Watch this video, which shows Durban II delegates leaving the hall as Ahmadinejad denigrates Israel.
http://hurl.no/go.nrk/Ci
Monday, April 20, 2009
Many diplomats at UN Racism conference walk out when Ahmadinejad condemns Israel as "racist"
DEBKAfile Special Report April 20, 2009, www.debka.com
Protesters constantly disrupted the speech as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned Israel for "racism" at the Anti-Racism conference which opened in Geneva Monday, April 20. He went on to denounce the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as an arrogant drive to "expand its sphere of influence."
The boycott of the UN World Conference against Racism snowballed with Germany and New Zealand joining the US, Canada, Australia, Italy, Holland, Sweden and Israel. It is the follow-up to Durban I in 2001, from which the US and Israeli delegates walked out over its anti-Israel, anti-Semitic content. Yet the text prepared for second session reaffirms the language of the first. The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also scheduled a press conference for Monday, the eve of Israel's annual Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Outside, an "alternative" anti-racism conference was staged in protest with the participation of refugees from political and human rights abuses in Iran, Libya and Sudan.
Jerusalem recalled its ambassador to Bern for consultations to protest the meeting Swiss president Hans Rudolf Merz held with the Iranian president despite Israel's request not to shake the hand of this "Holocaust denier, exporter of terrorism and anti-Semitism." The pope criticized the boycott after US president Barack Obama spoke of the antagonism to Israel at Durban I "in ways that were extremely hypocritical and counterproductive."
In regretfully announcing US absence from the Geneva event, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the US also has serious concerns about relatively new additions… regarding 'incitement' which run counter to the US commitment to unfettered free speech."
Explaining its absence, Canada has said it is "interested in combating racism, not promoting it," and Italy condemned its "aggressive and anti-Semitic statements."
The European Union failed to reach a consensus on its position.
The UK sent a low-level delegation - like Switzerland and the Czech Republic.
In walking out of the original conference in 2001, the then secretary of state Colin Powell said: "… you do not combat racism by hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of Zionism equals racism, support the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust or suggest that apartheid exists in Israel or that single out only one country in the world – Israel – for censure and abuse."
Black U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Democrat) said the Black Caucus, which she heads, was “deeply dismayed” at the decision to boycott Durban II. She explained that this would make it more difficult for Washington to influence the UN Human Rights Council.
Washington has taken steps to join the controversial body which is dominated by states under fire for human rights violations.
A rally by pro-Israeli and pro-freedom of speech groups was to be led by US Rep. Scott Garret (R-N.J.). Garret, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R.-Fla.), and Rep. Dough Lamborn (R.-Colo.) have co-sponsored legislation to prohibit US funding for any follow-up events of Durban I.
DEBKAfile Special Report April 20, 2009, www.debka.com
Protesters constantly disrupted the speech as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad condemned Israel for "racism" at the Anti-Racism conference which opened in Geneva Monday, April 20. He went on to denounce the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan as an arrogant drive to "expand its sphere of influence."
The boycott of the UN World Conference against Racism snowballed with Germany and New Zealand joining the US, Canada, Australia, Italy, Holland, Sweden and Israel. It is the follow-up to Durban I in 2001, from which the US and Israeli delegates walked out over its anti-Israel, anti-Semitic content. Yet the text prepared for second session reaffirms the language of the first. The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also scheduled a press conference for Monday, the eve of Israel's annual Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Outside, an "alternative" anti-racism conference was staged in protest with the participation of refugees from political and human rights abuses in Iran, Libya and Sudan.
Jerusalem recalled its ambassador to Bern for consultations to protest the meeting Swiss president Hans Rudolf Merz held with the Iranian president despite Israel's request not to shake the hand of this "Holocaust denier, exporter of terrorism and anti-Semitism." The pope criticized the boycott after US president Barack Obama spoke of the antagonism to Israel at Durban I "in ways that were extremely hypocritical and counterproductive."
In regretfully announcing US absence from the Geneva event, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said the US also has serious concerns about relatively new additions… regarding 'incitement' which run counter to the US commitment to unfettered free speech."
Explaining its absence, Canada has said it is "interested in combating racism, not promoting it," and Italy condemned its "aggressive and anti-Semitic statements."
The European Union failed to reach a consensus on its position.
The UK sent a low-level delegation - like Switzerland and the Czech Republic.
In walking out of the original conference in 2001, the then secretary of state Colin Powell said: "… you do not combat racism by hateful language, some of which is a throwback to the days of Zionism equals racism, support the idea that we have made too much of the Holocaust or suggest that apartheid exists in Israel or that single out only one country in the world – Israel – for censure and abuse."
Black U.S. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Democrat) said the Black Caucus, which she heads, was “deeply dismayed” at the decision to boycott Durban II. She explained that this would make it more difficult for Washington to influence the UN Human Rights Council.
Washington has taken steps to join the controversial body which is dominated by states under fire for human rights violations.
A rally by pro-Israeli and pro-freedom of speech groups was to be led by US Rep. Scott Garret (R-N.J.). Garret, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R.-Fla.), and Rep. Dough Lamborn (R.-Colo.) have co-sponsored legislation to prohibit US funding for any follow-up events of Durban I.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Hamas-Fatah feud
Analysis: Real 2-state problem is the Hamas-Fatah feud
Apr. 17, 2009 Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
The Obama administration, through its special Middle East envoy George Mitchell, has launched what seems to be an aggressive campaign aimed at pressuring the new Israeli government into accepting the two-state solution.
But even if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman do finally succumb to the American pressure, they, along with Mitchell, will find that the Palestinians themselves are still far from achieving their goal of building a viable and independent state.
In fact, the Palestinians already have two separate political entities, or mini-states - one in the West Bank and the other in the Gaza Strip. These rival entities, controlled by Fatah and Hamas respectively, are acting and dealing with each other like two different countries.
Fatah representatives who participated in the last round of "reconciliation" talks with Hamas in Cairo said upon their return to the West Bank that they felt as if they were conducting negotiations with representatives of another country and not with Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.
Repeated attempts by Egypt and Saudi Arabia over the past few months to persuade the two parties to end their differences and form a Palestinian unity government have failed, prompting Cairo and Riyadh to come up with the idea of establishing a confederation between the two "mini-states."
However, both Hamas and Fatah have categorically rejected the confederation idea out of fear that it would perpetuate and consolidate the split between the West Bank and Gaza.
Palestinian Authority officials said that PA President Mahmoud Abbas would ask Mitchell during their upcoming meeting in Ramallah to put pressure on the Netanyahu government to accept the two-state solution as the basis for a "just, comprehensive and everlasting peace" in the Middle East.
Abbas, the officials said, would also make it clear during his meeting with the US envoy that there was no point in resuming the peace talks with Israel as long as the Israeli government remained opposed to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, continued settlement activity in the West Bank and demolished illegally built houses in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
Abbas, they added, would also brief Mitchell on the failed attempts to persuade Hamas to form a unity government with Fatah.
Spokesmen from both Palestinian parties have said over the past few days that only a miracle could lead to an agreement between the two sides. The gap between them remained as wide as ever, they noted, adding that the Egyptians were now considering canceling plans to host another round of reconciliation talks scheduled to take place in Cairo at the end of April.
For now, it appears that the Palestinians (and the rest of the world) will have to live with the fact that the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not a temporary or passing phenomenon.
If the Obama administration is serious about promoting the two-state solution, it must focus its efforts first and foremost on helping the Palestinians solve the dispute between the Fatah-run state in the West Bank and the Hamas-controlled entity in the Gaza Strip.
The divisions among the Palestinians, as well as failure to establish proper and credible institutions, are the main obstacle to the realization of the two-state solution.
Less than half of the West Bank is controlled by the corruption-riddled Fatah faction, which seems to have lost much of its credibility among the Palestinians, largely because of its failure to reform itself in the aftermath of its defeat to Hamas in the January 2006 parliamentary election.
The Gaza Strip, on the other hand, is entirely controlled by the radical Islamic movement that has, through its extremist ideology, wreaked havoc on the majority of the Palestinians living there.
The Obama administration is mistaken if it thinks the power struggle between these two groups is a fight between good guys and bad guys. This is a confrontation between bad guys and bad guys, since they are not fighting over promoting democracy or boosting the economy, but over money and power.
Netanyahu and Lieberman need not worry about accepting the two-state solution, because Fatah and Hamas don't seem to be marching toward achieving the national aspirations of their people.
Apr. 17, 2009 Khaled Abu Toameh , THE JERUSALEM POST
The Obama administration, through its special Middle East envoy George Mitchell, has launched what seems to be an aggressive campaign aimed at pressuring the new Israeli government into accepting the two-state solution.
But even if Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman do finally succumb to the American pressure, they, along with Mitchell, will find that the Palestinians themselves are still far from achieving their goal of building a viable and independent state.
In fact, the Palestinians already have two separate political entities, or mini-states - one in the West Bank and the other in the Gaza Strip. These rival entities, controlled by Fatah and Hamas respectively, are acting and dealing with each other like two different countries.
Fatah representatives who participated in the last round of "reconciliation" talks with Hamas in Cairo said upon their return to the West Bank that they felt as if they were conducting negotiations with representatives of another country and not with Palestinians from the Gaza Strip.
Repeated attempts by Egypt and Saudi Arabia over the past few months to persuade the two parties to end their differences and form a Palestinian unity government have failed, prompting Cairo and Riyadh to come up with the idea of establishing a confederation between the two "mini-states."
However, both Hamas and Fatah have categorically rejected the confederation idea out of fear that it would perpetuate and consolidate the split between the West Bank and Gaza.
Palestinian Authority officials said that PA President Mahmoud Abbas would ask Mitchell during their upcoming meeting in Ramallah to put pressure on the Netanyahu government to accept the two-state solution as the basis for a "just, comprehensive and everlasting peace" in the Middle East.
Abbas, the officials said, would also make it clear during his meeting with the US envoy that there was no point in resuming the peace talks with Israel as long as the Israeli government remained opposed to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital, continued settlement activity in the West Bank and demolished illegally built houses in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem.
Abbas, they added, would also brief Mitchell on the failed attempts to persuade Hamas to form a unity government with Fatah.
Spokesmen from both Palestinian parties have said over the past few days that only a miracle could lead to an agreement between the two sides. The gap between them remained as wide as ever, they noted, adding that the Egyptians were now considering canceling plans to host another round of reconciliation talks scheduled to take place in Cairo at the end of April.
For now, it appears that the Palestinians (and the rest of the world) will have to live with the fact that the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip is not a temporary or passing phenomenon.
If the Obama administration is serious about promoting the two-state solution, it must focus its efforts first and foremost on helping the Palestinians solve the dispute between the Fatah-run state in the West Bank and the Hamas-controlled entity in the Gaza Strip.
The divisions among the Palestinians, as well as failure to establish proper and credible institutions, are the main obstacle to the realization of the two-state solution.
Less than half of the West Bank is controlled by the corruption-riddled Fatah faction, which seems to have lost much of its credibility among the Palestinians, largely because of its failure to reform itself in the aftermath of its defeat to Hamas in the January 2006 parliamentary election.
The Gaza Strip, on the other hand, is entirely controlled by the radical Islamic movement that has, through its extremist ideology, wreaked havoc on the majority of the Palestinians living there.
The Obama administration is mistaken if it thinks the power struggle between these two groups is a fight between good guys and bad guys. This is a confrontation between bad guys and bad guys, since they are not fighting over promoting democracy or boosting the economy, but over money and power.
Netanyahu and Lieberman need not worry about accepting the two-state solution, because Fatah and Hamas don't seem to be marching toward achieving the national aspirations of their people.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Breaking News: Ahmadinejad says no more talks about Nuclear Issue
April 16, 2009 by Barry Rubin
Meir Javedanfar, a reliable analyst who follows Iran closely and is fluent in Farsi, says that Iran's president is now saying Iran's nuclear program is non-negotiable. The tone of the statement is similar to his Der Spiegel interview which I reported here earlier.
The implication is that President Obama's approach and the weakness of other Western governments has emboldened Ahmadinejad, who is also showing off for his election supporters. Now he says he's going on the offensive, saying in effect: let's not talk about Iran's nuclear program, let's talk about how we are going to change the structure of international affairs to eliminate Western hegemony and redistribute power.
Meir writes:
"On the 15th of April, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a speech in the city Kerman stated that “the time for discussions over the nuclear program has come to an end, and the clock will not go back”.
He continued to say “today, we have to discuss and collectively think about other issues such as reform of international structures, reform of the UN Security Council, and execution of justice and real peace. Iran is ready in all such areas”.
Meir adds: "It is very unlikely that Ahmadinejad would make such a statement without the consent of the Supreme Leader. Therefore, judging by his statement, the nuclear program is unlikely to be part of the negotiations with Obama."
source: http://middleeastanalyst.com/2009/04/17/ahmadinejad-iran-wont-negotiate
April 16, 2009 by Barry Rubin
Meir Javedanfar, a reliable analyst who follows Iran closely and is fluent in Farsi, says that Iran's president is now saying Iran's nuclear program is non-negotiable. The tone of the statement is similar to his Der Spiegel interview which I reported here earlier.
The implication is that President Obama's approach and the weakness of other Western governments has emboldened Ahmadinejad, who is also showing off for his election supporters. Now he says he's going on the offensive, saying in effect: let's not talk about Iran's nuclear program, let's talk about how we are going to change the structure of international affairs to eliminate Western hegemony and redistribute power.
Meir writes:
"On the 15th of April, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in a speech in the city Kerman stated that “the time for discussions over the nuclear program has come to an end, and the clock will not go back”.
He continued to say “today, we have to discuss and collectively think about other issues such as reform of international structures, reform of the UN Security Council, and execution of justice and real peace. Iran is ready in all such areas”.
Meir adds: "It is very unlikely that Ahmadinejad would make such a statement without the consent of the Supreme Leader. Therefore, judging by his statement, the nuclear program is unlikely to be part of the negotiations with Obama."
source: http://middleeastanalyst.com/2009/04/17/ahmadinejad-iran-wont-negotiate
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Presidential appointee Mogahed doesn’t recognize 1.9 million South Sudanese deaths as inflicted by Radical Islam. Certainly won’t call it ‘jihad.’
By Mark S. Finkelstein April 14, 2009
A commentary on Dalia Mogahed’s appointment by President Obama to the Presidential Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. (1)
Before the crisis in
What was
And so the Nationalist Islamic government “forced Islamization and Arabization” ( 4 ) on the Christian Sudanese. They used a number of means including the imposition of strict Islamic religious law (including amputation for proscribed crimes)( 5 ) on Christians as well as on Muslims and by the “[d]enial of basic human needs and use of food as a weapon for conversion into [the] Islamic religion.” ( 6 ) Slavery has been documented first-hand as well. ( 7A ) Slavery? Read Simon Deng's testimony (7B ) yourself.
There were 1.9 million Christian and animist victims of supremacist Islamism in
Why did she refuse? Perhaps acknowledging Sudanese jihadism goes against her apparent need to present radical Islamic extremism as a reaction to political grievances with the world. For in the book she co-authored with John Esposito ( 8 ) – the book she came to talk about – she concludes : the “data indicate that faith [i.e., religion, i.e., adherence to the tenets of a jihadi interpretation of Islam] is not the distinguishing factor primarily responsible for extremism…” (p. 163) ; That “ the real difference between those who condone terrorist acts [including, jihad – my addition] and all others is about politics, not piety.” ( p. 74) Fortunately there are some pretty solid critiques of the Esposito- Mogahed book available, one of them being Robert Satloff’s article entitled: “Just like us? Really?” ( 9 )
The fact that Ms. Mogahed is either unable or unwilling to identify the Sudanese jihad for what it is and for what it has done, should make one pause. Think for a moment about the things she is conveniently able to overlook.
Mark S. Finkelstein serves as Director of Community Relations for the Jewish Federation of Greater Des Moines, Iowa. He may be contacted at jcrc@dmjfed.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
2 . Testimony of J. Millard Burr, to Congress, 1999. Burr is the author of “Quantifying Genocide in
3 . Sabit A. Alley from the iAbolish, the Anti-Slavery Portal, 2005. http://web.archive.org/web/20051221045218/http://www.iabolish.com/today/features/sudan/overview1.htm
See also: de Chand, "The Sources of Conflict between the North and the South in
4 . and 6 . Riek Machar Terry-Dhurgon. “
5 . "In September 1983, as part of an Islamicization campaign, President Nimeiri announced that traditional Islamic punishments drawn from Shari’a (Islamic Law) would be incorporated into the penal code. This was controversial even among Muslim groups. Amputations for theft and public lashings for alcohol possession became common. Southerners and other non-Muslims living in the north were also subjected to these punishments." U.S. Department of State http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5424.htm
7A "Slavery Widespread in Sudan, Bishop charges." 1998 http://www.domini.org/openbook/sud80713.htm
.
7B Simon Deng’s personal account of slavery under the
8. John L. Esposito and Dalia Mogahed , Who Speaks for Islam . What a Billion Muslims Really Think. Gallup
Friday, April 10, 2009
Rubin: read article on why Israel might have to attack Iran someday
An extremely interesting article about why Israel might--and might have to--attack Iran some day
-commentary by Barry Rubin
link to article recommended by Barry Rubin: http://www.slate.com/id/2215820/
Read it as so far superior to what is usually written on such matters. The critique below is about secondary points which do not detract from the article's value but express some of my personal reactions.
Samuels is sympathetic to Israel and there are good--even very clever--aspects to the argument. But he has to earn his right to make an essentially pro-Israel argument by:
1. bashing Israel a bit, sometimes in rather silly ways.
2. says all sorts of inaccurate things about Israel.
3. understandably put everything in terms of US interests. This is reasonable for a U.S. audience of course but still it is an article about why Israel might have to take great risks.
4. miss the reality of the Arab world making it seem like a sort of black box rather than a place with serious malfunctions that messes things up on its own.
And finally, and most importantly, he omits the rather main reason why Israel has launched attackes on Hamas and Hizballah--self-defense, not restoring credibility as the main goal--and on Iran--belief that Iran might use nuclear weapons against it.
Again, though, an important article well-worth reading, making insightful points. Samuels has been writing good things and shown some real courage in doing so.
-commentary by Barry Rubin
link to article recommended by Barry Rubin: http://www.slate.com/id/2215820/
Read it as so far superior to what is usually written on such matters. The critique below is about secondary points which do not detract from the article's value but express some of my personal reactions.
Samuels is sympathetic to Israel and there are good--even very clever--aspects to the argument. But he has to earn his right to make an essentially pro-Israel argument by:
1. bashing Israel a bit, sometimes in rather silly ways.
2. says all sorts of inaccurate things about Israel.
3. understandably put everything in terms of US interests. This is reasonable for a U.S. audience of course but still it is an article about why Israel might have to take great risks.
4. miss the reality of the Arab world making it seem like a sort of black box rather than a place with serious malfunctions that messes things up on its own.
And finally, and most importantly, he omits the rather main reason why Israel has launched attackes on Hamas and Hizballah--self-defense, not restoring credibility as the main goal--and on Iran--belief that Iran might use nuclear weapons against it.
Again, though, an important article well-worth reading, making insightful points. Samuels has been writing good things and shown some real courage in doing so.
The President holds a seder in the WH
Why was last night different?
Apr. 8, 2009 HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, The Jerusalem Post, Washington
WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama was scheduled to celebrate Pessah on Thursday night with staff and friends in what is believed to be the first White House Seder attended by an American president.
The event was slipped onto the president's public schedule Tuesday night with little fanfare, following a letter signed by Obama earlier in the day wishing Americans who mark the day a "peaceful and relaxing holiday."
While presidential proclamations in honor of Pessah were common throughout the administrations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, this year's Seder is believed to be the first of its kind.
"I'm really happy to hear about it," said Steve Rabinowitz, who once led a staff Seder in the Clinton White House but was unaware of a White House Seder in which the president had personally taken part. "It's been an extremely open White House to all faith communities, certainly including ours."
William Daroff, who runs the United Jewish Communities' Washington office, recalled that Franklin D. Roosevelt had snuck out the back door of the White House in 1943 to avoid seeing rabbis marching out front to demand US action to save European Jews from the Nazis.
"Sixty-six years later the president of the United States is spending Thursday evening with his friends and family celebrating the liberation and survival of the Jewish people," Daroff noted. It was "a testament to how far we have come as a Jewish people in America," he said.
"Jews are a vital component in the mosaic that is American culture and society," Daroff continued. "Our welcome through the front door, and the dining room door, of the White House speaks to the inclusiveness of today's America and of President Obama. This night is indeed different from all other nights."
In his letter, Obama described the story of Jews' ascent from slavery to freedom in the Land of Israel as being "among the most powerful stories of suffering and redemption in human history," accompanied by rituals and symbols that indicate "the beauty of freedom and the responsibility it entails."
He also said the holiday presented a message for all humankind. "As part of a larger global community, we all must work to ensure that our brothers and sisters of every race, religion, culture and nationality are free from bondage and repression, and are able to live in peace."
He concluded his letter with the traditional Hebrew greeting chag sameach, or happy holiday.
Though Pessah started on Wednesday evening, Obama was hosting the second Seder, on Thursday night, apparently so that those in attendance could celebrate with their families on the first night.
The guest list included the president, First Lady Michelle Obama and their daughters, Malia and Sasha, as well as a dozen staff members and friends along with their families.
Last year, most had been on a campaign stop in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with then-senator Obama when the first night of Pessah fell.
According to the White House, Obama insisted on holding an impromptu Seder, and this year invited those who were with him to celebrate together again.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562942442&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Apr. 8, 2009 HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, The Jerusalem Post, Washington
WASHINGTON - US President Barack Obama was scheduled to celebrate Pessah on Thursday night with staff and friends in what is believed to be the first White House Seder attended by an American president.
The event was slipped onto the president's public schedule Tuesday night with little fanfare, following a letter signed by Obama earlier in the day wishing Americans who mark the day a "peaceful and relaxing holiday."
While presidential proclamations in honor of Pessah were common throughout the administrations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, this year's Seder is believed to be the first of its kind.
"I'm really happy to hear about it," said Steve Rabinowitz, who once led a staff Seder in the Clinton White House but was unaware of a White House Seder in which the president had personally taken part. "It's been an extremely open White House to all faith communities, certainly including ours."
William Daroff, who runs the United Jewish Communities' Washington office, recalled that Franklin D. Roosevelt had snuck out the back door of the White House in 1943 to avoid seeing rabbis marching out front to demand US action to save European Jews from the Nazis.
"Sixty-six years later the president of the United States is spending Thursday evening with his friends and family celebrating the liberation and survival of the Jewish people," Daroff noted. It was "a testament to how far we have come as a Jewish people in America," he said.
"Jews are a vital component in the mosaic that is American culture and society," Daroff continued. "Our welcome through the front door, and the dining room door, of the White House speaks to the inclusiveness of today's America and of President Obama. This night is indeed different from all other nights."
In his letter, Obama described the story of Jews' ascent from slavery to freedom in the Land of Israel as being "among the most powerful stories of suffering and redemption in human history," accompanied by rituals and symbols that indicate "the beauty of freedom and the responsibility it entails."
He also said the holiday presented a message for all humankind. "As part of a larger global community, we all must work to ensure that our brothers and sisters of every race, religion, culture and nationality are free from bondage and repression, and are able to live in peace."
He concluded his letter with the traditional Hebrew greeting chag sameach, or happy holiday.
Though Pessah started on Wednesday evening, Obama was hosting the second Seder, on Thursday night, apparently so that those in attendance could celebrate with their families on the first night.
The guest list included the president, First Lady Michelle Obama and their daughters, Malia and Sasha, as well as a dozen staff members and friends along with their families.
Last year, most had been on a campaign stop in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with then-senator Obama when the first night of Pessah fell.
According to the White House, Obama insisted on holding an impromptu Seder, and this year invited those who were with him to celebrate together again.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562942442&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)