Tuesday, April 8, 2014






The latest revelation about the Holocaust stuns even the scholars who thought they already knew everything about the horrific details of Germany's program of genocide against the Jewish people.

It's taken more than 70 years to finally know the full facts. And what is almost beyond belief is that what really happened goes far beyond what anyone could ever have imagined.

For the longest time we have spoken of the tragedy of 6 million Jews. It was a number that represented the closest approximation we could come to the victims of Hitler's plan for a Final Solution. Those who sought to diminish the tragedy claimed 6 million was a gross exaggeration. Others went further and denied the historicity of the Holocaust itself, absurdly claiming the Jews fabricated their extermination to gain sympathy for the Zionist cause.
But now we know the truth.

The reality was much worse than whatever we imagined.
holocaustbodies.jpg
Rows of bodies fill the yard of the Boelcke-Kaserne (Boelcke Barr acks) located in the south-east of the town of Nordhausen. The barracks was a subcamp of the en:Mittelbau-Dora Nazi concentration camp.
Wikipedia

The unspeakable crime of the 20th century, more than the triumph of evil, was the sin of the "innocent" bystander.

It wasn't just the huge killing centers whose very names - Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Majdanek, Belzec, Ravensbruck, Sobibar, Treblinka - bring to mind the ghastly images by now so familiar to us. It wasn't just the Warsaw ghetto. It wasn't just the famous sites we've all by now heard of that deservedly live on in everlasting infamy.

Researchers at United States Holocaust Memorial Museum have just released documentation that astounds even the most informed scholars steeped in the previously known statistics of German atrocities. Here is some of what has now been conclusively discovered:

There were more than 42,500 Nazi ghettos and camps throughout Europe from 1933 to 1945.

There were 30,000 slave labor camps; 1,150 Jewish ghettos; 980 concentration camps; 1000 prisoner of war camps; 500 brothels filled with sex slaves; and thousands of other camps used for euthanizing the elderly and infirm, performing forced abortions, "Germanizing" prisoners or transporting victims to killing centers.

The best estimate using current information available is 15 to 20 million people who died or were imprisoned in sites controlled by the Germans throughout the European continent.

Simply put, in the words of Hartmut Berghoff, Director of the German Historical Institute in Washington, "The numbers are so much higher than what we originally thought; we knew before how horrible life in the camps and ghettos was, but the actual numbers are unbelievable."

And what makes this revelation so important is that it forces us to acknowledge a crucial truth about the Holocaust that many people have tried to ignore or to minimize - a truth that has profound contemporary significance: The unspeakable crime of the 20th century, more than the triumph of evil, was the sin of the "innocent" bystander.

For years our efforts to understand the Holocaust focused on the perpetrators. We looked for explanations for the madness of Mengele, the obsessive hatred of Hitler, the impassive cruelty of Eichmann. We sought answers to how it was possible for the criminal elements, the sadists and the mentally unbalanced to achieve the kind of power that made the mass killings feasible.

That was because we had no idea of the real extent of the horror. With more than 42,000 ghettos and concentration camps scattered throughout the length and breadth of a supposedly civilized continent, there's no longer any way to avoid the obvious conclusion. The cultured, the educated, the enlightened, the liberal, the refined, the sophisticated, the urbane - all of them share in the shame of a world that lost its moral compass and willingly acceded to the victory of evil.

"We had no idea what was happening" needs to be clearly identified as "the great lie" of the years of Nazi power. The harsh truth is that almost everyone had to know. The numbers negate the possibility for collective ignorance. And still the killings did not stop, the torture did not cease, the concentration camps were not closed, the crematoria continued their barbaric task.

The "decent" people were somehow able to rationalize their silence.

Just last year Mary Fulbrook, a distinguished scholar of German history, in "A Small Town Near Auschwitz "wrote a richly and painfully detailed examination of those Germans who, after the war, successfully cast themselves in the role of innocent bystanders.

"These people have almost entirely escaped the familiar net of 'perpetrators, victims and bystanders'; yet they were functionally crucial to the eventual possibility of implementing policies of mass murder. They may not have intended or wanted to contribute to this outcome; but, without their attitudes, mentalities, and actions, it would have been virtually impossible for murder on this scale to have taken place in the way that it did. The concepts of perpetrator and bystander need to be amended, expanded, rendered more complex, as our attention and focus shifts to those involved in upholding an ultimately murderous system."

Mary Fulbrook singled out for censure those who lived near Auschwitz. But that was before we learned that Auschwitz was replicated many thousands of times over throughout the continent in ways that could not have gone unnoticed by major parts of the populace. Millions of people were witnesses to small towns like Auschwitz in their own backyards.

And so Elie Wiesel of course was right. The insight that most powerfully needs to be grasped when we reflect upon the Holocaust's message must be that, "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it's indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it's indifference."

That remains our greatest challenge today. If we dare to hope for the survival of civilization we had better pray that the pessimists are wrong when they claim that the only thing we learn from history is that mankind never learns from history.

by Rabbi Benjamin Blech via aish.com



Monday, April 7, 2014




Respond Firmly to Palestinian Blackmail
By Prof. Efraim Inbar April 6, 2014


BESA Center Perspectives Paper No. 241
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In response to the latest Palestinian attempt to squeeze Israel, Israel’s government should kick the habit of paying the Palestinians for their participation in peace talks. Instead, Jerusalem should remind the Palestinians, through tough countermeasures, that Israel is the stronger party and can inflict much greater pain on the Palestinians than the Palestinian Authroity can inflict upon Israel. The Palestinians need to internalize the lesson that adhering to maximalist political goals is counterproductive.
Last week, Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas blew off the US-brokered peace talks with Israel and slapped Washington in the face by re-launching a diplomatic war against Israel through international institutions.
Several lessons should be drawn from this turn of events. First, the breakdown of the talks is a reminder of the stubborn reality that so many prefer to ignore:  The gap in the positions of the two sides is too large to bridge even by a creative diplomacy backed by a superpower. Both Israel and the Palestinians still possess tremendous energy to fight for things that are important to them. Peace and coexistence are not the most important goals of the two warring societies.
Therefore, the conclusion to be drawn from this is that attempts to broker conflict resolution between the parties needs to be replaced by a more realistic approach of conflict management. The good intentions of the international community should be directed towards attaining partial understandings and minimizing the suffering on both sides, rather than pursuing an elusive end to the conflict.
At the same time, Israel should seriously rethink the wisdom of continuing to go along with the preferences of the international community – implementation of the two-state paradigm – when evidence mounts that this paradigm is not workable. The attempt to impose a statist rationale on the Palestinian national movement in the hope that a proto-statist structure, such as the Palestinian Authority, would behave like Jordan or Egypt, has failed.
The opposite is true. The PA has failed to meet the main test of statehood – monopoly over use of force. It lost control over all its territory to Hamas rule in Gaza, where radical terrorists are hardly building a friendly state. Furthermore, the PA has developed into a dictatorial and corrupt political entity, hardly deserving the aid of enlightened states. More importantly, it is educating its children to hate Jews, with suicide bombers the role model for Palestinian youth. Thus, the chances of the PA developing into a responsible and peaceful state are slim.
In fact, a huge majority of Israelis fully understand that the current Palestinian leaderships in the West Bank, and obviously in Gaza too, are not real partners for peace.
Under such circumstances, Israel’s interest in making concessions to the Palestinians just to maintain their participation in useless talks – is questionable. After all, the Palestinians need Israel more than vice versa.  Abbas is still ruling primarily due to the efforts of Israeli forces in ridding the West Bank of Hamas and jihadist elements that are trying to take over the PA. Moreover, without its economic umbilical cord to Israel, the PA is not viable.
Therefore, Israeli concessions and gestures to keep the Palestinians talking without any Palestinian quid pro quo make little sense. Releasing convicted terrorists, in particular, is counterproductive. It undermines Israel’s deterrence and justice system; it puts back on the streets individuals intent on harming Israelis; and it radicalizes Palestinian society that welcomes them as national heroes.
Furthermore, since 1993 the Palestinians have shown zero diplomatic flexibility, refusing to budge from their maximalist demands. They still insist on a division of Jerusalem, they reject key Israeli security requirements, and they refuse to acknowledge Jewish national rights and commit to an end to the conflict.
Unilateral measures and threats should be answered in kind. After all, Israel is the stronger party and can inflict much greater pain on the Palestinians than the PA can inflict upon Israel. Perhaps the PA needs to be reminded of this. Raw power politics is what everybody understands in the Middle East. In this region, fear is a better political currency than compassion and fairness.
The Palestinian threats to challenge Israel at the UN and in international organizations are empty. Nothing can change the reality on the ground without the acquiescence of Israel. For example, the acceptance of Palestine by UNESCO did not change the lives of the Palestinians one iota. Israel should also stop fearing Palestinian accusations at the International Criminal Court. Regular concessions to the Palestinians for not taking this course of action expose Israel to continuous blackmail. It is time to call the Palestinian’s bluff and make the PA face the consequences.
Hopefully, Israel’s government will kick the habit of paying the Palestinians for their participation in sham peace talks. Rather it is high time to remind the Palestinians that decisions in Jerusalem, to a large extent, determine their fate, and that only real negotiations and compromise with Israel can give them the state they desire.
Prof. Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, is a professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan University, and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Sunday, April 6, 2014


Palestinians will Face 'Tsunami' of Legal Charges at Hague

Legal NGO chief vows to hit Hamas and Fatah with charges of terrorism once Palestinians join the International Criminal Court.
AA
By Gil Ronen 4-6-14

Nitzana Darshan-Leitner
Nitzana Darshan-Leitner
PR photo
Shurat Hadin, a non-governmental organization that operates against Palestinian terrorists through the courts, said it would lodge 'a tsunami' of criminal complaints against senior Palestinians with the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is based in The Hague.
Following the signing of 15 international treaties by the Palestinian Authority (PA) in order to be accepted into UN organizations, and the PA's ongoing threat to join the ICC, Shurat Hadin has begin preparing charges against senior PA officials for involvement in terror attacks.
In the documents to be filed to the ICC, Shurat Hadin's lawyers will claim that the senior officials, including people from Hamas and Fatah, bear direct responsibility for terror strikes against Israel, which they abetted and encouraged.
In April of 2013, Shurat Hadin launched a campaign for collecting the names and details of hundreds of Israeli terror victims who could serve as complainants in the internationalcourts. The group is now using that information to prepare the charges against the Palestinian officials.
Ever since the PA was accorded observer-state status in the UN last year, Palestinian leaders have been threatening Israel with the possibility that they will ask to be members of the ICC, in order to be able to file charges of war crimes agsint Israeli military officers and soldiers, as well as political leaders. They claim that the Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria are illegal and constitute a breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Shurat Hadin notes, however, that once an entity joins the ICC, that court's powers can also be turned against it. Just as thePalestinians will be able to file charges against Israel, Israelis and non-Israelis who fell victim to Palestinian terror will be able to file charges against leaders of Hamas and Fatah.
Shurat Hadin says that the Palestinian leaders in Gaza, Judea and Samaria may well face “a tsunami of criminal complaints” regarding war crimes.
“Luckily, we knew what was coming, and over the past year we have been collecting testimony from terror victims in Israel, to serve as a basis for charges in the ICC,” said Shurat Hadin Chairperson, Attorney Nitzana Darshan-Leitner. “It was clear to us that besides launching a third intifada of violent terror, thePalestinians' only real option was turning to the ICC against Israel.”
"We believe that these proposed charges are the only means of deterring the Palestinians who are in a hurry to join the ICC,” said the NGO. “At this stage, only non-governmental organizations like Shurat Hadin can take action againt senior PA officials in the ICC.”

Friday, April 4, 2014


BREAKING THE SILENCE?’ I WAS SILENCED.
Hen Mazzig 4-4-14

On March 31, I attended a disturbing lecture at Washington University in St. Louis. It was co-sponsored by St. Louis Hillel at Washington University and J Street U. The speaker, a former Israeli soldier with the group “Breaking the Silence” (BtS), misrepresented and demonized the Israel Defense Forces, Israel, and Israeli policy. BtS is known for bringing in speakers like this, so I could not understand why Hillel and J Street U had sponsored a talk whose only purpose appeared to be to misinform audiences and instill hostility towards Israel.
As an Israeli reservist who had been stationed in the West Bank, I sat in disbelief as the speaker described attitudes and policies that were entirely divorced from reality.
The former soldier, Oded Na’aman, claimed that Israeli soldiers are trained to oppress the Palestinians individually and as a people, that they maliciously mistreat Palestinians in the West Bank, and that they are taught to make Palestinians fear Israeli soldiers. He argued that there are no civil rights for Palestinians and that the Jewish people who now have a state use their power to oppress Palestinians.
I had no idea what he was talking about or what motivated him to lie.
He did not describe the Israel or IDF that I know so intimately.
As a reservist and a soldier, I had been stationed in the West Bank. My job was to protect the Palestinians’ human rights, coordinate humanitarian aid, and tend to the needs of civilians living in the West Bank. I always felt that Israel’s concern for the welfare of the Palestinians was impressive, and I was proud to be part of it.
My experience taught me that even during wartime, Israel made it a priority to meet the needs of Palestinians even though they had made themselves enemies of the State of Israel by launching the second intifada.
I recall that during my service in Hebron, I had to adhere to international humanitarian law and ensure that the soldiers in the Judea Brigade were educated about the Geneva Convention and the rules of engagement—or face punishment. We sometimes went beyond these strict rules to help Palestinians. Once, when I served in my unit’s headquarters, we arranged a complex operation so that my unit, with the help of another unit, could save the life of a Palestinian boy living in Gaza whose mother had died. We did some investigating, and discovered that his uncle lived in Ramallah. In a special operation in the middle of the night, we moved the child to his uncle so that he would not be left alone in the streets of the Gaza Strip.
It was torture for me to sit there quietly and listen to the distortions of this former soldier who had served during the most violent period of the second intifada (2000-2003), when suicide bombers and snipers were wantonly murdering Israeli men, women, and children. But he never described the terrorism that forced the IDF to take measures to protect our families.
If he has complaints about the IDF, he should be an activist in Israel. Soldiers don’t always do the right thing or live up to the IDF code. They should be disciplined. Israel’s policies can be debated. But Israel is constantly examining itself critically, and debates in Israel are energetic and promote the full variety of views. Why, then, would he come to the U.S. to complain about his own army?
I think I know why. It’s because there are groups who are parading him around to tell half-truths and lies to defame Israel. When he was asked that very question during the question-and-answer period, he said, “I came here to tell Americans what their tax money is funding.” He said that attacking Israel with F16s is not the right answer, but that Israel needs to be pressured. I wondered what kind of twisted thinking would make a person who lives in a vibrant democracy, where he can campaign for his political positions, instead ask outside forces to pressure his country? What motivated him? Is he a post-nationalist who doesn’t want Israel to exist at all?









Yoram Ettinger, the former Israeli Ambassador for U.S. Congressional Affairs, on Thursday had harsh words for U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who he said has ignored the lessons of history in favor of “wishful thinking.”
Hitting at the heart of Israel’s relationship with the U.S., and informed by his years as Israel’s Consul General in Houston, Texas, Ettinger toldThe Algemeiner in an interview that Kerry’s refusal to acknowledge the historical facts and realities of the Middle East left America’s top diplomat “smothered in a Middle East sandstorm.”
Ettinger said the Obama administration’s “Palestine Firster” mentality was what doomed the nine months of peace talks that collapsed this week between the internationally recognized Jewish state and a group Ettinger insists still be referred to as the PLO, with all of the connotations those initials recall of its long terrorist roots, and showing how far the world is from in its “mistaken conventional wisdom” of a ‘Palestinian Authority’ prepared to govern responsibly beside Israel.
He pointed to the common misunderstanding of the role of the United Nations, wherePalestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has already launched his next battle, but Ettinger was confident that the powerful, though under-appreciated, role of the U.S. Congress in foreign affairs would allow Israel’s position to prevail.
“The ‘Palestine Firsters’ are those who believe that this is the center of everything,” Ettinger told The Algemeiner. “It’s part of an overall worldview – these are the same people who also believe that the UN is the quarterback of international relations. The UN assumes that the Palestinian issue is the center, so if the quarterback is telling you that the entire game plan has to be based on the Palestinian issue, you go with the quarterback.”
“They genuinely believe an Israeli concession — the establishment of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria — is going to do the trick, and thereby they ignore the roughly 100 years of conflict that sends a very clear message to the contrary.”
“In the 1920s and 1930s and 1940s, during the pogroms of those years, there was no independent Jewish state. There was no ‘Israeli occupation’, but still there was a war on the Jewish communities in the land of Israel,” he said. “Until 1967, Israel was not in Judea and Samaria, or Gaza.”
That begs the question: If history shows that war predated the “occupation,” how could the “occupation” be the cause of the war?
“And the same thing with the ‘settlements,’” Ettinger said.
“The lesson is very clear. The Palestinian war on Israel is not due to Israel’s policy or Israel’s size. It has to do with the existence of the Jewish state, which leads to the most fundamental misperception and error here.”
Rather than looking toward history or understanding how religion impacts decision making in the Middle East, because those concepts are too complicated to paint a simple picture, Ettinger said the U.S. sees every question through the lens of secular nationalism that can be swayed with the capitalist’s carrot of throwing money at the problem. In this case, Kerry offered $4 billion of aid to the PA to reach a deal.
If it were about money, the oil producing Arab states could come up with even more, he said; “that’s petty cash for them.”
The other tack the U.S. took in the peace talks was to insist on “Palestinian human rights,” with the notion of any group of people being able to choose their destiny through free, frequent and fair elections. But in that case, asked Ettinger, how could Kerry invite Abbas to the table, when he was elected for a four-year term, 10 years ago? Rather than nine months of fruitless negotiations, wouldn’t Kerry’s time have been better spent pursuing “Palestinian human rights” by demanding those people, too, have the chance to choose their destiny through a democratic election?
In Ettinger’s view, rather than face any of the underlying issues, the U.S. approach was to focus on multi-lateral and multi-national ways of solving problems, ultimately accepting the world view of the UN, where Israel’s enemies imagine that the Jewish state is the world’s leading tyranny against human rights.
“You have a world view of [U.S. President Barack] Obama — John Kerry’s is basically Obama’s, Obama calls the shots,” he said. “They are determined to subordinate reality to that world view, irrespective of the fact that the world view has nothing to do with the reality, and that’s typical of John Kerry’s speech, which is replete with the word ‘imagine.’”
“‘Imagine what would happen if?’ And ‘imagine’, and ‘imagine’, and ‘imagine’, and ‘imagine’…”
“And you wonder, why is the supposed architect of foreign policy dealing with imagination rather than reality?
“He is assuming you can coerce reality to be subordinated to wishful thinking, to whims.”
“Again, it goes back to John Kerry,” he said. “This is the same John Kerry, together with [Defense Secretary] Chuck Hagel and [former Secretary of State] Hilary Clinton, who belonged to a very small club in the U.S. Senate which referred to [Syrian President] Bashar al Assad as a ‘constructive’, ‘reformist’, ‘potentially peaceful’ leader of Syria, this is before the civil war in Syria that has claimed 150,000 Syrian lives.”
“By the way, John Kerry had the same attitude toward Hafez al Assad, also, proclaimed him to be a ‘constructive leader’, and therefore one should not be surprised that he focuses on the wrong items when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.”
When the U.S. declines to act against Syria for completely abrogating the human rights of Syrians, even after two generations of brutal dictatorships, Ettinger wanted to know why Kerry “imagines” that what’s happening in Israel is somehow more urgent than the hundreds of thousands of Arabs dying in various levels of civil war across the Middle East.
As he thought of the appropriate analogy to express his exasperation with the U.S. Secretary of State, Ettinger, dressed in a suit and black snakeskin cowboy boots, admitted his fondness for Texans and their sensibilities.
“I spent years in Texas, as an undergraduate and then as Consul General, and I now visit Texas sometimes four times a year, and there is a Texan colloquialism: When you drive in West Texas, and you’re smothered by a lethal West Texas sandstorm, don’t be pre-occupied by the tumbleweeds on the road.”
“So, here is John Kerry, driving in the Middle East, and he’s smothered by a Libyan sandstorm, by a Tunisian sandstorm, by an Egyptian sandstorm, by a Syrian sandstorm, a Yemenite sandstorm, an Iranian sandstorm, and an Islamic terrorist sandstorm, and what is he doing?”
“Focusing on the Palestinian tumbleweed on the road, which could face him with a very, very lethal fate. Because when you don’t focus on the sandstorm, you may be thrown off the road. And, unfortunately, this is exactly what John Kerry is doing right now in the Middle East.”
“This is Kerry’s 12th or the 13th visit to Ramallah and Jerusalem,” Ettinger said, throwing up his hands, baffled.
Rather than focus on the external forces that Israel cannot change, Ettinger’s approach is to focus on the areas where Israel, and Israelis, can make a difference, constructively, and independently of the “whims” of the world powers.
Retired from the foreign ministry for two decades, Ettinger, a former journalist, publisher and communications expert, now runs a foundation, ‘Second Thought,’ which provides lectures and material to help re-write myths about the Middle East with fresh thinking, aiming to replace the “conventional wisdom” with knowledge based on fact and history. There are two areas, specifically, where his expertise is adding tremendous value to the debate.
The first, which is the topic of his current lecture tour at Jewish organizations across the U.S. this month, isthe truth behind the so-called demographic threat. Using real Israeli census data, rather than just conventional wisdom, Ettinger debunks the “myth” that Jews could become a minority within Israel.
In fact, Ettinger’s research contends that not only do the real numbers show the opposite is happening, but that all the anecdotes used to support the “conventional wisdom” are also wrong. In his presentation, Ettinger says that those “Yuppy Jews” in secular Tel Aviv now, and for more than a decade, have taken on their patriotic duty to bear more children than ever before. Meanwhile, the supposedly sky high Arab birth rate has fallen far behind, as young Arabs grapple with the common woes of entering the middle class, not bearing children.
His hard numbers (see below) have made many Israel supporters “sleep easy,” as one said, Ettinger recites many anecdotes of his own personal meetings with young Arabs he “interviews” in gas stations and cafes as he travels around Israel. Members of his audience at a presentation this week were surprised to learn that rather than spurning formal education, many live in towns with near-full high school participation, attend community colleges (mostly, the men) and universities (usually, the women, the better students in the Arab world) and how they repeat the tropes familiar in today’s America, where “maybe one child, maybe two, but definitely after my education, after I get a good job, buy a house, much later in life,” Ettinger said he is told frequently by Arabs today.
Ettinger’s other specialty is interpreting U.S. policy towards Israel. Rather than exclusively believing that what’s being said by the Executive Branch will come to pass in the Middle East, and in light of his experience on Capitol Hill, where he returns on each trip to stay current with the contacts he built when stationed at the Israeli Embassy as an Ambassador whose portfolio was, simply, all of Congress. In some ways, Ettinger’s role was to be a one-man Israel lobby.
It is with a great understanding of how the U.S. Congress functions that he feels the “PLO’s” fallback position of haranguing the UN into validating its claims against Israel will certainly backfire.
“There are some people who assume that the PLO could be granted a ‘state’ status by the UN and the international organizations would then be much more vindictive towards Israel,” Ettinger said. “This is because the vast, vast, vast majority of people, policy makers, definitely in Israel, but also in the U.S., are not familiar with the power of the U.S. Congress to set the agenda here.”
“Namely, while the President or the Secretary of State may want to punish Israel to facilitate the emergence of the Palestinian state, this is not the position of the overwhelming majority on Capitol Hill. And, I am certain that if the legislators would be approached by constituents with their requests to deny the Palestinians adequate support, and to exercise the veto at the UN Security Council, the U.S. can do it.”
“The American President cannot ignore Congress,” Ettinger said. “Congress usually is reluctant to get involved in foreign policy and national security decisions unless it’s a consensus issue, unless it’s a common denominator issue, unless it’s an issue which benefits from the support of vast majority of the population,” he said. In other words, Congress’s support of Israel is strong. In fact, all but one member of Congress voted to enhance the U.S.-Israel relationship, not work to minimize or destroy it.
“It’s time, I believe, for Israel and its supporters to realize that Congress is not a backseat driver when it comes to foreign or national security policy,” he said.
“Congress can defund foreign aid to the PLO; Congress can suspend foreign aid; Congress can suspend appropriations to the international organizations and UN agencies and that would make it extremely difficult and impossible to reward the PLO,” he said. “Because my assumption is that UN agencies and international organizations would not want to ‘cut their nose to spite their face’ knowing that once they support the PLO they’re going to be denied U.S. financial support which is the biggest chunk of their budget.”
Like his work to debunk conventional wisdom of the “demographic time-bomb,” Ettinger “absolutely” sees a UN gambit as another “false threat.”
But he also points to the power of the “false threat” as a weakness within Israel, and shared by Jews worldwide, who focus on so many “negative myths,” because it is that negativity, rather than the positivity of individual action, that limits the Jewish community’s collective strength. Just as Tel Aviv yuppies can “unilaterally” decide to have more children, as they have done, it is incumbent upon each Jew to “unilaterally” choose to do that which he can, on his own, to help the Jewish state when others speak against Israel, he said.
As Ettinger said to one eager questioner at another Manhattan event this week, “Never mind the mistake of waiting for great powers to come to our rescue, never mind what others could do, what can you do? You, yourself? How can you, on your own, contribute here? Only when each Jew does what is in his power will the Jewish people move forward,” he exhorted to a crowd unaccustomed to such direct calls for personal action.
Ettinger’s endorsement of individualism, personal responsibility, and an independent spirit draw inspiration from his time in Texas.
He said the story of Israel in the Middle East is shared by walking a mile in a Texan’s boots:
“When I served in Texas, I used to walk with a ‘Texas’ pin in my lapel. And, many times, Texas ranchers or independent oilmen, who I met, asked me very bluntly: ‘Mr. Ettinger, is there anything in common between us? Why are we meeting at all?’”
“And I said, well, here it is,” as he grabbed at his lapel pin, today the AIPAC-style Israel and American flag pin.
“‘What do you mean?” his potential contact would ask him. “This is our Texas flag.”
“I said, absolutely. You are the Lone Star State and I come from the State of the Lone Star of David.”
“And both of us are Lone Stars. I said, you’re lucky that your neighbors — New Mexico, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana — they maybe hate you, they’re envious of you, and they maybe even despise you. In our case, our neighbors want to kill us. But both of us have problems with our neighbors. Both of us have to defy the jagged, cutting edge of nature, and that has made both of us very tenacious people.”
He said, “In most cases, people were turned around completely in a positive manner, for the first time realizing that, in many respects, Israel is the Texas of the Middle East.”
But to extend the analogy, what about the people on the other side of that thousand-mile security fence that protects that border, too? What does Israel share with Texas and its relations with the Mexicans?
Ettinger said, “Those who cross from Mexico, in the vast, vast, vast majority, they want to be integrated into America, they accept the American values. Those across the border from Arab countries want to do away with Israel, to terrorize Israel, there is a big difference here.”
He had another Texan analogy he said he wanted to share with the world powers:
“When Americans, Europeans, urge us to sign an agreement, and through that agreement, to concede, and retreat, and appease,” Ettinger began,”the Texans would tell you, don’t kiss a chicken until it grows lips.”
“At this stage, the Arab chickens in the Middle East have not grown lips yet. As long as they don’t have lips, we should be vigilant, we should be on guard, and we should refrain from kissing them.”
“Once they grow lips, this hawk will gladly and enthusiastically become a dove,” former Israeli Ambassador Yoram Ettinger told The Algemeiner on Thursday.

yoram.png
Former Israeli Ambassador Yoram Ettinger's Comparative Analysis of Birth Rates in Israel.

Thursday, April 3, 2014


TESTIMONY REGARDING JONATHAN POLLARD  2014




I have had no connection ever with Jonathan Pollard or with his prosecution. I was not a close follower of the case in the media. My original reaction was “he is a traitor, lock him up and throw away the key.” Also, I was extremely  upset at Israel for utilizing a Jewish agent which gives the anti-Semites in State, CIA, etc. (who are plentiful) the ability to voice the mantra of “dual loyalty”.  ( Internet examples:Zionist Spies Against America ;Rense    Ukrainian Revisionism ; Jewish spies against America: a long tradition; Pentagon: We thought engineer was Israeli spy because he's a Jew;  Israeli Spying: The Mother of all Scandals }
After 25 years, the CIA has declassified documents that show that the  multitude of  public" leaks" and Weinberger's accusations against Pollard were all   false----Jonathan Pollard never spied on the U.S. for Israel" . The 1987 CIA report  reveals that Israel never requested information from Pollard concerning “US military activities, plans, capabilities or equipment.” and that Pollard did not procure secrets about the United States. . Pollard did not compromise agents. He did not compromise means and sources .  He did not compromise any information relating to US  forces.  All the information he transmitted  to his Israeli handlers consisted of the information that the United States had acquired relating to Arab equipment, capabilities, etc.
 IN OTHER WORDS, VERY SIMPLY, HE COMPROMISED “DEFENSE INFORMATION” BUT DID NOT SPY AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.
 U.S. Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger (long regarded most of us who worked with him as antagonistic toward the Jewish state),intimidated to the court that Pollard gave information to the Soviets.  The assumption was  that "means and sources "information was being transmitted to the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union fell we found out that our assumptions that the Soviet Union had penetrated Israeli intelligence and that US intelligence going to Israel was in fact ending up in the Soviet Union were FALSE.--Later, we came to learn that this was the doing of Robert Hanssen and Aldrich Ames.} 

What was Pollard  actually indicted for? What was he actually guilty of?…..In a recent article appearing on-line Prof. Angelo Codevilla, a staff member of the Senate Intelligence Committee at the time Jonathan Pollard was arrested is quoted:“Having been intimately acquainted with the materials that Pollard passed and with the sources and methods by which they were gathered, I would be willing to give expert testimony that Pollard is guilty of neither more nor less than what the indictment alleges. 

The actions of the prosecution were criminal  and are a threat to the foundations of America's criminal justice system.
     *Judge Aubrey Eugene Robinson Jr.  illegally conducted back channel communications with the prosecution who inflamed Judge Robinson by telling him (falsely) that Pollard had provided security information to South Africa. 
     *  Judge Robinson sentenced Jonathan Pollard to life in prison in 1987, claiming that information provided by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger showed that Pollard's spying on behalf of Israel had caused significant damage to American security interests.

     *Pollard's Defense (regardless of the level of their security clearances ) were never given access to these charges nor afforded an opportunity to rebut them. As individual accusations leaked out they have been all successfully rebutted. 

WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE AND COMPARABLE PUNISHMENT FOR HIS ACTUAL TRANSGRESSIONS?During the same time period  a spy caught working for Saudi Arabia (a Navy officer named Schwarz-not Jewish- where the intelligence did in fact go to an enemy power-and was very harmful to US military interests) received a dishonorable discharge and nothing further as punishment 

     One of the major reasons for incarcerating Pollard-and thus holding him as hostage-was the widespread belief (spread by Aldrich Ames to cover his own tracks) that there was a 2nd Israeli mole inside the CIA. U.S. officials  repeatedly, publicly claimed that Pollard was not working alone when he spied for Israel and  the United States therefore  should make Pollard's release conditional on Israel acknowledging this"BASELESS." claim. 

     WHAT ADDS TO THIS OUTRAGE IS THAT THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION KNOWS FULL WELL THE FACTS AND HAS ELECTED EXPLICITLY TO CONTINUE JONATHAN POLLARD'S IMPRISONMENT IN ORDER TO KEEP HIM AS DENNIS ROSS DESCRIBED AS A “BARGAINING CHIP”.



 ==============================================
NOTICE: This e-mail is unclassified. It does not contain  any privileged and/or confidential information..THIS NOT AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF ANY US GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY
 ==============================================

Wednesday, April 2, 2014


April 2014


Since Hassan Rouhani became Iran’s president, he has been on a charm offensive designed to persuade the international community that the dark days of confrontational rhetoric and policies from his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are over. Western leaders have so far shown a propensity to believe him. Since a nuclear interim deal was signed in Geneva last November, world leaders and business delegations have been flocking to Iran to encourage what they see as Rouhani’s new course — most recently, Baroness Ashton, the EU’s top foreign policy official and the chief negotiator for P5+1 (the five permanent members of the Security Council, US, Russia, China, UK and France plus Germany) in the talks over Iran’s nuclear programme.

It is easy to see why everyone views Rouhani’s new administration as a genuine turn of the page. Compared to his predecessor, Rouhani comes across as soft-spoken, sophisticated and elegant. His ministerial appointees all have impressive pedigrees — PhDs from US universities, a good command of English and stylish suits.

Yet behind the veil of this new-found bonhomie, his line-up of ministerial appointments and government companies’ management is filled with loyal servants of the Islamic Revolution who toppled the Shah in their twenties, helped build the Islamic Republic in their thirties, ran government companies and held ministerial positions in their forties, took a break in their fifties when Ahmadinejad ran the country, and are now back, mostly in those same positions, in their sixties.

This is hardly the stuff of change. If anything, Rouhani has brought back to power the ultimate regime insiders, whose main goal is to undo Ahmadinejad’s eight years in office and restore Iran’s ancien rĂ©gime, not deal it a final blow. Their smiles aim to relieve international economic pressure, not relinquish Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They want to save the Islamic Revolution, not reform it. Their feuds over power and charges of corruption against holdovers from the previous administration are a turf war between rival factions of the same power structure, not an effort to change course. They are a throwback to the time of Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, presidents under whom Rouhani himself loyally served. So are the Ahmadinejad appointees who, for now, remain in their jobs.

Take Rouhani’s first vice-president, Eshagh Jahangiri. Despite his reformist credentials — he served in Khatami’s cabinet as minister of industry — he is a longtime associate of Rafsanjani, the man credited as the father of Iran’s nuclear programme.

The other vice-president, Mohammad Shariatmadari, is par for the course. He was minister of commerce under Khatami at a time of tentative economic liberalisation. But he is also a close associate of Ayatollah Mohammad Reyshahri — Iran’s much-feared first minister of intelligence who was for many years the head of a religious foundation and its sprawling economic empire fronted by the Rey Investment Company, a target of US sanctions. Shariatmadari’s association with Reyshahri goes back to the early days of the Iranian revolution, when he took an active part in the establishment of the ministry of intelligence. This closeness came with financial benefits — Shariatmadari has been doing business with other Rey Investment officials in Germany on the side.
Rouhani’s chief adviser, Akbar Torkan, was Rafsanjani’s first minister of defence (1989-93) and took an active role in coordinating Iranian weapons supplies to Bosnia in the early stages of the Yugoslav civil war. Later, Torkan presided over the opening of Iran’s oil sector as the CEO of Petropars Ltd, a subsidiary of the National Iran Oil Company (NIOC) — later subject to US sanctions — alongside oil minister Bijan Zanganeh.

With Rouhani’s blessing, they have all placed loyalists at the helm of government-owned holding companies — all competent managers, no doubt, but hardly the fresh breed touted in the Western media.

Zanganeh has appointed Roknoddin Javadi as managing director of NIOC. He is an old-timer in the NIOC management structure and very close to the minister.

Ahmad Morad Alizadeh, chairman of  Mahan Air (also subject to sanctions), has  retaken his old post as MD at the government-owned National Iranian Copper Industries Company (NICICO), while remaining in charge of a Hamburg-based procurement operation. Mir Ali Ashraf Pouri Hosseini, the new chairman of the Iranian Privatisation Organisation, served in the same post in the waning days of Khatami’s presidency.

Mehdi Karbasian, the new deputy minister for industries and mines and newly-appointed chairman of IMIDRO, the Iranian Mines and Mining Industries Development Renovation Organisation, shares a similar story. Karbasian’s CV not only exudes experience and competence, it exemplifies the entire Rouhani administration as a group of veteran revolutionary insiders. 

Karbasian has sat on the board of dozens of Iranian government-owned companies, including many entities subject to sanctions, such as IRISL—Iran’s shipping lines — and IFIC — Iran’s Foreign Investment Company. He spent his youthful revolutionary years between the battlefield and government management at the Foundation of the Oppressed, a multimillion-dollar economic empire. In the 1990s, under Rafsanjani and Khatami, he occupied many positions of influence in the oil industry, banking, and government.

Alongside new appointments, there are holdovers to confirm that Iran’s oligarchs are in full control of the ship of state. While Alizadeh’s predecessor, Nematollah Postindouz, left behind a trail of corruption charges, the chairman of the Foundation of the Oppressed, Mohammad Forounzadeh, has not been replaced. That may have less to do with moderate credentials, and more with the fact that he is agreeable to all Iranian power centres — he was chief of staff of the Revolutionary Guards in the 1980s and later succeeded Torkan as Rafsanjani’s minister of defence from 1993 to 1997.

Rouhani is not a harbinger of change — if anything he represents the resilience of Iran’s revolutionary elites and their resolve to preserve their grip on power.