In his speech to the Muslim world delivered this past June from Cairo, President Obama apologized that “in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation”. President Obama *(Government) then promised that “I’m committed to work with American Muslims *(religion) to ensure that they can fulfill zakat [the Islamic duty of charitable contributions].”

The Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the largest Islamic “charity” in the United States eligible for receipt of zakat, was convicted by a federal jury for providing more than $12 million to support the Palestinian militant terrorist organization Hamas.

Obama apparently could not care less. He sees eye-to-eye with the ACLU, which represented Abdel-Jabbar Hamdan, a fundraiser for the group who was living in the United States illegally.

This is how the ACLU, in a lengthy report issued this past June, characterized the security measures put into place to prevent more Holy Land Foundations:

The ACLU’s research shows that U.S. terrorism financing policies and practices are seriously undermining American Muslims’ protected constitutional liberties and violating their fundamental human rights to freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom from discrimination.

The ACLU recommended measures that the Obama administration and Congress should take to redress the violations of terrorism funders’ “rights’” that it has conjured up. If Obama’s speech this past June to the Muslim world in Cairo is any indication, he is following the ACLU’s direction.

The ACLU’s legal arm is effectively serving as the Obama administration’s surrogate to restore all rights to Islamic charities and their donors, without regard to whether or not they are funneling the contributions to terrorist organizations such as Hamas.

Read the entire article.

*edited by Lobo for clarity

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Long before his inauguration, Barack Obama lucidly explained how he would deal with Iran. During the campaign he said he would “engage” its leaders by offering talks without preconditions—without even asking them to stop chanting “death to America” when concluding their speeches…

There was only one more step before “engagement” could begin: Mr. Obama’s June 4 Cairo speech in which he apologized for the August 1953 overthrow of Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq. “In the middle of the Cold War,” he said, “the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.” The CIA was certainly involved, but the cringing was quite unnecessary. By August 1953 Mosaddeq had dismissed Iran’s parliament and was ruling undemocratically by personal decree. When angry mobs converged on his residence, he fled to a U.S. aid office next door trusting that the Americans would save his life. They did.

As it happened, Mr. Obama’s apology and his offer of unconditional talks backfired. With Iran’s presidential selection of June 12 coming up, the all-powerful Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had his opportunity to replace the thoroughly unpresentable, loudly extremist Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a more plausible negotiating partner for Mr. Obama… Evidently, Mr. Khamenei rejected the option of choosing a moderate. Instead he awarded Ahmadinejad a “divine” win with wildly improbable majorities—even in the home towns of his rivals.

Mr. Obama’s problem is that Mr. Khamenei could only have chosen Ahmadinejad because he does not want friendly talks with the U.S. He evidently calculates that without the ideology of “anti-Americanism” the regime would collapse. He is right.

Certainly religious support cannot be enough anymore. Too many high-ranking clerics, including Grand Ayatollahs Hosssein Ali Montazeri and Yusef Saanei, now publicly oppose the regime. Nor can Persian nationalism serve as the prop: Its chief target is the despised Arabs, which is problematic, as the regime keeps trying to be more Arab than the Arabs in its hostility to Israel. Yet this hostility is itself a problem internally because the regime’s generous funding of Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad is extremely unpopular in Iran. Only anti-Americanism is left, and Mr. Khamenei will not let Mr. Obama take it away.

More HERE

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

On July 5, 2005 I posted on the U.S. and Syria closing ranks to neutralize Israel. That report indicated that the U.S.  and Saudia Arabia were pressing Syrian President Bashar Assad to demarcate Syria’s borders with Lebanon. It’s a conundrum but it can be explained. At the time, I predicted that the demarcation and the hoped-for result would not happen. Here’s some more of the story:

Syria, Israel

The DEBKAfile says that President Assad traveled to Baku, Azerbaijan and received communications from Israel president, Shimon Peres and prime minister Benjaman Netanyahu. Baku is considered a “new channel of communications,” and a “hub of a complicated new negotiating track between Damascus and Jerusalem,” and is being referred to as the “Azeri diplomatic postbox,” or the Israel-Syrian letterbox.

Also in this mix with the U.S. is Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon. Middle East Envoy George Mitchell is standing in for Barack Obama.

President Assad’s reply will be sent to Jerusalem on Thursday or Friday. The problem is we don’t know what Assad is replying to, other than the words “peace process” appearing in the DEBKAfile post.

So if the bottom-line of the letterbox operation is a “peace process,” how might that come about?
My post of July 5th might answer that question and I’m reposting it below. Let me know what you think. As I said, earlier this month I predicted that it was a fantasy – not going to happen. Now, it seems we have Israel contacting Syria.

U.S Syria Relations Cozy: Neutralizing Israel
Maggie’s Notebook – July 5, 2009

Syrian president Bashar Assad has invited President Obama to visit Damascus, in the wake of a U.S.-Saudi press for Syria to “demarcate” its border with Lebanon. By marking the Syrian border and giving up its claims to Shaba Farms, also known as Mount Dov, and placing Mount Dov inside Lebanon’s borders, the reasoning is that Israel will have no rationale to claim the militarily strategic Mount Dov, and so Hizbullah will also have no reason to attack Israel. The move is on to neutralize Israel.

Syria, Israel – Shebaa Farms – Mount Dove (photo)

It’s a fantasy – it’s not going to happen.

For those who have forgotten, Israel liberated Mount Dov from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War. Lebanon claims that Mount Dov belongs to it, and Hezbullah uses Israel’s ‘occupation’ of Mount Dov as proof that Israel is ‘occupying’ ‘Lebanese territory’ thereby justifying its existence in Lebanon. The US claims that if Syria demarcates its border with Lebanon, and puts Mount Dov on the Lebanese side of the border, it will take away Hezbullah’s raison d’etre (see map below).

It’s a bit shocking to know that in 2009, there are countries without official borders.

Israel took over the area in 1967 and sees it as part of the Golan Heights. The UN accepted this position following the IDF’s pullout from Lebanon in May 2000 but Hezbollah and Lebanon claim that this is Lebanese territory still under Israeli occupation.

From Israel’s long-time point-of-view, Shaba (Shebaa) Farms (Mount Dov) has been off the table for discussion.

What are the issues?

In the 1923 Anglo-French Demarcation Agreement, which set the borders between the British and French mandates in Palestine, Syria and Lebanon, the area was included in Syria. The maps of the 1949 Israeli-Syrian Armistice Agreements similarly designated the area as Syrian.

In the 1967 Six Day War, the farms were occupied by the IDF as part of its conquest of the Golan Heights. Lebanon was not involved in that war, and Israel did not engage in any fighting against it.

At that time, no one – neither Syria nor Lebanon – claimed that the area was Lebanese.

IN THE negotiations leading to the Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000, Lebanon for the first time raised its claim to the farms, but based on all previous historical documents and maps, the UN sided with the Israeli version, i.e. that this was Syrian territory and subject to future Israeli-Syrian negotiations. The Lebanese claim was used by Hizbullah to continue its resistance to “Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory.

At the time of the 2000 Israeli withdrawal the UN asked Syria about its position on the issue. Damascus was in a quandary: On the one hand, this was obviously Syrian territory; on the other, if Syria conceded that the farms belong to Lebanon, there might be a chance of getting one more sliver of Arab territory out of Israeli hands.

Syria thus responded that whatever its former claims to the Shaba Farms, it now agreed to cede them to Lebanon.

But when the UN asked Damascus for a formal document stating that the area had indeed been legally transferred to Lebanon, Syria balked – and it has still not supplied such a document.

The short story is that Syria has refused to recognize Lebanon as a sovereign state. Not until this year did Syria appoint it’s first ever ambassador to Beirut. At the same time, Lebanon sent its first ambassador to Syria.

Damascus still has powerful allies in Lebanon, including Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Shi’ite party with a powerful guerrilla army.

The U.S. has pressured Israel to withdraw from Mount Dov for years.

The area is a 100 square mile parcel of land located at the foot of Mount Hermon where the Syrian, Lebanese and Israeli borders meet. Israel took control of the area after the Six Day War in 1967, and since then has built up a number of military outposts on the strategic hills.

Israel’s indefensible borders on all sides have led to the necessary land-grabs gained in the 1967 war. How can you defend your people when your enemies refuse to respect your border towns? This 2006 report describes the importance of not letting your enemy bite at your heels:

The drive up to the top of Mt. Dov on Wednesday is done along a narrow and winding road, accessible only in armored vehicles, a memory of Hizbullah’s incessant shelling of IDF outposts there not so long ago.

The Gladiola outpost is situated just over the Lebanese village of Shuba with a clear view of Ghajar, as well. Soldiers man heavily-fortified positions along the ridge, keeping an eye on the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) patrols below.

Strangely enough, during the war this summer, the Mt. Dov area was quiet, and saw nearly no fighting. According to the officer, the explanation is simple – Hizbullah does not attack military bases, since they know that in such a situation they will lose.

The importance of the area to Israel is clear:

Since the war in Lebanon, the IDF has invested millions of shekels in fixing the infrastructure along the mountain – from repaving the winding road to installing new antennas and surveillance equipment.

The officer said the soldiers stationed in the series of outposts along the mountain play a key role in assisting the IDF to form accurate assessments of Hizbullah’s plans.

The purpose of the powerful Hizbullah in Lebanon is to protest the Mount Dov possession by Israel, claiming that the land belongs to Lebanon.

Hizbullah’s attempt to claim sovereignty of Mt. Dov is because the group needs an excuse for its existence,” he said. “Otherwise, they are worthless.”

Israel Matzav questions any notion of Syria’s abandonment of Hizbullah and says this:

Engagement’ is one thing and giving up real assets (even if the asset is only a claim) is something else. Mount Dov is a very strategic point that is used for military purposes by Israel.

Why would the Syrians want to let Lebanon have it?

What is Lebanon giving them in return?

…even if Israel were to hand Mount Dov over to Lebanon tomorrow, Hezbullah would continue to exist and would continue to charge Israel with ‘occupying Lebanese territory.’

So what is the U.S. doing? Should Syria mark their border and place Mount Dov in Lebanon’s hands, and Israel acknowledge that border and abandon the area, how can Israel be rightly convinced that the position would not once again be used against the people of Israel? Could a treaty between Israel and Syria be achieved? Would such a treaty mean safety for Israel? There is no way for Israel to be rightly convinced. This has been a U.S. endeavor through the Bush years. The U.S. should not ask Israel to enter into such an agreement. Afterall, had Israel’s neighbors respected their sovereignty, the 1967 War would not have happened.

I believe that if the U.S. and the free world would wholeheartedly and very publicly back Israel, Hamas and Hizbullah would be defeated by the very notion that the west would assist Israel’s defense of its own borders. It’s very simple. Actively support the right of the Israeli people to exist…but rather than follow such a justifiable position, we quake at the wrath of the Muslim world. The thing we seem to ignore is that living inside that Muslim world is a sovereign non-Muslim nation. Where is the justification for the Muslim rejection of these people?

So what do you think? Can these two stories possibly be connected?

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak confirmed the need of the free world to turn the backside of freedom on oppressive and murderous Islamic regimes, no longer offering the respect of “recognizing” them as sovereign, until they return the favor to their neighbors. Islam will not live happily or even grumpily with freedom, and certainly not if any form of “respect” is a condition of that living.

Hosni Mubarak

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did well the job of a besieged leader this week. He “led” with his policy speech on June 14th, and raised the mantle of the existing peace treaty with Egypt and Jordan:

If we join hands and work together for peace, together with our neighbors, there is no limit to the development and prosperity we can achieve for our two peoples in economy, trade, agriculture, tourism and education.

Fortunately, Egypt and Jordan have left this circle of enmity. The signing of peace treaties with them have brought about an end of their claims against Israel, an end to the conflict, bringing peace.

As Israel offered a leg-up to technology, agriculture, trade, education and safety for all the people in the area, Arabs who can’t provide anything of any value for themselves or anyone else, said they were “outraged.”

In true I-am-great-Arab-man mode, Egypt’s Mubarak joined the choir as he said the demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland “ruined the chance for peace.”

So this fight that Mubarak brought to the forefront has nothing to do with Netanyahu’s demand for a demilitiarized Palestinian state. It has to do with “recognizing” Israel as a state and as the Jewish homeland. Well, Muslims cannot have that, even if “recognizing” Israel is exactly what Egypt treatied to do when they signed the Israel-Egypt peace treaty in 1979.

Taken directly from the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, is this:

Article III
(1) a They recognize and will respect each other’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence;

(1) b They recognize and will respect each other’s right to live in peace within their secure and recognized boundaries

(3) The Parties agree that the normal relationship established between them will include full recognition, …

The agreement was signed by the Arab Republic of Egypt and the Government of the State of Israel. That’s the “State” of Israel.

When Egyptian President Anwar Sadat signed the agreement with Israel, he was not agreeing to recognize Jews in Brooklyn, so what is Mubarak talking about?

There are a few things to remember about the 30-year-old peace treaty. For one thing, Egypt came to the table because Israel took them to a very uncomfortable woodshed and rendered them whupped-upon in the worst way. They couldn’t believe the beating they got at the behest of the tiny start-up nation of Israel, and the world couldn’t believe it either, but…Egypt attacked Israel four times and four times Egypt lost. Egypt needed that peace treaty.

The treaty was reason to celebrate for the Israeli people, and for those Egyptians who feared losing a loved one to Israel’s wrath, it was good for Egyptians, as well, but a daunting precedent was set. As a condition of the treaty, Israel returned all their spoils of war to their attacker. Everything went back to Egypt. It was historic and it was unfortunate. From that time forward, Israel has been expected to “give back” and “give up,” anything and everything that punished the attacker for attacking in the first place. Additionally, Israel has been expected to give up whatever negotiators asked them to give.

Daniel Pipes makes several sobering observations about Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, but perhaps the starkest is this precedent:

…war can be concluded through negotiations rather than by one side giving up.

Winning the battle…possessing the mightiest power and being willing to use that power sends the clearest message. As Netanyahu said in his speech:

Many good people have told us that withdrawal from the territories is the key to peace with the Palestinians. Well we withdrew. But the fact is that every withdrawal was met with massive waves of terror by suicide bombers and thousands of missiles. We tried to withdraw with an agreement and without an agreement. We tried a partial withdrawal and a full withdrawal. In the year 2000 and again last year, I proposed with good will, an almost total withdrawal in exchange for an end to the conflict and twice our offers were rejected. We evacuated every last inch of the Gaza strip and we uprooted settlements, and evicted thousands of Israelis from their homes and in response we received a hail of missiles on our cities towns and children.

Negotiations do nothing unless you have already won your battles, your enemy is in retreat, and your fist remains clenched and raised until your demands are met. The lesson for Israel is don’t “give back” and especially don’t give up the borders you need to keep your country safe.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

As Obama spoke to the “Muslim world” on his Mutual Respect Tour this week we began to see where the speech is taking us. For all the talk about assuring the Muslim world that we think well of them, and will treat them with respect, whether they do the same with us or not, all that has been accomplished is that Saudis are emboldened, and likely the whole of the Middle East, as Saudia Arabia insists with greater vigor that we bring Israel to her knees.

Saudi King Abdullah

There is this Reuters headline out of India:

Saudi urges Obama to impose Mideast solution – paper.

The word “impose” is a strong word. A Saudi newspaper, Al-Hayat, owned by the nephew of Saudi King Abdullah, confirms the story and the use of the Saudi heavy-hand:

We want from you a serious participation to solve the Palestinian issue and impose the solution if necessary,” the Saudi monarch told Obama, according to the paper, which is owned by a nephew of the monarch.

The translation for Americans is: If Israel doesn’t go along with the two state solution and hand over the West Bank, and especially Jerusalem to Palestine, Mr. President, we want you to “impose” whatever it takes to get the job done. Al-Hayat did not “elaborate” on the details of what to “impose” or how to “impose” it.

Many of us have believed that Obama’s approach with Iran is the wrong approach, that it leaves Iran the time to dally with us, and dangle Israel over the precipice. Nevertheless, Obama supporters believe he has the magic touch and Iran will fall in line with the need to destroy their nuclear capabilities – because Mr. Obama is affording them such respect. Well Al-Hayat has no such illusions.

Dr. Susan Rice

On May 1, 2009, the London daily Al-Hayat interviewed Obama’s new United Nation’s Ambassador, Dr. Susan Rice. According to the newspaper, “Dr. Rice answered questions regarding the Obama administration’s positions on Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, and Sudan.” The interviewer was correspondent Raghida Dergham. Here’s an exchange that we didn’t find in our U.S. media:

Interviewer: “You know, Ambassador, some are saying that Iran is emboldened even to the extent of interfering everywhere – not only in Iraq and Lebanon, but even in Egypt – because it, [that is,] the Iranian leadership, feels that the United States under the Obama administration ‘is ready to embrace us.’ So [they think:] ‘there are no red lines, we can go ahead and take advantage of the situation right now. And we can impose a de facto situation’… What do you think about that?”

Ambassador Rice: “I am not sure, what are you saying?”

Interviewer: “What I am saying is that the Obama administration’s openness to Teheran is being interpreted as an encouragement to some in Teheran to go ahead, and interfere not only through Hizbullah in Lebanon, not only in Iraq, but even as far as Egypt.”

Dr. Rice gave a long answer but firmly said if this is the position in Iran, then they are ill advised.

Interviewer: “What about the nuclear ambiguity? People are talking about nuclear ambiguity, [i.e. the option of] living with a nuclear Iran without openly acquiescing to it – precisely because the Obama administration does not want to opt for the military route.”

Ambassador Rice: “Now wait a minute, I don’t know what you mean by ‘nuclear ambiguity.’ That’s not something the United States is discussing or contemplating. The President has been very clear: Iran with a nuclear weapons capability is not an outcome that is consistent with our interest or with regional security. So ‘nuclear ambiguity’ is somebody else’s term that I certainly don’t want to embrace…”

On a lighter note, I suppose there are many funny Arabs living in Saudi Arabia and Palestine, and Jordan and Syria. They haven’t come to my attention in the past, but in the Al-Hayat article, there was some real humor, from the Saudi King, no less.

We (Arabs) want to devote our time … to build a generation capable of confronting the future with science and work,” King Abdullah said, according to al-Hayat.

Just a joke I’m sure. We all know there has been no time since the 1940’s (and long before Israel’s statehood) and no money, to do anything worthwhile in the barren and festering Palestine.

Thanks to MEMRI

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

**Video Below The Fold**

The folks at Powerline realized the implications of an outrageous news clip featuring NBC’s Tom Brokaw conducting an interview with the Obammessiah. Apparently, this hard news journalist thought he’d get deep and ask a pertinent question about Israel, the Palestinians, and just what it might be that the Jews can learn from Obama’s visit to Buchenwald and how they should treat Palestinians and stuff about Nazis or something.

Seriously, what sort of historical ignorance does it take for someone to ask what Jews can learn about Buchenwald from a guy that has never visited the place before now, never had any intimate or even cultural connection to it, and wasn’t even alive when it was a Nazi terror to the Jewish world? I mean, is Brokaw insinuating that the Jews did not learn anything from their own “visit” to Buchenwald?

And what sort of insensitive fool does it take to imagine that Jews have any new “lesson” to learn of Buchenwald that it has yet to learn? And how is it that Obama can be their teacher? The thought of it all is ludicrous.

But, let’s get down to brass tacks, shall we? The singular point here is that Tom Brokaw just implied that Israel is treating the Palestinians just like the Nazis treated them! That is the true outrage here.

And I have to give President Obama credit for being smart enough not to take Brokaw’s bait, too.

Transcript

BROKAW: What can the Israelis learn from your visit to Buchenwald? And what should they be thinking about their treatment of Palestinians?

OBAMA: Well, look, there’s no equivalency here.

Of course, the proper response would have been to force Brokaw to more clearly make his point and then to ridicule him for being an idiot right on the spot. But, we can’t expect Obama to scold his lapdogs too harshly, I guess.

If you don’t want to endure this insufferable man (I know, which one, right?) scoot ahead to about 4 minutes into this journalistic tour de force.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

By Findalis

From Memri

Lebanese Writer Farid Salman: Jordan, West Bank Should Become a Palestinian State, Which Will Absorb the Refugees

Following are excerpts from an interview with Lebanese writer Farid Salman, which aired on OTV on May 6, 2009.

View the clip here.

“Jordan is An Invention… I Don’t Know Whether to Laugh or Cry When I Hear a Jordanian Say That He is Jordanian… He Has Forgotten That He’s Palestinian”

Farid Salman: “Jordan is an invention. Transjordan, which was an emirate, and later became the Hashemite Kingdom, is part of Palestine. Britain created it in order to crown one of the sons of Hussein, from the Arabian Peninsula, over part of Greater Syria – over Palestine. This continues to be the perpetual reason… Without removing it, the Palestinian issue will not be resolved. It’s impossible.”

Interviewer: “Some people in Israel talk about the Jordanian option…”

Farid Salman: “They are right.”

Interviewer: “In the days of Abba Eban…”

Farid Salman: “We missed an opportunity with Abba Eban.”

Interviewer: “This is why the Black September battles of 1969 and 1970 took place, and the crisis was shifted here, to Lebanon. But King Hussein stabilized his throne…”

Farid Salman: “It wasn’t him. The English stabilized the throne. Glubb Pasha did it for his grandfather, and the English continue to do so to this day. The Israelis also [stabilized the Jordanian rule]. The Zionist regime in Israel is against peace. It doesn’t want peace.

“Abba Eban was one of the most important people in Israel, but we did not know how to benefit from him, and eventually the Zionists got rid of him. They sent him to teach in America, thus removing him from the scene. He could see the truth.

“Today, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I hear a Jordanian say that he is a Jordanian, and that there are Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan. He has forgotten that he is a Palestinian. What do you mean ‘Jordanian?’ The East Bank is just like the West Bank. The Jordanian king was behind the war in Lebanon. He sent the Palestinians to Lebanon. We must not forget the role that Jordan played in Lebanon.” [...]

The Anti-Zionist “Jewdanians… Have Now Gained Power, Along With Obama”

“With regard to Israel, I am very optimistic. For 40 years, I have been writing about this issue – about Zionism and about the people I call ‘the Jewdanians’ – that group of Jews around the world who are against the Zionist philosophy and state. They have now gained power, along with Obama. They began…”

Interviewer: “With the plan of the first Bush…”

Farid Salman: “In Madrid…”

Interviewer: “Yes.”

Farid Salman: “They are the ones who brought Obama to power. They supported him financially. A few weeks ago, they announced that they were establishing a lobby. Until now, they operated behind the scenes, but now it is out in the open. An existential Israeli crisis has emerged among the Jews themselves – between the Zionists and the non-Zionists. The Zionists in power today – Lieberman and Netanyahu – no peace plan can possibly emerge from them. They will bring about a Jewish crisis in Israel and worldwide, and I believe they will be the losers. If they do not lose, that will be the end of the Zionist regime in Israel.”

“When A Palestinian State Is Established, And Jordan Becomes The Palestinian State, Along With The West Bank… It Will Invite The Palestinians”

Interviewer: “That is the solution, in your view?”

Farid Salman: “Of course. When this happens, we won’t need Israeli approval for the resettlement

Interviewer: “Can the Jewdanians, who support Obama, realize what the solution is, and grant the Palestinians the Right of Return?”

Farid Salman: “We have turned the Right of Return into a casus belli… Let me tell you something – when a Palestinian state is established, and Jordan becomes the Palestinian state, along with the West Bank…”

Interviewer: “That is the solution, in your view?”

Farid Salman: “Of course. When this happens, we won’t need Israeli approval for the resettlement… Once there is a Palestinian state, it will invite the Palestinians. Jordan can receive 30 million [Palestinians]. In New York alone, there are 20 million people.”

Interviewer: “Do you think that we are at the beginning of a process of the collapse of regimes in the region?”

Farid Salman: “Of course.”

Interviewer: “Like dominoes, one will lead to the toppling of the other?”

“There is a Plan to Increase the Number of Sunnis by Resettling the Palestinians in Lebanon”

Farid Salman: “Undoubtedly. There is no other solution for the Middle East. Who invented the story of refugee resettlement in Lebanon? Let’s be clear – the Sunnis. Al-Hariri did, and his sister continues in his path. The Palestinian ambassador in Lebanon is their accomplice.”

Interviewer: “Abbas Zaki?”

Salman: “Him, along with Fuad Siniora. There is a plan to increase the number of Sunnis by resettling the Palestinians in Lebanon. They are the ones talking about resettlement. The day the Palestinian issue is resolved, and they have a state – in Jordan, the West Bank, wherever it may be…”

Interviewer: “Arafat used to say: ‘Give me a state even on the back of a donkey.’”

Farid Salman: “Wherever it may be… Half a million Palestinian in Lebanon will go to their state. End of story. We won’t be needing the approval of Israel or the world. It will be their state, and they will be invited there. End of story.”

For those of you who don’t know your history or who some of the people mentioned are, I’ll explain:

Jordan as a nation never truly existed in ancient history. There is mention of a Kingdom of Petra, the region that is now Jordan has been conquered by the the Persian Empire, the Seleucids, the Romans , and Muslim Arabs. So in ancient times no nation called Jordan ever existed. Nor did it exist until April 11, 1921 when Great Britain decided to reward their “good friend” Emir Abdullah with 78% of the Palestinian Mandate (that was reserved by the League of Nations for a homeland for Jews). Thus Jordan, or as it was called then, Trans-Jordan was born.

It was after the 6-Day War, when Israel finally regained control of the West Bank that Trans-Jordan became simply Jordan.

Thus in fact, Jordan is the true Palestinian nation.

Black September was an attempt by the PLO (headed by Yassir Arafat) to overthrow the government of Jordan and replace it with the PLO. The Jordanian military thwarted the attempted overthrow and assassination of King Hussein, and the Jordanian government kicked out removed the PLO and their supporters from Jordan. They fled to the only nation which would give them sanctuary: Lebanon.

Abba Eban was an Israeli statesman. Born in Cape Town, South Africa on February 2, 1915. a graduate of Queens College, Cambridge, he was Israel’s first ambassador to the United Nations and was elected Vice President of the UN General Assembly in 1952. He is considered one of the fathers of modern Israel, and a giant in diplomatic circles. He set the tone for Israel’s diplomatic efforts for the last 63 years. He died on November 17, 2002.

A bit of history. But the reality is that the 2 State Solution that is being touted by the EU, UN and the US is looking like a pipe(bomb) dream each and every day. The Palestinians do not want it, they want all the land from the river to the sea as the Hamas and PLO charters both specify. And now it is not just the far right who are opposing the 2 State Solution, it is the mainstream Israelis who oppose it too:

Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe (Boogie) Yaalon believes that the time has come for Israel to “free itself from the failed paradigm” of the “two-state solution.” Yaalon spoke Tuesday at a meeting of MKs dedicated to finding an alternative to the creation of a Palestinian Authority-led Arab state.

While the creation of a PA-led state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is perceived as a necessity both in Israel and worldwide, such a state would not solve the Israel-PA conflict, said Yaalon. In fact, he said, it is doubtful that the possibility of creating such a state exists, due to Arab and Muslim reluctance to take any step that would imply recognition of Israel or compromise on Arab claims to the entire Land of Israel.

Israel’s mistake lies in accepting a-symmetrical talks with the PA, Yaalon said. From the beginning of talks, he explained, Israel has accepted the idea of a Palestinian national movement with the PA as its representative, while the PA has resolutely refused to accept the Jewish national movement of Zionism or the idea of a Jewish homeland in the land of Israel.

Furthermore, while the PA demands that Arabs and Muslims be allowed to live in Israel, Israel accepts that a PA state would not have Jewish citizens, he said. And while Israel gives in on crucial issues such as the status of Jerusalem or the borders of a PA state, the PA refuses to bend in the slightest.

Read the full story here.

No proposal that Netanyahu would bring to the negotiating table will ever satisfy the Palestinians, and no proposal that they bring would be allowed by any Israeli Knesset. Thus the region is at a stalemate, and this time President Obama will not be able to charm Netanyahu or the Israelis into making a deal that would effectively destroy their nation.

The time has come to recognize and remember the true history of the region, and send the PA, Hamas and the rest of the Palestinians back to the two-thirds of the Palestinian Mandate, back to Jordan, the real state of Palestine!

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

The organization’s Brief History of the region repeats many of the standard Palestinian myths and distortions. For example: “In 1948 a war broke out resulting in the establishment of Israel on 77% of historic Palestine.” Pointedly, in using the passive tense, the authors of this summary fail to mention the Arab invasion that led to the war. Similarly, the profile offers no background or context to the 1967 Six Day War that led to Israel’s control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip simply stating: “In 1967 Israel occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip.”

The current Palestinian campaign of violence is blamed solely on Israeli policies leading to Palestinian ‘disillusionment’, Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount and the failure of Camp David. World Vision, strangely, quotes an Israeli death toll of 302 in the period September 2000 to March 2003, some hundreds less than the accurate figure for that time. By quoting a significantly higher Palestinian death toll and ignoring the terrorism that was responsible for the deaths of Israeli civilians, World Vision promotes an amoral equivalence between perpetrators and victims of terror, and offering no context to the loss of life. Instead, Israeli security measures are described as “a policy of sealing entries and exits to cities, villages, and towns as a form of collective punishment of the Palestinian population.”

World Vision’s casual attitude towards Israeli security is demonstrated in a December 17, 2002 news article “Bethlehem has little to rejoice about at Christmas” which states: “Bethlehem’s population of 120,000 is under collective punishment. The reason given by Israel for re-entering Bethlehem is because the last suicide bomber to blow up a bus in Jerusalem was from the Bethlehem area.” Other news archives demonstrate a lack of context behind events. For example, a January 5, 2004 news article “World Vision helps 245 homeless families in Rafah” claims that “One hundred homes were demolished and another 70 were severely damaged during an Israeli army incursion on October 10th,” failing to mention the terrorist activities and weapons smuggling tunnels that prompted the Israeli military operations.

World Vision’s response to Israel’s security barrier also displays almost no acknowledgment of this impact of this obstacle in preventing terror. For example, Tim Costello, Word Vision Australia’s Chief Executive described the barrier as “part of the problem, not part of the solution”, in a July 14, 2004 op-ed in The Age (Melbourne). Costello evokes the highly politicized and inappropriate claim that the barrier “is reminiscent of the Cold War and Eastern Bloc oppression.” (Costello’s comparison reflects the Palestinian propaganda effort to compare the Berlin Wall, designed to keep citizens from fleeing, with Israel’s security barrier, which saves the lives of its citizens.) These issues are noted in Colin Rubinstein’s response to Costello, who also points to reliance on the faulty advisory decision of the ICJ, in response to the highly politicized indictment from the UN General Assembly.

Analysis of World Vision International’s website also reflects the clear political agenda, with little attention to entirely legitimate Israeli security concerns, as well as a total disregard for the effects of Palestinian terrorism on the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Thus, World Vision’s activities in the region reflect a strong political bias, with a high level of misunderstanding and negative attitudes displayed towards Israel, while encouraging or at least condoning terrorism and incitement. This agenda is entirely inconsistent with the claimed emphasis on “economic development and promotion of justice”.

More here. See also a follow-up here

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

“I was thinking of helping a poor Jewish child in Israel. Do you have a facility for that?”

On 8.23.2006 I got the following reply:

“Thank you very much for contacting World Vision! I appreciate the time you took to communicate with us, and I am happy to respond. On behalf of World Vision, I want you to know how grateful we are for your interest in our organization.

World Vision always serves the most needy children in a community. We never choose to sponsor children on the basis of race or religion, but rather on poverty indices alone. We do have programs in Israel, including sponsorship which has been funded by World Vision Canada, but the worst poverty is in Palestinian areas. In this region, those areas are found in Gaza, the West Bank, and Jerusalem and are mostly occupied by Palestinian families.

World Vision United States funds sponsorship programs in other countries that include children from different religious backgrounds, including Jewish children. However, it is important to note that every child in our program has the same needs (they lack the basic essentials of life); a child’s religion is not a criteria that is included when enrolled in our sponsorship program; therefore, we do not have a process or system in place to select a child for sponsorship based on race, religion, or political background.

Persons living outside the U.S. may sponsor a child through the World Vision office in the United States only with an international credit card. Unfortunately, due to shipping costs/constraints, international donors are not eligible to receive any premiums (for example, a free CD or stuffed animal). Currently monthly sponsorship rates are US$30.00 and Hope Children are $35.00.

Sincerely,

Michael D. Restivo, Donor Contact Services, World Vision U.S.

World Vision is a Christian relief and development organization dedicated to helping children and their communities worldwide reach their full potential by tackling the causes of poverty. Motivated by our faith in Jesus, we serve the poor–regardless of a person’s religion, race, ethnicity, or gender–as a demonstration of God’s unconditional love for all people.”

I wrote back saying: “Sorry you don’t want my money”

On 8.29.2006 I received the following reply:

“Thank you for your return email. Yes, you are correct, it is not possible to choose a sponsored child through our organization based on his/her religion. However, in the future, you may be able to sponsor a child from our sponsorship projects located in Jerusalem/Westbank/Gaza. This option is not currently available due to the impact of the recent Middle East crisis. After this situation settles down, sponsored children from these projects may be available for sponsorship. Once again, it is important to note that we cannot and do not guarantee that sponsored children from these projects are of the Jewish faith.”

Sincerely,

Michael Restivo”

I dropped the matter at that time but I am putting the emails up now as an illustration of how “non-discrimination” can be used as an insidious mask for discrimination — refusing to help a needy group because of their religion. If they really were a charity solely concerned with the welfare of poor children, they would be delighted to receive all donations, regardless of the religion of the intended recipients. It would have cost them nothing to honour the wishes of a donor in this matter but they would rather lose the donation than direct it to Jews. They are modern-day Pharisees: “Whited sepulchres”, as Jesus called them.

Posted by John Ray. For a daily critique of Leftist activities, see DISSECTING LEFTISM. To keep up with attacks on free speech see TONGUE-TIED. Also, don’t forget your daily roundup of pro-environment but anti-Greenie news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH . Email me (John Ray) here

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

If successful, Binyamin Netanyahu’s first meeting as Israeli prime minister with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak at Sharm el Sheikh Monday, May 11, may well mark an epic turning-point in Middle East history recalling the 1979 peace breakthrough with Egypt. Their common goals – and Mubarak speaks for the Saudi king Abdullah on this issue – are the formation of an Arab-Israeli front against Iran and putting a spoke in US president Barack Obama’s planned détente with Tehran.

Most of all, the Netanyahu government utterly rejects the Palestinian-Iran tradeoff proposed by the Obama administration - and reaffirmed by US National adviser Gen. James Jones Sunday – that a two state-solution would diminish Iran’s existential threat to Israel.

“For the first time in my lifetime,” Arabs and Jews see a common danger. 

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU

This was no idle talk. DEBKAfile’s military and intelligence sources report that the groundwork for the Mubarak-Netanyahu tête-à-tête was laid by Egypt’s intelligence minister Gen. Omar Suleiman in the two days he spent in Jerusalem on April 22-23.

Officially, the Palestinians were the purpose of his talks – Suleiman has long acted as middleman between feuding Palestinian factions. In fact, Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas were the subjects of his intense discussions with Israel’s government heads and his opposite numbers in Mossad, military intelligence and the General Security Service (Shin Bet). They covered the Radical Four’s next moves and their potential military responses to a possible Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear and strategic and infrastructure.

HOSNI MUBARAK

The Israeli military venture with its collaboration with Egypt won the approval of the US president, then George W, Bush. For the Gaza operation, US approval was withdrawn by the new man in the White House. But thesetback in Washington only served to spur the three silent partners’ motives for working together when their interests converge, this time against Iran’s rise as a nuclear and regional power.

When Israeli launched itsGaza offensive against Hamason Dec. 27, 2008, Jerusalem and Cairo were closely aligned on the various phases of warfare. For the duration of the 22-day conflict, Israel kept Egypt abreast of the action and Cairo updated Riyadh. This was Israel’s first operation against an Arab target to be backed by an Egyptian-Saudi consensus.DEBKAfile

JORDAN'S KING ABDULLAH II

The Obama administration’s outreach to Tehran and rehabilitation of Damascus served as a catalyst, accelerated by broad hints of US willingness to approve engagement with Hizballah and Hamas.

Israeli, Egyptian and Saudi rulers presume Washington has abdicated its commitment to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and a lead-position in the Middle East. 

SAUDI KING ABDULLAH

They take this retreat as a step toward America’s reconciliation with the Islamic Republic. All three oppose this policy and resent being cast to the political and military sidelines of the region in the US president’s consciousness.

His (Obama’s) emissaries failed to allay these concerns when they circulated around Arab capitals in the last fortnight. It was pointed out to them that the new US administration had not lifted a finger to slow Iran’s nuclear development in its first 100 days. If the issue was dropped to the bottom of Washington’s agenda with Tehran, it would be too late.

Israel was ready to pay a steep price for Egypt’s tacit and practical support by halting its Gaza operation last January short of the goals of crushing Hamas and overthrowing its government. Netanyahu has bought the proposition that he will have to pay Mubarak again in the coin of concessions to the Palestinians when they meet in Sharm el-Sheikh Monday. 

In strategic-historic terms, he believes that would be a more advantageous deal than succumbing to American arm-twisting. After all, Cairo and Riyadh are willing to stand up shoulder to shoulder with Israel against Iran – unlike the Obama administration.  DEBKA    

Netanyahu’s new approach to peace ignores Obama’s pro-Iranian terrorist goals.

SOURCE: BARE NAKED ISLAM

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post