A Middle East Without American Influence?That's the logical outcome of the Obama administration's current policies.

The prospect of the US losing its influence in the Middle East is real enough and frightening enough. It is the goal of the Iranian government, and so far they have won every round in the fight. In Lebanon - a knockout. In Iraq, they are winning on points as they are in Gaza, and when they explode their first nuclear device, Iran will have won another knockout victory.  

 

On the other hand, Lee Smith goes a bit far here:

 

 

... victory does not always go to the smartest -- or even to those who have the most airplanes, the most military bases, and the best technology. It goes to those who do not hesitate to impose their wills on the world in order to reshape it to their liking.

 

Wasn't that the basic philosophy of Saddam Hussein, and likewise of Adolf Hitler? It didn't work out too well for them.

 

Ami Isseroff

 

 

A Middle East Without American Influence?That's the logical outcome of the Obama administration's current policies.
By Lee Smith
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010, at 4:47 PM ET

 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar al-Assad
Last week, one of Syria's government news organs riffed on the title of my book The Strong Horse; Power, Politics, and the Clash of Arab Civilizations. "The American president," Al Tharwa wrote, "was betting on the sick horse." Instead of siding with Syria's Hamas allies, Obama was backing the Palestinian Authority and its leader, Fatah's Mahmoud Abbas. From Damascus' perspective, the description also applies to the United States' other Arab allies, like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms, as well as to Egypt and Jordan. These states are ready to be put out to pasture, while it is Iran's "axis of resistance," including Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as Syria itself, that represents the rising power.

 

OK, maybe the regime in Damascus hasn't actually read my book. I lifted the title from Osama Bin Laden, anyway. "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse," said Bin Laden, "by nature, they will like the strong horse." But the Syrian appraisal confirms my thesis—in the Middle East, political power is the prerogative of those who take it and maintain it by both the appearance and application of force. In this instance, unfortunately, what's good for my book is very bad for U.S. interests and allies—and for American citizens.

 

As it turns out, the Syrians have a point. Saudi Arabia has the world's largest known oil reserves, and Egypt is the most populous Arab state, but they are no longer regional powerhouses, at least in the way the Arabic-speaking Middle East has typically registered power over the last 60-plus years—that is, as willingness to fight Israel. Cairo and Amman have peace treaties with Israel, the Palestinian Authority is involved in an on-again-off-again peace process, while Riyadh has opted to remain on the sidelines. This collective weakness is just the way that Washington ordained it four decades ago.

 

In the middle of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Henry Kissinger airlifted arms shipments to Israel in order to guarantee an Israeli victory that for a time had seemed uncertain. Kissinger's strategic intention was to show the Arabs that as long as Washington stood behind Israel, there was no way they could ever defeat the Jewish state. If they wanted concessions from Israel, they would have to petition the Americans for it, a prerogative that made Washington not merely a great power but a power broker. By breaking the Arabs, the United States made itself the regional strong horse.

 

Of course, with those arms shipments, Kissinger meant to drive home another lesson as well, this one to Israel—in effect, that Washington held the power of life and death over the Jewish state and that Israeli leaders had best keep in line. This arrangement—Israeli strength and Arab weakness—secured what some have called the Pax Americana of the Middle East. After Egyptian President Anwar Sadat jumped from the Soviet side to the American one after the '73 war, our regional hegemony was never again seriously contested—until now.

 

The new catch phrase in the Middle East is strategic realignment. Broadly speaking, this means that the balance of power is shifting from the U.S.-backed regional order to the axis of resistance. Some commentators, like Robert Malley, have argued alongside the Syrians that the Obama administration should drop its old allies—the sick horse—for new friends among the axis of resistance. From a certain perspective, it appears that the White House has done just that, albeit unintentionally.

 

When the Obama administration promised to engage the adversaries that the Bush White House had isolated, U.S. allies followed the strong horse's lead and also changed course. Most notably, the Saudis patched things up with the Syrians after five years of intra-Arab discord. Riyadh pushed its Lebanese allies to reconcile with Damascus, and with Beirut's pro-democracy and pro-United States March 14 movement now all but dead, Washington no longer has a Lebanese ally. When President Barack Obama indicated that the most important thing concerning Iraq was to withdraw U.S. forces, the Syrians and Saudis found a shared interest in attacking Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki. Even as Maliki, his Iraqi security officials, and Gen. Raymond Odierno, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, explained that the Syrians were behind a series of mega-terror attacks in Baghdad, the White House hushed them up for fear that identifying Syria as responsible for the attacks would jeopardize its efforts to engage Damascus. It is lost on no one in the region that Washington left two allies out on their own. But it gets worse.

 

Some U.S. commentators have praised the Obama administration's recent condemnation of Israel for announcing, during Vice President Joe Biden's visit, that it intended to build 1,600 apartment units in East Jerusalem. The White House's response, they argue, sends a strong message that Washington won't be bullied. In the Middle East, however, there is nothing that reeks so much of weakness as beating up on an ally in public. Moreover, this tongue-lashing comes shortly after the White House swallowed the open taunts of its adversaries. At a recent Damascus banquet featuring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah, and Hamas' Khaled Meshaal, Syrian President Bashar Assad openly mocked Secretary Hillary Clinton. He joked that he had misunderstood her demands that Syria distance itself from Iran, so instead, said Assad, he was waiving visa requirements for visitors from the Islamic Republic of Iran.

 

Of course, Washington shaming Israel will please the Arabs—even U.S. allies like Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and Cairo, Egypt, that cheered on Jerusalem when it took on Iran's assets Hezbollah and Hamas. Remember, the Arabs have been compelled by the American strong horse to swallow their pride for decades. But given that Arabs do not air their own dirty laundry for fear it will make them look weak, our public humiliation of an ally will earn us only contempt.

 

But here's the most important thing: Even if you discount the centrality of shame and honor as operative principles in the Middle East, the Obama administration has blundered by jeopardizing not Israel's stature but our own regional interests and the Pax Americana that has been ours over the last 35 years. Our position in the region depends on every actor there knowing that we back Israel to the hilt and that they are dependent on us. Sure, there are plenty of times we will not see eye-to-eye on things—differences that should be resolved in quiet consultations—but should any real distance open up between Washington and Jerusalem, that will send a message that the U.S.-backed order of the region is ready to be tested. And that's exactly what the axis of resistance is seeing right now.

 

The recent U.S.-Israeli contretemps is not about progress on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. It is about Iran. The Obama administration has all but announced that it has resigned itself to an Iranian nuclear program and that it is moving toward a policy of containment and deterrence. We will extend a nuclear umbrella to protect our Arab allies in the Gulf, says Secretary of State Clinton, and we will continue to give Israel security guarantees. And, anyway, says Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, the Iranians are probably years away from building a deployable nuclear weapon. In rattling Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's cage, the Obama administration was warning Israel not even to contemplate an attack on Iran.

 

Of course, really effective deterrence would require us to make sure that our Israeli allies were perceived as highly volatile and unpredictable actors who might just take matters into their own hands and bomb Iran's nuclear sites. That scenario would have a better chance of cornering Iran and its allies, compelling them to seek relief from us, the rational senior partner. Instead, we've just pulled off the strategic equivalent of beating our pit bull on a street corner to show the neighborhood tough guys that we mean business.

 

President Obama is not intentionally trying to sacrifice our position in the energy-rich and strategically vital Middle East, but his policies may well lead to that. Strategic realignment doesn't just mean that Washington gets to trade in one set of allies for another. It means that the American order of the region will be superseded by a new order in which we will play a secondary role at best. More likely, as Ahmadinejad and Assad say, it will mean a Middle East without American influence.

 

Such a prospect is not impossible, for victory does not always go to the smartest—or even to those who have the most airplanes, the most military bases, and the best technology. It goes to those who do not hesitate to impose their wills on the world in order to reshape it to their liking. It goes to the strong horse. Who is the sick horse? From the perspective of our adversaries, that would be us.

EDITORIAL: Mrs. Clinton's hissy fit

 

was shown by America's chief diplomat

• Comments (17)

• Click-2-Listen

More Editorials Stories

• EDITORIAL: Mrs. Clintn's hissy fit
• EDITORIAL: Obama personnel chief defends big government
• EDITORIAL: Health care bill can be beat
• EDITORIAL: Obama nominee's sympathy for sexual sadists

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES

It says a lot when Vice President Joe Biden comes across as the Obama administration's most skilled statesman. Last week during a visit to Israel, Mr. Biden was caught off-guard by an announcement that work would progress on 1,600 apartment units in Jerusalem's Ramat Shlomo neighborhood, a Jewish enclave in the northern part of the city claimed by Palestinians. This faux pas could have ended civilly. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized for the bad timing of the announcement, and Mr. Biden reiterated the strength of the relationship between the two countries. Life should have gone on.

Instead, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, in close coordination with President Obama, called Mr. Netanyahu and launched a 45-minute telephone tirade. White House senior adviser David Axelrod declared Sunday that the announcement was an "insult" and an "affront" and that resolving this issue was "important for our own security." The Obama administration is demanding the Ramat Shlomo project be cancelled or peace talks cannot continue. Meanwhile, Palestinians - emboldened by the White House chastising Israel - are rioting in the streets.

This absurd crisis is both a mark of the Obama administration's frustration with its unsuccessful efforts at reaching an Israeli-Palestinian peace framework and the O Force's general lack of foreign affairs acumen.

Israel's announcement last week was hardly provocative. This project has been on the drawing board since 2008. And compare the atmospherics to January. After meeting with American special envoy George Mitchell, Mr. Netanyahu went to the Gush Etzion settlement and said, "Our message is clear: We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here, this place will be an inseparable part of the State of Israel for eternity." If that did not put a bee in Mrs. Clinton's bonnet, why should this?

The linkage between construction in Jerusalem and U.S. security is also slim. Mr. Biden told Mr. Netanyahu, "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan." This argument apparently emerged in January when senior officers from U.S. Central Command briefed Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, conveying the sense of Arab states that the U.S. inability to move Israel on this and other issues made America appear weak.

It's hard to see how throwing a hissy fit like this will make the United States appear strong. Publicly berating an ally while reaching out the hand of friendship to terrorist sponsors like Iran and Syria doesn't inspire confidence. These countries give material support and sanctuary to insurgents in Iraq who kill American troops; maybe they deserve a few angry phone calls as well.

In July, Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin revealed that Qatar-based Egyptian Sheikh Yousuf Qaradawi gave $21 million to a Hamas-controlled group to build houses in Jerusalem. Mr. Qaradawi believes that suicide terror attacks are "evidence of God's justice." In a Jan. 9, 2009, sermon that aired on Al Jazeera, he said, "Oh Allah, take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them, down to the very last one."

Nice folks the Obama administration is siding with. Perhaps the Nobel Peace Prize should have gone to Joe Biden.

 

 

Holocaust Inversion: The Portraying of Israel and Jews as Nazis¹

Manfred Gerstenfeld

• The false accusation of Holocaust inversion-the portraying of Israel, Israelis, and Jews as Nazis-is a major distortion of history. This anti-Semitic concept claims that Israel behaves against the Palestinians as Germany did to the Jews in World War II. "The victims have become perpetrators," is one major slogan of the inverters. By shifting the moral responsibility for genocide, Holocaust inversion also contains elements of Holocaust denial.
• Holocaust inverters come from many circles. A large number are Arabs or other Muslims. Others come from the extreme Left in the West. A variety of Western mainstream public figures have made Holocaust-inversion statements, including politicians, academics, authors, as well as the occasional Jew or Israeli.
• The portrayal of Israelis and Jews as Nazis occurs in speech, writing, and the visual media, also including cartoons, graffiti, and placards. It employs sinister characterizations, Nazi symbols, and sometimes takes the form of genocidal terminology to describe Israel's actions.
• The motivations of the Holocaust inverters are manifold. Some aim at the destruction of Israel and seek to lay the infrastructure for its moral delegitimization through demonization. Some are extreme pro-Arabs, others anti-Semites. Yet others know little about the Holocaust, the Nazis, and contemporary Israel. For Europeans it is also an effective way to cover up for Holocaust crimes of their countries and expunge guilt by claiming that what was done by the Nazi perpetrators and their many collaborators is a common phenomenon and by now is practiced by Israelis and Jews.
• Contemporary followers and admirers of Nazi methods can mainly be found in the Muslim world, but are also present in Europe and elsewhere. Prewar Palestinian Arab actors had links to Nazi Germany. Examples are the Muslim Brotherhood and the Jerusalem mufti Haj Amin el-Husseini. After World War II, many Nazis fled to Egypt and served in its propaganda apparatus. In particular, current Egyptian but also Palestinian propaganda dates back to this era.

 

In recent years the attempts to manipulate the history and memory of the Holocaust have greatly increased. For several decades there has been much focus on Holocaust denial. Misrepresentations regarding the Holocaust, however, involve many other aspects as well. The number of these false mutations of Holocaust history is expanding. Related to these is the promotion of a second Holocaust through the destruction of Israel. Mutations include Holocaust universalization and banalization, that is, comparing real or supposed misbehavior in contemporary society to what happened in the Holocaust.    

The focus here will be on another major distortion of the Shoah, namely, Holocaust inversion, or portraying Israelis and Jews as Nazis. This anti-Semitic concept claims that Israel behaves toward the Palestinians as Germany did to the Jews in World War II. "The victims have become perpetrators," is one major slogan of the inverters.

Holocaust inverters come from many circles. A large number are Arabs or other Muslims. Many others come from the extreme Left in the West. A variety of Western mainstream public figures have made Holocaust-inversion statements, including politicians, academics, authors, as well as the occasional Jew or Israeli. 

 

Definitions of Anti-Semitism

Natan Sharansky, when he was the Israeli minister of Jerusalem and Diaspora affairs, developed a simple formula that he called the "3D test" to help distinguish legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism: demonization, double standards, and delegitimization.

Sharansky included the portrayal of Israel as a Nazi state within his definition of "demonization": "When the Jewish state is being demonized; when Israel's actions are blown out of all sensible proportion; when comparisons are made between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz-this is antisemitism, not legitimate criticism of Israel."²

By 2001 Prof. Irwin Cotler, who later became Canada's justice minister, explicitly identified the anti-Semitic character of Holocaust inversion. He pointed to several relatively new aspects of anti-Semitism such as calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people, the portrayal of Israel as a Nazi state, and the discriminatory treatment of Israel through denial of equality before the law.³ 

 

The EUMC Working Definition of Anti-Semitism

In its 2004 report on anti-Semitism, the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC) noted the lack of a common characterization of anti-Semitism. This led to the EUMC working definition, which has subsequently been widely accepted.⁴ It states: "Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.... In addition, such manifestations could also target the state of Israel, conceived as a Jewish collectivity."

The document that contains this working definition also offers examples of contemporary anti-Semitism. One of these is: "Accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust."⁵

This text also states that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic." It lists examples of how anti-Semitism can manifest itself toward Israel:

• Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
• Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
• Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to characterize Israel . . . .
• Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
• Holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel.⁶

The core motif of classic anti-Semitism was that Jews embody the most extreme malevolence. During the postwar era, the Nazi regime has become the paradigm for absolute evil. Comparing Israel's conduct to its actions is a new mutation of this ancient theme.

As anti-Semitism historian Robert Wistrich put it:

"anti-Zionists" who insist on comparing Zionism and the Jews with Hitler and the Third Reich appear unmistakably to be de facto anti-Semites, even if they vehemently deny the fact! This is largely because they knowingly exploit the reality that Nazism in the postwar world has become the defining metaphor of absolute evil. For if Zionists are "Nazis" and if Sharon really is Hitler, then it becomes a moral obligation to wage war against Israel. That is the bottom line of much contemporary anti-Zionism. In practice, this has become the most potent form of contemporary anti-Semitism.⁷

French linguist Georges-Elia Sarfati points out that the term anti-Zionism was pioneered by the Soviet Union's Information Ministry after the Six Day War. Researching the matter, he found that the word did not appear in dictionaries until the 1970s. He observes that "a number of key equations dominate the anti-Zionist discourse. The master one-which transversally commands all others-is 'Zionism equals Nazism.'... the anti-Zionist propaganda conveys that you have only to be against, for instance against Nazism-and who is not?-to be an anti-Zionist."⁸ 

Historian Joel Fishman asserts that "inversion of reality" constitutes the basic principle of current anti-Israeli propaganda, noting:

One of its most frequent expressions has been the accusation that the Jewish people, victims of the Nazis, have now become the new Nazis, aggressors and oppressors of the Palestinian Arabs. Contemporary observers have identified this method and described it as an "inversion of reality," an "intellectual confidence trick," "reversing moral responsibility," or "twisted logic." Because Israel's enemies have, for nearly half a century, repeated such libels without being challenged, they have gradually gained credence.⁹

American historian Deborah Lipstadt has also pointed out this method of establishing a fraudulent proposition as a historical truth. She says about the historical writer and Holocaust-denier David Irving: "Irving realized that a pre-condition for Nazism's resurrection was to strip and wash it of its worst elements. The first important tool to accomplish this was the creation of immoral equivalencies, essentially a balance of bad behavior."¹⁰ 

The article continues....... Please read the remainder here:

http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=0&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=381&PID=0&IID=1526&TTL=Holocaust_Inversion:_The_Portraying_of_Israel_and_Jews_as_Nazis

 

Editorial: The Spanish disease

10/03/2010
   
How is Israel to cope with the Spanish challenge? Obviously, Ambassador Shotz cannot brave it alone.

A virulently anti-Israel tribunal likened to a "lynching" by the Israeli Embassy in Madrid is the most recent in a spate of anti-Semitic incidents instigated by Spaniards. This flurry of attacks on Israel has caused us to pause and ask, What is happening on the Iberian peninsula and what can we do to combat it?

Gathering at the beginning of this month in Barcelona, which in the 13th century hosted one of Jewish history's most illustrious communities, the tribunal, which did not include a representative of Israel, was tasked with examining "on what level the European Union and its member states are complicit in... violations on the part of Israel of the rights of the nation of Palestine."

The Israeli Embassy said it was no coincidence that the "Rusell Tribunal," named after British philosopher Bertrand Russell, was held in Spain and that it was funded by Barcelona's city hall, noting the "worrying situation of anti-Semitism" in the country.

At the end of February, meanwhile, the embassy received dozens of postcards written by Spanish schoolchildren with messages such as "Jews kill for money," "Leave the country to the Palestinians" and "Go somewhere where they will accept you."

And in mid-February, Ambassador to Spain Rafi Shotz protested the display of two pieces of art at the International Art Fair in Madrid with virulently anti-Israel messages. One is a sculpture of a menorah sprouting from the barrel of an Uzi sub-machine gun. The other is a highly realistic polyurethane sculpture of a hassid standing on the shoulders of a Catholic priest who is kneeling on a prostrate Muslim worshiper, called "Stairway to Heaven."

In an interview with El Pais, Catalan artist Eugenio Merino, who made both sculptures, defended his art with the claim that "Stairway to Heaven" has been bought by a Belgian Jew for €45,000.

Ambassador Shotz, who was verbally assaulted last year with epithets such as "dirty Jew," "Jew bastard" and "Jew murderer" when he and his wife returned from a soccer game accompanied by police, chose not to demand the removal of the displays, fearing it would spark additional anti-Semitic incidents.

Spain has a long, infamous history of anti-Semitism that pre-dates the Inquisition. For centuries after the 1492 Expulsion, Spaniards enforced the ban against Jews setting foot on Spanish soil. Francisco Franco's fascist, pro-Arab dictatorship that ruled Spain from 1939 to 1975 stoked anti-Israel sentiments.

Now the left-wing prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, is aligned with anti-globalization activists whose agenda includes strong anti-Israel sentiments. During the Second Lebanon War in 2006, Zapatero, with a keffiyeh thrown around his neck, told a group of young socialists that "no one should defend themselves with abusive force which does not protect innocent human beings."

A year earlier, he was quoted as saying that "someone might justify the Holocaust."

Zapatero, who took power in a surprise election victory following Islamist train bombings in Madrid in 2004 and immediately pulled Spanish troops out of Iraq, was reelected in 2008. In September 2009, the Anti-Defamation League published a report titled "Polluting the Public Square: Anti-Semitic Discourse in Spain" in which it expressed concern over viciously anti-Semitic cartoons and articles in Spain's mainstream media, and opinion polls conducted over the preceding year showing an alarming rise in anti-Semitic attitudes. All this is in a country with no more than 30,000 Jews out of a population of almost 47 million.

How is Israel to cope with the Spanish challenge? Obviously, Ambassador Shotz cannot brave it alone. Nor can we expect tremendous results from Public Diplomacy Minister Yuli Edelstein's new idea to conscript ordinary Israelis, who happen to be traveling abroad, to fight the PR fight, no matter how much we arm them with the "tools and tips."

A positive start would be to streamline PR. It makes no sense to disperse responsibility among the Foreign Ministry, the IDF Spokesman's Office, the Government Press Office and Edelstein's new project, not to mention the apparatus Ehud Olmert established in the Prime Minister's Office, as well as a new grouping being overseen by Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon.

Even the best public diplomacy, of course, however,  will not eradicate ingrained Spanish anti-Semitism. That's a challenge for Spain to meet.

Further persecution of Kurds by the Belgian government

Belgium's Incomprehensible war against the Kurds on behalf of the Turks continues.

 

Belgian police arrest another Kurdish journalist

Sunday, 14 March 2010 15:57

On Sunday 1.30 am the Belgian Police Forces raided the house of another Kurdish journalist and the human rights activist Shamzin Cihani.

During a short phone conversation with her family that took place at 6, 00 am Ms. Cihani told her family that she has no idea about her arrest. She claimed that she was ill-treated and humiliated by the cops during their raid of her house.

The Belgian Police Forces have initiated a serial of raids against the Kurdish community workers, human rights activists as well as the Kurdish journalists. Among the places raided were the Kurdish National Congress and the Kurdish national ROJ-TV. During the raid of ROJ_TV all the broadcasting equipments were crushed and the damages done are estimated around 1,200,000 Euros.

 

Why Palestinians Riot Over Jewish Heritage Sites « Daily News

Moshe Dann
Frontpagemag.com – 2010-03-03

Last week saw an upsurge in Palestinian riots and attacks against Israeli vehicles in Gaza and the West Bank. What crime did Israel commit to invite the wave of violence? Israel's government simply announced that it intended to honor the country's heritage by including the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, and Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem in a list of Israeli national "heritage" sites.

The violence-fueled Palestinian reaction may seem entirely disproportionate to Israel's offense. But a look at the historical background shows that it is not without grim precedent.

For several decades, Palestinians have been attacking Jewish worshipers at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Rachel near Bethlehem, and the Tomb of Patriarchs and Matriarchs, Machpelah, in Hebron. After the Oslo and Hebron Agreements in the 1990's, attacks intensified.

To protect visitors to Rachel's Tomb, a fortified building was built around the tiny, 19^th century building that had been built over the tomb. That wasn't enough, since getting to the building from the closest Israeli checkpoint, a few hundred meters away, exposed Jews to sniper fire and bombs from adjacent buildings along the road. A new road was built, therefore, surrounded by high cement walls.

Palestinian riots against the rights of Jews to visit holy and historic sites are nothing new. In Jericho and Gaza, ancient Jewish synagogues from the Talmudic period have been destroyed and are off limits to Jews.

In Shechem, Nablus , the site of Joseph's Tomb, was attacked by Palestinian mobs in 2000, fire-bombed and destroyed. A wounded Israeli soldier inside bled to death while Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and his Defense Minister, Shaul Mofaz, negotiated with the Palestinian Authority.

On the Temple Mount , the Palestinians have been systematically destroying Jewish artifacts and antiquities from the Second Temple period.

Why is attacking and destroying Jewish heritage sites so popular among Palestinians?

Arabs claim their own heritage sites. Their claims go back about 1,300 years, when the Al-Aksa mosque and golden Dome of the Rock were built on the Temple Mount. These buildings exist today under Muslim authority (Wakf); Jews are prohibited by Israeli police from praying, carrying holy books, or ritual objects on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, in deference to Muslim restrictions.

During the Muslim occupation of Israel, with the exception of about two centuries of Christian Crusader occupation, various public buildings, palaces, mosques and bridges were built. Remains of Crusader fortresses are popular tourist sites, along with Nabatean (pagan) sites in the Negev, many of which are UNESCO-designated.

All are part of the history and heritage of the Land of Israel. Except for their buildings on the Temple Mount, however, Muslims do not consider the Land of Israel, Judea and Samaria, Palestine, sacred in any way. During most of the Muslim occupation, these sites were neglected because they held little significance. The main focus, for Muslims, was Mecca and Medina, in Saudi Arabia. Muslims do not make aliyah to Palestine.

Christians venerate holy sites in the Land of Israel, Palestine, but after visiting, or conquering, they went home. Their heritage was local, tribal, and familial. The Land of Israel was not part of their heritage. It was a heritage for Jews.

This explains why Palestinians are opposed to the designation of Jewish heritage sites. If it is important to Jews, what does that mean for Muslims? Indeed, what is their heritage?

Heritage is a legacy that connects generations; it's not politics, but history. For Palestinians, however, the two are entangled – which chokes off rationality.

It's not the Muslim significance of historical sites that inspires Palestinian riots; it's that Jews claim it at all. Equal access to historical and holy sites is considered an affront by Muslims, as it questions their exclusivity and authenticity.

Under Muslim rule, for example, Jews were denied entrance to Machpelah, since, if Muslims don't have exclusive control of the site, then no one else should, or will. Any attachment of Jews diminishes that of Muslims.

If you agree with muslim supremacy over Jewish heritage sites, there is no need to do anything. If you disagree, however, let your voices be heard. Silence is acquiescence.

 

 

March 11, 2010

Israeli supermarket parodies Dubai assassination in TV advert

(AP Photo/Ariel Schalit)

Israeli actors mimic scenes in the surveillance footage from the Hamas assassination in Dubai for the supermarket commercial

Sophie Tedmanson

• 16 Comments

Recommend? (6)

"Mossad mania" continued in Israel this week when a supermarket chain filmed a television commercial inspired by the assassination of a Hamas commander in Dubai.

The commercials for the Mahsaney Kimat Hinam (Almost Free Warehouse) chain shows actors carrying tennis rackets and wearing hats, glasses and wigs — the same disguises worn by the alleged killers in surveillance images released by Dubai police — as they make their way along store aisles.

The actors are seen through the supermarket security cameras surreptitiously slipping products into their shopping trolley. One actor wearing a tennis outfit browses the frozen food section while an actress wearing a wide-brimmed floppy hat mimics Israel's policy of neither confirming nor denying involvement in the assassination, saying she "couldn't admit to anything".

The advertisement even carries the slogans "Eliminate the prices" and "We offer killer prices".

Related Links

• New suspect named in Dubai assassination

• Rush to join Mossad after Dubai killing

• We're all thrilled by Mossad the movie

Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, a founder of the military wing of the Islamist Hamas movement which controls Gaza, was found dead in his room in the Al Bustan Rotana hotel near Dubai airport on January 20. Mr al-Mabhouh had been drugged and then suffocated.

Dubai police have released extensive surveillance camera footage which they say shows the team of 27 suspects from the hit squad they have linked to the Mossad, the Israeli spy agency.

Sefi Shaked, an advertising executive, said that the campaign was inspired by the footage released by Dubai police. He denied that the advertisement was in bad taste, saying that the company hoped to capitalise on the huge amount of media attention generated by the Dubai killing.

"It's a funny take of this event," Mr Shaked said. "We were fascinated by the technique of using surveillance cameras instead of high-production commercial cameras, and the latest events in Dubai gave us a great opportunity.

"All the Israeli television comedy shows have done it, so why shouldn't we?"

Israel has neither confirmed nor denied its involvement in Mr al-Mabhouh's death. despite increasingly confident announcements by Dubai police that they have linked Mossad to the killing.

Last month The Times reported that Mossad has become popular again in Israel, with stores selling out of the agency's memorabilia and a growing number of people visiting its official website to get information on how to become agents.

Opticians also reported a rise in sales of the horn-rimmed glasses in the style worn by some of the suspects, while T-shirts with Mossad logos were also selling out in shops.

Ilan Mizrahi, a former deputy director of the agency, declared that "Mossad has been restored to its glory days" .

On Monday the international police agency Interpol issued arrest notices for a further 16 suspects wanted by Dubai in connection with the killing, in addition to the 11 already issued.

Interpol said that the suspects had all travelled using other people's identities, including 12 British citizens, six Irish, four French, four Australian and one German who all had their passport details stolen and used in the assassination.

The supermarket commercials are expected to air in time for the Passover holiday season, which starts at the end of March.