Pro-Israel students defeated divestment measures in California colleges

Pro-Israel students at the University of California, Berkeley and UC San Diego defeated anti-Israel divestment measures in their student governments.

 http://www.hillel.org/about/blog/item?id=2189

British protesters attack Israel's deputy ambassador

British protesters attack Israel's deputy ambassador - Israel News, Ynetnews
www.ynetnews.com  4/29/10

 Pro-Palestinian protesters storm towards Talya Lador-Fresher after her speech at Manchester University, prompting police to whisk her away from site. Protesters proceed to encircle police car, climb on hood.

Clinton: Everyone should do more for Mideast peace

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/afp/100430/usa/us_mideast_diplomacy_1


WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday urged Arab states to do more to back Israeli-Palestinian peace moves while warning Syria against arming Lebanon's anti-Israeli Hezbollah.

But Clinton, speaking to a pro-Israel group, said she also expected Israel to halt settlements in occupied land, meet the humanitarian needs of Gazans, and help the Palestinian Authority build institutions needed for statehood.

"We do not expect the Arab states to move forward in a vacuum," the chief US diplomat said in remarks to the American Jewish Committee.

President Barack Obama's administration is trying hard to relaunch indirect Israeli-Palestinian peace talks that were aborted last month when the right-wing Israeli government announced new settlements in east Jerusalem.

Clinton also urged the US-backed Palestinian Authority -- which controls only the West Bank and not the extremist Hamas-run Gaza Strip -- to continue its work to improve security and stop anti-Israeli militancy in the West Bank.

Although she hit familiar themes, Clinton was more explicit than in the past about what steps the Arabs should take for peace after they ignored previous pleas because of what they consider Israel's intransigence.

"They should take specific steps that show Israelis, Palestinians and their own people that peace is possible and that there will be tangible benefits if it is achieved," Clinton said in a speech to a pro-Israel group.

The chief US diplomat urged Arab states to offer more financial support to the Palestinian Authority and its two-year development plan as well as move toward ending Israel's isolation by opening or re-opening trade offices.

"The United States has done our part, becoming the PA's largest bilateral donor, and Europe also has stepped up," she said. "Arab states need to share a greater portion of these responsibilities."

Gulf Arab states like Qatar and Oman closed Israeli trade offices in 2000 when the Oslo the peace process collapsed in violence. Qatar closed the Israeli trade office when Israel launched an offensive in Gaza in December 2008.

Clinton also suggested that Arab states grant Israel the right to fly over their territories as well as allow cultural or educational exchanges between Israelis and Arabs.

The moves involving Israel, the Palestinians and Arab state amounted to a complex choreography.

"As negotiations proceed between the Israelis and Palestinians, and mutual confidence increases, Arab states should reach out to the Israeli public," she said.

They should do so by "demonstrating that Israel's isolation in the region is ending, and all sides should resume multilateral discussions on critical regional issues," she said.

Under the 1993-2000 peace process launched in Oslo, Arab and Israeli delegations had discussed regional issues like sharing water and trade.

She also addressed Israeli allegations that Syria is arming Hezbollah with long-range Scud missiles.

"Transferring weapons to these terrorists -- especially longer-range missiles -- would pose a serious threat to the security of Israel," Clinton said.

"We do not accept such provocative and destabilizing behavior -- and nor should the international community.

"President Assad is making decisions that could mean war or peace for the region. We know he's hearing from Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas," the chief US diplomat said.

"It is crucial that he also hear directly from us, so that the potential consequences of his actions are clear."

She also urged states in the region to stop supplying rockets and other weapons to Hamas.

ADL: Supreme Court Decision on Religious Monument 'Disappointing'

New York, NY, April 28, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today called the Supreme Court's decision in Salazar v. Buono "a disappointing ruling that will have little impact."

The case asked – but did not answer – whether the government may transfer a small piece of land in the middle of a public park to private control merely to protect the religious monument that stands on it.  In its amicus brief, ADL urged the Court to find the cross display unconstitutional.

Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair, and Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, issued the following statement:

    We are disappointed by the Court's action, but this is not a case destined to have much impact on religious freedom.   The unique facts and the splintered, technical nature of the decision provide minimal guidance on the broader issue of the display of religious symbols on public property.  This case will only add to the confusion surrounding what the First Amendment allows, requires and prohibits.

    One troubling aspect of this decision is that the plurality drew far-reaching theological conclusions when it determined that the cross has some universal meaning beyond Christianity.   This claim should be equally as offensive to Christians and non-Christians.

Haass: Don't exaggerate the centrality of the Israel-Palestinian issue

    * The Wall Street Journal     * OPINION     * APRIL 26, 2010

The Palestine Peace Distraction
Announcing a comprehensive plan now—one that is all but certain to fail—risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America's reputation for getting things done.

      
By RICHARD N. HAASS

President Obama recently said it was a "vital national security interest of the United States" to resolve the Middle East conflict. Last month, David Petraeus, the general who leads U.S. Central Command, testified before Congress that "enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests." He went on to say that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples . . . and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world."

To be sure, peace between Israelis and Palestinians would be of real value. It would constitute a major foreign-policy accomplishment for the United States. It would help ensure Israel's survival as a democratic, secure, prosperous, Jewish state. It would reduce Palestinian and Arab alienation, a source of anti-Americanism and radicalism. And it would dilute the appeal of Iran and its clients.

But it is easy to exaggerate how central the Israel-Palestinian issue is and how much the U.S. pays for the current state of affairs. There are times one could be forgiven for thinking that solving the Palestinian problem would take care of every global challenge from climate change to the flu. But would it? The short answer is no. It matters, but both less and in a different way than people tend to think.

Take Iraq, the biggest American investment in the Greater Middle East over the past decade. That country's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds are divided over the composition of the new government, how to share oil revenues, and where to draw the border between the Kurdish and Arab areas. The emergence of a Palestinian state would not affect any of these power struggles.

Soon to surpass Iraq as the largest U.S. involvement in the region is Afghanistan. Here the U.S. finds itself working against, as much as with, a weak and corrupt president who frustrates American efforts to build up a government that is both willing and able to take on the Taliban. Again, the emergence of a Palestinian state would have no effect on prospects for U.S. policy in Afghanistan or on Afghanistan itself.

What about Iran? The greatest concern is Iran's push for nuclear weapons. But what motivates this pursuit is less a desire to offset Israel's nuclear weapons than a fear of conventional military attack by the U.S. Iran's nuclear bid is also closely tied to its desire for regional primacy. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians would not weaken Iran's nuclear aspirations. It could even reinforce them. Iran and the groups it backs (notably Hamas and Hezbollah) would be sidelined by the region's embrace of a Palestinian state and acceptance of Israel, perhaps causing Tehran to look to nuclear weapons to compensate for its loss of standing and influence.

Nor is it clear what effect successful peacemaking would have on Arab governments. The Palestinian impasse did nothing to dissuade Arab governments from working with the U.S. to oust Saddam Hussein from Kuwait in the Gulf War when they determined it was in their interest to do so. Similarly, an absence of diplomatic progress would not preclude collaboration against an aggressive Iran. Just as important, a solution would not resolve questions of political stability and legitimacy within the largely authoritarian Arab world.

Alas, neither would terrorism fade if Israelis and Palestinians finally ended their conflict. Al Qaeda was initially motivated by a desire to rid the Arabian Peninsula of infidels. Its larger goal is to spread Islam in a form that closely resembles its pure, seventh-century character. Lip service is paid to Palestinian goals, but the radical terrorist agenda would not be satisfied by Palestinian statehood.

What is more, any Palestinian state would materialize only amidst compromise. There will be no return to the 1967 borders; at most, Palestinians would be compensated for territorial adjustments made necessary by large blocs of Jewish settlements and Israeli security concerns. There will be nothing more than a token right of return for Palestinians to Israel. Jerusalem will remain undivided and at most shared. Terrorists would see all this as a sell-out, and they would target not just Israel but those Palestinians and Arab states who made peace with it.

The danger of exaggerating the benefits of solving the Palestinian conflict is that doing so runs the risk of distorting American foreign policy. It accords the issue more prominence than it deserves, produces impatience, and tempts the U.S. government to adopt policies that are overly ambitious.

This is not an argument for ignoring the Palestinian issue. As is so often the case, neglect will likely prove malign. But those urging President Obama to announce a peace plan are doing him and the cause of peace no favor. Announcing a comprehensive plan now—one that is all but certain to fail—risks discrediting good ideas, breeding frustration in the Arab world, and diluting America's reputation for getting things done.

As Edgar noted in "King Lear," "Ripeness is all." And the situation in the Middle East is anything but ripe for ambitious diplomacy. What is missing are not ideas—the outlines of peace are well-known—but the will and ability to compromise.

The Palestinian leadership remains weak and divided; the Israeli government is too ideological and fractured; U.S.-Israeli relations are too strained for Israel to place much faith in American promises. The West Bank is the equivalent of a fragile state at best. What is needed are sustained efforts to strengthen Palestinian economic, military and governing capacities on the West Bank so that Israel will come to see the Palestinian Authority as a partner it can work with.

Also needed are efforts to repair U.S.-Israeli ties. The most important issue facing the two countries is Iran. It is essential the two governments develop a modicum of trust if they are to manage inevitable differences over what to do about Iran's nuclear program, a challenge that promises to be the most significant strategic threat of this decade. A protracted disagreement over the number of settlements or the contours of a final settlement is a distraction that would benefit neither the U.S. nor Israel, given an Iranian threat that is close at hand and a promise of peace that is distant.

Mr. Haass is president of the Council on Foreign Relations and the author of "War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars" (Simon & Schuster, 2009).

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704448304575196312204524930.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

Rare color footage of Israel, 1947- 1967, found!

The unmarked reels which had sat for decades were about to be disposed of.  Fortunately, the family of the late Fred Monoson sought help in determining what was on the reels.  Here is a selection of the films, as aired recently on Israeli TV.  The segment has now been provided with English subtitles.  Enjoy!
 


Source:  http://blip.tv/play/hK8_gbOSAwI
More: 

hat tip: Israel Matzav

ADL: Obama's clear statements in support of Israel reassuring

ADL Welcomes President's Strong Statements Of Support For Israel

New York, NY, April 22, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today welcomed President Barack Obama's strong statements of support for Israel, coming after months of public disagreement and tension that had cast doubts on the terms of the special relationship.


"These are very clear statements from the president that we find reassuring," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.  "This reassurance is very significant after months of public disagreement and tension between the United States and Israel, which many analysts saw as a softening of the special relationship."


"We appreciate and welcome the president's reiteration of the fact that the U.S.-Israel relationship is in our national interest, and of the 'unshakable' commitment of the United States to the security and well-being of the State of Israel," added Robert G. Sugarman, ADL National Chair.


In a letter to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, President Obama reaffirmed his commitment to strong U.S.-Israel relations.  He wrote that "… all sides should understand that our commitment to Israel's security is unshakable and that no wedge will be driven between us."


Earlier in the week, the president had issued a strong statement on Yom Ha'Atzmaut, Israel Independence Day, in which he reaffirmed the "enduring commitment" of the United States to Israel's security.

Obama to US Jews: peace cannot be imposed

US president in letter to head of Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations says is 'deeply committed to fulfilling role US must play for peace to be realized' but recognizes that for agreement to endure, 'peace cannot be imposed from outside'
Yitzhak Benhorin   http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3879473,00.html   4/22/10

WASHINGTON - While US special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell makes his way to Israel [ Mitchell has apparently arrived in Israel today -- mf], American President Barack Obama vows he does not intend to force his own peace plan on the Middle East. In a letter to the Alan Solow, the chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, Obama wrote that he does plan to impose peace "from the outside".

 

Obama's letter came in response to concerns voiced by Jewish leaders over Washington's policies towards Israel. Recent times have seen increased behind-the-scenes activity by Jewish organizations aimed at curbing the trend.

 

"Since we have known each other for a long time," Obama wrote, "I am sure you can distinguish between the noise and distortion about my views that have appeared recently, and the actual approach of my administration toward the Middle East."

 

The American president stressed in his letter that, "for over 60 years, American presidents have believed that pursuing peace between Arabs and Israelis is in the national security interests of the United States." He added that he has made the pursuit of this peace a top priority since his first day in the White House.

 

He wrote, "I am deeply committed to fulfilling the important role the United States must play for peace to be realized, but I also recognize that in order for any agreement to endure, peace cannot be imposed from the outside; it must be negotiated directly by the leaders who are required to make the hard choices and compromises that take on history.

 

"We are determined to help them, particularly because the status quo does not serve the interests of Israel, the Palestinians, or the United States."

 

'Special relationship will not change'

The US president wished to stress that American-Israeli ties would not be damaged as a result of the current disagreement between his administration and the Netanyahu government. "Let me be very clear," he said, "We have a special relationship with Israel and that will not change.

 

"Our countries are bonded together by shared values, deep and interwoven connections, and mutual interests. Many of the same forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States and our efforts to secure peace and stability in the Middle East. Our alliance with Israel serves our national security interests."

 

In conclusion, Obama wrote, "As we continue to strive for lasting peace agreement between Israel, the Palestinians, and Israel's neighbors, all sides should understand that our commitment to Israel's security is unshakable and that no wedge will be driven between us. We will have our difference, but when we do, we will work to resolve them as close allies."

 

United States envoy George Mitchell arrived in Israel Thursday for a surprise visit. Mitchell is expected to remain in Israel until Sunday, and to meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Thus far, no official statement has been made regarding the purpose of his visit.

Gen. Jones; The U.S. will never waiver in defense of Israel's security

Excerpts of prepared remarks of Gen. James L. Jones at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy


Wednesday, April 21, 2010

 “Since taking office, President Obama has pursued a two-state solution—a secure, Jewish state of Israel living side by side in peace and security with a viable and independent Palestinian state.  This is in the United States’ interest.  It is in Israel’s interest.  It is in the Palestinians’ interest.  It is in the interest of the Arab countries, and, indeed, the world.  Advancing this peace would also help prevent Iran from cynically shifting attention away from its failures to meet its obligations.”

“As President Obama declared in Cairo, “America's strong bonds with Israel are well known.  This bond is unbreakable.”  They are the bonds of history—two nations that earned our independence through the sacrifice of patriots.  They are the bonds of two people, bound together by shared values of freedom and individual opportunity.  They are the bonds of two democracies, where power resides in the people.  They are the bonds of pioneers in science, technology and so many fields where we cooperate every day.  They are the bonds of friendship, including the ties of so many families and friends.”

“This week marked the 62nd anniversary of Israeli independence—a nation and a people who have survived in the face of overwhelming odds.  But even now, six decades since its founding, Israel continues to reside in a hostile neighborhood with adversaries who cling to the false hope that denying Israel’s legitimacy will ultimately make it disappear.  But those adversaries are wrong.  As the President said in Cairo, for the entire world to hear, the State of Israel “will not go away.”

“So America’s commitment to Israel will endure..  And everyone must know that there is no space—no space—between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel’s security.  Our commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable.  It is as strong as ever.  This President and this Administration understands very well the environment—regionally and internationally—in which Israel and the United States must operate.  We understand very well that for peace and stability in the Middle East, Israel must be secure.  The United States will never waiver in defense of Israeli’s security.”

“It is time for all leaders in the region—Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab—to support efforts for peace.  It is time for today’s leader to demonstrate the courage and leadership of Anwar Sadat, King Hussein, and Yitzhak Rabin.”





##

Richman: There Could Have Been Two Independence Days

There Could Have Been Two Independence Days
Rick Richman - 04.20.2010

Today is the celebration of Israel’s Independence Day, which commemorates something as close to a miracle as we are ever likely to see — the re-creation of an ancient state in the Land in which it stood 2,000 years before, the resurrection of an ancient language to provide for common discourse, the ingathering of millions of exiles who had no other place to live, the creation of a democracy that extended citizenship not only to Jews but also to Arabs in the midst of an Arab war to destroy the state, the safeguarding of all holy places of all religions and the provision of free access to them, the creation and maintenance of a free and vibrant civil society while under continuous terrorist attack and multiple genocidal wars, and the growth of the nation from a third-world economy into one of the most technologically advanced in the world. It is no exaggeration to say, in the words of Hillel Halkin, that “for all its shortcomings and mistakes, Israel is and will always be one of the most glorious historical adventures in the history of mankind.”

But didn’t this new state cause the creation of a new group of refugees, whose own plight remains unresolved 62 years later? The short answer is “no,” but the longer answer is one that many have forgotten or in some cases may not have been permitted to know. The Jewish Press excerpts on its front page Israeli UN Ambassador Abba Eban’s November 17, 1958, speech to the General Assembly’s Special Political Committee (worth reading in its entirety), which began as follows:

    The Arab refugee problem was caused by a war of aggression, launched by the Arab states against Israel in 1947 and 1948. … If there had been no war against Israel, with its consequent harvest of bloodshed, misery, panic and flight, there would be no problem of Arab refugees today.

    Once you determine the responsibility for that war, you have determined the responsibility for the refugee problem. Nothing in the history of our generation is clearer or less controversial than the initiative of Arab governments for the conflict out of which the refugee tragedy emerged. …

    “This will be a war of extermination,” declared the secretary-general of the Arab League speaking for the governments of six Arab states, “it will be a momentous massacre to be spoken of like the Mongolian massacre and the Crusades.”

    The assault began on the last day of November 1947. From then until the expiration of the British Mandate in May 1948 the Arab states, in concert with Palestine Arab leaders, plunged the land into turmoil and chaos. On the day of Israel’s Declaration of Independence, the armed forces of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by contingents from Saudi Arabia and the Yemen, crossed their frontiers and marched against Israel.

The tragedy of the Palestinians is that they could have been celebrating today the 62nd anniversary of their own state as well. But 62 years ago, they rejected a two-state solution and commenced the first of multiple wars to extinguish the other one. They have rejected multiple offers of a state since then. Six decades after their first war, they are left without a state but with the refugees created by their attempt to destroy the Jewish one. It is a nakba, but it is not one that Israel caused.

Source: http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/richman/281211

DoD report to Congress: By 2015, Iran may develop missiles capable of reaching the U.S.

 

 

By JPOST.COM STAFF   20/04/2010  http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=173528

 

Iran may develop missiles capable of reaching the US by 2015, a report delivered to Congress Monday night asserts.

"With sufficient foreign assistance, Iran could probably develop and test an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the United States by 2015," the report by the US Department of Defense states.

It adds that "Iran's nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility to develop nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy."

The report indicates that while Iran has a sizeable conventional military force, it would be no match for a “well trained, sophisticated military such as that of the United States or its allies" in the event of armed conflict.

Abu Toameh: Fayyad nice guy, can't deliver peace

                                                          

The Palestinians: Why Salam Fayyad Cannot Deliver 

Fatah, whose followers control large parts of the West Bank, views Fayyad as a major threat to its power.

by Khaled Abu Toameh    April 20, 2010 

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad may be a good man with good intentions, but those who think that he will be able to persuade the Palestinians to make peace with Israel are deluding themselves.
In Palestinian culture, it is more important if one graduates from an Israeli prison than from the University of Texas at Austin.

Fayyad never spent a day in an Israeli jail. Nor did he or any of his sons take an active role in the “struggle” against Israel.

The first question that people would ask Fayyad -- when and if he runs in a new election -- is, “What sacrifices did you make in the struggle against Israel?”

Palestinians will want to know if Fayyad has ever been detained or targeted in any other way by Israel. They would want to know if any of Fayyad’s sons had participated in demonstrations or attacks against Israel. This is why Palestinians who have sat in Israeli prisons for security offenses now hold senior positions in the Palestinian Authority.

Many Palestinians see Fayyad as someone who was “imposed” on them by Americans and Europeans and are willing to accept him as long as he is dealing only with the economy and infrastructure. But Fayyad, who appears to be more popular in Washington and London than in the Gaza Strip’s Jabalya refugee camp or Hebron in the West Bank, will never be able to sell a peace agreement with Israel to his people.

In the parliamentary election that took place in January 2006, Fayyad ran as an independent candidate at the head of a party called “Third Way”. His number two was the prominent Palestinian spokeswoman Hanan Ashrawi. The party got less than two percent of the votes. Like Fayyad, Ashrawi never spent a day in an Israeli prison. Nor had she or her daughters been involved in anti-Israel violence. This is the main reason “Third Way” did not appeal to the Palestinians. Because both Fayyad and Ashrawi lived and studied abroad for many years, they still have no grassroots following in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fayyad’s “Third Way” won only two seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, turning him and Ashrawi into lawmakers. But shortly after the election, a sharp dispute erupted between the two and Ashrawi chose to break away. Since then, “Third Way” has been a one-man party headed by Fayyad. The party has since been completely paralyzed, and some say it no longer even exists.

If Fayyad runs in a new election, both and his party and he are unlikely to get more than the two percent again that they got in the last vote. While he may have done wonderful things for the economy in the West Bank, Fayyad continues to lack popular support. Moreover, the two major parties in the Palestinian arena, Fatah and Hamas, have a common interest in preventing Fayyad from rising to power.

Fatah, whose followers control large parts of the West Bank, views Fayyad as a major threat to its power. In fact, Fatah officials have long been accusing Fayyad of working, with the help of the Americans and Israelis, to undermine Fatah’s authority in the West Bank. Fayyad has been accused, among other things, of cutting off funds to Fatah figures and institutions. On a number of occasions, disgruntled Fatah activists have distributed leaflets denouncing Fayyad as a “collaborator” with Israel.

Hamas, at the other end, considers itself to be at war with the Fayyad government. The Islamic movement has held Fayyad responsible for the massive crackdown on its members and institutions in the West Bank over the past three years. Hamas has even demanded that Fayyad be removed from his post as a pre-condition for achieving “national unity” with Fatah.

U.S. condemns possible Syrian transfer of SCUDS to Hezbollah

"The United States condemns in the strongest terms the transfer of any arms, and especially ballistic missile systems such as the SCUD, from Syria to Hezbollah," the statement, issued by State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid, said.

The State Department said this was the fourth time in recent months that Washington has raised the issue with the Syrian Embassy.


The U.S. statement was a strong warning to Damascus, saying that weapons transfers were an obstacle to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians and noting that Syria's designation as a "state sponsor of terrorism" was tied to its support for groups such as Hezbollah.

"We call for an immediate cessation of any arms transfers to Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations in the region."

"We wouldn't have called them in if we didn't think something was going on," the [U.S.]official said.
-- Reuters  April 19, 2010  http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63J01J20100420

Statement by President on Israel Independence Day

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_______________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 19, 2010



Statement by President on Israel Independence Day



On the 62nd Anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel, I join the American people in congratulating the government and people of Israel on this celebration of their independence.  Minutes after David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence, realizing the dream of a state for the Jewish people in their historic homeland, the United States became the first country to recognize Israel.  To this day, we continue to share a strong, unbreakable bond of friendship between our two nations, anchored by the United States’ enduring commitment to Israel’s security.  Israel remains our important partner and key strategic ally in the Middle East, and I am confident that our special relationship will only be strengthened in the months and years to come.  I look forward to continuing our efforts with Israel to achieve comprehensive peace and security in the region, including a two-state solution, and to working together to counter the forces that threaten Israel, the United States, and the world.  On this day, we once again honor the extraordinary achievements of the people of Israel, and their deep and abiding friendship with the American people. I offer my best wishes to President Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the people of Israel as they celebrate this happy occasion.



 

PM Netanyahu's message to the Diaspora communities for Israel Independence Day 2010

Israel’s Independence Day celebrates a double miracle in the life of the Jewish people.  The first miracle is the restoration of Jewish sovereignty.  There is no other example that I know of in the history of nations in which a scattered people, practically left for dead, has been able to re-assert its national life.  The second miracle is what we’ve done since the establishment of the Jewish state.  Israel is fast becoming a regional economic power and one of the world’s leading technological powers. All the powers of creativity and genius in the Jewish people are bursting forth in every area: in science; in technology; in medicine; in the arts.  This great burst of creativity promises a great future for the Jewish people and for all mankind.  This double miracle is a testament to the life-force of the Jewish people.  It’s a testament to the deep wells of hope we carry inside us and to the deep connection that we have both to our past and to our future.  The two miracles that have already occurred are only the beginning.  If we stand together, if we remain committed to our common destiny, there’s nothing we cannot achieve.

What's so special about Israel?

Five (5) Israels fit into one Iowa.  Independent only 62 years, with 1/1000th of the world's population,  surrounded by enemies, under constant threat and possessing almost no natural resources.What's so special about Israel?  Take a look!




Source:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGUxzISr9Us&feature=player_embedded 
Producer: aish.com                                      
Send comments to jcrc@dmjfed.org

Sec. Clinton heralds Israel Independence Day

Israel Independence Day

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State

Washington, DC

April 18, 2010

---

A video message is available here:
http://www.state.gov/video/?videoid=77844696001

Congratulations Israel on 62 years of independence! This is an opportunity to celebrate all that Israel has accomplished and to reaffirm the bonds that unite our two nations – our strategic partnership, our shared values, and our common aspirations.

You know, in 1948, it took President Truman only 11 minutes to recognize your new nation. And ever since, the United States has stood with you in solidarity.

Since my first visit to Israel nearly thirty years ago, I have returned many times and made many friends. And I have shared your pride in seeing the desert bloom, the economy thrive and your country flourish. I have a deep personal commitment to Israel. And so does President Obama. Our nation will not waver in protecting Israel’s security and promoting Israel’s future.
That is why pursuing peace and recognized borders for Israel is one of our top priorities. We believe it is possible – indeed necessary – to achieve a comprehensive peace in the Middle East that provides Israelis, Palestinians, and all the people of the region security, prosperity, and the opportunity to live up to their full God-given potential.

Israel today is confronting some of the greatest challenges in its history, but its promise and potential have never been greater. The United States will continue to stand with you, sharing your risks and helping shoulder your burdens, as we face the future together.

Peres: Israel is a peace-seeking state

Peres at Israel Remembrance Day ceremony:

Peres sent a message of peace: "We don't seek war. We are a peace-seeking state, but we know, and will continue to know, how to care for ourselves. We are a democratic state, replete with rifts and divisions, arguments and internal disputes – but we are also a nation that knows how to unite and rise up in the hour of need, to defend our lives and defeat those who lie in ambush."

Source: ynetnews.com

 

Sec. of Defense: US does not have means for dealing with Iranian progress toward nuclear weapons

Gates Says U.S. Lacks Policy to Curb Iran’s Nuclear Drive
By DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER
Published: April 17, 2010  New York Times (excerpt)

   
         WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear capability, according to government officials familiar with the document.


     Several officials said the highly classified analysis, written in January to President Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, came in the midst of an intensifying effort inside the Pentagon, the White House and the intelligence agencies to develop new options for Mr. Obama. They include a set of military alternatives, still under development, to be considered should diplomacy and sanctions fail to force Iran to change course.

Officials familiar with the memo’s contents would describe only portions dealing with strategy and policy, and not sections that apparently dealt with secret operations against Iran, or how to deal with Persian Gulf allies.

One senior official, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the memo, described the document as “a wake-up call.” But White House officials dispute that view, insisting that for 15 months they had been conducting detailed planning for many possible outcomes regarding Iran’s nuclear program.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world/middleeast/18iran.html?hp
 

Morris: Israel has the right to self-defense

When Armageddon lives next door

Obama is denying Israel the right to self-defense when it is not his, or America's, life that is on the line.

By Benny Morris  

Los Angeles Times, Opinion Editiorial  April 16, 2010

I take it personally: Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, wants to murder me, my family and my people. Day in, day out, he announces the imminent demise of the "Zionist regime," by which he means Israel. And day in, day out, his scientists and technicians are advancing toward the atomic weaponry that will enable him to bring this about.

The Jews of Europe (and Poles, Russians, Czechs, the French, etc.) should likewise have taken personally Adolf Hitler's threats and his serial defiance of the international community from 1933 to 1939. But he was allowed, by the major powers and the League of Nations, to flex his muscles, rearm, remilitarize the Rhineland and then gobble up neighboring countries. Had he been stopped before the invasion of Poland and the start of World War II, the lives of many millions, Jews and Gentiles, would have been saved. But he wasn't.

And it doesn't look like Ahmadinejad will be either. Not by the United States and the international community, at any rate. President Obama, when not obsessing over the fate of the ever- aggrieved Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, proposes to halt Ahmadinejad's nuclear program by means of international sanctions. But here's the paradox: The wider Obama casts his net to mobilize as many of the world's key players as he can, the weaker the sanctions and the more remote their implementation. China, it appears, will only agree to a U.N. Security Council resolution if the sanctions are diluted to the point of meaninglessness (and maybe not even then). The same appears to apply to the Russians. Meanwhile, Iran advances toward the bomb. Most of the world's intelligence agencies believe that it is only one to three years away.

Perhaps Obama hopes to unilaterally implement far more biting American (and, perhaps, European) sanctions. But if China and Russia (and some European Union members) don't play ball, the sanctions will remain ineffective. And Iran will continue on its deadly course.

At the end of 2007, the U.S. intelligence community, driven by wishful thinking, expediency and incompetence, announced that the Iranians had in 2003 halted the weaponization part of their nuclear program. Last week, Obama explicitly contradicted that assessment. At least the American administration now publicly acknowledges where it is the Iranians are headed, while not yet acknowledging what it is they are after -- primarily Israel's destruction.

Granted, Obama has indeed tried to mobilize the international community for sanctions. But it has been a hopeless task, given the selfishness and shortsightedness of governments and peoples. Sanctions were supposed to kick in in autumn 2009; then it was December; now it is sometime late this year. Obama is still pushing the rock up the hill -- and Ahmadinejad, understandably, has taken to publicly scoffing at the West and its "sanctions."

He does this because he knows that sanctions, if they are ever passed, are likely to be toothless, and because the American military option has been removed from the table. Obama and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates -- driven by a military that feels overstretched in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq and a public that has no stomach for more war -- have made this last point crystal clear.

But at the same time, Obama insists that Israel may not launch a preemptive military strike of its own. Give sanctions a chance, he says. (Last year he argued that diplomacy and "engagement" with Tehran should be given a chance. Tehran wasn't impressed then and isn't impressed now.) The problem is that even if severe sanctions are imposed, they likely won't have time to have serious effect before Iran succeeds at making a bomb.

Obama is, no doubt, well aware of this asymmetric timetable. Which makes his prohibition against an Israeli preemptive strike all the more immoral. He knows that any sanctions he manages to orchestrate will not stop the Iranians. (Indeed, Ahmadinejad last week said sanctions would only fortify Iran's resolve and consolidate its technological prowess.) Obama is effectively denying Israel the right to self-defense when it is not his, or America's, life that is on the line.

Perhaps Obama has privately resigned himself to Iran's nuclear ambitions and believes, or hopes, that deterrence will prevent Tehran from unleashing its nuclear arsenal. But what if deterrence won't do the trick? What if the mullahs, believing they are carrying out Allah's will and enjoy divine protection, are undeterred?

The American veto may ultimately consign millions of Israelis, including me and my family, to a premature death and Israel to politicide. It would then be comparable to Britain and France's veto in the fall of 1938 of the Czechs defending their territorial integrity against their rapacious Nazi neighbors. Within six months, Czechoslovakia was gobbled up by Germany.

But will Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu follow in Czech President Edvard Benes' footsteps? Will he allow an American veto to override Israel's existential interests? And can Israel go it alone, without an American green (or even yellow) light, without American political cover and overflight permissions and additional American equipment? Much depends on what the Israeli military and intelligence chiefs believe their forces -- air force, navy, commandos -- can achieve. Full destruction of the Iranian nuclear project? A long-term delay? And on how they view Israel's ability (with or without U.S. support) to weather the reaction from Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria.

An Israeli attack might harm U.S. interests and disrupt international oil supplies (though I doubt it would cause direct attacks on U.S. installations, troops or vessels). But, from the Israeli perspective, these are necessarily marginal considerations when compared with the mortal hurt Israel and Israelis would suffer from an Iranian nuclear attack. Netanyahu's calculations will, in the end, be governed by his perception of Israel's existential imperatives. And the clock is ticking.

Benny Morris is the author of many books about the Middle East conflict, including, most recently, "1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War."

Pro-Israel analysis of current events on radio. April 15, 2010

Thursday, 04/15/10 - John Batchelor Show 10pm-11pm

GUESTS: Co-host Malcolm Hoenlein, Conference of Presidents; Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA); Aaron David Miller, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Listen or Download this show as a podcast

Clinton lays out the Administration's position on M.E. peace process

In a speech delivered April 25, 2010, Secretary of State Clinton articulated the Administration's position on the Middle East peace process.  FYI, here is the substantive part of the speech in which she addresses the controversial issues.   //Mark Finkelstein  jcrc@dmjfed.org

 

 Secretary of State Clinton:  The PA  [Palestinian Authority]  must redouble its efforts to put an end to incitement and violence, crack down on corruption, and ingrain a culture of peace and tolerance among Palestinians. The leadership should refrain from using international organizations, particularly the United Nations, as platforms for inflammatory rhetoric. And we strongly encourage President Abbas and his government to join negotiations with Israel now.   ... 

 

Extending and sustaining this positive development  [of the PA]  also requires Israel to be a partner. The Netanyahu government has lifted roadblocks and eased movements throughout the West Bank. These also are encouraging moves that will improve the quality of life, but Israel can and should do more to support the Palestinian Authority’s efforts to build credible institutions and deliver results. Both sides would benefit from a real partnership that fosters long-term growth and opportunity.

 

Because ultimately the fate of these efforts hinges on the peace process. In contrast to Hamas, the Palestinian Authority has staked its credibility on a path of peaceful coexistence. Even more than economic opportunities, that path for the Palestinians must lead to a state of their own, for the dignity that all people deserve, and the right to chart their own destiny. If President Abbas cannot deliver on those aspirations, there’s no doubt his support will fade and Palestinians will turn to alternatives – including Hamas. And that way leads only to more conflict.

Now, I’ve had friends of mine – Israelis – say, but you know we can’t determine what happens and we just have to hold firm to the positions we hold. As I said in my AIPAC speech, there are three problems with that position: demography, ideology, and technology.

So for Israel, accepting concrete steps toward peace – both through the peace process and in the bottoms-up institutions building I have described – are the best weapons against Hamas and other extremists. Prime Minister Netanyahu has embraced the vision of the two-state solution. But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere. So we encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity, and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza, and to refrain from unilateral statements and actions that could undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks.

Now, Israel has worked hard to improve security. And along with the increased capacity and commitment of Palestinian security forces and the construction of the wall, which I have defended as a senator and I defend as the Secretary of State, the number of suicide bombings – thankfully – has dropped significantly. And as a result, some in Israel have come to believe that they are protected by walls, buoyed by a dynamic economy, and can avoid having to do anything right now. Because these are hard choices that they are confronting.

But that would mean continuing an impasse that not only carries tragic human costs and denies Palestinians their legitimate aspirations, but which threatens Israel’s long-term future as a secure and democratic Jewish state. Israelis and Palestinians alike must confront the reality that the status quo has not produced long-term security or served their interests, and accept their share of responsibility for reaching a comprehensive peace that will benefit both sides.

So too must the Arab states, many of whom are represented here tonight, who worry about the destabilizing impact of extremists like Hamas but don’t do enough to bolster the efforts of the Palestinian Authority. It is also in the interest of Arab states to advance the Arab Peace Initiative with actions, not just rhetoric, make it easier for the Palestinians to pursue negotiations and achieve an agreement. If the Arab Peace Initiative is indeed, as Rob said, the genuine offer it appears to be, we should not face threats by certain Arab states that it will be "taken off the table" each time there is a setback. We look forward to a deeper conversation about implementing the Initiative and the concrete results it would bring to the people of the region. And we are very encouraged by the work of a number of NGOs and civil society groups, including some who are represented here, to articulate a more complete vision of those benefits of peace.

Now, for our part, the United States understands the need to support the reforms of the Palestinian Authority and continue efforts to restart substantive negotiations. We not only know we cannot force a solution, we have no interest in forcing a solution. The parties themselves are the only ones who can resolve their differences. (Applause.) But as a good friend, we believe that through good-faith negotiations, the parties can mutually agree to an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the ‘67 lines, with agreed swaps, and Israel’s goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israel’s security requirements.

This will require all parties to make difficult but necessary choices. And it will take leadership. Now, we’ve seen this before. We’ve seen it over the last years from the time when Sadat and Begin extended a hand of peace because they knew it would make their people stronger.

ADL concerned about U.S. policy toward Israel

Administration's Shift In Policy Toward Israel Is A Faulty Strategy

New York, NY, April 15, 2010 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today expressed deep concern about the "significant shift" in U.S. policy toward Israel and the peace process reflected in the comments by President Barack Obama at his press conference on April 13.

 

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement: 

The significant shift in U.S. policy toward Israel and the peace process, which has been evident in comments from various members of the Obama Administration and has now been confirmed by the president himself in his press conference at the Nuclear Security Summit, is deeply distressing.  Saying that the absence of a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict undermines U.S. interests in the broader Middle East and the larger issue of resolving other conflicts is a faulty strategy. It is an incorrect approach on which to base America's foreign policy in the Middle East and its relationship with its longtime friend and ally, Israel.

 

ADL has long expressed its concern from the very beginning of the Obama Administration about advisers to the president who see the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a major impediment to achieving the administration's foreign policy and military goals in the wider region.  The net effect of this dangerous thinking is to shift responsibility for success of American foreign policy away from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and directly onto Israel.  It is particularly disturbing in light of the blatantly disproportionate number and the nature of statements issued by this administration criticizing Israel as compared to what has been said about the Palestinians.

 

The best way to move the peace process between the Israelis and Palestinians forward is for all parties to demand that the Palestinians abandon their tactic of "just saying no" and insist that the rest of the Arab world move toward normalization relations with Israel.

-----------------

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/IslME_62/5736_62.htm

World Jewish Congress President Urges Obama To Change Stance On Israel

An Open Letter to President Obama, 4/15/2010,  from the President of the World Jewish Congress, Ronald S. Lauder. 

Dear President Obama: 

 

I write today as a proud American and a proud Jew.

 

Jews around the world are concerned today.  We are concerned about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that brags about its genocidal intentions against Israel.  We are concerned that the Jewish state is being isolated and delegitimized.

 

Mr. President, we are concerned about the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel.

 

The Israeli housing bureaucracy made a poorly timed announcement and your Administration branded it an “insult.”  This diplomatic faux pas was over the fourth stage of a seven stage planning permission process – a plan to build homes years from now in a Jewish area of Jerusalem that under any peace agreement would remain an integral part of Israel.

 

Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions.  Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.

 

Israel has made unprecedented concessions.  It has enacted the most far reaching West Bank settlement moratorium in Israeli history.

 

Israel has publicly declared support for a two-state solution.  Conversely, many Palestinians continue their refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

 

The conflict’s root cause has always been the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people.  Every American President who has tried to broker a peace agreement has collided with that Palestinian intransigence, sooner or later.  Recall President Clinton’s anguish when his peace proposals were bluntly rejected by the Palestinians in 2000.  Settlements were not the key issue then.

 

They are not the key issue now.

 

Another important question is this:  what is the Administration’s position on Israel’s borders in any final status agreement?  Ambiguity on this matter has provoked a wave of rumors and anxiety.  Can it be true that America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides defensible borders for Israel?  Is a new course being charted that would leave Israel with the indefensible borders that invited invasion prior to 1967? 

 

There are significant moves from the Palestinian side to use those indefensible borders as the basis for a future unilateral declaration of independence.  How would the United States respond to such a reckless course of action?

 

And what are America’s strategic ambitions in the broader Middle East?  The Administration’s desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is well known.  But is friction with Israel part of this new strategy?  Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims?  History is clear on the matter:  appeasement does not work.  It can achieve the opposite of what is intended.

 

And what about the most dangerous player in the region?  Shouldn’t the United States remain focused on the single biggest threat that confronts the world today?  That threat is a nuclear armed Iran.  Israel is not only America’s closest ally in the Middle East, it is the one most committed to this Administration’s declared aim of ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons.

 

Mr. President, we embrace your sincerity in your quest to seek a lasting peace.  But we urge you to take into consideration the concerns expressed above.  Our great country and the tiny State of Israel have long shared the core values of freedom and democracy.  It is a bond much treasured by the Jewish people.  In that spirit I submit, most respectfully, that it is time to end our public feud with Israel and to confront the real challenges that we face together.

 

Yours sincerely,

Ronald S. Lauder

President

World Jewish Congress

----------------------

Send responses to jcrc@dmjfed.org

 

 

ADL condemns West Bank mosque vandalism

Jerusalem, April 14, 2010, ADL.org.  The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today condemned the vandalizing of a West Bank mosque.  Graffiti -- including a Star of David, the name Mohammad and racist statements in Hebrew -- was sprayed on the mosque in the village of Hawara near Nablus.  Israeli officials believe the attack was likely perpetrated by extremist Israeli Jews.   

 

In December 2009, another West Bank mosque was vandalized, apparently by Israeli radicals.

 

ADL's Israel Office issued the following statement:

We are outraged by the vandalism at the mosque in Hawara.  We join with Israeli officials in condemning this act of hate.

 

We continue to be greatly concerned that these violent acts are believed to be perpetrated by Israeli Jewish extremists.  It should be clear that violence and hate are unacceptable ways to express political opposition.

 

 

Yom HaShoah commemorated at Western Galilee College

Western Galilee College, in our Israel Partnership region, commemorated Holocaust Remembrance Day, with remarks delivered by faculty, administration, and students, and song. Western Galilee College participates in a prominent Holocaust Studies program for undergraduates provided by the Ghetto Fighters Kibbutz Museum in Acco. Kol haKavod.

 At left,  Dean Yehuda Ben Simon

Statement by the President on Holocaust Remembrance Day

 

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

_______________________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

April 11, 2010

 

Statement by the President on Holocaust Remembrance Day

 

I  join people here at home, in Israel, and around the world in observing Holocaust Remembrance Day.   This year, on the 65th anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi concentration camps, we must recommit ourselves to honoring the memories of all the victims and ensuring that they remain a part of our collective memory.   On my visit to Buchenwald last year – and during my visit to Yad Vashem in 2008 – I bore witness to the horrors of anti-Semitism and the capacity for evil represented by the Nazis’ campaign to annihilate the Jewish people and so many others.  But even at places like Buchenwald, the dignity and courage of those who endured the horrors of the Holocaust remind us of humanity’s capacity for decency and compassion.

 

The memories of the victims serve as a constant reminder to honor their legacy by renewing our commitment to prevent genocide, and to confront anti-Semitism and prejudice in all of its forms. We must never tolerate the hateful stereotypes and prejudice against the Jewish people that tragically continues to this day. We must work, instead, on behalf of a world of justice and peace, in which all nations and peoples value the humanity that we share, and the dignity inherent in every human being. 

 

###

 

Lieberman: Omitting 'Islamic' Terrorism From Security Document Dishonest, 'Offensive'

FOXNews.com, April 11, 2010

Sen. Joe Lieberman slammed the Obama administration Sunday for stripping terms like "Islamic extremism" from a key national security document, calling the move dishonest, wrong-headed and disrespectful to the majority of Muslims who are not terrorists.

Sen. Joe Lieberman slammed the Obama administration Sunday for stripping terms like "Islamic extremism" from a key national security document, calling the move dishonest, wrong-headed and disrespectful to the majority of Muslims who are not terrorists.

The Connecticut independent revealed that he wrote a letter Friday to top counterterrorism adviser John Brennan urging the administration to "identify accurately the ideological source" of the threat against the United States. He wrote that failing to identify "violent Islamist extremism" as the enemy is "offensive."
The letter was written following reports that the administration was removing religious references from the U.S. National Security Strategy -- the document that had described the "ideological conflict" of the early 21st century as "the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism."

Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday" this isn't the first time the Obama administration has tried to tiptoe around referring to Islam in its security documents and that it's time to "blow the whistle" on the trend.

"This is not honest and, frankly, I think it's hurtful in our relations with the Muslim world," Lieberman said. "We're not in a war against Islam. It's a group of Islamist extremists who have taken the Muslim religion and made it into a political ideology, and I think if we're not clear about that, we disrespect the overwhelming majority of Muslims who are not extremists."

Lieberman, in his letter, noted that prior Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon documents also did not refer to "Islamist extremism." He expressed dismay that the administration's review of the Fort Hood shooting, in which alleged shooter Maj. Nidal Hasan was said to have had contact with a radical cleric beforehand, omitted the term.
"Unless we're honest about that, we're not going to be able to defeat this enemy," Lieberman told "Fox News Sunday." "It's absolutely Orwellian and counterproductive to the fight that we're fighting."

Anti-Semitism in the world: 2009 was worst in two decades, new survey shows

Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress (L) and Professor Dina Porat, head of the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University, present on Sunday the findings of the new survey on anti-Semitism worldwide.

TEL AVIV (EJP)---According to a new survey, 2009 was the worst since monitoring of anti-Semitic manifestatons began two decades ago, in terms of both major anti-Semitic violence and the hostile atmosphere.

On the eve of Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day, experts in the field of anti-Semitism presented data demonstrating an increase of over 100% in anti-Semitic attacks and events, with a special emphasis on what they called "the orchestrated and concerted attempt to delegitimize the Jewish People and Israel “ in Europe.

The European Jewish Congress (EJC) and The Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism at Tel Aviv University on Sunday jointly released the survey findings regarding the state of anti-Semitism worldwide.

"These were generated worldwide by the mass demonstrations and verbal and visual expressions against Israel and the Jews. The worst offenders appeared in Western Europe, particularly in the UK and France, followed by Canada," they stated.

The survey also found a disproportionate and pre-planned onslaught of radical activists from the left, the right and from among Muslim immigrant communities against Jews and against Israel as a Jewish state, using anti-Semitism and the Holocaust as political tools.

"When it comes to the Jews or the Jewish State both extremes are almost mirror images in their expressions of hate and their goals to eliminate the Jewish presence and influence," said Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress, an umbrella organization for Jewish communities in Europe, at the survey’s presentation.

He added: "Even more astonishingly, some of these organizations, who oppose each other on all other issues, are actually coordinating on the one issue that they can unite on – hatred of Jews and Israel."

Although the extreme-right remains a significant force in perpetrating anti-Smitic attacks, during 2009 most violent cases, especially in Western Europe, where identification was compiled, were determined to have been carried out by individuals of Arab or Muslim background, the study showed.

Kantor enunciated ways to combat the attacks by groups or organizations that are succeeding in politically mainstreaming their message. "This is leading to Jews feeling increasingly unsure of their place in certain cities in Europe, like Malmo, where Jews are increasingly leaving in large numbers," he said.

He called on European leaders to show greater leadership," and said education needs to be a priority. "And law enforcement agencies need to protect the subjects of aggression rather than defending the rights of the aggressors”, he added.

Iran Displays New Centrifuge For Nuclear Work

TEHRAN (Reuters) 4/9/2010  excerpt - President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, taunting the United States for trying to halt Iran's nuclear programme, unveiled a new centrifuge on Friday which officials said would enrich uranium much faster then existing models.

U.S. President Barack Obama, who is seeking tougher U.N. sanctions against Tehran, acknowledged that such measures would not necessarily work, but said sustained world pressure could over time prompt Iran to revise its nuclear calculations.

Pro-Israel analysis on radio. 4/8/2010

Discussion of current issues effecting Israel.

Thursday, 04/08/10 -  John Batchelor Show  

GUESTS: Malcolm Hoenlein, Conference of Presidents; David Makovsky, The Washington Institute; Professor Orde Kittie, Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

Listen or Download this show as a podcast

Link:  WABC-Radio

Israeli Stocks Climb to Record as Growth Accelerates

Israeli Stocks Climb to Record as Growth Accelerates (Update3)

By Ronit Goodman

April 6, 2010  (Bloomberg) -- Israel’s benchmark stock index advanced to a record high on speculation accelerating economic growth will lead to rising corporate earnings.

The TA-25 Index climbed 0.4 percent to close at 1,237.85 in Tel Aviv, surpassing the previous record of 1,237.13 on Oct. 31, 2007. The gauge reached an intraday high of 1,242.39. The benchmark’s record intraday level was 1,248.8 on Nov. 1, 2007.

“The economy will remain strong and continue to positively impact companies’ results and, therefore, positively impact the equity market,” said Yaron Fridman, equity strategist at Bank Hapoalim Ltd. in Tel Aviv.

The gauge of Israel’s 25 largest companies has more than doubled from a 2008 low, driven by energy shares such as Delek Group Ltd. Benchmark indexes in Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Indonesia and Turkey also have bounced back to all-time highs since the global bear market ended in March 2009. 

Aggregate revenue of companies in the TA-25 index grew about 20 percent in the fourth quarter while profit soared 1,230 percent, Fridman wrote in a March 25 report.

Perrigo Co., a manufacturer of store brand over-the-counter pharmaceuticals that carries a 9.5 percent weighting in the index, gained 2.3 percent today. The company received U.S. Food & Drug Administration approval to market a generic version of a topical acne vulgaris antibiotic marketed by Steifel Laboratories Inc. NICE Systems Ltd., the manufacturer of digital-recording surveillance products that makes up 4.9 percent of the gauge, increased 2.8 percent.

Growing Economy

Israel’s economic growth was 0.7 percent in 2009, compared with a 2.4 percent contraction in the U.S. The Bank of Israel on Jan. 11 raised its 2010 growth forecast to 3.5 percent from 2.5 percent, citing “positive” information on the global and local economies. Bank Leumi Le-Israel Ltd., the country’s largest lender on March 25 increased its forecast for economic expansion to 3.8 percent from 3.5 percent. The unemployment rate fell to 7.4 percent in the fourth quarter, the lowest level in a year, as growth accelerated.

Energy stocks soared after the country’s largest discovery of natural gas was reported in January 2009. Delek Drilling LP and Avner Oil & Gas Ltd., partners in the find in the Mediterranean Sea off Israel’s coast, are up about five-fold since the announcement.

Delek Group, Isaac Tshuva’s holding company that controls about 32 percent of Tamar through Avner and Delek Drilling, has surged more than six-fold.

--With assistance from Michael Patterson in London. Editors: Susan Lerner, Claudia Maedler.