| Top issue in Malaysian politics? Israel! Posted: 30 Jan 2012 07:00 PM PST From WSJ: Recent comments by Malaysian opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim have demonstrated yet again how issues related to Israel continue to divide this majority-Muslim country – and could influence the country's next national election.
In a recent interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Anwar responded to the question of whether he would open diplomatic ties with Israel by stating his "support" for "efforts to protect the security of the state of Israel," while at the same time backing the "legitimate rights of the Palestinians." He stopped short of saying he would establish diplomatic relations between the two states – what he describes as a "tricky" issue – and stated that any change to the status quo would remain contingent on Israel recognizing the aspirations of the Palestinians.
Malaysia is one of three Southeast Asian nations including Indonesia and Brunei that does not have diplomatic relations with Israel, though limited economic ties exist between private companies in both countries.
"Some refuse to recognize the state of Israel," he said, "but I think our policy should be clear – protect the security [of Israel] but you must be as firm in protecting the legitimate interests of the Palestinians."
The comments triggered a storm of debate and criticism, with members of the ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO) and other groups accusing the leader of abandoning the Palestinian cause – an emotive cause long-supported in the majority-Muslim Southeast Asian nation.
Lawmakers called on Mr. Anwar's opposition coalition to release an official statement on the issue, while president of the right-wing Malay group Perkasa Ibrahim Ali said he would raise the issue in Parliament.
Mr. Anwar responded by saying he supported a "two-state solution" with Palestine, a policy he said was no different from the official stance adopted by the United Nations and Malaysia itself.
"I am issuing a stern warning to anyone trying to twist my statement just so that they can say that I have betrayed the aspirations of the Palestinian people," he said in a statement to the press. His party's stand "is to defend the rights of whoever it is that has been victimised," the statement said. Here is some Malaysian reaction: Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's support for Israel's security efforts is a signal to the Zionist regime and the United States that he is their man.
With Malaysia's general election nearing, Anwar is trying to gain the backing of powerful countries in order to come to power, although he has to go against his party's struggle for human rights.
Former Parti Keadilan Rakyat deputy president Dr Chandra Muzaffar said Anwar's statement to The Wall Street Journal sent a clear message that he was in favour of US lobbyists and Zionist interests.
"Anwar understands that for the US, as far as Arab-Israel conflict is concerned, defending Israel matters most. And he knows that US lobbyists judge other countries' leaders based on their stand on the conflict.
"By coming out with such a statement, furthermore in an interview with the The Wall Street Journal, which is owned by Zionist media mogul Rupert Murdoch, Anwar is telling them that he is a man whom they can depend on," Chandra told the New Straits Times yesterday. More proof we Jews really do control the world. 
|
| Nasser, in 1955, felt most refugees wouldn't want to "return" Posted: 30 Jan 2012 12:43 PM PST In 1955, the US was still trying to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Arab states. Egypt insisted that any peace plan include Israel giving Egypt significant territory in the Negev in order to form a strong connection between Egypt and Jordan. This would mean that Israel would either give up Eilat, which is what Egypt wanted, or Eilat would be effectively cut off from Israel. As always, the issue of Palestine refugees came up, and Gamal Abdel Nasser said something surprising. From a telegram from the Embassy in Egypt to the Department of State, November 27, 1955: [Nasser] agreed majority of refugees would no longer desire return [to] Israel or would not remain after they saw present conditions. (He referred to lot of the Arab in Israel as that of "Class B" citizens.) He thought however it would be most difficult for any Arab leader to take a position which deprived the refugee of his right to return. He therefore favored an approach which would allow the refugee to make his own decision about repatriation vis-à-vis resettlement and compensation. He agreed that this would be most difficult for Israel and wondered whether some impartial sensing of the real refugee opinion was possible through an agency such as UNRWA which could relieve both Israel and Arabs of difficult political problem. Told him I feared any such poll would indicate a far greater desire to return to Israel than would be actual case if opportunity were in fact presented. Diplomats and Arab leaders knew that in the end, the majority of Palestinian Arab refugees wanted to move on with their lives as full citizens of any Arab state. But the rhetoric about "return" was so extreme that no one would dare admit it publicly - not the leaders, not the diplomats and not the refugees themselves. UNRWA, for its part, continued to insist that the refugees would never accept any alternative to full repatriation. This is a small example of the playacting that Palestinian Arabs do to this very day. They are so afraid of saying anything against what is considered politically correct for them that they will reflexively say the standard line if they perceived any chance that their true thoughts would get them into trouble. In 1955, it was "return," today it is the many "eyewitnesses" to events that never occur. It is an interesting footnote. 
|
| Bakewashing Posted: 30 Jan 2012 11:05 AM PST An Israeli team of bakers won two first-place awards at the International Baking Championships held in Rimini this past week. They won in the healthy bread category, for a pita bread stuffed with fresh spinach and cheese risotto balls. They also won in the dessert category, for a strawberry and fruit brioche-style Black Forest. Based on these results, the Israeli team was declared the winner of the champtionships, with the Germans coming in second place and Australia in third. While this is hardly an important news story, I have a question for those who call themselves "pro-Israel" but who manage to spend their entire days trying to dig up whatever dirt they can on the Jewish state. When you read a story like this, are you proud? People who are truly pro-Israel would feel a sense of pride, even if only a little, at the idea of the Jewish state winning a baking championship while competing against heavyweights like the US, France and Germany. They would feel the same way when Israel wins medals in the Olympics or when an Israeli wins a Nobel Prize. Those who only pretend to be pro-Israel would not. They would studiously ignore the story, or try to find a reason why it is not such a good thing, or even try to frame it as if it proves some calumny or another about the state they pretend to love. The reason is simple. People who are truly pro-Israel identify with Israel; those who only pretend to be pro-Israel identify with her enemies. Their emotional effort is not aimed at binding with Israelis, but with distancing themselves from them. To them, if a story about Israel is not wholly negative, it is not something to be publicized. A look at the tweets of many of the so-called "pro-Israel" critics leaves one with no doubt as to how most of them really feel. 
|
| New map of Jewish land holdings in Syria Posted: 30 Jan 2012 09:50 AM PST In December, I wrote about the little-known fact that the Jewish National Fund owns some 53 square kilometers of land in Syria. I showed a map of some of their holdings made in the 1930s: Now, Guy Bechor writes (in Hebrew) many fascinating details on this story, about how a member of Hovevei Zion named David Rosenberg encouraged the purchase of land in the Hauran and tried to get Jews to settle there. Some did, in various settlements with names like Tiferet Binyamin and Nachalat Moshe. The settlements were attacked by Arabs and the Turks disallowed any further Jews from moving in, which doomed the enterprise. The land was owned by the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA), which gave the lands to the JNF in the 1950s. Here are his maps:
Bechor also shows a Hebrew poster for a tour to visit these lands in the summer of 1935 - since there were no fences along the borders, Jews could just take a trip to Syria to visit historic Jewish lands in the Golan and Hauran.
He goes on to show that in the 1940s, Syria simply confiscated much of the PICA-owned lands. Bechor estimates that between the Golan and Hauran, the JNF owns some 100,000 dunam (100 square km.)
(h/t Yoel) 
|
| The bizarre conspiracy theories of the anti-Israel Left Posted: 30 Jan 2012 08:39 AM PST A nice piece at False Dichotomies by Alex Stein: The best – and kindest – way to describe Richard Silverstein is that he's silly. Very silly indeed. He sincerely believes that his blog makes an important contribution to world peace, so important that he regularly asks readers to give him money. After a frustrating first few years as a blogger, while he tried to find a bigger audience, most respectable publications realised that he was silly and wouldn't have anything to do with him. Then he realised that he could reinvent himself as a 'whistle-blower',publishing stories that wouldn't pass the Israeli military censors. This got him the attention he craved, including one or two profiles in the Israeli media. Some of his exposes were accurate; many were not. In assessing his sources, he seems to go by the principle that if it seems to be bad for Israel then it must be true. Needless to say, this isn't necessarily the way to go if you want to be taken seriously. Earlier today, in a report that someone with Silverstein's prose might describe as 'breathless', he declared: "An exclusive report from a confidential highly-placed Israeli source says that a booby-tapped drone crashed and exploded at the top-secret Israeli airbase Sdot Micha." According to this 'confidential highly-placed source', the drone was probably sent by Hizbollah/Iran, and the mainstream media reports (that it was an Israeli drone which malfunctioned) were a cover-up. Over at +972, Dimi Reider convincingly demolishes Silverstein's claims. His analysis seems reasonable. But he doesn't stop there. The obvious conclusion is that Silverstein can't be trusted (those who want to point out that he sometimes gets it right should be reminded that even a broken clock is correct twice a day), but Reider says he has unwittingly played into the IDF's hands. "But the real question is: who would have us believe this highly improbably hypothesis is true? Iran is mostly trying to avoid escalation [by reassuring Israel that it is perfectly comfortable with its existence - Alex]. Why it would give Israel a perfect casus belli by launching such a blatant military attack, which causes no significant damage, is beyond me; but I can well imagine plenty of people within the IDF who would dearly like a casus belli to bolster their case for an attack on Iran. If I were Richard, I would be extremely suspicious of any information – especially uncorroborated information – that helps the pro-war camp in Israel. Not to mention that the source might be acting in good faith, but is being hoodwinked by his own sources within the system." Now, Dimi is far more intelligent than most of the folk out there who oppose Jewish statehood, and he's certainly far more intelligent than the man with no sense of irony who calls his blog Tikun Olam. He must know that Silverstein's a bit of a dupe. But here his world-view has forced him into some ludicrous contortions, especially now that Israeli footage of the drone proves that it was indeed Israeli. If the IDF wanted us to believe that Iran/Hizbollah had crashed a drone in Israel, why wouldn't it just say so? Why would it bother coming up with a plausible – and verifiable – story about an Israeli drone malfunctioning? Why would it choose to use a consistently inaccurate and possibly unhinged blogger to try to convince the world that Iran was attacking Israel? Has he heard of Occam's Razor? The only conclusion to be drawn from this episode is that Richard Silverstein shouldn't be taken seriously. But then most of us knew that a long time ago. See also Israellycool. (h/t Sylvia) 
|
| Deprivation: Haniyeh seeking $17 million for Gaza "Sports City" Posted: 30 Jan 2012 07:25 AM PST  Ismail Haniyeh is planning another tour of the Muslim world hot on the heels of his last one earlier this month. In this one he is visiting Qatar, Iran and other countries not yet specified. In Qatar, Haniyeh is expected to ask for $17 million to build a "Sports City" in Gaza. The Emir had promised to fund such a project in 2006. Haniyeh reportedly used to be a soccer player. 
|
| MSM finally starts noticing the "unity" sham Posted: 30 Jan 2012 06:05 AM PST It only took ten months.... Rival Palestinian movements Fatah and Hamas are delaying implementation of their reconciliation accord, paying lip-service to the deal while each pursues its own agenda, analysts say.
Last April, the rivals signed a reconciliation agreement which stipulated the holding of fresh presidential and legislative elections in May 2012 and the quick formation of an interim government of independents in the meantime.
The deal also called for a prisoner exchange, removal of restrictions on the distribution of each movement's newspapers in the other's territory and the issue of passports to Gaza residents by the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority.
But the implementation has been painfully slow, with successive rounds of talks at various levels attempting to speed up the process.
Hamas last week gave the long-awaited green light for the reopening of offices of the Central Election Commission in its Gaza fiefdom.
But the CEC still awaits a decree from Palestinian president and Fatah chief Mahmud Abbas authorizing it to update electoral rolls unchanged since the last election six years ago.
Both sides have stressed their desire to repair the rift, but political scientist Mukhaimer Abu Saada of Gaza's al-Azhar University said little of the deal appeared to have been implemented.
"On political prisoners, we hear that they are close; that the issue of Palestinian passports, newspapers will be settled," he told AFP. "Every day we hear new promises."
"They each still have their own calculations," said Omar Shaaban of Palestinian think-tank Palthink in Gaza, suggesting both sides hope to strengthen their positions.
"(Abbas) thinks he can get something out of talks with Israel and Hamas relies on the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. They want to wait."
Earlier this month, independent Palestinian MP Mustafa Barghuthi, who heads a committee charged with helping implement the deal, warned that it was not being implemented.
"Talks have not started on the formation of the government, giving the impression that the deadlines have no value," he said.
Although surveys of voter intentions give Fatah high scores, the movement fears entering a presidential fight with anything less than a cast-iron candidate, according to Mahdi Abdul Hadi of the Jerusalem think-tank PASSIA.
"Even though Abbas told them, 'I'm not running,' they did not believe him and could not find an alternative," he told AFP.
Within Hamas, he said, a gap has opened between the head of the Hamas government in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, and the leader of the movement in exile in Damascus, Khaled Meshaal.
"There is a power struggle between Hamas in Gaza and Damascus," he said.
Meshaal arrived in Jordan on Sunday on his first official visit there since his expulsion in 1999, a trip seen as a turning point in historically difficult relations between Amman and the Islamist movement.
Haniya was to leave on Monday for a regional tour that includes a stop in Iran, which radically opposes any compromise with Israel. The latest "unity" promise about to be broken is the one where a "technocrat" unity government would have been formed by the end of January. 
|
| LSE passes motions against anti-semitism and Islamophobia Posted: 30 Jan 2012 03:30 AM PST Two recent incidents at the London School of Economics have caused the LSE Student Union to pass two motions, that seem on the surface to be analogous, one against anti-semitism and one against Islamophobia. The anti-semitic incident happened last month: According to a statement released by the LSE's Jewish Society, a student objected to a drinking game that was being played, leading to a physical confrontation.
According to the Jewish Society, the group of students was playing a popular drinking game called Ring of Fire, but with a Nazi twist. This involved playing cards being arranged on a table in the shape of a swastika, with players required to "salute the Fuhrer."
A Jewish student present, offended by the goings on, asked to stop the drinking game and the anti-Semitic gibes and jokes being thrown around. A fight then broke out, either right away or later in the evening, according to competing versions of events, and the complainer's nose was broken.
Jay Stoll, president of the LSE's Jewish Society said that "there is simply no context for what has happened here. Those who believe the game was all in good humor need to realize that when a Jewish student is subject to violence and the Nazi ideology glorified it is no joke but a spiteful, collective attack on a community." As a result of a Jewish student getting physically attacked over objecting to an undoubtedly anti-semitic game, the LSE passed this motion: Union believes
1. All forms of racism are abhorrent and should be opposed.
2. Anti-Semitism is specific form of racism, relating to Jews and Judaism.
3. Anti-Semitism includes but is not limited to:
4. Denying, trivializing and misconstruing the Nazi Holocaust. This includes denying the fact, scope, method, or motivation for the genocide of 6 million Jews at the hands of the National Socialist regime. It also includes the accusation that Jews or the state of Israel have fabricated, cause or over-exaggerated the Holocaust.
5. Calling for, aiding or justifying the killing or harming of Jews for the sake of their Jewish religion, ethnicity or identity.
6. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such. This includes accusations of Jewish control of the world, government, media, as well as blaming Jews for imagined and real atrocities
7. Questioning the loyalty of Jews to their nation of citizenship simply on the basis of their Jewish identity. This includes claims that Jews as a collective or a community subvert or mislead the general population, as well as the claim that Jews are more loyal to the state of Israel than their country of citizenship.
8. Claiming that Jews do not have the same rights as any other ethnic group. This includes the right to free speech, free practice of religion, free use of native languages (i.e. Hebrew, Yiddish, Ladino, etc.) and self-determination.
9. 'Equating Jews or maliciously equating Jewish Foundations of the state of Israel with the Nazi Regime. This includes, but is not limited to equating Zionism with Nazism and claiming that 'History is repeating itself' with regards to the Nazi Holocaust and the state of Israel. This also includes using Jewish symbols and religious imagery alongside Nazi symbols and imagery. This does not necessarily include analogies between historical events.'
10. Using Jewish symbols to antagonize, harass, and intimidate Jewish students.
11. Legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and its actions are not inherently anti-Semitic.
Union resolves
1. To publicly oppose actions on campus that are anti-Semitic based on the aforementioned definition.
2. To ensure all anti-Semitic incidents aimed at or perpetrated by LSE students either verbal, physical or online are dealt with swiftly and effectively in conjunction with the school and, if appropriate or requested by the victim, the Metropolitan Police.
3. To mandate the SU Anti-Racism officer to publish a semi-annual report detailing all incidents of racism, including anti-Semitic incidents of racism that have occurred on campus during the previous six months and the actions taken by the union and the School. The first report to be published Summer Term 09.
4. To work with Pro-Director for Teaching and Learning and Deans to address racism and anti-Semitism on campus and methods to alleviate it.
5. To ensure that this definition is used to promote and enhance legitimate debate regarding the morality and legitimacy of international conflicts and oppose illegitimate acts of anti-Semitism on campus. (I don't understand the reference to Summer 09. Does this mean that the motion had been voted down in years past?) This seems to be an appropriate response to a serious incident, and the motion is clearly against discrimination of Jews as a group. The "Islamophobia" incident is more problematic. As described by the National Secularist Society: The Atheist Secularist and Humanist Society (ASH) at the London School of Economics has been told by the Students Union that unless it removes a Jesus and Mo cartoon from its Facebook page it could be expelled from the Union. ASH had posted the cartoon "in solidarity with University College of London Atheist and Secularist group" which had been told by its own Student Union to remove the image.
The LSE Students Union (LSESU) said in a statement that the cartoon had been brought to their attention via a complaint by students - the number complaining varied from two to forty.
The statement continues:
"Upon hearing this, the sabbaticals officers of the LSESU ensured all evidence was collected and an emergency meeting with a member of the Students' Union staff was called to discuss how to deal with the issue. During this time, we received over 40 separate official complaints from the student body, in addition to further information regarding more posts on the society Facebook page.
"It was decided that the President and other committee members of the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society would be called for an informal meeting to explain the situation, the complaints that had been made, and how the action of posting these cartoons was in breach of Students' Union policy on inclusion and the society's constitution. This meeting took place on Friday 20th January at 10.30am. The society agreed to certain actions coming out of the meeting and these were discussed amongst the sabbatical team. In this discussion it was felt that though these actions were positive they would not fully address the concerns of those who had submitted complaints. Therefore the SU will now be telling the society that they cannot continue these activities under the brand of the SU".
This last sentence stops short of expelling them but is certainly reads as a veiled threat of expulsion.
The statement continues: "The LSE Students' Union would like to reiterate that we strongly condemn and stand against any form of racism and discrimination on campus. The offensive nature of the content on the Facebook page is not in accordance with our values of tolerance, diversity, and respect for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or religious affiliation. There is a special need in a Students' Union to balance freedom of speech and to ensure access to all aspects of the LSESU for all the ethnic and religious minority communities that make up the student body at the LSE."
ASH's president Chris Moos, responded by saying, "We firmly reject the allegation that actions of our members have 'sought to marginalise' anyone, have caused 'harm to the welfare of Muslim students' or constituted a 'targeted campaign.'"
Moos continued "Although we reserve the right to criticise religious ideas, as humanists we will always oppose any targeted campaign against any community. We strongly oppose any form of anti-Muslim prejudice. The cartoons criticise religion in a satirical way. They do not target or call for the targeting of Muslims or any other religious group. Framing the criticism of religion as 'discrimination' or 'Islamophobic actions' is highly misguided and results in the stifling of valid debates. We do not discriminate amongst religions in our criticisms." Here, there was no incitement; no physical violence; indeed, nothing remotely resembling creating a hateful atmosphere towards Muslims. It was simply a critical (and satirical, in this case) discussion of Islam and Christianity. The motion against Islamophobia is therefore not against attacks on Muslims but against attacks on tenets of Islam: Union believes
1. In the right to criticise religion,
2. In freedom of speech and thought,
3. It has a responsibility to protect its members from hate crime and hate speech,
4. Debate on religious matters should not be limited by what may be offensive to any particular religion, but the deliberate and persistent targeting of one religious group about any issue with the intent or effect of being Islamophobic ('Islamophobia' as defined below) will not be tolerated.
5. That Islamophobia is a form of anti-Islamic racism.
Union resolves
1. To define Islamophobia as "a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonisation or harassment of Muslims, including but not limited to portraying Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Qur'an as a manual of hatred",
2. To take a firm stance against all Islamophobic incidents at LSE and conduct internal investigations if and when they occur.
3. To publicly oppose actions on campus that are Islamophobic based on the aforementioned definition,
4. To ensure that all Islamophobic incidents aimed at or perpetrated by LSE students either verbal, physical or online are dealt with swiftly and effectively in conjunction with the School,
5. To work with the Pro-Director for Teaching and Learning and Deans to address Islamophobia and other forms of racism on campus and methods to alleviate it,
6. To ensure that this definition is used to promote and enhance legitimate debate regarding the morality and legitimacy of international conflicts and oppose illegitimate acts of Islamophobia on campus. Despite the preamble pretending to support free speech, the actual definition of Islamophobia - and the LSE Student Union's actions based on the cartoon - show that they are essentially outlawing "blasphemy." The difference between the two motions can be seen in a hypothetical case of the atheists writing an article attacking all religious belief, and giving specific examples of problematic issues in Jewish, Christian, Islamic and, say, Hindu beliefs. Only their statements about Islam would be censured by the LSE according to these motions. It is also fascinating that the "offensive" Jesus and Mo cartoon was attacked only for supposed "Islamophobia" but not for any anti-Christian content, even though the cartoon is even-handed in its barbs to both religions. Here is the most recent Jesus and Mo cartoon, relevant to this issue: (h/t AM) 
|
Ismail Haniyeh is planning another tour of the Muslim world hot on the heels of his last one earlier this month. In this one he is visiting Qatar, Iran and other countries not yet specified.
