Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Iran Outraged as Star of David Revealed on Airport

The Israelis built this airport for the Iranians sometime in the early
1970's... They put a Star of David on the roof with the Iranians remaining
absolutely clueless about it. Almost four decades later, the Iranians find
out via Google Earth imagery what the Israelis did...and they ain't happy
about it.

Here's a report from FoxNews about how the Iranians are
outraged (that they never noticed, in 38 years, that there was a Star of
David on top of their airport).

Monday, December 27, 2010

Seattle: Anti-Israel ad campaign rejected by city officials

By JPOST.COM STAFF
12/24/2010 07:38

An anti-Israel advertising campaign on city buses in Seattle, Washington was rejected on Thursday, according to the StandWithUs organization.

The "Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign" which was set to begin December 27, was rejected by King County Executive Dow Constantine due to the "potential for disruption to transit service."

Constantine on Thursday approved an interim policy from Metro Transit which called for a "halt to the acceptance of any new non-commercial advertising on King County buses."

On Wednesday, Seattle Jewish community leaders held a meeting with senior officials from the King County Executive's office and Metro Transit management about the "potential threat to the Seattle-area Jewish community" after over 2,000 emails, and numerous organizations announced that counter advertisements would be initiated to promote Israel.

Monday, December 20, 2010

'Israeli War Crimes' signs to go on Metro buses

SEATTLE – "Israeli War Crimes," the enormous advertisement reads. "Your tax dollars at work."

To the right of the image is a group of children -- one little boy stares out at the viewer, the others gawk at a demolished building, all rebar and crumbled concrete.

It's an ad you'll be seeing soon on a handful of Metro buses in downtown Seattle.

A group calling itself the Seattle Mideast Awareness Campaign has paid King County $1,794 so that 12 buses will carry that message around town, starting two days after Christmas. That's December 27: the two-year anniversary of Israeli attacks on Gaza, aimed at stopping rocket attacks and weapons smuggling.

Read entire article here.

Saturday, December 18, 2010

WikiLeaks Cables Vindicate Israel

The picture of Israel that is emerging from the documents is the opposite of the damaging narrative that has been advanced for 60 years.

December 18, 2010 - by Ryan Mauro

The U.S. and its allies are struggling to contain the damage caused by WikiLeaks, but there’s one country that needn’t worry much and can actually look at the disclosures as positive publicity: Israel. The documents show that the threat from Iran is not an illusion conjured up by the Zionist lobby and that Israel is not the imperialistic aggressor seeking to dominate and brutalize Palestinians as the country is so often characterized.

Read the rest of this analysis by clicking here.

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Turning the tables on Israel-bashers

Gabriel Latner, a law student who helped win a debate on the delegitimisation of Israel by arguing that it is a “rogue state” only because of positives including humanitarianism and protection of civil liberties, provided a speech that should be shared by all.

You can read an article about his speech by clicking here.


Thursday, December 9, 2010

Zionism and the occupation - Israel and the Palestinian


No country has ever had its legitimacy called into question because it ran an occupation. Nobody believes the United States should be destroyed because it is occupying Iraq, or that Iraq should be destroyed because it occupied Kuwait. This strange argument is applied only to Israel.

Nobody should live under occupation. The current occupation is not the result of "Zionism" but of the refusal of Arab Palestinians to live in peace with Israel. It is complicated by the beliefs of some Israelis in "Greater Israel," which was not a part of mainstream historical Zionist ideology and does not have consensus support of all Zionists.

The occupation is a result of of the vicissitudes of history. In the view of most Israeli Zionists, it is not a part of Zionist ideology.

Unfortunately, for many years, the Arabs of Palestine claimed that all of Israel is "occupied" Palestine, and many continue to do so. The Palestinian Authority presents maps that show "Palestine" as all of Israel.

The conflict did not begin in 1967, and anti-Zionism and Arab objections to the existence of Israel did not begin then either. All of the ills that have befallen the Arabs of Palestine result in large part from their refusal to allow Jewish settlement in their midst. Violent opposition began with the riots and massacres of the 1920s, and continued in the 1948 war of independence. Despite the opposition of Palestinian Arabs, the Jews of Palestine built a state, and because of the war, the Arabs of Palestine were deprived of their own chance for self determination. Their opposition to Israel was expressed as Palestinian Arab nationalism in the formation of the Fatah and the PLO, well before 1967. These organizations aimed to destroy all of Israel, "occupied" by the "Zionist entity." Given that position, it was hardly likely that Israel could negotiate peace with the Arabs of Palestine.

Gamal Nasser closed the straits of Tiran and threatened to annihilate Israel in 1967. The PLO declared that their goal was to evict every Jew who had entered Israel after 1917. Jordanian guns fired continuously on Jerusalem and other parts of Israel despite warnings to stay out of the conflict. Israel was forced to defend itself. The territories were conquered primarily as "hostages for peace." This was an Israeli government decision, and it was repeated often and openly in public speeches by Israeli officials in the summer of 1967. However, it soon became apparent that there would be no peace negotiations. At the Khartoum conference, the Arab states vowed, "no peace, no negotiations, no recognition." In their 1968 covenant, the PLO vowed to "liberate" all of "Palestine" - including Israel.

Until 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan and Gaza was administered by Egypt. Israel did not prevent the Palestinians from forming a state, but they did not do so. The 1949 armistice borders were never recognized by any Arab state. They were meant to be the basis of peace talks, not permanent borders, but the peace talks never happened. In international law, an occupied territory is territory of another sovereign that has been conquered in war. Jordan renounced its claims to the West Bank, and Egypt never claimed the Gaza strip as part of its territory. The Palestinians do not have a state, and have said they do not want a state with interim borders. Therefore the legal status of these territories as "occupied" is dubious. Nonetheless, many Zionists have come to recognize that another people live in Gaza and the West Bank. The Arabs of Palestine have declared themselves to be a nation, just as we Jews recognized our own nationhood in the Zionist movement. Most Zionists now recognize that we must take cognizance of Palestinian national aspirations. However, at the same time, and by the same logic, the Arabs of Palestine and their supporters must honor the Jewish right to self determination.

The occupation was for many years relatively benign. Palestinian Arabs worked in Israeli towns and Israelis visited Arab towns. There was no "Apartheid" and the checkpoints were usually a formality.

A part of the Zionist public believed that the newly conquered territories should be part of Israel. They included areas that had held Jewish communities for many years, as well as holy places of the Jewish religion such as the wailing wall in Jerusalem, the tomb of Rachel near Bethlehem, and the tomb of Abraham in Hebron. They included areas such as Gush Etzion, Atarot and the old city of Jerusalem, where Jewish communities had been ethnically cleansed and expelled or forced to flee in 1948. Nonetheless, initially, the majority consensus in Israel was that most, or all of these territories would be returned in return for a genuine peace offer.

As the years passed, attitudes hardened. In 1975, the UN passed the infamous "Zionism is Racism" resolution. Israeli political sentiment veered to the right in reaction, and the Labor government was forced to allow the founding of Elon Moreh. In 1977, the rightist Likud party came to power. They believed in the cause of Greater Israel, and they gave settlement expansion a big boost. However, even the leader of the Likud, Ariel Sharon, has come to understand that it is wrong to rule over another people. Israel is withdrawing from the heavily populated Gaza strip, taking the calculated risk that this area may become a base for intense terrorist activity against Israel, under the control of the Hamas and Islamic Jihad extremists. These organizations believe it is their holy duty to wipe Israel off the map.

Optimism over a reasonable solution that would allow self-determination for both sides was born in the Oslo accords. Unfortunately, though the PLO officially renounced violence in the Oslo accords, Palestinian Arab extremist organizations began a series of lethal terror attacks, forcing Israel to institute a harsh regime of checkpoints, and to build "Jews only" bypass roads to Jewish settlements. In 2000, the negotiations broke down and the Palestinian Arabs resorted to terror attacks and suicide bombings in Israeli cities. At one point, there were 130 Israeli casualties in a single week. To control the bombings, Israel stepped up the regime of checkpoints and is building a security fence. These measures undoubtedly cause regrettable hardship to the Palestinians. However, they were implemented reluctantly. They are not the result of an "apartheid" ideology, as critics claim, nor are they attempts to "ethnically cleanse" Palestinians. They are security measures implemented with the greatest reluctance. In particular, the security fence contradicts the "Greater Israel" ideology and is certainly not a product of radical Zionism.

The occupation is more benign than its critics would have you believe. The "evils of the occupation" have been deliberately exaggerated by Palestinians and enemies of Israel. Officials of the Palestinian Authority spread false rumors that Israel was injecting Palestinian children with AIDs and distributing poisoned candies, that Israel had dumped radioactive waste in the West Bank, that Israel was irradiating Palestinians and giving them cancer at checkpoints, and that Israel had killed over 500 Palestinians in Jenin in operation "Defensive Wall." Several anti-Zionist writers insisted that the Israeli government is engaged in a diabolical plot to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, offering no proof at all. None of these rumors and announcements have any truth to them. They are part of a propaganda war aimed at justifying terrorism and extremist demands.
Isn't Israel doing to Palestinians what the Germans did do the Jews - Another "Holocaust"?

One of the most diabolical claims of anti-Zionists is that Israelis are like Nazis, and are perpetrating an Holocaust in the Palestinians. Israelis are not putting Palestinians in gas chambers or starving them to death. Israel is fighting a war, against a vicious and implacable enemy. The Jews of Europe were innocent citizens who were selected by the Nazis for extermination solely because of their religion. Israel has instituted security measures that are cause hardships for the Palestinians and are sometimes harsh. Occasional excesses, committed by Jewish and Muslim and Druze IDF soldiers alike are not the result of evil conspiracies or racist ideology, but errors of individuals that are the sad and inevitable result of a war that has been forced on Israel.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

November 29-- Today in History

Received an email from Jack Cohen that I believe is worthy of sharing with all.

Today, 29th November ("caf-tet november"), is an important date in Jewish history, it is the date when the UN GA voted in 1947 for the partition of Palestine and the establishment for the first time in modern times of a sovereign Jewish State. The Jews of Palestine accepted and celebrated wildly, while the Arabs rejected the partition plan and in a fury attacked the fledgling Jewish entity. The following day six Arab armies invaded Palestine - Egypt, Syria, (Trans)Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia - as well as the Palestinian armed gangs. The vastly outnumbered Jews defeated them all and established the credibility of the Jewish State to everyone's astonishment. Let's not forget that all stood by and waited for the Arabs to massacre the Palestinian Jews, just as they had done a few years before during WWII when the Germans and most Europeans had massacred European Jews. Fortunately, this time the Jews were able to survive and defeat the invading enemies. But, they have not given up and continue trying to this day to destroy Israel, 63 years later!
Coincidentally, on the same day, Wikileaks released the first batch of 250,000 confidential cables from US ambassadors around the world over the last 10 years. It has not proved a disaster for Israel as most expected. On the contrary, it shows Israel as a moderate and peace-seeking country, and shows Iran as a major threat to the stability of the Middle East. The main revelation, although not unsurprising, is that the Saudi King and many other moderate Sunni leaders have been pressuring the US over the past few years more insistently than Israel to take military action agsinst Iran and "cut off the head of the snake." The Arabs feel at least as threatened as Israel by Iran's current regime, for two reasons, first Persia and the Arabs have always been rivals fighting for hegemony of the Persian Gulf region, and second the Sunni States fear the influence of the Shia extremists based in Iran. They specifically fear the influence of Iran on Hamas in Gaza and Hizbollah in Lebanon. It is clear in the WIkileaks documents that no Arab country was prepared to come to the aid of Hamas in Gaza when Israel attacked in Operation Cast Lead in 2006. They were in fact hoping that Israel would totally destroy Hamas, and the Egyptians were not prepared to come forward and help Israel by offering to occupy Gaza. Even the PA Palestinians on the West Bank declined, preferring not to be seen as cooperating with Israel, even though it would have been massively in their interest. They will live to regret that particular piece of stupidity.
But, there is one incredible thing in these leaks that is conspicouous by its absence, at no time do the Sunni Arab States ask the US to help them against the threat from Israel. In effect they don't fear Israel, they don't refer to Israel in anything like the same way that they refer to Iran. Although on the surface Israel is their enemy and they use their Muslim majority in the UN to constantly delegitimize Israel, in truth when they are desperate for military protection it is not against Israel but Iran. For a long time I have argued that it should not be "Palestine first" but rather "Iran first." Many, apparently including Barack Obama, regard the solution of the so-called Palestine problem as the kingpin to settle all other conflicts in the region, when in reality it is the other way around, the Palestine problem can only be settled once Iran is taken care of, once Iran no longer threatens the stability of the whole region with its extremist philosophy, its Holcaust denial, its anti-Semitism and its nuclear weapons program. If anything is revealed in these leaks it is that Iran is the kingpin to resolving peace in the Middle East.

Monday, November 29, 2010

The Other Peace Partner

Much attention has been focused on barriers Israel brings to the peace process; notably whether or not Jewish settlements should continue in East Jerusalem. Not a day goes by without an article discussing US pressure on Israel to resume the peace process.

However, an article that appeared on UPI.com today reported that the Fatah Revolutionary Council concluded its fifth convention in Ramallah over the weekend by declaring its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Strangely this news article did not make the large media outlets.

How is Israel supposed to sit down to discuss peace if it is not recognized? And, how is Israel supposed to discuss peace when media bias is so rampant?



Friday, November 19, 2010

Israel Needs to Correct Dismal Public Relations

The Epoch Times ran a good article by Alon Ben-Meier on November 11, 2010 about the need to improve PR for Israel.

Israel’s public image today is dismal. As Elie Wiesel once joked, “Jews excel in just about every profession except public relations, but this should not surprise us: when God wanted to free the Jews from Egypt he sent Moses, who stuttered.”

However, today Israel’s problem is not that its leaders are stuttering, rather that they are stalling to show leadership toward ending the Arab-Israeli conflict. In doing so, they are sending a message to the international community that Israel does not care what the world thinks, and that it does not want peace after all.

Israel’s public relations problem is not due to a lack of attention.

The entire world is watching Israel closely, but they do not like what they see. In recent weeks the world community has witnessed near daily vandalism by settlers against Palestinian property in the West Bank, the passage of a “loyalty oath” aimed at marginalizing Israel’s minorities, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s obnoxious speech at the United Nations, and the government’s continued refusal to halt settlement construction in order to improve the environment for peace negotiations, despite unprecedented offers from the United States to encourage it do so.

This is not to mention a range of public blunders by the Israeli government in the past year, from Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon’s insult to the Turkish ambassador, to Israel’s harsh blockade of the Gaza Strip—since eased—viewed by the international community as collective punishment of the people of Gaza.

All of this has served to undercut public relations campaigns regarding the very real threats to Israel’s security, its genuine contributions in computer sciences and health care technologies, and its leadership in humanitarian relief efforts in times of crisis, such as in Haiti. As a result, Israel is becoming more and more isolated each day, and is increasingly appearing to be the obstinate party keeping the Middle East peace process from moving forward.
Israelis Resigned

Faced with increasing criticism and delegitimization campaigns, Israelis are becoming resigned to the belief that nothing they do will improve their public image. A recent poll conducted and published in August by Tel Aviv University and the Israel Democracy Institute indicated that 56 percent of Israelis believe that “the whole world is against us.”

Even more Israelis—77 percent of those polled—believe that no matter what Israel may do to try to resolve the conflict with the Palestinians; the world will continue to be critical.

These are disconcerting statistics with significant implications for Israel’s public relations, and more importantly, for its policies. The perception that Israel’s policies and public relations simply do not matter to the world leads Israel to ignore policies, which should be advanced, and to neglect communicating its message when and where it matters most.

But Israel cannot simply complain about the discriminatory treatment it receives and make hardly any effort to explain itself.

The decline of Israel/Turkey relations offers a prime example. In the period between 2005 and 2009, Israel’s efforts to explain to the Turkish public the onslaught of Hamas rocket attacks appeared to be few and far between. As the Turkish public became increasingly critical, Israel dismissed the trend as a sign of the influence of the new Islamic-rooted AK Party in its rise to power, not the result of poor public relations (or policies).

As a result, rather than seeking to mend relations, adapting policies, and improving communications, Israel ignored its longstanding ally, and even worse, insulted it. Instead of using quiet diplomacy to address Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s verbal attacks while focusing on a well-orchestrated public relations campaign to change Turkish public perception, Israel’s deputy Foreign minister summoned the Turkish ambassador to have him seated on a lower chair in front of the press.

Following the flotilla affair, Israel’s failure to explain itself and continue to drag its feet in providing information to the commission appointed by the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, yet again, further damaged its image.
Disunity

Much of the blunders of Israel’s public relations today are derived from the disunity of Israel’s governing coalition. Let’s face it: Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, charged with serving as Israel’s messenger to the world, is a man who 60 percent of Israelis according to a recent Yediot Aharonot (Israel’s late addition newspaper) poll believe is the politician “most responsible for the increased extreme nationalist and racist tendencies” in Israel today.

His speech at the United Nations, which was subsequently rebuked by Prime Minister Netanyahu, exemplified the mixed messages Israel has been sending to the international community, and the division within Israel’s current coalition.

In fact, disunity in the coalition is significantly damaging Israel’s public relations in two important arenas: in New York, where outreach and communications with the American Jewish community is critical, and at the United Nations, where Israel faces an onslaught of criticism and delegitimization on a daily basis.

Prime Minister Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Lieberman were unable even to agree upon who should serve as consul general in New York or ambassador to the United Nations. Only recently the Israeli Ambassador to Colombia Meron Reuben, who was filling the position of interim ambassador of Israel to the U.N., was finally instated as the permanent U.N. representative.

If Netanyahu and Lieberman could not even agree in a timely manner on the messenger, how can they ever agree on a cohesive, positive message, not to speak of a constructive policy? And without that clear message, Israel’s image is suffering precipitously.
Bad PR at Home

The combination of the Israeli public’s disillusionment that peace efforts will ever improve its global image and the disunity within the government further exacerbates Israel’s historic public relations woes across the globe.

But Israel is also inept at public relations at home. A recent poll showed that Israelis continue to oppose the Arab Peace Initiative. While 56 percent of Israelis polled reject the plan, 57 percent of Palestinians polled support it.

That the majority of Israelis do not recognize the opportunity posed by the Arab Peace Initiative as a historic repudiation of the Arab League’s “three no’s” at the 1967 Khartoum Conference, in which they declared “no to negotiations, no to recognition, no to peace,” is an indictment of the Israeli government.

Instead of marketing the plan as a genuine vehicle for negotiating an end to the conflict, the Israeli government has largely ignored the Arab League’s peace effort, and the public has followed suit. As a result, the global community gets a clear message: the Palestinians-and Arab states-are pursuing peace, while Israel is not.

This failure is more than just one of public relations, but of the Israeli government’s responsibility to pursue and advance all possible efforts to end the conflict and provide Israel with the security it requires.
Changing the Dynamics

Some may argue that Israel’s public relations have in fact, never been better.

Prime Minister Netanyahu is viewed by many Israelis as a master of PR. Israel’s ambassador to the United States, one of the most important positions for presenting Israel’s perspective to its most critical ally, is led by a respected academic and historian, Michael Oren.

But Netanyahu and Oren’s mastery of the English language cannot overcome the black eye to Israel’s image that Foreign Minister Lieberman provides.

And without a government that has a positive message, one that embraces efforts to secure peace and aggressively communicate with its allies in times of agreement and differences, Israel’s image will continue to suffer.

Contrary to the Israeli public’s indifference to global opinion, at a time when Israel is facing a strengthening delegitimization campaign across the globe, Israel’s dismal public relations are dangerous for the prospects of peace and for Israel’s security. In fact, to effectively counter the impact of these campaigns, Israel should send the global community the kind of concerted, positive message, which it is sorely lacking today.

Many across the globe believe that Prime Minster Netanyahu can change the dynamics of the peace process-and Israel’s image-at any moment if he wished.

The world knows that should Netanyahu genuinely wish to achieve a peace agreement, he has Kadima waiting in the wings, ready to enter into a coalition to support him. The fact that he has not done so in itself sends the world a negative message: he does not really want peace. The world sees this and rightly concludes that Netanyahu would rather stick with Lieberman and stall the peace process, than bring Tzipi Livni into the coalition and seek to conclude it with a lasting peace agreement.

Should Netanyahu finally decide to bring Livni in, and make a genuine effort to end the conflict, he could dramatically improve Israel’s image and live up to his reputation as a master of public relations rather than a demagogue.

Alon Ben-Meir (alon@alonben-meir.com; Web: www.alonben-meir.com ) is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Promotion of Israeli Films is Good for Israel


We need to take action
11/13/10

When organizers decided to focus last year's Toronto International Film Festival on Israeli filmmakers, more than 1,000 prominent actors and filmmakers signed a statement threatening to boycott the event.

The UJA Federation of Greater Toronto and the Jewish Federation of Greater Los Angeles came up with a counter statement supporting the festival. Among its signers: Jerry Seinfeld, Natalie Portman, Sacha Baron Cohen, Lisa Kudrow, Jason Alexander and Lenny Kravitz.

"It was a great lesson and set a template on how to respond because clearly, the other side is running a linked campaign with international funding and global strategy but local implementation," Ted Sokolsky, president of the Toronto federation, recently told JTA.

The Jewish Federations of North America and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs want local communities to be able to spring into action in defense of Israel on a regular basis. That's why they are gearing up to launch a multimillion-dollar joint initiative to combat anti-Israel campaigns.

Locally, the Jewish Community Relations Council also is planning to step up its efforts through an Israel Action Center.

These actions come not a moment too soon. The BDS (boycott, divest and sanction) movement is a sinister campaign designed to erode the very basis of Israel's legitimacy. With the exception of the seemingly unrelenting Iranian effort to build nuclear weapons, this push to undermine the idea that Israel has the right to exist as the Jewish state in the Middle East is its greatest existential threat.

Israel's supporters must quickly do what they can to stem the damage. Not simply by talking about all of Israel's terrific accomplishments or by bashing its enemies, but by confronting boycotters head on, as did the Toronto film festival's supporters.

And, as did the JCRC when it learned in July that a boycott was planned outside the Ulta store in Silver Spring, urging customers not to buy Ahava products, charging they "were illegally produced by settlers ... on stolen land." The JCRC sent out an e-mail alert late on a Friday afternoon, notifying those on its mailing list of the boycott and urging them to buy Ahava. By Monday morning, Ulta's Ahava shelves were bare.

Such efforts can't simply be ad hoc. JCRC, for example, urged its "buycott" just once, despite continued efforts to boycott Ahava. Fighting BDS must be part of a continuing effort to educate the public, both Jews and non-Jews -- particularly civic leaders -- about Israel's legitimacy and proper place in the world.

Whatever the source of action, the message should be clear: Though we may not always agree with all of Israel's policies, we all stand with our brothers and sisters in Israel in defense of the Jewish homeland and its right to exist.

http://washingtonjewishweek.com/main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=29&ArticleID=13739&TM=35516.28

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Point - Counter Point in Brattleboro

Letter Box

Posted: 11/12/2010

Don’t vandalize the messenger

Editor of the Reformer:

This is an open letter to the person who scratched the "Free Palestine" bumper sticker off my car with a key:

Dear Vandal, I will attempt to make this simple, as I can tell you are a simple person. I put this bumper sticker on my car as a quick way to remind Americans that their taxes support the abuse, displacement and death of millions of Palestinians, most of whom want to do nothing more than live their lives, educate their children, work at their jobs, worship at their chuches and mosques, tend to their crops, shop in their stores and visit their friends and family. Unfortunately, the billions of U.S. tax dollars that we send to Israel every year deprive the Palestinians of the ability to do these things freely. This makes the Palestinians sad and sometimes angry. If a Palestinian was caught vandalizing an Israeli automobile, as you did mine, most likely he or she would be brought to jail and held, possibly on far more serious charges or no charges at all, and most likely would serve considerable jail time. S/he might even be tortured, as this often happens to Palestinian men, women and children in Israeli jails. Just imagine if you had to go to jail and even endure torture for your silly act!

By removing the simple "Free Palestine" message from my bumper you did not erase the reality of Israel’s occupation. What you did do is help Americans to forget these ugly facts -- as they often do -- thereby making the situation worse. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to explain this to you and others. While it will be easy for me to replace my $1 bumper sticker, in the long run it will be much more difficult for Americans to reconcile their billions of dollars in support of Israel’s heinous (this means very bad) human rights abuses of the Palestinian people.

Kathryn Casa

New York, Nov. 2

A visitor to Brattleboro

P.S. It’s a good thing you left the other bumper sticker, "AIPAC owns your congressman," since that’s a much more complicated story.

http://www.reformer.com/letters/ci_16591256

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Letter Box

Posted: 11/13/2010

A little clarification

Editor of the Reformer:

I agree that Kathryn Casa’s bumper sticker should not have been vandalized. However, her letter discussing U.S. support of Israel left out some relevant information.

Just this week, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the U.S. has transferred $150 million in new aid to the Palestinian Authority to help close its budget gap. Ms. Clinton said, "This new funding will help the Palestinian Authority pay down its debt, continue to deliver services and security to its people, and keep the progress going. It will support our work together to expand Palestinians’ access to schools, clinics and clean drinking water in both the West Bank and Gaza [Strip]."

These funds bring U.S. direct budget assistance to the Palestinian Authority to $225 million this year. Overall support and investment to the Palestinians is nearly $600 million for the year.

Martin Cohn,

Brattleboro, Nov. 12

http://www.reformer.com/letters/ci_16600930

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Would we go to Israel?




It’s hard for an Arab to find a safe place to visit in the region... except for the state our demagogues continue to call ‘the alleged entity.’

I have been haunted since early boyhood by an infatuation with Bilad al-Sham, or Greater Syria – the territories of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Palestine.

For me, this fascination started with recognizing the voices of singers like Syrian Sabah Fakhry (born 1933) belonging to the al-Sham region.

I conjured up these images and feelings as I was boarding a plane heading for the “land of beauty,” dreaming of soirĂ©es in Aleppo, touring Damascus’s old marketplaces and hanging around its cafĂ©s.

Such daydreams were flashing through my imagination until the “blessed” plane landed in Syria, when all dreams faded away within half an hour at Damascus Airport.

I was quickly singled out by a security officer, who checked my passport. He reviewed a list, and asked me to stand aside until he had dealt with a “routine problem” that would not take time. Ten minutes later, a grim-faced officer in plainclothes came and told me to follow him. When I asked if I should bring my luggage, he pointed to an office and said it was already there. It was a government office affiliated with a security department whose name was not disclosed to me.

Two or more hours now passed, with me sitting on a very bad seat inside a vault not much bigger than a jail cell. A third officer then presented himself. He hammered me with questions, starting with my “dubious” profession (journalism) and including my favorite brand of cigarettes, Marlboro Red.

I answered with composure and calmness, trying in vain to alleviate the sharp tone he was using. “Your case is under examination,” the officer said disgustedly, adding that he would let me know the result “shortly.”


An hour later, a fourth officer arrived, no less grimfaced than his predecessors. Addressing the would-be “ambassador of the devil,” he told me I was not welcome in Syria. It was “a sovereign decision,” according to him, and he said he was not obliged to give any explanation.

So I had to carry my luggage (which had clearly been subject to a stormy search) back through the airport.

Now, on board a plane heading to Cairo, I recalled all the opinion pieces and TV interviews in which I had been critical of the policies and remarks of some senior Syrian officials. That was the reason for what had happened! My expulsion from Syria took place almost 18 months ago. I preferred at the time to turn a blind eye, as I believed it wasn’t worth making an issue out of it, particularly with a regime ruled by a man who had inherited his power. Yet I cannot help smiling in bitterness whenever I listen to Syrian officials parroting the Ba’ath Party’s famous slogan: “One Arab nation with a timeless message.” I have now become totally aware of what that one nation and timeless message stand for!

I THOUGHT about visiting Beirut and attending a concert by Lebanon’s iconic diva Fayrouz that was scheduled at the Al-Bayal hotel, and actually began to prepare for this once-in-a-lifetime event.

I phoned a Lebanese friend and fellow journalist.

He was terrified by my daring thought, and taken by surprise by my naivete – merely thinking about visiting Lebanon with my record of dire assaults on Hizbullah (I had once dubbed the powerful Shi’ite group a “war contractor” and a proxy for Iran’s regional aspirations).

I was even oblivious to the fact that Hizbullah men are in de facto control of Beirut Airport – another source of amazement for my colleague, who feared for my safety.

Although it was once a part of Egypt, I don’t even feel safe visiting Sudan, due to my verbal attacks on the regime of Omar Bashir, who insists on presiding over a collapsing state.

I am sure that Muammar Gaddafi’s Revolutionary Command Council will not deny me access to Libya.

Yet I am almost as certain I would never come out again, just like many others.

RCC “knights” would not be any more merciful to me than they were to my late Libyan colleague, London- based journalist Daif al-Ghazal, whose body was found off the coast of Benghazi on June 2, 2005, more than two weeks after his disappearance. He had been tortured almost beyond recognition, according to Reporters without Borders.

No one assumes to know what kind of suffering the 32-year was subject to when he was taking his last breaths, the words he uttered when the electric saw was cutting through his fingers or his screams upon being burnt with mineral acids. Nobody knows.

Rather, nobody cared to know about his suffering, and Arab newspapers didn’t highlight Ghazal’s case; the story was covered only by Western papers, rights groups and some websites.

I remember that I published many reports and opinion pieces on the incident, recalling notorious precedents by the Libyan regime. This is not all; I also commented more than once on Gaddafi’s weird, comic remarks, particularly during Arab summit conferences. That’s why I couldn’t risk going even to Salloum, the Egyptian city bordering Libya.

Being one of those in the Middle East who refuses my assigned role as a regime loyalist, I sometimes face charges of seeking normalization with Israel, apostasy from Islam or designation as an American agent.

FAILING TO find a glimpse of hope across the greater Arab world, we must concede that Israel has become the only “safe haven” where one can be sure of his life and dignity. Yes, Israel, the state our demagogues continue to call “the alleged entity.”

Just like the Palestinian Helles family who fled Hamas “jihadists” in Gaza to Israel, I foresee a time when millions of Arabs might stand humbly in front of IDF soldiers, begging for protection.

So, I urge you, dear fellow Arab, to visit Israel.

The writer is an Egyptian journalist and political analyst.

Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Listen to American Jews' stand on Israel

HAARETZ - October 31, 2010

Examining the views of American Jews toward Israel is crucial in light of both the U.S. midterm elections and the Jewish Agency reform program initiated by Natan Sharansky.

By Gabi Sheffer

Where do American Jews stand on Israel and how are these positions linked to their attitude toward the American administration? Examining this issue is crucial in light of both the U.S. midterm elections and the reform program for the Jewish Agency initiated by Chairman Natan Sharansky.

First, it must be recognized that American Jewry is not a homogenous community. There is a core, which includes those who emphatically identify as members of the Jewish faith and nation, but the number of Jews who have completely integrated into American society and who stand on the fringes of the Jewish nation is growing. Half of American Jews define themselves as ethnic Jews, and not Jews by faith. These two facts have great meaning for the positions of Jews in general, and specifically regarding Israel.

Many Jews in the core group feel an emotional tie to the Land of Israel, but not necessarily to present-day Israel. Most of these Jews are convinced that Israel is not the center of the Jewish people and that it has no right to interfere in their affairs, including on issues related to Jewish education. They believe there are at least two centers of Judaism: Israel and American Jewry.

According to polls not cited in Israel, most Jews who have completely integrated into American society display total apathy for events that unfold in Israel. Only 30 percent of American Jews care deeply about what happens here.

Most Jews who do care clearly support a solution involving two states for two peoples. What's more, an increasing number of Jews back the division of Jerusalem and turning half of it into the capital of Palestine (not only Jews in the United States, but also in Canada, France, Britain and even Australia, which was considered the Diaspora group most closely tied to Israel ).

Not only are more and more individual Jews coming to hold such views, but the number of organizations pushing these positions is also growing. J Street, which has come under harsh criticism from the Israeli political establishment, is not the only group with such a stance. Many people in the Reform Jewish community support its views, and similar organizations are being established, and not only in the United States.

It can be cautiously stated that many Diaspora Jews do not support the policy of the Israeli government. Put more bluntly, they oppose most aspects of Israeli government policy, not only in the political-military sphere, but in many other areas, including policy connected to defining the national Jewish-Israeli identity. Undoubtedly, more than half of American Jews who identify as such will not support a religious definition of the Jewish nation and the State of Israel.

In terms of American Jews' attitude toward the Obama administration, it is vital to understand that few of them will stop supporting their president solely because of his positions on the Middle East peace process. The positions of a great many American Jews are and will be determined by the social, political and economic situation in the United States, since American Jews feel they are an integral part of the country in which they live.

In light of all this, it is very important to examine carefully what is being said and written by members of Jewish organizations in the United States whose positions and interests are similar to those of Israeli governments, as well as the words of professional politicians and bureaucrats in Israel whose work and livelihood are linked to relations between Israel and the Diaspora.

The author teaches political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Is CBS' 60 minutes anti-Israel?

Leslie Stahl reported on a "controversial archeological dig site in Jerusalem.

Was it accurate or biased?

Decide for yourself by clicking here.

Monday, October 11, 2010

How did so many photographers happen to be in the right place at the time?

HonestReporting.com has once again uncovered a conspiracy by media photographers to create anti-Israel propaganda. This time it appears that a stoning incident was staged in Silwan for a photo caption: "An Israeli motorist run down a masked Palestinian youth who was among a group of boys throwing stones at Israeli cars in the mostly Arab east Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan." Amazing that seven photographers happened to be at the site at the same time to capture the incident.

Check out the full story here or watch a podcast.

Sunday, October 3, 2010

Sunday NY Times Travel Section: When History Speaks

A wonderful article in today's Sunday NY TIMES Travel section about Israel. The accompanying photos are great too.

September 29, 2010

By DAVID LASKIN

CHAIM KAHANOVICH, an 18-year-old Polish Jew, caught his first brown glimpse of the Holy Land from the deck of a steamer in November 1924. He would never leave. Dark-haired, short and solid, Chaim brought with him a teenager’s blazing passion and an ideologue’s stubborn commitment to a cause. The long, slow journey had taken him from Warsaw by train to the Black Sea port of Constanta, then by ship through the Bosporus Straits and across the Mediterranean to Palestine. There at last, rising like the back of an ox from the blue water of Haifa Bay, was the sere ridge of Mount Carmel — the Promised Land.

From his boyhood study of Torah, Chaim would have known that Carmel was the place where the prophet Elijah faced down the pagan priests of Baal and fled the wrath of Queen Jezebel. But he had not come to Palestine to study Torah. He and his comrades were called halutzim — pioneers — and they had made aliyah (literally the ascent) to the Holy Land to plow the soil, plant grapevines and citrus groves, raise chickens, tomatoes and children, and to found a new nation.

I know the details of Chaim’s life and circumstances because he and his wife, Sonia, were relatives of mine (my maternal grandfather was their first cousin), and I recently went to Israel with my oldest daughter, Emily, for the first time to retrace their journeys and uncover what I could about our family’s story — a story of immigration shared by thousands of others. What made this trip especially inspiring was that I was able to cover so much of Israeli history: in this ancient but recently conceived nation, the founders lived just a generation ago. It’s as if the children and grandchildren of Washington, Jefferson and Adams were around to give interviews and point out historical sights.

So with Chaim and Sonia’s three middle-aged children, Leah, Shimon and Benny, as our guides, Emily and I made a kind of roots pilgrimage to farmhouses and cemeteries, museums and archives — tracking 25 years of Chaim’s life. We were fortunate because our Israeli cousins proved to be tireless family historians. Drawing on letters, interviews and stories they remembered, they put together a written account of Chaim’s emigration and early life in Palestine. They unearthed and translated a lengthy interview they had recorded with their mother shortly before her death. They introduced me to elderly relatives and friends who had lived through that period as children and to others who had come to Israel after surviving the Holocaust. Museums and archives in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem and online databases helped, too, providing context, background, color and precious pieces of the genealogical puzzle.

Making our home base in Netanya, a rather drab but beautifully situated 1970s-era beach town north of Tel Aviv with a weird mix of French and Russian clientele, we began our journey where Chaim began his — in Haifa, looking down from the famed Bahai Gardens perched over the city on the slope of Mount Carmel.

From the gardens’ uppermost level, Haifa today has some of the topographical drama of Genoa or San Francisco — lush, green manicured terraces step down to a cityscape of red tile roofs and white low-rise apartment buildings; a working harbor, more muscular than pretty, bustles behind a breakwater; the azure bowl of a perfect bay opens beyond palms and beaches. The contemporary city also has its share of the depressing sprawl that blots much of Israel’s coastline. It was very different when Chaim disembarked here in 1924. Mixed Arab and Jewish then as now, the city Chaim saw was a tight enclave huddled between port and mountain. Mount Carmel, which today is thickly planted with luxury hotels, university campuses and condos, was largely wild.

It probably took Chaim and his comrades the better part of a day to creep by train from Haifa to the Sea of Galilee in Palestine’s northeast corner. We did the 50-mile trip in Benny’s car in under an hour and a half. But it felt like crossing into a different world, or several different worlds. A few miles east of Haifa, the congested suburbs drop away and the land opens up into the cotton fields and citrus and avocado groves of the black-soiled Jezreel Valley. On the other side of a range of hazy blue mountains, the landscape alters again to something vaguely reminiscent of the Rocky Mountain foothills — tan soil, scrubby vegetation, the air noticeably warmer and drier. We crested a rise, and suddenly, there at our feet was the immense turquoise teardrop of the Sea of Galilee (known as Kinneret in Hebrew) bordered by a patchwork of irrigated farm fields.

The lakeside city of Tiberias, on the western coast, offers the full panoply of tourist amenities, with resorts, spas and water-themed amusement parks. There is also plenty of recreation on the lake itself — boating, fishing, camping — and tours geared to Christian pilgrims who come here to see where Jesus was baptized (the exact spot is believed to be in the Jordan River just south of where it flows out of the south end of the lake) and to sail on the water that bore his feet. We were here not to relax or commune with God but to see the region where Chaim lived first and always loved best.

The south shore of the Sea of Galilee (in fact a freshwater lake fed and drained by the Jordan River) was the site of some of the earliest successful Jewish agricultural settlements, starting with the Kinneret Colony in 1908. Since the area is almost 700 feet below sea level, the climate is quite toasty most of the year (and blazing hot in summer), though if you can stand the heat, it’s a stunningly beautiful region and remains largely unspoiled. Chaim, during his first two years here, lived and worked not on the lakeshore but at a small isolated satellite settlement called Mount Kinneret, way up in the hills.

His sons had never been to the long-abandoned colony, and so with Benny driving and Shimon manning the GPS, we spent about 15 minutes careening around one-lane roads past mango groves, date palms and prickly pear until we found a place to park near a path that descends from the road into a bit of rocky scrub bisected by a stream. Today not a scrap remains of the collective farm that Chaim and others struggled to sustain here on a few precipitous acres. Benny cut the engine, and in the balmy silence, I tried to imagine the shock Chaim felt when he first laid eyes on the place. I knew from my research that he probably slept on boards laid over empty gasoline cans; that his hands split open and his back cramped from the toil of coaxing crops from the stony ground; that he had no privacy.

Ultimately, life at Mount Kinneret was too rugged and precarious even for Chaim, and in 1926 he moved down to the Kinneret Colony, a walled agricultural compound of eight small houses set back a few dozen yards from the shore. That was our next stop. After driving down the mountain, we met with a man named Mulik, a settler in his 80s with a phenomenal memory, who showed us around a small museum housed in a former pharmacy at the colony’s entrance. Every early settlement and kibbutz has its own museum or archive. Some, like this one, include just a few simple rooms of photos and farm tools; others, like the museum at the nearby Degania kibbutz, offer a fuller picture of the nation’s natural and human history. Mulik steered us to a grainy photo of the colony taken in the 1920s — eight houses bake in the sun in a landscape that looks as bare and crumpled as the Dakota Badlands.

“See that house with the flat roof?” asked Benny, pointing to the third building in from the right. “That’s where the Cohen family lived. They hired our father as a farmhand, and he lived in the shed beside the house.” We strolled a hundred yards from the museum, and there was the house, a modest unadorned bungalow shaded by a small front porch. The flat roof has been raised and tiled and a few tropical shrubs now grow in the yard, but the shed where Chaim boarded remains the same — a rickety stucco outbuilding with one tiny window. Nevertheless, according to the history my relatives had put together, Chaim had spent the happiest days of his life here. “Chaim loved the place and the Cohen family loved him,” one passage reads. “He often took the children sailing on the Kinneret. There was romance in the air.”

After lunch, we wandered down the lakeshore — a glorious vista composed of wide swatches of saturated color, soft green in the irrigated fields around the lake, powder blue in the mountains ringing it, deep royal blue on the lake’s surface. My cousins said that the place gets busy during holidays, but on the afternoon of our visit a couple of sailboats skimmed by, tiny waves lapped the shore, and a light haze muffled the distant mountains. It all felt ancient, serene, far from the world. But history has cast its shadow here, too. Shimon pointed across the water to the Golan Heights. “That’s where our older brother, Arik, fell.” I knew the story well: Arik, Chaim and Sonia’s tall, handsome, athletic firstborn son, was serving as a major in the Israeli army tank corps when he was killed on Oct. 12, 1973, by a Syrian shell in the Yom Kippur War. Shimon and Benny talked about driving us to the spot where their brother died but for reasons they kept to themselves, decided there wasn’t time.

In January 1929, Chaim, suffering from malaria (which was epidemic among the settlers), left the Kinneret and moved to another fledgling colony — that of Herzliya, near the Mediterranean coast. Israel is so compact that we were able to retrace his journey in a matter of hours. In the course of a single day we looped from our hotel in the coastal city of Netanya, up to Haifa, over to the Kinneret and back to Netanya in time for dinner; the next morning Shimon whisked us from Netanya to Herzliya in about half an hour.

Today a seaside resort north of Tel Aviv with gorgeous beaches and plush high-rise hotels alongside leafy villas owned by diplomats and business tycoons, Herzliya in Chaim’s day was an agricultural training center for garinim — groups of young Jewish farm workers. The Beit Rishonim (Founders’ House), a small museum devoted to Herzliya’s past, wonderfully captures the struggle and ardor of the early modern Jewish settlers.

While Emily and I browsed the museum’s photos of sweaty young men (and a few women) digging wells and planting orange trees in the desolate sand dunes, Shimon filled us in on the family history. Chaim had been working in Herzliya for three years when his cousin (and soon to be wife) Sonia joined him from Poland in 1932. She and Chaim were married in December 1933, and a year later moved 20 miles up the coast to the village of Kfar Vitkin to join a newly formed moshav (a cooperative farming village akin to a kibbutz but with families farming individual plots and raising their own children).

Though now engulfed in the sprawl creeping north from Tel Aviv, the 150-family Kfar Vitkin moshav has retained some of its agricultural character. Citrus and avocado groves (and tennis courts) fringe the farmsteads, a big feed and grain distribution warehouse looms beside the village center, and the smell of cow manure pervades the air on warm evenings.

We visited the tiny stucco box of a house that Chaim and Sonia built for their family, which would come to include four children and Sonia’s father, who had miraculously left Poland to visit family in New York — mine — before war broke out and joined his daughter in 1948. What surprised me was how small the plots were — barely bigger than a good-size lot in the American exurbs. Chaim became the moshav’s driver, and his sons fondly remember hauling produce and eggs into Haifa with their father in a dusty old truck.

Then, when he was in his early 50s Chaim suffered a stroke that left him partly paralyzed and unable to work until his death in 1965 at the age of 59.

Before dinner one night, Benny brought Emily and me up to the moshav’s cemetery on a breezy hillside outside of town. We wandered, while he translated the names on the headstones: Arik; Sonia’s father, Sholom Tvi; and Sonia, whose stone was inscribed not only with her own name and dates (1910 to 1996) but also the names of her two sisters and her mother. They have no graves of their own because they stayed in Poland, and perished along with 14 other relations.

Our final days in Israel were dedicated to learning what we could about the lives and deaths of these relatives. To pursue this search, we left behind the mountains and coastal farming villages where we had spent the first part of the week and headed to the nation’s two major cities — one of them ancient, the other not even a century old, both rushing rapidly into an uncertain future. Specifically, we were intent on visiting two major cultural institutions, one in Tel Aviv, the other in Jerusalem, dedicated to helping the Jewish people untangle and come to terms with their past.

In Tel Aviv we devoted most of our time to Beit Hatfutsot (the Museum of the Jewish People, commonly called the Diaspora Museum) on the campus of Tel Aviv University. Two floors of multimedia galleries packed with dioramas, replicas of Jewish artistry and architecture, historic film clips, snatches of music, photos, models of synagogues, and searchable computer terminals conjure up 2,000 years of Jewish exile in all corners of the world. I was most interested in the shtetls of Eastern Europe, where my family had lived for hundreds of years, and though I found much that was redolent of the spirit of the past, there was little specific to my search.

I had hopes of learning more in the ground-floor database room, where a couple of helpful English-speaking archivists are on hand to guide visitors at no charge through searches of digital genealogical and historical files. But I had already visited the museum’s Web site before I left home, and the same information came up. Far richer was a search for our family’s shtetls on the Yizkor (memorial) Book Project run by Jewish Gen (jewishgen.org/yizkor/).

Toward the end of the week, we headed to Jerusalem. We did a bit of sightseeing from our guesthouse in the Old City, and then spent a full day at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in West Jerusalem. In the brief five years since it opened, Yad Vashem’s history museum has become a rite of passage of sorts for all history-minded visitors to Israel, and after spending a day there, I could see why. The galleries designed by Moshe Safdie enclose — indeed almost imprison — you in a nightmarish maze of photos, film clips, posters, artifacts and scale models of death camps: the whole story of the destruction of Europe’s Jews from the rise of Hitler to the liberation of the camps. I stood weeping before a film clip of Jewish prisoners forced to run from trucks to the killing pits of Ponary outside the Lithuanian city of Vilnius, where Nazis machine-gunned tens of thousands and bulldozed earth over the bodies. One of Sonia’s brothers-in-law probably died there. I listened to a guide explain how crystallized pellets of the poison gas Zyklon-B were dropped into sealed death chambers at Birkenau. I gazed at photos of children starving to death in the same ghetto where Chaim and Sonia’s family was imprisoned.

The Diaspora Museum brought me close to the vanished sepia world where my family once lived. Yad Vashem immersed me in the hell in which 17 of them died. But it also shed some light on one aspect of my family’s history that had never been resolved.

Right before my visit, I had e-mailed the names, dates and places of birth of my relatives killed in Europe to Rita Margolin, a staff researcher in the Yad Vashem archives. She had uncovered one bit of information that my Israeli relatives had not known, and she shared it with us when we stopped by the archives. Shortly before the war ended, one of Sonia’s nephews had been deported from the Vilnius ghetto to a slave labor camp called Klooga, where he died at the age of 16 — exactly how remains unknown.

This 16-year-old prisoner, No. 641, Chaim and Sonia’s nephew, was Benny and Leah and Shimon’s first cousin. They have his pictures in their family albums; their mother visited his family in Vilnius, then Vilna. Another relative, a survivor of the Vilna ghetto we met with in Tel Aviv, told us that the nephew fell ill with scarlet fever in the ghetto and went deaf.

After two emotionally draining days, we left Jerusalem for Hadera, the city north of Tel Aviv where my cousin Shimon lives, eager to share this new detail at a party the family gave for us on our last night. Chaim and Sonia’s three surviving children were there, along with most of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren — maybe 25 people, all of them living in Israel, all of them living, because two starry-eyed halutzim had left Poland some 80 years before to make a new life in the Holy Land.

IF YOU GO

Family members make the best guides for heritage travel, but you can customize a trip using professionals through Best Guide (bestguide.co.il, in Hebrew only), with tours in Hebrew or English.

The Galilee is an easy day trip from Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. If you want to spend the night, there is a wide range of accommodations in Tiberias, an ancient Roman city that has evolved into something of a 21st-century party town. More tranquil and bucolic lodging (standard motel units as well as apartments and cottages with kitchens) can be found at the resort village run by the Ein Gev kibbutz on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee (eingev.com).

For family reasons, we focused our visit to the Galilee on the Kinneret Colony and its small history museum (open by appointment, 972-4-675-0142), but for a more complete overview of the region’s agriculture, modern Jewish settlement and natural history, I would recommend a tour of Degania A (degania.org.il), Israel’s first kibbutz. Children might be interested in the displays of local animals (and plants) at the kibbutz’s Beit Gordon natural history museum (beitgordon.museumline.co.il, in Hebrew only).

A two-minute drive from Degania brings you to Yardenit, the site on the Jordan River traditionally associated with the baptism of Jesus (yardenit.com). Open March to November. Admission is free.

Beit Rishonim, or Founders’ House (8 ha-Nadiv Street, Herzliya; 972-9-954-8561. Admission: individuals free; for groups, 20 shekels, or $5.35 at 27 cents to the shekel, a person.

Beit Hatfutsot, the Museum of the Jewish People, on the Tel Aviv University Campus (Gate 2; bh.org.il). Admission: 35 shekels. You can access the research database through the Web site.

Yad Vashem (yadvashem.org), a complex of history and art museums, memorials, gardens and an archive, library and resource center, is about a 20-minute cab ride from the Old City of Jerusalem. Admission is free. For help with researching Holocaust victims, e-mail can be sent to holocaust.resources@yadvashem.org.il.

David Laskin, a Seattle-based writer, is at work on a history of his family.

http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/travel/03Israel.html?pagewanted=1

PHOTOS:

http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2010/09/28/travel/20101003ISRAEL.html




Tuesday, September 28, 2010

UNHRC abuses human rights


JERUSALEM POST

Once again, a report has blamed an event almost solely on Israel while refusing to assign responsibility or even suitably investigate any other party.

Unsurprisingly, a United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) report has once again slammed Israel’s acts of self-defense. The recently released report ostensibly investigating the events that surrounded the interception of the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara in May is a modern blood-libel, and another nail in the coffin of the council’s credibility. The full report is scheduled to be officially presented to the council on Monday.

While its name would seem to indicate a worthy body, the UNHRC has two sole functions: to defend serial human-rights abusing nations from reproach, and to revile and attack Israel.

The UNHRC, created in 2006, is the successor to the thoroughly discredited United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). When the mandate for the new council was debated, certain basic reforms and standards were proposed to ensure the commission’s failures were not repeated. Unfortunately, few of the reforms received substantial support in the UN General Assembly, which refused to adopt them.

Those that were adopted have been abused.

The General Assembly resolution that created the council merely required member states to “take into account” a candidate’s human-rights record when applying to the UNHRC. Not even a nation under sanction from the UN Security Council for human-rights abuses need refrain from seeking election.

During the application process, candidate nations make pledges of adherence to human rights standards by way of justifying their candidacy. These statements have been described as Kafkaesque in their deviance from reality and historical record. One glaring example is that of Saudi Arabia, which claimed a “confirmed commitment to the defense, protection and promotion of human rights.”

The reality of course, is very different.

The US State Department’s annual human rights reports consistently criticize Saudi Arabia for its serious human rights failings, including arbitrary arrest, discrimination against women, restriction of worker rights and lack of religious freedom.

However, Saudi Arabia is hardly alone, as only 20 of the 47 nations on the UNHRC are considered “free” by Freedom House, an independent NGO which monitors human rights and political freedoms. This means the majority of nations currently represented on the UNHRC do not allow basic freedoms for their own people, let alone concern themselves with global human rights.

Another example of this farce was the recent election of Libya to the UNHRC.

Libya received support from 155 of the General Assembly’s 192 member states in a secret ballot, angering a coalition of 37 human rights organizations which described Libya as one of the most repressive societies in the world.

ONE OF the root problems is the influence of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) within the UNHRC.

The UNHRC heavily weights membership on its council to nations from Africa and Asia – two continents where the OIC has considerable influence. The OIC controls the lion’s share of the world’s energy resources, including oil, gas and uranium.

The OIC and its allies have an automatic majority on the UNHRC, and this is represented in the council’s workload.

Human Rights Watch claims that the OIC has “fought doggedly” and successfully within the UN Human Rights Council to shield states from criticism, except when it comes to criticism of Israel. The OIC’s mantra has been that the council should work cooperatively with abusive governments rather than condemn them.

This has led to the absurd situation in which Israel is condemned 33 times by the UNHRC out of a total of 40 countryspecific condemnations, while the UNHRC expresses only “deep concern” over Sudan and praises its cooperation.

In addition, the UNHRC adopted a unique decision to discuss human rights violations committed by Israel in all of the council’s meetings. It has also been criticized for redirecting attention to the fate of Muslim minorities within non- Muslim countries, but diverting attention from the treatment of ethnic minorities in Muslim-majority countries, such as the oppression of the Kurds in Syria, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Al-Akhdam in Yemen or the Berbers in Algeria.

Furthermore, the OIC has been at the forefront of silencing freedom of expression.

An amendment to the duties of the special rapporteur on freedom of expression, passed by the Human Rights Council on March 28, 2008, has acted against this very freedom. The OIC and its allies have sought to ban anything they deem as criticism of Islam. Some nations were outraged by this amendment, which they claimed “turns the special rapporteur’s mandate on its head.”

Nevertheless, it is on the subject of Israel that the OIC appears to have unique influence. When the UNHRC discussed issues relating to the Second Lebanon War in 2006, four of the council’s independent experts reported the findings of their visit to Lebanon and Israel. State after state from the OIC took the floor to denounce the experts for daring to look beyond Israeli violations to discuss Hizbullah’s as well.

This sent a very clear message that experts filing reports for the UNHRC involving Israel should never look at the conduct of any other party. Justice Richard Goldstone understood this very well, as was reflected in the report he gave the UNHRC. In an interview given to Al Jazeera in 2009, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the OIC, explained how his organization not only initiated, but drove the Goldstone process from start to finish.

THE PANEL of experts compiling the report on events surrounding the flotilla has clearly understood its mandate well. Once again, a report has singularly blamed an event almost solely on Israel while refusing to assign responsibility or even suitably investigate any other actor. What makes the report so absurd is the recent release of many first-hand accounts by people on the Mavi Marmara.

These accounts, written by some hostile to Israel in the first place, depict very different scenes to those described in the report.

In his recently released book, Turkish journalist Sefik Dinç, while sympathetic to the militant IHH, writes that the crisis was “calculated” by those on board, and reportedly describes how the IDF soldiers did not open fire until after other soldiers were taken hostage. Dinç describes in his book, with the aid of photographs, how preparations for confronting the Israelis on the Mavi Marmara were “not going to be that passive.”

Our internal investigations indicate that not only did the soldiers only open fire when their lives were threatened, but that the first shots were fired by those on the boat; there are reports that one soldier suffered a knee injury from a non-IDF weapon as soon as he came on board.

This biased, libelous report indicates that the OIC has once again achieved its aim of condemning Israel through its proxies in the UNHRC. One again, it has proven UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former high commissioner for human rights Mary Robinson’s criticisms that the council acts according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. In fact, the report stands as an affront to the secretary- general’s own panel of inquiry, with which Israel is fully cooperating.

General Assembly President Joseph Deisss warned recently against the marginalization of the UN itself by stating the need for urgent reforms, like reviewing the UNHRC. At stake is the plight of millions of victims of human-rights violations around the world.

It is high time for democracies to reassess their participation in a council that places political calculations over the protection of human rights while providing cover to some of the world’s most brutal regimes.

We must give a voice to the oppressed, justice to the abused and equity for all of humanity. None of this will be achieved by always attacking and condemning Israel while allowing totalitarian nations to hijack the international human-rights agenda.

The writer is the deputy foreign minister.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/Article.aspx?id=189354