has not yet decided if it will attend.
In 2001, then Secretary of State Colin Powell withdrew the U.S. delegation,
telling the UN organizers that you don't combat racism by singling out "only
one country in the world - Israel - for endless censure and abuse."
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
PROPERTY PURCHASE IN THE ‘OCCUPIED TERRITORIES”
The FCO is reportedly adding to the ‘travel advice’ section of its website a warning to prospective purchasers of property in the ‘Occupied Territories’ that a future peace deal could have consequences for the property.
1. The UK government has no legal basis for its oft-repeated assertion that the settlements are “illegal under international law”. The Geneva Convention cannot apply to most of the ‘Occupied Territories’ because they have never been recognised as sovereign territory. For example as part of Mandatory Palestine, Judea and Samaria never belonged to any sovereign state but were occupied and administered illegally by Jordan and Egypt between 1948 and 1967, after the Arab war of aggression against Israel in 1948. And East Jerusalem was captured by Jordan in the War of 1948.
Further, the Geneva Convention was designed to prohibit the forcible transfer of population into occupied territories, such as was practised by the Nazis and USSR before and during World War Two. But the Israeli settlers in the West Bank went there voluntarily. And as a country that was attacked, Israel is entirely within its legal rights to retain territory that continues to be used as a base for attacks against it.
As the late Eugene Rostow (the former US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs who played a leading role in drafting Resolution 242) repeatedly said, far from being illegally settled in the disputed territories, the Jews have every right to be there under international law.
2. The FCO’s reported new advice is also very surprising after the recent close co-operation with the UK government shown by President Peres (here a few weeks ago) and Prime Minister Olmert (here last week), for example in negotiations about new investment in Judea and Samaria, which also involved Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad (also here last week).
3. The ZF is concerned that by raising unrealistic expectations, much of the current rhetoric from the UK government (for example, about “illegality” and the reported warning to prospective purchasers of property) can only encourage terrorism. Indeed in other respects the government’s language is much more careful. For example, it always refers to “withdrawal from settlements” rather than “withdrawal from all settlements” or “withdrawal from the settlements”. This is a correct reflection of the position adopted by most moderate Palestinians who accept that land swaps will be part of any final negotiations.
4. Israel has proved that it wants peace, by negotiating peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. It has proved that it is prepared to give up land, by withdrawing from Gaza. In the middle of the Annapolis peace process, the ZF believes that it is crucial that the UK government supports the voices of moderation - and not those of extremism.
Queries to:
Jonathan Hoffman
(Vice Chairman ZF)
07947 828 292
office@zionist.org.uk
1. The UK government has no legal basis for its oft-repeated assertion that the settlements are “illegal under international law”. The Geneva Convention cannot apply to most of the ‘Occupied Territories’ because they have never been recognised as sovereign territory. For example as part of Mandatory Palestine, Judea and Samaria never belonged to any sovereign state but were occupied and administered illegally by Jordan and Egypt between 1948 and 1967, after the Arab war of aggression against Israel in 1948. And East Jerusalem was captured by Jordan in the War of 1948.
Further, the Geneva Convention was designed to prohibit the forcible transfer of population into occupied territories, such as was practised by the Nazis and USSR before and during World War Two. But the Israeli settlers in the West Bank went there voluntarily. And as a country that was attacked, Israel is entirely within its legal rights to retain territory that continues to be used as a base for attacks against it.
As the late Eugene Rostow (the former US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs who played a leading role in drafting Resolution 242) repeatedly said, far from being illegally settled in the disputed territories, the Jews have every right to be there under international law.
2. The FCO’s reported new advice is also very surprising after the recent close co-operation with the UK government shown by President Peres (here a few weeks ago) and Prime Minister Olmert (here last week), for example in negotiations about new investment in Judea and Samaria, which also involved Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad (also here last week).
3. The ZF is concerned that by raising unrealistic expectations, much of the current rhetoric from the UK government (for example, about “illegality” and the reported warning to prospective purchasers of property) can only encourage terrorism. Indeed in other respects the government’s language is much more careful. For example, it always refers to “withdrawal from settlements” rather than “withdrawal from all settlements” or “withdrawal from the settlements”. This is a correct reflection of the position adopted by most moderate Palestinians who accept that land swaps will be part of any final negotiations.
4. Israel has proved that it wants peace, by negotiating peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. It has proved that it is prepared to give up land, by withdrawing from Gaza. In the middle of the Annapolis peace process, the ZF believes that it is crucial that the UK government supports the voices of moderation - and not those of extremism.
Queries to:
Jonathan Hoffman
(Vice Chairman ZF)
07947 828 292
office@zionist.org.uk
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
A TASTE OF ISRAEL: ZIONIST FEDERATION HOSTS FIRST ISRAELI STREET MARKET IN THE UK– BRINGING OVER DOZENS OF ISRAELI TRADERS
The ZF organized a three-day outdoor Israeli Market which operated on the High Road of Temple Fortune. The Market hosted 40 exhibitors displaying unique and interesting Israeli products and thousands of people attended from both the jewish and wider community
This type of outdoor fair has been operated successfully many times in this location but none of the markets have ever hosted Israeli exhibitors.
The Zionist Federation organized the first ever Israeli fair and we called it “ A TASTE OF ISRAEL”.
The aim was to bring Israeli products to the British public. The Exhibitors had stands to display their goods and sell them to the public.
The Zionist Federation is always keen to help Israeli trade - we also encouraged the stallholders to set up meetings with local shops and establish trace for the future.
Alan Aziz, Director of the Zionist Federation stated: “this was a very positive step to showcase the best of Israeli products in time for Chankukah and Christmas – we are delighted with the results. To have the British public buying their Xmas presents from Israel and chatting to the exhibitors about what life in Israel is really like was a great thing to see and I think that the best response to the idiots who call for boycotts of Israel is to celebrate Israeli art and culture at every available opportunity and the ZF is always proud to do our bit”.
Additionally, this was an ideal opportunity for the general public to experience some of Israel’s unique and interesting artwork, wines, jewellery and food that they may not have otherwise been able to experience.
Some of the things that were on sale at the Street Market:
Ahava Dead Sea products
Elsa's Story - Gourmet Biscuits, beautifullly presented, based on a secret recipe.
Gabrieli - Manufacturers of the top selling hand woven prayer shawls in Israel.
Judaica, including beautifully handmade menorahs and innovatively designed mezuzas
Hats - one off designs, stiched by hand.
Various Jewellery stands selling glass, silver and jewellery made out of buttons.
Authentic Bedouin Tent with Baklava and Turkish coffee.
Beautiful dolls made out of beads
Photos of Israeli sights and landmarks.
Hot Falafel
Hand painted wooden tea and coffee boxes.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
WILL ISRAEL EVER ACHIEVE PEACE AND SECURITY? WITH GIL HOFFMAN
Gil Hoffman spoke about the four elections which are important to
Israel: the US Presidential election, the Israel election (10 February),
the Iranian election in June 2009 and the Palestinian Authority
elections (January 9, though they will almost certainly be
cancelled). Opinion in Israel about Obama had swung round from
opposition to support, helped by the great efforts he had made to reach out to Israelis - he even had a blog in Ivrit. Now the candidates for the Israeli Premiership are each trying to convince the electorate that they are best placed to work with Obama. The polls suggest Netanyahu will win by 5-10 seats (of 120) but they are irrelevant. What matters is what’s in the news in the two weeks before the vote. Political scandal will help Tsipi Livni, seen as a clean pair of hands; security concerns will help Netanyahu; so will economic concerns as he is seen as experienced even though his economic policies when in office were very divisive. Little will help Ehud Barak’s Labour Party which is trailing.Hoffman said that he has been called on TV “the greatest optimist in Israel”. Finally he said he had been asked what we could do here to help Israel. He said it’s ‘EASY’ - “Education, Advocacy, Solidarity and Your Prayers.”
ZF RECEPTION AT ITALIAN EMBASSY
ZF RECEPTION AT ITALIAN EMBASSY
The Ambassador, HE Giancarlo Aragona, welcomed us to the Residence. He said how delighted he was that relations between
Italy and Israel are now so good, epitomised by the excellent meetings that the Italian President Giorgio Napolitano had had on
his three day visit to Israel this week. (Note also the wonderful speech made by Fraco Frattini, the Italian Commissionerand
Vice-President of the European Commission, at the Herzliya Conference in January:
Friday, December 5, 2008
ISRAEL CONNECT EUROPEAN YOUNG LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE - AMSTERDAM 28TH-30TH NOVEMBER
Run by the Zionist Federation
Supported by Department for Zionist Activities and Hagshama Department
Also Supported by The Jewish Agency
This weekend saw an extremely successful Israel Connect European Young Leadership Conference take place in Amsterdam. Over 50 participants, from fifteen different countries came together to network, learn and take different ideas back to their communities.
We had three key note speakers – all excellent. Hagai, a UK-based academic, consultant / analysis and commentator, specializing in the Middle East and related affairs, geo-strategic issues, terrorism and the modern Far-right, gave a detailed Israel Analysis focusing on what the important American Elections are going to mean for Israel. In his second session he then focused on the Israeli Elections, and what each possibility would mean for Israel. His third and final session was an extremely interesting skills session, advising how best to deal with the media, and how to in fact position yourself to get acknowledged, and thus influence, the media.
Efraim Zuroff, an Israeli historian of American origin, who has played an important role in the efforts to bring Nazi war criminals to justice during the past 28 years, kept everyone on the edge of their seats with fascinating stories about important topics. More importantly he emphasized the need for such actions which gave us all something to think about.
Dr. Emanuele Ottolenghi, Director of the American Jewish Committee's Transatlantic Institute in Brussels, a frequent commentator on Israeli domestic politics, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Europe’s Middle East policy, discussed the topic of Irans Nuclear File, along with sharing with us what it means for our countries, and what our counties can do to influence the situation.
Yoav Magid, a professional debating trainer, led an exciting and worthwhile session on how to put your arguments across effectively – giving everyone a skill they can use in their every day lives, as well as for Israel Advocacy.
During Saturday we had an extremely interested interactive networking session. Here everyone went round and gave a brief introduction about themselves: Name, where they are from, their professional job, what they do in the community for Israel, what skills they have and that they can offer to people, and what they need help with from others. It was amazing to see how well matched peoples needs and skills were, and immediately people were discussing ideas for their communities. Additionally, it was interesting watching the heads of UJS in three different countries talking about how they all operate and what advice they can offer each other.
Saturday night showed a new initiative work very well. We invited local Jewish Young Professionals from Amsterdam to join the conference for one of Hagai’s sessions (about the Israeli elections), and then join us for dinner and going out. This created the opportunity for those that may not otherwise have the opportunity to hear such speakers interact within the session. This saw over 70 people at the lecture for Saturday night, after which we all had dinner and a few drinks where lots of email addresses and numbers where exchanged.
Feedback showed it was a very successful weekend, with everyone taking from each session. Many phone numbers and email addresses were swapped at the weekend, with promises of further contact to be made to help each other with individual projects.
We look forward to the next conferences:
27th February – 1st March 2009: Copenhagen
8th – 10th May: Budapest
3rd – 7th June: Israel
4th – 6th September: London
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
IF THIS ISN'T TERRORISM, WHAT IS?
Last week in Mumbai we witnessed as clear a case of carefully planned mass
terrorism as we are ever likely to see.
The seven-venue atrocity was coordinated in a highly sophisticated way.
The terrorists used BlackBerrys to stay in touch with each other during
their three-and-half-day rampage, outwitting the authorities by monitoring
international reaction to the attacks on British, Urdu and Arabic Web
sites. It was a meticulously organized operation aimed exclusively at
civilian targets: two hospitals, a train station, two hotels, a leading
tourist restaurant and a Jewish center.
Reuters
Murder in Mumbai: The work of 'practitioners.'
There was nothing remotely random about it. This was no hostage standoff.
The terrorists didn't want to negotiate. They wanted to murder as many
Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists and other "infidels" as they could, and
in as spectacular a manner as possible. In the Jewish center, some of the
female victims even appear to have been tortured before being killed.
So why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the
perpetrators terrorists? Why did Jon Snow, one of Britain's most respected
TV journalists, use the word "practitioners" when referring to the Mumbai
terrorists? Was he perhaps confusing them with doctors?
Why did Britain's highly regarded Channel 4 News state that the
"militants" showed a "wanton disregard for race or creed" when exactly the
opposite was true: Targets and victims were very carefully selected. Why
did the "experts" invited to discuss the Mumbai attacks in one show on the
state-funded Radio France Internationale, the voice of France around the
world, harp on about Baruch Goldstein (who carried out the Hebron
shootings in 1994), virtually the sole case of a Jewish terrorist in
living memory?
Unfortunately in recent years we have become used to leftist media burying
their heads in the sand about the threat that Islamic fundamentalism
poses, in much the same way as they once refused to report accurately on
communist atrocities. But now even conservative media may be doing it too.
What is the motivation of journalists in trying to mangle language -- such
as going out of their way to refer to terrorists as "militants," as one
Mumbai story on yesterday's Times of London Web site seemed to do? Do they
somehow wish to express sympathy for these murderers, or perhaps make
their crimes seem almost acceptable? How are we going to effectively
confront terrorists when we can't even identify them as such?
But then the terrorists in Mumbai didn't need to make any public
announcements. They knew that many deluded Western journalists and
academics will do that job for them, explaining that the West is to blame,
especially the Zionists.
We have started seeing this already on the BBC -- the world's largest TV
and radio network, which broadcasts in dozens of different languages
around the world and is lavishly funded by the British taxpayer.
You would be hard pressed to find any talk of radical Islam on the BBC in
recent days, or mention of the fact that Islamists think India should be a
Muslim country. Instead the BBC continues to try to persuade its massive
global audience that "it is a local Indian problem," that "the
subcontinent has a history of unrest," and so on.
Even the Pakistani angle has been presented as some kind of local
Pakistan-India dispute rather than as a problem with radical Islam -- this
despite the fact that according to numerous reports the Mumbai terrorists
themselves were screaming "Allah Akbar" (Allah is the Greatest) as they
murdered "the Jews and the infidels" in line with bin Ladenist ideology.
For some time, many have argued that an element of anti-Semitism has
distorted the way the BBC covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But
now, following the Mumbai events, we can perhaps see that anti-Semitism
may even be at work in the way the BBC covers foreign news in general. For
much of the Mumbai siege, the BBC went out of its way to avoid reporting
that the Jewish community center was one of the seven targets. At one
point viewers were told that "an office building" had been targeted
(referring to the Jewish center as such).
Then on Friday morning, TV pictures of Indian commandos storming the
besieged Jewish center were broadcast by networks around the world.
Heavily armed commandos, their faces covered by balaclavas, rappelled from
helicopters onto the roof while Indian sharpshooters in buildings opposite
opened fire and a helicopter circled overhead. Huge crowds of onlookers
could be seen looking aghast as they watched from nearby streets. While
Sky News and other channels were gripped by these dramatic pictures, BBC
World was not, almost pretending there was no siege at the Jewish center
-- even though by then it was one of only two sites that remained under
attack in Mumbai. Had the terrorists chosen to besiege a church or mosque
instead, can you imagine the BBC ignoring it this way?
Meanwhile -- perhaps even more disgracefully -- a New York Times report on
the last day of the siege stated: "It is not known if the Jewish center
was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene."
Has the New York Times learned anything since the Holocaust, when, even
after the war ended in the spring of 1945, the paper infamously refused to
report that the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and so on killed in
the camps had been Jews, and killed as Jews?
Dozens of eyewitness accounts by local Indians said the gunmen shouted
"Allah Akbar" from the Jewish center. It is housed in a nondescript block
and is not obviously marked from the outside as a Jewish center. It is the
one Jewish building in a densely crowded city of millions. And the Times,
the self-proclaimed paper of record, wants to let readers think it might
have been an accidental target?
Even the Times's British equivalent, the Guardian, began its news story:
"The inclusion of the headquarters of an ultra-orthodox Jewish group was
obviously intended to send its own message." Does the New York Times think
that the seeking out and murder by Muslim terrorists of the only New York
rabbi in Mumbai and his wife was "an accidental target"?
There was nothing accidental about any of the seven sites that the
terrorists attacked. And it was no accident that Mumbai was hit. It is the
most multireligious city in India -- with Hindus, Muslims, Christians,
Parsees and Jews living in relative harmony.
Mr. Gross is a former Middle East correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.
terrorism as we are ever likely to see.
The seven-venue atrocity was coordinated in a highly sophisticated way.
The terrorists used BlackBerrys to stay in touch with each other during
their three-and-half-day rampage, outwitting the authorities by monitoring
international reaction to the attacks on British, Urdu and Arabic Web
sites. It was a meticulously organized operation aimed exclusively at
civilian targets: two hospitals, a train station, two hotels, a leading
tourist restaurant and a Jewish center.
Reuters
Murder in Mumbai: The work of 'practitioners.'
There was nothing remotely random about it. This was no hostage standoff.
The terrorists didn't want to negotiate. They wanted to murder as many
Hindus, Christians, Jews, atheists and other "infidels" as they could, and
in as spectacular a manner as possible. In the Jewish center, some of the
female victims even appear to have been tortured before being killed.
So why are so many prominent Western media reluctant to call the
perpetrators terrorists? Why did Jon Snow, one of Britain's most respected
TV journalists, use the word "practitioners" when referring to the Mumbai
terrorists? Was he perhaps confusing them with doctors?
Why did Britain's highly regarded Channel 4 News state that the
"militants" showed a "wanton disregard for race or creed" when exactly the
opposite was true: Targets and victims were very carefully selected. Why
did the "experts" invited to discuss the Mumbai attacks in one show on the
state-funded Radio France Internationale, the voice of France around the
world, harp on about Baruch Goldstein (who carried out the Hebron
shootings in 1994), virtually the sole case of a Jewish terrorist in
living memory?
Unfortunately in recent years we have become used to leftist media burying
their heads in the sand about the threat that Islamic fundamentalism
poses, in much the same way as they once refused to report accurately on
communist atrocities. But now even conservative media may be doing it too.
What is the motivation of journalists in trying to mangle language -- such
as going out of their way to refer to terrorists as "militants," as one
Mumbai story on yesterday's Times of London Web site seemed to do? Do they
somehow wish to express sympathy for these murderers, or perhaps make
their crimes seem almost acceptable? How are we going to effectively
confront terrorists when we can't even identify them as such?
But then the terrorists in Mumbai didn't need to make any public
announcements. They knew that many deluded Western journalists and
academics will do that job for them, explaining that the West is to blame,
especially the Zionists.
We have started seeing this already on the BBC -- the world's largest TV
and radio network, which broadcasts in dozens of different languages
around the world and is lavishly funded by the British taxpayer.
You would be hard pressed to find any talk of radical Islam on the BBC in
recent days, or mention of the fact that Islamists think India should be a
Muslim country. Instead the BBC continues to try to persuade its massive
global audience that "it is a local Indian problem," that "the
subcontinent has a history of unrest," and so on.
Even the Pakistani angle has been presented as some kind of local
Pakistan-India dispute rather than as a problem with radical Islam -- this
despite the fact that according to numerous reports the Mumbai terrorists
themselves were screaming "Allah Akbar" (Allah is the Greatest) as they
murdered "the Jews and the infidels" in line with bin Ladenist ideology.
For some time, many have argued that an element of anti-Semitism has
distorted the way the BBC covers the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But
now, following the Mumbai events, we can perhaps see that anti-Semitism
may even be at work in the way the BBC covers foreign news in general. For
much of the Mumbai siege, the BBC went out of its way to avoid reporting
that the Jewish community center was one of the seven targets. At one
point viewers were told that "an office building" had been targeted
(referring to the Jewish center as such).
Then on Friday morning, TV pictures of Indian commandos storming the
besieged Jewish center were broadcast by networks around the world.
Heavily armed commandos, their faces covered by balaclavas, rappelled from
helicopters onto the roof while Indian sharpshooters in buildings opposite
opened fire and a helicopter circled overhead. Huge crowds of onlookers
could be seen looking aghast as they watched from nearby streets. While
Sky News and other channels were gripped by these dramatic pictures, BBC
World was not, almost pretending there was no siege at the Jewish center
-- even though by then it was one of only two sites that remained under
attack in Mumbai. Had the terrorists chosen to besiege a church or mosque
instead, can you imagine the BBC ignoring it this way?
Meanwhile -- perhaps even more disgracefully -- a New York Times report on
the last day of the siege stated: "It is not known if the Jewish center
was strategically chosen, or if it was an accidental hostage scene."
Has the New York Times learned anything since the Holocaust, when, even
after the war ended in the spring of 1945, the paper infamously refused to
report that the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Germans and so on killed in
the camps had been Jews, and killed as Jews?
Dozens of eyewitness accounts by local Indians said the gunmen shouted
"Allah Akbar" from the Jewish center. It is housed in a nondescript block
and is not obviously marked from the outside as a Jewish center. It is the
one Jewish building in a densely crowded city of millions. And the Times,
the self-proclaimed paper of record, wants to let readers think it might
have been an accidental target?
Even the Times's British equivalent, the Guardian, began its news story:
"The inclusion of the headquarters of an ultra-orthodox Jewish group was
obviously intended to send its own message." Does the New York Times think
that the seeking out and murder by Muslim terrorists of the only New York
rabbi in Mumbai and his wife was "an accidental target"?
There was nothing accidental about any of the seven sites that the
terrorists attacked. And it was no accident that Mumbai was hit. It is the
most multireligious city in India -- with Hindus, Muslims, Christians,
Parsees and Jews living in relative harmony.
Mr. Gross is a former Middle East correspondent for the Sunday Telegraph.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
AN OPEN LETTER FROM PRESIDENT SHIMON PERES TO PRIME MINISTER MANMOHAN SINGH OF INDIA
Relayed to the world by Steven Plaut
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
My heartfelt sympathies to you and the Indian people for the Bombay/Mumbai unrest and protests against occupation this week.
But we must really speak about how to deal with these forms of activism in India, perpetrated by these misunderstood Islamic militants.
Mister Prime Minister, I have a great deal of experience in dealing successfully with terrorism and violence, and this is why I wish to come to your rescue.
The first thing you must realize is that one can only make peace with one's enemies. With one's friends there is no need to make peace. There is no military solution to the problems of terrorism, and this is why you must seek a diplomatic solution. "No Justice, No Peace?" as they say. You must invite the leaders of this Islamic organization responsible for the bloodshed in Mumbai to New Delhi to meet with you and perhaps tour the Taj Mahal together. You must learn to feel their pain and understand their needs.
But most importantly, you must end the illegal occupation of territory that does not belong to you! First, you must withdraw from Kashmir and Jammu and remove all the Hindu settlers there. But that is just a beginning. Large sections of West Bengal, Assam, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat and Hyderabad contain local Moslem majorities. Lakshadweep is 95% Moslem. You cannot continue to coerce these people into living as demographic minorities. The solution is to create two states for two peoples, inside India itself. Indian Moslems are entitled to self-determination and national sovereignty!
You must bear in mind that India was conquered by the Moghuls and that makes all of India the homeland of Moslems. The fact that India was partitioned with Pakistan and Bengladesh granted independence does not solve anything. What about the right of return for Punjabi Moslem refugees and other Moslems? These demand that they be allowed to exercise their sovereign rights inside India in the lands of their forefathers and have their one-time homes restored to them!
Then there is the matter of the status of New Delhi. It was a Moslem city for centuries, and served as the Moghul capital. Your selfish insistence that New Delhi remain Indian is racist. You must end the apartheid regime inside Delhi and turn it into the shared capital of two states, or maybe three. I have no doubt Pakistan will applaud your efforts.
You must meet all the demands of the militants in Mumbai in full. In addition, you must offer them Internet web services and five-star tourist hotels in exchange for their promising to abandon violence. After all, that is how we turned Yasser Arafat into a peace partner. You see, military force serves no role any more in the post-modern universe. It is passe. It is archaic. Today, consumer interests dominate the world, and the Islamist activists of the earth will surely make peace in exchange for some profits from participating in global trade.
The attacks on Mumbai came because you have been insufficiently sensitive to the needs of the Moslem Other. You took their rhetoric at face value, whereas we in Israel know that all this rhetoric is empty and in fact these people truly want peace. Sure, they praise Hitler and celebrate genocidal atrocities, but what is it that they really want?
You must negotiate with them even while under attack. Conditioning negotiations on an end to violence is a no-win situation. It will simply extend the bloodshed! You must put your own house in order, and eliminate inequality and injustice inside India, and then the terrorists will no longer target you.
The key is to build a New Middle Asia, one in which everyone is so busy with the important matters of developing tourism, infrastructure investments and high-technology that they will have no time to pursue violence.
Moreover, if you strike at the perpetrators of the Mumbai protests and their supporters, you will simply expand and enlarge the cycle of violence. Your retaliation bombs will no doubt injure some innocent children and civilians alongside any terrorist activists you strike. That will enrage the rest of the world and make the victims seek revenge. Your violence against these militants and activists will cause them to hate the Hindus and it will drive the separatists to embrace terrorism. Moreover, if you refuse to negotiate with the Moslem separatists, then their leaders will be toppled and a really violent extremist group will take charge. In that case, you will have lost the window of opportunity to make peace.
Begin by declaring a unilateral ceasefire! Mister Prime Minister, blessed is the peacemaker. Remember Mahatma Gandhi (but not Rehavam "Gandhi" Zeevi). The entire world will support you and congratulate you if you respond to these horrific attacks by disarming India and opening serious dialogue with the terror activists.
All we are saying is give peace a chance. Yitzhak Rabin would have approved. Yes, chaver, what you need is shalom, salaam, peace. You will be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in recognition. Do not allow yourself to be drawn down into the gutter of retaliation. Violence never achieves anything. History has no lessons. History is the dead past.
Follow my example! Provide the Bombay bombers with anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles so that they can battle against the true radicals and extremists. And they will do so with no ACLU or Supreme Court to restrain them!
Demonstrate your humanity by paying pensions to any widows and orphans of the terrorists who blew up the hotels.
Mister Prime Minister, my own peace policies have eliminated war, bloodshed and terror from the Middle East. We now have only peace partners. If you follow in my footsteps, you can achieve the same lofty goals.
Peacefully yours,
Shimon Peres, Peacemaker-at-Large
Dear Mr. Prime Minister,
My heartfelt sympathies to you and the Indian people for the Bombay/Mumbai unrest and protests against occupation this week.
But we must really speak about how to deal with these forms of activism in India, perpetrated by these misunderstood Islamic militants.
Mister Prime Minister, I have a great deal of experience in dealing successfully with terrorism and violence, and this is why I wish to come to your rescue.
The first thing you must realize is that one can only make peace with one's enemies. With one's friends there is no need to make peace. There is no military solution to the problems of terrorism, and this is why you must seek a diplomatic solution. "No Justice, No Peace?" as they say. You must invite the leaders of this Islamic organization responsible for the bloodshed in Mumbai to New Delhi to meet with you and perhaps tour the Taj Mahal together. You must learn to feel their pain and understand their needs.
But most importantly, you must end the illegal occupation of territory that does not belong to you! First, you must withdraw from Kashmir and Jammu and remove all the Hindu settlers there. But that is just a beginning. Large sections of West Bengal, Assam, Kerala, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Gujarat and Hyderabad contain local Moslem majorities. Lakshadweep is 95% Moslem. You cannot continue to coerce these people into living as demographic minorities. The solution is to create two states for two peoples, inside India itself. Indian Moslems are entitled to self-determination and national sovereignty!
You must bear in mind that India was conquered by the Moghuls and that makes all of India the homeland of Moslems. The fact that India was partitioned with Pakistan and Bengladesh granted independence does not solve anything. What about the right of return for Punjabi Moslem refugees and other Moslems? These demand that they be allowed to exercise their sovereign rights inside India in the lands of their forefathers and have their one-time homes restored to them!
Then there is the matter of the status of New Delhi. It was a Moslem city for centuries, and served as the Moghul capital. Your selfish insistence that New Delhi remain Indian is racist. You must end the apartheid regime inside Delhi and turn it into the shared capital of two states, or maybe three. I have no doubt Pakistan will applaud your efforts.
You must meet all the demands of the militants in Mumbai in full. In addition, you must offer them Internet web services and five-star tourist hotels in exchange for their promising to abandon violence. After all, that is how we turned Yasser Arafat into a peace partner. You see, military force serves no role any more in the post-modern universe. It is passe. It is archaic. Today, consumer interests dominate the world, and the Islamist activists of the earth will surely make peace in exchange for some profits from participating in global trade.
The attacks on Mumbai came because you have been insufficiently sensitive to the needs of the Moslem Other. You took their rhetoric at face value, whereas we in Israel know that all this rhetoric is empty and in fact these people truly want peace. Sure, they praise Hitler and celebrate genocidal atrocities, but what is it that they really want?
You must negotiate with them even while under attack. Conditioning negotiations on an end to violence is a no-win situation. It will simply extend the bloodshed! You must put your own house in order, and eliminate inequality and injustice inside India, and then the terrorists will no longer target you.
The key is to build a New Middle Asia, one in which everyone is so busy with the important matters of developing tourism, infrastructure investments and high-technology that they will have no time to pursue violence.
Moreover, if you strike at the perpetrators of the Mumbai protests and their supporters, you will simply expand and enlarge the cycle of violence. Your retaliation bombs will no doubt injure some innocent children and civilians alongside any terrorist activists you strike. That will enrage the rest of the world and make the victims seek revenge. Your violence against these militants and activists will cause them to hate the Hindus and it will drive the separatists to embrace terrorism. Moreover, if you refuse to negotiate with the Moslem separatists, then their leaders will be toppled and a really violent extremist group will take charge. In that case, you will have lost the window of opportunity to make peace.
Begin by declaring a unilateral ceasefire! Mister Prime Minister, blessed is the peacemaker. Remember Mahatma Gandhi (but not Rehavam "Gandhi" Zeevi). The entire world will support you and congratulate you if you respond to these horrific attacks by disarming India and opening serious dialogue with the terror activists.
All we are saying is give peace a chance. Yitzhak Rabin would have approved. Yes, chaver, what you need is shalom, salaam, peace. You will be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in recognition. Do not allow yourself to be drawn down into the gutter of retaliation. Violence never achieves anything. History has no lessons. History is the dead past.
Follow my example! Provide the Bombay bombers with anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles so that they can battle against the true radicals and extremists. And they will do so with no ACLU or Supreme Court to restrain them!
Demonstrate your humanity by paying pensions to any widows and orphans of the terrorists who blew up the hotels.
Mister Prime Minister, my own peace policies have eliminated war, bloodshed and terror from the Middle East. We now have only peace partners. If you follow in my footsteps, you can achieve the same lofty goals.
Peacefully yours,
Shimon Peres, Peacemaker-at-Large
'LIGHTNING ROD FOR ANTI-SEMITES'
The row over the 'alternative lessons and carols' at St James' Piccadilly last Wednesday is escalating as the implications begin to sink in of a part of the established Church of England allowing itself to be used for such abhorrent anti-Zionist propaganda. In one of the most important posts she has done for a while, Irene Lancaster draws together today some of the threads of why this was both significant and a shameful disgrace to Sir Christopher Wren's beautiful church and the wider Christian community, most of which must surely share her dismay. Jonathan Hoffman, vice-chairman of the Zionist Federation, and who demonstrated outside the event, said: 'These things are a lightning rod for anti-Semites. This was an event which offended 99.9 per cent of Jews and about 95 per cent of Christians, an event which should never have taken place. To take carols and doctor them in order to vilify Israel is really unacceptable.' He claimed the event was being touted outside St James' as a normal carol service. 'We were able to disabuse people and dissuaded about 10 people from going in.'
Irene wrote to Lambeth Palace about the service, and was told this by a member of the Archbishop of Canterbury's staff: 'This is not a matter for the Archbishop or the C of E nationally to comment as it so obviously is a piece of rather unpleasant publicity seeking by a collection of small groups who should not be encouraged by being given attention. My mother used to say of us when we were misbehaving: 'Don't take any notice, it only encourages them' . St James' is in the diocese of London and has a long idiosyncratic history. It is no more reflective of the views of the Church of England than Jews for boycotting Israel is reflective of the Jewish community.'
One fact used in defence of this event, as the organisers insist on describing it, even though calling it 'nine lessons and carols' is a direct mirror of the style of a carol service, is that it was organised by members of the Jewish community. Harry's Place has an interesting comment on the service, and on some of those members of Britain's Jewish community who are also anti-Zionist.
This is what Michael Gove says in The Times today:
'One thing that has sent me ballistic this week is the decision by St James's Piccadilly to host a special service in which the words of traditional carols have been rewritten to convey an anti-Israeli message. The service is part of a broader campaign to encourage the boycott of goods from Israel, much as we once boycotted goods from South Africa.
'Apart from pointing out that declining to buy things on the ground that they're made by Jewish people is not, historically, a good road to go down, I am staggered that people should equate a democracy struggling to preserve human rights in the face of terrorist assault with the apartheid regime. And I am speechless at a church's collaboration with this festival of anti-Semitism. So I shall use another's words and ask that they be forgiven, for clearly, they cannot know the enormity of what they do.'
Just a minor point of interest. The Rector of St James' has been inundated with complaints and is wisely thinking twice about whether he should hold the service again. Perhaps he should have thought it through better in the first place. But with this in mind, I called the organisers and asked them if they had any regrets. They called back to say no, but also posted on a Yahoo message group about it, which is a first for me, to have not even an article but a mere telephone conversation discussed in this way! In this discussion group, Michael's excellent article is described by them as 'stupid'.
They then email me separately, suggesting Michael's piece is 'potentially libellous', and warning me not to fall into the same 'traps' in the article I'm writing for tomorrow.
I mention that, folks, just so you know what you're up against. But then, you probably did already.
Irene wrote to Lambeth Palace about the service, and was told this by a member of the Archbishop of Canterbury's staff: 'This is not a matter for the Archbishop or the C of E nationally to comment as it so obviously is a piece of rather unpleasant publicity seeking by a collection of small groups who should not be encouraged by being given attention. My mother used to say of us when we were misbehaving: 'Don't take any notice, it only encourages them' . St James' is in the diocese of London and has a long idiosyncratic history. It is no more reflective of the views of the Church of England than Jews for boycotting Israel is reflective of the Jewish community.'
One fact used in defence of this event, as the organisers insist on describing it, even though calling it 'nine lessons and carols' is a direct mirror of the style of a carol service, is that it was organised by members of the Jewish community. Harry's Place has an interesting comment on the service, and on some of those members of Britain's Jewish community who are also anti-Zionist.
This is what Michael Gove says in The Times today:
'One thing that has sent me ballistic this week is the decision by St James's Piccadilly to host a special service in which the words of traditional carols have been rewritten to convey an anti-Israeli message. The service is part of a broader campaign to encourage the boycott of goods from Israel, much as we once boycotted goods from South Africa.
'Apart from pointing out that declining to buy things on the ground that they're made by Jewish people is not, historically, a good road to go down, I am staggered that people should equate a democracy struggling to preserve human rights in the face of terrorist assault with the apartheid regime. And I am speechless at a church's collaboration with this festival of anti-Semitism. So I shall use another's words and ask that they be forgiven, for clearly, they cannot know the enormity of what they do.'
Just a minor point of interest. The Rector of St James' has been inundated with complaints and is wisely thinking twice about whether he should hold the service again. Perhaps he should have thought it through better in the first place. But with this in mind, I called the organisers and asked them if they had any regrets. They called back to say no, but also posted on a Yahoo message group about it, which is a first for me, to have not even an article but a mere telephone conversation discussed in this way! In this discussion group, Michael's excellent article is described by them as 'stupid'.
They then email me separately, suggesting Michael's piece is 'potentially libellous', and warning me not to fall into the same 'traps' in the article I'm writing for tomorrow.
I mention that, folks, just so you know what you're up against. But then, you probably did already.
YES, IT'S NUCLEAR POWER TO THE PEOPLE BY MICHAEL GOVE
Please read the article below, particularly the part highlighted in yellow. Please feel free to leave your comments on ‘The Times Online’ website (link below)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_gove/article5263539.ece
When I was younger no Citroën Deux Cheveux or Volvo Estate parked on the streets I grew up in was complete without its smiling sunny sticker proclaiming “Nuclear Power? Nein Danke!” As emblems of radical chic went it may not have ranked with a scar inflicted during the Battle of Cable Street or a shrapnel wound from the Spanish Civil War but for Aberdeen University revolutionaries it was a necessary identifying mark - the equivalent of an MCC tie - signalling membership of a club that lived by certain unvarying rules.
Nuclear power was no more acceptable than Chilean wine (do you know what happened to Allende?), an account with Barclays (accomplices in apartheid) or a soft spot for Ronald Reagan (don't you know he's undermining the Sandinistas with his absurd demands for Yankee-style elections).
Times may change and the object of PC anathemas may subtly alter too.
Different countries may have their goods boycotted, different companies are accused of having blood on their hands, different US presidents get it in the neck for their curious belief in the absurd doctrine that people should vote for their rulers. But the basic rules stayed the same - there was a need for a left-wing demonology and nuclear power was always there in the grimoire of villainy.
Until this week. For a curious alteration has taken place. And nukes are now fashionable. Indeed, not just fashionable but thoroughly directional. The last word in chic. Irradiated isotopes have never been so on trend.
It's not an environmental thing, even though nuclear power, with its total absence of carbon emissions, ticks all the right climate change boxes.
It's not even a security thing, though the location of so much oil and gas in countries run by former KGB men or Holocaust deniers does give one pause for thought. It's actually an authenticity thing. Nuclear power has been fêted by a team of our nation's leading intellectuals for displaying contemporary Britain's most desired virtue - keeping it real.
A conclave of the bien pensants was convened this week to decide on Britain's most “authentic” place to visit. And top of the list, eclipsing Hoxton and Harlesden, Liverpool or Leeds, as the place where they kept things most real was - Dungeness. And all because of its nuclear power station. The presence of this magnificent temple to the glory of the sundered atom conferred on Dungeness a quality beyond mere charm. It became, in the eyes of the judging panel, a sort of modern Eden - a place unspoilt by pretensions or the need to look better in the eyes of others. And thus it was judged truly, authentically, beautiful. That's why they elevated it to be their top tourist destination for those who want to see authentic England.
To my horror.
Because this exposed and marshy settlement at the bottom extremity of England - with views as bleak as a building firm's balance sheet - is dear to me. I love all of East Kent, and love it indeed for its defiant unfashionability. From Dungeness to Deal, from the old mining country round Betteshanger to the Thanet towns, I feel a special fondness for this slice of overlooked England.
So, I can well understand why others would wish to celebrate its particular, stark, beauty. But I can't help fearing the fêting of Dungeness by metropolitan opinion is a prelude to a wider, “ironic” appropriation of a part of the country that is genuinely unspoilt where it counts - free of tricksy tweeness and Cotswoldian cuddliness.
So visit Dungeness please, and the rest of East Kent too. But please, no shops selling Marie Curie scented candles, Enrico Fermi pasta sauce or velvet cushions with E=mc2 embroidered in tasteful silver thread.
Otherwise I really will go nuclear.
Forgive them - I can't
One thing that has sent me ballistic this week is the decision by St James's Piccadilly to host a special service in which the words of traditional carols have been rewritten to convey an anti-Israeli message. The service is part of a broader campaign to encourage the boycott of goods from Israel, much as we once boycotted goods from South Africa.
Apart from pointing out that declining to buy things on the ground that they're made by Jewish people is not, historically, a good road to go down, I am staggered that people should equate a democracy struggling to preserve human rights in the face of terrorist assault with the apartheid regime. And I am speechless at a church's collaboration with this festival of anti-Semitism. So I shall use another's words and ask that they be forgiven, for clearly, they cannot know the enormity of what they do.
More hidden treasures
East Kent isn't the only neglected jewel I have come to love, having been drawn to it initially because it had so few other visitors. I feel the same about BBC Four.
I sat rapt the other night as it screened vintage footage from the late Forties showing how we viewed train travel in the golden infancy of British Rail. I was struck dumb by the sequence that had been shot in the buffet car. There were people puffing away on cigarettes without a second thought while the poor waiter stood by, pouring the milk into their tea and coffee. How dramatically things have changed, I reflected. Imagine a train where they give you fresh milk.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_gove/article5263539.ece
When I was younger no Citroën Deux Cheveux or Volvo Estate parked on the streets I grew up in was complete without its smiling sunny sticker proclaiming “Nuclear Power? Nein Danke!” As emblems of radical chic went it may not have ranked with a scar inflicted during the Battle of Cable Street or a shrapnel wound from the Spanish Civil War but for Aberdeen University revolutionaries it was a necessary identifying mark - the equivalent of an MCC tie - signalling membership of a club that lived by certain unvarying rules.
Nuclear power was no more acceptable than Chilean wine (do you know what happened to Allende?), an account with Barclays (accomplices in apartheid) or a soft spot for Ronald Reagan (don't you know he's undermining the Sandinistas with his absurd demands for Yankee-style elections).
Times may change and the object of PC anathemas may subtly alter too.
Different countries may have their goods boycotted, different companies are accused of having blood on their hands, different US presidents get it in the neck for their curious belief in the absurd doctrine that people should vote for their rulers. But the basic rules stayed the same - there was a need for a left-wing demonology and nuclear power was always there in the grimoire of villainy.
Until this week. For a curious alteration has taken place. And nukes are now fashionable. Indeed, not just fashionable but thoroughly directional. The last word in chic. Irradiated isotopes have never been so on trend.
It's not an environmental thing, even though nuclear power, with its total absence of carbon emissions, ticks all the right climate change boxes.
It's not even a security thing, though the location of so much oil and gas in countries run by former KGB men or Holocaust deniers does give one pause for thought. It's actually an authenticity thing. Nuclear power has been fêted by a team of our nation's leading intellectuals for displaying contemporary Britain's most desired virtue - keeping it real.
A conclave of the bien pensants was convened this week to decide on Britain's most “authentic” place to visit. And top of the list, eclipsing Hoxton and Harlesden, Liverpool or Leeds, as the place where they kept things most real was - Dungeness. And all because of its nuclear power station. The presence of this magnificent temple to the glory of the sundered atom conferred on Dungeness a quality beyond mere charm. It became, in the eyes of the judging panel, a sort of modern Eden - a place unspoilt by pretensions or the need to look better in the eyes of others. And thus it was judged truly, authentically, beautiful. That's why they elevated it to be their top tourist destination for those who want to see authentic England.
To my horror.
Because this exposed and marshy settlement at the bottom extremity of England - with views as bleak as a building firm's balance sheet - is dear to me. I love all of East Kent, and love it indeed for its defiant unfashionability. From Dungeness to Deal, from the old mining country round Betteshanger to the Thanet towns, I feel a special fondness for this slice of overlooked England.
So, I can well understand why others would wish to celebrate its particular, stark, beauty. But I can't help fearing the fêting of Dungeness by metropolitan opinion is a prelude to a wider, “ironic” appropriation of a part of the country that is genuinely unspoilt where it counts - free of tricksy tweeness and Cotswoldian cuddliness.
So visit Dungeness please, and the rest of East Kent too. But please, no shops selling Marie Curie scented candles, Enrico Fermi pasta sauce or velvet cushions with E=mc2 embroidered in tasteful silver thread.
Otherwise I really will go nuclear.
Forgive them - I can't
One thing that has sent me ballistic this week is the decision by St James's Piccadilly to host a special service in which the words of traditional carols have been rewritten to convey an anti-Israeli message. The service is part of a broader campaign to encourage the boycott of goods from Israel, much as we once boycotted goods from South Africa.
Apart from pointing out that declining to buy things on the ground that they're made by Jewish people is not, historically, a good road to go down, I am staggered that people should equate a democracy struggling to preserve human rights in the face of terrorist assault with the apartheid regime. And I am speechless at a church's collaboration with this festival of anti-Semitism. So I shall use another's words and ask that they be forgiven, for clearly, they cannot know the enormity of what they do.
More hidden treasures
East Kent isn't the only neglected jewel I have come to love, having been drawn to it initially because it had so few other visitors. I feel the same about BBC Four.
I sat rapt the other night as it screened vintage footage from the late Forties showing how we viewed train travel in the golden infancy of British Rail. I was struck dumb by the sequence that had been shot in the buffet car. There were people puffing away on cigarettes without a second thought while the poor waiter stood by, pouring the milk into their tea and coffee. How dramatically things have changed, I reflected. Imagine a train where they give you fresh milk.
ZF EVENING WITH RAN GIDOR
Sunday night saw Ran Gidor (Political Counselor, Israeli Embassy) speak about the current situation in the Middle East. According to the latest IAEA report, Iran has made significant progress in its efforts to enrich uranium and is continuing to disregard the relevant Security Council resolutions. Israel is opposed to a nuclear Iran and is supporting the diplomatic efforts in this respect. But with the fall in the oil price, unrest is increasing in Iran. Syria has recently been trying to gain support in Europe. However, the UN Inquiry Tribunal into Rafiq Hariri's death in Lebanon will soon be set up, and is likely to complicate matters for Damascus.
ZF RECEPTION AT ITALIAN EMBASSY
The Ambassador, HE Giancarlo Aragona, welcomed us to the Residence. He said
how delighted he was that relations between Italy and Israel are now so
good, epitomised by the excellent meetings that the Italian President
Giorgio Napolitano had had on his three day visit to Israel this week. (Note
also the wonderful speech made by Fraco Frattini, the Italian Commissioner
and Vice-President of the European Commission, at the Herzliya Conference in
January:
how delighted he was that relations between Italy and Israel are now so
good, epitomised by the excellent meetings that the Italian President
Giorgio Napolitano had had on his three day visit to Israel this week. (Note
also the wonderful speech made by Fraco Frattini, the Italian Commissioner
and Vice-President of the European Commission, at the Herzliya Conference in
January:
Monday, December 1, 2008
THE 'SHAM' CAROL SERVICE
On Wednesday night a sham carol service was held at St James Piccadilly with the words of the carols changed to demonise Israel. The event was organised by a coalition of anti-Israel groups including one that includes "Jews" in its title. ZF members, calling themselves JBIG (Jews for Buying Israeli Goods) staged a demo at the entrance to the church in Piccadilly before the event. They had Israeli flags and gave out leaflets for the Israeli Street Market (14-16 Dec, 10.30-5, outside Waitrose, London NW11). Not many of the audience to the sham carol service were interested but plenty of passers-by were. The church was reportedly only half full with no more than 100 people. The ZF counter demonstrators deterred at least five people from buying tickets and going in, by persuading them that it was far from a normal carol service.
Friday, November 28, 2008
TASTE OF ISRAEL: ZIONIST FEDERATION HOSTS FIRST ISRAELI STREET MARKET IN THE UK - BRINGING OVER DOZENS OF ISRAELI TRADERS
Starting from Sunday 14 December, the ZF is organizing a three-day outdoor Israeli Market which will operate on the High Road of Temple Fortune. The Market will host 40 exhibitors displaying unique and interesting Israeli products.
This type of outdoor fair has been operated successfully many times in this location but none of the markets have ever hosted Israeli exhibitors.
The Zionist Federation will organize the first ever Israeli fair and we are calling it “ A TASTE OF ISRAEL”. The aim is to bring Israeli products to the British public. The Exhibitors will have stands to display their goods and sell them to the public.
The Zionist Federation is always keen to help Israeli trade - we will also be encouraging them to set up business with local shops for the future. Alan Aziz, Director of the Zionist Federation states: “this is a very positive step to showcase the best of Israeli products in time for Chankukah and Christmas – we are please to be hosting them”.
Additionally, this is an ideal opportunity for the general public to experience some of Israel’s unique and interesting artwork, wines, jewellery and food that they may not have otherwise been able to experience.
For more information please contact:
Gary Sakol
gary@zionist.org.uk
Zionist Federation
Tel: +44 (0)20 8343 9756
www.zionist.org.uk
This type of outdoor fair has been operated successfully many times in this location but none of the markets have ever hosted Israeli exhibitors.
The Zionist Federation will organize the first ever Israeli fair and we are calling it “ A TASTE OF ISRAEL”. The aim is to bring Israeli products to the British public. The Exhibitors will have stands to display their goods and sell them to the public.
The Zionist Federation is always keen to help Israeli trade - we will also be encouraging them to set up business with local shops for the future. Alan Aziz, Director of the Zionist Federation states: “this is a very positive step to showcase the best of Israeli products in time for Chankukah and Christmas – we are please to be hosting them”.
Additionally, this is an ideal opportunity for the general public to experience some of Israel’s unique and interesting artwork, wines, jewellery and food that they may not have otherwise been able to experience.
For more information please contact:
Gary Sakol
gary@zionist.org.uk
Zionist Federation
Tel: +44 (0)20 8343 9756
www.zionist.org.uk
Monday, November 10, 2008
MNS - ISRAELI DEPUTY AMBASSADOR
Following the many successful events held at Middlesex New Synagogue to celebrate Israel's 60th Anniversary, and in order to celebrate further the 60 years of Israel’s past and look forward to Israel 60 years in the future, MNS was delighted to welcome a panel of distinguished guests to address over 100 visitors.
After a short prayer for Israel read by Rabbi Kathleen de Magtige-Middleton, Michael Reik opened the proceedings by introducing Talya Lador-Fresher, the Israeli Deputy Ambassador, Geoffrey Smith, chairman of the Christian Friends of Israel, and finally Charlie Gluckman and Daniel Needlestone, the co-chairs of Pro Zion, all of whom spoke about achievements of Israel from different perspectives.
Talya Lador-Fresher referred to the internal and external events that shaped Israel’s achievements decade by decade. From the War of Independence and through the 1950s, Israel saw the building of a nation and a wave of immigration. The 1960s was marked by the tension before, and the euphoria after, the Six Day Way, and the trial of Adolf Eichmann. The 1970s saw the Yom Kippur War and the historic visit to Israel by President Sadat of Egypt, which led to the Peace Accords at Camp David. The 1980 saw the economic crisis and the Government bailing out the banks (sounds familiar?). The 1990s brought Peace Accords with Jordan, and immigration from Russia. The current decade was marked by the Intafada, and the advances in high technology - from oranges to Apples perhaps ;-)
Geoffrey Smith gave a very inspiring talk on the theme “Israel has blessed the nations” describing how Israel has fulfilled various Biblical prophecies, and how the rest of the world has benefited from its high technological advances. Charlie Gluckman and Daniel Needlestone gave their personal views of the changes in Israel during their student years.
During a short break for refreshments, visitors were able to watch a video, read the posters and time-line display, and browse through the brochures brought along by the Christian Friends of Israel.
The evening continued with a Q&A session; topics included proportional representation, the likelihood of a non-Jewish Prime Minister, the consequences of an increasing Arab population, and the Barak Obama effect. The meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the panel by Rabbi Simon Franses.
This was an ideal opportunity for Middlesex New Synagogue members to learn of Israel's past achievements and future plans and strengthen even further our commitment to “Eretz Yisrael”. The evening was supported and sponsored by the Zionist Federation.
After a short prayer for Israel read by Rabbi Kathleen de Magtige-Middleton, Michael Reik opened the proceedings by introducing Talya Lador-Fresher, the Israeli Deputy Ambassador, Geoffrey Smith, chairman of the Christian Friends of Israel, and finally Charlie Gluckman and Daniel Needlestone, the co-chairs of Pro Zion, all of whom spoke about achievements of Israel from different perspectives.
Talya Lador-Fresher referred to the internal and external events that shaped Israel’s achievements decade by decade. From the War of Independence and through the 1950s, Israel saw the building of a nation and a wave of immigration. The 1960s was marked by the tension before, and the euphoria after, the Six Day Way, and the trial of Adolf Eichmann. The 1970s saw the Yom Kippur War and the historic visit to Israel by President Sadat of Egypt, which led to the Peace Accords at Camp David. The 1980 saw the economic crisis and the Government bailing out the banks (sounds familiar?). The 1990s brought Peace Accords with Jordan, and immigration from Russia. The current decade was marked by the Intafada, and the advances in high technology - from oranges to Apples perhaps ;-)
Geoffrey Smith gave a very inspiring talk on the theme “Israel has blessed the nations” describing how Israel has fulfilled various Biblical prophecies, and how the rest of the world has benefited from its high technological advances. Charlie Gluckman and Daniel Needlestone gave their personal views of the changes in Israel during their student years.
During a short break for refreshments, visitors were able to watch a video, read the posters and time-line display, and browse through the brochures brought along by the Christian Friends of Israel.
The evening continued with a Q&A session; topics included proportional representation, the likelihood of a non-Jewish Prime Minister, the consequences of an increasing Arab population, and the Barak Obama effect. The meeting closed with a vote of thanks to the panel by Rabbi Simon Franses.
This was an ideal opportunity for Middlesex New Synagogue members to learn of Israel's past achievements and future plans and strengthen even further our commitment to “Eretz Yisrael”. The evening was supported and sponsored by the Zionist Federation.
A REEVALUATION OF THE BALFOUR DECLARATION
A Reevaluation of the Balfour Declaration
02/11/2008
Ashley Perry | UK Affairs
On November 2, the Balfour Declaration was 91 years old. Although seemingly irrelevant in today's political scenery, it was the crucial first official recognition of Jewish national aspirations, much disparaged even unto this day.
Although the declaration itself had little legal status, it was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with Turkey and the Mandate for Palestine, adopted unanimously by the League of Nations in the San Remo Resolution of 1920. This lent Zionism an international legitimacy enjoyed by few national movements before or since.
Perhaps most astonishing today, the leader of the Arab movement, King Faisal, supported the declaration when it was referred to in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919.
Although many have since attempted to deny the central nature of the document and its relationship to the Mandate, that's not how its British drafters saw things. In fact, as stated in the 1937 Royal Commission Report, "the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home."
The initial drafts of the Balfour Declaration spoke of the desire "that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people." Clearly, Palestine as a whole was intended to become this Jewish national home.
The final draft was altered to contain the proviso, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The final declaration was altered at the behest of Edwin Samuel Montagu, an influential anti-Zionist Jew and secretary of state for India, who was concerned that the declaration as it stood could result in increased anti-Semitism. Montagu was also concerned that the declaration would make it harder for him to deal with Indian Muslims.
Many have argued that the term "Jewish national home" falls short of Zionist aspirations, and suggest that the declaration never meant to encourage the creation of a state. This interpretation fails because the major players in the drafting of the agreement thought otherwise.
It would have been diplomatically impossible for the British government to promise a state at that time, primarily because the territory was not even in its hands. The term national home was used as a first step on the path to statehood. Lloyd George, who was prime minister at the time, laid the onus for the transforming of a national home to a state on the Jews themselves:
"It was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunities afforded them by the idea of a national home, and had become a definite majority... then Palestine would thus become a Jewish commonwealth."
General Smuts, a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the declaration was published, said in 1919 that he could see "in generations to come, a great Jewish state rising there once more." Influential figures like Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919 and Winston Churchill in 1920 also spoke about the resulting Jewish state.
Churchill also told the Royal Commission regarding the Palestine White Paper of 1922, for which he had been responsible, that those who felt the Balfour Declaration or the Palestine Mandate precluded a Jewish state were mistaken. "There is nothing in it," the commission found, "to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish state, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended."
There are also those who look at the language of the declaration and the Mandate to claim that they give equal weight to Jewish national aspirations and the rights of various non-Jewish communities. This is erroneous simply because the main purpose of both the declaration and the Mandate, as expressed above, was to "promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home."
Nonetheless, during the early days of the Mandate there were voices in the British government which felt an equal obligation to the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Many politicians wished to ensure that the Arab population was placated. This was rebutted by those who felt that not only was this incorrect, but that the text of the Mandate made Britain "responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home."
The wording clearly points to active intervention on the part of Britain.
"Merely to sit still," wrote Churchill, "and avoid friction with the Arabs and safeguard their civil and religious rights and to abandon the positive exertion for the establishment of the Jewish National Home would not be a faithful interpretation of the Mandate."
Possibly the greatest argument is the fact that the text describing the rights of "non-Jewish communities in Palestine" appeared only in the preamble of the British Mandate; the actual text was replete with references to actions that would be taken to ensure the rise of a Jewish national home. The British administration was required to "facilitate" Jewish immigration, and "encourage" the settlement of Jews on the land.
There can be no denying that the Balfour Declaration was unique, not only in Jewish history, but possibly in the history of national movements. For a short period, all the major powers, the leader of the Arab world and most interested parties created a mechanism to fulfill the Zionist dream.
This should not be overlooked or understated as Zionism fights an enduring battle for legitimacy. Few national movements in the world have such a legal declaration in their arsenal.
The writer is editor for the Middle East Strategic Information.
http://www.mesi.org.uk/ViewBlog.aspx?ArticleId=37
02/11/2008
Ashley Perry | UK Affairs
On November 2, the Balfour Declaration was 91 years old. Although seemingly irrelevant in today's political scenery, it was the crucial first official recognition of Jewish national aspirations, much disparaged even unto this day.
Although the declaration itself had little legal status, it was later incorporated into the Sèvres peace treaty with Turkey and the Mandate for Palestine, adopted unanimously by the League of Nations in the San Remo Resolution of 1920. This lent Zionism an international legitimacy enjoyed by few national movements before or since.
Perhaps most astonishing today, the leader of the Arab movement, King Faisal, supported the declaration when it was referred to in the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919.
Although many have since attempted to deny the central nature of the document and its relationship to the Mandate, that's not how its British drafters saw things. In fact, as stated in the 1937 Royal Commission Report, "the primary purpose of the Mandate, as expressed in its preamble and its articles, is to promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home."
The initial drafts of the Balfour Declaration spoke of the desire "that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people." Clearly, Palestine as a whole was intended to become this Jewish national home.
The final draft was altered to contain the proviso, "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The final declaration was altered at the behest of Edwin Samuel Montagu, an influential anti-Zionist Jew and secretary of state for India, who was concerned that the declaration as it stood could result in increased anti-Semitism. Montagu was also concerned that the declaration would make it harder for him to deal with Indian Muslims.
Many have argued that the term "Jewish national home" falls short of Zionist aspirations, and suggest that the declaration never meant to encourage the creation of a state. This interpretation fails because the major players in the drafting of the agreement thought otherwise.
It would have been diplomatically impossible for the British government to promise a state at that time, primarily because the territory was not even in its hands. The term national home was used as a first step on the path to statehood. Lloyd George, who was prime minister at the time, laid the onus for the transforming of a national home to a state on the Jews themselves:
"It was contemplated that when the time arrived for according representative institutions to Palestine, if the Jews had meanwhile responded to the opportunities afforded them by the idea of a national home, and had become a definite majority... then Palestine would thus become a Jewish commonwealth."
General Smuts, a member of the Imperial War Cabinet when the declaration was published, said in 1919 that he could see "in generations to come, a great Jewish state rising there once more." Influential figures like Lord Robert Cecil in 1917, Sir Herbert Samuel in 1919 and Winston Churchill in 1920 also spoke about the resulting Jewish state.
Churchill also told the Royal Commission regarding the Palestine White Paper of 1922, for which he had been responsible, that those who felt the Balfour Declaration or the Palestine Mandate precluded a Jewish state were mistaken. "There is nothing in it," the commission found, "to prohibit the ultimate establishment of a Jewish state, and Mr. Churchill himself has told us in evidence that no such prohibition was intended."
There are also those who look at the language of the declaration and the Mandate to claim that they give equal weight to Jewish national aspirations and the rights of various non-Jewish communities. This is erroneous simply because the main purpose of both the declaration and the Mandate, as expressed above, was to "promote the establishment of the Jewish National Home."
Nonetheless, during the early days of the Mandate there were voices in the British government which felt an equal obligation to the Jewish and non-Jewish communities. Many politicians wished to ensure that the Arab population was placated. This was rebutted by those who felt that not only was this incorrect, but that the text of the Mandate made Britain "responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home."
The wording clearly points to active intervention on the part of Britain.
"Merely to sit still," wrote Churchill, "and avoid friction with the Arabs and safeguard their civil and religious rights and to abandon the positive exertion for the establishment of the Jewish National Home would not be a faithful interpretation of the Mandate."
Possibly the greatest argument is the fact that the text describing the rights of "non-Jewish communities in Palestine" appeared only in the preamble of the British Mandate; the actual text was replete with references to actions that would be taken to ensure the rise of a Jewish national home. The British administration was required to "facilitate" Jewish immigration, and "encourage" the settlement of Jews on the land.
There can be no denying that the Balfour Declaration was unique, not only in Jewish history, but possibly in the history of national movements. For a short period, all the major powers, the leader of the Arab world and most interested parties created a mechanism to fulfill the Zionist dream.
This should not be overlooked or understated as Zionism fights an enduring battle for legitimacy. Few national movements in the world have such a legal declaration in their arsenal.
The writer is editor for the Middle East Strategic Information.
http://www.mesi.org.uk/ViewBlog.aspx?ArticleId=37
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
91ST ANNIVERSARY OF THE BALFOUR DECLARATION
Sunday, November 2 was the 91st Anniversary of the Balfour Declaration (1917), which stated that the British government "view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".
To mark the occasion, a capacity audience of Zionist Federation supporters came together on Monday night in the magnificent Locarno Rooms of the Foreign Office to hear the annual ZF Balfour Lecture, which this year was given by Sir Richard Dearlove and chaired by The Marquess of Salisbury.
Sir Richard Dearlove, Head of MI6 from 1999-2004, is the Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. He spoke, under Chatham House rules, about the Security Services in the Middle East, and then took questions, a number of which concerned Iran. Sir Richard's themes were both clear and supported by a wealth of authoritative material and personal recollections.
Sir Richard was introduced by Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the 7th Marquess of Salisbury. He explained his connection to Israel. Arthur Balfour was his first cousin, three times removed. Additionally he is a direct descendant of Lord Robert Cecil, who, as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was supportive of the Balfour Declaration and subsequently won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role as an architect of the League of Nations. The Marquess also spoke about his paternal grandmother. She had a Jewish great-grandparent who during World War Two was very outspoken against the Nazis. The Marquess commented that had Hitler invaded, she would have been high on a Nazi hit-list.
The highly successful evening ended with Hatikvah. It was generously sponsored by Djanogly Wealth Management.
To mark the occasion, a capacity audience of Zionist Federation supporters came together on Monday night in the magnificent Locarno Rooms of the Foreign Office to hear the annual ZF Balfour Lecture, which this year was given by Sir Richard Dearlove and chaired by The Marquess of Salisbury.
Sir Richard Dearlove, Head of MI6 from 1999-2004, is the Master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. He spoke, under Chatham House rules, about the Security Services in the Middle East, and then took questions, a number of which concerned Iran. Sir Richard's themes were both clear and supported by a wealth of authoritative material and personal recollections.
Sir Richard was introduced by Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, the 7th Marquess of Salisbury. He explained his connection to Israel. Arthur Balfour was his first cousin, three times removed. Additionally he is a direct descendant of Lord Robert Cecil, who, as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was supportive of the Balfour Declaration and subsequently won the Nobel Peace Prize for his role as an architect of the League of Nations. The Marquess also spoke about his paternal grandmother. She had a Jewish great-grandparent who during World War Two was very outspoken against the Nazis. The Marquess commented that had Hitler invaded, she would have been high on a Nazi hit-list.
The highly successful evening ended with Hatikvah. It was generously sponsored by Djanogly Wealth Management.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERY IN ISRAEL SINCE THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS
In one of the most stunning archaeological discoveries in decades, a pottery shard with the earliest known Hebrew text has been found in an ancient city near the site where the biblical narrative says David slew Goliath. The 3,000-year old find predates the Dead Sea Scrolls by 1,000 years and may provide proof of the existence of the United Monarchy of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel under King David.
Prof. Yosef Garfinkel, the Yigal Yadin Professor of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is leading the excavations at the Elah Fortress site southwest of Jerusalem, the earliest known fortified city of the biblical period in Israel. I received this press release below directly from the Hebrew University. Please contact them for further information and photos of this electrifying new discovery.
Prof. Yosef Garfinkel, the Yigal Yadin Professor of Archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, is leading the excavations at the Elah Fortress site southwest of Jerusalem, the earliest known fortified city of the biblical period in Israel. I received this press release below directly from the Hebrew University. Please contact them for further information and photos of this electrifying new discovery.
ISRAELI ELECTIONS CALLED
Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister of Israel and head of the centrist Kadima Party, officially asked President Shimon Peres to declare early elections on Sunday.
Peres had tasked Livni with forming a new government last month, after she won a primary to lead the centrist Kadima party.
Now, following the breakdown of talks with potential coalition partners, Peres can either ask another Knesset member to try to compile a majority coalition, or announce general elections.
Analysts agreed that the latter is more likely, and Livni urged Peres to call elections as quickly as possible.
"This is the hour in which the Israeli parliament and the political establishment are obligated to do some deep soul-searching," Peres said in his speech to open the current session of the Knesset. "In the coming days, Israel will enter an election period.... The upcoming elections are an opportunity to raise the foundation of Israel and to alleviate its various weaknesses."
Peres had tasked Livni with forming a new government last month, after she won a primary to lead the centrist Kadima party.
Now, following the breakdown of talks with potential coalition partners, Peres can either ask another Knesset member to try to compile a majority coalition, or announce general elections.
Analysts agreed that the latter is more likely, and Livni urged Peres to call elections as quickly as possible.
"This is the hour in which the Israeli parliament and the political establishment are obligated to do some deep soul-searching," Peres said in his speech to open the current session of the Knesset. "In the coming days, Israel will enter an election period.... The upcoming elections are an opportunity to raise the foundation of Israel and to alleviate its various weaknesses."
Monday, October 27, 2008
ISRAEL PRAISES UN CALL FOR HIZBULLAH TO BE DISBANDED
Israel has welcomed a fresh call from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon for Hizbullah to be disbanded.
"If Lebanon is a sovereign state with an army, it must have a monopoly over power and the situation where Lebanese political parties have armies is totally unacceptable," an Israeli Foreign Ministry official told The Jerusalem Post.
Ban said he was encouraged by the recent establishment of diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Syria, but called on the two countries to take further steps to improve security along the border. He said that Lebanon would not be a fully sovereign state until Hizbullah and other armed groups were disbanded. UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Hizbullah-Israel war, called for the dismantling of all militias in Lebanon.
The foreign ministers of Syria and Lebanon signed a document last week formalizing diplomatic ties between the two countries for the first time in their turbulent history. Syrian nationalists claim that Lebanon is really part of Syria.
"If Lebanon is a sovereign state with an army, it must have a monopoly over power and the situation where Lebanese political parties have armies is totally unacceptable," an Israeli Foreign Ministry official told The Jerusalem Post.
Ban said he was encouraged by the recent establishment of diplomatic relations between Lebanon and Syria, but called on the two countries to take further steps to improve security along the border. He said that Lebanon would not be a fully sovereign state until Hizbullah and other armed groups were disbanded. UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Hizbullah-Israel war, called for the dismantling of all militias in Lebanon.
The foreign ministers of Syria and Lebanon signed a document last week formalizing diplomatic ties between the two countries for the first time in their turbulent history. Syrian nationalists claim that Lebanon is really part of Syria.
LIVNI: "TOMORROW MARKS LAST CHANCE TO FORM A NEW GOVERNMENT"
Israel's prime minister-designate, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, says if there is no agreement on a new working coalition by tomorrow (Sunday) she will ask President Shimon Peres to call a general election instead. Livni has been unable to persuade the religious Shas party to enter a new coalition government. She has rejected demands by Shas to pump tens of millions of dollars into the religious education budget. Shas is the fourth largest party in the Knesset and part of the departing government.
Livni is trying to replace outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as head of the government midway through its term without the need to call a general election. Polls indicate that if an election were held now, the opposition Likud would likely emerge as the biggest party. For the time being, Olmert remains as Israel's caretaker prime minister.
Livni is trying to replace outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as head of the government midway through its term without the need to call a general election. Polls indicate that if an election were held now, the opposition Likud would likely emerge as the biggest party. For the time being, Olmert remains as Israel's caretaker prime minister.
"SIR SHIMON PERES"
Israeli president Shimon Peres is expected to be knighted by Britain's Queen Elizabeth II when he visits the UK next month. It is rare for Britain to bestow this honor of non-British nationals. Past recipients have included former American president "Sir Ronald Regan," U2's lead singer "Sir Bono," and Microsoft founder "Sir Bill Gates."
As noted on this email list in 2006, the Nobel laureate, human rights campaigner and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel was also knighted. Foreign citizens who receive honorary knighthoods do not in fact have the right to call themselves "Sir".
The other highlight of Peres' visit, which begins on November 18, will be a speech before both houses of the British Parliament (the House of Lords and the House of Commons). Peres will also deliver an address at Oxford University, where he is expected to urge the leading lights of British academia to lift the unofficial academic boycott placed on Israeli institutions.
As noted on this email list in 2006, the Nobel laureate, human rights campaigner and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel was also knighted. Foreign citizens who receive honorary knighthoods do not in fact have the right to call themselves "Sir".
The other highlight of Peres' visit, which begins on November 18, will be a speech before both houses of the British Parliament (the House of Lords and the House of Commons). Peres will also deliver an address at Oxford University, where he is expected to urge the leading lights of British academia to lift the unofficial academic boycott placed on Israeli institutions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
