| PALESTINE, MORE OF A THREAT TO ISRAEL THAN THE UPRISING Posted by Louis René Beres, September 18, 2011. |
The following article appears exactly as it was written by Professor Louis René Beres more than 22 years ago. It is important to reconsider at this particular moment, in late September 2011, when the Palestinian Authority leadership, in a diplomatic end-run around still-binding international legal obligations to Israel, seeks formal U.N. recognition for Palestinian statehood.
|
|
February 1989
A pair of prominent Israeli commentators has recently pointed out that continued control of the territories would have grave consequences for Israel's security. In this connection, Yehoshafat Harkabi, a former chief of military intelligence (AMAN), argues, in his newest book, Israel's Fateful Hour, that a refusal to end "occupation" of West Bank (Judea/Samaria) and Gaza will produce escalating terrorism and further incentives for war by neighboring Arab states. Abba Eban, Foreign Minister of Israel from 1966 to 1974, insists in a January 2, 1989 editorial in The New York Times ("Israel, Hardly the Monaco of the Middle East"), that Israel would have nothing to fear from an independent "Palestine." Such a state, he claimed, "would be the weakest military entity on earth."
In these assessments, Harkabi is certainly correct, but nowhere does he compare the risks to Israel of an ongoing "occupation" with those of a Palestinian state. If he had offered such a comparison, perhaps he would have understood that continuing Israeli administrative control of Judea/Samaria/Gaza would certainly have its risks, but that a bordering state of Palestine would be far worse. As for Mr. Eban, he is wrong altogether.
If there were to be an Arab-ruled state in Judea/Samaria/Gaza, its danger to Israel would surely lie less in its own army than in the several other Arab armies and assorted insurgents that would soon burrow themselves into a new and authentic form of occupation. To suggest that the risks to Israel can be ascertained by simply comparing the Israeli army to the far more modest forces of a prospective Palestine, is to assume a totally static condition in the new state, one that naively offers only the "best case" scenario for Israel.
These assessments, therefore, are hardly in Jerusalem's best interests. Israel is not "the Monaco of the Middle East," but neither would Palestine be as benign a mini-state as Abba Eban suggests. Before Israel can reasonably conclude that the so-called "occupation" is intolerable, its leaders will first have to determine whether it is actually less tolerable than Palestinian statehood. If it isn't less tolerable, then rationality would require continuing administrative control, however painful, costly and unfortunate. And such rationality would not even take into account the overwhelmingly all-important fact that Judea and Samaria are arguably inherent parts of the Jewish State under binding international law.
What, exactly, are the major strategic risks to Israel posed by an independent Palestine? To answer this question, one must first understand that several of the Arab states are still preparing for war with Israel, and that a new Arab state in Judea/Samaria/Gaza would open another hot border for the Jewish state. As a result, the Arab-Israeli balance of forces could change decisively, possibly even providing the needed incentive for certain Arab first-strikes.
Ballistic missiles that could carry chemical warheads now exist in Syria, Iraq, non-Arab Iran, Libya and Saudi Arabia. Significantly, Syria, which is now, together with Iraq, the most serious country threat to Israel, has also been receiving massive stocks of new conventional weapons, including main battle tanks, combat aircraft, anti-aircraft systems and tactical missiles. Still anxious to recover the Golan which it lost in 1967, the regime of Hafez al-Assad has already deployed 4,200 tanks on its border with Israel.
I know. I visited Israel's northern borders, with the IDF, during the first week of this year.
Ultimately, enemy ballistic missiles could carry nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia recently purchased CSS2-class surface-to-surface missiles from China that could reach any part of the Middle East from Riyadh. Iraq, even after Israel's highly-successful 1981 air attack against the French-built Osiraq nuclear reactor, still possesses about 12.5 kilograms (27.5 pounds) of French-supplied highly-enriched uranium, enough for at least one nuclear weapon. During its recent "War of Cities" with Iran, the Baghdad regime consistently violated the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibitions against chemical weapons.
What about delivery systems? Iraq has several types of aircraft that would be capable of meeting these needs, including the Soviet-supplied TU-22, TU-16, and MiG-23, and the French-supplied Mirage F-1. Iraq has also acquired the SCUD B from the Soviet Union, a 300-km ballistic missile with inertial guidance, and, also from the Soviets, the FROG-7, an unguided free rocket over ground with a 60 to 70-km range. It has also been reported that the Soviets have exported an unknown number of SS-21s to Iraq, a replacement for the FROG with improved guidance capability. For now, the principal impediment to Iraqi nuclear weapons is the temporary incapacity to manufacture or acquire nuclear missile warheads.
Let us turn to Iran, certain to become a major strategic threat to Israel. Until the revolution in January 1979, Iran's nuclear program was the most ambitious in the entire Middle East. In addition to open, commercial activities, the Shah most likely initiated a full-scale nuclear weapons research program. This program included work on two technologies for producing weapons-grade nuclear materials, enrichment and reprocessing, and on the actual design of nuclear weapons.
Because of Washington's unwillingness to undermine the Shah in the days preceding the final overthrow, Khomeini inherited substantial nuclear assets. The precise configuration of this nuclear infrastructure, including weapons-relevant technology and equipment, is still known only to selected persons within the Messianic Khomeini regime. What is known is that this regime is diligently reactivating the nation's nuclear program. Where will this reactivation end?
From Iran's point of view, nuclear weapons must appear as an essential counterweight to Iraq's superiority in conventional armaments. Moreover, nuclear weapons would seem to have special value in enhancing the Khomeini regime's status in the region, and its associated capacity to advance the objectives of militant Islamic fundamentalism. It should not be surprising, therefore, that Iran, in 1984, opened a new research center at Isfahan.
What delivery systems are available to Iran? At the moment, the Tehran regime has two lines of advanced combat aircraft that can deliver a nuclear bomb: the F-4D/E Phantom II, and the F-5E/F Tiger II. It also has a ballistic missile force that could deliver nuclear warheads. Although there is no available information that Iran is making substantial progress in the manufacture of such warheads, that country has maintained and expanded its very costly nuclear research program at a time of increasing economic dislocation and hardship. Iran remains a potential nuclear power that should not be dismissed out of hand.
What about Syria? Recognizing that it cannot rely entirely on the air force to penetrate Israeli air space, Syria knows that its Soviet-designed Scud-B missile could, if fired from Syria, reach all of Israel, except the southern Negev, in six minutes. A direct descendant of the German V-2, the Scud is a weapon that could do enormous damage to Israeli civilian populations. In this connection, it could carry, if Syria should ever acquire nuclear warheads, the implements of atomic war. At some point, Syria will very likely attempt, in great secrecy, to acquire some nuclear weapons capability.
If Palestine should provide the essential incentive for an Arab/Islamic war against Israel, a war that would end with the actual use of nuclear weapons, it could wind up as "Armageddon." But even if there would be no escalation to nuclear war-fighting, Palestine could still become another Lebanon. Here, many different Palestinian factions, both within and outside the P.L.O. umbrella, would contend for control over the new Arab state. Various insurgents that do not threaten Israel's very survival in the intifadah would now be able to inflict great harm on their neighbor to the west.
Let me be more precise. Should an independent Palestine be created from Judea/Samaria/Gaza, its president would almost certainly be Yasser Arafat, and its principal leaders would be drawn from the P.L.O. chairman's faction, al-Fatah. Probably within hours of the new state's effective beginnings, its government and its ruling elite would be targeted by P.L.O. radicals, and by various Palestinian parties opposed to P.L.O. Among the radicals, some (e.g., Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine) might represent Syrian interests, and others (e.g., Arab Liberation Front and Palestine Liberation Front) might front for Iraq.
Among the anti-P.L.O. parties, most (e.g., Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command; Popular Struggle Front; the Abu Musa organization and Saiqa) are tied intimately to Syria, and one (Fatah Revolutionary Council) — known popularly as the Abu Nidal group — is linked to Libya. Samir Gosheh's Popular Struggle Front currently displays more independence from Syria than Ahmed Jebril's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine — General Command, and Saiqa is essentially an integral Syrian force with only a nominal Palestinian identity.
Even the mainstream Fatah organization could spawn anti-Arafat cells. Saleh Khalef, Fatah's second-in-command (nom de guerre: Abu Lyad) was closely associated with Black September, and is far more radical than Arafat. Farouk Kaddoumi (nom de guerre: Abu Lutf) has close ties to the Soviet Union and eastern bloc countries, and Khaled al-Hassan frequently challenges Arafat in search of more collective leadership.
We see that many factions, including some newly developing Islamic fundamentalists spun off from Egypt's Moslem Brotherhood, would contend for control over any new state of Palestine, and that all of these factions could resort unhesitatingly to high levels of violence. Before long, the resident Palestinian population would suffer far more than it had under Israeli rule, and anarchy would pose a real threat to Jordan. Over time, it is likely that Jordan could be undermined altogether, and even become part of a "greater Palestine." Of course, Iraq, too, could gain a controlling position in Palestine, but this would depend upon the power of its Palestinian surrogates vis-à-vis those in other places. Ironically, the result of these events — of another Lebanon — would be enormously tragic for both Palestinians who seek a homeland, and for Israelis who seek secure frontiers.
It follows from all of this that Palestine would pose a very serious security risk to Israel, and that this risk could become far greater than that of maintaining Israeli control of "the territories." This does not mean that Israel and the Palestinians should steer clear of meaningful negotiations, or that Israel should avoid concerning itself with protecting the essential human rights of the Arab populations under its control. But it does mean that any reasonable assessments of Israel's security must always compare the expected costs of both principal options for Judea/Samaria/Gaza: IDF military administration versus independence. In the absence of such an essential comparison, Israel could go from bad to worse, from a situation that is debilitating and demoralizing, to one that is intolerable.
Louis René Beres is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. He is also Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press in New York City. In Israel, he was Chair of Project Daniel. Professor Beres was born in Zürich, Switzerland, on August 31, 1945, and is the author of many books and articles dealing with international relations and strategic studies. Contact him at lberes@purdue.edu
|
| BLOOD IN THE WATER Posted by John R. Cohn, September 18, 2011. |
|
Watching Palestinian maneuvering at the United Nations, the sacking of Israel's Cairo embassy, and Turkey's announced intent to force open Israel's weapons embargo of Gaza, a blockade ruled lawful by a customarily hostile United Nations, the question is, "Why now?"
Israel's enemies may see this as their best opportunity to destroy the Jewish state. Europeans barely want to defend themselves. America's president has shown he is not afraid to act, but his rhetoric has enfeebled his actions. Concrete measures supporting Israel are matched by widely broadcast reluctance, demands for apologies, and manufactured disputes with Israel's elected government. And polls suggest our president, despite attempted outreach to Muslims, is less popular in the Arab world than when he took office.
If the Palestinians wanted a state, they would have one. But it is not about Palestinian Arab autonomy, Jerusalem, the location of Jewish homes, or the so-called refugees. It is about the existence of a liberal democracy in a sea of intolerance, and unswerving Arab rejection of a Jewish majority state. America's diplomats should not be expressing express regret for supporting Israel. It persuades no one while controverting their efforts and confusing their message.
And, throwing blood in the water just excites sharks more.
Contact John Cohn at john.r.cohn@gmail.com
|
| FROM ISRAEL: TENSE TIME Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 18, 2011. |
|
As I begin with housekeeping issues, I thank you for your patience:
Because of difficulties I've been having with posting transmission via gmail, some of you failed to receive my last posting, "Predictable." You can find it on my website, here:
http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/ current-postings/2011/9/15/september-15-2011- predictable.html
Whether you received it or not, I ask, please, that you bookmark my website:
http://arlenefromisrael.squarespace.com/ current-postings/
All postings go up on that site now ("current postings"). If a lengthy period goes by in which you don't hear from me, you might want to access this site to be certain you have not missed anything.
Gmail tells me the problem has been corrected and that there should be no further trouble. Call me a realist: I'll know this is the case only after I've used my address for some days. I won't know if this posting will go out properly until it's been sent.
Please, until it is certain that all is well, when writing to me, utilize akushner@netvision.net.il and not my gmail address.
I expect to post next in the middle of this week.
~~~~~~~~~~
There are always tensions here. But this seems a time in which we're facing several troublesome issues at once.
Right now, the date on which PA President Mahmoud Abbas says he will submit a request to the UN is this Friday, September 23. Originally it had been anticipated that he would do so earlier.
His latest projection — which, quite obviously, is subject to change without notice — has him delivering a speech to the General Assembly and then submitting a letter requesting full membership in the UN to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, which would be turned over to the president of the Security Council.
~~~~~~~~~~
Keep in mind that:
1) If this path is followed it will take days of processing and there will be no immediate results on outcome.
2) The US has committed to vetoing this request.
Abbas is currently making noises directed at the US regarding how bad it would be to veto. In a speech in Ramallah yesterday, he said that a veto would "destroy" the two-state solution. This man is a world-class master with regard to shifting responsibility for his actions on to other (usually Israeli) shoulders.
3) The Security Council does not create states, but only considers applications of states that already exist. This whole PA gambit is thus more than a bit amorphous with regard to diplomatic legalities. I may have more to say about this when next I write. Or we may not know how this will play out until it plays out.
3) The PA/PLO has made it clear repeatedly that if a state is recognized by the UN, it will not affect "right of return."
That is, "refugees" in PA areas would still be considered just that — they would not become citizens within the Palestinian state, and would not be issued passports, but would still be awaiting "return" to Israel.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2011/ Sep-15/148791-interview-refugees-will-not-be- citizens-of-new-state.ashx#axzz1YIrv8ypo
(With thanks to Dave A. and ElderofZiyon)
The PA is saying that the "right" (which actually does not exist) pertains to GA resolution 194, while the founding of a state pertains to SC resolution 242 (which in actuality called for negotiations and never required Israel to pull back to the Green Line).
This stated intention of continuing to promote "return," it seems to me, remains the single biggest tip-off to real Palestinian Arab intentions.
~~~~~~~~~~
There have been some very credible reports about Abbas's desire to climb down from the tree he's in — if only he would be able to do so without losing face. He is more than a little nervous about whether this is a smart move.
There are still frantic diplomatic efforts being expended by the US and EU to find a formula that would enable Abbas to say he walked away with a gain. One creative suggestion proposed last week by Quartet Envoy Tony Blair, for example, was that Abbas submit a letter to Ban Ki-Moon this week, but that the Secretary-General hold it until the end of the UN session, in case negotiations were able to start again before that.
~~~~~~~~~~
However, an article in the JPost today by Khaled Abu Toameh sheds light on these frantic diplomatic efforts:
"PLO official Nabil Sha'ath said on Saturday that the catalyst for Abbas's final decision to seek full membership at the Security Council was a meeting with the US Mideast envoys two days earlier.
"Speaking at a press conference in Ramallah, Sha'ath said that Denis Ross and David Hale presented Abbas with a document that was worded worse than one rejected by the Quartet over a month ago, the official Palestinian news agency WAFA reported.
"Sha'ath added that the document indicated that the White House accepted West Bank settlements as de facto policy." (Emphasis added)
Abu Toameh is a reliable journalist. But he is reporting on the words of Sha'ath, as carried by WAFA. Can we — dare we — accept this as accurate? It implies a couple of important things. First, that Netanyahu has not caved. And then, that the US may have softened its stand on "settlements." And, if this is so, I would read into it, between the lines, a weariness with PA demands.
~~~~~~~~~~
Another way to read this, however, is to say that Abbas is playing "hardball." He sees the eagerness of the Western world to keep him from his UN bid, and thus is holding out for the maximum he can get before he finally backs down. (And a little voice inside of me says he indeed may back down.)
~~~~~~~~~~
On the very same day that Abbas is going to the UN, Prime Minister Netanyahu, after considerable deliberation, has decided he will address the UN General Assembly as well. What was put out was that he decided to do it in the hopes that it will have an impact that is meaningful: the world never hears the Israeli side, he says, and he intends to tell it.
Just today I've have received some reliable, if unofficial, information regarding the fact that we may, indeed, hear a speech from Netanyahu to be proud of. He told the Cabinet this morning that he wants to "present our truth: the fact that we are not strangers in our land and have rights in this country that go back 'only 4,000 years', and that we have right to preserve our security."
The prime minister is slated to leave on Tuesday for the States, I believe, and will be meeting with Obama, I believe on Wednesday. There are no reports of plans for Obama to meet with Abbas. This also presumably tells us something. How awfully sick the president must be of this overweening petty dictator (I mean president, whose term has expired) who demands it all.
~~~~~~~~~~
Many factors must be watched as this drama unfolds. There is the question of Arab demonstrations that become riots. And there is the issue of how Israel will respond if the PA does proceed at the UN. We need to have a great deal of courage to stand for ourselves in that event.
To make matters even more complicated, the travesty known as Durban III is scheduled at the UN for September 22.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com
|
| ARABS STONE JEWISH SHEPHERD ON SABBATH Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, September 18, 2011. |
|
A Jewish shepherd escaped with his life on the Sabbath after Palestinian Authority Arabs stoned him and tried to steal his herd of sheep.
Police prevented him from identifying the attackers, who live in a small outpost several hundred feet from an IDF checkpoint on the southern edge of the southern Hevron Hills, between Arad and Kiryat Arba-Hevron.
The shepherd who came under attack on the Sabbath told Arutz Sheva he was herding the sheep when Arab shepherds came near on the pretense that their herd of goats had run away. The Jewish shepherd saw that the goats were simply grazing and asked the Arab shepherd to take them away. At that point, approximately seven other Arabs approached and began to hurl rocks at the Jewish shepherd.
Unarmed and realizing his life was in danger, with no chance of defending himself, he fled and left the sheep behind until he reached his community of Susia and notified security officers.
The IDF, which has a base only five minutes away in addition to the nearby checkpoint, took more than 30 minutes before reaching the scene. Despite the late arrival, the thieves were not able to escape with the sheep in such a short time, and the herd was restored the shepherd, who returned to the scene with the army.
He said that when he asked to file a complaint, the police and army refused to let him accompany them to the Arabs' tent to identify the attackers and file a complaint of attempted theft and murder. The Arab outpost has expanded in the last year with help from European-funded groups.
The sheep belong to Dalia Har Sinai, whose husband Yair was murdered several years ago by nearby Palestinian Authority villagers while he was unarmed and tending his herd at his farm.
She has continued to maintain her farm with the help of youth. Arabs from a nearby village stole her herd during a savage wind and rainstorm last winter, and contributions allowed her to start over again.
Saturday's rock attack was an attempt to steal the herd again.
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu is a writer for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.
|
| THE BRIBING OF THE BEDOUIN Posted by Steven Plaut, September 18, 2011. |
|
1. Professor Yehuda Bauer of the Hebrew University is generally regarded as Israel's leading Holocaust scholar. Bauer however is also a radical leftist. He is involved in all the usual leftist causes, even this one, involving suppression of freedom of speech: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/142314 and
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2853
And Professor Bauer, the Holocaust scholar, has a new cause. It is the promotion of one of the world's worst Holocaust Deniers.
Really.
Bauer is naturally a great advocate of Palestinian statehood, and he is a toady coddler of Abu Mazen, the head of the Palestinian Authority. As you no doubt recall, Abu Mazen did a "doctorate" in the Soviet Union, writing his PhD thesis on how the Holocaust never took place and is all a Zionist hoax. (See
http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/ mideastdispatches/archives/000032.html) Abu Mazen never retracted the "thesis," and it is taught these days in Palestinian schools.
Two weeks ago Bauer accompanied a group of Israeli pseudo-intellectuals to Ramallah to make hajj to Abu Mazen. One of the team, the far-leftist Bash-Orthodox bigot Sefi Rachlevski, then published his own report of the pow-wow. The leftists were naturally there to endorse the PLO and naturally never got around to demanding that the Palestinian Authority do something to stop terror. As it turns out, the Holocaust and Holocaust denial actual came up briefly at the meeting.
One of Bauer's friends, another Hebrew University prof named Eliyahu Richter, took Bauer to task for his toadying up to the Holocaust Denier. Bauer responded with an even toadier reply to him. Bauer says he explained to Abu Mazen and to his henchman Saeb Erekat why Abu Mazen's dissertation is "unacceptable." Abu Mazen simply ignored the comment. Bauer then responded to Abu Mazen's non-response by repeating how devoted Bauer really is to Palestinian statehood. And if Abu Mazen and his people ever get a state, and if that state then sets up concentration camps for Jews, perhaps Bauer could take up violin lessons so he can perform at the unloading docks.
2. For years Israel's radical Left, led in this by the extremist anti-Zionist cheerleader for terrorism Oren Yiftachel (professor of geography at Ben Gurion "University"), has been attempting to convert most of the entire Negev into a Bedouin mini-state. And if the Israeli far Left has its way, Bedouinstan will yet be a mini-state in which Jews will be prevented from living. Ben Gurion University could be its capital!
The Bedouin of the Negev were migrating transient nomads who passed in and out of borders over centuries, moving into and out of the Negev from the Sinai peninsula, from Saudi Arabia and from Jordan. They traditionally owned no land at all, and land ownership was an alien notion for them.
Today, in the year 2011, Negev Bedouins are claiming legal title to the bulk of land in the Negev, and the radical anti-Zionist Israeli Left is solidly behind them. How did this develop?
Kalman Liebskind, the great columnist in Maariv, devotes much of his weekend column to this matter. The answer is astonishing.
The story begins in the early 1970s, under various Labor Party governments. The regime was interested in maintaining amicable relations with the Negev Bedouin, but also in defining and settling legal claims for lands. In reality the Bedouin legally owned nothing. They just moved their camps and tents around the desert. But the government was willing to strike a deal whereby the Bedouin could be granted actual legal ownership over some land, while ending illegal squatting elsewhere.
In order to conduct the negotiations, the government allowed any Bedouin who wished to do so to file a claim that his family, his ancestors, had lived on a certain parcel of land, and his claim would be considered, together with conflicting legal evidence, once some overall arrangement would be negotiated. To file such a "claim" the Bedouin was required to produce no documentation, simply to fill out a form with an unsubstantiated assertion. These assertions were about as believable as would be my own claim to own all of Manhattan because my ancestors traded beads for it with the locals.
No one took the Bedouin "claims" seriously, but the intention was to use them as a symbolic starting point for negotiations and eventually allow the filers of the phony claims to retain a few percentage points of their "claims." That would provide the Bedouin with adequate lands and they could settle down into real jobs and real houses if they so chose. The initial Bedouin "claims" were for 200,000 acres. Including lands on which kibbutzim, moshavim and other Jewish towns sit.
While no one really considered the Bedouin claims as anything more than fiction, the state sought a modus vivendi with them in which some portion of those claims would be accepted as legit. In exchange Israel thought it could limit the space in which Bedouins would concentrate and sprawl and also halt the widespread illegal squatting by Bedouins on other lands they clearly do not own.
As you can imagine, that was a great plan that could only go wrong. It went super wrong once land values all over Israel shot up into the stratosphere.
The Israeli government offered to accept the 20% of the imaginary Bedouin claims as legit if the Bedouins would relinquish the rest of their fictional claims. The Bedouins of course demanded that Israel grant 100% of the fictional claims. The Israeli government as usual was worn down by salami tactics and by its devotion to appeasement. So at the moment there are "talks" between the government and the Bedouin to grant them 50% of their fictional claims.
Originally the willingness to strike a deal with the Bedouin was in large part thanks to the perception that they were more or less patriotic Israelis who often serve in the security forces. But that perception is decades out of date. Meanwhile the Negev Bedouin have been turning increasingly anti-Israel. PLO flags wave in the Negev Bedouin city of Rahat, and the municipality there refuses to employ any Jews. Some Bedouins have been involved in espionage and terrorism. The two worst anti-Israel pro-jihad Knesset members today are Bedouins.
Meanwhile, Yiftachel and the tenured extremists are running around the world claiming that Israel is trying to "steal Bedouin lands" and to deny the Bedouin their "rights." The only solution, insists Yiftachel, is international sanctions and pressure upon Israel to grant the Bedouins 100% of their fictional claims.
The willingness of the government to appease and coddle anti-Israel radical Bedouins is best illustrated in the amazing story of the bribery of Taleb a-Sana by Yitzhak Rabin, also discussed in Liebskind's column. From one of the small Arab fascist parties, a-Sana should have been jailed years ago for anti-Israel activity. He makes no attempt at disguising his detestation of Israel and Jews. Now it turns out that back when Yitzhak Rabin was still trying to shove his "peace accords" with the barbarians through the Knesset, he needed a-Sana's vote to duck a motion of non-confidence (which would topple the government and force new elections). Rabin's junta struck a dirty deal with a-Sana and his family, turning over 38 acres of prime state-owned land on which a-Sana built a huge mansion and on which he runs a sort of ranch. A photo of the mansion accompanies the Liebskind column. The Ewing family of Dallas lived in a tenement by comparison. In exchange, Rabin got his vote and survived the motion. If I tried to erect a window pane on a porch I would have the government inspectors breathing down my throat and threatening me within 24 hours.
The a-Sana family members were granted an additional 70 plots of land. A-Sana was also paid "compensation" for giving up a series of illegally constructed homes erected on public lands by his family and a freezing of various suits and indictments against a-Sana and his family for illegal construction. The "deal" was brokered by Benjamin "Fuad" Ben Eliezer, a minister in the cabinet, at Rabin's request.
The Oslo "Accords" then produced thousands of dead Israelis.
3. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/ Columnists/Article.aspx?id=238142 Editor's Notes: Delegitimizing the delegitimizers By STEVE LINDE 09/16/2011 17:08
4. I was just told that the Rabbi of the Reform synagogue in Hanover, New Hampshire has announcd that on Yom Kippur, part of the afternoon "service" will consist of a performance by a Shostakovitch trio played in the "shul." Just in case you want to drive on over.
5. Obama's kibitzing in Israeli politics: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view& pageId=344985
Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@gmail.com His website address is
http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. |
| BLAMING ISRAEL WON'T HELP Posted by Phyllis Chesler, September 18, 2011. |
Were Israel to be attacked she would be on her own — and she would blamed for daring to defend herself. But something is very wrong in the Muslim world that is bigger than Israel.
|
|
On September 16, 2011, the New York Times actually used the word "Islamist" in a front page story — not as often or as prominently as the word "militant" but still, there it was — and in an article titled "At White House, Weighing Limits of Terror Fight."
For all those who are invested in the Lie that the infidels (i.e. Western civilization} are not under attack, allow me to point out that the anti-Israel and anti-American Paper of Record had, altogether, three articles on the front page about Afghanistan, Bahrain, and about "Islamist militants in Yemen and Somalia" as well as about "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, based in Yemen, and the Somalia-based Shabab;" "Al Qaeda operating in Afghanistan...and in the tribal regions of Pakistan."
In this same issue, the Times also has articles which focus on or mention Jordan, "Palestine," Turkey, Afghanistan, Libya, Bahrain, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and the Arabian Peninsula.
Even the Times knows that something is up, something has gone wrong, very wrong in terms of the Muslim world, that it is far bigger than Israel, and that it won't get better merely by blaming Israel or America.
In my opinion, were Israel to be attacked she would be on her own — and she would blamed for daring to defend herself. This has already happened many times. While the war against the Jews is very hot, it is almost invisible in the western media.
As we know, (but allow me to remind us), in August of 2011, Israel endured 178 Hamas/"Palestinian" terror attacks which included 145 rockets and 46 heavy mortar shells fired into the south of Israel.
That same month, Israel also endured a heavy "surge" of hostile, apparently civilian Arabs crossing Israel's borders from Syria and attempting to do so from Lebanon, which included the Lebanese Army opening fire on a group of Israeli soldiers.
Also in August, terrorists (Hamas? Al Qaeda? PLO?) crossed into Israel from Egypt, wearing Egyptian military uniforms, and killed seven Israeli civilians, including young children; they wounded at least thirty Israelis. The attacks against Israel in August alone were three times greater than all the attacks against Israel this year.
During this same time, the Turkish Prime Minister demanded that Israel "apologize" for defending herself from a Turkish-launched terrorist attack (the Marvi Marmara incident) and threatened to send Turkish warships into the Mediterranean to accompany a new flotilla to break the Israeli siege of Gaza.
And right around 9/11, Egyptian police forces allowed angry and hate-filled "demonstrators" to overrun the Israeli Embassy in Cairo; Prime Minister Netanyahu made no progress for the safe release of the Israeli security guards trapped in the building; only a phone call, eight to ten hours later, from President Obama presumably persuaded the Egyptians to help the besieged Israelis escape.
Finally, on September 13, 2011, the Turkish Prime Minister blew more smoke, this time in Cairo when he got the crowd to roar its hatred for Israel. He is in a dead heat competition with Iran for leadership of the Caliphate.
During this time, no one really came to Israel's aid on the ground or in the world's media. During this time, the various world-wide demonstrations against Israel, calls for a "Palestinian" state at the UN, and calls for the boycotting of Israel continued unabated. (I have no way of knowing what went on behind the scenes in terms of help offered or refused).
True, Israel may turn out to have some unexpected allies (Cyprus, the Kurds, India, Greece — maybe even Saudi Arabia) and yet, Israel is surrounded by "surging" human forces of hate as well and she is really, truly on her own.
Yesterday, I spoke with Mayor Ron Nachman of the mainly secular city of Ariel in the Shomron (Samaria). He agreed with my assessment — an assessment shared by others — that Israel is essentially on her own. Let me quote him at length.
Israel can't trust anyone, including America. American policy has been mistaken for six decades. America refused to move its Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That tells us what we need to know.
Now, the Arab "Palestinians" saw they could not get Israel to agree to commit suicide and so they turned to the United Nations. The solution is really between Israel and Jordan. Jordan is the real 'Palestinian' state. And by the way, when Jordan annexed the West Bank and Samaria from 1948-1967, no journalist called it an "occupation." It is only "occupied" when it is in Jewish hands."
What is this phrase: The 'West Bank?' The West Bank of the moon? The sun? The West Bank of America? We need to use the right language. Is California the "West Bank" of America? And by the way, would Americans agree to allow Mexicans and Canadians to carve out a corridor from San Diego to Vancouver so that both non-American groups can come and go without American oversight? This is what Israel is being asked to do.
And what is the meaning of the '67 lines?' Do people really understand that Israel is only nine miles wide, just as wide as the distance from the south to the north of the borough of Manhattan? Giving up any more land means that Israel is non-defensible.
Words and how they are used and misused continues to create problems.
The Wall.' What is that? Think of it as a gated community. There are walls all over the world that are never singled out. Only Israel's security fence is.
The Arabs simply refuse to accept a Jewish state. A two state solution will not lead to peace. It will lead to more attacks on Israel. They gave Yasser Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize but he brought bloodshed, not peace. Everyone shouted 'Land for Peace'. It only led to Arab attacks on Israel again and again."
"Mayor Nachman," said I, "Nu, what is your solution to this intractable dilemma?"
Solution? At this rate, we need a five state solution. Jordan is one, Israel is the second, Judea and Samaria are a third, Gaza is a fourth — and the Israeli Arabs want autonomy as well.
My friend and colleague Israeli Arabist, Dr. Mordechai Kedar, believes in a confederation of cantons, with local governmental autonomy on many issues and a federal government for security and other issues, based on Dr. Kedar's understanding of tribal loyalties and conflicts and the Arab inability to create both large and stable modern nation states.
I ask Mayor Nachman if he believes that Israel can defeat Iran. He says, cryptically:
It is not good to push someone whose back is already against the wall.
Dr. Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is an author and lecturer and co-founder of the still ongoing Association for Women in Psychology (1969). Visit her website at http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/phyllischesler/
|
| BUILDING JERUSALEM Posted by Hadassah Levy, September 18, 2011. |
|
On the edge of Route 1 as that thoroughfare runs through eastern Jerusalem lies an Arab neighborhood by the name of Sheikh Jarrah. In one section of the neighborhood, an Israeli flag waves and Jews walk back and forth to the tomb of Simon the Just (Shimon Hatzadik), who served as high priest in the Second Temple. The synagogue surrounding the tomb is filled with men studying Torah and women reciting Psalms. Approximately ten young families live in a building adjacent to the tomb.
Every Friday, protesters gather at the edge of the neighborhood to demonstrate against evictions of Arabs from their homes. The evictions are legal, as the Arabs in question are squatters, having been living rent-free for years in houses that don't belong to them. But the real complaint of the protesters, who comprise both Arabs and Jews, concerns the prospect of Jewish families taking over the houses and thus contributing to the changing character of the neighborhood.
Sheikh Jarrah is not the only Arab neighborhood in eastern Jerusalem undergoing demographic change. On the Mount of Olives, the Beit Orot yeshiva, situated between the Augusta Victoria church and the Mormon outpost of Brigham Young University, is in the process of constructing housing that could ultimately bring a total of 300 Jewish families to the area. This could help to create a continuous Jewish presence from the Mount of Olives cemetery down toward the Temple Mount.
Historically speaking, eastern Jerusalem was where most Jews always lived. In biblical times, the city as a whole was limited geographically to the area surrounding the Temple Mount (known today as the City of David). Even in the modern period, as settlement expanded in the 19th century, it was to the eastern parts of the city that Jews moved. Not until 1929, under the pressure of Arab riots, did officials of the British Mandate undertake to separate the populations and force most Jerusalem Jews to resettle in the west. Those who remained, in the Jewish Quarter and a few other neighborhoods of the Old City, were expelled in 1948 when these areas fell into the hands of the Jordanians.
In 1967, with the return of Jerusalem's eastern sectors to Israel, Jews quickly settled wherever property was available while Arabs remained in all-Arab enclaves like Sheikh Jarrah. Today, the Jewish population in all of eastern Jerusalem numbers about 200,000, of whom about 2,000 reside in Arab neighborhoods.
What now? Israeli politicians and activists who favor agreements with the Palestinians based on the concept of "land for peace" share the view of the British Mandate: peace can be achieved only by separating the Jewish and Arab populations. This was the logic behind the 2005 evacuation of the Jewish settlements in Gaza, and today it is the goal of those who wish to cede land in the West Bank to the Palestinian Authority. An expanded version of the same idea is the guiding principle of the international community. According to it, all land captured by Israel in 1967 should be ceded to the Arabs, thus returning the Jewish state to the armistice lines as they existed at the end of the 1948-49 war of independence.
In contrast to this, Jewish settlers seek an integration of the two populations. Those politicians and activists who regard land-for-peace as a bankrupt policy similarly see integration as a solution. Their strategy is to settle as many Jews as possible in an as many areas as possible in both the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, thus making the segregation of the two populations a logistical nightmare, if not an impossibility. Many settlers now wish they had pursued this strategy — also known as creating "facts on the ground" — more energetically in the 1980's, when the settlement movement was focused more on homogeneity than on size, with the result that the Jewish population in the West Bank, now at about 330,000, is much lower than it might have been. Such thinking is in part behind the current rush to establish new settlements as well as to expand existing ones, which according to this logic will make it that much harder for any government to undertake a wholesale, Gaza-style evacuation in a future peace agreement.
"Facts on the ground" will undoubtedly influence public policy in Israel. Places with very small Jewish populations or that have been abandoned by Jews are almost always considered negotiable or by definition as belonging to the Arabs. Prime examples are the Temple Mount area in Jerusalem and most of the West Bank itself. By contrast, Jewish cities like Ariel and Maaleh Adumim, thanks to the size of their populations, are usually conceded to the Israelis in most peace proposals.
Past experience suggests that a genuine peace agreement with the Palestinians is unlikely to emerge for many more years, and during that time the demographics of eastern Jerusalem could change significantly. Moreover, Israel's last previous experiment with evacuating its citizens is almost universally considered a failure. Not only did the departure of the IDF from Gaza lead to serious security problems, including the still-unceasing rocket fire from the Hamas-ruled territory, but the evacuees themselves have yet to be settled properly in homes and communities. The action also caused large segments of the Israeli citizenry, especially those within the religious-Zionist camp, to lose faith in the willingness of the government to protect their interests.
Will a future Israeli government insist on drawing the country's borders so as to recognize new realities and avoid incurring a much larger trauma than the fiasco of 2005? On Jerusalem, at least, the Netanyahu government has so far declined to be clear, issuing unequivocal declarations against any future division of the city while at the same time permitting very little construction to take place in virtually any part of Jerusalem, east or west. Whether it allows continued settlement of Jews in Sheikh Jarrah and other areas of eastern Jerusalem will perhaps provide one barometer of its longer-term intentions.
Hadassah Levy is Website manager of http://jewishideasdaily.com. This article is archived at http://www.jidaily.com/buildingjerusalem
|
| THE JEWISH NATION'S SPLIT THAT SPLITS HAIR Posted by Nurit Greenger, September 18, 2011. |
The Jewish nation must finally unite or bear chilling consequences of the past.
|
|
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
There is highly destructive, volatile animosity between factions in the Jewish community, and attempts to find solutions is a must.
This division and disagreement is plaguing the Jewish world today.
As a Jew, to me, the sharp division among our own people is an embarrassment.
I am extremely passionate about Israel's existence and I do not care if any nutcase brands me a right-wing extremist because of this wonderful passion that I have and hold at the highest esteem.
There are certain unfortunate realities one must face.
One crucial is that hatred and evil exist, and just wishing them away has never been, nor will it never be effective. In other words, burying the head deep in the sand will not make hatred and evil go away.
From time immemorial the Jewish people have been the number one target of hatred and evil.
To stand up to peril one has to be united, not divided.
Sadly, the Jewish Nation is not united, rather shows several schisms. The Jews are seriously separated along religious and political lines, and this split cannot be rectified or healed, unless King David or Solomon arrive and show them signs of God.
No single Judaism exists. There are numerous components and they can coexist, but never fully aligned.
To the extreme, Jews can even harbor more dislike for one another than any Gentile could ever muster. They can be more judgmental of their own than any stranger could be.
Throughout Jewish history, the self-hating Jews, the unJews, became a stigma. This is an illness and not a minor one. It is cancerous and it destroy the Nation from within.
Then there are those Jews who would put ideology before their own God, people and Homeland; like those who will vote for Obama, over and over again, even though he is trying to dig a grave for the Jewish Homeland, where their people live.
With the world being up-side-down these days and rational is out the window, and if my observations about Judaism is correct, then the question is: where is the hope, the optimism? We all so desperately seek those answers, aren't we? Will reason and logic have a place in the solution?
Is turning to faith be the hope we seek?
To accomplish having hope for a unified Jewish Nation in the world, we must have enormous faith, as, thus far, logic and life experience have not served the Jews well.
Jews are passionate people. They are also stubborn and rather excitable bunch.
Those traits, at times, leave very little room for reason and logic to enter into the discourse and on many occasions they do not.
At times, Jewish people can be irrational toward those they love.
So here is where we are today:
In Israel today, Jews argue;
In Europe, Jews argue;
In the US, Jews argue;
This is irritating and has no reason or room in a nation so small and so beleaguered.
We all need to ask each other, where is the silver line of optimism and hope and where is the uplifting discourse? Here is the elephant in the room. We can find it only if few things change, really change.
We must be consistent, one voice with our message.
We must stop hating ourselves and Jews must stop hating other Jews and embrace a totally loving posture.
We must search for our commonalities and not drift into differences to use against one another.
We must not worry or seek to be loved by appeasement, thus throw our own people under the bus. Many Jews will throw Israel under the bus to look good the eyes of those who will throw them under the bus tomorrow.
We must accept that, as Jews, there are many who hate us and many times there is nothing we can do to prove our worth to those who hate us. And we do not need to prove anything as long as we know our own truth and just. We must also understand that those who hate us do so not because of our fault but of their own. Further, they choose us the scapegoat we have been to the world for centuries.
We must put our own people and our God before all else. Therefore, we need to, once and for all, separate politics from our faith. The decision if our first priority is our God and our own people or if it is a political agenda is profound.
We must also understand that transparent divisive issues only strengthens our enemies.
We must also admit that we have many enemies, ranging from having mild hate to extreme hate for us. They exist and must be addressed without holding back the words.
Irrational hatred of Jewish people is an ancient and incurable disease the world, collectively suffers from. The cure for it will probably be found by a Jew.
That cure will consist of man escaping the constraints of this primitive incarnation and humans embracing a peaceful nature and rise above irrational emotion to pure sense and intellect.
Who knows if and when this cure maybe found but we need to pray that our children and grandchildren live to see it come to pass.
Until then, regrettably, Jews will continue argue, disagree and the world will continue feeding upon our negativity and divisiveness.
We will continue to malign one another, battle amongst ourselves and ignite fire storms of negative energy to keep our enemy jovial so they can continue their ongoing battle against us.
Immediate solution? There is only one.
Only by ending the malice toward each other, looking within at our own faults and correcting them and uniting, we can achieve peace amongst ourselves and then hold to immense national strength, we so desperately need.
And then, by seeking rational answers, based on truth and facts, that do not involve putting our own people in harm's way we can also help Israel.
Can it be achieved? Yes, but only if we truly believe.
Our parents had known hardship; the new generations are spoiled and expect fast reward. If we do not face reality, we can expect regression; is regression an option? I hope not.
Tori Amos, the American pianist, singer-songwriter and composer once sais: Healing takes courage, and we all have courage, even if we have to dig a little to find it."
Jews, stop taking a long walk off a short pier already.
Contact Nurit Greenger by email at nurit.nuritg@gmail.com. Visit her blog:
http://ngthinker.typepad.com |
| THE SMILING BABY KILLER Posted by Giulio Meotti, September 18, 2011. |
|
Last week, we heard for the first time recordings of air-traffic communications during the 9/11 atrocities. The soundtracks include the voice of ringleader Mohammed Atta shortly before he crashed a jet into the World Trade Centre. "We have some planes", Atta says. "Just stay quiet and we'll be OK. We are returning to the airport."
His voice sounds metallic, not human. Indeed, the tape reveals to us more about 9/11 than thousands of books and articles written on the attacks. It's the same voice recorded in a video discovered in 2006 in Afghanistan: Atta is smiling, joking and laughing to the camera.
Last week, an Israeli court sentenced Hakim Awad to five life sentences for the murder of five members of the Fogel family in Itamar. Ruth Fogel was in the bathroom when Awad killed her husband Udi and their three-month-old daughter Hadas, slitting their throats as they lay in bed. Awad slaughtered Ruth as she came out of the bathroom. Then he moved into a bedroom where Ruth and Udi's sons Yoav (11) and Elad (4) were sleeping. He then slit their throats.
In court, Awad always smiled at the camera, just like Atta did. Awad said he has "no regrets" and flashed the "V" sign for victory while he was leaving the courthouse. "I am a person like you, I have no mental condition, I never had a serious illness," Awad said to the judges. His smile was sincere.
The Fogels' massacre in Itamar, where two Palestinians murdered babies as deliberately and unabashedly as very few other than the Nazis and Khmer Rouge ever had, has not been deciphered by our writers and intellectuals. It's because we have been told that "they hate us" is the language of xenophobes, the illiberal, the intolerant; that genocidal anti-Semitism was buried in the ashes of Auschwitz; that we have to be polite, sanitized and self-critical.
Smiling Nazis
A seductive combination of post-colonial white guilt mixed with liberal condescension has dulled our moral senses and made us blind to Awad's smile; a smirk that conveys unleashed hatred, contempt, physical aggression, the desire to expel, to destroy, and to eliminate the Jews.
Just like the 9/11 tape, Awad's smile tells us about the obscene level of current-day anti-Jewish hatred — comparable to the worst days of the Nazis in the early 1930s — more than all the shelves of books written on the Middle East.
Awad resembles other "smiling assassins." For example, the mastermind of the Bali terrorist attacks, Amrozi bin Nurhasyim, who has been called "the laughing bomber." In 2005, a video footage was released of the Beslan school siege, showing the terrorist leader laughing as hundreds of pupils, their families and teachers were herded at gunpoint into the school gym rigged with explosives.
It's also the smile of Klaus Barbie, the Gestapo chief in southeastern France from 1942 to 1944, who laughed all the time when the Jewish victims described the torture at court in 1997. In 2007, a photo album containing 116 rare photographs of senior Nazi officials at the Auschwitz concentration camp was made public by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Josef Mengele, the camp doctor notorious for his medical experiments, is smiling while the gas chambers are operating in Birkenau.
Germany perpetrated the Holocaust not because it had the means to do so, but because its leaders engendered the will to do so. This totalitarian, robotic willingness also lies in Hakim Awad's smile.
Giulio Meotti is a journalist with Il Foglio. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism" Contact him by email at giuliomeotti@hotmail.com This article appeared in Ynet News
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-4123657,00.html |
| ACADEMICS AGAINST ISRAEL Posted by Barbara Taverna, September 17, 2011. |
Individuals and Grassroots Movements are Leading The Fight Against Anti-Israel Schools
This is by Manfred Gerstenfeld, who has published 20 books. One of these is "Academics against Israel and the Jews" (1997). The second edition of the book is available free of chargehere.
|
|
Academics have been in the forefront of the international delegitimization campaign against Israel. Its starting point was an open letter in the British daily The Guardian on April 6, 2002. It appealed for a moratorium on all cultural and research links with Israel, at European and national levels.
Within a few days, several hundred academics from various countries — including Israel — had signed it. From there, the campaign morphed in many directions. It was often accompanied by harassment of Jewish students.
Most Israeli universities have failed to properly share the burden of the anti-boycott battle. This has left the fight to individual academics and grassroots organizations. Of these, Scholars for Peace in the Middle East is the most active one internationally.
Increasingly, legal actions are becoming tools in the fight against the delegitimization of Israel. This approach is now being tested in three countries where the problems are greatest — the United States, Canada and the UK.
Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, who teaches Hebrew at UC Santa Cruz, has been a courageous pioneer in the fight against Israel-haters. Several other campuses of the University of California, including UC Irvine and UC Berkeley, are known as hostile environments for pro-Israeli students.
In June 2009, Rossman-Benjamin added new ammunition to her already remarkable arsenal. She registered a complaint with the US Department of Education that academic departments and residential colleges at UC Santa Cruz sponsor "viciously anti-Israel" lecturers and films using campus funds.
Rossman-Benjamin stated that anti-Semitism on campus is a transgression of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This complaint became a hot potato for the authorities. Finally in October 2010, the Department of Education wrote a policy letter stating that federally funded universities have a legal obligation to eliminate anti-Semitic harassment and intimidation and also prevent it from recurring.
In March 2011, the Department of Education notified UC Santa Cruz that it will be investigated to see whether it had allowed a hostile environment for Jewish students to develop.
In April 2011, the Zionist Organization of America wrote a 15-page letter to the President of Rutgers State University. It cited various reports from students regarding the hostile environment and anti-Semitism on campus, as well as violent threats made against a Jewish student. The letter from the ZOA referred to the policy letter of the Department of Education.
Going to court
This month, the Israel Law Center wrote to 150 American college and university presidents — including those of Ivy League schools — warning them that they may be liable for huge damages if they do not prevent anti-Semitism on their campuses. The letter also mentioned that universities have a legal obligation to avoid the use of university funds for unlawful activities directed against Israel.
When fighting anti-Semitism on campus, complaining to US authorities is an ideal approach. Anyone can identify offenders and bring a complaint. Thereafter the authorities are obligated to investigate. Such a move costs little time and money.
A far more difficult and expensive approach is taking a university to court for anti-Semitic acts on its campus. Such cases can only be initiated by a victim. In March, Jewish student Jessica Felber sued UC Berkeley because a fellow student named Husam Zakharia assaulted her when she participated in a pro-Israel demonstration. The university knew that this leader of the Students for Justice in Palestine belonged to a group that was earlier responsible for violent incidents on campus. Management had done nothing to deal with the situation.
Felber's attorney is Neal Sher, former Director of the Justice Department's Office of Special Investigations. In the same month, he went international by filing, together with a Canadian lawyer, a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal against York University in Toronto. The court case was brought on behalf of Sammy Katz, a Jewish student who alleged that he was hit during a pro-Israel demonstration.
Ronnie Fraser has been the forerunner in the fight against Israel-bashers on British campuses. Two months ago, his lawyer Anthony Julius wrote in a letter to the University and College Union that it had breached the Equality Act of 2010 because it had harassed Fraser due to his Jewish background and created "an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating" and/or "offensive environment for him." This week it was announced that in view of UCU's unsatisfactory answer, Julius has filed a claim with the Employment Tribunal. It states that the UCU exhibits institutionally anti-Semitic behavior toward its Jewish members.
Julius is not only well known as the lawyer of the late Princess Diana, but also for having exposed British Holocaust distorter David Irving who lost his court case against American historian Deborah Lipstadt. If Julius succeeds in dealing similarly with the academic trade union, it would be a huge victory against those who continue to delegitimize Israel.
Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com
|
No comments:
Post a Comment