French Jewish school firebombed
September 9, 2009
PARIS (JTA) -- A Jewish school in southern France was firebombed.
No one was injured in the Tuesday morning attack on the ORT Bramson Jewish school in Marseille.
About 66 feet of cypress hedges were set afire, and four parked cars in front of the building were burned by homemade aerosol bombs, according to French reports.
Three bombs were found on the premises, according to The Associated Press.
During the incident, the 400 students at the school were not aware there had been an attack because the targeted area was not near any classrooms, school director Maurice Cohen-Zagouri told the Le Metro daily.
No suspects have been identified, but security cameras on the site were handed over to police for investigation.
The local police chief, Philippe Klayman, said his force would pay “particular attention” to Jewish institutions during the upcoming holidays.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Three British Muslims have been convicted in England of planning a series of co-ordinated suicide bomb attacks on transatlantic airliners, which could have killed up to 10,000 people.
The plot was detected in August 2006, within days, it is believed of its implementation. The flights to be commandeered all departed within 2 hours and 35 minutes of each other, to Chicago, Montreal, Toronto, San Francisco, Washington and New York and police believed there would have been no chance of stopping the attacks once all the aircraft were in the air.
What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really about (11)
What prevents peace?
From Arab perspective, Jewish sovereignty, self-determination are anathema
Moshe Dann, Ynewnews.com September 7, 2009 excerpts
The real issue is Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 as a Jewish state.
No "peace plan" - even the most extreme which requires Israel to withdraw from all territory conquered in 1967 - will solve the Arab-Muslim problem of allowing a nominally Jewish state to exist in any form.
The struggle is not over dividing territory, but whether Israel deserves to exist at all.
The author, a former assistant professor of History (CUNY) is a journalist and writer living in Jerusalem
From Arab perspective, Jewish sovereignty, self-determination are anathema
Moshe Dann, Ynewnews.com September 7, 2009 excerpts
The real issue is Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 as a Jewish state.
No "peace plan" - even the most extreme which requires Israel to withdraw from all territory conquered in 1967 - will solve the Arab-Muslim problem of allowing a nominally Jewish state to exist in any form.
The struggle is not over dividing territory, but whether Israel deserves to exist at all.
The author, a former assistant professor of History (CUNY) is a journalist and writer living in Jerusalem
Ahmadinejad: discussion over Iran's nuclear issue is over
Ahmadinejad: Iran 'Will Never Negotiate' Over Nuclear 'Rights'
Monday , September 07, 2009 AP
TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday Iran will neither halt uranium enrichment nor negotiate over its nuclear rights but is ready to sit and talk with world powers over "global challenges."
His statements came as the international nuclear watchdog warned of a "stalemate" over Iran's nuclear program. Members of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency began meetings in Vienna that could set the stage for a toughening of sanctions against Iran.
Ahmadinejad also said Iran will present a package of proposals for talks to the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany but rejected any deadline for such talks.
He said the package would "identify challenges facing humanity ... and resolve global concerns."
But he said that "from our point of view, Iran's nuclear issue is over. We continue our work within the framework of global regulations and in close interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency." But "we will never negotiate over obvious rights of the Iranian nation," he said.
He said the only two aspects of the nuclear file he was willing to discuss were "creating peaceful nuclear energy for all countries" and a mechanism to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and encourage global nuclear disarmament.
President Barack Obama and European allies have given Iran until the end of September to take up an offer of nuclear talks with six world powers and trade incentives should it suspend uranium enrichment activities. If not, Iran could face harsher punitive sanctions.
The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the charges, saying its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity, not a bomb.
Iran has repeatedly vowed it will never suspend enrichment work, saying it has every right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel. The enrichment process can produce either fuel for a reactor or the material for a warhead.
"It is very clear that this (deadline) is incompatible with the Iranian nation's needs and direction today," Ahmadinejad told a press conference Monday. "Resolving global issues requires constructive interaction on the basis of justice and respect."
Ahmadinejad said Iran will continue to cooperate with the IAEA over regulations on safeguards on its nuclear sites, "but we will resist if the agency is influenced by political pressures."
The agency's chief Mohamed ElBaradei, however, said Monday that the situation over Iran's nuclear program has reached a "stalemate."
He said Iran has not suspended uranium enrichment and not cleared up other lingering questions about possible military dimensions of its atomic activities, and he urged Tehran to "substantively re-engage" with the IAEA.
Iran says allegations of nuclear weapons studies by Tehran is based on forged documents but the U.S. and its European allies want to draw Iran back into negotiations over such concerns.
"The proposals we have prepared seeks to identify challenges facing humanity and basic directions for a durable solution to those challenges ... we are ready, within a logical and just framework, to sit and talk with all those ... who can make contribution to reform global affairs," Ahmadinejad told reporters.
The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China — plus Germany offered Iran a modified package of economic incentives June last year in return for suspending its uranium enrichment activities or face harsher sanctions.
Iran has said the incentives package has some "common ground" with Tehran's own proposals for a resolution to the standoff.
Germany and France — both important trade partners with Iran — have recently become far more forceful in their threats of possible sanctions.
Ahmadinejad did not directly address Obama's calls for a U.S.-Iran dialogue, and instead renewed an offer he has made in the past to hold a public debate with the U.S. president.
"Once again, I announce that I'm ready for debate and dialogue in front of global media on global issues," he said.
Monday , September 07, 2009 AP
TEHRAN, Iran — President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Monday Iran will neither halt uranium enrichment nor negotiate over its nuclear rights but is ready to sit and talk with world powers over "global challenges."
His statements came as the international nuclear watchdog warned of a "stalemate" over Iran's nuclear program. Members of the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency began meetings in Vienna that could set the stage for a toughening of sanctions against Iran.
Ahmadinejad also said Iran will present a package of proposals for talks to the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany but rejected any deadline for such talks.
He said the package would "identify challenges facing humanity ... and resolve global concerns."
But he said that "from our point of view, Iran's nuclear issue is over. We continue our work within the framework of global regulations and in close interaction with the International Atomic Energy Agency." But "we will never negotiate over obvious rights of the Iranian nation," he said.
He said the only two aspects of the nuclear file he was willing to discuss were "creating peaceful nuclear energy for all countries" and a mechanism to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons and encourage global nuclear disarmament.
President Barack Obama and European allies have given Iran until the end of September to take up an offer of nuclear talks with six world powers and trade incentives should it suspend uranium enrichment activities. If not, Iran could face harsher punitive sanctions.
The U.S. and some of its allies accuse Iran of using its civilian nuclear program as a cover to develop nuclear weapons. Iran has denied the charges, saying its nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity, not a bomb.
Iran has repeatedly vowed it will never suspend enrichment work, saying it has every right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel. The enrichment process can produce either fuel for a reactor or the material for a warhead.
"It is very clear that this (deadline) is incompatible with the Iranian nation's needs and direction today," Ahmadinejad told a press conference Monday. "Resolving global issues requires constructive interaction on the basis of justice and respect."
Ahmadinejad said Iran will continue to cooperate with the IAEA over regulations on safeguards on its nuclear sites, "but we will resist if the agency is influenced by political pressures."
The agency's chief Mohamed ElBaradei, however, said Monday that the situation over Iran's nuclear program has reached a "stalemate."
He said Iran has not suspended uranium enrichment and not cleared up other lingering questions about possible military dimensions of its atomic activities, and he urged Tehran to "substantively re-engage" with the IAEA.
Iran says allegations of nuclear weapons studies by Tehran is based on forged documents but the U.S. and its European allies want to draw Iran back into negotiations over such concerns.
"The proposals we have prepared seeks to identify challenges facing humanity and basic directions for a durable solution to those challenges ... we are ready, within a logical and just framework, to sit and talk with all those ... who can make contribution to reform global affairs," Ahmadinejad told reporters.
The five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council — the U.S., France, Britain, Russia and China — plus Germany offered Iran a modified package of economic incentives June last year in return for suspending its uranium enrichment activities or face harsher sanctions.
Iran has said the incentives package has some "common ground" with Tehran's own proposals for a resolution to the standoff.
Germany and France — both important trade partners with Iran — have recently become far more forceful in their threats of possible sanctions.
Ahmadinejad did not directly address Obama's calls for a U.S.-Iran dialogue, and instead renewed an offer he has made in the past to hold a public debate with the U.S. president.
"Once again, I announce that I'm ready for debate and dialogue in front of global media on global issues," he said.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really about (10)
Alex Grobman, an historian and author, has written an article entitled, Is Anyone Listening to What The Arabs Are Saying About Israel? Dated 9/07/2009, it is found online at www.hnn.us/articles/112782.html.
In it Grobman argues that the chief impediment to Israeli-Arab peace is the Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state. Why? Because, according to Grobman, "[T]he Arabs regard themselves as the only 'legitimate repository of national self-determination' in the Middle East."
In making his case, Grobman discusses the prevalence of pan-Arabism, which he asserts, "For historical, cultural and religious reasons, ... resonates among all segments of Arab society."
Although not cited specifically by Grobman, the following by Khalil Nakhleh, a Palestinian anthropologist, independent development and educational consultant and writer,[resident in Ramallah] exemplifies the mindset and perspective pertinent to Grobman's argument. Nakhleh's document, dated August 2008, is available online at www.kanaanonline.org/articles/01633.pdf, and is worth reading.
As Grobman asserts, the pan-Arabist considers Palestine (subsuming Israel)part of the whole Arab Homeland.
From Nakhleh ( page 2): The overall objectives of our collective national struggle, to which I am committed, seek to achieve the legitimate historical Palestinian rights, which, as used here, are the right of all Palestinians to live free and independent in their historical land, understood to be an integral part of the whole Arab Homeland (Watan)...
As Grobman asserts, "[T]he Arabs regard themselves as the only 'legitimate repository of national self-determination' in the Middle East."
From Nakhleh (page 5): If they [non-Zionist Jews] chose to live with us [in a single state], they will have the guaranteed right to exercise their cultural and religious values and customs,with freedom and respect, like any other minority with different religious beliefs and values. But they are not eligible to claim a “right of self determination”, as if they constitute a “national” group.
And also, on Nakhleh, page 5, the following -- a denial of Jewish history: Populations of Jewish faith existing in other parts of the world are an integral part of the countries in which they exist; they have no historical or religious claim over the land of Palestine, as if they were part of a “disbursed people”. The “historical disbursal” of the “Jews” from the land of Palestine is equally mythical; their “coerced” claim, so far, has been putative and fabricated. [end]
Grobman's is another voice in the collective and disparate body of voices now asserting that -- for the conflict to end in an honorable two state solution-- the Palestinian leadership ( and Arab governments ) must unambiguously and explicitly recognize Israel as the state of the Jews. Not to imply that Israel need not make important concessions for peace, but there is simply too much history of dogmatic Arab rejectionism and too much obvious verbal avoidance by Palestinian leadership of the specific words indicating recognition of the Jewish state of Israel to subordinate the demand.
-- Mark Finkelstein Send comments to jcrc@dmjfed.org
In it Grobman argues that the chief impediment to Israeli-Arab peace is the Arab refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state. Why? Because, according to Grobman, "[T]he Arabs regard themselves as the only 'legitimate repository of national self-determination' in the Middle East."
In making his case, Grobman discusses the prevalence of pan-Arabism, which he asserts, "For historical, cultural and religious reasons, ... resonates among all segments of Arab society."
Although not cited specifically by Grobman, the following by Khalil Nakhleh, a Palestinian anthropologist, independent development and educational consultant and writer,[resident in Ramallah] exemplifies the mindset and perspective pertinent to Grobman's argument. Nakhleh's document, dated August 2008, is available online at www.kanaanonline.org/articles/01633.pdf, and is worth reading.
As Grobman asserts, the pan-Arabist considers Palestine (subsuming Israel)part of the whole Arab Homeland.
From Nakhleh ( page 2): The overall objectives of our collective national struggle, to which I am committed, seek to achieve the legitimate historical Palestinian rights, which, as used here, are the right of all Palestinians to live free and independent in their historical land, understood to be an integral part of the whole Arab Homeland (Watan)...
As Grobman asserts, "[T]he Arabs regard themselves as the only 'legitimate repository of national self-determination' in the Middle East."
From Nakhleh (page 5): If they [non-Zionist Jews] chose to live with us [in a single state], they will have the guaranteed right to exercise their cultural and religious values and customs,with freedom and respect, like any other minority with different religious beliefs and values. But they are not eligible to claim a “right of self determination”, as if they constitute a “national” group.
And also, on Nakhleh, page 5, the following -- a denial of Jewish history: Populations of Jewish faith existing in other parts of the world are an integral part of the countries in which they exist; they have no historical or religious claim over the land of Palestine, as if they were part of a “disbursed people”. The “historical disbursal” of the “Jews” from the land of Palestine is equally mythical; their “coerced” claim, so far, has been putative and fabricated. [end]
Grobman's is another voice in the collective and disparate body of voices now asserting that -- for the conflict to end in an honorable two state solution-- the Palestinian leadership ( and Arab governments ) must unambiguously and explicitly recognize Israel as the state of the Jews. Not to imply that Israel need not make important concessions for peace, but there is simply too much history of dogmatic Arab rejectionism and too much obvious verbal avoidance by Palestinian leadership of the specific words indicating recognition of the Jewish state of Israel to subordinate the demand.
-- Mark Finkelstein Send comments to jcrc@dmjfed.org
What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really about (9)
"[The core of the conflict is] the Arabs' total-denial approach to Israel... [The Palestinian leadership] are bothered by Jewish settlement in Israel in general.
It's enough to browse through the books of the "moderate" Palestinian Authority to see that Haifa, Jaffa and even Tel Aviv are considered Palestinian cities, while Hamas believes the Wakf land of all Palestine should be expropriated from the Jewish state, which doesn't have the right to land on either side of the Green Line."
-- Raphael Israeli The author is a professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. September 6, 2009 Ha'aretz
It's enough to browse through the books of the "moderate" Palestinian Authority to see that Haifa, Jaffa and even Tel Aviv are considered Palestinian cities, while Hamas believes the Wakf land of all Palestine should be expropriated from the Jewish state, which doesn't have the right to land on either side of the Green Line."
-- Raphael Israeli The author is a professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. September 6, 2009 Ha'aretz
Friday, September 4, 2009
What the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is really about (8)
If it is to be successful, a Palestinian-Israeli permanent status agreement will end all claims that each national group has on the other. If it is indeed to end all claims, once and for all, it will have to address not just issues raised by the 1967 war, but issues left unaddressed from the 1948 war.
The first and foremost is recognition of what the relevant UN resolutions repeatedly called "the Jewish state." Without an unambiguous statement of recognition [of Israel as 'the Jewish state,"] it is difficult to imagine that any agreement will indeed have ended all claims.
It is not surprising that an Israeli government has made this demand a sine qua non of a permanent status agreement. What is surprising is that no Israeli government has made this a sine qua non until now.
The U.S. voted for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine 62 years ago. The U.S. should not be indifferent to Israel's request that endorsing its status as the Jewish state be enshrined in a permanent status agreement designed finally to end the conflict over Palestine, once and for all.
-- Robert Satloff, Executive Director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and member of MESH, Middle East Strategy at Harvard. Comments. August 30, 2009
Prior installments of this series are archived on the sidebar of jcommunitynews.blogspot.com
The first and foremost is recognition of what the relevant UN resolutions repeatedly called "the Jewish state." Without an unambiguous statement of recognition [of Israel as 'the Jewish state,"] it is difficult to imagine that any agreement will indeed have ended all claims.
It is not surprising that an Israeli government has made this demand a sine qua non of a permanent status agreement. What is surprising is that no Israeli government has made this a sine qua non until now.
The U.S. voted for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine 62 years ago. The U.S. should not be indifferent to Israel's request that endorsing its status as the Jewish state be enshrined in a permanent status agreement designed finally to end the conflict over Palestine, once and for all.
-- Robert Satloff, Executive Director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and member of MESH, Middle East Strategy at Harvard. Comments. August 30, 2009
Prior installments of this series are archived on the sidebar of jcommunitynews.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)