Israel: Killer of Children ?

Why must the Israelis be so cold-hearted. Why must they insist on killing innocent children by depriving the Palestinians of food and fuel. Why. 

Hmm.

This article essentially says it all, and when finished, read the article that follows.  I believe it is very eye-opening!

Gaza baby dies after respirator runs out of fuel

Posted: Sun, Mar. 25, 2012, 1:52 PM

IBRAHIM BARZAK and DIAA HADID

The Associated Press

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip - A Gaza man said Sunday his 5-month-old baby died after the generator powering his respirator ran out of fuel, the first known death linked to the territory's energy crisis.

The baby, who was born with lymphatic disorder, had only a few months to live, said his father, Abdul-Rahim Helou, 27. But his parents miscalculated how much fuel a new generator needed to remove fluids that accumulated in his respiratory system, he said.

"If we were living in a normal country with electricity, I think his chances of living (longer) would have been better," Helou said.

Gaza health official Bassem al-Qadri said the baby arrived dead at a Gaza City hospital on Friday night.

The baby's death highlights the human cost Gaza's 1.6 million residents are paying for 18-hour-a-day blackouts, triggered by a cutoff of Egyptian fuel.

Shortages have caused days-long lines for fuel at gas stations, a sharp reduction in public transportation and families left shivering in poorly built apartments during a wet and cold winter.

More than a year ago, Hamas decided to power Gaza's only power plant with smuggled fuel from Egypt, rather than pay for more expensive Israeli fuel, as it had done in the past.

Egypt started cutting off the supplies weeks ago because it was suffering shortages itself.

Israel provided some fuel last week.

AND THEN THE AP FILED THIS STORY. 

(03-25) 12:31 PDT GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) --
The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about a 5-month-old baby who was said to have died Friday after the generator powering his respirator ran out of fuel, the first known death linked to the territory's energy crisis. The timing and reason for the death were confirmed to the AP by a man identified as the baby's father and a Gaza health official, but the report has been called into question after it was learned that a local newspaper carried news of the baby's death on March 4.
A substitute story will be filed shortly reflecting the new information.
The AP

AND THEN THE FOLLOWING STORY WAS FILED:

Hamas blames fuel shortage for Gaza baby’s death

March 25, 2012|Ibrahim Barzak and Diaa Hadid, Associated Press

A Gaza man said Sunday his 5-month-old baby died two days ago after the generator powering his respirator ran out of fuel, but the report was called into question after it emerged that the timing of the baby’s death was misrepresented.

The baby’s death — which was confirmed to The Associated Press by a man identified as the father and a Gaza hospital official — would have been the first linked to the territory’s energy crisis, and the report appeared to be an attempt by Gaza’s Hamas rulers to use it to gain sympathy.

However, the AP later learned that news of Mohammed Helou’s death first appeared March 4 in the local Arabic-language newspaper Al-Quds, in an article written by a relative of the bereaved family.

The baby’s father, Abdul-Halim Helou, said Mohammed was born with a lymphatic disorder and had only a few months to live. He said they miscalculated how much fuel a new generator needed to remove fluids that accumulated in his respiratory system.

“If we were living in a normal country with electricity, I think his chances of living (longer) would have been better,’’ Helou said.

The Al-Quds article contained the same details as the one recounted by the Helou family on Sunday, saying Mohammed died from choking on his own phlegm. The story quoted that father as saying their generator ran out of fuel, causing their son’s respirator to stop working and ultimately causing the baby to choke to death.

The fuel crisis was relevant in early March as well, but Hamas apparently missed the report in Al-Quds — a publication considered loyal to its rival, Fatah — and Hamas was now trying to recycle the story to capitalize on the family’s tragedy.

Confronted by the AP with the newspaper story, the family and Hamas Gaza health official Bassem al-Qadri continued to insist the baby arrived dead at a Gaza City hospital on Friday night.

That timing would highlight the human cost Gaza’s 1.6 million residents are paying for 18-hour-a-day blackouts, triggered by a cutoff of Egyptian fuel.

Shortages have caused days-long lines for fuel at gas stations, a sharp reduction in public transportation and families left shivering in poorly built apartments during a wet, cold winter.

More than a year ago, Hamas decided to fire Gaza’s only power plant with smuggled fuel from Egypt, rather than pay for more expensive Israeli fuel, as it had done in the past.

Egypt started cutting off the supplies because it was suffering shortages itself and because it wanted to avoid absolving Israel from continuing responsibility for the crowded, impoverished slice of Mediterranean coast. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005 but still controls its land crossings — except the one to Egypt.

There are hundreds of smuggling tunnels under the 15-kilometer (9-mile) Gaza-Egypt border, and Hamas raises funds by “taxing’’ smuggled goods, including fuel.

Israel provided some fuel last week as the crisis worsened.

Israeli government spokesman Mark Regev said he was not surprised by the apparent Hamas attempt to alter details of the baby’s death.

“I don’t believe this case is at all an isolated incident but rather the tip of the iceberg,’’ he said. “Hamas as an authoritarian regime consistently seeks to hide the truth and manipulate the information that is allowed to get out of Gaza.’’

(This version CORRECTS Rewrites throughout to reflect that the baby died 3 weeks, not 2 days ago. corrects previous version, which was KILLED, to show that report of baby dying appeared March 4, not 2 days ago.)

 Maybe because Hamas and the Palestinians have a proclivity toward lies and obfuscation that exceeds even the pathological within our society.  Necessary amounts of fuel are sent into Gaza. If Hamas rations the fuel, it is the fault of Hamas, it is their responsibility, not Israel's.  Israel did not ask for a barrage of rocket attacks, Israel did not ask for the deaths of innocents ... Palliwood doesn't have a problem with fabricating stories and the AP and Reuters seem to gobble up the lies, spreading them into mainstream European press where they get further dispersed to fools and idiots who would believe the earth was flat if a Palestinian told them.

hamas

Iran: September / October ?

October Surprise?

US officials believe Iran sanctions will fail, making military action likely

guardian.co.uk

 Friday 17 February 2012 12.27 EST

Officials in key parts of the Obama administration are increasingly convinced that sanctions will not deter Tehran from pursuing its nuclear programme, and believe that the US will be left with no option but to launch an attack on Iran or watch Israel do so.

The president has made clear in public, and in private to Israel, that he is determined to give sufficient time for recent measures, such as the financial blockade and the looming European oil embargo, to bite deeper into Iran's already battered economy before retreating from its principal strategy to pressure Tehran.

But there is a strong current of opinion within the administration – including in the Pentagon and the state department – that believes sanctions are doomed to fail, and that their principal use now is in delaying Israeli military action, as well as reassuring Europe that an attack will only come after other means have been tested.

"The White House wants to see sanctions work. This is not the Bush White House. It does not need another conflict," said an official knowledgeable on Middle East policy. "Its problem is that the guys in Tehran are behaving like sanctions don't matter, like their economy isn't collapsing, like Israel isn't going to do anything.

"Sanctions are all we've got to throw at the problem. If they fail then it's hard to see how we don't move to the 'in extremis' option."

The White House has said repeatedly that all options are on the table, including the use of force to stop Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, but that for now the emphasis is firmly on diplomacy and sanctions.

But long-held doubts among US officials about whether the Iranians can be enticed or cajoled into serious negotiations have been reinforced by recent events.

"We don't see a way forward," said one official. "The record shows that there is nothing to work with."

Scepticism about Iranian intent is rooted in Iran's repeated spurning of overtures from successive US presidents from Bill Clinton to Barack Obama, who appealed within weeks of coming to office for "constructive ties" and "mutual respect" .

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's claim this week that Iran loaded its first domestically-made fuel rod into a nuclear reactor, and Iran's threat to cut oil supplies to six European countries, were read as further evidence that Tehran remains defiantly committed to its nuclear programme. That view was strengthened by the latest Iranian offer to negotiate with the UN security council in a letter that appeared to contain no significant new concessions.

If Obama were to conclude that there is no choice but to attack Iran, he is unlikely to order it before the presidential election in November unless there is an urgent reason to do so. The question is whether the Israelis will hold back that long.

Earlier this month, the US defence secretary, Leon Panetta, told the Washington Post that he thought the window for an Israeli attack on Iran is between April and June. But other official analysts working on Iran have identified what one described as a "sweet spot", where the mix of diplomacy, political timetables and practical issues come together to suggest that if Israel launches a unilateral assault it is more likely in September or October, although they describe that as a "best guess".

However, the Americans are uncertain as to whether Israel is serious about using force if sanctions fail or has ratcheted up threats primarily in order to pressure the US and Europeans in to stronger action. For its part, the US is keen to ensure that Tehran does not misinterpret a commitment to giving sanctions a chance to work as a lack of willingness to use force as a last resort.

American officials are resigned to the fact that the US will be seen in much of the world as a partner in any Israeli assault on Iran – whether or not Washington approved of it. The administration will then have to decide whether to, in the parlance of the US military, "pile on", by using its much greater firepower to finish what Israel starts.

"The sanctions are there to pressure Iran and reassure Israel that we are taking this issue seriously," said one official. "The focus is on demonstrating to Israel that this has a chance of working. Israel is sceptical but appreciates the effort. It is willing to give it a go, but how long will it wait?"

Colin Kahl, who was US deputy assistant secretary of defence for the Middle East until December, said: "With the European oil embargo and US sanctions on the central bank, the Israelis probably have to give some time now to let those crippling sanctions play out.

"If you look at the calendar, it doesn't make much sense that the Israelis would jump the gun. They probably need to provide a decent interval for those sanctions to be perceived as failing, because they care about whether an Israeli strike would be seen as philosophically legitimate; that is, as only having happened after other options were exhausted. So I think that will push them a little further into 2012."

The White House is working hard to keep alive the prospect that sanctions will deliver a diplomatic solution. It has pressed the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to quieten the belligerent chatter from his own cabinet about an attack on Iran. The chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff, general Martin Dempsey, was dispatched to Jerusalem last month to talk up the effect of sanctions and to press, unsuccessfully, for a commitment that Israel will not launch a unilateral attack against Iran.

Dennis Ross, Obama's former envoy for the Middle East and Iran, this week said that sanctions may be pushing Tehran toward negotiations.

But in other parts of the administration, the assumption is that sanctions will fail, and so calculations are being made about what follows, including how serious Israel is in its threat to launch a unilateral attack on Iran's nuclear installations, and how the US responds.

But Iran's increasingly belligerent moves – such as the botched attempts, laid at Tehran's door, to attack Israeli diplomats in Thailand, India and Georgia – are compounding the sense that Iran is far from ready to negotiate.

Feeding in to the considerations are the timing of the American election, including its bearing on Israeli thinking, as well as the pace of Iranian advances in their nuclear programme.

Obama has publicly said that there are no differences with Israel on Iran, describing his administration as in "lock step" with the Jewish state.

But the US and Israel are at odds over the significance of Iran's claim to have begun enriching uranium at the underground facility at Fordow, near the holy city of Qom, and therefore the timing of any military action.

Israel's defence minister, Ehud Barak, has warned that Iran cannot be allowed to establish a "zone of immunity" at Fordow where it is able to work on a nuclear weapon deep underground protected from Israel's conventional weapons. Earlier this month, Barak said Israel must consider an attack before that happens.

The Americans say there is no such urgency because the facility is just one among many Tehran needs to build a nuclear weapon, and that other sites are still vulnerable to attack and sabotage in other ways. The US also has a more powerful military arsenal, although it is not clear whether it would be able to destroy the underground Fordow facility.

Kahl said part of Washington's calculation is to judge whether Israel is seriously contemplating attacking Iran, or is using the threat to pressure the US and Europe into confronting Tehran.

"It's not that the Israelis believe the Iranians are on the brink of a bomb. It's that the Israelis may fear that the Iranian programme is on the brink of becoming out of reach of an Israeli military strike, which means it creates a 'now-or-never' moment," he said.

"That's what's actually driving the timeline by the middle of this year. But there's a countervailing factor that [Ehud] Barak has mentioned – that they're not very close to making a decision and that they're also trying to ramp up concerns of an Israeli strike to drive the international community towards putting more pressure on the Iranians."

Israeli pressure for tougher measures against Tehran played a leading role in the US Congresss passing sanctions legislation targeting Iran's financial system and oil sales. Some US and European officials say those same sanctions have also become a means for Washington to pressure Israel not to act precipitously in attacking Iran.

The presidential election is also a part of Israel's calculation, not least the fractious relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, who has little reason to do the US president any political favours and has good reason to prefer a Republican in the White House next year.

There is a school of thought – a suspicion, even – within the administration that Netanyahu might consider the height of the US election campaign the ideal time to attack Iran. With a hawkish Republican candidate ever ready to accuse him of weakness, Obama's room to pressure or oppose Netanyahu would be more limited than after the election.

"One theory is that Netanyahu and Barak may calculate that if Obama doesn't support an Israeli strike, he's unlikely to punish Israel for taking unilateral action in a contested election year," said Kahl. "Doing something before the US gives the Israelis a bit more freedom of manoeuvre."

Obama is also under domestic political pressure from Republican presidential contenders, who accuse him of vacillating on Iran, and from a Congress highly sympathetic to Israel's more confrontational stance.

Thirty-two senators from both parties introduced a resolution on Thursday rejecting "any policy that would rely on efforts to 'contain' a nuclear weapons-capable Iran". The measure was dressed up as intended to protect the president's back, but it smacked of yet more pressure to take a firmer stand with Iran.

One of the sponsors, senator Joe Lieberman, said that he did not want to discount diplomatic options but if the president ordered an attack on Iran he would have strong bipartisan support in Congress. Other senators said there needed to be a greater sense of urgency on the part of the administration in dealing with Iran and that sanctions are not enough.

Others are critical of sanctions for a different reason. Congressman Dennis Kucinich said this week he fears sanctions are less about changing Tehran's policy than laying the ground for military action. He warned that "the latest drum beat of additional sanctions and war against Iran sounds too much like the lead-up to the Iraq war".

"If the crippling sanctions that the US and Europe have imposed are meant to push the Iranian regime to negotiations, it hasn't worked," he said. "As the war of words between the United States and Iran escalates it's more critical than ever that we highlight alternatives to war to avoid the same mistakes made in Iraq."

iran

 

Cairo rally: One daywe'll kill all Jews

Muslim Brotherhood holds venomous anti-Israel rally in Cairo mosque Friday; Islamic activists chant: Tel Aviv, judgment day has come

Eldad Beck

Published: 11.25.11, 20:29 / Israel News

Arab hate: A Muslim Brotherhood rally in Cairo's most prominent mosque Friday turned into a venomous anti-Israel protest, with attendants vowing to "one day kill all Jews."

Some 5,000 people joined the rally, called to promote the "battle against Jerusalem's Judaization." The event coincided with the anniversary of the United Nations' partition plan in 1947, which called for the establishment of a Jewish state.

However, most worshippers who prayed at the mosque Friday quickly left it before the Muslim Brotherhood's rally got underway. A group spokesman urged attendants to remain for the protest, asking them not to create a bad impression for the media by leaving.

'Treacherous Jews'

Speakers at the event delivered impassioned, hateful speeches against Israel, slamming the "Zionist occupiers" and the "treacherous Jews." Upon leaving the rally, worshippers were given small flags, with Egypt's flag on one side and the Palestinian flag on the other, as well as maps of Jerusalem's Old City detailing where "Zionists are aiming to change Jerusalem's Muslim character."

Propaganda material ahead of Egypt's parliamentary elections was also handed out at the site.

Spiritual leader Dr. Ahmed al-Tayeb charged in his speech that to this day Jews everywhere in the world are seeking to prevent Islamic and Egyptian unity.

"In order to build Egypt, we must be one. Politics is insufficient. Faith in Allah is the basis for everything," he said. "The al-Aqsa Mosque is currently under an offensive by the Jews…we shall not allow the Zionists to Judaize al-Quds (Jerusalem.) We are telling Israel and Europe that we shall not allow even one stone to be moved there."

'We have different mentality'

Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen, as well as Palestinian guest speakers, made explicit calls for Jihad and for liberating the whole of Palestine. Time and again, a Koran quote vowing that "one day we shall kill all the Jews" was uttered at the site. Meanwhile, businessmen in the crowd were urged to invest funds in Jerusalem in order to prevent the acquisition of land and homes by Jews.

Throughout the event, Muslim Brotherhood activists chanted: "Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, judgment day has come."

Speaking to Ynet outside the mosque following the prayer, elementary school teacher Ala al-Din said that "all Egyptian Muslims are willing to embark on Jihad for the sake of Palestine."

"Why is the US losing in Afghanistan? Because the other side is willing and wants to die. We have a different mentality than that of the Americans and Jews," he said.

Palestinians 

Israel and the Apartheid Slander


By RICHARD J. GOLDSTONE
October 31, 2011



THE Palestinian Authority’s request for full United Nations membership has put hope for any two-state solution under increasing pressure. The need for reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians has never been greater. So it is important to separate legitimate criticism of Israel from assaults that aim to isolate, demonize and delegitimize it.

One particularly pernicious and enduring canard that is surfacing again is that Israel pursues “apartheid” policies. In Cape Town starting on Saturday, a London-based nongovernmental organization called the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will hold a “hearing” on whether Israel is guilty of the crime of apartheid. It is not a “tribunal.” The “evidence” is going to be one-sided and the members of the “jury” are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.

While “apartheid” can have broader meaning, its use is meant to evoke the situation in pre-1994 South Africa. It is an unfair and inaccurate slander against Israel, calculated to retard rather than advance peace negotiations.

I know all too well the cruelty of South Africa’s abhorrent apartheid system, under which human beings characterized as black had no rights to vote, hold political office, use “white” toilets or beaches, marry whites, live in whites-only areas or even be there without a “pass.” Blacks critically injured in car accidents were left to bleed to death if there was no “black” ambulance to rush them to a “black” hospital. “White” hospitals were prohibited from saving their lives.

In assessing the accusation that Israel pursues apartheid policies, which are by definition primarily about race or ethnicity, it is important first to distinguish between the situations in Israel, where Arabs are citizens, and in West Bank areas that remain under Israeli control in the absence of a peace agreement.

In Israel, there is no apartheid. Nothing there comes close to the definition of apartheid under the 1998 Rome Statute: “Inhumane acts ... committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.” Israeli Arabs — 20 percent of Israel’s population — vote, have political parties and representatives in the Knesset and occupy positions of acclaim, including on its Supreme Court. Arab patients lie alongside Jewish patients in Israeli hospitals, receiving identical treatment.

To be sure, there is more de facto separation between Jewish and Arab populations than Israelis should accept. Much of it is chosen by the communities themselves. Some results from discrimination. But it is not apartheid, which consciously enshrines separation as an ideal. In Israel, equal rights are the law, the aspiration and the ideal; inequities are often successfully challenged in court.

The situation in the West Bank is more complex. But here too there is no intent to maintain “an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group.” This is a critical distinction, even if Israel acts oppressively toward Palestinians there. South Africa’s enforced racial separation was intended to permanently benefit the white minority, to the detriment of other races. By contrast, Israel has agreed in concept to the existence of a Palestinian state in Gaza and almost all of the West Bank, and is calling for the Palestinians to negotiate the parameters.

But until there is a two-state peace, or at least as long as Israel’s citizens remain under threat of attacks from the West Bank and Gaza, Israel will see roadblocks and similar measures as necessary for self-defense, even as Palestinians feel oppressed. As things stand, attacks from one side are met by counterattacks from the other. And the deep disputes, claims and counterclaims are only hardened when the offensive analogy of “apartheid” is invoked.

Those seeking to promote the myth of Israeli apartheid often point to clashes between heavily armed Israeli soldiers and stone-throwing Palestinians in the West Bank, or the building of what they call an “apartheid wall” and disparate treatment on West Bank roads. While such images may appear to invite a superficial comparison, it is disingenuous to use them to distort the reality. The security barrier was built to stop unrelenting terrorist attacks; while it has inflicted great hardship in places, the Israeli Supreme Court has ordered the state in many cases to reroute it to minimize unreasonable hardship. Road restrictions get more intrusive after violent attacks and are ameliorated when the threat is reduced.

Of course, the Palestinian people have national aspirations and human rights that all must respect. But those who conflate the situations in Israel and the West Bank and liken both to the old South Africa do a disservice to all who hope for justice and peace.

Jewish-Arab relations in Israel and the West Bank cannot be simplified to a narrative of Jewish discrimination. There is hostility and suspicion on both sides. Israel, unique among democracies, has been in a state of war with many of its neighbors who refuse to accept its existence. Even some Israeli Arabs, because they are citizens of Israel, have at times come under suspicion from other Arabs as a result of that longstanding enmity.

The mutual recognition and protection of the human dignity of all people is indispensable to bringing an end to hatred and anger. The charge that Israel is an apartheid state is a false and malicious one that precludes, rather than promotes, peace and harmony.


Richard J. Goldstone, a former justice of the South African Constitutional Court, led the United Nations fact-finding mission on the Gaza conflict of 2008-9.











Israel

Palestinians: Apartheid State

Not since the Nazi's






PLO official: Palestine should be free of Jews


PLO ambassador to US says 'after 44 years of occupation, it would be in both peoples' interest to be separated' adding that Palestinians need separation to work on national identity. US diplomat subs remarks 'despicable form of anti-Semitism'



Yitzhak Benhorin
Latest Update: 09.15.11, 00:42 / Israel News


WASHINGTON - The Palestinian Liberation Organization's Ambassador to the US Maen Areikat said Wednesday that any future Palestinian state must be free of Jews. Speaking to reporters in the US he said, "After the experience of the last 44 years of military occupation and all the conflict and friction, I think it would be in the best interest of the two people to be separated."

Areikat made the statements after being asked about the rights of minorities in a future Palestinian state, USA Today reported. He declared that the PLO seeks a secular state, but that Palestinians need separation to work on their own national identity.

Later Wednesday, Palestinian Minister of Religious Affairs Mahmoud al-Habash dismissed Areikat's statements, saying that the Palestinian state is to welcome members of all faiths. He asserted that any media attempts to manipulate anti-Jewish statements are politically motivated.

He added that the Palestinian Authority and its ambassador to Washington have a clear stance on the matter.

Minister of Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein also responded to Areikat's remarks. "After an unending de-legitimization campaign and attempts to brand Israel an apartheid state, it appears it is the Palestinians who seek apartheid.

He said the statements are reminiscent of Nazi slogans. "His comments conjure up Judenrein motifs. I wonder if Areikat's remark that both peoples must live separately means that one million Arab-Israelis are not part of his people."

Areikat's comments caused a stir among Jewish leaders. Elliott Abrams, a former US National Security Council official, said in response that according to such plans, Palestine will be the first to officially prohibit Jews or any other faith since Nazi Germany, which sought a country that was judenrein, or cleansed of Jews.

Abrams described the demand as "a despicable form of anti-Semitism" adding that a small Jewish presence in a future Palestinian state would not hurt the Palestinian identity.

The UN's General Assembly is scheduled to address the Palestinian bid for recognition next week, with Israel, the US and several European states strongly opposing it. The Palestinians are slated to win an overwhelming majority at the Assembly as it is controlled by Arab and Muslim states.

Nevertheless, any such resolution would not have practical significance and in order to be accepted as a full member in the UN the PA will need Security Council endorsement.

Meanwhile, Jordan's foreign minister said Wednesday his country supports a Palestinian drive for recognition at the UN but prefers negotiations toward creation of a Palestinian state.

Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh told reporters that Jordan supports the Palestinian campaign, but it should take into account the rights of Palestinian refugees, the fate of Jerusalem and the borders of a future Palestinian state.

He said the "best way" to attain statehood is through "direct negotiations."

Last-ditch effort to prevent UN vote

Meanwhile, a high-level US team kicked off a new round of shuttle diplomacy on Wednesday in a last-ditch effort to contain the diplomatic fallout from the Palestinian statehood push, but the odds of a breakthrough appeared slim as the Palestinians pledged to go ahead with mass rallies to draw world attention to their bid.

US diplomats Dennis Ross and David Hale arrived late Wednesday for talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. They were to travel to the West Bank on Thursday to talk with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. No breakthrough has thus been achieved.

In addition to the US efforts, the European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, and special international Mideast envoy Tony Blair have been meeting with the sides this week. US officials said Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in touch with both Ashton and Blair in recent days.

Barak urged Ashton to prevent the Palestinians from tabling a resolution proposal.

Ashton is proposing a three-part plan: Grating the Palestinians UN observer status similar to that of the Vatican, issuing a Quartet statement accounting both the Israeli and the Palestinian needs, and a UN chief pledge the put forward a recognition resolution in the future.

Germany is opposed to Ashton's plan which has not won European consensus. The US, on its part, wants the plan to be presented to allow each side to voice its reservations.

Both Israel and the Palestinians oppose the plan.



















palestinians

1,500-Year-Old-Church Unearthed in Israel

By Jack Phillips
Epoch Times Staff
Feb 4, 2011

A 1,500-year-old church was discovered in Israel and has surprisingly well-preserved mosaics of various animals and other depictions, according to media reports this week.

Archaeologists say that the church was used between the fifth and seventh centuries AD, adding that the ancient site of worship was built atop a synagogue that was used 500 years before, according to The Associated Press.

The Byzantine church was discovered during excavations of Horbat Midras in the Judean Hills.

"Researchers believe that in light of an analysis of the Christian sources ... the church at Horbat Madras is a memorial church designed to mark the tomb of the prophet Zechariah," the Israel Antiquities Authority said, according to AFP.

The well-preserved mosaic was believed to be the floor used at the church, say archaeologists. Photos of the mosaic showed various animals, including what appear to be a lions, pheasants, and fish.

"It is unique in its craftsmanship and level of preservation," Amir Ganor of the Israel Antiquities Authority told AP.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
church

400,000-Year-Old Human Remains Found in Israel

By Stephanie Lam

Epoch Times Staff

Jan 5, 2011



OLDEST HUMAN TEETH FOUND: Archaeologists found evidence that humans lived in Israel 400,000 years ago, including these teeth, some of which are dated from 300,000 to 400,000 years ago.

Archaeologists have found evidence of modern humans, Homo sapiens, living in Israel 400,000 years ago. The remains found are the oldest known of the species.

The discovery was made in Qesem Cave near Rosh Ha’ayin in central Israel, which has been excavated by Drs. Avi Gopher and Ran Barkai of Tel Aviv University since 2000.

Researchers from Israel, the United States, and Spain analyzed the shape of eight teeth recovered from Qesem Cave. Using CT scans and X-rays, they found that the teeth are very similar to the teeth of today’s people.

The researchers think that the site was occupied from 420,000 years ago to 200,000 years ago, and five of the eight teeth examined were dated to at least 300,000 years ago.

They also found evidence that the humans who occupied the site used fire regularly and had a systematic way of producing flint blades.

The results were published in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology.

It was previously widely believed that Homo sapiens came into being 200,000 years ago in Africa. According to the researchers, their discovery, together with finds from China and Spain, could overturn the theory that modern humans started life on the African continent.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Israel

Oil

The United States has (potentially) upwards of nearly 6 trillion barrels of oil under our soil. More oil than has been produced to date on planet earth and more than is known to currently exist in the Arab Middle East.






We have more oil than imaginable. Unfortunately, it is this point where I find myself against the oil companies. Approximately 8-10 years ago, I heard and read about this game-changing discovery and at that time, oil people talked about oil needing to be at $75 a barrel to make it feasible to extract. We have long since passed $75 and yet we are still not moving ahead on this. I am concerned the oil companies will now inform us oil needs to be $120 a barrel to make it feasible. That would be a lie and we would need to hold a hearing to catch them at the lie … why? Because they are now doing it in Israel and oil is not $120 a barrel.


Two links – one, a pdf file on shale oil in the US. The second a youtube clip, shale oil in Israel.


The outcome for either – they can drink their oil because once we stop buying their oil, they will dry up and become what they once were.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
oil

Of Democrats and Jews: Obama is Losing

On the great issues of our time, when those issues involve our nation's future (and by extension the future of 300 million Americans and billions worldwide), a question of whether we stand with or against our country is relevant to ask - do we believe in a strong United States, able to stand up to an enemy or belligerent and force them to stand down if need be, do we believe the United States should and must act to prevent genocide whenever and wherever it may occur, in whatever form we need to act, do we believe that the United States has been the greatest harbinger of peace and hope the world has ever witnessed, do we believe not everyone wants to have tea and crumpets - some people and some cultures want to utterly and totally destroy us and anyone who disagrees with them.  These are pretty simple statements of belief, and not exhaustive by any means.

Either we do believe or we do not.  There is no sort of.  The sort of answers / questions were not included to avoid such distinctions.  If you do not accept the premise - I do not believe you are a positive influence on our country and our future, and may in fact be a negative - more harmful than positive. 

We can have differences of opinion, but not on issues as clear cut as those listed above.  We can disagree on how great and how positive, not on whether we have been a positive influence.  Likewise, on an issue like Israel - we can have a range of opinions, but as Americans, our first loyalty must be to the United States, and then to any other state - including Israel.  Therefore the question of Jews always voting for or against a candidate they believe supports or does not support Israel is simplistic and hopefully Americans, whether Jewish or not, recognize the failure of such a policy and vote for or against a candidate, based upon more than just one value.

It may be less simple and more complicated than it appears on its face - an administration supportive of Israel is an administration that stands against values and ideas antithetical to the West.  Perhaps Jews understand this better than many other Americans.

Jewish Dems losing faith in Obama Ben Smith Politico June 29, 2011

David Ainsman really began to get worried about President Barack Obama’s standing with his fellow Jewish Democrats when a recent dinner with his wife and two other couples — all Obama voters in 2008 — nearly turned into a screaming match. Ainsman, a prominent Democratic lawyer and Pittsburgh Jewish community leader, was trying to explain that Obama had just been offering Israel a bit of “tough love” in his May 19 speech on the Arab Spring. His friends disagreed — to say the least. One said he had the sense that Obama “took the opportunity to throw Israel under the bus.” Another, who swore he wasn’t getting his information from the mutually despised Fox News, admitted he’d lost faith in the president. If several dozen interviews with POLITICO are any indication, a similar conversation is taking place in Jewish communities across the country. Obama’s speech last month seems to have crystallized the doubts many pro-Israel Democrats had about Obama in 2008 in a way that could, on the margins, cost the president votes and money in 2012 and will not be easy to repair. (See also: President Obama's Middle East speech: Details complicate 'simple' message) “It’s less something specific than that these incidents keep on coming,” said Ainsman. The immediate controversy sparked by the speech was Obama’s statement that Israel should embrace the country’s 1967 borders, with “land swaps,” as a basis for peace talks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized on the first half of that phrase and the threat of a return to what Israelis sometimes refer to as “Auschwitz borders.” (Related: Obama defends border policy) Obama’s Jewish allies stressed the second half: that land swaps would — as American negotiators have long contemplated — give Israel security in its narrow middle, and the deal would give the country international legitimacy and normalcy. But the noisy fray after the speech mirrored any number of smaller controversies. Politically hawkish Jews and groups such as the Republican Jewish Coalition and the Emergency Committee for Israel pounded Obama in news releases. White House surrogates and staffers defended him, as did the plentiful American Jews who have long wanted the White House to lean harder on Israel’s conservative government. Based on the conversations with POLITICO, it’s hard to resist the conclusion that some kind of tipping point has been reached. Most of those interviewed were center-left American Jews and Obama supporters — and many of them Democratic donors. On some core issues involving Israel, they’re well to the left of Netanyahu and many Americans: They refer to the “West Bank,” not to “Judea and Samaria,” fervently supported the Oslo peace process and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and believe in the urgency of creating a Palestinian state. (Arena: Are Jewish voters still pro-Obama?) But they are also fearful for Israel at a moment of turmoil in a hostile region when the moderate Palestinian Authority is joining forces with the militantly anti-Israel Hamas. “It’s a hot time, because Israel is isolated in the world and, in particular, with the Obama administration putting pressure on Israel,” said Rabbi Neil Cooper, leader of Temple Beth Hillel-Beth El in Philadelphia’s Main Line suburbs, who recently lectured his large, politically connected congregation on avoiding turning Israel into a partisan issue. Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012. And many of those who continue to support Obama said they find themselves constantly on the defensive in conversations with friends. “I’m hearing a tremendous amount of skittishness from pro-Israel voters who voted for Obama and now are questioning whether they did the right thing or not,” said Betsy Sheerr, the former head of an abortion-rights-supporting, pro-Israel PAC in Philadelphia, who said she continues to support Obama, with only mild reservations. “I’m hearing a lot of ‘Oh, if we’d only elected Hillary instead.’” Even Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who spoke to POLITICO to combat the story line of Jewish defections, said she’d detected a level of anxiety in a recent visit to a senior center in her South Florida district. “They wanted some clarity on the president’s view,” she said. “I answered their questions and restored some confidence that maybe was a little shaky, [rebutted] misinformation and the inaccurate reporting about what was said.” Wasserman Schultz and other top Democrats say the storm will pass. (Related: Debbie Wasserman Schultz: Jewish voters will stick with Obama) They point out to anyone who will listen that beyond the difficult personal relationship of Obama and Netanyahu, beyond a tense, stalled peace process, there’s a litany of good news for supporters of Israel: Military cooperation is at an all-time high; Obama has supplied Israel with a key missile defense system; the U.S. boycotted an anti-racism conference seen as anti-Israel; and America is set to spend valuable international political capital beating back a Palestinian independence declaration at the United Nations in September. The qualms that many Jewish Democrats express about Obama date back to his emergence onto the national scene in 2007. Though he had warm relations with Chicago’s Jewish community, he had also been friends with leading Palestinian activists, unusual in the Democratic establishment. And though he seemed to be trying to take a conventionally pro-Israel stand, he was a novice at the complicated politics of the America-Israel relationship, and his sheer inexperience showed at times. At the 2007 AIPAC Policy Conference, Obama professed his love for Israel but then seemed, - to some who were there for his informal talk - to betray a kind of naivete about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians: “The biggest enemy” he said, using the same rhetoric he applied to American politics, was “not just terrorists, it’s not just Hezbollah, it’s not just Hamas — it’s also cynicism.” At the next year’s AIPAC conference, he again botched the conflict’s code, committing himself to an “undivided Jerusalem” and then walking it back the next day. Those doubts and gaffes lingered, even for many of the majority who supported him. “There’s an inclination in the community to not trust this president’s gut feel on Israel and every time he sets out on a path that’s troubling you do get this ‘ouch’ reaction from the Jewish Community because they’re distrustful of him,” said the president of a major national Jewish organization, who declined to be quoted by name to avoid endangering his ties to the White House. Many of Obama’s supporters, then and now, said they were unworried about the political allegiance of Jewish voters. Every four years, they say, Republicans claim to be making inroads with American Jews, and every four years, voters and donors go overwhelmingly for the Democrats, voting on a range of issues that include, but aren’t limited to Israel. But while that pattern has held, Obama certainly didn’t take anything for granted. His 2008 campaign dealt with misgivings with a quiet, intense, and effective round of communal outreach. “When Obama was running, there was a lot of concern among the guys in my group at shul, who are all late-30s to mid-40s, who I hang out with and daven with and go to dinner with, about Obama,” recalled Scott Matasar, a Cleveland lawyer who’s active in Jewish organizations. Matasar remembers his friends’ worries over whether Obama was “going to be OK for Israel.” But then Obama met with the community’s leaders during a swing through Cleveland in the primary, and the rabbi at the denominationally conservative synagogue Matasar attends — “a real ardent Zionist and Israel defender” — came back to synagogue convinced. “That put a lot of my concerns to rest for my friends who are very much Israel hawks but who, like me, aren’t one-issue voters.” Now Matasar says he’s appalled by Obama’s “rookie mistakes and bumbling” and the reported marginalization of a veteran peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, in favor of aides who back a tougher line on Netanyahu. He’s the most pro-Obama member of his social circle but is finding the president harder to defend. “He’d been very ham-handed in the way he presented [the 1967 border announcement] and the way he sprung this on Netanyahu,” Matasar said. A Philadelphia Democrat and pro-Israel activist, Joe Wolfson, recalled a similar progression. “What got me past Obama in the recent election was Dennis Ross — I heard him speak in Philadelphia and I had many of my concerns allayed,” Wolfson said. “Now, I think I’m like many pro-Israel Democrats now who are looking to see whether we can vote Republican.” That, perhaps, is the crux of the political question: The pro-Israel Jewish voters and activists who spoke to POLITICO are largely die-hard Democrats, few of whom have ever cast a vote for a Republican to be president. Does the new wave of Jewish angst matter? One place it might is fundraising. Many of the Clinton-era Democratic mega-donors who make Israel their key issue, the most prominent of whom is the Los Angeles Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban, never really warmed to Obama, though Saban says he will vote for the Democrat and write him a check if asked. A top-dollar Washington fundraiser aimed at Jewish donors in Miami last week raised more than $1 million from 80 people, and while one prominent Jewish activist said the DNC had to scramble to fill seats, seven-figure fundraisers are hard to sneer at. Even people writing five-figure checks to Obama, though, appeared in need of a bit of bucking up. “We were very reassured,” Randi Levine, who attended the event with her husband, Jeffrey, a New York real estate developer, told POLITICO. Philadelphia Jewish Democrats are among the hosts of another top-dollar event June 30. David Cohen, a Comcast executive and former top aide to former Gov. Ed Rendell, said questions about Obama’s position on Israel have been a regular, if not dominant, feature of his attempts to recruit donors. “I takes me about five minutes of talking through the president’s position and the president’s speech, and the uniform reaction has been, ‘I guess you’re right, that’s not how I saw it covered,’” he said. Others involved in the Philadelphia event, however, said they think Jewish doubts are taking a fundraising toll. “We’re going to raise a ton of money, but I don’t know if we’re going to hit our goals,” said Daniel Berger, a lawyer who is firmly in the “peace camp” and said he blamed the controversy on Netanyahu’s intransigence.

obama

Animals

In Israel, near Samaria, an attack occured on an Israeli family -

The shocking attack occurred around 1 am as the terrorist entered the family home and murdered three children aged 11, 3, and a baby girl along with their parents. The victims were apparently sleeping as the killer came in.



He killed them all.
And so, in the name of decency - all human beings must oppose such evil actions ...


Gaza celebrates; Fayyad condemns terror attack



Rafah residents hand out candy following murder of parents, three children in West Bank settlement of Itamar. Palestinian PM denounces act, says "we categorically oppose violence and terror, regardless of victims', perpetrators' identity"


It says a lot.












terrorist

How utterly foolish - the Bush White House ...

... certainly could never have said something so idiotic and on a subject that may yet explode into a conflagration.

So – Iranian ships may be sailing through the Suez en route to Syria.



The White House was asked about this …



Reuters' Jeff Mason: Israel said today that Iranian war ships plan to sail through the Suez canal to Syria. Does the United States view that as a provocation and how should Israel react?



Carney: Our position on Iran and the right of way is well known and I would refer you on that specifically to the State Department. I don't have anything for you on the ship in the Suez. There's been a lot of spread of the unrest in Egypt to other areas in the mid east. The president referred to this issue yesterday and said that leaders of those country need to get out ahead of the change.

There is a video at that link.
Re-read what the WH said (Carney is now the White House spokesman) … and does it refer to anything, especially the question asked.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iran

Egyptians were the Losers with Camp David: Slaves to Peace

I suppose all that humiliation they feel is not tempered by the more than $120 million in trade each year or the 15,000 jobs created as a result of that trade.

The 15,000 employed will be unemployed but not humiliated - assuming the statements in the article are accurate.  They will feel much better, although I suspect they will blame Israel for the loss of their jobs.



'We know that Netanyahu cannot sleep now’



By BEN HARTMAN
Jerusalem Post
02/02/2011


Protesters tell 'The Jerusalem Post' they don't feel Egypt is completely free of Israeli occupation, "Camp David made us a slave."

“After Camp David, all the Arab world sees that we are no longer a leader. Camp David made us a slave”

Like many at Tahir square on Tuesday night, 26-year-old Mohammed Salama of Cairo spoke of an eagerness for Egypt to shelve its nearly three decade old peace agreement with Israel, but insisted he does not want the country to go to war with Israel. In his hands he held a sign reading in Arabic “Netanyahu is worried about Mubarak”, which he said he wrote because “this is my country and my leader, I don’t want him to care about Israel, only about my country.”

Salama spoke moments after Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak gave a nationwide speech vowing to hold new elections in six months in which he would not run. Like all of those spoken to by The Jerusalem Post after the speech, Salama said he didn’t feel the speech represented a victory for the movement, only a new ploy by Mubarak to stall and stay in power. Salama and all others spoken to by the Post vowed that they would stay in the square as long as it takes until Mubarak leaves and that the revolution is far from over.

Salama’s friend, Hazan Ahmed, 29, said the years of peace with Israel are tinged with the sting of humiliation, and that Egyptians still feel they’re country is not completely free of the Israeli occupation of the Sinai which ended under Camp David.

“The Egyptian army can’t enter Sinai, we feel that it is still Israel. There are Israeli people there all the time, but when we go, we have to stop at checkpoints and we get turned back. We don’t feel that Sinai is Egyptian.”

Ahmed said he didn’t want Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel completely demolished, but for it to undergo a serious change.

“It should be remodeled. With Mubarak leaving, we know that whoever comes next will remodel the agreement.”

When asked about the fact that Israel and Egypt have not gone to war since the agreement was signed, Ahmed, an unemployed medical school graduate said “yes, we have peace, but we have no dignity.”


Cairene Mohammed Gadi, a 33-year-old sales manager, walked around Tahrir square Tuesday holding a placard of Mubarak with a star of David drawn on his forehead. When asked about the sign, he said he wrote it because “we don’t want to take our orders from Israel anymore. We will keep the peace, but we won’t let Israel or any other country tell us what to do anymore. We don’t need to take orders from the world.”

Abdel Aziz, 27, from Mubarak’s hometown of Kfar El-Meselha, held a sign Tuesday saying “Bollocks to you Mubarak, it’s all over”. When asked about Israel, Aziz said “this is not about Israel, this is about our country first, we don’t care about other countries. This is not why we are doing this.”

Ahmad Ragab, 42, spoke more vehemently towards Israel saying “look, all Egyptian people hate Israel, only Sadat wanted Camp David. We know that Israel will be mad about what is happening here, and we know that Netanyahu can’t sleep now. We know that with the change here, there won’t be peace with Israel. There won’t be a war, but I don’t think there will be an Israeli embassy in Egypt any more, we will have only the most minimal relations.”

Ragab, who studied Chinese and works in Egypt-China business relations, said “we know the revolution will change this and that’s that, we see every day what Israel is doing with the Palestinians.”

At the same time, like all others asked by the Jerusalem Post after Mubarak’s speech about the revolution’s meaning for Israel-Egypt relations, Ragab said the issue was not at all at the heart of the January 25th upheaval.

“People in Egypt have no work, no future, 90% of Egyptian people see they have no future. They are tired.” Mohammed Salama issued a similar remark, saying “I work 20 hours a day in security for 300 Egyptian pounds a month, I feel terrible doing this. I studied law, I am a poet and a writer too, but I have no options and I can’t get married. I have a good education, I deserve a good chance to prove I can be somebody.”

As much as resentment towards Israel or the US, or the violence by Mubarak’s security services and the state police are mentioned by the protesters, their movement appears to be much more driven by exhaustion at a future that promises nothing to a largely destitute citizenry that doesn’t feel they have the ability to support themselves or their families. Among young people especially, the issue of not having a future in the country where they grew up stokes their fury, and drives them to seek the answers in democracy. When asked how democracy will bring prosperity to a country where nearly half the populace lives on less than $2/day, most protesters seemed at a loss for a definitive answer, but all expressed absolute certainty that the removal of Mubarak and his, in their view cleptocratic regime, will surely bring them a greater chance at prosperity.

For Ahmed Khater, a 26-year-old Cairene sitting in the square with the words “Mubarak get the hell out” written on his forehead, the promise of a better future has never been clearer.

“I have a bachelors degree and I get paid 500 pounds a month to be a computer technician. I can’t get married, I have no future. Mubarak’s people, they just steal our money, they keep everything for themselves and they forget that we are the owners of the country.”

“We were sleeping until now, but we are awake,” Khater added.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
egypt