Joint Statement From Eric Cantor and Steny Hoyer
"As we wrote to the President last month, the Palestinian leadership's decision to reject the difficult but vital responsibility of making peace with Israel through direct negotiations, and instead to advocate for anti-Israel measures by the United Nations Security Council is counterproductive and unacceptable. Successive Israeli governments have proven Israel's steadfast commitment to peace and our Secretary of State has noted that the current Israeli government took an 'unprecedented' step in pursuit of peace with its ten-month moratorium on Israeli housing construction in the West Bank. Furthermore, since the beginning of the current Israeli government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for direct negotiations with the Palestinians anytime and anywhere, without preconditions. "Instead of negotiating directly with Israel to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict, Palestinian leaders continue to seek to circumvent the negotiating process by advocating anti-Israel measures at the U.N. Security Council, U.N. General Assembly, and U.N. Human Rights Council. The U.S. should not condone or reward this behavior by supporting their resolutions. We strongly urge the Administration to veto this resolution and to uphold our longstanding commitment to Israel's security."
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Mob that attacked Lara Logan was yelling "Jew, Jew" as they attacked her
"60 Minutes" correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, "Jew! Jew!" as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo's main square Friday, CBS and sources said yesterday.
[hat tip/ Rabbi Kaufman]
Romirowsky: Where are the moderates?
"For moderate Muslim voices to be heard they need to speak out against the Islamists and the likes of the Brotherhood, not embrace it as the "voice of the people." It is this tactic that allowed Hamas to come to power in Gaza in 2007. " --Romirowsky
Where are the moderates?
Op-ed: Obama in for rude awakening if he thinks groups like Muslim Brotherhood are moderate
Asaf Romirowsky Ynetnews 2/16/2011
In 2008, I had the opportunity to travel to Tunisia and meet with private citizens and public officials to discuss American foreign policy towards the Muslim world. It was fortuitous time to be in a Muslim country. It was during the height of the race for the US presidency and all three candidates, Obama, Clinton and McCain, were still in the running. The direction of where the next US president was on the minds of the local Tunisians as well.
Op-ed: Obama in for rude awakening if he thinks groups like Muslim Brotherhood are moderate
Asaf Romirowsky Ynetnews 2/16/2011
In 2008, I had the opportunity to travel to Tunisia and meet with private citizens and public officials to discuss American foreign policy towards the Muslim world. It was fortuitous time to be in a Muslim country. It was during the height of the race for the US presidency and all three candidates, Obama, Clinton and McCain, were still in the running. The direction of where the next US president was on the minds of the local Tunisians as well.
The overwhelming majority of the individuals I spoke to all saw Obama as the best thing that could happen to US-Muslim relations. The locals identified him as the candidate who best understood the Muslim mindset. Furthermore, as far as the Middle East at large is concerned, Tunisia saw itself as a model for moderation and believed that they could export this model to the Middle East. This belief included Israeli-Palestinian relations where Tunisians believed they could play instrumental role in bringing peace.
This somewhat naïve sentiment was something I was willing to entertain, given Tunisian acceptance of its Jewish minority. The Jewish community of Djerba is today unique in a Muslim country. But it is key to stress here that when questioned about what Tunisia is doing to promote these aspects of "moderation," it was assumed that the global community should "of course" know who and what they stand for. Moderation was defined by moderates, and the reverse. What it really meant in terms of attitudes or behaviors could not be quite specified.
History shows that Tunisian moderation has many sides. Recall for example that after Israel went into Lebanon in 1982, Arafat and his "kitchen cabinet" were evacuated from Beirut and with the help of the US were able to set up shop in Tunis. Sympathy for the PLO and Arafat were great, and in recent decades this has solidified in Tunisia. One of the major roads is named Yasser Arafat Boulevard.
Fast forward three years. Tunisia has been congratulated by Hamas for their Intifada and for overturning the corrupt Ben Ali regime. Hamas has also called the Tunisian revolution a "milestone in contemporary Arab history," and has asserted that injustice can only be countered with sacrifice. "What occurred in Tunisia confirms that the path of dignity and confronting injustice, aggression and tyranny is not by solicitation, but by sacrifices and paying the price of pride and dignity. The Tunisians, who offered dozens of martyrs and hundreds of wounded, deserve this great achievement." Hamas speaks from experience about "martyrs" and wounded.
Speak out against Islamists
Hamas went a step further to remind Tunisia of its struggle against French colonialism in the mid-1900s and the support they have provided to the Palestinians in their "resistance" against the Israeli "occupation." Hamas thinks it has seen the future in Tunisia and even more so in Egypt as illustrated by the approximate 1,000 supporters of Hamas who rallied in front of the Egyptian representative office in Gaza, waving Palestinian and Egyptian flags and chanting, "Mubarak, you must leave."Others carried banners in Arabic and English that read, "The Egyptian people want to change their regime, we must support and respect that."
The spirit of the Tunisian Jasmine Revolution - or Intifada, depending on who you ask - has reached the streets of Cairo where the Egyptian proletariat is driven by the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, which Hamas grew out of. The Brotherhood is now one of only two political institutions that would survive Mubarak's downfall; the other is the military. And if we look at the model established in the mini-state of Gaza, the security forces, the military and the Islamists, including the Brotherhood, will increase the fighting or cut a deal, or create some combination of both.
For moderate Muslim voices to be heard they need to speak out against the Islamists and the likes of the Brotherhood, not embrace it as the "voice of the people." It is this tactic that allowed Hamas to come to power in Gaza in 2007. The Obama administration is mistaken if it believes that the Brotherhood has any intention to change its tone or methodology.
Finally, if the Obama administration truly believes in change in the region, it is in for a rude awakening if it continues to see the Brotherhood as that outlet of moderation. It was a mistake to invite Brotherhood to the president's 2009 Cairo speech and it's a mistake now to believe that this group is the voice of reason. Internalizing the fact that groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Hezbollah use catch phrases that seem democratic and then turn them around to promote their own Islamist agenda should be a given.
Asaf Romirowsky is a Philadelphia-based Middle East analyst, a lecturer in history at Pennsylvania State University and an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Forum
Source: http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-4029492,00.html
Monday, February 14, 2011
Israel welcomes displaced American students from Egypt
Israel Welcomes Displaced American Students from Egypt
2011 February 14 by masa israel
Twenty-one students transfer from Egyptian programs to Israeli programs to study Arabic
(New York, NY) — In light of the recent unrest in Egypt, Masa Israel Journey programs have welcomed 21 displaced North American students to Israel to continue their Arabic language studies. Twelve students have enrolled in The Rothberg International School at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, eight in the International School at the University of Haifa, and one in Givat Haviva's Intensive Arabic Semester. A joint project of the Government of Israel and the Jewish Agency for Israel, Masa Israel offers over 180 five-to-12-month academic, service and career development programs in Israel.
The Rothberg International School worked closely with study abroad directors at Princeton University, Vanderbilt University, University of California Schools, Michigan State University, and Allegheny University to place students who had been studying in Egypt into its program. The International School at the University of Haifa worked closely with Elon University to absorb five of its students who were evacuated from Egypt to Turkey.
"It's wonderful that these students can leave the instability in Egypt and come to Israel," said Avi Rubel, Masa Israel's North American Director. "Masa Israel will do everything we can to make sure their studies are equally fulfilling and that that they have an incredible experience in Israel."
A representative from the University of Haifa met its new students at the airport, and both the Hebrew University and the University of Haifa provided its students with special orientations to assist in their transitions to their new campuses. The University of Haifa, which has a 20 percent Arab student body, will offer its students the opportunity to take part in NGOs focused on serving the Arab Israeli population and human rights. One student, who planned to research the head coverings of Arab women, will continue her research with a professor at the University of Haifa.
Aside from Arabic, students will also be able to choose from a wide variety of courses in the international schools. Students will receive full credit for their studies.
For more information, contact: North American Director of Masa Israel Journey, Avi Rubel at (212) 339-6938, (781) 308-4880 or avir@masaisrael.org.
Source:
Friday, February 11, 2011
Gibbs, Merkel encourage continuation of peace treaty
It is important for the next Egyptian government to recognize the Egypt-Israel Camp David accords, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Friday.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel on Friday called the events in Egypt "irreversible" and said in the end there must be free elections. She also said Germany expects future Egyptian governments to honor the peace treaty with Israel.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Egyptian Attitudes To Israel
http://justjournalism.com/media-analysis/egyptian-attitudes-to-israel/
"Not only has the thirty year peace accord failed to improve perceptions of Egypt’s neighbour, but several bodies actively oppose efforts to ‘normalise’ relations between the two states. These factors challenge the argument that the ‘blossoming of freedom’ would automatically benefit Israel."
WSJ: Hamas, the Brotherhood and Egypt
"Egypt can have a viable democratic future, provided that the democracy is for democrats."
What the U.S. mistakes of 2006 can teach Arab democrats.
Hovering like a dark cloud over the demonstrations in Egypt is the memory of the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections. For critics of the Bush Administration, those elections, in which Hamas scored an unanticipated win, were proof... that the "freedom agenda" would only grease the way for anti-American, Islamist parties to come to power. And for critics of the Obama Administration, the elections are a cautionary tale about the risks the U.S. now runs by abandoning Hosni Mubarak in his hour of need.
The 2006 elections really are a cautionary tale, though not in the way critics of the past or current Administration usually suppose. Whatever else might be said about those elections, they did not create Hamas, which is an offshoot of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and which had been gaining political strength among Palestinians for nearly two decades. Hamas's popularity owed much to its militant hostility to Israel. But it was also admired for its opposition to Yasser Arafat's corrupt, incompetent and frequently brutal Fatah party.
So it was with good reason that President Bush sought to promote liberal-democratic openings throughout the Arab world. For the Palestinians, that meant replacing the old land-for-peace formula with a democracy-for-statehood concept, in which the U.S. would recognize a Palestinian state only if it met certain political criteria.
"I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," Mr. Bush said in a June 2002 speech. "I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. . . . True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions, based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism."
That was a viable formula and it yielded some real results, not the least of which was that the relatively moderate Mahmoud Abbas was named prime minister and later elected president in a race boycotted by Hamas. And so it might have continued had Hamas not decided to contest the next elections, with the acquiescence of both Mr. Abbas's Palestinian Authority and Condoleezza Rice's State Department.
Such acquiescence should never have been granted: Hamas operates its own armed militia and it categorically rejects the 1993 Oslo Accords that are the entire basis of the government for which elections were being held. Yet Ms. Rice demanded that Israel accede to Hamas's participation in the vote, on the theory that "we have to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political process." Her State Department also argued that disarming Hamas was a long-term goal, not a precondition to their political participation.
All this contradicted the vision President Bush had laid out nearly four years earlier, and it's no credit to his leadership that he allowed his Secretary of State to so mismanage the process. Ms. Rice is widely reported to have been taken utterly by surprise by the election results, and that in turn is no credit to U.S. diplomats who should have seen it coming.
But the basic error wasn't about polling. It was to insist on an election before the proper groundwork had been prepared. And it was to allow an armed Hamas to participate in a political process whose very legitimacy Hamas rejects. Anti-democratic parties cannot be a part of a democratic system, a lesson the world might have learned as far back as 1933.
It's also a lesson the world should bear in mind as events unfold in Egypt. Those who believe that a democratic Egypt is doomed to fall into the Muslim Brotherhood's hands frequently cite the 2006 elections as Exhibit A. But the lesson of those elections is that Hamas should not have been allowed to participate, not that elections should never have been held.
If the Brotherhood wants to participate in elections, it should have to promise to play by democratic rules, respect religious and social pluralism, and honor Egypt's treaty commitments, especially to Israel. And because promises can be broken by those in power, Egypt needs a constitutional system of checks and balances to withstand any attempt to impose one man, one vote, once. Egypt can have a viable democratic future, provided that the democracy is for democrats.
The 2006 elections really are a cautionary tale, though not in the way critics of the past or current Administration usually suppose. Whatever else might be said about those elections, they did not create Hamas, which is an offshoot of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood and which had been gaining political strength among Palestinians for nearly two decades. Hamas's popularity owed much to its militant hostility to Israel. But it was also admired for its opposition to Yasser Arafat's corrupt, incompetent and frequently brutal Fatah party.
So it was with good reason that President Bush sought to promote liberal-democratic openings throughout the Arab world. For the Palestinians, that meant replacing the old land-for-peace formula with a democracy-for-statehood concept, in which the U.S. would recognize a Palestinian state only if it met certain political criteria.
"I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," Mr. Bush said in a June 2002 speech. "I call upon them to build a practicing democracy, based on tolerance and liberty. . . . True reform will require entirely new political and economic institutions, based on democracy, market economics and action against terrorism."
That was a viable formula and it yielded some real results, not the least of which was that the relatively moderate Mahmoud Abbas was named prime minister and later elected president in a race boycotted by Hamas. And so it might have continued had Hamas not decided to contest the next elections, with the acquiescence of both Mr. Abbas's Palestinian Authority and Condoleezza Rice's State Department.
Such acquiescence should never have been granted: Hamas operates its own armed militia and it categorically rejects the 1993 Oslo Accords that are the entire basis of the government for which elections were being held. Yet Ms. Rice demanded that Israel accede to Hamas's participation in the vote, on the theory that "we have to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political process." Her State Department also argued that disarming Hamas was a long-term goal, not a precondition to their political participation.
All this contradicted the vision President Bush had laid out nearly four years earlier, and it's no credit to his leadership that he allowed his Secretary of State to so mismanage the process. Ms. Rice is widely reported to have been taken utterly by surprise by the election results, and that in turn is no credit to U.S. diplomats who should have seen it coming.
But the basic error wasn't about polling. It was to insist on an election before the proper groundwork had been prepared. And it was to allow an armed Hamas to participate in a political process whose very legitimacy Hamas rejects. Anti-democratic parties cannot be a part of a democratic system, a lesson the world might have learned as far back as 1933.
It's also a lesson the world should bear in mind as events unfold in Egypt. Those who believe that a democratic Egypt is doomed to fall into the Muslim Brotherhood's hands frequently cite the 2006 elections as Exhibit A. But the lesson of those elections is that Hamas should not have been allowed to participate, not that elections should never have been held.
If the Brotherhood wants to participate in elections, it should have to promise to play by democratic rules, respect religious and social pluralism, and honor Egypt's treaty commitments, especially to Israel. And because promises can be broken by those in power, Egypt needs a constitutional system of checks and balances to withstand any attempt to impose one man, one vote, once. Egypt can have a viable democratic future, provided that the democracy is for democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)