Home » Levitt Letter » Levitt Letter Extra News

www.haaretz.com

 

Honored guests, citizens of Israel,

 

Peace was always the desire of our people. Our prophets had a vision of peace; we greet each other with peace; our prayers end with the word peace. This evening we are in the center named for two leaders who were groundbreakers for peace —Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat — and we share their vision.

 

Two and a half months ago, I was sworn in at the Knesset as the prime minister of Israel. I promised that I would establish a unity government, and did so. I believed, and still believe, that we need unity now more than ever before.

 

We are currently facing three tremendous challenges: The Iranian threat, the financial crisis, and the promotion of peace.

 

The Iranian threat still is before us in full force, as it became quite clear yesterday [when Iran held presidential elections]. The greatest danger to Israel, to the Middle East, and to all of humanity, is the encounter between extremist Islam and nuclear weapons. I discussed this with President Obama on my visit to Washington, and will be discussing it next week on my visit with European leaders. I have been working tirelessly for many years to form an international front against Iran arming itself with nuclear armaments.

 

With the world financial crisis, we acted immediately to bring about stability to the Israeli economy. We passed a two-year budget in the government and will pass it through the Knesset very soon.

 

The second challenge, rather, the third so very important challenge facing us today is promoting peace. I discussed this also with President Obama. I strongly support the idea of regional peace that he is advancing. I share the President of the U.S.A.’s desire to bring about a new era of reconciliation in our region.

 

I discussed this in my meetings with President Mubarak in Egypt and with King Abdullah in Jordan to obtain the assistance of these leaders in the effort to expand the circle of peace in our region.

 

I appeal tonight to the leaders of the Arab countries and say: Let us meet. Let us talk about peace. Let us make peace. I am willing to meet at any time, at any place, in Damascus, in Riyadh, in Beirut, and in Jerusalem as well. (Applause)

 

I call upon the leaders of the Arab countries to join together with the Palestinians and with us to promote economic peace. Economic peace is not a substitute for peace, but it is a very important component in achieving it. Together we can advance projects that can overcome the problems facing our region: for example, water desalinization. And we can utilize the advantages of our region, such as maximizing the use of solar energy, or utilizing its geographical advantages to lay pipelines—pipelines to Africa and Europe.

 

Together we can realize the initiatives that I see in the Persian Gulf, which amaze the entire world and also amaze me. I call upon the talented entrepreneurs of the Arab world to come and invest here, to assist the Palestinians and us, to give the economy a jump-start. Together we can develop industrial zones, we can create thousands of jobs and foster tourism that will draw millions—people who want to walk in the footsteps of history, in Nazareth and Bethlehem, in the heights of Jericho and on the walls of Jerusalem, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, and at the baptismal site of the Jordan. There is a huge potential for the development of tourism potential here. If you only agree to work together.

 

I appeal to you, our Palestinian neighbors, and to the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Let us begin peace negotiations immediately, without prior conditions. Israel is committed to international agreements and expects all sides to fulfill their obligations.

 

I say to the Palestinians: We want to live with you in peace, quiet, and good neighborly relations. We want our children and your children to ‘know war no more.’

 

We do not want parents and wives, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters to know the sorrow of bereavement. We want our children to dream of a better future for humankind. We want us and our neighbors to devote our efforts to ‘plowshares and pruning hooks’ and not to swords and spears. I know the terror of war; I participated in battles; I lost good friends who fell [in battle]; I lost a brother. I saw the pain of bereaved families from up close very many times. I do not want war. No one in Israel wants war. (Applause)

 

Let us join hands and work together in peace, together with our neighbors. There is no limit to the flourishing growth that we can achieve for both peoples — in the economy, in agriculture, in commerce, tourism, education — but, above all, in the ability to give our younger generation hope to live in a place that’s good to live in, a life of creative work, a peaceful life with much of interest, with opportunity and hope.

 

Friends, with the advantages of peace so clear, so obvious, we must ask ourselves, “Why is peace still so far from us, even though our hands are extended for peace? Why has the conflict going on for over 60 years?” To bring an end to it, there must be a sincere, genuine answer to the question: What is the root of the conflict? In his speech at the Zionist Congress in Basel, in speaking of his grand vision of a Jewish homeland for the Jewish People, Theodor Herzl, the visionary of the State of Israel, said: “This is so big, we must talk about it only in the simplest words possible.”

 

I now am asking that when we speak of the huge challenge of peace, we must use the simplest words possible, using person-to-person terms. Even with our eyes on the horizon, we must have our feet on the ground, firmly rooted in truth. The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been—and remains—the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland.

 

In 1947, when the United Nations proposed the Partition Plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state, the entire Arab world rejected the proposal, while the Jewish community accepted it with great rejoicing and dancing. The Arabs refused any Jewish state whatsoever, with any borders whatsoever.

 

Whoever thinks that the continued hostility to Israel is a result of our forces in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza is confusing cause and effect. The attacks on us began in the 1920s, became an overall attack in 1948 when the state was declared, continued in the 1950s with the fedayeen attacks, and reached their climax in 1967 on the eve of the Six-Day War, with the attempt to strangle Israel. All this happened nearly 50 years before a single Israeli soldier went into Judea and Samaria.

 

To our joy, Egypt and Jordan left this circle of hostility. They signed peace agreements with us, which ended their hostility to Israel. It brought about peace.

 

To our deep regret, this is not happening with the Palestinians. The closer we get to a peace agreement with them, the more they are distancing themselves from peace. They raise new demands. They are not showing us that they want to end the conflict.

 

A great many people are telling us that withdrawal is the key to peace with the Palestinians. But the fact is that all our withdrawals were met by huge waves of suicide bombers.

 

We tried withdrawal by agreement, withdrawal without an agreement; we tried partial withdrawal and full withdrawal. In 2000, and once again last year, the government of Israel, based on good will, tried a nearly complete withdrawal in exchange for the end of the conflict, and were twice refused.

 

We withdrew from the Gaza Strip to the last centimeter; we uprooted dozens of settlements and turned thousands of Israelis out of their homes. In exchange, what we received were missiles raining down on our cities, our towns, and our children. The argument that withdrawal would bring peace closer did not stand up to the test of reality.

 

With Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north, they keep on saying that they want to ‘liberate’ Ashkelon in the south and Haifa and Tiberias.

 

Even the moderates among the Palestinians are not ready to say the most simple of things: The State of Israel is the national homeland of the Jewish People and will remain so. (Applause)

 

Friends, in order to achieve peace, we need courage and integrity on the part of the leaders of both sides. I am speaking today with courage and honesty. We need courage and sincerity not only on the Israeli side; we need the Palestinian leadership to rise and say simply, “We have had enough of this conflict. We recognize the right of the Jewish People to a state of its own in this Land. We will live side by side in true peace.” I am looking forward to this moment.

 

We want them to say the simplest things to our people and to their people. This will then open the door to solving other problems, no matter how difficult. The fundamental condition for ending the conflict is the public, binding, and sincere Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish People. (Applause)

 

For this to have practical meaning, we need a clear agreement to solve the Palestinian refugee problem outside of the borders of the State of Israel. For it is clear to all, that the demand to settle the Palestinian refugees inside of Israel contradicts the continued existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish People. We must solve the problem of the Arab refugees. And I believe that it is possible to solve it because we have proven that we ourselves solved a similar problem: Tiny Israel took in the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees from Arab countries who were uprooted from their homes.

 

Therefore, justice and logic dictate that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of the State of Israel. There is broad national agreement on this. (Applause)

 

I believe that with good will and international investment we can solve this humanitarian problem once and for all.

 

Friends, up to now, I have been talking about the need for the Palestinians to recognize our rights. Now I will talk about the need for us to recognize their rights.

 

The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years. Judea and Samaria — the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob walked, our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah, and Jeremiah — this is not a foreign land: This is the Land of our Forefathers. (Applause)

 

The right of the Jewish People to a state in the Land of Israel does not arise from the series of disasters that befell the Jewish People over 2,000 years — persecutions, expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, murders—which reached a climax in the Holocaust, an unprecedented tragedy in the history of nations. There are those who say that without the Holocaust the State would not have been established. But I say that if the State of Israel had been established in time, the Holocaust would not have taken place. (Applause) The tragedies that arose from the Jewish People’s helplessness show very sharply that we need a protective state.

 

The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People. (Applause)

 

As the first PM, David Ben Gurion, said in the declaration of the State: the State of Israel was established here in Eretz Israel, where the People of Israel created the Book of Books and gave it to the world.

 

But, friends, we must state the whole truth here. The truth is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish Homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians. We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives. We do not want to force our flag and our culture on them. In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem, and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor’s security and existence.

 

These two facts—our link the Land of Israel, and the Palestinian population who live here—have created deep disagreements within Israeli society. But the truth is that we have much more unity than disagreement.

 

I came here tonight to talk about the agreement and security that are broad consensus within Israeli society. This is what guides our policy. This policy must take into account the international situation. We have to recognize international agreements, but also principles important to the State of Israel. I spoke tonight about the first principle — recognition. Palestinians must truly recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people. The second principle is demilitarization. Any area in Palestinian hands has to be demilitarization, with solid security measures. Without this condition, there is a real fear that there will be an armed Palestinian state which will become a terrorist base against Israel, as happened in Gaza. We do not want missiles on Petah Tikva or Grads on the Ben-Gurion International Airport. We want peace. (Applause)

 

And to ensure peace, we don’t want them to bring in missiles or rockets, or have an army, or control of airspace, or make treaties with countries like Iran, or Hezbollah. There is broad agreement on this in Israel. We cannot be expected to agree to a Palestinian state without ensuring that it is demilitarized. This is crucial to the existence of Israel: we must provide for our security needs.

 

This is why we are now asking our friends in the international community, headed by the U.S.A., for what is necessary for our security: that in any peace agreement, the Palestinian area must be demilitarized. No army, no control of air space. Real, effective measures to prevent arms coming in, not what’s going on now in Gaza. The Palestinians cannot make military treaties.

 

Without this, sooner or later, we will have another Hamastan. We can’t agree to this. Israel must govern its own fate and security. I told President Obama in Washington: if we get a guarantee of demilitarization, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish State. (Applause)

 

Whenever we discuss a permanent arrangement, Israel needs defensible borders with Jerusalem remaining the united capital of Israel. (Applause)

 

The territorial issues will be discussed in a permanent agreement. Till then, we have no intention to build new settlements or set aside land for new settlements. But there is a need to have people live normal lives and let mothers and fathers raise their children like everyone in the world. The settlers are not enemies of peace. They are our brothers and sisters. (Applause)

 

Friends, unity among us is, to my view, vital, and unity will help with reconciliation with our neighbors. Reconciliation must begin now. A strong Palestinian government will strengthen peace. If they truly want peace, and educate their children for peace and stop incitement, we for our part will make every effort, allow them freedom of movement and accessibility, making their lives easier, and this will help bring peace.

But above all, they must decide: the Palestinians must decide between the path of peace and the path of Hamas. They must overcome Hamas. Israel will not sit down at a conference table with terrorists who seek to destroy it. (Applause)

 

Hamas is not willing even to let the Red Cross visit our abducted soldier Gilad Shalit who has been in captivity three years, cut off from his family and his country. We want to bring him back whole and well.

 

With help of the international community, there is no reason why we can’t have peace. With help of U.S.A., we can do we can do the unbelievable. In 61 years, with constant threats to our existence, we have achieved so much. Our microchips power the world’s computers—unbelievable! We have found cures for incurable diseases! Israeli drip irrigation waters barren lands throughout the world! Israeli researchers are making worldwide breakthroughs! If our neighbors will only work for peace, we can achieve peace. (Applause)

 

I call upon Arab leaders and Palestinian leaders: Let’s go in the path of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin and King Hussein. Let’s go in the path of Prophet Isaiah, who spoke thousands of years ago: “They shall beat their swords into plowshares and know war no more.”

 

Let us know war no more. Let us know peace.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Alireza Jafarzadeh

 Today Iranians are expected to go to the polls to choose the next president in a highly orchestrated and vetted event courtesy of the ruling clerics. Four candidates have been ordained by the Guardian Council- the body of clerical elders which blesses all manners of critical decisions in the country- to run for this election: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mir Hossein Moussavi, Mohsen Rezai, and Mehdi Karoubi.

The first is the loud-mouthed current president, who was previously an Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC) commander and a teer-a-khalas (coup de grâce) specialist. The second was Tehran’s prime minister during the tumultuous war years of the 80′s, under the administration of the “pragmatic” (“we only need one atomic bomb to destroy Israel”) Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani – he clearly does not subscribe to or understand Mutually Assured Destruction. The third is a founding member and the former chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, who is on the run from the Interpol for complicity in the 1994 Argentinean Jewish community center bombing. The last, and certainly the least, is the lone certified cleric, a former speaker of the Majlis (parliament) who was an early and rabid supporter of Khomeini’s call for the head of the British novelist Salman Rushdie.

Further forensics may help to clear the political fog. Much is known about the current president Ahmadinejad, so we dispense with (most) of the gore. Ahmadinejad, by his own admission, was part of the quintet of the Central Committee of the Office of the Unity which led and operationally oversaw the takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. He was the special operations officer in the 6th special corps of IRGC’s Qods Force, responsible for sabotage and cross-border missions. In his current hat, he oversees his government’s expanding drive to perfect the nuclear fuel cycle and acquire the ultimate weapon.

Mir Hossein Moussavi is the current reincarnation of the moderate political animal in Iran. He was a founding member of the Islamic Republic Party- think of it as the mullahs’ Third Reich. Among honors on his resume, he lists: 144 extraterritorial assassinations during the premiership, the massacre of nearly 30,000 political prisoners on the eve of the signing of the 1988 UN Iran-Iraq cease-fire accord, and the 1983 embassy and marine barrack bombings in Beirut.

Mohsen Rezai ranks high in the pantheon of terror. He commanded the IRGC during the disastrous war with Iraq, with ultimate responsibility for sending tens of thousands of under-aged adults to their death in the battle fronts as human mine sweepers, many of whom were shrouded in army-issued blankets to prevent their body parts from splattering. Rezai played a decisive role in coordinating and directing the 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires, for which he was implicated by an Argentine court and for whom, in 2007, Interpol issued an arrest warrant.

Mehdi Karoubi is the least consequential. Nevertheless, he occupies a special place among the regime hierarchy. For, he is a permanent member of the Expediency Council, chaired by former president, Rafsanjani.

So, where are we now? A bit of chronology brings us home. When faced with the hostage takings by the mullahs in the 80′s, the world blinked. The Iranian regime was rewarded crucially with time; time to suppress dissent at home, and to spread its gospel of hate and warmongering in the Middle East and around the globe. When faced with its drive to build a nuclear bomb in the 90′s and 00′s, the West decided chiefly that it must “engage” the mullahs in dialogue. We were bombarded with group acronyms: EU-3, then EU 3+2 (referring to the big EU countries, plus China and Russia), or P5 + 1 (that is the permanent five + Germany).  “Freeze for dialogue” (a pre-condition for suspending nuclear enrichment in exchange for negotiation), “freeze-for-freeze” (freezing enrichment for freezing sanctions) became mantra for the regime’s calculated strategy of freezing time. It is time which it wants, and which the world has so little of.

Clearly, the mullahs are not suckered. “Bigger sticks and bigger carrots” work if (only and only if) the other side is receptive to an orderly and rational chain of events: faced with a looming threat, it responds by accepting the offer of peace. The Iranian mullahs have distinguished themselves in at least one crucially important fashion: when offered a big carrot, they counter by requiring an even bigger carrot, and then an even bigger carrot. Their rational is clear- at least to some; time is purchased and attention is deflected at the expense of a world and a Middle East in desperate need of peace and crisis resolution.

Among its many faces, the current election charade is emblematic of a constant in the regime tactics. With a strict electoral vetting process, in which “too” anything distasteful to its strategy and ambition is rejected, the Iranian regime prefers very much that the West becomes preoccupied with the absurdity of the June election process, not minding that western nations fret ad nauseam about the winners and losers of this election, while at the end, and at last, it has bought yet more time. More time to perfect how it makes the bomb and more time to repress its citizens and those of other nations.

 

Mr. Jafarzadeh is the author of “The Iran Threat: President Ahmadinejad and the Coming Nuclear Crisis” (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007). Jafarzadeh’s revelations of the nuclear sites in Natanz and Arak in 2002 triggered IAEA inspections of Iranian sites.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By Rebecca Dube, www.forward.com

 

Asked how he and his wife managed to cope as they approach the three-year anniversary of their son’s kidnapping by Hamas, Noam Shalit was characteristically blunt.

 

“We don’t,” he said, his arms tightly crossed and his expression stony. “You cannot get used to this situation. It’s a continuous nightmare.”

 

Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, now 22, has been the focus of a diplomatic tug of war since he was seized by Palestinian militants on a cross-border raid June 25, 2006. Hamas has not allowed the Red Cross, or any other outside observers, to see Shalit since his kidnapping. The conditions of his captivity and the state of his health are unknown.

 

The new Israeli government announced on May 31 that Haggai Hadas, a former senior Mossad intelligence agency operative, would take charge of negotiations for Shalit’s freedom. The post had been vacant for a month.

 

And yet, Noam Shalit, who spoke to the Forward while in New York for the annual Salute to Israel parade, has trouble getting excited about the news. His hopes have been raised by apparent progress — and dashed — too many times before.

 

“It’s about time,” he said.

 

Hadas replaces Ofer Dekel, who resigned in April after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu took office. Dekel coordinated a failed attempt to negotiate a prisoner exchange for Shalit through Egyptian mediation. Hamas is demanding that Israel free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for Shalit.

 

Noam Shalit said he is heartened by the support he feels from American Jews, especially the crowds who cheered him at the Salute to Israel parade on May 31. He and his wife, Aviva, spoke briefly with Mayor Michael Bloomberg and gave him a button bearing their son’s photograph.

 

“He sympathized with us, and expressed his solidarity and his support,” Shalit said. The brief moments with Bloomberg were a nice “photo op,” Shalit said, but he knows the main arena for advocacy for his son is Israel. Still, he’s willing to go almost anywhere and try almost anything if he thinks it will help Gilad.

 

“We are trying every channel, in every possible way. You never know what will be effective,” Shalit said.

 

A reserved man, naturally quiet like his son, the role of family spokesman does not come easily to Shalit. But he regularly speaks to Israeli, Palestinian, American and European journalists to ensure that Gilad is not forgotten. In Israel, he said the support of everyday Israelis gives him comfort — people on the street, taxi drivers, store clerks recognize him and tell him to stay strong.

 

Despite the news media appearances and occasional meeting with politicians, the Shalits’ days are very much the same.

 

“We get up in the morning and think, ‘What can we do today that was not done yesterday?’ Shalit said. “That is basically our days.”

 

Shalit, an engineer, has scaled back his work to part-time at Iscar, a metal cutting-tool manufacturer owned by American investor Warren Buffet, who met with Shalit when he visited Israel in September of 2006. It can be hard to concentrate at work, he said, but at least it keeps him busy. He and his wife have two other children: an older son who is finishing his university degree, and a younger daughter who just graduated from high school and is preparing to enter the Army.

 

Celebrations of happy events, like graduations, still go on in the Shalit family, but the shadow of Gilad’s absence is always present, Noam Shalit said.

 

“The main idea is to keep on with our lives and to combine two things: not to give up the regular life and not to give up the battle for Gilad,” he said.

www.memri.org

 

In an Internet article posted in late 2007, ‘Aref ‘Alwan, an Iraqi author and playwright who resides in London and is the author of 12 novels, stated that the Jews have an historic right to Palestine because their presence there preceded the Arab conquest and has continued to this day.

 

In the article, titled “Do the Jews Have Any Less Right to Palestine than the Arabs?” ‘Alwan calls on the Arab world to acknowledge the Jews’ right to Palestine, because justice demands it and also because doing so would end the violence and the killing of Arabs, as well as intra-Arab strife. He adds that such a move would also open up new avenues for the Arab world that would be more consistent with the values and needs of modern society.

 

‘Alwan writes that the Arab League is to blame for the refusal to recognize the 1947 U.N. partition plan, for starting a war to prevent its implementation, and for the results of that war, which the Arabs call the Nakba (disaster). He points an accusing finger at the Arab regimes, the Arab League, and the educated circles in the Arab world, saying that they had all used the term “nakba” to direct popular consciousness toward a cultural tradition that neither accepts the other side nor recognizes its rights — thereby promoting bigotry, violence, and extremism. He also claims that there have been attempts to rewrite Palestinian history, in order to deny any connection between it and the Jewish people.

 

‘Alwan contends that the “Nakba mentality” among Arabs has boomeranged, giving rise to tyrannical rulers, extremist clerics, and religious zealots of every description. In his view, the Arab world will never shed the stigma of terrorism in the West unless it abandons this concept and all that it entails.

 

To boost his claim that the Jews have an historic right to Palestine, ‘Alwan provides an overview of Jewish history in the land of Israel. He questions the validity of the Islamic traditions underpinning the Arab claim to Palestine, Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount, and presents evidence that religions that preceded Islam had conducted rituals on the Temple Mount.

 

As an example of the traditional Arab mentality that does not accept the other or recognize his rights, ‘Alwan discusses the Arabs’ abuse of the Kurds in Iraq and of the Christians in Egypt and Lebanon.

 

The following are excerpts from the article:

 

The Nakba: A Great Lie

 

“When the Salafi mob in Gaza tied the hands and feet of a senior Palestinian official and hurled him, alive, from the 14th floor, I asked myself: What political or religious precepts must have been inculcated into the minds of these young people to make them treat a human life with such shocking cruelty?

 

“Earlier, I had watched on TV as the bodies of two Israeli soldiers were thrown from the second floor [of a building] in a Palestinian city. Whether or not it was the same Salafi mob behind that incident, [one asks oneself]: What language, [or rather,] what historic linguistic distortion could have erased from the human heart [all] moral sensibilities when dealing with a living and helpless human being?

 

“Arabs who are averse to such inhuman behavior must help me expose and eliminate the enormous lie that has for 60 years justified, extolled, and supported brutality. [Such behavior] is no longer limited to the expression of unconscious [impulses] by individuals, but constitutes a broad cultural phenomenon, which began in Lebanon, [spread to] Iraq and Palestine, and then [spread] – slowly but surely – to other Arab states as well.

 

“This enormous lie is what the Arabs called the Nakba – that is, the establishment of two states in Palestine: the state of Israel, which the Jews agreed to accept, and the state of Palestine, which the Arabs rejected.

 

“In our times, when science, with its accurate instruments, can predict climatic changes that will lead to drought or the movement of tectonic plates that causes earthquakes, it is inconceivable that a modern man can, without making a laughingstock of himself, attribute the destruction of cities ancient or modern to the wrath of Allah. Nevertheless, today, 80% of Arabs claim this to be the case. They are neither embarrassed nor afraid of being laughed at.

 

“This high percentage includes not only the illiterates who densely populate rural areas, villages, and small and large cities, but also students, teachers, lecturers, graduates of institutions of higher education, scientists, technology experts, physicians, graduates of religious universities such as Al-Azhar, historians, and politicians who have held or are currently holding public office.

 

“It is those numerous educated elites who have forced the Arab mentality into a narrow, restrictive, and deficient cultural mold, spewing violence, terrorism, and zealotry, and prohibiting innovative thought… All this was done to instill a false sense of oppression in the hearts of the Arabs, and to destroy them with the infectious disease of despair and confusion.

 

“[This attitude] is rooted in the 1947 Arab League resolution stating that Palestine is a ‘stolen’ land and that none but a Muslim Arab is entitled to benefit from it as an autonomous [political entity], even if another’s historic roots there predate those of the Muslims or the Arabs.”

 

 

The Nakba Boomerang

 

“[The upshot] of this confusion in [Arab] mentality is that the lie has boomeranged on the Arabs. [Thus] appeared [on the scene] Saddam Hussein, Hafez Al-Assad, Bashar Al-Assad, Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Abu Mus’ab Al-Zarqawi, Hassan Nasrallah, Nabih Berri, Khaled Mash’al, Isma’il Haniya, and Mahmoud Al-Zahar, whose young [thugs] threw the senior Palestinian official from the 14th floor. Finally, from the foot of the eastern mountains bordering the Middle East came Ahmadinejad, who is committed to preparing the way for the anarchy and destruction that accompanies the advent of the long-awaited Mahdi, who will resolve the Palestinian problem.

 

“Today, owing to the ideological distortions that have afflicted the Arab popular consciousness since the so-called Nakba, and [also owing] to the lies that have accumulated around this notion, [the label of] ‘terrorism’ has become attached to Arabs, wherever they are.

 

“Despite the great political and cultural efforts by large and important Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and some Gulf states to restore Arab ties with the rest of the world, and to curb the culture of terrorism in Arab societies, they have all failed. This is because these attempts to rectify [the situation], from both within and without [the Arab countries], both stemmed from and were a logical extension of the concept of the Nakba.

 

“This proves that the Arabs have no hope of extricating themselves from the cultural and political challenge of terrorism unless they come up with [new] and different [fundamental] premises, and with an outlook completely free of the fetters of the religious ritual that they have devised in modern times and called the Nakba.

 

“Although Palestinian senior officials, leaders, educated circles, and public figures, whose patriotism is beyond doubt, have come to terms with the existence of the State of Israel, the aforementioned 80% of Arabs… do not accept this view, and consider it religious apostasy. Leaders of the [Arab] states in the region, and party leaders, inflame sentiment, entrancing them with the drumbeat of extremism.

 

“With the strident chorus of its secretaries, the Arab League ensures that every car crash in Gaza or the West Bank is interpreted as an Israeli conspiracy against the Arab future. This is because the Arab League… was established as a pan-Arab entity whose main function was to write reports and studies rife with distortions of fact so as to quell the conscience of any Arab who dared think independently and expunge [the concept of] the Nakba from his consciousness. [It has done] this instead of devising creative strategies for cultural and economic development, so as to improve the deteriorating standard of living in the Arab societies.”

 

 

The Nakba is Rooted in a Culture that Does Not Recognize the Right of the Other

 

“Why did the partition resolution, which gave a state in Palestine to the Jews and one to the Arabs next to it, become the Nakba – [the star] that rises and sets daily over the Arab lands without emitting even the tiniest ray of light to illuminate the path for their peoples?

 

“Did the Jews have any less right to Palestine than the Arabs? What historic criteria can be used to determine the precedence of one [nation's] right over that of the other?

 

“Refusing to recognize the right of the other so as to usurp his rights was a governing principle of the Islamic conquests from the time of ‘Omar bin Al-Khattab; during that historical period it was the norm. [But] at the turn of the [20th] century, this principle was abandoned and prohibited, because it sparked wars and [violent] conflict. The international community passed laws restricting the principle of non-acceptance of the other, in the founding principles of the League of Nations in 1919. Subsequently, with the U.N.’s establishment, these laws were developed [further], with appendices and commentary, to adapt them to the current historical era and to express the commonly accepted values of national sovereignty and peoples’ right to self-determination.

 

“But because of their sentimental yearning for the past and zealous adherence to [old] criteria, the Arabs purged their hearts of any inclination to adjust to the spirit of the age. They thus became captives of the principle of non-acceptance of the other and of denying the other [the right] to live, [among] other rights.

 

“As a result, damage was done to the rights and interests of non-Arab nations and ethnic groups in the Arab lands – among them the Kurds, the Copts, and the Jews. [Thus,] the Arabs still treat the numerous minorities that came under their dominion 1,400 years ago in accordance with the laws from the era of Arab conquest.

 

“Despite the consequences of denying the other the right to exist, not to mention other rights – that is, [despite] the oppression, conflicts, wars, and instability [resulting from this]… the Arabs have steadfastly clung to their clearly chauvinist position. All problems in the region arising from minorities’ increasing awareness of their rights have been dealt with by the Arabs in accordance with [the principle of non-acceptance]… [even] after the emergence of international institutions giving these rights legal validity, in keeping with the mentality and rationale of our time.”

 

 

Refusing to Accept the Other: The Kurds in Iraq; the Christians in Egypt and Lebanon

 

The Kurds

 

“The denial of the Kurds’ national rights by the Iraqi government, and the Arab League’s support for it, has brought on wars lasting 50 years – that is, three-quarters of the life span of the state that arose in Iraq…

 

“After fabricating arguments to justify the [1921] combining of the Basra region with the Baghdad region in order to establish a new state in Iraq, British colonialist interests demanded that a large area historically populated by Kurds be added to the new state. [This was done] to satisfy the aspirations of King Faisal bin Al-Hussein [bin Ali Al-Hashemi], who had been proposed as head of state in return for protecting British interests in the region.

 

“In his persistent refusal to grant the Kurds their rights, from 1988 through 1989 Saddam Hussein murdered approximately 180,000 Kurds, in an organized [genocidal] campaign he called ‘Al-Anfal.’ He then used mustard gas against one [Kurdish] city (Halabja), killing its residents (5,000 people). The Arab conscience silently acquiesced to this human slaughterhouse, while Arab League secretary-general (Shadhli Al-Qalibi) called the international press coverage of these events ‘a colonialist conspiracy against the Arabs and the Iraqi regime.’

 

“Syrian Kurds are considered second-class citizens, and are banned from using their language or [practicing] their culture in public.”

 

 

The Christians in Egypt and Lebanon

 

“The ethnic oppression of the Kurds [in Iraq] was echoed by sectarian extremism against the Copts [in Egypt]. In both cases, the Arabs used the principle of denying the existence of the other so as to strip him of his rights.

 

“The Copts, who [initially] assimilated Arabs into their society, but who have over time themselves assimilated into Arab society, discover time and again that this assimilated state is but a surface shell, which quickly cracks whenever they demand equality… As a result, Egypt, as a state, is gripped by constant social tensions that keep rising to the surface and threatening to undermine its stability…

 

“Sectarian extremism in Egypt took the form of an organized party with the 1928 emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood, with the aim of splitting Egyptian society into two mutually hostile and conflicting parts. This was in line with the Arab religious and political principle of denying legitimacy to all non-Muslims or non-Arabs, [a principle practiced] since the Muslim armies reached Egypt in 639 [CE]…

 

“In Lebanon, the presence of armed Palestinian militias – which was in accordance with the decision of the Arab states – encouraged the formation of Lebanese militias, both Sunni and Shiite. Chanting slogans proclaiming Palestinian liberation, they frightened Christians by appearing armed in streets swarming with Lebanese [citizens] and tourists.

 

“This eventually led to a confrontation with Christian militias, which had also armed themselves out of fear of the pan-Arab slogans and fear for the [preservation of] the rights of the Christian sects.

 

“Lebanon was engulfed by an ugly 15-year civil war, that ended only after Syria, which had played an ignominious role as instigator [of the hostilities], attained full protectorate status over Lebanese affairs and the Lebanese people – [and this] took on the nature of colonialist hegemony…

 

“After the Lebanese were liberated from this [Syrian] control, in 2005 the clouds of civil war – albeit of a different kind – reappeared on the Lebanese horizon. The Arab League is making no effort to prevent the eruption [of this civil war] for two main reasons. First, the Syrian regime still supports ethnic tension, in order to regain control of Lebanon; and second, the current majority government, which opposes the renewed Syrian influence, is predominantly Christian…

 

“We had hoped that the Arab national conscience would recover from the illness afflicting it since the time of the Nakba, and that it would adopt [views] which, if not ahead of their time, would at least be appropriate to our time. But a group of journalists, writers, and several Arab historians guided by the principle of non-acceptance of the other has twisted the facts and concocted a false and gloomy history of the region – thereby trampling these dreams to the ground.”

 

 

Jews Have a Rich and Ancient History in Palestine

 

“The Arabs see the Palestinian problem as exceedingly complicated, while it actually appears so only to them – [that is], from the point of view of the Arabs’ emotional attitudes and their national and religious philosophy. The Arabs have amassed false claims regarding their exclusive right to the Palestinian land, [and] these are based on phony arguments and on several axioms taken from written and oral sources – most of which they [themselves] created after the Islamic, and which they forbade anyone, Arab or foreigner, from questioning.

 

“When the Arabs agreed to U.N. arbitration… to resolve the Palestinian problem, it transpired that their axioms clearly contradicted reliable historical documents [that] this new international organization [had in its possession]. As a result, they wasted decades stubbornly defending the validity of their documents, which do not correspond to the officially accepted version of the region’s history – which is based on concrete and solid evidence [such as] archaeological findings in the land of Palestine, the holy books of the three monotheistic religions, accounts by Roman, Greek, and Jewish historians… and modern historical research…”

 

 

Jewish and Christian Ritual Sites in Jerusalem Predate Muslim Sites

 

“[A look at] the story of Al-Aqsa is now in order – a site considered holy by Muslim Arabs, who call it ‘Al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif’ [The Noble Sanctuary] and [believe that] it was set aside for them by Allah since the time of Adam.

 

“[This site] contains several places of worship, including the Dome of the Rock, built by the [Umayyad Caliph] ‘Abd Al-Malik bin Marwan in the seventh century CE – that is, 72 years after the Muslim conquests. This religious public gathering place was erected over a prominent [foundation] stone at the peak of ‘Mount Moriah.’ [Mount Moriah] contains three ancient Jewish public worship sites, as well as [some] Christian sites… The octagonal structure of the Dome of the Rock Mosque was constructed on the site of an ancient Byzantine church, adjoining Solomon’s Temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

 

“Since the majority of Muslims claim that the Temple Mount is an Islamic site to which no one else is entitled, they do not acknowledge the presence of Jewish and Christian places of worship predating the Dome of the Rock within its walls…

 

“The Arabs take great pride in their tolerance of and benign treatment of the Jews and Christians who lived under the Muslim rule since the Muslim conquests. This account is part of the distortions underpinning the edifice of the Arabs’ religious and national culture. [Arab] writers and historians keep eulogizing this epoch… while the truth is the opposite of what they claim. [Indeed,] the Pact of ‘Omar [compelled] the Jews and the Christians to choose between either abandoning their religion and embracing Islam, or paying the [poll] tax in return for being permitted to reside… and receive protection of life and property in their homeland. [The Pact of 'Omar] allowed them to practice their religion, build new houses of worship, and repair the old ones [only] with the permission of a Muslim ruler, and subject to numerous conditions.

 

“In subsequent historical periods, the Muslims imposed [additional restrictions] on the members of [these] two religions: They forbade them to raise their voices during prayer; [they forced them] to conduct their prayers and religious ceremonies in closed areas so as not [to disturb] passersby; they forbade them to carry weapons, ride saddled horses, or build houses taller than those of the Muslims. [Christians and Jews] were required to show respect for the Muslims, e.g. by giving up their seat to a Muslim if he wanted it. They were banned from holding government posts or from working in ‘sensitive’ public places.

 

“The Koranic verses cursing the Jews and casting doubt on [the veracity of] their Holy Book [the Torah] promulgated a desire among Arabs to set themselves above the Jews who lived in their midst, humiliating and persecuting them even without pretext. In time, this treatment made large numbers of Jews abandon their cities and their land and emigrate… while those who stayed [in Palestine] until the 19th century remained marginalized, living among the Arabs like criminals in a foreign land…

 

“The Arabs claim that the ‘Wailing Wall’ has been their property since the Prophet Muhammad tied his horse Al-Buraq to one of its supports when Allah transported him by night from the Holy Mosque in Mecca to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem… Although this night-journey story seems dubious, Arab historiography after the advent of Islam contains such oddities as giving a horse the prerogative of making a wall weighing more than 2,000 tons into Muslim property. This is only one of thousands of examples of tales concocted by zealots, with which they swept away the Arab imagination.

 

“…When the U.N. resolution on the partition of Palestine was issued on November 29, 1947… the Arabs refused to recognize it. They thereby rejected the state set out by the resolution as the right of the Palestinians and the Arabs, with the aim of establishing legal and historical equity. The Arabs called this resolution the Nakba, while their new states, formed several years before the State of Israel, launched the first war against Israel, in which regular military operations were combined with local attacks by gangs comprising Palestinians and Arabs from Arab regions near and far. [That war] ended in [the Arabs'] defeat. Persisting in their error, the Arabs established refugee camps for the Palestinians who had fled during and after the war…

 

“Chairman Mahmoud ‘Abbas… was the first Palestinian leader to acknowledge that the Christian church in Gaza plundered by Hamas gangs had stood there ‘before [we] came to Gaza.’ By this he meant ‘we the Palestinians’ – particularly the current Gaza residents, [the descendants of] Bedouins from the Sinai and the Arabian Peninsula and of others, of unknown origin. [These people were] attracted by the wealth of the new Islamic state that extended from Persia to Southern Ethiopia, and came after the Muslim conquests and set themselves up over the local population – Christians, Jews, Phoenicians, Byzantines, and the remnants of the Sumerians…

 

 

Arabs Must Recognize the Jews’ Right to Palestine

 

“In order to prevent more bloodshed among the innocent [population]… and in order to keep the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza, and the West Bank from making [these regions into] a quagmire that will spread to engulf all Arab states and societies, the Arabs must reassess the question of the Nakba and come up with a new, courageous vision for the region and for the future of its residents.

 

“[This vision] must involve public recognition of the Jews’ legitimate right to their state – which is based on historical fact – instead of [recognition] of the writings filled with anger and demagogy produced and formed into an ideology by the confused [Arab] consciousness – a consciousness built upon lies, myths, and distortions stemming from the principle of non-acceptance of the other.

 

“The most important factor in strengthening such a new vision is [the adoption of] a principle [requiring] official condemnation of all individuals, groups, companies, religious and political parties, and totalitarian regimes that built their glory and hollow leaderships upon the notion of the Nakba, and which are always ready to absorb other false claims and fabrications.

 

“This must be done, so that a modern Arab face is turned to the world – [a face reflecting] ethical values that will not allow any Arab, under any pretext, to oppress his son or his brother who differs from him in religion, ethnicity, or ideology.”

 

THE JERUSALEM POST

Brazilian politician Jodenir Soares is delightedly participating in a high-level Jerusalem conference this week, well aware that he and his wife owe their lives to his insistent preference for Israel’s national airline, El Al, and to the budgetary constraints of the legislative assembly of Rio de Janeiro.

Soares was booked to leave Rio for Tel Aviv via Paris on May 31, taking Air France, the airline customarily used by the Rio assembly when booking trips abroad for parliamentary representatives. But days before the flight, the assembly president told Soares that there were insufficient funds available for the assembly to pay for his ticket to the “Jerusalem International Conference 2009,” an annual gathering that draws politicians, jurists, academics and other delegates from around the world for lectures and discussions.

Soares was told he would have to pay his own fare – which he was more than happy to do; he was also urged to fly, nonetheless, with Air France, which he didn’t want to do.

“Since I was now buying the ticket to Israel, of course I wanted to fly El Al,” he said.

So Soares cancelled his and his wife Eliani’s Air France reservations and booked them both on a direct El Al flight to Tel Aviv.

The Air France flight in question, flight 447, plunged into the Atlantic; all 228 people on board were killed.

“We were granted a second life,” said Soares on Sunday. “And I’m sure it’s because of the protection of the God of Israel.”

By Jonathan S. Tobin, www.aish.com

 

So much of the American press is steeped in sheer ignorance. Debunking these misconceptions with facts is a good start.

 

Sixty-one years after the birth of the State of Israel, the Jewish state continues to be assailed by its enemies. From the halls of the United Nations to the classrooms of major universities and in the pressrooms of major newspapers and magazines, attacks on the legitimacy of every move by Israel — and even of the state’s existence itself — continue to be made.

 

What lies behind the calumnies and canards that are constantly thrown at the one Jewish state on the planet? In the Arab and Islamic world, the notion that any portion of the Middle East could be placed under Jewish sovereignty is anathema. Elsewhere, some of the brickbats thrown Israel’s way stem from prejudice and hatred rooted in classic anti-Semitism.

 

But what about the American press, much of which is Jewish, and other American opinion-makers for whom the anti-Semitic tag doesn’t really apply? The reasons for much of the slanted commentaries about the Middle East and biased news coverage has less to do with the ancient hatreds based in Europe than it does with sheer ignorance.

 

For all too many members of the press (as well as other Americans who like to think of themselves as being informed about the great issues of the day), lack of knowledge about the underlying facts of the Middle East conflict is commonplace. Myths about the State of Israel, its origins, and its actions have found their way into general discourse in the academy and the media. Those who seek to stand up for Israel need to recognize that many of the problems that Israel has in getting its case across stem from a failure to debunk these myths and to answer them with the truth.

 

So here is a list of the top ten myths about Israel and the Middle East conflict. This list is by no means comprehensive, but it is a good start to understanding the heart of the problem.

 

Myth #1: Jews have no historic connection to Israel/Palestine.

 

A key element of Arab and anti-Zionist attacks on Israel is the notion that the Jewish presence in the country is a remnant of 19th century imperialism in which Europeans colonized and exploited parts of the third world. But far from being outsiders there, the Jewish ties date back 4,000 years to the very beginning of Jewish history recounted in the Bible and verified by much of the evidence of archeology that has been discovered.

 

Though the Romans expelled most of the Jewish population from the country, Jewish settlement continued without interruption throughout the last 2,000 years. In all this time, the Land of Israel remained a constant in the thoughts and the hearts of Jews throughout the world, as it was remembered in their daily prayers and in their dreams.

 

Myth #2: Jews have no unique claim to the ancient and holy city of Jerusalem.

 

Though both Christianity and Islam have holy sites in the city, the Jewish ties predate that of any other existing religion. King David made Jerusalem the capital of Israel 3,000 years ago — 1,700 years before Islam was even founded. Jerusalem never served as even a provincial capital during the centuries of Muslim rule. The entire city is sacred to Jews; only the Dome of the Rock has religious significance to Muslims. Moreover, in the modern era, Jews have been the majority of the population of the city since the 1840s.

 

As for freedom of worship, the only period during which all faiths have been free to worship in peace has been since 1967 when the city became unified under Israeli sovereignty.

 

Myth #3: The Zionist movement was never prepared to share the land.

 

From the very start of the Jews’ return to their historic homeland in the late 19th century, it has never been the goal of the Zionist movement to uproot the Arab population or to create a state where only Jews could live. In 1922, the League of Nations’s Mandate for Palestine was partitioned by Britain, with the east bank of the Jordan River reserved for Arab rule (it eventually become the Kingdom of Jordan), and the area between the Mediterranean and the Jordan being designated as the Jewish National Home. Dating back to the 1930s, every subsequent peace plan that has been proposed involved some sort of partition of the western portion of Palestine. Though all of these schemes involved painful concessions for the Jews, the leadership of the Zionist movement, and subsequently the Jewish state, always accepted this principle of sharing the country.

 

Myth #4: The lack of an independent Palestinian Arab state is the fault of the Zionists.

 

In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of Palestine between a Jewish state and an Arab state. The response of the Palestinian Arabs, as well as the rest of the Arab and Muslim world, was a categorical rejection of any scheme that allowed a Jewish state on any part of the land, no matter what its borders might be. No effort was made to set up an independent Arab state in the part of Palestine allotted for that purpose. In the aftermath of Israel’s War of Independence, in which it repelled the invasion by five Arab armies, the West Bank, Gaza, and half of Jerusalem were left in Arab hands. But for the next 19 years when these territories remained under Arab control, there was never any consideration given to creating an Arab state there. On the contrary, the focus of the Arab world was on extinguishing the fledgling state of Israel that existed in the truncated borders left by the 1949 armistice lines.

 

In the years after the 1967 war, Israel has maintained a willingness to negotiate a peace deal based on the concept of “land for peace.” Indeed, at Camp David in July 2000 and the following January at Taba, Egypt, Israel offered the Palestinians a state in these lands as well as part of Jerusalem. The answer from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was “no,” and he followed up that refusal by launching a terrorist war of attrition that resulted in over a thousand Jewish deaths and even more suffering on the part of his own people.

 

Myth #5: The plight of Palestinian refugees is a special case of dispossession that must be redressed by international action.

 

In the aftermath of World War II, millions of refugees were created by the partition of India, the re-drawing of the map of Europe, as well as by the war brought on by the Arab refusal to accept the UN’s partition of Palestine. Only in the case of Palestinians who fled their home during the course of Israel’s War of Independence was there a failure to re-settle the refugees. The Palestinian refugees, whose exit from the country was caused more by a general fear of the war sweeping over the land than by any action on the part of the Israelis, were the only refugees who were kept in camps and not allowed to integrate into the populations of the Arab countries that received them. They were kept homeless as a means of maintaining the illusion that the creation of Israel could be undone. Subsequent generations of this population have been raised in these camps and inculcated in an irredentist ideology whose premise is the rejection of any Jewish state. They remain the wards of a UN agency (the United Nations Relief Works Agency) that is devoted to perpetuating their status as refugees at a cost of billions of dollars in international aid.

 

On the other hand, several hundred thousand Jews living in Arab countries were evicted from their homes during this same era and forced to flee to safety in Israel or the West — where they were integrated into society.

 

Myth #6: The occupation of eastern Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights in 1967 was the result of an Israeli war of aggression.

 

In May 1967, Egypt launched a blockade of Israel’s southern port of Eilat. Egyptian and Syrian forces massed on Israel’s borders. Egypt demanded, and got, the UN peacekeeping force that separated its army from Israel in the Sinai, to withdraw. Egyptian dictator Gamal Abdul Nasser and other Arab leaders told their peoples that they would soon launch a battle of annihilation that would result in Israel’s destruction. When international diplomacy failed to get the Arabs to back down, Israel decided that it would not wait to be attacked, and launched a defensive war to forestall the Arab assault.

 

After the war ended in a sweeping Israeli victory, Israel stated its willingness to make peace, but an Arab summit conference a month later answered with three no’s. No peace. No recognition. No negotiations.

 

Myth #7: Jewish settlements are the main, if not the sole, obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

 

Though many legal sources claim that Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal, the fact remains that the right of Jewish settlement in those lands was guaranteed by the Mandate for Palestine of the League of Nations. This territory was never part of any other sovereign state and its final legal status is subject to negotiations that must be concluded between the competing parties. Until such time as there is a peace accord that gives one side or the other sovereignty in this territory, it is inaccurate to refer to this land as belonging to one side or another.

 

Twice before, Israel has shown a willingness to uproot Jewish communities for the sake of peace: in the Sinai (given back to Egypt in the 1979 Peace Treaty) and in Gaza (from which Israel withdrew unilaterally in 2005). The existence of settlements in these areas is no bar to a peace deal under which they might be withdrawn.

 

Myth #8: The failure of the Oslo peace process was the result of actions by hard-line Israeli governments.

 

The Oslo process was embraced by Israel in the hope that an offer of land would be met with genuine peace. However, the result of years of negotiations and various Israeli withdrawals has not been peace. From the start of Palestinian Authority rule in the West Bank and Gaza in 1994, Palestinian leadership has encouraged terrorism against Israel and fomented hatred against the Jewish state — while “peace education” is promulgated in Israeli schools. Throughout the 1990s as Israel signed several agreements that gave the Palestinians more autonomy, the corrupt PA leadership continued to tolerate and even fund terror groups. In 2000, Yasser Arafat refused Israel’s offer of a Palestinian state in virtually all of the West Bank and Gaza as well as part of Jerusalem — and launched the terror offensive known as the Second Intifada.

 

Though all Israeli governments have, at times, been forced to reply with force to terrorist attacks from Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank, all have stated a willingness to negotiate a peace. Today the Palestinians are split between the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas, which is too weak to make peace, and Hamas, the rulers of Gaza, who reject it under any circumstances. Both factions reject the legitimacy of a Jewish state.

 

Myth #9: The Arab-Israeli conflict is the key to all of America’s political, diplomatic, and military problems in the Middle East.

 

The battle over Israel/Palestine is but one of many disputes in the Middle East. The rivalry between the two great Muslim religious strains, Shia and Sunni, has been the source of more wars and more bloodshed than any battle between Arabs and Jews. Similarly, the tensions between Persians (modern day Iran with its Islamist rulers and nuclear ambitions) and Arabs is another perennial conflict that predates the renewal of Jewish sovereignty in the region.

 

Even more to the point, the conflict between radical Islamists who seek to impose their religious and political views on the rest of the Muslim world, and those who oppose them in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, has nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians. It is this schism that is at the core of the rise of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. It is this battle for the soul of Islam that gave the impetus to the 9/11 attacks, not the dispute over the borders of the Jewish state.

 

Though Israel’s foes claim that resentment over its creation fuels Arab and Islamic resentment of the West, such sentiments long predate the rise of Zionism. The clash of civilizations between Islam and the West was the cause of wars between European nations and Muslim countries for centuries, with no Jewish involvement. Linking world peace to a resolution of the Palestinian conflict is just another tactic of rejectionist groups bent on perpetuating the conflict and diverting attention from the real issues.

 

Myth #10: American support for Israel is the result of the manipulations of the U.S. government by Jews.

 

Support for the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland dates back to the very beginning of American history. Sympathy for the idea of a renewed Jewish state is rooted in the faith of most Americans, as well as in their belief that the persecuted Jewish people were entitled to find a new life in their old home. From the very beginnings of the Zionist movement, it found both a welcome and support from large numbers of Americans. In the aftermath of the Holocaust that support became even greater.

 

Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans of all faiths and both major political parties see Israel as a friend and an ally. They need no prodding from a Jewish lobby to understand that the alliance with the Jewish state is based on common values and a shared belief in democracy. While Israel’s supporters in Washington are vocal and proud of it, their financial clout is dwarfed by that of an oil industry and other factions with a vested interest in appeasing Arab dictators and monarchs. But the American people’s identification with Israel and their sense of solidarity with it have prevailed because these ideas are rooted deeply in American history and tradition.

 

For even more information about myths and facts about Israel go to jewishvirtuallibrary.com.

www.haaretz.com

 

The United Nations nuclear watchdog has discovered traces of processed uranium at a second site in Syria, the agency said on Friday, June 5, heightening concerns about possible undeclared atomic activity in the Arab state.

 

The International Atomic Energy Agency has been examining U.S. intelligence reports that Syria had almost built a North Korean-designed nuclear reactor meant to yield weapons-grade plutonium before Israel bombed it to rubble in 2007.

 

Inspectors who found uranium particles at the remote desert site a year ago also found similar traces at a small research reactor in the capital Damascus, which the IAEA knew about and checks once a year, an IAEA report said. These traces were different from Syria’s declared nuclear material inventory.

 

The IAEA said in February that inspectors had found enough traces of uranium in soil samples taken from the bombed site a year ago to constitute a significant find.

 

Friday’s report, obtained by Reuters, said “anthropogenic natural uranium particles” had also turned up in environmental swipe samples taken from hot cells of the Miniature Neutron Source Reactor (MNSR) facility in Damascus.

 

Syria, told of the IAEA’s discovery last month, sent a written response to the IAEA. But this did not address the presence and origin of the particles, and the UN watchdog was investigating a possible connection with the uranium particles found at the bombed site, the report said.

 

The IAEA has said in the past that satellite pictures taken before the Israel Air Force bombing revealed a building resembling a reactor. But the new report said Syria, citing national security, was still ignoring IAEA requests for wider access and documentation to back up its assertion that Israel’s target at Dair Alzour was a conventional military building.

 

The IAEA again urged Syria to provide additional data and trips to Dair Alzour and other allegedly related locations to allow test-sampling of destroyed or salvaged equipment and debris removed before investigators were let into the country.

 

“It is clearly in Syria’s interest to render to the agency the necessary cooperation and transparency if it wishes the agency to be able to corroborate its assertion about the nature of the Dair Alzour site,” the report said.

 

Syria’s only declared nuclear site is the old research reactor and it has no known nuclear energy-generating capacity.

 

The report said Syria was also refusing to discuss satellite pictures the IAEA had offered to share with it.

 

Syria had provided information regarding procurement of certain equipment and materials including a large quantity of graphite and large quantities of barium sulphate, a compound sometimes used as a radiation shield in nuclear structures.

 

Syria had indicated the procurement efforts were civilian and non-nuclear, relating to water purification, the steel industry, and shielding material for radiation therapy centers.

 

Syria has said the uranium particles retrieved from samples taken at Dair Alzour came from depleted uranium used in Israeli munitions, an assertion dismissed by the IAEA. Syria has also suggested IAEA analyses were faulty and that satellite imagery Washington gave to the IAEA was fabricated.

 

Viennese diplomats said in March that Syria had told the IAEA it had built a missile facility on the desert tract hit by Israel, a disclosure apparently meant to reinforce the Syrian refusal to grant more IAEA access on national security grounds.

 

IAEA: Iran expands uranium enrichment to 5,000 centrifuges

A separate IAEA report said that Iran is continuing to expand its uranium enrichment, despite three sets of prohibitive UN Security Council sanctions.

 

International Atomic Energy Agency report said Iran had increased its rate of production of low-enriched uranium (LEU), boosting its stockpile by 500 kg to 1,339 kg in the past six months.

 

Iran’s improved efficiency in turning out potential nuclear fuel is sure to fan Western fears of the Islamic Republic nearing the ability to make atomic bombs, if it chose to do so.

 

Oil giant Iran says it wants a uranium enrichment industry solely to provide an alternative source of electricity. But it has stonewalled an IAEA investigation into suspected past research into bomb-making, calling U.S. intelligence about it forged, and continuing to limit the scope of IAEA inspections.

 

Commenting on the Iran report, the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security, a think tank that tracks proliferation issues, said that at the present pace of production of enriched uranium, Tehran could make two nuclear weapons — should it choose to do so — within eight months.

 

David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security, said Iran now had accumulated enough LEU to convert into high-enriched uranium (HEU) sufficient for one atom bomb. This would require reconfiguring Iran’s centrifuge network and miniaturizing HEU to fit into a warhead — technical hurdles that could take 1-2 years or more — and would not escape the notice of UN inspectors unless done at an undeclared location.

 

There are no indications of any such secret site.

 

“Still, Iran is ramping up enrichment to reach the point of potential nuclear weapons capability. They haven’t made a political decision to do that. But their lack of constraint is disappointing given [U.S. President Barack] Obama’s effort to start negotiations,” Albright told Reuters from Washington.

 

The UN nuclear watchdog report said Iran had 4,920 centrifuges, cylinders that spin at supersonic speed, being fed with uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6) for enrichment nonstop as of May 31, a jump of about 25 percent since February.

 

Another 2,132 machines were installed and undergoing vacuum tests while a further 169 were being set up — bringing Iran’s total number of deployed centrifuges at its underground Natanz enrichment hall to 7,231 — with 55,000 eventually planned.

 

The IAEA had told Iran that given the burgeoning numbers of centrifuges and increased pace of enrichment, “improvements to the containment and surveillance measures are required in order for the agency to continue to fully meet its safeguards objectives”, the report said, referring to basic inspections.

 

Senior inspectors were discussing solutions with Iran.

 

“There is now a forest of 7,000 machines, that’s quite a lot, it’s a very impressive place, and they will be installing more which could mean 9,000 (soon),” said a senior UN official who asked for anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

 

“That makes it increasingly difficult to do the surveillance [to ensure no diversions for bomb-making purposes elsewhere]. We are reviewing [the angles] of our cameras, walking rules [for workers handling equipment], where things are being kept.”

 

At a separate pilot plant in Natanz, Iran continues to test small numbers of a more sophisticated centrifuge than the 1970s vintage it is now using. These models could refine uranium 2-3 times as fast as the P-1, analysts say.

 

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei has urged Iran to engage with the United States, “grasp the hand that Obama is extending to you,” and negotiate over its nuclear program to ensure it remains civilian under effective monitoring.

 

But little progress in coaxing Iran to open up to IAEA investigators and grant more wide-ranging inspections is likely without a major thaw in Tehran’s relations with Western powers.

 

“The Iran file has been on the table for six years. It’s high time to sort it out. We hope Iran and international community get to the table and start to come up with solutions so we can do our [non-proliferation] job,” said the senior U.N. official.

 

Obama has set a rough timetable for negotiating results with Iran, saying he wanted serious progress by the end of the year. He has underlined that any U.S. overtures will be accompanied by harsher sanctions if there is no cooperation.