<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Arlene Kushner</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/arlene-kushner/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Severely Distorted Thinking about the Temple Mount</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/severely-distorted-thinking-about-the-temple-mount/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=severely-distorted-thinking-about-the-temple-mount</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/severely-distorted-thinking-about-the-temple-mount/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Nov 2014 05:02:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prayer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[shooting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[temple mount]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Yehudah Glick]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=244421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Jewish people have a right to pray on the Temple Mount. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/rabbi-yehuda-glick-3.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-244422" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/rabbi-yehuda-glick-3.jpg" alt="rabbi-yehuda-glick-3" width="310" height="253" /></a></strong>Jewish presence in the land of Israel goes back more than 3,000 years.  Jews prayed for millennia, while separated from the land, to be able to return.  Once they did return, the people sacrificed in order to build and protect the land.</p>
<p>And now, the Jew who is passionate about Jewish rights and Jewish attachment to the land is viewed as a “radical right winger,” a troublemaker.</p>
<p>The world at large certainly sees matters this way:  If only nationalist Jews would relent already, then Israel could reach an agreement with the Palestinian Arabs and there could be peace. But the fanatic and troublesome right-wingers keep getting in the way.</p>
<p>The reason that Jews who seek Jewish rights are seen as troublemakers is because the Arabs tend to negotiate by way of violence and threats.</p>
<p>A tendency towards violence is inherent in the Arab Muslim culture.  We are not looking at a modern phenomenon, but at a situation that has persisted for centuries.  We see it in the way children are treated in this society, and the fact that it is considered permissible if not necessary sometimes to kill women for the sake of family honor.  It is well known among those who deal with these issues that terrorists who kill Jews then mutilate their bodies.  Relief and satisfaction derive from gruesome expressions of violence?</p>
<p>The true roots of deep Muslim Arab anger, expressed via overt violence, are not “the occupation” or the lack of a Palestinian state.  Social scientists find it in such things as sexual abuse of young boys (also common in the culture); this perpetuates violence as the boys grow up angry.</p>
<p>But now the situation is being exacerbated by Palestinian Arab leaders, so-called, who use this tendency towards violence for political gain, inciting their people rather than seeking to reduce tensions in the street. They are manipulating the crowds. For the Muslim Arab culture that is so prone to violence is also an honor/shame culture.  The perception that they have been “dissed,” treated with disrespect, foments anger and then violence.  And the messages being delivered by the likes of Mahmoud Abbas to the Palestinian Arabs is precisely this: that they are being treated with disrespect by Israel.</p>
<p>This culture is not big on compromise, either. To compromise is to forgo part of what you are entitled to, and this diminishes your honor.</p>
<p>What happens then is that the Jew who seeks his or her rights is seen as “causing” Arab riots and attacks. How much more peaceful it would be, if only these Jews would stop insisting on things that irritate the Palestinian Arabs.   Sounds crazy/unreasonable/simplistic, but that indeed is what is happening.  Palestinian Arabs, who are collectively bullies, are being broadly embraced anyway.  Either their violence is perceived as justified, or it is simply deemed wise to give them what they want to keep them quiet.</p>
<p>It is particularly important to deal with this issue now because Rabbi Yehuda Glick, who speaks for Jewish rights on the Temple Mount, endured an attack on his life in Jerusalem last Wednesday and faces a long struggle for recovery. Since he was shot, he has been referred to again and again in the media as “far right,” “radical” and more.  No one says, “Well, he deserved it.”  But implicit is the notion that if only he, and others like him, were less passionate about the Temple Mount there would be less Palestinian Arab anger.  People like Rav Yehuda are seen as stirring the unrest.</p>
<p>But this has precious little to do with who Yehuda Glick really is:</p>
<p>Invariably, his friends and family say he is a gentle, non-confrontational soul, who would be delighted for good relations with Muslims.</p>
<p>He calls the Temple the House of Prayer for All Nations. This concept is built into Jewish tradition: In the days to come, all monotheistic religions are to have a share in the Temple to be built on the Mount one day.  Isaiah 56:7 – “…for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all peoples.”</p>
<p>While he doesn’t back down from Jewish rights he readily explains this vision, describing the possibility that the Muslim Dome of the Rock could be retained as part of the Temple, if the Muslims would be peaceful and share in an effort to cooperate.</p>
<p>And he has been <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lHbxbDN8V4&amp;feature=youtu.be">filmed</a> joining in a prayer session with Arabs at the Mount.</p>
<p>Some radical extremist!</p>
<p>When Israel liberated the Old City and the Temple Mount in 1967, Defense Minister Moshe Dayan made a very foolish – a very bad &#8211; decision.  He turned to the Muslims in charge on the Mount – the Wakf or Muslim Trust &#8211; and told them that they would continue to manage day to day affairs there.</p>
<p>The worst of what he did was to rule that there would be no Jewish praying on the Mount, so as to not upset the status quo there.</p>
<p>It is not at all certain that Dayan’s motivation in doing this was proper, and it is clear that, as he was not a religious Jew himself, he saw the Mount more as a site of historical interest than one of on-going religious concern.  But we can give him the benefit of the doubt in this respect: he probably didn’t understand Muslim Arab mentality or how matters would evolve.</p>
<p>Over the years Jews have petitioned for the right to pray on the Mount.  This issue was last brought before the High Court in 2006, at which point it was said that only if “there is concrete information about actual danger to life” should Jewish praying be forbidden.  But ultimately, the matter was left in the hands of the police, who prefer preventing Jewish prayer so that it is not necessary to send in reinforcements to contend with Arab rioting.</p>
<p>But how outrageous that in the Jewish state, where the rights of all religious groups are protected, it should be impossible for Jews to pray in the place that is holiest to Jews.</p>
<p>Over the last few years, there has been movement by Muslim groups to libel Israel, in order to arouse the people: The totally fallacious claim that Jews are about to destroy the Al Aksa Mosque on the Mount has been put out regularly.</p>
<p>But now it has gotten much worse: there is a battle cry that the Mount is totally the heritage of the Muslims and that Jews have no business setting foot on it.  Declared Abbas just days ago:</p>
<blockquote><p>“It is our sacred place, al-Aksa [mosque] is ours, this Noble Sanctuary [as Muslims refer to the Temple Mount] is ours. They have no right to go there and desecrate it.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Abbas put out calls to “protect” the Mount from Jews. And then, when it was closed to everyone for a day, after the attempted assassination of Yehuda Glick, he called for a “day of rage,” because Muslims may never be prevented from entering the Mount for any reason.  This unleashed additional violence – with the throwing of pipe-bombs at police and much more in eastern Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods on Friday night and Saturday.</p>
<p>Palestinian Media Watch has reported that last week, before the conference on the Temple Mount, at which Yehuda Glick spoke:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;[F]ormer PA Prime Minister and PLO Executive Committee member Ahmed Qurei (Abu Alaa) issued a press release in which he condemned ‘the danger’ of the conference organized by Glick and warned of ‘extremist biblical plans encouraging settlers and extremist Jews to carry out large-scale invasions of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and calling on the entire Jewish nation to invade the Mosque.’ He also stated that Jerusalem and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are ‘undergoing one of the most dangerous periods since the beginning of the Israeli occupation’ and that it necessitates ‘immediate intervention.’&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>At the same time, there has been a growing sense of outrage among religious Jews that prayer on the Mount is not permitted.  Members of the Jewish Home party have been advancing legislation that would allocate different periods of time and different areas for Jewish and Muslim prayer on the Mount.  This proposal, which is altogether fair and equitable, is modeled after the pattern of shared praying time for the Machpela [Cave of the Patriarchs] in Hebron.</p>
<p>It will not succeed at this point, however, because Prime Minister Netanyahu will block it.  His rallying cry has been one of calling for “restraint” and maintaining “the status quo” on the Temple Mount.</p>
<p>To Israelis, he is saying that he will not permit the advancement of legislation for praying on the Mount, and to Arabs, that he will not permit the co-opting of the Mount by Muslims in a way that excludes Jews.</p>
<p>It is easy to understand Netanyahu’s unease.  Now even the Arab League has weighed in with threats.  Arab League deputy chief Ahmed Ben Hilli has called on Arabs and the international community “to put a stop to these practices by the Israeli occupation authorities in Jerusalem. Touching Jerusalem will lead to results with untold consequences.”  But these are only threats.  The Arab states have enough on their plates to contend with, without throwing their weight around on this issue.</p>
<p>However, we must be honest and recognize that the time of the “status quo” has already come to an end. Rabbi Yisrael Ariel, Director of the Temple Institute, says the Mount “has become a stronghold of Islam. The Arabs get tons of money just to have a presence there and intimidate Jews who dare to ascend the Mount.”</p>
<p>Unless the Jewish presence on the Mount is strengthened, Israeli influence will continue to diminish, with consequences that are unthinkable.</p>
<p>As mentioned above, it is the Muslim Wakf that is in control on the Mount, at least theoretically. And it is a Jordanian Wakf (not a PA Wakf).  The Jordanians have a role in what is going on.</p>
<p>Their peace treaty with Israel notwithstanding, they participate in threats, and have done everything in their power to diminish Israeli influence on the Mount. King Abdullah has just declared that he will work against “Israeli unilateralism” in Jerusalem and there have been mumblings about Jordan breaking its peace treaty with Israel over these matters.</p>
<p>King Abdullah is shaky on his throne.  He is contending with a host of radical forces at his border, thousands of Syrian refugees inside of his border, and pressure from Palestinian Arabs. Thus he plays it in a manner that he believes will best protect him.</p>
<p>And, consequently, Netanyahu has always done a very careful balancing act with Jordan. It is in the Israeli interest that the king should not fall.</p>
<p>With all of this said, however, it is instructive to consider the text of the 1994 Peace Treaty Agreement between Israel and Jordan. With regard to this issue, it says (emphasis added):</p>
<blockquote><p>ARTICLE 9</p>
<p>PLACES OF HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE</p>
<p>1. <em>Each party will provide freedom of access to places of religious and historical significance</em>…</p>
<p>2. In this regard, in accordance with the Washington Declaration, Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines. (This has to do with Israel not giving the PA priority on the Mount.)</p>
<p>3. <em>The Parties will act together to promote interfaith relations</em> among the three monotheistic religions, <em>with the aim of working towards religious understanding</em>, moral commitment, <em>freedom of religious worship, and tolerance and peace</em>.</p></blockquote>
<p>Not only does this not give Jordan great power on the Mount, it would seem that Jordan has been severely remiss in meeting its responsibilities.  Freedom of access to places of religious significance?  Freedom of religious worship?  Well, now.</p>
<p>Housing Minister Uri Ariel (Habayit Hayehudi) has it right:</p>
<blockquote><p>“I hear the Jordanians are threatening the peace agreement and [I] wonder if they have forgotten the Six Day War and the years in which King Hussein leaned on Israel. The Temple Mount and Jerusalem are under Israeli sovereignty just as Amman is under the absolute rule of Jordan. They should internalize this fact.”</p></blockquote>
<p>THIS is the sort of talk we need to hear more of from the Israeli government.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
<p><strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank">Subscribe</a> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and <a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank">LIKE</a> it on <a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank">Facebook.</a></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/severely-distorted-thinking-about-the-temple-mount/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Silent Intifada</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/the-silent-intifada/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-silent-intifada</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/the-silent-intifada/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2014 04:15:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arab]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[intifada]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Riot]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=242405</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A disturbing wave of violence unleashed. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/r.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-242406" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/r-450x300.jpg" alt="Palestinians hurl stones during clashes with Israeli police in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Wadi Joz" width="318" height="212" /></a>The perpetrators in the main of the new silent intifada are male Arabs, mostly young, with Jerusalem residency cards.  They have the right to live in Jerusalem, and receive the perks of citizens, but – tellingly – for political reasons have declined to become full citizens.</p>
<p>With increasing frequency in recent weeks, they are out on the streets of eastern Jerusalem and at key eastern Jerusalem locations, actively participating in violent and destructive behaviors.  Sometimes they wrap scarves around their faces so they cannot be identified.</p>
<p>Some Arab “unrest” occurs from time to time in the city.  Perhaps a demonstration protesting a perceived grievance suddenly turns into a riot.  Molotov cocktails might be thrown, or rocks large enough to kill.  Municipal infrastructure might incur some damage.</p>
<p>None of this is acceptable, but for the most part, these have been intermittent and localized occurrences.  What is happening now is something else: a form of behavior that is more persistently violent and more pervasive.</p>
<p>It comes as a shock to learn, for example, that at least 30% of the cars of the Jerusalem Light Rail are out of commission because of vandalism that takes place at the Light Rail station located in Shu’afat, an Arab neighborhood.  This is not a matter of delinquent kids with time on their hands. This is focused behavior intended to undermine the authority of the municipality.</p>
<p>This past week, on the second night of Rosh Hashana, Chanan Kupietzky, 25, and two others were walking towards the Kotel (the Western Wall) when they were accosted by some four Arabs, who began by calling, “Dirty Jews!”  At a signal from yet another Arab, they approached Kupietzky and his companions and launched a physical attack.  Other Arabs in the area began throwing rocks at the three, and at other Jews who were nearby, wounding one man in the chest.</p>
<p>“It was like an ambush,” Kupietzy said.  One Arab came at him with a two-by-four that had nails protruding from it, which was used to strike him repeatedly; ultimately his hand was so badly fractured that he required surgery.</p>
<p>One of the locations that has been most problematic is Har Hazeitim – the Mount of Olives.  This is the site of Judaism’s most ancient cemetery, with 150,000 graves. This past week, on one night alone, 40 graves were vandalized.</p>
<p>Nearby is Ma’aleh Hazeitim, a Jewish neighborhood that has been the site of stonings.  Arabs – likely from the nearby Arab neighborhood of Ras al-Amud – target cars on the road that have Jewish drivers.</p>
<p>This past week, however, a new low was reached when Arab stone-throwers made a nursery school the target of an attack.  As rocks pelted the outside of the nursery building, the teacher quickly brought the children into an air-raid shelter for safety and summoned the police.</p>
<p>These stories and many more like them have been insufficiently publicized.</p>
<p>Multiple observers have noticed that the attacks seem organized rather than random, and that there is never one person acting alone.  There are groups operating, under instruction.</p>
<p>According to one very reliable individual with direct connections to the Israeli government, what we are seeing is a limited intifada.  The Palestinian Authority has decided that a wide-scale intifada in Judea and Samaria would not be a good idea now: they have opted for one focused exclusively on Jerusalem instead.</p>
<p>It makes perfect sense. In the struggle between Israel and the PA, Jerusalem is the heart of the matter.</p>
<p>In July 1980, the Knesset passed a bill in Basic Law that reads: “Jerusalem, complete and united, is the capital of Israel.” There is no such place as “East Jerusalem;” there is one, undivided city.  Nonetheless, the Palestinian Authority continues to promote the fiction of “East Jerusalem” as a separate place that is destined to become its capital.  In the end, the sovereignty of Jerusalem – as the sovereignty of any place – is directly connected to control on the ground.  The PA goal is to make eastern Jerusalem so difficult for Jews to live in that they will withdraw.</p>
<p>Were this to happen, it would be an unmitigated disaster, particularly as the very core of Jewish tradition in the city – including the Temple Mount – is in its more ancient eastern part. It would mean relinquishing that core, with all the implications that would follow.</p>
<p>The overriding question now is what is being done to guarantee that this does not happen.</p>
<p>There are many fine police officers at work in Jerusalem, and, in fact, their numbers have been augmented recently. But there remains a persistent unease that what may be happening when the police act is more in the way of containment than enforcement of the law to the fullest extent possible.  Sometimes violent groups are scattered and chased away rather than arrested.  At other times arrests are made but prosecutions do not follow.</p>
<p>While these instances have been observed, what is not clear is whether they are just that – separate instances, or whether they are the result of orders from above, from Minister of Internal Security, Yitzhak Aharonovitch, or police officials.</p>
<p>It is not difficult to understand the inclination to fall back on containment, no matter how ill-advised it is in the long run: The world watches Israel as it watches no other nation. One false arrest, one injury or death of an Arab during attempts to make arrests, will result in headlines and international protests.  It feels safer to go easy.</p>
<p>But it is exceedingly important for Jews to make their presence known in all parts of Israel’s capital; and they must be able to do so free of harassment or physical risk.  Protecting its citizens is a primary responsibility of the government.</p>
<p>In this instance, when the government of Israel acts to protect its citizens, it is also protecting its rights as a sovereign nation and its future in the land.</p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
<p><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://horowitzfreedomcenter.us1.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=caa6f67f1482e6214d83be62d&amp;id=c761755bdf" target="_blank"><b>Subscribe</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> to Frontpage&#8217;s TV show, <i>The Glazov Gang</i>, and </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>LIKE</b></a><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;"> it on </strong><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="https://www.facebook.com/glazovgang" target="_blank"><b>Facebook.</b></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/the-silent-intifada/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Surreal &#8216;Reconstruction&#8217; of Gaza</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/the-surreal-reconstruction-of-gaza/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-surreal-reconstruction-of-gaza</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/the-surreal-reconstruction-of-gaza/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 04:20:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reconstruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.N]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=241252</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The madness that passes for diplomacy within the world of the U.N.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/rec.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-241256" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/rec-450x253.jpg" alt="rec" width="286" height="161" /></a>Much of what goes on in the world these days has a surreal quality.  But here’s a case that is emblematic of a host of situations:</p>
<p>On Monday, the United Nations pulled back hundreds of putative peacekeepers from the buffer zone that runs across the Golan Heights, separating Israel from Syria. They withdrew into the Israeli Golan, driven by Al-Nusra, Syrian rebels linked to Al-Qaeda, who have set up a “safe zone” from which to wage attacks.</p>
<p>The UN forces are from UNDOF – the UN Disengagement Observer Force – charged with monitoring that buffer zone. Its 1,200-strong force is comprised of troops from Fiji, India, Ireland, Nepal, the Netherlands, and the Philippines.</p>
<p>Syrian Ambassador Bashar Jaafari told reporters that:</p>
<blockquote><p>“The terrorists are now using United Nations cars, which hold the emblem of the United Nations forces in the Golan. They are using the uniform of the UNDOF, the weapons of UNDOF, the positions of UNDOF to shell on the Syrian army as well as on the civilians in the villages.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Jaafari accused Israel, Qatar and Jordan of being behind a “very big plot” to destabilize Syria by letting the Syrian rebels take control of the buffer zone.</p>
<p>Israel cooperating with Hamas-funding Qatar in a “very big plot”??  Well, the story would not be complete if Israel were not blamed somehow.</p>
<p>From here we can segue to another task that the UN is assuming:</p>
<p>The UN is brokering an agreement for the reconstruction of Gaza.  According to a report just released by Robert Serry, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process:</p>
<blockquote><p>“Reconstruction, recovery, governance and security in the Gaza Strip must take place in the context of the return of one legitimate Palestinian Authority to the Strip.</p>
<p>“The formation of the GNC [Government of National Consensus] under President Abbas and in accordance with the PLO principles was welcomed by the international community. The UN has long underscored the need for progress towards Palestinian unity in line with existing resolutions, within the framework of the PLO commitments and the positions of the Quartet and the Arab Peace Initiative.”</p></blockquote>
<p>If I were able to make genuine sense of this diplomatic double-talk, I would gladly explain it.  Apparently the UN is endorsing the Palestinian Unity government &#8211; which is on the verge of falling apart and which Hamas does not truly acknowledge in Gaza in any event – as the legitimate authority in Gaza.  That is, if the Unity Government works within the framework of the Quartet positions, which Hamas refuses to accept.</p>
<p>Got it?</p>
<p>The Ad Hoc Liaison Committee, the body coordinating development assistance to the Palestinians, will come together in New York in a meeting hosted by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon.</p>
<p>But there’s more:</p>
<p>Reconstruction will also involve the private sector, and the UN will do “monitoring to ensure that construction materials will not be diverted from civilian to military uses.”</p>
<p>The UN?  I’m sure they will function according to their well-recognized standards.</p>
<p>Apparently Israel has agreed to this.  Was there a choice?  Did Israel seek alternatives?  ARE there alternatives?</p>
<p>The decision was made by the Netanyahu government not to re-take Gaza.  Are we stuck with this, which will lead to no good? That is, if it happens.</p>
<p>Serry said the UN considers the “temporary mechanism [the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee]” to rebuild Gaza “a signal of hope to the people of Gaza.” According to the Washington Post, he considers this “an important step toward lifting all remaining closures of crossings into the Strip.”</p>
<p>Excuse me? Please note, there is not a word about demilitarization of Hamas.  He talks about lifting all remaining closures without addressing the dangers to Israel.</p>
<p>Monitoring the reconstruction project to make sure reconstruction materials (primarily concrete) will not be diverted to military purposes (construction of tunnels) in no way addresses the wholesale smuggling of rockets into Gaza (in pieces that can be easily hidden in merchandise) that would ensue, were all closures to be fully opened.</p>
<p>Where is the Israeli prime minister in all of this?  The fact that Serry – no friend to Israel – imagines that the crossings should soon be opened fully in no way indicates that Netanyahu has signed off on this.  He perhaps finds it wiser – more politic, in his style &#8211; to let Serry et al make pronouncements to which Israel has not agreed without bothering to contradict. There surely must be intention, as well, to do monitoring on Israel’s side – although Serry, of course, mentions no role for Israel.</p>
<p>It is Serry’s opinion that the reconstruction project “must get up and running without delay.”</p>
<p>But a key Israeli source with Palestinian Arab connections is quite confident that it is not going to happen.  We see here some of the reasons why not:</p>
<p>Mohammed Mustafa, Deputy Prime Minister of the Palestinian government, said last week that international donors are hesitant to fund Gaza’s reconstruction while Hamas is still in control and the possibility of future fighting remains very real. Mustafa said international bodies are eager for President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah forces to take on a leading role in Gaza.</p>
<p>Hamas already took out Fatah forces in Gaza once.  Are we due for a re-run?</p>
<p>Serry is under the illusion that if the Security Council supports the project, it will reassure donors that the project they invest in will be implemented “expeditiously, and solely for their intended civilian purpose.”</p>
<p>Now that I’ve stopped laughing, I will share a bit of relevant UN history:</p>
<p>After the Lebanon war in 2006, during which Israel seriously degraded Hezbollah capabilities, the Security Council passed Resolution 1701.  It set in place UNIFIL – UN forces that were intended to work with the Lebanese army to prevent Hezbollah from re-arming (smuggling rockets in from Syria).  Today Hezbollah has some 100,000 rockets.</p>
<p>At one point, some years ago, I learned that UNIFIL did no operations – no monitoring or patrolling &#8211; at night.  The smuggling, needless to say, was done at night.</p>
<p>Did I not say this was surreal?</p>
<p>We have not yet heard from Hamas – remember that there is still no final ceasefire agreement.</p>
<p>I note here as well that there is no mention of a role for the EU, which was supposed to be solidly on board with insuring that Hamas did not re-arm, etc. etc.</p>
<p><strong>Arlene Kushner is an American-Israeli author, journalist, and blogger. Her work can be found at <a href="http://www.arlenefromisrael.info">www.arlenefromisrael.info</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/the-surreal-reconstruction-of-gaza/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Time to Spare: Talking about Israel’s Legal Grounds</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/no-time-to-spare-talking-about-israels-legal-grounds/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=no-time-to-spare-talking-about-israels-legal-grounds</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/no-time-to-spare-talking-about-israels-legal-grounds/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 05:15:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[building]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samaria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[west bank]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.frontpagemag.com/?p=217632</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Time for Israel to assert its rights. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/west-bank-israeli-_1000389c.gif"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-217633" alt="west-bank-israeli-_1000389c" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/west-bank-israeli-_1000389c.gif" width="300" height="188" /></a>If the Israeli building in Judea and Samaria destroys the peace process, then, Lars Faaborg-Andersen, the EU ambassador to Israel, declared just days ago, “Naturally, the blame will be put squarely on Israel’s doorstep.”</span></p>
<p>Naturally: We wouldn’t expect anything else of the EU.  The issue here is not that this is a surprise, but rather that Israel is being forewarned: The government must consider its official stance<i> now</i>, before that blame has been levied:</p>
<p>It is time for Israel to enunciate a policy that directly addresses her rights.</p>
<p>It is two years since Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appointed a three-person committee, chaired by former High Court Justice Edmond Levy, to examine the situation of the settlements. The Committee’s report – “The Status of Building in Judea and Samaria” – was released on July 8, 2012.</p>
<p>While we have it on good authority that the prime minister was initially enthusiastic about the report, once he began to assess the opposition that was mounting against it, he decided to table it.  In several quarters, this document is viewed as a radical departure from Israeli government policy – a departure that would be highly problematic in the context of the current political situation.</p>
<p>I will argue, however, that – rather than representing a radical departure from Israeli government policy – the report offers a reiteration of what has<i> been</i> normative policy.  The perception that it is radical has been fostered because of the erosion of Israeli positions in the more than 20 years since the onset of Oslo.</p>
<p>Quite simply, the Israeli government has become reluctant to speak out in a forthright fashion in its own behalf.  As a result, not infrequently, government officials have conducted themselves in a fashion that has not been congruent with official policies.</p>
<p>The report has the capacity to pull the government back to where it needs to be. Its conclusions constitute the heart of the matter, and for the moment I would leave all else aside.  The report’s findings, based on historical and legal evidence, are that Israel’s position in Judea and Samaria is <i>sui generis </i>(unique), that Israel is not an occupier, and that the settlements are not illegal.  It further concludes that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to Israel’s situation in Judea and Samaria.</p>
<p>No formal adoption of the report need be called for at this time, fraught as these days are with political pressures.  Rather, the report must serve as a focal point, a tool for invigorating national dialogue on a pressing issue: the matter of Israel’s legal grounds in Judea and Samaria.</p>
<p>This is not a dialogue that can be delayed.  That is the crucial point here.  If Israel does not publicly enunciate her case before the EU draws its inevitable conclusions about Israeli culpability, her position will be far less effective.  For then Israeli claims of rights to the land will appear to be simply a defensive maneuver – a reaction and not a legitimate position.</p>
<p>For the last several months, Israel has been engaged, at least theoretically, in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. During this time, PA officials – who never compromise on their positions – have persisted in demanding that Israel return to the “1967 border.”  They maintain unendingly that Israel is an “occupier” in Judea and Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem, all referred to as “Palestinian land.”</p>
<p>The international community, perversely intent on appeasing the Palestinian Authority, and motived in no small part by a blatant anti-Israel bias, is more than content to accept the PA claims.  The settlements are “illegal,” we’re told, or “illegitimate,” which comes to the same thing.  Israeli building in Judea and Samaria prevents peace from bursting out.</p>
<p>Yet, rather than addressing the charges head on, the Israeli government responds by speaking about security:  We cannot go back to the pre-1967 temporary armistice line (which is never even clearly identified as such), as it would not afford us with security.  We must retain the Jordan Valley against the threat of jihadist forces approaching from the east.  And so forth.</p>
<p>The Levy Report comes to tell us that this argument is sorely inadequate.  It challenges Israelis to refocus their attention; in the end, it is not the document – which draws on a host of extant sources – that is important, but rather the issue of Israel’s legal grounds.</p>
<p>On November 29, 2012, the UN General Assembly ‒ in response to a petition by the UN representative from “Palestine”‒ passed Resolution 67/19, upgrading “Palestine” to “non-member observer status.”</p>
<p>Reacting to this unilateral action, which contravened Oslo agreements, the Cabinet passed Resolution 5251, prefaced by the following:</p>
<blockquote><p><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">The Jewish People has a natural, historical and legal right to its homeland and to its eternal capital, Jerusalem</i></p>
<p><i>The State of Israel, as the state of the Jewish People, has a right and claim to areas whose status is in dispute.</i></p></blockquote>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Ah, then this </span><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">is</i><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> government policy. How unfortunate that this language is not drawn upon as a matter of course in public statements issued by the Israeli government.  How sad that the world at large, not to mention much of the Israeli populace, is unaware of this Israeli policy.</span></p>
<p>It is imperative that the Israeli government begin to speak in terms of Israel’s legal grounds. There is not a moment to spare.</p>
<p><i style="line-height: 1.5em;">Arlene Kushner, author, writer, and blogger – </i><a style="line-height: 1.5em;" href="http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/"><i>www.arlenefromisrael.info</i></a><i style="line-height: 1.5em;"> &#8211; is co-chairing the Campaign to Promote Israel’s Legal Grounds and the Levy Report.</i></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>. </b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/arlene-kushner/no-time-to-spare-talking-about-israels-legal-grounds/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Restoring Israel&#8217;s Rights: The Levy Report</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arlene-kushner/restoring-israels-rights-the-levy-report/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=restoring-israels-rights-the-levy-report</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arlene-kushner/restoring-israels-rights-the-levy-report/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Oct 2013 04:30:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jerusalem]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levy Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samaria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Settlements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=208692</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A new campaign kicks off to promote the Jewish State's legal claim to Judea and Samaria.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/levy_report_1_0.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-208762" alt="levy_report_1_0" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/levy_report_1_0-396x350.jpg" width="277" height="245" /></a>The Jewish people’s considerable rights to the land of Israel are founded upon several bases:</p>
<p>Jews have been on the land for close to 4,000 years, most notably within eastern Jerusalem (where the Old City and the Temple Mount are located), and Judea and Samaria – all places where ancient Israelite heritage is marked.  Jews, in fact, are the indigenous people of Israel, present not only historically, but with continuity over the centuries.</p>
<p>In modern times there are legal precedents for establishing the Jewish claim to Israel: This is with reference to the San Remo Conference, the Mandate for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine, confirmed in international law, and more.</p>
<p>These Jewish rights have certainly not diminished over the years.  Yet there is a prevailing perception that this is the case – that there has been a rethinking of what properly accrues to the Jewish State of Israel.  A revisionist perception, we might say.</p>
<p>This perception has been fueled by Palestinian Arab leader Mahmoud Abbas and his cohorts, who – in insisting <i>ad nauseum</i> that Israel’s proper place is behind the “1967 border” – reveal themselves to be major advocates of the dictum that, “If you<b> </b><em>tell a </em><em>lie</em> big <em>enough</em> and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”</p>
<p>Of course this business of a “1967 border” is a lie: there was no border established to Israel’s east after the War of Independence ended in 1949, only a temporary armistice line.  The armistice agreement was not even with a “Palestinian people,” but with Jordan.  Nor did Security Council Resolution 242 require Israel to pull back fully from Judea and Samaria, which was secured defensively during the Six-Day War in 1967.</p>
<p>But why bother with facts when a myth more favorable to the political interests of the Palestinian Arabs can be successfully generated?  Today, a good part of the world believes that Judea and Samaria consist of “Palestinian land,” which Israel must “return.”  The president of the United States speaks in such terms.  Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, called “settlements” (pejoratively), are referred to either as “illegitimate” or &#8220;illegal,” and the stumbling block to peace. Eastern Jerusalem, today part of the united capital of Jerusalem under full Israeli sovereignty, is called “Arab Jerusalem.”</p>
<p>It must be noted, however, that this Palestinian Arab myth could not have been successfully generated had successive Israeli governments self-confidently and persistently presented truths to counter the lies. Regrettably, since Oslo, this has not consistently been the case.</p>
<p>While no Israeli government has ever declared Judea, Samaria and the eastern part of Jerusalem to be “Palestinian land,” some have skirted close to embracing this position by behaving “as if.”  (A subject that perhaps merits a whole other article.) Some Israeli leaders to the left have swallowed the notion in its essence, speaking in terms of what the Israelis owe the “Palestinians.”  Some others are ideologically opposed to any such concept but timid about bucking a position that is politically correct internationally. This requires a determined strength, as significant parts of the international community, e.g., Europe, are predisposed to a pro-Palestinian Arab, anti-Israel position.</p>
<p>The good news here is that we may be about to witness a shift in the situation.</p>
<p>The current Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, is not ideologically committed to a notion of eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria as “Palestinian land.”  He is neither Ehud Olmert nor Ehud Barak.</p>
<p>Rather – with the single notable exception of the Iranian nuclear issue – Netanyahu is a man whose style is marked by a tendency to play along, rather than making waves.  There is substantial reason to believe he has done this, again and again, in the mistaken belief that this will lessen the pressure on Israel and accrue favor within the international community. In point of fact, this is counterproductive.</p>
<p>In January, 2012, Netanyahu appointed a committee – popularly referred to as the Levy Committee – to examine the status of Israeli building in Judea and Samaria. Edmund Levy, former Justice of the High Court, headed the committee; its other members were Alan Baker, international lawyer and former adviser for the Foreign Ministry, and Tehiya Shapira, retired Tel Aviv District Court Judge.</p>
<p>The Committee’s Report, which was released on July 8, 2012, is 90 pages long in the original Hebrew.  (Only summaries exist in English.)  It consists of both conclusions and recommendations and provides legal arguments and research.</p>
<p>The accusations currently being leveled by the international community against Israel as a violator of “international law” because of building in Judea and Samaria are countered by the Levy Report conclusions.  That is, because of both historical and legal factors, the decades-long presence of Israel in Judea and Samaria is not “belligerent occupation.” Israel’s situation is unique (sui generis) and Israel has the legal right to settle in Judea and Samaria.<b> </b></p>
<p>The Report then offers a number of important recommendations, consistent with the conclu­sions, regarding adjustments in Israeli policies and practices in Judea and Samaria. These recommendations would<b> </b>clarify the rights of Israeli citizens living in Judea and Samaria, who currently find themselves at a serious disadvantage: The Israeli legal system default there favors Arabs.</p>
<p>At present, law-abiding, tax-paying Jewish Israeli citizens who bought their homes in Judea or Samaria in good faith and with the assistance of multiple government agencies can be forced to abandon those homes, if ownership of the land on which their homes are located is challenged by local Arabs, <i>before</i> the issue of who actually owns the land has been properly adjudicated.</p>
<p>These and a host of similar situations are violations of basic rights for Jews that should not be permitted to continue. Levy Report recommendations speak to these concerns.</p>
<p>I have it from an impeccable source that when Prime Minister Netanyahu first saw the Report, he declared, “Ah, this is just what we need.”</p>
<p>But information about the report was leaked, and Netanyahu, confronting the international furor that would result from its official adoption, did an about-face.  He referred the Report to the Ministerial Committee on Settlements, where it was tabled without discussion.  To this day, it sits in a drawer somewhere, effectively never having seen the light of day.</p>
<p>And so, the Levy Report disappeared from the radar screen of public awareness.  But it was not forgotten by Israeli activists and politicians with a nationalist orientation, who understood its enormous importance.</p>
<p>In the fall of 2012, a small group of seasoned activists formed an ad hoc committee to pursue plans for securing the adoption of the Report by the government. International lawyers and politicians were consulted, the political climate was assessed and assessed again; and plans for a campaign evolved through several permutations.  Persons and organizations of prominence who would lend their names to the campaign were sought (FP editor Jamie Glazov and FP parent organization, the David Horowitz Freedom Center, are both listed).  Additionally, and necessarily, backers to provide funds were secured.</p>
<p>As the plans for the campaign have coalesced over the last few months, the Campaign Committee has become convinced that the timing is right.</p>
<p>This is, first, because of the farcical “negotiations” with the Palestinian Authority.  If there are going to be such negotiations (certainly not advocated by the Campaign Committee) it is important that Israel negotiate from strength, and this means stating Israeli rights without equivocation. There is scant time to delay on this. It’s one thing to concede that Israel “must” withdraw from at least part of Judea and Samaria, because this is “owed” to the Palestinian Arabs, and quite another to say that it is Israeli land by right and any concessions to the Palestinian Arabs would be a matter of choice and discretion.</p>
<p>Then there has been an encouraging shift within the government, with a greater number of ministers and deputies who are nationalist or who tend to be opposed to the notion of a Palestinian state, such as: Moshe Ya’alon; Naftali Bennett; Danny Danon; Yisrael Katz; Tzipi Hotovely; Ze’ev Elkin; Uzi Landau; Yair Shamir; and Uri Ariel. Add to this list Yuli Edelstein, Speaker of the Knesset.</p>
<p>Lastly, there is Prime Minister Netanyahu’s second Bar Ilan speech of October 6.</p>
<p>(An English translation can be <a href="http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=62031">found here</a>.)</p>
<p>Instead of speaking of a “two state solution,” as he had previously, he emphasized Jewish rights in the land.  A change of tone that many consider significant.</p>
<p>And now, at long last, the Levy Report Campaign is kicking off.</p>
<p>The Campaign Committee is operating with the assistance of Regavim, a fine Israeli organization that works “to ensure responsible, legal &amp; accountable use of Israel’s national lands and the return of the rule of law to all…aspects of the land.”  (See <a href="http://regavim.org.il/en">http://regavim.org.il/en</a>) <strong> </strong></p>
<p>The campaign is envisioned in two stages – first within the Knesset and then more broadly within the public domain.</p>
<p>It is so new that neither a name nor a logo are yet in place.  But the services of the educator who will work with the members of the Knesset have been secured.  There will be major social media aspects to this effort, as well as organizational work done within the Knesset – in large part by Knesset members themselves – to generate significant and sustained support for the Report.  Already, members of the Knesset approached informally have expressed considerable enthusiasm.<strong><br />
</strong></p>
<p>The goal of the campaign, of course, remains acceptance of the Levy Report by the government. Right now a process is being set in place that will take time to unfold, step-by-step.  It would be foolish and unrealistic to anticipate immediate acceptance.  First the climate must be created.</p>
<p>The Campaign Committee believes this effort will provide support for the prime minister, so that he is bolstered from within the nation – and thus better able to resist outside pressures.  As well, the campaign should, in time, shift public perceptions regarding Israel’s rights.</p>
<p>If all proceeds well – something to be fervently hoped for – there will be subsequent reports following this first announcement.</p>
<p><i>Full disclosure:  Arlene Kushner was a member of the ad hoc committee that initiated the campaign for the Levy Report, and remains an active member of the Campaign Committee today.  She is an author, freelance journalist, and blogger, whose material can be found at <a href="http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/">www.arlenefromisrael.info</a>. </i></p>
<p><b>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: </b><a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank"><b>Click here</b></a><b>.</b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arlene-kushner/restoring-israels-rights-the-levy-report/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>47</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Abbas at the UN: Decoding the Babble</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arlene-kushner/abbas-at-the-un-decoding-the-babble/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=abbas-at-the-un-decoding-the-babble</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arlene-kushner/abbas-at-the-un-decoding-the-babble/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Sep 2013 04:32:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abbas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deceit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.N]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=205509</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The PA president's game of deceit. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/abbasb.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-205567" alt="abbasb" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/abbasb.jpg" width="267" height="264" /></a><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;">Mahmoud Abbas – putative president of the Palestinian Authority – addressed the UN General Assembly on Thursday, focusing on the negotiations between the PA and Israel. How eminently reasonable was the tone he attempted to project.  There he stood on the dais, expressing his intention to work hard for peace, even pleading for peace.</span></b></p>
<p>“Our quest is supportive of the path of peace,” he assured those assembled.</p>
<blockquote><p>“I affirm before you that… we shall continue [the negotiations] in good faith and with open minds, strong determination and an insistence on success…we shall …foster the most conducive atmosphere for the continuation of these negotiations…”</p></blockquote>
<p>Ah! That he should truly be what he would have us believe he is. But an even cursory look at his words tells us that he is not.  The leopard has not changed his spots.</p>
<p>We might start with that bit about fostering “the most conducive atmosphere…” <a href="http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3989/new-intifada">Khaled Abu Toameh has just described</a> the atmosphere that Abbas fosters:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;Although Abbas and some of his aides have been telling Israelis, Americans and Europeans that they are opposed to violence and terror attacks against Israel, they continue to incite Palestinians against Israel on a daily basis.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>The irony is that Abbas himself provides an example of this incitement in his talk, as he refers to almost daily attacks on the Al-Aksa mosque.  This is pure and outrageous fabrication.  The reality is that Jewish visitors on the Temple Mount – which is where the mosque is located – are sometimes accosted by stone-throwing Arabs, and sometimes prevented from visiting at all because of threats of Arab riots.</p>
<p>“The objective of the negotiations,” he explains,</p>
<blockquote><p>“is to secure a lasting peace accord that leads immediately to the establishment of the independence of a fully sovereign State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all of the Palestinian lands occupied in 1967, so that it may live in peace and security alongside the State of Israel, and the resolution of the plight of Palestine refugees in a just agreed upon solution, according to United Nations resolution 194, as called for by the Arab Peace Initiative.”</p></blockquote>
<p>This run-on sentence must be unraveled. What we are seeing here is the Palestinian Arab “narrative”: A host of claims without legal or historical basis that have been repeated so often that much of the world believes them.</p>
<p>There is no “occupation.”  “Belligerent occupation” applies only when a sovereign state moves into the territory of another sovereign state.  This was not the case here, when Israel took Judea and Samaria in a defensive war in 1967.  What is more, and perhaps more significantly, this area is historically the cradle of the ancient Jewish nation. This fact – the reality of the region as the heritage of the Jewish people – was recognized in the Mandate for Palestine, an international legal document mandating establishment of a Jewish homeland from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.</p>
<p>Prior to the ‘67 war, Jordan was the presence on the other side of the Green Line, not “the Palestinians.”  And so, in no event should that land be referred to as “Palestinian land.”: And, it should be noted here, that Green Line was merely an armistice line, which Jordan, when signing the armistice agreement, concurred would be temporary only.</p>
<p>UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed shortly after the war in ’67, recognized that Israel would not move back behind the Green Line, as this would not provide a secure border. That resolution referred neither to a “Palestinian state” nor to a “Palestinian people.”</p>
<p>As to the “refugees,” Palestinian Arabs and their supporters routinely point to Resolution 194 as proving that they have a “right to return” to lands in Israel they left in 1948.  But this is a misrepresentation of the facts.  That was a General Assembly resolution, and GA resolutions are merely recommendations – not binding and without weight in international law. What is more, while one phrase in the resolution speaks of “return,” when one reads the entire resolution, it becomes apparent that this was only one option mentioned, along with resettlement.</p>
<p>Israel has never agreed to the Arab Peace Initiative, for it was a “take it or leave it” deal that is nothing more than a formula for her destruction – precisely along the lines that Abbas spells out here.  Recently there were suggestions by representatives of the League that “minor” adjustments “might” be made but were never approved by the League.</p>
<p>The initiative consists of a two-part plan. First, to push Israel back behind the indefensible armistice line.  And then to push on that “right” of refugees to return to their villages of  65 years ago, thereby inundating Israel with a hostile population.</p>
<p>We see this two-track theme in Abbas’s speech. In one place he refers to the “injustices” of 1948, and in another, the “occupation” of 1967. There is a reason why Palestinian Authority textbooks routinely reflect “Palestine” from the river to the sea.</p>
<p>Abbas indicates that if Israel signs on to the deal he outlines, there will be recognition from 57 Arab and Muslim states, but this is simply not the case.  The Organization of Islamic Cooperation has 57 members, but by no stretch of the imagination have they all signed on to recognition of Israel, whatever the parameters of an agreement.  The Arab League consists of 22 members.</p>
<p>What must be emphasized here is that Israel would, ostensibly, be recognized. But not Israel as the state of the Jewish people.  This is more than a technicality, for it is the intention of supporters of the Palestinian Arabs to push for Israel as the “state of all its residents,” by which is meant that its Jewish character would be erased.</p>
<p>Lastly here I note the outrage of Abbas instructing Israel that it is time to “stop relying on exaggerated security pretexts and obsessions.”</p>
<p>In 1967, the Security Council recognized Israel’s need for secure and defensible borders.  How much more so is this the case in the volatile Middle East of today.  Nightly operations by the IDF in Palestinian Arab areas of Judea and Samaria control the threat of terrorism.  Radical Islamic groups would have a field day, were the IDF no longer able to enter within the borders of a Palestinian state. What is more, should Jordan fall to Islamists, there would be risk from farther east.</p>
<p>Where Israel’s borders are set is of enormous, existential, import.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arlene-kushner/abbas-at-the-un-decoding-the-babble/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Arab League&#8217;s &#8216;Peace Process&#8217; Deception</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arlene-kushner/the-arab-leagues-peace-process-deception/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-arab-leagues-peace-process-deception</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arlene-kushner/the-arab-leagues-peace-process-deception/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 04:05:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arab league]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Kerry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Peace Process]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=187822</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sec. Kerry plays a dangerous game in his effort to revitalize Israel-Palestinian negotiations. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/kerry-arab-leagueAP61769474_620x350.jpg"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-187851" alt="kerry-arab-leagueAP61769474_620x350" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/kerry-arab-leagueAP61769474_620x350.jpg" width="242" height="202" /></a>The Times of Israel has the following <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-sea-change-arab-league-backs-land-swaps-in-peace-talks/">headline</a> this morning: &#8220;In sea change, Arab League backs land swaps in peace talks.&#8221;</p>
<p>A sea change is defined as a marked change or a transformation.  But what we&#8217;re looking at here is nothing of the sort.</p>
<p>Members of the Arab League, representing seven Arab nations, met with top US officials yesterday in Washington.  The topic of discussion was the &#8220;peace process&#8221; and ways in which the Arab nations might advance it.</p>
<p>After the League delegation huddled for consultations at Blair House, Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani announced &#8220;the possibility of &#8216;<em>comparable</em>,&#8217; mutually agreed and <em>&#8216;minor</em>&#8216; land swaps between the Israelis and the Palestinians.&#8221;  (Emphasis added)</p>
<p>Note that &#8220;land swaps&#8221; are not agreed to firmly in principle.  There is a &#8220;possibility&#8221; of support for this, which means at the end of the day they might say, &#8220;Sorry, we won&#8217;t do this after all.&#8221;  After all, only seven of 22 nations of the League were represented here.</p>
<p>And even if they were to agree, in any case it would be &#8220;minor,&#8221; mutually agreed upon, swaps only.  Piddling. Only piddling.</p>
<p>Most importantly, this entire notion is predicated upon an erroneous and unacceptable concept.</p>
<p>Secretary of State Kerry, who seems to have staked his entire professional (sic) reputation on succeeding with the &#8220;peace process,&#8221; gushed:</p>
<p>“We’ve had a very positive, very constructive discussion over the course of the afternoon, with positive results&#8230;”</p>
<p>He praised the League for the &#8220;important role it is playing, and is determined to play, in bringing about a peace in the Middle East.&#8221;</p>
<p>A bit of background is in order here:</p>
<p>The Arab League &#8220;Peace Plan&#8221; had originally been advanced by Saudi Arabia in 2002, then was adopted by the League, and subsequently &#8220;re-endorsed&#8221; by the League in 2007.  It was, and is, a horror:</p>
<p>If Israel will surrender all lands acquired in 1967, and provide for a &#8220;just&#8221; settlement of the Palestinian Arab refugee problem, based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194— which the Arab world interprets as giving the &#8220;refugees&#8221; &#8220;right of return,&#8221; when in fact there is no such thing—then the Arab world will &#8220;normalize&#8221; relations with Israel.  No specification of what normalization means re: diplomatic, security, or economic ties.</p>
<p>Translation: If you will surrender the Temple Mount, and the Kotel, and the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hevron, and Shilo, and much more, including the Golan Heights.  And if you will return to the 1967 line [the Green Line], which, admittedly, was recognized by Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the Six Day War, as not providing a secure border.  And in addition, if you will take within your borders millions of so-called refugees, rendered radical and hostile by decades of UNRWA influence.  Then all 22 of the Arab states—and not just &#8220;Palestine&#8221;—will have some sort of ties with you.</p>
<p>This was touted as a great opportunity for Israel, which would secure &#8220;normalization&#8221; with the whole Arab world in one fell blow.</p>
<p>There were to be <em>no negotiations</em> with this plan.  It was a take-it-or-leave-it deal.</p>
<p>Israel rejected it out of hand:</p>
<p>Israel has legitimate rights to Judea and Samaria, based on a heritage that is more than 3,000 years old, as well as legally binding resolutions in the twentieth century, notably the Mandate for Palestine.</p>
<p>Israel will never return to the &#8217;67 line—which, in addition to everything else, provides insufficient strategic depth for adequate security.</p>
<p>Resolution 242 says the final border of Israel must be determined by negotiations.  Agreeing to pull back without negotiations is not the way to go.</p>
<p>For years now, the Palestinian Authority and its supporters have promoted the idea that the &#8217;67 line is Israel&#8217;s &#8220;real&#8221; border, and that everything on the other side &#8220;belongs&#8221; to the Palestinian Arabs.  <em>It is a crock. A myth.</em>  But unfortunately—because successive Israeli governments have not been vigorous enough in countering this—it has become accepted thinking in many places.</p>
<p>It is this myth, this crock, upon which the Arab League fashioned its &#8220;peace proposal.&#8221;</p>
<p>More recently, President Barack Obama has advanced proposals based on the same myth.  Has he swallowed it whole, so that he really believes it?  There is no way to be certain, although there is ample reason to suspect so.  We only know what he says.</p>
<p>Obama&#8217;s only deviation from the stipulation of return to the &#8217;67 line is the concept of &#8220;agreed-upon swaps&#8221; of land.  This means <em>the <span style="text-decoration: underline;">principle</span> of the &#8217;67 line as Israel&#8217;s legitimate border is retained</em> but if Israel wants to hold on to a community that, say, spreads over two square kilometers east of the line, then &#8220;Palestine&#8221; will be given two square kilometers of land west of the line, inside of Israel.  In the end, Israel will be defined by an area no greater than what rests within the &#8217;67 line.</p>
<p>For the record: the &#8217;67 line, or Green Line, was, with very minor adjustments, <em>the 1949 armistice line.</em>  It is the line that was drawn when Israel and Jordan stopped fighting, at the end of the War of Independence: Israel fought that war defensively, having been attacked by the Arab nations on the day she declared independence.  It is referred to as the &#8220;&#8217;67 line&#8221; because Israel was behind that line until June 1967, when the Six Day war was fought.</p>
<p>The armistice agreement signed between Jordan and Israel stipulated that the line was temporary and that the permanent line would be determined by negotiations.  Actually, this stipulation was put in at Jordan&#8217;s insistence.  And, please, note that it WAS Jordan on the other side of the line—the nation with which, it was presumed, Israel would ultimately negotiate. There was no talk of &#8220;Palestine&#8221; or a &#8220;Palestinian people&#8221; with whom Israel had to negotiate.  Whatever existed on the other side of the armistice line, it certainly wasn&#8217;t a Palestinian state, or land defined as belonging to a Palestinian people.</p>
<p>How Israel could be required to &#8220;return&#8221; Judea and Samaria <strong>to</strong> the Palestinian Arabs is a genuine mystery.  The historical situation has been distorted:  It has morphed from the reality into what people of a certain political bent wish it to be.</p>
<p>What I see is that Kerry went to these Arab League members and asked them for some flexibility so that he might move ahead with the infernal process. And, to his delight, they delivered.  Not only delivered, but stated themselves willing to go along with certain parameters outlined by the president.</p>
<p>At a press conference, Kerry declared:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;The US and Arab League delegation here this afternoon agreed that peace between Israelis and Palestinians would advance security, prosperity, and stability in the Middle East. And that is a common interest for the region and the whole world&#8230;&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Well, then, it&#8217;s the Arab world that sees eye-to-eye with President Obama, yes? And Israel?</p>
<p>We can anticipate that the secretary will now turn to Israel with a request/a veiled demand for more &#8220;flexibility,&#8221; for the sake of stability in the Middle East.  But what has been tentatively proposed is no more acceptable to Israel than the previous formulation of the Arab League plan, or only very minutely so. (Now, presumably, there would be some negotiations to determine the &#8220;minor swaps.&#8221;)</p>
<p>The essential premises of the plan remain as unsatisfactory, and as faulty as a basis for peace, as ever.</p>
<p>I do not, for a moment, anticipate that Israel will agree to the terms tentatively outlined by the Arab League.  But I do anticipate a huge amount of pressure coming down the road.</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref%3dnb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n:133140011%2ck:david+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank" target="_blank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/arlene-kushner/the-arab-leagues-peace-process-deception/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who Threw Israel Under the Bus?</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/yes-obama-did-throw-israel-under-the-bus/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=yes-obama-did-throw-israel-under-the-bus</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/yes-obama-did-throw-israel-under-the-bus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Oct 2012 04:42:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anti-Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Borders]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bush]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gaza]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Halevy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Settlements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=163030</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The president's supporters feverishly try to spin his record.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/yes-obama-did-throw-israel-under-the-bus/barack-obama-benjamin-netanyahu/" rel="attachment wp-att-163070"><img class="alignleft  wp-image-163070" title="Barack-Obama-Benjamin-Netanyahu" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Barack-Obama-Benjamin-Netanyahu.gif" alt="" width="315" height="226" /></a>On October 23, the profoundly anti-Israel <em>New York Times</em> ran an op-ed by Ephraim Halevy – former head of Israel’s Mosad and national security advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon – titled “Who Threw Israel Under the Bus?”</p>
<p>His thesis is that it has always been Republicans who have been bad for Israel; and he provides examples of how this has been the case.</p>
<p>I do not presume to know what motivated Halevy to write this badly biased piece, but what seems clear is that it requires a response, especially in the week before election day, when everything has become grist for the campaign mill.</p>
<p>The fact that three named Republicans were allegedly problematic for Israel says less than nothing about whether Romney would be, and certainly does not vindicate Obama.</p>
<p>One of the “problematic” Republicans Halevy fingers is Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. Halevy’s attempt to assess Obama by looking at Bush&#8217;s record, rather than Obama&#8217;s, is rather foolish: Bush is bad, so <em>ipso facto</em> Obama is good.</p>
<p>In a few instances, however, we can learn by looking at Bush&#8217;s positions and then how Obama subsequently acted.  These instances show that Bush was far more pro-Israel than Obama, no matter what Halevy claims:</p>
<p>On April 14, 2004, when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was in the midst of his plans for a disengagement from Gaza, he and President Bush exchanged letters. The letter from Bush said in part:</p>
<blockquote><p>In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.</p></blockquote>
<p>This was important on at least two counts. First, it spoke about armistice lines of 1949 – which is what is actually meant when people today refer to the &#8220;1967 borders.&#8221;  <em>There were no borders, only temporary armistice lines</em> – and Bush was acknowledging this historical fact with accuracy.</p>
<p>What is more, he was saying that Israel would not be expected to return to those armistice lines because of new realities on the ground.  This was an acknowledgement that in a final settlement with the Palestinian Arabs, were it to happen, major settlement blocs would be retained by Israel.</p>
<p>The exchange of letters that took place between Bush and Sharon (who spelled out plans for the disengagement in his) is known as a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) – an executive agreement not ratified by Congress.  It carries less weight than a treaty that is ratified, but is still broadly understood to reflect the authority of the executive office.</p>
<p>Bush’s letter, however, was totally rejected by Obama as being without import. Obama refers to the armistice line as the &#8220;1967 border&#8221; (an historical inaccuracy that tilts to the Palestinian Arabs), and has declared repeatedly that Israel must return to this line in a final settlement.</p>
<p>This is particularly startling because – even beyond the Memorandum of Understanding – there is considerable precedent for earlier US presidents acknowledging that Israel cannot be asked to return to that armistice line.  Among them, Republicans Nixon and Reagan.</p>
<p>Quite simply, <em>Obama’s position is anti-Israel</em>.</p>
<p>While he claims to be in support of security for Israel, <em>he pumps for a resolution of negotiations that would push Israel behind a border that is not defensible</em>.  The left-wing Abba Eban called this line &#8220;Auschwitz borders.&#8221; They would render Israel nine miles narrow at one point, and vulnerable to being over-run by enemies from the east.  But Obama says Israel <em>must</em> do this.  It is not a coincidence that what he has declared is <em>exactly</em> what the PA demands.  He has promoted their position shamelessly.</p>
<p>And there is more.  <em>No</em> president before Obama ever demanded a full freeze on Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria as a precondition for negotiations. The Palestinian Arabs themselves never demanded this – they sat with Israel repeatedly while building in settlements was taking place.  Abbas started demanding this <em>because</em> Obama set it as a precondition.  How could Abbas demand less?</p>
<p>Elliott Abrams, who handled Middle East affairs at the (US) National Security Council from 2001 to 2009, has written that Bush agreed to &#8220;natural growth&#8221; in the settlements, within existing settlement lines.  But Obama would not agree to even this.  The position he demanded meant deprivation to Israeli citizens living in those settlements, who were being told they couldn&#8217;t build a new school for their children, or a new clinic or even a new room on a house for a new baby.</p>
<p>Whatever disagreements there have been between various presidents and Israel, until the Obama administration there has always been an implied sense of a bond between America and Israel because of shared values, goals and destiny. Obama broke with this. He let it be known that it was a good thing for there to be &#8220;daylight&#8221; between Israel and the US.  After a meeting Obama had in 2009 with Jewish leaders, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, reported that Obama had said:</p>
<blockquote><p>Look at the past eight years [referring to the George W. Bush administration]… During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states.</p></blockquote>
<p>“Credibility with the Arab states.” Never has there been a president who has so courted the Islamic world.  This is at the heart of the matter.  It&#8217;s impossible to attempt to secure the approval of various Islamic and Arab states and to also be pro-Israel.  Obama knew this and made his choice, even though he pretends otherwise during this election season when Jewish votes count.</p>
<p>Remember that for his June 2009 speech to the Muslim world in Cairo University, a Muslim Brotherhood hotbed, he <em>specifically invited</em> members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks to destroy Israel.  This is not something a friend of Israel would have done.  This was the beginning of US positions that put the Brotherhood in power in Egypt.  During that speech he already called for a “stop” to settlements, and actually equated the “suffering of the Palestinian people in pursuit of a homeland” with the horrors of the Holocaust.</p>
<p>As well, after his inauguration, some four months previous, the very first international &#8220;leader&#8221; he called was Mahmoud Abbas of the PA. A rather pointed statement.</p>
<p>An observation I made about Obama when he was still a candidate provided broad hints as to what he was:</p>
<p>He came here to Israel when he was campaigning. There had been a terror attack just blocks from the hotel where he was staying; it occurred roughly about the time he arrived.  He knew about it. He <em>had to</em> know about it. Then he went to Sderot, which is near the border with Gaza, and he spoke about how the people there suffer because of rocket attacks.  He <em>knew</em>, and he was courting Jews with his sympathetic words.</p>
<p>From Israel, he went to Germany for a major speech, which included a discussion of terrorism in the world and how it must be combated.  He listed countries struggling with this – the UK, Spain, etc. etc.  <strong><em>But he left out Israel</em>.</strong></p>
<p>Damn, I thought then. This is not an oversight. He just came from Israel, he just saw for himself.  He cannot have forgotten. It would have added powerful rhetoric to his speech, had he talked about what he had just seen first hand. But he did not want to appear sympathetic to Israel before the world.</p>
<p>I called it then, and I have not been wrong about him. In truth, he has been far worse than I had feared.  Who would have imagined, four years ago, that President Obama would establish the Global Counterterrorism Forum in 2011, and then, in June of this year, <em>actively block participation by Israel</em> – the world’s greatest expert on terrorism – when the Forum had its first meeting in Istanbul?</p>
<p><strong>Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Ddigital-text&amp;field-keywords=david+horowitz&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;ajr=0#/ref=sr_st?keywords=david+horowitz&amp;qid=1316459840&amp;rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Adavid+horowitz&amp;sort=daterank">Click here</a>.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/yes-obama-did-throw-israel-under-the-bus/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>92</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Republicans Must Take the Lead on Israel: A Postscript</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/why-republicans-must-take-the-lead-on-israel-a-postscript/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-republicans-must-take-the-lead-on-israel-a-postscript</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/why-republicans-must-take-the-lead-on-israel-a-postscript/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Aug 2012 04:25:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judea]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Levy Report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samaria]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Settlements]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=139153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Refuting the critics. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/romney-netanyahu.gif"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-139162" title="romney-netanyahu" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/romney-netanyahu.gif" alt="" width="375" height="250" /></a>On July 24, I posted a piece — “<a href="http://frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/why-republicans-must-take-the-lead-on-israel/">Why Republicans Must Take the Lead on Israel</a>” — on FrontPage.</p>
<p>Its thesis, in brief: In January, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu appointed the Levy Committee – headed by Edmund Levy, retired Supreme Court Justice, and including another retired judge and a lawyer who is an expert on international law – and charged them with considering the legal status of  “unauthorized settlements” in Judea and Samaria.</p>
<p>The findings of that committee, which labored long and hard in its research, have now been released.  It found that (emphasis added):</p>
<ul>
<li>According to international law, Israelis have <strong>a legal right to settle</strong> all of Judea and Samaria, at the very least the lands that Israel controls under agreements with the Palestinian Authority [area C under the Oslo Accords].</li>
<li>“[F]rom an international<strong> </strong>law perspective<strong>, the laws of ‘occupation’ do not apply</strong> to the unique historic and legal circumstances surrounding Israel’s decades-long presence in Judea and Samaria.”</li>
<li>“Likewise, <strong>the Fourth Geneva Convention</strong> [relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] on the transfer of populations does not apply, <strong>and wasn’t intended to apply to communities such as those established by Israel in Judea and Samaria</strong>.”</li>
</ul>
<p>The committee made several recommendations, but neither its findings nor those recommendations are binding on the government of Israel.  Prime Minister Netanyahu has submitted the Report to his Ministerial Committee on Settlements, but at present there has been no policy established with regard to the Committee findings.</p>
<p>Now, the prime minister may in due course accept those findings.  Or, feeling interna­tional political constraints, he may decide to simply table the issue.</p>
<p>My suggestion was that – in light of the clear evidence that the Palestinians do not really intend to negotiate a “two state solution” and the growing nationalist movement inside of Israel – it might be time for the Republicans to accept the major finding of the Levy Committee and <em>acknowledge the right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria.</em></p>
<p>While recognizing that this would not be a politically correct move, I suggested that an election year, when new policies and platforms are drafted, might be the appropriate time to act on this.</p>
<p>Not surprisingly, I have received a good deal of private communication regarding my proposal.  Most was supportive. But I also received communication that expressed an enormous unease with what I was suggesting.  What was interesting was that these apprehensive messages did not come from persons <em>opposed</em> to the notion of Israel’s rights in Judea and Samaria.</p>
<p>Rather, they were written by people who are on board with a nationalist agenda, but who fear that what I was suggesting would backfire: It would be understood, they maintained, as a bid to encourage the Republican Party to pressure the Israeli prime minister with regard to Israeli policy.</p>
<p>I am thoroughly convinced that this reading is incorrect and that the reverse is actually true. And so I have returned to my computer to draft this postscript to my original piece:</p>
<p>I begin by noting that the prime minister himself had appointed and charged the Levy Committee. In no way was I coming out of left field; I had simply suggested that the Republicans embrace the findings of Netanyahu’s own committee. In point of fact, the two members of the Knesset whom I mentioned by name as leaders of efforts to promote the findings of the Levy Report—Danny Danon and Tzipi Hotovely—are themselves members of Netanyahu’s party, Likud.</p>
<p>But there is something even more basic than this.  I had not proposed that Republicans endorse the annexation by Israel of all of Judea and Samaria or even Area C.  I had not suggested that the Republicans reject all possibility of negotiations with the PA, or declare the “two state solution” dead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/why-republicans-must-take-the-lead-on-israel-a-postscript/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Republicans Must Take the Lead on Israel</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/why-republicans-must-take-the-lead-on-israel/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=why-republicans-must-take-the-lead-on-israel</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/why-republicans-must-take-the-lead-on-israel/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jul 2012 04:02:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Romney]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=138075</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A vast historical opportunity awaits them if they are bold enough to seize it.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/romney-israel.png"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-138285" title="romney-israel" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/romney-israel.png" alt="" width="315" height="210" /></a>There is a truism – “You can’t be more Catholic than the pope” – that is rather scrupulously adhered to in political circles.</p>
<p>With regard to Israel, this bit of political wisdom suggests that it is inappropriate for U.S. politicians, whatever their predilections or convictions, to move to the right of the Israeli government on issues of Israel’s claim to Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank).</p>
<p>However remote the possibility of negotiations between the PLO and Israel – however clear the evidence that the Arabs don’t want a negotiated settlement, but want the Jews gone, the notion of a “two-state solution” continues to be the politically correct mantra in the U.S.</p>
<p>As long as that “solution” remains the official position of the Israeli government, and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu persists in his calls for PA president Abbas to come to the table without pre-conditions, Republican members of Congress are reluctant to advance positions to the right of what he is saying.  Republican policy-makers are waiting for the Israeli government to make the first move.</p>
<p>It is time for Republican decision-makers to move beyond this conventional wisdom. For, in fact, a vast historical opportunity awaits them if they are bold enough to seize it.</p>
<p>What we are seeing is a confluence of events in the U.S and Israel that has significant implications:</p>
<p>In Israel, a 90-page report has been released that is surely destined to cause shifts in the political landscape and has already begun to do so.  In January, Prime Minister Netanyahu appointed a committee of three to consider the legal status of “unauthorized settlements” in Judea and Samaria.  Headed by Supreme Court Justice (ret) Edmund Levy, the committee also consisted of Tel Aviv District Court Judge (Ret.) Tehiya Shapira and Dr. Alan Baker an expert on international law.</p>
<p>After taking testimonies and doing an extensive examination of a host of legal and historical documents, what they have concluded, in brief, is that:</p>
<ul>
<li>&#8220;According to international law, Israelis have a legal right to settle all of Judea and Samaria, at the very least the lands that Israel controls under agreements with the Palestinian Authority.  Therefore, the establishment of Jewish settlements [in Judea and Samaria] is, in itself, not illegal.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>&#8220;&#8230;considering the testimonies heard, the basic conclusion is that from an international<strong> </strong>law perspective, the laws of &#8216;occupation&#8217; do not apply to the unique historic and legal circumstances surrounding Israel&#8217;s decades-long presence in Judea and Samaria.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>&#8220;Likewise, the Fourth Geneva Convention [relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] on the transfer of populations does not apply, and wasn&#8217;t intended to apply to communities such as those established by Israel in Judea and Samaria.&#8221;</li>
</ul>
<p>The Levy Committee has made recommendations in accordance with its findings, but these recommendations are not binding on the government.</p>
<p>The report was released first to the attorney general, about two weeks ago, and then to the prime minister.  He has submitted it to the Ministerial Committee on Settlements for consideration, and in due course it is hoped that there will be an official response from the prime minister and this ministerial committee.</p>
<p>The recommendations might be accepted.  It is possible, however, that the prime minister will decide to sit on the report at present, rather than taking a definitive position.</p>
<p>Be that as it may, there has been a significant shift in the political climate in Israel, and there is no way that matters can return to a “pre-Levy report” situation:</p>
<p>“Two-state” advocates are in despair, and some are saying, “OK, you’ve won. Now what?”</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/why-republicans-must-take-the-lead-on-israel/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>92</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Genocidal Quest for &#8216;Palestine&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/islamists-for-palestine/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=islamists-for-palestine</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/islamists-for-palestine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Feb 2012 04:15:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ayatollah Khomeini]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamist]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[palestinians]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=122621</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What really lies behind support for the Palestinians in the Muslim world.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Israel_egypt_tensions_620x350.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-122623" title="Israel_egypt_tensions_620x350" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Israel_egypt_tensions_620x350.gif" alt="" width="375" height="245" /></a></p>
<p>Ismail Haniyeh, the putative prime minister of Hamas, headquartered in Gaza, has just visited Iran. That visit highlighted a growing division within Hamas between Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal, head of the Hamas politburo. Until very recently headquartered in Damascus, Mashaal has broken with Iran and relocated to the Gulf State of Qatar.</p>
<p>On February 12, the Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khameini, expressing support for his guest, publicly declared that the Palestinian issue was an “Islamic cause.”</p>
<p>The “Palestinian issue”?  This sounds rather as if Iran were promoting a Palestinian state. (This surface impression would coincide with the notion that the Arab/Islamic world would be less bellicose if only Israel would agree to a “two state solution.”)  But it is far from the reality, and the Ayatollah’s words provide an excellent opportunity for setting the record straight.</p>
<p>Just as the Ayatollah is Islamist (perhaps heading the Islamist state “par excellence,” as it were), so is Hamas Islamist—a direct offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.</p>
<p>Islamist ideology is not nationalist, but, rather, is dedicated to the concept of the <em>ummah</em> —the entire Muslim world seen as a unity. As Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomein said, shortly after the overthrow of the Shah and his return to Iran from exile, “I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke. We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah.”</p>
<p>According to this view, any country, as a sovereign national entity, can legitimately be sacrificed in service to the larger goal of ensuring that “Islam emerges triumphant…”  That triumphalism alludes to rule of shari’a (Islamic law).  The ultimate to be aspired to in this regard is the caliphate, an institution of imperial Islamic rule that strives for global hegemony.</p>
<p>And what of the “Palestinian issue”?  It’s all about the destruction of Israel and the banishment of Jews from the land.</p>
<p>This approach was very explicitly outlined by the Muslim Brotherhood in <em>The Project</em>, part of its charter adopted in 1982 (and described in detail on May 11, 2006 in <em>Front Page Magazine</em>).</p>
<p>Among the techniques it recommended was this:</p>
<p><em> • Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination…</em></p>
<p>A similar approach is reflected in the 1988 covenant of Hamas, the “Islamic Resistance Movement,” which states:</p>
<p><em> • The Movement&#8217;s program is Islam…</em></p>
<p><em> • The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine…</em></p>
<p><em> • The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the links in the chain of the struggle against the Zionist invaders…</em></p>
<p><em> • The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf [sacred trust] consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgment Day.</em></p>
<p><em> • Nationalism, from the point of view of the Islamic Resistance Movement, is part of the religious creed. Nothing in nationalism is more significant or deeper than in the case when an enemy should tread Moslem land. Resisting and quelling the enemy become the individual duty of every Moslem…</em></p>
<p>No mention of a Palestinian state here and no emphasis on a distinct “Palestinian Arab people.”  No commitment to Palestinian national sovereignty as a value unto itself.   When leaders of Hamas speak of “resistance,” they intend only to banish Jews from a part of the land that ultimately belongs to the <em>ummah</em>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/islamists-for-palestine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Answering Obama&#8217;s Israel Lies</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/answering-obamas-israel-lies/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=answering-obamas-israel-lies</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/answering-obamas-israel-lies/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:01:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[egypt]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[muslim brotherhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Netanyahu]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=120388</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The truth behind the president's dishonest video extolling his "bond" with the Jewish State. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/6a00d8341c60bf53ef0133f0cea014970b-500wi-1.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-120404" title="6a00d8341c60bf53ef0133f0cea014970b-500wi-(1)" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/6a00d8341c60bf53ef0133f0cea014970b-500wi-1.gif" alt="" width="375" height="251" /></a></p>
<p>On January 19, President Barack Obama’s campaign staff released a video, &#8220;America and Israel: An Unbreakable Bond&#8221; – a piece rife with half-truths and distortions. As patently false as it seems to anyone with a properly jaundiced eye, it nonetheless requires a response.  For one suspects that those American Jews eager to find a reason to vote for Obama may be all too ready to stand convinced of what they are being told.</p>
<p>Recently elected NY Congressman Bob Turner gave an interview in Israel last week, in which he said, &#8220;I think American support militarily has been more an investment in our own defense..&#8221;  It was a refreshingly honest and significant observation that directly applies here.</p>
<p>Obama likes to claim – as he does in this video – that US military cooperation with Israel makes him a huge <em>supporter</em> of Israel.  But this cooperation serves US needs and goals in important ways: the US requires an Israel that is militarily solid.  Nothing wrong with that.  It means US interests coincide with Israeli interests in this respect. But Obama misrepresents when he claims the US does this <em>for</em> Israel.  And it should be noted here that it is the Pentagon, which understands the military situation, that has always been the major promoter within the US of cooperation with Israel.</p>
<p>This same principle applies to other, related, matters.  Last year the Israeli embassy in Cairo was attacked.  The ambassador and his staff got out, but two Israeli security guards were caught in the building and in danger of being killed.  Obama (and I note here there were others from elsewhere involved as well) intervened and helped get those guards out safely.  He then made a great deal about how he worked on Israel&#8217;s behalf.  Nonsense.  Imagine what would have happened if those guards had been killed, when, according to international law, a country is responsible for the safety of foreign embassy personnel within its borders.  Israel would have had to respond very strongly – perhaps there would have been war.  Obama knew this, knew that there was risk of a disastrous turn of events in the Middle East and he had to try to cool things.  All to the good. But he didn&#8217;t do this <em>for</em> Israel.</p>
<p>Did Israelis, including Netanyahu, thank him for his actions here and elsewhere? Of course. That&#8217;s the diplomatic thing to do.  But the Israeli prime minister did not do so with the expectation that Obama would use this expression of appreciation as an endorsement come election time.  The Obama team merely borrowed an earlier clip and added it to their video. I haven&#8217;t discussed this with Netanyahu personally, but I am reasonably confident that the prime minister is privately praying that Obama loses – for Obama has been rude to him and a thorn in his side in many respects.  But it’s neither politic nor appropriate for him to voice any opinion in the matter.</p>
<p>As to Defense Minister Ehud Barak&#8217;s praise of Obama, which is given considerable play in the video:  It&#8217;s long been known in Israel that Barak is an Obama “buddy.”  This is a man who is intensely disliked by those Israelis who care about preserving their nation.  Barak is the one who sanctions middle of the night expulsions of people in &#8220;unauthorized&#8221; communities in Judea and Samaria, allowing young children to be dragged from their beds into cold rain.  What Barak says should carry no weight with caring people.</p>
<p>The imagery of Obama at the Kotel, which begins the video, is designed to grab at the heart.  But for some this is more likely to grab the stomach:  Obama has not visited Israel once since he&#8217;s been in office – even though he is a much-traveled president. Where does he travel? To Muslim countries, mostly. He had no trouble visiting Indonesia, which is engaged in horrendous human rights violations.  Not a word about that. But from a podium in Indonesia, of all places, he criticized settlements in Judea and Samaria.  It was no accident – he was showing Muslims how tough he is with Israel. <em>This</em> is a friend of Israel?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2012/arlene-kushner/answering-obamas-israel-lies/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>18</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US State Department True to Form on the Mount of Olives</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arlene-kushner/us-state-department-true-to-form-on-the-mount-of-olives/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=us-state-department-true-to-form-on-the-mount-of-olives</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arlene-kushner/us-state-department-true-to-form-on-the-mount-of-olives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Dec 2011 04:05:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-Semitism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arabs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clinton]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mount of olives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. State]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=116516</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Deafening silence on deprivation of human rights endured by Jewish people.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/cemetery-16.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-116518" title="cemetery-16" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/cemetery-16.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="527" /></a></p>
<p>Is the US State Department capable of getting it right when addressing deprivation of human rights endured by Jewish people?  Its conduct with regard to the Mount of Olives cemetery in Jerusalem gives serious pause.</p>
<p>On the slopes of the Mount of Olives (Hebrew: <em>Har Hazeitim</em>), in eastern Jerusalem, lies a 2,500 year-old Jewish cemetery, bearing a legacy of enormous import and sanctity.  Among those buried in its 150,000 Jewish graves are prophets, Zionist leaders, rabbis, writers, and an Israeli prime minister.</p>
<p>From 1948, when eastern Jerusalem was captured by Jordan, until its liberation by Israel in 1967, no Jews were permitted at the site; horrendous damage was done to the cemetery during those years. Although restoration has been taking place since 1967, until recently action to protect the site had been insufficient. That is now changing as the Israeli government has become more vigorously involved and the International Committee for the Preservation of Har HaZeitim has been established.</p>
<p>Yet vandalism still regularly occurs at the cemetery. Arabs drop cinderblocks from the top of the Mount down the hillside, in a frequently successful effort to crack headstones.  Additionally, mourners and those visiting graves of loved ones are often harassed by Arabs throwing stones and require an armed Israeli security escort. Not infrequently, those mourners and visitors are American citizens.</p>
<p>Enter Jeff Daube, Director of the Israel Office of the Zionist Organization of America, and a leading member of the International Committee.  Alarmed by what he had learned about the situation, he wrote a letter on November 10, 2010, to the U.S. General Counsel and Chief of Mission in Jerusalem, Daniel Rubinstein.</p>
<p>Observing that as, “the consulate’s good offices are meant to represent the U.S. in Jerusalem…it appears the Mt. of Olives falls within your diplo­matic purview.”  Daube  requested, on behalf of “outraged U.S. and Israeli citizens,” that the Consul General “issue a condemnation of this ongoing sacrilege and violence,” and call upon local Arab leaders and the PA to issue condemnations of the acts of desecration and harassment.</p>
<p>On November 12, 2010, Daube was invited to a meeting with Jonathan Cullen, Political Officer, and Matthew Welsh, Officer of Religious Affairs, at the Consulate.  After the situation was discussed, it was agreed that these officers would visit the site with Daube on January 5, 2011.  But when the consulate officers subsequently learned that they were to be accompanied by Israeli security personnel, they explained to Daube that regulations forbid consulate personnel from participating in any event involving Israel-funded security.  This is to avoid implicit U.S. recognition of Israeli sovereignty over eastern Jerusalem.  As Daube declined to be responsible for escorting American officials on the site without security protection, there the issue rested.</p>
<p>This spring, Daube, who lives in Israel, visited Washington DC.  Twice – on May 10 and June 1 – he met at State with John Buzbee, Director of the Bureau of Near East Affairs/Israel-Palestinian Affairs.  At the first meeting, with regard to the Mount of Olives, Daube made three requests:</p>
<ul>
<li>That the State Department issue a condemnation of the violence and grave desecrations.</li>
<li>That the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem prevail upon the PA to release a condemnation in Arabic.</li>
<li>That the problem be addressed in the State Department’s annual Report on International Religious Freedom.</li>
</ul>
<p>During the second meeting, Buzbee reported with satisfaction that the draft of the report on religious freedom was on his desk and, indeed, the problem on the Mount was included.  In mid-November, Secretary Clinton held a press conference announcing the release of the report for 2010.  On checking, Daube learned that the relevant text in that report reads:</p>
<p><em>The desecration of Muslim and Jewish cemeteries in Jerusalem continued throughout the reporting period. Jewish tombstones on the Mount of Olives cemetery were vandalized, and the Jerusalem Municipality demolished tombstones in the Muslim Mamilla cemetery it deemed were constructed illegally. </em></p>
<p>The State Department has a solid reputation for adopting a stance of moral equivalency  regarding Israeli-Palestinian issues:  When releasing a statement critical of Arabs, its officials behave as if duty-bound to find something equally critical to say about Israelis.  While allegedly this is done to avoid the semblance of a pro-Israel tilt, this policy actually generates an anti-Israel bias because Israeli and Arab behavior are simply not equivalent.</p>
<p>This is stunningly obvious with regard to this particular report. Those who drafted it, while seeking that ubiquitous equivalence, have outrageously misrepresented the situation:</p>
<p>Earlier this year, the Israel Land Authority discovered that the northern branch of the Islamic Movement had been planting fake tombstones in the ancient Mamilla Cemetery as part of a “land war.” Official inspectors at the site found tombstones that bore no evidence of graves beneath. After extensive documentation had been gathered, the Authority declared that they were dealing with “…fraud on a massive scale. Five hundred tombstones&#8230;were placed in the graveyard&#8230;”</p>
<p>Working with antiquities officials to insure no actual graves were disturbed, the Authority removed the fake headstones.  It is a distorted description of this action, without proper context, that found its way into the State Department report.</p>
<p>Neither Secretary of State Clinton nor other officials within the State Department have issued public condemnation of the deprivation of religious freedom endured by Jews on the Mount of Olives.  The guess would be  that – while this issue merits public condemnation – Secretary Clinton is inhibited by her concern that Arab sensibilities not be offended.</p>
<p><strong>Arlene Kushner, an American-Israel author, writer and blogger, has dealt extensively with Israeli-Palestinian issues over the years, via major reports, blogs and articles.  Her material can be accessed via: <a href="http://www.arlenefromisrael.info/">www.arlenefromisrael.info.</a></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arlene-kushner/us-state-department-true-to-form-on-the-mount-of-olives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Islamic Jihad: Iran&#8217;s New Favored Proxy</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arlene-kushner/islamic-jihad-irans-new-favored-proxy/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=islamic-jihad-irans-new-favored-proxy</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arlene-kushner/islamic-jihad-irans-new-favored-proxy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Nov 2011 04:13:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Daily Mailer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hamas]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Iran]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[islamic jihad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Israel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[rocket attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Terrorism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=110929</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Shifting alliances underlie the latest onslaught against Israel.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/gaza-march-islamic-jihad-6-26-03.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-110941" title="gaza-march-islamic-jihad-6-26-03" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/gaza-march-islamic-jihad-6-26-03.gif" alt="" width="375" height="253" /></a></p>
<p>The story that has made headlines in recent days deals with the various weapons being shot from Gaza into the south of Israel.  As this is written, over 40 projectiles have been launched: Grad Katyusha rockets, Kassam rockets, and mortars, much of this arsenal supplied by Iran. The Grads – which are both the most accurate and have the greatest range – are the most deadly.</p>
<p>Israel has responded, but in a severely limited fashion (which some refer to as “tit-for-tat”). Air Force planes take off over Gaza, hit a launching site, or a smuggling tunnel, or a group of terrorists planning a launch, and return.</p>
<p>Since Saturday, one Israeli man has been killed by a rocket, and four others have been injured.  Damage has been done to buildings, and cars have been gutted.  Children within range of the rockets (some 40 kilometers of the border with Gaza) are being kept home from school, and the populace of southern Israel lives with fear.</p>
<p>Scant attention is paid to the fact that some individuals end up going to the hospital because of anxiety attacks, but high anxiety – perhaps better called  panic – is both psychologically and physically debilitating.  Additionally, as it is important for them to try to stay close to shelters, residents of places such as Ashdod, Beersheva and Ashkelon have limited opportunities for moving about.</p>
<p>Bottom line: <em>Citizens of Israel should not have to live this way</em>. Israelis in growing numbers are of the opinion that it’s time to launch a second operation such as Cast Lead.  That brief war, involving both air and ground operations in Gaza, took place during the first weeks of 2009 and dealt Hamas a significant but not fatal blow.</p>
<p>In many quarters, it is felt that the Israel government is not doing its best to protect its citizens or to ensure deterrence. As a matter of full disclosure, this writer confesses readily enough to a visceral longing to see appropriate heads in Gaza blown off.  It’s difficult to witness what’s happening, especially when one must struggle with the impression that Israeli action is insufficient.</p>
<p>But decisions cannot be based on a visceral desire to do damage, however valid that desire may be.  Before a conclusion is reached regarding what should be done now, the broader context must be considered – both in terms of history and the complexity of current prevailing factors.  The Middle East is rife with shifting inter-Arab/Muslim rivalries, hatreds, and alliances of convenience. Israel, the only non-Arab/Muslim state in the region, is often caught in regional crossfire and must maneuver accordingly for its best interests.</p>
<p>As we consider reports of the situation, what stands out is that the rockets are being launched by Islamic Jihad; Hamas, which runs Gaza, is sitting on the sidelines – neither actively participating nor attempting to control Islamic Jihad.  <em>This is a new situation</em>.</p>
<p>What is not well known is that Islamic Jihad has links with Fatah.  Quite simply, Hamas and Fatah are rivals, while Fatah and Islamic Jihad function, at least covertly, as allies.  (There are reports within the last few days of Fatah people joining the Islamic Jihad forces.)</p>
<p>A look backwards explains this situation:  During the time of the Iranian Revolution, Yasser Arafat – functioning as head of both the PLO and Fatah, which were essentially one and the same then – provided assistance to the revolutionary forces via both training and weaponry.  When the Shah fell, Arafat emerged as one of the first supporters of the new radical Islamic Iranian regime; he entered Tehran jubilant.</p>
<p>The Ayatollah Khomeini, who had sparked that revolution from outside of Iran, was so pleased with Arafat that he gave to the PLO as its headquarters the building that had housed the Israeli mission to Iran during the time of the Shah. A special bond then evolved between Arafat and Khomeini.  It was a honeymoon of short duration, as a displeased Arab world (reflecting Sunni-Shia tensions) delivered Arafat a message: Us or Iran.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arlene-kushner/islamic-jihad-irans-new-favored-proxy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A U.N. Appointment Exposed</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arlene-kushner/a-un-appointment-exposed/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=a-un-appointment-exposed</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arlene-kushner/a-un-appointment-exposed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 04:13:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Arlene Kushner]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=83163</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[John Ging will move to New York for a higher position in the UN -- and he'll bring his Jew-Hate with him. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/John-Ging-111710.gif"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-83166" title="John-Ging-111710" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/John-Ging-111710.gif" alt="" width="375" height="296" /></a></p>
<p>John Ging has been serving since 2006 as Director of Operations in Gaza for UNRWA, the agency responsible for the Palestinian refugees. He will move shortly to New York, as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has tapped him for the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.</p>
<p>It is instructive at this point to examine some key Ging statements from 2010, which are often marked by distortions and a bias against Israel. UNRWA’s mandate, it must be noted, is purely humanitarian, rendering political pronouncements by a top staff member inappropriate.</p>
<p>The year began auspiciously with a video filmed in Gaza, and uploaded to <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsxkquaMDo0">YouTube</a> on January 4. It included a Sky1 News interview of Ging.</p>
<p>They are standing, he says during that interview, in what was once Gaza’s industrial area.  Here, the biscuit factory once stood, etc.</p>
<p>Elaborating, Ging explains:</p>
<blockquote><p>The announcement [regarding Israeli intentions in its last Gaza operation] was that this whole war was about demolishing the infrastructure of terrorism.  But we look around and see that this was not the case.</p></blockquote>
<p>The infrastructures of the economy and education were destroyed, he says. And the infrastructure of the government – ministries and the president’s compound.  “These are not the infrastructures of terror, these are the infrastructures of peace – the infrastructures of a state…the parliament building, the infrastructure of democracy.”</p>
<p>But this is disingenuous: it is inconceivable that he was unaware of the Hamas propensity for operating within civilian infrastructure, impossible that he did not realize that structures with the <em>appearance</em> of being civilian may well have housed terrorists or weapons, or been employed as launching sites.</p>
<p>In 2009, the International Institute for Counterterrorism issued a <a href="http://www.ict.org.il/NewsCommentaries/Commentaries/tabid/69/Articlsid/604/currentpage/1/Default.aspx">report</a> documenting Hamas use of heavily populated civilian areas, and subsequently the IDF <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=171012">documented</a> evidence that Hamas had utilized almost 100 mosques in Gaza for storing and launching weapons during the war.</p>
<p>And yet, Ging told his interviewer that standing in Gaza he was able to “see the truth.”</p>
<p>In alluding to the parliament building utilized by a terrorist Hamas, the governing entity of Gaza, as “infrastructure of democracy,” he seriously distorted reality.</p>
<p>In early April, Ging <a href="http://journeytogaza.blogspot.com/2010/04/guns-n-teddy-bears.html">laid the blame</a> for all problems with Gaza youngsters at the feet of Israel:</p>
<blockquote><p>[I]f you have no reason to live, you will seek a glorious death. It’s worse now than it ever was before…Their violent behavior…is symptomatic of the desperation they are growing up in.</p></blockquote>
<p>What he blithely ignored, however, are the years of radicalization of the population of Gaza under the influence of UNRWA schools controlled by Hamas.</p>
<p>For over 15 years, Hamas has dominated UNRWA’s teachers’ union in Gaza. Since 2006, Hamas representatives have controlled the executive council of this union sector.</p>
<p>The report “<a href="http://www.israelbehindthenews.com/library/pdfs/MY_UNRWA_Report_2009_US_.pdf">UNRWA: Its Role in Gaza</a>” speaks about Hamas entrée into the schools:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Hamas-affiliated Islamic Bloc…maintains broad programs in UNRWA schools; these…promote incitement for jihad…</p></blockquote>
<p>Less than three weeks later, during a major <a href="http://e.gov.kw/News/KUNAMoreNews_Eng.aspx?NewsId=76672">press conference</a> at the UN, while depicting the struggles of the people of Gaza, Ging said:</p>
<blockquote><p>There is a distance between the mischaracterization of Gaza, as a so-called ‘hostile entity,’ and the scale of the civility of the people who populate the Gaza Strip in these very uncivilized circumstances. They are very civilized people who manifest very clearly interact with visitors.</p></blockquote>
<p>“The <em>mischaracterization</em> of Gaza, as a…‘hostile entity,’”?</p>
<p>When rockets are fired from Gaza at Israeli civilians, and the governing party of Gaza, Hamas, is sworn to Israel’s destruction, it indeed does mark Gaza as a hostile entity. Ging would have it understood that the people inside of Gaza are devoid of associations with Hamas – which he never mentions – and totally innocent by-standers.</p>
<p>Additionally, he <a href="http://talkradionews.com/2010/04/security-no-barrier-to-lifting-gaza-blockade-says-un-official/">insisted</a> that:</p>
<blockquote><p>[A]ll [UNRWA] teaching staff is <em>closely vetted by</em> <em>the UN in order to provide a non-political education.</em> (Emphasis added)</p></blockquote>
<p>This is perhaps Ging’s most blatant misrepresentation of the facts during this press conference. For the reality, described above, is that Hamas enormously influences the education in the classroom<em>. </em></p>
<p>On May 3, 2010, in an interview in his Gaza office with the Norwegian paper <em>Aftenposten </em>– cited in English on May 5<sup>th</sup> by Al-Jazeera and other sources – Ging suggested that the international community had a responsibility to act with regard to Gaza. “Israel,” he declared, “refuses to act reasonably.”</p>
<blockquote><p><em>Therefore we ask the international community: Bring us the supplies we need to rebuild schools and run them, bring us the equipment we need to hospitals and health centers. Everybody knows how desperate the situation is</em>&#8230;<em>We need action now</em><strong>… </strong>(Emphasis added)</p></blockquote>
<blockquote><p>We believe that Israel will not intercept these vessels because the sea is open&#8230;</p></blockquote>
<p>“Where there is a political will,” he declared, “there is always a way.”</p>
<p>This blatantly inciteful statement made news internationally.  In fact, there is full reason to believe that the so-called “Freedom Flotilla” that was launched in May of 2010, with disastrous results, was inspired by Ging’s words.  A May 6, 2010 Flotilla <a href="http://vodpod.com/watch/3566767-john-ging-gaza">video</a> from the “Free Gaza Movement” – which begins by citing John Ging – provides <em>prima facie</em> documentation of this.</p>
<p>(The “Freedom Flotilla” – ostensibly seeking to break the Israeli sea blockade of Gaza by bringing humanitarian supplies – included the ship Mavi Marmari, which carried members of a Turkish terrorist organization who planned and executed violence against Israeli soldiers.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2011/arlene-kushner/a-un-appointment-exposed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 1151/1219 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 07:01:35 by W3 Total Cache -->