How to Respond to Ivory Tower Demands to Talk with Hamas

February 7, 2011
by Hillel Fendel

Follow Israel news 

With professors demanding that Israel negotiate with “moderate” Hamas, Janet Doerflinger of Campus Watch explains why they’re wrong.

Hamas is a terrorist organization – so designated by the U.S. State Department, the European Union, and others – that is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Israelis and calls unabashedly for the destruction of Israel. Despite this, a host of university professors in the U.S. and Europe continue to make public statements in favor of Israeli negotiations with Hamas.

In an article published byAmericanThinker.com, Janet Doerflinger lists some of these professors – and then rebuts them. Among the professors are Augustus Richard Norton (Boston University), Sara Roy (Harvard), and Fawaz Gerges (Sarah Lawrence College and the London School of Economics), who argue that Hamas has become more moderate.
In addition, Gerges and Rashid Khalidi (Columbia University) demand that the U.S. support Fatah-Hamas unity, while Dr. Ian Lustik (University of Pennsylvania) believes Israel should accept the Hamas' “offer” of a 20-30 year hudna (ceasefire).

Finally, Dr. Lawrence Davidson (West Chester University, Pa.), the author of "Islamophobia as a Form of Paranoid Politics" and similar articles, says the reason Israel refuses Hamas's “olive branches” is because of an Israeli mindset that "favors endless war."

The essential objection to the above is that Hamas has engraved on its charter the goal of destroying Israel and replacing it with an Islamic state. It has shown no signs of neutralizing, suspending or moderating this objective.

Doerflinger then adds the following talking points: “Hamas has shown no proclivity to… abiding by previous cease-fires... Their corrupt, brutal rule in Gaza reveals their true nature far more than any apologias from their academic defenders… Negotiating with terrorists is generally a bad idea because it legitimizes them and weakens the moderates… The desire to engage with terrorists betrays a failure to understand either the terrorists or civilized society. It asks the negotiators to overlook the terrorists' convictions, delude themselves into thinking that terrorists are more like them than they in fact are, and blinds the negotiators to their own weaknesses.”
Doerflinger also notes that the “Middle East studies establishment has for years held Israel to significantly higher standards of conduct than neighboring Arab states. Amidst their constant criticisms of Israeli policy and society, one hears precious little about the brutality of Arab regimes, the treatment of women in traditional Muslim societies, or other social pathologies common in the region.

“All these professors,” she concludes, “are united by their failure to recognize (or admit) the true nature and goals of Hamas, a militant Islamist terror organization dedicated to killing Jews and ending Jewish sovereignty and self-determination in the Middle East… Urging Israel to hold peace talks with Hamas is yet another example of the poor foreign policy prescriptions that result from the distorted viewpoint that is, unfortunately, so prevalent today among the Middle East studies faculty of our universities.”

(IsraelNationalNews.com)

My Note:

For more information on Hamas - the terrorist group - and videos, please see:

http://www.squidoo.com/Hamas-terrorist-group

EgyptianCrises:" U.S, E.U and Canada on same page, reading from same script"

"Now that the Brotherhood has been legitimated and invited to the conversation, they cannot be contained."

Robbie Burns: “The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men. Gang aft agley, An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,”

By Ted Belman
ISRAPUNDIT

From all my reading and observatrions about the Egyptian crises, I note that the US, EU and Canada are now all on the same page and are reading from the same script.

Here’s how the Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada, put it.

“We take note that discussions between the Egyptian government and opposition parties have begun. Canada reiterates its support for the people of Egypt as they embark on this vital transition toward a more democratic system of government. As I have said before, it is ultimately up to the Egyptian people to decide who will govern them. “This transition must be both orderly and guided by values such as non-violence, the rule of law, and respect for human rights, including the rights of religious minorities. “We expect that any government that will emerge will uphold Egypt’s commitment to international law, as well as all past peace accords and agreements, including with Israel. “We believe that reform must make Egypt and the region more stable. While the need for democratic reforms is pressing, reform should not occur in a vacuum that could result in extremism, violence and intolerance. All elements of any future government must never seek to attain political objectives through terrorism. “Canada stands by the people of Egypt as they work toward a peaceful and democratic transition.”

How are they ever going to insure that “reform should not occur in a vacuum that could result in extremism, violence and intolerance. All elements of any future government must never seek to attain political objectives through terrorism.”

Democracy means the will of the people not the West. Now that the Brotherhood has been legitimated and invited to the conversation, they cannot be contained.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 6:09 am

The EU extorts concessions out of Israel

ISRAPUNDIT

February 7, 2011

JPOST
[..]
Israeli officials, meanwhile, responded to the Quartet statement on the diplomatic process issued Saturday by saying that “it could have been a lot worse.”
The statement, which expressed regret that Israel did not extend a settlement moratorium last September, stopped well short of endorsing a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood on all territory beyond the 1967 lines. Instead, the Quartet

“reaffirmed that negotiations should lead to an outcome that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and resolves all permanent-status issues, in order to end the conflict and achieve a two-state solution.”

Israeli officials said that the package of incentives agreed upon by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Quartet envoy Tony Blair helped “soften” the Quartet’s statement. Netanyahu met with Blair three times over the last three weeks, and some 10 times over the last three months to hammer out the package, much of which Western officials have been demanding of Israel for months.
The package included the following highlights:

In Gaza:
• Agreement to revive Israeli-Palestinian discussions on the ‘Gaza Marine’ gas field, with approval in principle of the supply of Palestinian offshore gas to Gaza power plants and specific project approval to a new power station there.
• Agreement to provide mobile desalination plants in Gaza and approval in principle for construction of a larger permanent desalination plant.
• Full approval for all the sanitation and water treatment plants necessary for Gaza, with Israel agreeing to facilitate and support the entry of construction materials to enable projects to be completed on schedule.
• Further measures to promote Gaza exports, especially in furniture and textiles as well as agriculture.
• A pilot project for allowing the entrance into Gaza of private sector construction materials beginning on April 1.
In the West Bank:
• Extension of Palestinian Authority security presence in Area B –with agreement in principle for the construction or renovation of police stations in seven Palestinian cities.
• The issuance of West Bank ID cards to 5,000 Gaza-registered residents of the West Bank.
• Agreement of the construction of two housing projects in east Jerusalem.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 7:59 am 

One response on Israpundit:

One Response to The EU extorts concessions out of Israel

1. Per says:

   February 7, 2011 at 10:56 am

   … the occupation that began in 1967 …

   Someone should tell Ashton and Blair that this statement is an islamphobic insult against the Palestinians. The Nakba began in 1948, not in 1967, and the package of incentives should be delivered equally to the entire Umma, not just to the Gazans.

|

Muslim Brotherhood Leaders Don't Always [Correction: Almost Never] Tell the Truth

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2011

THE RUBIN REPORT

By Barry Rubin

From Canada to the United Kingdom and far beyond, Muslim Brotherhood representatives are taking advantage of widespread sympathy and naivete to tell Westerners precisely what they want to hear (also known as lying). And overwhelmingly, the media seems to be accepting this version.

Here is a group that every day in every speech and publication (in Arabic) says basically: Down with America! Kill the Jews! Make Egypt an Islamist state! Then turns around and says in English: Peace, democracy, freedom, and we're really very nice guys! Are Western leaders and journalists dumb enough to be fooled by this? Obviously, the answer is: Yes.

Here's Brotherhood leader Muhammad Badi in a speech last October calling for Jihad against America which has still not been quoted by any Western news outlet:

"Resistance is the only solution…. The United States cannot impose an agreement upon the Palestinians, despite all the means and power at its disposal. [Today] it is withdrawing from Iraq, defeated and wounded, and it is also on the verge of withdrawing from Afghanistan. [All] its warplanes, missiles and modern military technology were defeated by the will of the peoples, as long as [these peoples] insisted on resistance – and the wars of Lebanon and Gaza, which were not so long ago, [are proof of this].”


Consider Kamal el-Helbawy, former Brotherhood spokesman and now leader of its forces in Great Britain. The BBC interviewgoes like this, the interviewer is Zeinab Badawi:

Badawi: "Is the aim of the Muslim Brotherhood to establish a state in Egypt that is governed by Sharia Law, Islamic law?"

El-Helbawy: "If the majority of the people and democractic practice allows it."

[Translation: Yes]

Badawi: That is your ambition to do that? You think it's a better way of living?

El-Helbawy: "Why not? And I do really... I'm astonished that the West that imported Christianity from the East, is against Islam that may come from the East as well."

Badawi: "What would an Egypt governed by the Muslim Brotherhood be like?"

El-Helbawy: "Freedom, consultation, equality, freedom of everything: Belief, freedom of expression, everything in freedom."

[Translation: Sounds good. But el-Helbawy's definition of freedom is Sharia as interpreted by the Brotherhood. You can make your own list of where this falls short. In the Brotherhood's platform there would be a council of Muslim clerics deciding what laws were acceptable and which where not. That's what the word "consultation" means here.]

Badawi: "Would a woman, for example, be expected to dress in a modest Islamic way, take the veil perhaps?"

El-Helbawy: "I said earlier many time on tv and in US papers and the press that if Margaret Thatcher ruled over Egypt, I will certainly support her a hundred times more than people like Mubarak."

[Translation: he's lying because he knows full well--though his listeners don't--that the Brotherhood's platform says that no woman can be president. Badawi might know it also but she doesn't follow up.

Badawi: "Would she have to wear a veil?"

El-Helbawy: "Not necessarily."

[Translation: Of course.]

Badawi: "Would you change the constitution in Egypt to make it one based on Sharia Law if you were in power?"

El-Helbawy: "We are neither Saddam Hussein nor Mubarak nor Ceauşescu."

Badawi: "What do you mean by that?"

El-Helbawy: "I mean we will never change the constitution unless the real parliament are able to do that and it is for the interest of the people."

Badawi: "But if you have a majority in the National Assembly if you won an election, would you seek to change the constitution in Egypt to make it one based on Sharia Law?"

El-Helbawy: "If every majority in the world did according their own interest and the national interest they should make a balance."...

[Translation: Yes. But remember that the Brotherhood doesn't have to have a majority on its own as it could find many allies who would also support the measure.]

Note that we are not talking just about the implementation of Sharia in the abstract--for which people might make some argument--but Sharia under an Islamist and every strict interpretation. This is a point a lot of people miss. The question is who is interpreting what Sharia means.

As one Canadian observer put it, "The Brotherhood representative here has been talking for years in very radical terms and suddenly he's changed his tune and is playing Mr. Moderation."

In the House of Commons in 2003 the MP Louise Ellman said:

"It is time that the spotlight fell on the Muslim Association of Britain, particularly the key figures, such as Azzam Tamimi, Kamal el Helbawy, Anas Al-Tikriti and Mohammed Sawalha. All of them are connected to the terrorist organisation Hamas. The Muslim Association of Britain itself is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood--an extremist fundamentalist organization founded in Egypt in 1928, and the spiritual ideologue of all Islamic terror organizations. It is militantly antisemitic and always has been."

You also wouldn't know some of the things el-Helbawy said before he went all soft and fuzzy. Here he is back in February 2009:

He argued that Israeli children could not be considered civilians because they were “future soldiers” and thus it was all right to kill them.He claimed: “A child born in Israel is raised on the belief that the Arabs are like contemptible sheep....In elementary school they pose the following math problem: ‘In your village, there are 100 Arabs. If you killed 40, how many Arabs would be left for you to kill?’ This is taught in the Israeli curriculum.” 

The BBC later had to admit that this was a lie.  One day, the BBC and other media might have to admit that the great majority of things they wrote about the Muslim Brotherhood was a lie. By then, of course, it will be too late.

What if the Problem Really is the People? - By Sultan Knish

Sunday, February 06, 2011

What if the Problem Really is the People?

A thousand talking heads and neo-conservative experts on the region assure us that a bright future stretches out before Egypt like a magic carpet. "Democracy," "Freedom", "Representative Government" are the buzzwords that trickle wetly out of their printers. All cynicism is disdained and skepticism swept into the dustbin. History is being made here. But the tricky thing about history is that it isn't a point on a map, but a continuous wave. Like the tide, history is made and remade over and over again, formed and repeated, washed and beached on the shores of time.

Mubarak is the problem, we are told. And he certainly is their problem. The pesky 82 year old air force officer standing in the way of their dreams of a new Egypt. If not for him, Egypt would be a liberal model for the region. Just like Gaza, Lebanon and Iraq. But is it the dictator or the people who are the problem? The protesters are unified by a desire to push out Mubarak. But what do they actually stand for, besides open elections.

59 percent of Egyptians want democracy and 95 percent want Islam to play a large part in politics. (As Egypt has approximately 5 percent of Christians that means 100 percent of Muslims want Islam to play a large part in politics.) 84 percent believe apostates should face the death penalty. That is what Egyptian democracy will look like. A unanimous majority that wants an Islamic state and a bare majority that wants democracy. Which one do you think will win out? A democratic majority of the country supports murdering people in the name of Islam. Mubarak's government does not execute apostates or adulterers. But a democratic Egypt will. Why? Because it's the will of the people.

The cheerleaders shaking their pom poms for Egyptian democracy don't seem to grasp that the outcome could be anything other than positive. It's an article of faith for them that freedom leads to freedom. That open elections give rise to human rights. That the problem can only be the dictator, not the people. Never the people. That is their ideology and they will stick to it.

Ever since World War II, we have been working off the "Hitler Paradigm". The "Hitler Paradigm" says that there are no bad nations, only bad governments. The people themselves are perfectly fine, but occasionally a tiny minority of extremists size power. This allows the liberally minded to reconcile the need for occasional wars with their faith in mankind. Instead of fighting wars against nations, they fight wars to liberate nations from their despotic regimes. And ever since we have been fighting these "Wars of Liberation."

We fought to free Korea and Vietnam from Communism, but we lacked one basic thing. Ground level support from the people we were fighting to protect. Today South Koreans like Kim Jong Il more than they like us. We fought to free the tyrants of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein. As a reward, they financed the terrorists who have been killing us ever since. We fought to free Iraq from Saddam, and the entire country imploded into armed camps. Our "Victory in Iraq" came about because we cut a deal with the Baathists against the Shiites and Al Qaeda, essentially restoring a broken version of Saddam's old status quo. We fought to liberate Afghanistan, and now we find ourselves allied with some Muslim warlords who abuse women and rape little boys-- against the other Muslim warlords who abuse women and rape little boys.

Handing out democracy like candy does not fix existing cultural problems. It does not end bigotry, free women or stop murder in the name of Allah. Open elections are only as good as the people participating in them. And the 84 percent of Egyptians who want to murder apostates have issues that democracy will not solve. The problem with Egypt is not Mubarak-- but the Egyptians.

Let's take another example. In Jordan, the next target on the freedom tour, King Hussein passed a bill to criminalize the honor killings of women. And their democratically elected parliament voted 60 to 25 to strike the bill down. It took them only 3 minutes. That's what democracy would mean for the Jordanian girls murdered by their husbands, brothers and fathers. The right of the people and their duly elected representatives to legalize the murder of women.

The Hitler Paradigm says that all you have to do is take away the dictator and his staffers to usher in democracy, freedom and mutual amity. But what if the dictator is not the problem, but the symptom of a larger cultural problem?

Take the Cold War. We defeated Communism without a massive war. The Berlin Wall came down. Democracy came to Russia. Except here we are back to square one. The situation in the region has been reset back to before WW2, with a chaotic Eastern Europe and a predatory Russia. Economic liberalization and even the end of Communism did not change the underlying pattern. Despite a brief period of democracy, Russia reverted to a totalitarian regime with designs on the rest of the region. And that should have shocked no one, because it is exactly what happened after the fall of the Czars culminating in the Bolshevik takeover. All the reforms and liberalization did not give the average Russian what he wanted most-- stability, order and a strong nation.

Freedom is culturally determined. It is not the same thing as democracy. Nor is democracy as ubiquitous and universal as its advocates would like us to believe. Like all forms of power, it can only be exercised by those who are ready for it. Much of the world is not ready for it, no more than 12th century Europe was ready for the Constitution. Given the power to choose, they will choose tyranny. They will choose the known over the unknown, the stable over the unstable, and order over freedom.

A society with a social hierarchy embedded in its culture will preserve that hierarchy even with democratic elections  Such elections will not give women freedom or rights to religious minorities or freedom of expression to unpopular views. These are things which stem from legal guarantees such as the Constitution, they do not arise out of the natural course of open elections. And the pundits who are busy pretending that this is how it works in the columns of every major newspaper are playing the fool.

The United States has freedom due primarily to its culture. Those freedoms were an outgrowth of the rights of Englishmen and the Enlightenment. They cannot be exported to another country-- without also exporting the cultural assumptions that produced them.

Egypt's period of greatest liberalization was under British rule. Since then its cosmopolitan nightspots have been torched and it has drifted closer to Islamization. Even Egypt's current level of human rights under Mubarak is above that of most of its neighbors. And the reason for that is Mubarak's ties to America. The more democratic Egypt becomes, the more its civil rights will diminish. Its rulers will see social issues as an easy way to compromise with the Muslim Brotherhood. As Egypt's cultural ties to the West diminish, so will its freedoms.

The Islamists understand this far better than the neo-conservatives. That is why they campaign so ruthlessly against Western culture. They understand that it is cultural assumptions that dictate behavior, more than any law. While we try to export institutions to the Muslim world, they export Muslim culture to us. And they have had far more luck changing us, than we have had changing them. Institutions are shaped by culture, but cultures are not shaped by institutions. Export every aspect of American government to Egypt, and it will run along Egyptian lines, not American ones. And within a year, Egypt's government will run the same way it does today. Only the window dressing will be different.

Mubarak is one of the last of the Janissaries, the Western trained army officers who seized power across the Arab world in order to implement some twisted semblance of a modern system of government. When the army's grip on power fails, then Egypt will fall even further. The loss of power by the Turkish military meant a descent into Islamism and terrorism. It will mean the same thing in Egypt.

The "Hitler Paradigm" is the ideological blindspot of so many liberals and the liberally minded who insist that an entire nation cannot be bad, only a dictator, just as a religion cannot be bad, only a tiny minority of extremists. Their knee jerk response to every crisis is to insist that a change of government will change everything, that opening up the system will inherently and inevitably mean freedom. As is so often the case, a single bad idea can lead to tremendous folly.

A people who do not believe in the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness will not be free no matter how many times they go to the polls. You can place voting booths outside every home and run elections every week, and it will still do no good. Freedom may be the birthright of every man, woman and child on earth-- but it cannot be theirs until they claim it. As long as they believe in the right of the majority to oppress the minority, in the value of order over liberty, and the supremacy of the mosque over any and all civil and legal rights-- then they will never be free. Never. Their elections will either give rise to chaos or tyranny. That is how it is in the Middle East. That is how it will always be until they claim their birthright by closing the Koran and opening their minds.

From NY to Jerusalem,

Daniel Greenfield

Covers the Stories

Behind the News

UPDATE and ANNOUNCEMENT: "Israel, America and Language of Friendship"

America and Israel - "The Language of Friendship:

GOOD NEWS!

REAL AMERICANS DEFEND ISRAEL

IS PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE

THAT WE HAVE A NEW "CONTRIBUTOR"

Yes, I am pleased to announce that shortly we will be having articles posted by "Ron Yisrael", a good friend and one who will surely bring new light and thoughts to this blog.  

Welcome to Ron Yisrael

I will introduce you to him with one of his most recent comments and photos sent from Israel.

Ron has been a good friend and fellow-commenter for the past few years and I know everyone will enjoy hearing what he has to say and share from the Land of Israel.

I will post his writings - as he writes Hebrew only; so for now, you will have to endure the fact that while I post, it is his writings translated from the Hebrew and when he is learns his way around this blog, I am sure he will post future articles directly to "real" Americans.

And to Ron Yisrael, I welcome your contributions and look forward to your comments.  Thank you!

Bee Sting

__________________________________________

Israel and America and The Language of Friendship

February 6, 2011
By: BeeSting

"The Language of Friendship"

The first meeting

He was Israeli, she was American - he spoke Hebrew and she, English - and yet through the magnificent capabilities of technology and "translators", they communicated and throughout the next two years, a friendship blossomed.  The met on one of the U.S. newspapers late one evening; he spoke in defense of Israel  and his love for all things "American" - she spoke of her love for Israel, while defending Israel's right to defend itself during the Cast Lead War with Hamas/Gaza.

The Israeli guy took time and put much thought into his comments, never offending others, but demonstrating his great admiration and joy to be communicating with other Americans.  She noticed that he presented "facts without feelings" and presented the case for Israel, along with the history of the Palestinians, Israel, and alliance with America.  She thought his comments were far more interesting than the newspaper article they were commenting on and told him so, and that was the beginnings of their friendship.

Commenting on the Newspaper

If anyone has ever expressed an opinion on a public newspaper about a hot topic relating to politics, you will find soon enough that it is not a "Love" fest - disagreements, heated debates, and outright anger will soon explode on the pages of the article and while not all who disagree are disagreeable, there are some who write with a poison pen, or in this case, with heavy strokes of the keyboard, in BOLD FACE TYPE.  Faced with anti-Semitism and hatred towards Jews, the Israeli was soon attacked for not speaking "perfect" English; even though he followed along every conversation with the use of one of Google's translators.  However, his American friend never had difficulty understanding him and she thought the reason for such anger, at times, was due to the fact that the people understood but rejected his comments and so, attacked his manner of writing.

Time does not stand still 

During the next two years, what began with a few comments between Israel and America, a friendship blossomed much like the Land of Israel blossoms as a rose.  Months passed and they began to speak face to face on camera; he met her husband and the conversations were about everything under the sun (or almost!).  Talks about each other's families; music, books, history, the Torah, each other's expectations, and journeys through this life.  Together, the couple grew to love this Israeli, a man about the age of their youngest son, and always looked forward to the moments when "Israel would come on line to speak with them".   

Time away

The day came, however, when the Israeli had to say goodbye to his American friends.  He had another road to travel, but promised to come back and speak when he returned to his home.  The American couple felt such a loss, as they had become accustomed to listening to their new friend over the year they spent talking to each other.  Yes, it is rare, but a true friendship has a way of changing your life forever and such a friendship opens an inner-spirit between folks, which lead to new roads to travel and different choices.

Real Americans Defend Israel

This blog was born shortly after the Israeli had said goodbye.  The women now felt she had a better understanding to speak for Israel, by presenting articles that did not have the usual spin from America's liberal newspapers.  Her friends developed the blog and allowed her to choose whatever she felt would demonstrate the love between two nations - America and Israel.  And oh, the freedom of presenting what is of interest to you, personally, without having to be concerned about mean-spirited confrontations on the comment pages of the newspapers!

Welcome Home!

The young Israeli returned and as he promised, he once again chatted with the American couple.  However, the husband was ill and did not have much time left before entering Eternity.  Time does not stand still and we do not know what a day brings for each of us.  When I now sit here writing, I always think of the days when my husband would sit beside me, reading news articles I would post; I think of happier times, when we together looked so forward to speaking with our friend from Israel and that always makes me smile.

Israel

The Israeli returned to commenting on the newspaper and renewing his friendships with almost 200 Americans  - friends he made during the days he spoke so courageously writing comments to articles relating to Israel and the Middle East.  He did not forget the American lady, and continued to encourage her and translate the meaning of Hebrew songs from Israel - and it was the music that broke all language barriers between them - such beautiful music from Israel.

America, the Newspaper and Freedom of Speech...(?)

It is a known fact that due to most of the main steam media (MSM) supporting a liberal ideology, promoted by the White House and its administration, news that comes from Conservative blogs and Real Americans Defend Israel, do not support such ideology or polices of Obama.  Here, I have freedom of speech and freedom to express a different point of view and the reader (you, dear folks) can decide by continuing your search for truth with a click of a button, or a Google Search.  

However, the Israeli, as an ambassador for Israel, a friend to all America, soon found himself blocked from writing more than a few words on the newspaper we once commented together on and that, I assured him, had to be a mistake.  This block continued for months, even after friends wrote the moderator and representatives of the newspaper, to please assist in fixing the problem.  .... The problem grew worse, not better and he soon lost all communication with the newspaper.

Was this a mistake?!  One would think so, but the communication between the Israeli's computer also became my problem, after writing letters to the newspaper, requesting assistance.  And so, this evening, the Israeli signed off from the newspaper, ending two years of commenting and making friends with Americans throughout the country who had grown to appreciate and look forward to his comments and friendship.

He says it was his "lifelong dream to meet Americans and an honor for him to meet friends from the USA".  He hopes to return one day, but feels it is time to move on, as his time and purpose for speaking is complete and he will forever remember his friendships made along the way. We will never know if our freedom of speech and presentation of the truth was blocked intentionally, but it should make each of us aware that our freedom of speech should not be taken lightly.   

I wish him the best, that all his dreams be fulfilled, and much success in whatever he chooses to do; but one thing each reader here should know is, if our own politicians actually took time to get to know Israel, they would love her and defend her, in the same manner that the Israeli and I did, after allowing a tiny seed blossom into a lifelong friendship.

You cannot defend something you do not know - Obama does not defend Israel, as he has chosen to support  the Muslims when it suits him and betray friends, when that also suits him i.e. Egyptian president, for example. There is a "language of friendship" and it does not grow on trees, cannot be taken for granted, as it can only grow with compassion, watered daily, it grows in the hearts and minds between two people and is a treasure more valuable than diamonds..

If Washington, DC ever learned the value of friendships between world leaders and nations, America would be viewed as a "real" friend among her allies. - that, dear folks, is diplomacy!

#   #   #

I dedicate this song to my Israeli friend, Ron.

I will think of you / Daniel o'Donnell

7-Feb-11: Rockets again, though you wouldn't know it from reviewing the news media

THIS ONGOING WAR

FEBRUARY 7, 2011

It's bad enough that defensive measures taken by beleagured Israel are reflexively condemned by critics of this country's actions as a matter of routine. It's worse when  attacks by terrorist groups equipped with rockets and explosives and jihadist hatred are simply ignored - erased from the record. Our experience is that this happens routinely and that's one of the reasons we keep recording those attacks here.

Yesterday just after dark, two Qassam rockets (possibly mortars - we're awaiting details) crashed into southern Israel. They originated in Gaza whose ideological proponents delight in misleadingly calling the most densely populated place on earth - when it suits their purposes.

One Hebrew report says the explosives were mortars, fired from the southern part of the Gaza Strip, and landed in the Western Negev, in the region administered by the Eshkol Regional Council. Gulf Times published in Qatar says much the same, but it adds:
"Gaza’s main militant factions last month agreed to observe a period of calm after weeks of increased rocket fire and rising tensions along the border which prompted a warning from Arab leaders that there was a risk of a major new Israeli invasion."

Try to find any mention in the news media on which you rely.

Gulf Times' editors somehow forgot to add that despite this so-called agreement "to observe a period of calm", the terror attacks from Gaza keep coming at the rate of more than one a day.The numbers - In December 2010: 38 attacks. In January 2011: 30 attacks, including 17 rockets and 26 mortar shells, launched into Israel. Wouldn't you think agreements to observe calm, when said to have been made by avowedly terrorist groups, deserve at least a tiny measure of skepticism by objective observers? Not enough of those working in this neighbourhood, sad to say.

Quote of the Day: Obama says, "Muslim Brotherhood is not a threat" ...

UPDATE: February 7, 2011

Published: 02/07/11, 9:02 AM / Last Update: 02/07/11, 9:30 AM

Muslim Brotherhood symbol and Obama

Israel news photo montage 

Obama: Have No Fear, Muslim Brotherhood is not a Majority

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Follow Israel news o

n an interview with Fox News Sunday, the president, responding to a question if the Brotherhood is a “threat to the USA,” answered,” I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don't have majority support in Egypt.

When pressed to answer if the Brotherhood is a “threat,” President Obama did not directly answer and instead stated, “They are well-organized, and there are strains of their ideology that are anti-U.S. There's no doubt about it.

"But here's the thing that we have to understand, there are a whole bunch of secular folks in Egypt, there are a whole bunch of educators and civil society in Egypt that wants to come to the fore as well. And it's important for us not to say that our only two options are either the Muslim Brotherhood or a suppressed Egyptian people… What I want is a representative government in Egypt.”

Neither interviewer Bill O’Reilly nor President Obama referred to two recent precedents,  Hamas and Hizbullah, the well-organized terrorist groups that have manipulated their minorities into controlling Gaza and Lebanon, either directly or indirectly.

Hamas lost out to Fatah in the 2005 presidential election in the Palestinian Authority, in which Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas was elected. However, it later won the first and only legislative elections and then staged a coup in Gaza.

Hizbullah has manipulated its minority presence in the Lebanese government into an effective majority by gaining veto powers, toppled the ruling coalitionand forcing the appointment of a prime minister acceptable to its interests.

Middle East expert Prof. Shimon Shamir explained on Israel public radio Monday morning, “Do not expect the Muslim Brotherhood to relinquish its platform for Shania,” a reference to their plan to make Muslim law the supreme legal authority.

“They talk about coalitions, but they are much stronger than the other parties, and we saw in Europe how they go into a coalition and then the radicals take over. However, it is too early to say that they are actually in power.”

(IsraelNationalNews.com)

#   #     #  

Despite the political coups of Hamas and Hizbullah minorities in the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon, U.S. President Barack Obama insists that the radical Muslim Brotherhood is not a threat because it is not a majority.

Obama: Have No Fear, Muslim Brotherhood is not a Majority

Reported: 09:30 AM - Feb/07/11

Follow Israel news briefs on  and 

Despite political coups of Hamas and Hizbullah in the PA and Lebanon, Obama says Muslim Brotherhood is not a threat.

Picture of the Day - Mr. Smiley Face holding sign:  "Islam will dominate the world" 

Note:

I am certain that all Israelis suffering under the constant missiles and rockets from Hamas will sigh relief to know that Obama does not consider MB a threat.  Whew!  And to think I was concerned about the next suicide bomber; kidnapping of an Israeli soldier; or, the shooting of an Israeli couple and their family as they drive along the highway.  Obama apparently cannot discern between a terrorist and a friend .. as I said earlier this evening.  Or, does he side with terrorists, since the Msulim Brotherhood is the father of Hamas, a terrorist organization, according to the United States of America.  Oh, the MB has threatened Israel, from its hiding places in Egypt, so I must ask, "Is Obama deaf to these threats?" ... 

Disabled US Children on an Unforgettable Visit to Israel

 

Wish at the Wall

Chai-Lifeline

by Yoni Kempinski

Follow Israel news 

Arutz Sheva TV met the Chai-Lifeline "Wish at the Wall 2011" trip as they visited the city of Bnei Brak. The group came to meet world renowned Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky and Rabbanit Kanievsky, his wife,  to receive their blessings for health and well-being.

The "Wish at the Wall" trips bring to Israel children who could not get to Israel any other way.

Arutz Sheva met last year's group at the Western Wall,  That was a group of children who were dealing or had dealt with cancer along with their parents.

This year's trip is for teens coping with serious chronic, and sometimes fatal illnesses. These young men and women are determined to overcome physical limitations and experience all that Israel has to offer. They are accompanied by a parent and ChaiLifeline’s medical staff.

After they were received happily at the airport by the staff of the trip, the group set out to a large variety of locations throughout Israel including - the Old City of Jerusalem, Masada, Ein Gedi, the Knesset, northern Israel and the mostly hareidi-religious city of Bnei Brak. During the tour the young boys and girls met soldiers, rabbis, politicians and other Israelis.

Note - 

Listen to the children in video!  One said it all when he said, "I would rather stay in Israel than go back to America".  This is a story that should be published in all forms of media - it is similar to America's "Wish" list for children suffering with catastrophic diseases, such as cancer.   Thank you, Israel, for blessing the children and their parents.

 

Women in the Cairo Street Scenes: a Troubling Photo Essay

 

by Prof. Phyllis Chesler

Follow Israel news 

For days now, the mainstream and leftstream media have been telling us that the Muslim Brotherhood is not dangerous, not radically Islamist—but that even if they are Islamist that they are popular amongst the people. Western leftists view the Brothers as engaged in a Hamas-like form of soup kitchen social work/theocratic totalitarianism, but who nevertheless have earned the right to be democratically voted into power by the people. They have been invited to join the negotiations with Mubarak's regime.

Short-sightedly, they claim that if we are serious about standing for democracy and the vote, that we have no choice but to support what may turn out to be an even worse tyranny than that of Mubarak’s.

Such journalists also claim that the Egyptian people in the streets are not “political,” that they are impoverished, broken, barefoot warriors who have heroically risen up for jobs, food, and an end to corruption and tyranny. Indeed, the people may not be “political”—but their heroism may end up benefiting those who, unlike themselves, are already organized militarily, economically, and ideologically—like the Muslim Brotherhood.

On the other hand, unorganized though they may be, the people may still have views and beliefs. According to a June, 2010 Pew opinion survey of Egyptians:

Fifty nine percent said they back Islamists. Only 27% said they back modernizers. Half of Egyptians support Hamas. Thirty percent support Hizbullah and 20% support al Qaida. Moreover, 95% of them would welcome Islamic influence over their politics….Eighty two percent of Egyptians support executing adulterers by stoning, 77% support whipping and cutting the hands off thieves. 84% support executing any Muslim who changes his religion…When this preference is translated into actual government policy, it is clear that the Islam they support is the al Qaida Salafist version.

When given the opportunity, the crowds on the street are not shy about showing what motivates them. They attack Mubarak and his new Vice President Omar Suleiman as American puppets and Zionist agents. The US, protesters told CNN’s Nick Robertson, is controlled by Israel. They hate and want to destroy Israel. That is why they hate Mubarak and Suleiman.

Is this Pew Center survey really true? What other indicators might we rely upon?

In the last week, we have seen massive coverage of the street uprising in Cairo on every major television channel and in print and Internet media of all political persuasions. No one has commented upon what the photos are showing us. Some say that a picture speaks a thousand words—and so it does. Follow along with me.

First, view these photos of Cairo University graduates in 1959, 1978, 1995, and 2004. Clearly, there is a progression—a regression really, in terms of women’s rights. Former women's gains have, increasingly, been washed away.

As you can see, despite the size of the picture, the female graduates in 1959 and 1978 had bare arms, wore short sleeved blouses,  dresses, or pants, and were both bare-faced and bare-headed. By  1995, we see a smattering of headscarves—and by 2004 we see a plurality of female university graduates in serious hijab: Tight, and draping the shoulders.

Class of 1959

Class of 1978
 

Class of 1995

Class of 2004

Now, let’s look at the recent Cairo uprising photos through my eyes. No one has, as yet, commented upon the photos that they have chosen to run.

First, most photos show us mobs of mainly men marching, men at prayer, men shooting, running, falling, wounded in hospitals, standing atop tanks.  These could be scenes from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. I am not suggesting that women rush out to join a promised American Nation of Islam style “Million Man March”—as women, they are horribly endangered among groups of men, which is why Muslim men argue that “their” family women must be veiled, sequestered, kept in purdah, strictly supervised, accompanied wherever they go by a male protector.

Muslim men know how licentious they truly are, what their view of all women (who are not their mothers) truly is, and how sexual repression, forced marriage, polygamy (a shortage of available wives for poor men), affects men who have been fired up by a mosque sermon or by a holy war to seize state power.

Women are also shorter, weigh less, and have rarely been trained in boxing, martial arts or weapons training compared to most men; most women cannot hold their own against one angry and determined man, certainly not against thousands of such men.

Yes, there are some female faces in the Cairo mob scenes, but understandably, they are in the minority.

While there are some—very few—female faces that are bare-faced and bareheaded, most women are wearing serious hijab: Pulled low and tight on their foreheads, tied under their chins, covering their necks, draping down to their shoulders.

 And, yes, we also see women in niqab, face masks, dark, heavy-looking, with only a slit for their eyes. Were it not for that mere slit, she would be wearing an Afghan burqa or chadri, or a full Saudi covering.

My reading of these photos suggests that Egyptian women have already been Islamified. Whether they have done so to please their loving (or abusive) families or a favorite mullah, whether it was peer pressure from girlhood on that did it; or whether it was the teachings of the Muslim Brotherhood being preached in every mosque, on every media channel, and in school that did it, the fact is:

It is done. Women are veiled. Such women—and their fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons, will vote for the Muslim Brotherhood to run their country.

I wonder why no media have looked—really looked—at what the photos they themselves are running really tell us about who the “people” in the streets really are.

Prof. Chesler  is an Emerita Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at City University of New York. She is the author of 15 books and appears often in international media interviews. She lives in New York City.

 

(IsraelNationalNews.com)