Elder of Ziyon Daily News

---

• Khamanei's "anti-nuclear fatwa" is a myth
• Links by Ian
• Latest Latma
• Salafist insults Egyptian TV hostess as Jewish
• A stunning case of "eye-washing"
• Another fake BDS victory?
• "The occupation of Jerusalem" (Burak Bekdil, Hurriyet)
• Why peace is impossible, reason #3951 (plus proof ME "experts" are anything but)

Khamanei's "anti-nuclear fatwa" is a myth Posted: 20 Apr 2012 12:46 PM PDT Today, in Israel Hayom, Dore Gold said something quite interesting about the seemingly famous fatwa supposedly issued by Ayatollah Khamanei against nuclear weapons: When U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the talks that were held this week between the P5+1 (five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany) and Iran, she detailed how the idea for these negotiations was raised. She explained that she had heard a report from Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu about their visit with Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. According to the Turks, Khamenei told them that, under Islam, weapons of mass destruction are prohibited. Clinton suggested that the supreme leader's stance needed to be "operationalized" and explained: "We will be meeting with the Iranians to discuss how you translate what is a stated belief into a plan of action." However, the religious argument being used by the Iranians to prove that their nuclear program is not military in nature is nothing new. In fact, on Aug. 10, 2005, the Iranian government sent an official letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna stating that "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has issued the fatwa that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam." A fatwa is a written opinion on Islamic law, issued by a religious authority. In the years that followed, several Western governments, including Britain and France, made many repeated inquiries about Khamenei's nuclear fatwa. At the IAEA, Pierre Goldschmidt, the body's former deputy director-general, wanted to see if this fatwa even existed. At a conference of the International Institute for Strategic Studies on Feb. 4, 2012, he said that he had actually asked for a copy of the exact text of the nuclear fatwa in 2005 but the Iranians never presented anything in writing. It shouldn't be hard to track down a fatwa written by the Supreme Leader of Iran, should it? Well, it might be a tad difficult if the fatwa is fiction. And MEMRI is now stating definitively that there is no such fatwa: MEMRI's investigation reveals that no such fatwa ever existed or was ever issued or published, and that media reports about it are nothing more than a propaganda ruse on the part of the Iranian regime apparatuses – in an attempt to deceive top U.S. administration officials and the others mentioned above. What does exist are Iranian reports starting in 2005, on statements by an Iranian representative, Sirus Naseri, at a meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors on August 11, 2005 that Khamenei had issued such a fatwa (See Appendix II for documents.) After 2005, there are additional statements by senior regime representatives about the existence of the fatwa, for example on April 12, 2012 by Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi in an op-ed in the Washington Post on the eve of the talks. He wrote: "We have strongly marked our opposition to weapons of mass destruction on many occasions. Almost seven years ago, Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made a binding commitment. He issued a religious edict – a fatwa – forbidding the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons."[6] Also, the Iranian news agency Mehr reported on April 11, 2012, that Iranian judiciary head Ayatollah Sadeq Amoli Larijani had said: "The fatwa that the Supreme Leader has issued is the best guarantee that Iran will never seek to produce nuclear weapons." Mehr itself also noted in the same report that Khamenei had issued a fatwa banning the use of nuclear weapons: "Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has issued a fatwa declaring that the production, stockpiling, and use of nuclear weapons are all haram (prohibited in Islam)."[7] In contrast, a review published April 8, 2012 by Iran's official news agency IRNA giving in detail Supreme Leader Khamenei's past mentions of the ban on the use of nuclear weapons does not mention any fatwa by him.[8] This, even though in August 2005 IRNA had already reported that Iran's special representative to the IAEA Board of Directors had handed a report on Khamenei's alleged fatwa, and that this report – though not the fatwa itself – had been submitted to the IAEA board as an official Iranian document (see Appendix II). It should be noted that this August 2005 IRNA report on the fatwa was reported by other websites, such as mathaba.net[9] but that the original report in IRNA, at http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508104135124631.htm, can no longer be accessed (see Appendix III).[10] These reports were designed to, and apparently did, elevate Iran's status vis-à-vis the West, despite Iran's refusal to allow inspections of its nuclear sites. Iranian regime officials' presentation of statements on nuclear weapons attributed to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei as a fatwa, or religious edict, when no such fatwa existed or was issued by him, is a propaganda effort to propose to the West a religiously valid substitute for concrete guarantees of inspectors' access to Iran's nuclear facilities.  Khamanei has been quoted as saying that nuclear bombs are forbidden in speeches. But, as MEMRI points out, Since the West does not consider mere statements, by Khamenei or by other regime officials, to be credible, the Iranian regime has put forth a fraudulent fatwa that the West would be more inclined to trust. It is simply another lies on top of other lies meant to buy time for more nuclear weapons development. Exactly was it has been for years - lies to the EU, lies to the IAEA, lies to the US. Juan Cole, considered an "expert" on Iran. has stated many times that this fatwa exists. Is he willing to find it? He can really damage MEMRI's credibility if he digs it up. So, will he? Or will be admit he is wrong if he can't? Of course, the answer to both is "no." Honesty is not an attribute that is too important to some "experts" like Cole, and he considers it beneath himself to admit to being wrong. But the credibility of a lying academic is not nearly as important as the fact that we see here yet again that the Iranian regime is willing to lie to the West, and that nothing they say can be trusted.  Let's hope that Western diplomats finally learn that lesson. (h/t Challah Hu Akbar)

Links by Ian Posted: 20 Apr 2012 11:10 AM PDT I don't know why I haven't just been copying and pasting the linkdumps that a couple of my commenters have been creating.... Here are Ian's links for the day: The elephant of Jew hatred – Caroline Glick http://www.carolineglick.com/e... Michael Coren on Danish agitators in Israel  http://www.mrctv.org/videos/mi... Before Memorial Day: monuments were destroyed in the Jordan Valley (Hebrew) http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/26... Rockets fired at Eilat earlier this month 'were smuggled out of Libya' http://www.timesofisrael.com/r... In Gaza, Hamas rule has not turned out as many expected http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Occupy Facebook Page Touts Jew Hating Cartoon http://www.breitbart.com/Big-G... WWII referred to as the European Civil War: The EU cannot be serious? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/deb... Media Matters' Oliver Willis Wants Pro-Israel Liberals 'Marginalized' http://www.breitbart.com/Big-J... What must be said remains unspeakable by Nick Dyrenfurth "The declaration condemned the inconsistent ''crying out against the war of destruction being perpetrated by the Americans against the population of Vietnam and passing over in silence the far worse Holocaust being planned by the Arabs against Israel''. Signatories included the leading Marxist scholar Ernst Bloch and novelist Gunter Grass." http://www.theage.com.au/opini... Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Assange World-infamous advocate of free media, Julian Assange has jumped into bed with the Kremlin and aired his new Russia Today show, "The World Tomorrow". His debut guest? Hassan Nasrallah http://www.thecommentator.com/... U.S. Backs Israel on Stopping 'Flytilla' The United States defends Israel's actions " to stop the anti-Israel 'flytilla', says it acted "as a sovereign nation." http://www.israelnationalnews....

Latest Latma Posted: 20 Apr 2012 09:50 AM PDT

Salafist insults Egyptian TV hostess as Jewish Posted: 20 Apr 2012 08:37 AM PDT From Al Arabiya: Egyptian Islamist Gamal Saber, campaign manager for disqualified Salafist presidential candidate Sheikh Hazem Abu Ismail, was expelled from a television program after he told the show host that she was of "Jewish origin." Saber told Azza Mustafa, who hosts Studio al-Balad program at Sada al-Balad TV, that the reason of her popularity is that she is of Jewish origin. "You are a prominent media personality, and you are famous worldwide because you are talented and smart, and you moderate the dialogue very well…But there is another reason why you are so famous. Do you know what it is? I know that you know, but I will let the viewers know as well. [Our host] Azza is of Jewish origin! Here are the documents. You may have a look," Saber said on air last Wednesday. Show host Mustafa took the documents, looked at them and said, "Let me see this. This is a picture of [the show's co-host] Dina Ramez." "Whatever," the Salafist said. "No, you put a picture of Dina Ramez on this document," the show host said. "You have a problem with the Egyptian state. Maybe the elections committee allows you to talk about forgeries, but even if you apologize, I do not allow you to accuse me of being Jewish," she added. "I am very sorry, but you will have to leave. Even if you want to demonstrate how anyone can accuse anyone of anything, I'm asking you to leave because you made this comparison and told me I am Jewish," she added. She then asked Salafist Saber to "go home" and "solve your problem" over the suspension of Sheik Abu Ismail with the elections committee. "Don't come here saying: By the way, you are Jewish. I refuse to have you here," she said. "I am the one refusing to be here. You in the media are leading people astray," Saber replied. I think she would have been less insulted if he produced paperwork showing that she was a dog.

A stunning case of "eye-washing" Posted: 20 Apr 2012 07:25 AM PDT From Israel's MFA: When the seven-person crew from the Israeli volunteer organization Eye from Zion arrived in a remote region in Ethiopia in February to provide free cataract surgery, they were expecting several dozen patients. Instead, hordes of adults and children were waiting to receive the life-changing operation. And one young girl with a protruding eye was given a very special gift –– a medical trip to Israel. Using its proprietary mobile unit that encases the patient's head in a sterile environment, Eye from Zion has already performed the 20-minute procedure on thousands of people in Asian and African countries. This time, the organization was asked by the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs to pay a visit to northern Ethiopia because so many people there are blinded by cataracts. Confronted with the unexpected mass of people, Eye from Zion founder Nati Marcus decided he would send no one away if he thought they could be helped. "They told us 70, and when we arrived there were 1,400 waiting for us. We sent 400 away immediately because there was nothing we could do -- some even had no eyes. But we knew there were about 1,000 we could help." After an initial 170 operations in the regions of Debark and Gondar, plus training for a local nurse who had taken it upon herself to perform cataract operations, Marcus planned to return with another team of four eye doctors, a couple of nurses and a technician over the course of the year to finish the job for those on the waiting list. On March 17, a crew led by Prof. Dov Weinberger, head of ophthalmology at Rabin Medical Center, flew over with representatives from the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), which has on-the-ground staff in Ethiopia. "One thousand is an unbelievable number," Marcus says. "We worked from morning to night with a local doctor from Ethiopia who helped us in the mobile operating room." Marcus, a retired businessman, invented this unique surgical setup to overcome the problem of operating in remote locations. The contents of the unit were donated by Sheba Medical Center in Tel Hashomer after Marcus founded Eye from Zion four years ago in order to share Israeli medical expertise and training to people in developing areas. Supported by MASHAV, Israel's Agency for International Development Cooperation, the Foreign Ministry and volunteer medical personnel, as well as donations, Eye from Zion also enables doctors from around the world to network and share techniques that can advance medical treatment for improving sight in the developing world. Israel haters at this point are fuming. Since they know, a priori, that the Zionist entity is inherently evil, then it must follow that everything that every Israeli does is by definition a human rights violation. This must be, too. How can they prove it? But then a ray of light appears for them to grab onto: Marcus always hopes that people who benefit from the training and the treatment will go on to become goodwill ambassadors for Israel and the Jewish people. A-ha! You see - these doctors aren't spending months in remote areas, volunteering their time, helping thousands of people see, for purely altruistic reasons! Of course not! It's pure hasbara!  They are using purported good deeds to make Israel look good! They are asking their patients to show gratitude towards the occupying Zionist power! It's eye-washing! This ten-year old girl, who had a life-threatening tumor behind her eye removed by these volunteers and who is now in Israel to have follow-up surgery, is obviously nothing but a Hasbara pawn. She may be too young to know to refuse the tainted Zionist services, but what excuse do her parents have? (If Mondoweiss or any of the other anti-Israel idiots would deign to cover this story, you would see that what I am writing here is no exaggeration.)

Another fake BDS victory? Posted: 20 Apr 2012 06:10 AM PDT BDSers are crowing about their latest supposed victory: The European Coordination of Committees and Associations for Palestine (ECCP) is pleased to be able to mark Palestinian Prisoners Day by announcing that the European Union has declined to renew a contract with private security company G4S amidst concerns raised by MEPs and campaign groups about the role the company plays in equipping Israeli prisons in which Palestinian political prisoners are held in violation of international law. G4S has provided security services to the buildings of the European Parliament since 2008 but the contract award notice (service contract 118611-2012) published on the EU official tenders' website on April 13th shows that G4S hast lost its contract with the European Parliament. In March 2011, a group of 28 Members of the European Parliament, including 8 MEPs from Denmark and 6 from the UK wrote a letter to former EU Parliament President Jerzy Buzek, demanding that the Parliament dropped G4S as the principal security contractor if G4S continued to provide security services to illegal Israeli settlements, checkpoints and Israeli prisons at which Palestinians are detained. Their demands were a response to investigations conducted by the Danish NGO DanWatch and a report made by the Israeli research project "Who Profits" which revealed and documented G4S' implication in illegal activities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. With the assistance of lawyers, campaigners from ECCP member organisations also raised the issue with various EU officials, in cooperation with Jews for Justice for Palestinians, Merton Palestine Solidarity Campaign, Jews for Boycotting Israeli Goods and the Waltham Forest Palestine Solidarity Campaign. G4S held a meeting for MEPs and EU officials in an attempt to deflect the criticisms but failed to provide sufficient guarantees that it would abandon all of its illegal activities. "The non-renewal of this contract with a company that is deeply complicit with Israeli violations of international law is a vital step towards ensuring that Israel and corporations comply with basic legal standards" said ECCP chairperson Pierre Galand. "We also salute and thank those MEPs that we are pleased to have worked alongside on this effective campaign." OK, let's look up the service contract: B-Brussels: provision of general safety, fire safety, security accreditation and maintenance of radio systems and controls rounds on the site of the European Parliament in Brussels It shows that the contract was awarded to Securitas SA/NV. But bidding on the contract was announced in July 2011, only a couple of months after the original BDS letter. How likely is it that they decided to dump their old security firm in such a short timeframe? And in the original bid, we see that the duration of the contract is 60 months. Nothing about any automatic renewal or preferential treatment for existing suppliers. In other words, the G4S contract was already completed, with a date that could easily be determined - and the BDS crowd looked it up and decided to write a letter a few months prior to the bid that was already going to be placed out anyway! Not only that, but G4S was probably already under pressure for a different reason: an embarrassing incident in 2009 when a thief stole €50,000 from a bank in the Parliament building complex and got away. If G4S was asked not to bid - and we don't know that is the case- it was probably because of that. Almost certainly the EU bureaucratic behemoth has strict guidelines on ensuring a fair bidding procedure, and there is zero evidence that political considerations had anything to do with the changing of the security firm for that building. We don't know the details of the three bids that were offered. In all likelihood, Securitas simply won the contract based on its having the lowest bid, something that most governments enforce to minimize corruption in handing out contracts. The BDSers do not give a shred of proof that anything they did has anything to do with the change of preferred security providers. They don't name any of the MEPs that supposedly helped them. They don't quote any officials, they don't link to any speeches, they don't provide any documents. Nothing. It is notable that G4S also provides security services to many Arab nations: Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt and Morocco. If G4S was such a horrible Zionist company, then why can't the BDSers even get friendly Arab governments to drop them? Why don't they even try? The reason is probably because BDS is completely ineffective, and to make it appear like they make a difference they simply take credit every time a company associated however tenuously with Israel loses a contract for any reason.

"The occupation of Jerusalem" (Burak Bekdil, Hurriyet) Posted: 20 Apr 2012 04:54 AM PDT In the Hurriyet Daily News, in an op-ed that starts off criticizing Israel for its reaction to Günter Grass' poem, Burak Bekdil notes something very important: Hardly a day passes in the Islamic world (or in the western intellectual world) without people standing up against and decrying the occupation of "al-Quds" (otherwise known as Jerusalem). In this column I have often argued otherwise: A counter-occupation is no occupation. Now, dear Islamists, I have a "witness" whom I guess you could hardly refute. Forget my words and listen to what Turkey's top Muslim cleric, Professor Mehmet Görmez, had to say just last week: "After the Prophet Omar conquered al-Quds he was invited to pray at a church (since there were no mosques in Jerusalem). But he politely refused because he was worried that the (conquering) Muslims could turn the church into a mosque after he prayed there." Now, read that line once again, or a thousand times if you wish to: "After the Prophet Omar conquered al-Quds…" And think about why there were no mosques in Jerusalem at the time of the conquest. Still no clue? Allow me to explain: Because Jerusalem was not a Muslim city. And now you claim it back because it is under "Jewish occupation!" The refusal to pray at the church was very noble of the Prophet Omar. I personally do not expect you, dear Islamists, to behave as virtuously and gallantly as the prophet, but at least you can do something easier: Stop fighting for a city that belonged to other faiths before your ancestors conquered it. And please recall my witness when you flood my inbox with more hate-mail tomorrow. Or is Professor Görmez, too, an infidel like me? Notice that this shows that even Islamists know that there was no "farthest mosque" ("Al Aqsa") in Jerusalem when Mohammed had his flying horse dream. They just say that there was to justify their own occupation of the city. (h/t Simone)

Why peace is impossible, reason #3951 (plus proof ME "experts" are anything but) Posted: 20 Apr 2012 02:37 AM PDT Excerpts from The Forward's article about their interview with Hamas' Abu Marzouk: Any agreement reached between Israel and the Palestinian Authority will be subject to far-reaching changes if Hamas comes to power in a democratic Palestinian state, a top Hamas leader told the Forward in an exclusive and wide-ranging interview. Mousa Abu Marzook, considered Hamas's second-highest-ranking official, said that his group would view an agreement between Israel and the P.A. — even one ratified by a referendum of all Palestinians — as a hudna, or cease-fire, rather than as a peace treaty. In power, he said, Hamas would feel free to shift away from those provisions of the agreement that define it as a peace treaty and move instead toward a relationship of armed truce. "We will not recognize Israel as a state," he said emphatically. "It will be like the relationship between Lebanon and Israel or Syria and Israel." He also made clear that such an agreement must include the unqualified right of Palestinians to return to land in what is now Israel. Abu Marzook was at pains to knock down suggestions in numerous media outlets that Hamas is preparing to abandon armed resistance against Israel in favor of mass popular resistance against Israeli rule. A February 6 article by Time magazine correspondent Karl Vick about the "mainstreaming" of Hamas was one object of his disdain. In it, Vick played up comments by Meshal, who, at a November reconciliation meeting with Fatah leaders, praised the popular protests of the Arab Spring last year in Egypt and Tunisia as packing "the power of a tsunami." "The new government emerging in Cairo may be dominated by Islamists," Vick wrote hopefully, "but it has pushed both sides to make up and adopt the nonviolent strategy against Israel, complete with negotiations." For Abu Marzook, the November meeting in Cairo meant something "completely different." At the meeting, he said, the groups involved asked, "What kind of [activities] between us we can share together?" And mass civil resistance, it was decided, was one in which all could participate. "We accept that," he said. "[It] can now make reconciliation easier." But giving up both the right and the opportunity to conduct military operations? "It doesn't mean that," Abu Marzook stated flatly. Indeed, a careful look at the original Agence France Presse report from which Vick drew Meshal's comments reveals some important remarks the Time correspondent left out. "Now we have a common ground that we can work on," Meshal said then. But he added, "As long as there is an occupation on our land, we have the right to defend our land by all means, including military resistance." In a long exchange about terrorism, the Hamas leader resolutely defended his organization's past acts of violence targeting civilians. As for the Protocols, "The Zionists wrote it, and they said, 'No, we didn't.' [It's] linked to Zionists," he said. Informed that the document was, in fact, a forgery, Abu Marzook appeared nonplussed. "Really? This is the first time I know [about this]," he said. So any peace agreement that Israel might manage to hammer out with the PA would be torn up after any elections that bring Hamas to power - like the last ones. Making any already illusory potential agreement meaningless. Astonishingly, the Forward takes pains to quote "experts" throughout the article who see these very words by a Hamas leader and try to spin them as if they are peaceful, the exact way that Karl Vick did and Marzouk proved wrong: Quite apart from the content of Abu Marzook's remarks, several veteran observers of the hard-line Islamist group viewed the fact that the interview took place as a larger signal of change now roiling the organization. "I think the mere fact of his speaking to you, independent of what he said, is almost more important than the specifics," said Shlomi Eldar, who has reported on Hamas from Gaza for Israel TV's Channel 10 and other media outlets since 1991. "Even granting such an interview is far away from what he thought two or three years ago…. What [Abu Marzook] really wants is for Jewish Americans to convince the Israelis that Hamas is not like an animal." Gershon Baskin, an Israeli peace activist who has acted as a liaison between Hamas and senior Israeli government officials, including in the process that finally freed Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, termed the interview an "historic landmark." "The amount of time he gave you is amazing," Baskin said. Why is this fundamentally different than Hamas writing op-eds for the New York Times, something they have done a number of times? All it means is that they are learning how to spin the media better - and how to spin these "experts"who substitute wishful thinking for actually listening to what is being said, explicitly. The idea that people can find the fact that an interview occurred to be more relevant than the actual words spoken is stunning. And it shows that Hamas' new-found media savviness works to its advantage, because so many will disregard their hardline positions and instead find some fake symbolic peacefulness. Hamas doesn't even have to lie to get Westerners to fall all over themselves to praise the murderous thugs; they just have to act vaguely Western. One other "expert" is also shown to be clueless about Hamas: At some points, Abu Marzook seemed to claim that the Hamas leaders who publicly celebrated such killings — who have included Meshal himself — were not speaking for the organization, or that Hamas had not itself directed and planned the actions or, at least, had not planned them as civilian hits. "There's no one speaker [within] the resistance," he said. "Everybody talks about their actions, and you can make what you want of those speakers. They make it as [if this is] the policy of the resistance. And this is not right. Our policy is… against targeting any civilian." On those occasions when civilians die in such actions, "there is no planning" for this, he claimed, "because it's very difficult to make something like this to be perfect…. When you killed his brother or his [fellow Palestinian] civilians, he wants to retaliate. It's very difficult to say anything bad to him." Mouin Rabbani, a Jordan-based Middle East contributing editor to Middle East Report who follows Hamas closely, expressed surprise at such distancing remarks. "I'm surprised he didn't repeat their traditional justifications," he said. In the past, Rabbani said, Hamas had expressed interest in reaching an understanding with Israel whereby each side would undertake to avoid hitting civilians or civilian infrastructure targets. "In the past, among other arguments, they've justified their actions by claiming every Israeli is a soldier. It's very uncommon for them to basically disavow these actions." No, it's not. During Cast Lead they claimed that they were not targeting civilians with their rockets, and their response to the Goldstone Report said the same. I have traced the first time Hamas made the claim that they don't target children back to 2008 and I explain exactly what prompted them to make that claim. Besides proving that peace is impossible, this Forward article also proves that many so-called experts on the Middle East are clueless about basic facts.

You are subscribed to email updates from Elder of Ziyon To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610