Arab Immigration into the Coastal Plains of Israel

Arab Immigration into the Coastal Plains of Israel (the Sharon) During the British Mandate.

by: Dr. Rivka Shpak Lissak

According to the Arabic- Palestinian propaganda, the Palestinians are the indigenous people of the country called Judea in the past, then Palestina under the British Mandte.

This article and others in the future will prove this propaganda is an attempt to rewrite history in order to eliminate the Jewish state.

Ma’ayan Hess-Ashkenazi researched the Arabic immigration to the Sharon, and this is what he found:

The Sharon area lies between the Tanninim Creek in the north and the Yarkon stream in the south, and between the foot of the mountains of Samaria in the east and the Mediterranean Sea in the west. According to data published by the Mandate Government, the Arabic population in the Sharon increased more than three-fold during its time. At the beginning of the Mandate period there were about 10,000 Arabs (mostly Muslim) in the Sharon, and in 1944 there were more than 30,000. By the time the Mandate was ended, in 1947, more Arabs had moved to the Sharon.

Demographic sources for the British Mandate period in Israel include the 1922 and 1931 censuses and data on the rural population from 1945. In addition to the British sources researchers can access sources of the Jewish settlement during the Mandate period, including the Haganah archive, the Jewish press, and studies conducted during the period, as well as personal interviews with people from that era.

The total data published by the Mandate government show that the number of Arabs grew from 752,048 in 1914 to 1,294,000 in 1944. The Arabic population nearly doubled in 30 years.

Data on natural increase published by the Mandate government show a significant natural increase in the Arabic population. Among the Muslims, the natural increase rose from 10 children per 1000 population to 29.1 children per 1000 population. Among the Christians, the natural increase reached 30.1 children per 1000 population by the end of the British Mandate. The main reason for this increase was the decrease in mortality rate from 25-30 per 1000 to 20 per 1000.

Scholars are divided over the contribution of Arabic immigration into Israel to the increase in population during the Mandate period. According to data published by the Mandate government, the natural increase in Muslim population contributed 88% of the total increase, whereas immigration contributed 12%; and among the Christians, natural increase contributed 72% of the total population increase, whereas immigration contributed 28%.

An investigation of the statistical data of the Mandate government shows differences in the rates of increase of Arabic population between areas that enjoyed economic and demographic development, such as the Coastal Plains and the Sharon, and areas that did not enjoy such development, such as the district of Jennin. In Jennin, the average natural increase stood at 70%, while in the Coastal area and the Sharon it was several hundreds of percent.

The Mandate government data show that at the beginning of the period, there were about 10,000 Arabs living in the Sharon area, some nomads or semi-nomads, and most in permanent settlements. At the end of the Mandate period there were about 30,000 Arabs in the Sharon area, with some 20,000 living in permanent settlements and about 10,000 nomads.

A careful examination of the population growth in the Sharon concludes that there was a difference between the Mandate government’s rates of population increases for the whole country and those for the Sharon area. In the Sharon, immigration contributed significantly to the population increase. This study examined 35 Arabic villages and suburbs in cities of mixed population. In 1922, 9,892 Arabs were living in the villages and the suburbs, in 1931 their number grew to 14,261, and in 1944 to 25,930. Further growth between 1945 and 1948 must be added. According to these data, the population increase in these villages and suburbs between 1922 and 1931 ranged from 37% to 510%, while from 1931 to 1944, the population increase in these villages and suburbs ranged from 28% to 138%. It should be noted that there were more settlements where the population increased by 100% or more than by a lower percentage.

For example, in Abou Kashakh the population numbered 200 in 1922, and 1,007 in 1931, an increase by 400% .In 1931 it numbered 1,007 and in 1944 it was 2,400, an increase of 138%.. In the Faliq area, on the other hand, there were no Arabs until 1944, when 1,030 of them settled in the place. In Sheikh Mounis there were 664 residents in 1922, growing to 1,154 in 1931 and 1,930 in 1944, an increase of 67% in 13 years and 190% in 22 years.

The Causes for Immigration

Draining of the Sharon Swamps

The Jewish National Fund, together with the Mandate Health Department, began draining the Sharon swamps in the early 1920’s. The drainage checked the spread of malaria and decreased the mortality rate among the Arabs in the area. The drainage project required hundreds of workers, and Arabs work immigrants from the Arabic world who were employed in the works subsequently settled in the area.

The Development of the Citrus Industry

Planting and tending the orchards and the fruit created employment and attracted Arabs from the Arabic world to the area. The planted areas grew from 70,000 dunams (17,500 acres) in 1931 to 128,000 dunams (32,000 acres) in 1946.

Construction Works

The establishment of the Jewish towns of Binyamina, Kfar Sabba, Ra’anana, Herzeliya, Ramat Hasharon, Giv’at Shaul, and others, brought about a construction boom which created employment for hundreds of workers, attracting workers from the Arabic world. Coarse sand was one of the materials used in construction, attracting camel owning Bedouins to work in its transportation.

New Water Sources

The fourth factor which encouraged Arab immigration into the Sharon was the water drilling projects which improved the water supply and increased the area’s agricultural output and its population sustainment and absorption rate.

The Composition of the Arabic Workforce in the Sharon

Farmers

The workforce in the Sharon was comprised of Arabic farmers whose economic situation in the years 1926 – 1932 suffered from cattle diseases, low rainfall, low prices for agricultural produce, and locust attacks. The work places created by the Jewish National Fund, the Mandate government, the Citrus industry, and the construction boom saved them from certain hunger.

Bedouins

Documents of the Hagana Organization indicate that members of Bedouin tribes from the Negev, the Sinai, and Trans-Jordan were employed in these works and ended up settling in the Sharon.

Horanni’s

Towards the end of the 1920’s, Arab workers from the Horan region in the south of Syria began arriving in the country, including the Sharon. According to the Syrian Governor they numbered between 30,000 and 35,000. The Hebrew newspaper “Davar” reported on 2 July 1934 that 25,000 Horanni’s “made Aliya [immigrated] into the country”.

Ten years after the Mandate was established, the Arabic population in the Sharon had grown by 50%. It is impossible to reasonably explain such increase by natural causes alone. The huge increase in Arabic population was even more remarkable in villages close to Jewish settlements, whose number grew from 25 to 77 during the Mandate period. In Bir Addas, for example, which is situated close to the Jewish town of Magdi-el, the population increased by 216%, with 40% of the village’s men working in neighbouring settlements.

In contrast, Bedouins and Arabic farmers from the mountainous region, which was hit by natural disasters, preferred to move to cities such as Jaffa and Haifa, where the living standards were higher.

During the Arabic Revolt, in 1936—1939, Arabic fighters from neighbouring Arabic countries arrived in Samaria, where they ended up settling following the suppression of the revolt by the Mandate government.

World War II hit the citrus industry hard when it brought an end to the exporting of citrus to Europe, but the British Army provided employment to the Arabs in the construction and maintenance of the bases it established in the Sharon. The British Army required food, and its demand for agricultural produce rescued the Arabic agriculture in the Sharon. The need for manpower in the British bases and camps attracted more Arab workers from the Arabic countries. The British brought with them in the 1940’s Arabic workers from Egypt who settled near Kfar Tzur south of Netanya, establishing a settlement that numbered hundreds of inhabitants. Bedouins, Egyptians, and Horanni’s, who worked in the British camps and in the industries that were established in Netanya after the war, settled in Um Haled near Netanya. In addition, during the war, villagers moved from the mountains and established settlements in the Sharon. Some were descended from Egyptians who were settled in the country by Mouhammad ‘Ali during his rule of the area (1832—1840). Data on the rural regions published by the Mandate Government in 1944/5 listed Bedouin tribes that settled in the Sharon, such as ‘Arab-a-nussirat, ‘Arab-al-marmara, and more.

The spread of Tel Aviv in the direction of Sheikh Mounis during the 1930’s and 1940’s, increased Arabic immigration to the village. Its population grew from 664 in 1922 to 1,930 in 1944. Many of these new residents were Bedouins who arrived from neighbouring countries and found employment in construction, sand transportation, and industry. Many of the village residents supplied agricultural produce to the markets in Tel Aviv.

Summary

Jewish settlement in the Sharon during the British Mandate period and development works by the government brought about the elimination of malaria and the provision of medical services which improved the health conditions in the Arabic villages, reduced the infant and adult mortality rates, and increased the longevity rate. New and varied industries created an abundance of work places, attracting Arabs and Bedouins to the Sharon, many of them from Egypt. During World War II, the British Army further created employment and increased demand for agricultural produce. The increase in sources for livelihood brought about an increase in the Arabic population in the Sharon, from 10,000 to 30,000 in less than 30 years.



Rslissak.Com

Iran's Strike

The disclosure of Arab views on Iran's nuclear plans has made a military strike more likely.

by Alan M. Dershowitz

Former US secretary of state Henry Stimson famously declared that "gentlemen do not read each other's mail", referring to Japanese diplomatic cables the US had uncovered by breaking Japan's military code. Today, everybody reads everybody else's diplomatic mail, if they can get their hands on it.

Mostly, this is a bad thing because secrecy – when properly used – can serve the interest of peace and security. Nations have the right to keep secrets from other nations, although they generally overdo it. But individuals do not have the right to decide for themselves when to reveal state secrets. The soldier who broke into governmental computers committed a serious crime and will be punished for it. The question is whether those who released the secrets to the press, namely WikiLeaks, are complicit in the crime.

The newspapers that published leaked material make a compelling case for the decision to select certain items for publication while withholding others. The press is, after all, part of our informal system of checks and balances.

But secretary of state Hillary Clinton is surely correct when she warns that WikiLeaks poses a danger not only to the US but to international diplomacy, while at the same time trying to minimize the actual harm done by these particular disclosures.

The disclosure that virtually every Arab country, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, would favor a military attack, as a last resort, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons could have a discernible effect on the policies of several countries. Israel, of course, has long insisted that the military option be kept on the table. The disclosure that North Korea has delivered missiles to Iran may well frighten European countries into considering the option of military action, if sanctions don't work.

There is additional information, not revealed by WikiLeaks, suggesting that although sanctions are having some effect on Iran's economy, Tehran has decided to move forward with its nuclear weapons program. Computer bugs and the assassination of nuclear scientists may be slowing the process, but are not likely to stop it.

The leaks confirm the US has made two disastrous decisions in dealing with Iran. The first came in 2007, when it released a misleading National Intelligence Estimate conveying the impression Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program. The second was the more recent statements by secretary of defense Robert Gates that appear to have taken any military option off the table. These mistakes have encouraged Iran to move ahead with its program.

It will become more difficult for these Arab countries to condemn Israel if it was to decide on a surgical strike.

A third mistake is to believe that there can be real peace in the Middle East with an Iranian nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over the head of Israel. Even if Israel were to continue the settlement freeze and negotiate borders with the Palestinian Authority, the Iranians could ruin any prospect of permanent peace by unleashing Hezbollah and Hamas – which oppose any peace with Israel – to target Israeli civilians.

President Obama understated the threat when he said a nuclear Iran would be "a game changer". It would be a disaster, threatening Middle East peace, putting an end to any hope of nuclear non-proliferation, and engendering the greatest arms race in modern history.

Now that it has been made public that Arab nations favor a military attack, it will become more difficult for these countries to condemn Israel if it was to decide on a surgical strike. This public disclosure might embolden Israel to consider such a strike as a last resort.

So the leaking of secret information may have grave, even if unintended, consequences. We need new laws and new technologies to cope with the apparent ease with which low-level functionaries can access and download the most secret of information. But there will always be those willing to break the law and suffer the consequences for what they believe is a higher purpose; and it is always just a matter of time until the techno-thieves catch up to the techno-cops. We will have to learn to live with the reality that there is no absolute assurance that "gentlemen" (and others) will not be reading each other's mail.





Aish.Com

In Ishmael's House

The long history of anti-Semitism in Muslim lands.

by Robert Fulford

One of the 2002 Bali bombers, Amrozi bin Nurhasin, on trial in an Indonesian courtroom and headed toward execution, shouted out the message he wanted his crime to convey: “Jews: Remember Khaibar. The army of Muhammad is coming back to defeat you.”

This was his explanation of the murder of 202 people eight years ago. Of those who died, 88 were Australians, 38 Indonesians, 24 British. None were Jews. So what was Amrozi, a Java-born Indonesian, raving about? It’s a question worth considering as we assess the recent arrests for terrorist conspiracy in Ottawa. Islamic terrorists can finds motives in ancient struggles the rest of the world long ago forgot.

Martin Gilbert, the author of some 80 books, including the official biography of Winston Churchill, explains Amrozi’s meaning at the start of his alarming chronicle, In Ishmael’s House: A History of Jews in Muslim Lands, published last week.

Amrozi was remembering an event 1,375 years in the past, when Muhammad attacked Jewish farmers living in the oasis community of Khaibar, in what is now Saudi Arabia. More than 600 Jews were killed and the survivors lost all their property and had to pledge half of their future crops to Muhammad.

Today, few Jews know the word Khaibar. But among certain Muslims it has permanent resonance. Khaibar set a precedent, endorsed by the actions of the Prophet. After Khaibar, non-Muslims who were conquered had to give up their property and pay heavy permanent tribute to their Muslim overseers. That form of discrimination lasted for centuries. It was this incident and its aftermath that nourished Amrozi’s homicidal ambition.

Muslims love to recall that Jews once lived in peace among them. Of course, Jews were always second-class citizens, their rights sharply limited. Still, it was sometimes better than settling among Christians. Bernard Lewis, a major authority on Islam, says that Jewish lives under Islam were never as bad as in Christendom at its worst, or as good as in Christendom at its best.

Well before Israel’s creation in 1948, Arabs were identifying Jews as enemies.

In the 20th century, Arab hostility to Jews took an ugly turn. Some claim that the new state of Israel “caused” the trouble. But well before Israel’s creation in 1948, Arabs were identifying Jews as enemies.

In 1910, in the now-Iranian city of Shiraz, mobs robbed and destroyed 5,000 Jewish homes, with the encouragement of soldiers. In 1922, in Yemen, an old decree permitting the forcible conversion of Jewish orphans to Islam was reintroduced. The government searched towns and villages for children without fathers, so that they could be given Muslim instruction. The children were chained and imprisoned till they agreed to convert. In 1936 in Iraq, under Nazi influence, Jews were limited by quota in the public schools, Hebrew teaching was banned in Jewish schools and Jewish newspapers were shut down.

Anti-Semitism intensified when Israel was created, and grew still worse after Israel won the Six-Day War of 1967. By the 1970s, about 800,000 Jews, perhaps more, had been forcibly exiled from Arab countries, their property seized. According to the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries (WOJAC), they lost property now valued at well over $100-billion.

A majority of these exiles settled in Israel. In the 1950s, the UN recognized them as refugees and compensation was discussed. Later, the Arab states turned the UN against Israel and, by association, against Jewish refugees. In 1975, the General Assembly condemned Zionism as “racism and racial discrimination.” Various political leaders in the West (notably Irwin Cotler, the former justice minister of Canada) have continued to argue for compensation. But after the 1975 resolution, as Gilbert notes, that idea was unlikely to receive any UN support.

The number of Jews displaced by the Arabs in the 20th century roughly equals the number of Palestinians displaced by Israel. But the plight of the Palestinians has received several hundred times as much publicity. One reason is the constant propaganda from Muslim states and their admirers in the West. Another is that many Jews, unlike Palestinians, don’t want to be called refugees.

Gilbert quotes an Iraqi Jew, Eli Timan, living in London: “The difference is that we got on with our life, worked hard and progressed so that today there is not a single Jewish refugee from Arab lands.” Those who suggest that this model be copied elsewhere will of course be condemned as heartless bigots.

This article originally appeared in the National Post.

For more information, please watch these 3 videos:

The Third Jihad

A must-see 4 video clips from a new documentary on the cultural jihad already taking place in America.

Imagine There's No Muslims

by John Lennon Lyric - Sing Loud!












Imagine there’s no Muslims
It’s easy if you try
Just drop a bomb upon them
Watch the bastards fry
Imagine all the people
Rejoicing in their pain

Imagine there’s no jihadis
It isn’t hard to do
If we eliminate them
And their religion too
Imagine all the people
living without these fleas

You may say I’m pissed off
But I’m not the only one
I hope some day to be rid of
Mohammad’s terrorist sons

Imagine no more terrorists
An issue really big
All the Allah Akbars
Buried with a pig
Imagine all the virgins
freed from this disease

You may say I’m uncaring
But I say it’s a lot of fun
To rid the world of this vermin
So let’s kill them and be done

Al-Qaeda Issues Hebrew-Language Threat

Online recording tells 'aggressor Jews' they will not be safe until they 'leave land of Palestine'

by Reuters



An al-Qaeda-linked group issued a Hebrew threat on Thursday to avenge Israel's killing of two Gaza militants, in what an expert said was the first use of the language for such propaganda.

In the half-minute-long recording posted on a website used by declared al-Qaeda affiliates, a hoarse male voice tells the "aggressor Jews" they will not be safe from rockets and other attacks until they "leave the land of Palestine".

The speaker identifies himself as a member of the group Jemaa Ansar al-Sunna or "Community of Sunna Supporters", which has a presence in Gaza.

Mohammed Nimnim and Islam Yassin, killed in Israeli air strikes on Nov. 3 and Nov. 17, were Gazan leaders of the Army of Islam, a Palestinian Islamist group inspired by al-Qaeda. Israel accused them of having planned to attack Israelis in the Egyptian Sinai.

Matti Steinberg, an Israeli intelligence veteran who specialises in Islamism, said it was unprecedented for Hebrew to be used on an al-Qaeda forum.

While Osama bin Laden's followers have made public appeals in languages other than Arabic, this was usually to "win over, educate and preach to the wider Muslim world", Steinberg said.

"Here, by contrast, it seems the idea to make Jews feel that the threat is close at hand and not some distant menace."

The recording, which was quoted on Israel's Army Radio, ends by invoking "al-Quds", Arabic for Jerusalem.

Proud to Be Muslims?

By Imran Hossain

imranhossainbd@hotmail.com

Go discuss any religious topic with Muslims anywhere; most of them would frequently tell you, "You have to be proud to be a Muslim". I learn the same item whenever I argue with my Muslim friends, relatives, colleagues etc. on internet (MSN messenger chat), phone, or in person. Now, I am tired of listening to that phrase. To answer that ridiculous dialogue I've got some questions with the letters, "WH". These are, "why do we have to be proud to be Muslims?", "what have we done?", and "who are we?". Please let me response those questions in several paragraphs below.

1) How many scientists, astronauts, biologists etc. do we find from our Muslim background? General senses and statistics tell us about 95% scientists and astronauts are from the Jewish and Christian backgrounds and about 4.9 % from other backgrounds. Aren't these innovative people making the world smaller and smaller with their wits? I think I am absolutely right on it. Where can I find Muslims amongst those creative people?

Are we Muslims still proud of being nothing?

2) The modern equipments, automotives, appliances etc. we are now using such as computers, internet, Windows and other software, telephones, TVs, radios, clocks, A/Cs, freezes, aeroplanes, cars, trains; taking allopathic medicines, having modern treatments; wearing comfortable stuffs like shirt-pant, underwear, eyewear, durable shoes, and many more stuffs for our daily needs. Can we survive well now without those useful stuffs and technology in this century?

Can anyone show me the strong evidence that any of those things are invented by Muslims? Are we Muslims in any discovery or progressive work?

I do not think so.

Are we still proud of this failure?

3) We had somewhat better economy only for 24 years looooooong time ago within 1400 years when there was a secular state rather than Islamic. How many countries are now economically strong in 57 Muslim nations? Unlike Saudi Arab, UAE Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait, these countries are rich for nothing but petro-dollar. They could never be wealthy unless the West helps them to raise oil from the deserts. And in Malaysia, the most industries are owned by the Chinese origin people. That's why it's got typical better economy. How about the rest of the Muslim countries? Like 65 % people can not even eat properly in those places.

Are we still proud of our collapsed economy?

4) What are some of the true (pukka) Muslim brothers doing? Our brothers do suicide bombing, hijack aeroplanes etc. inspired by our religion to shed blood of the innocent people. The whole world is now scared of Jihadi Organisations.

Who are making these barbaric work?

No-one but our brothers!!!

Are we still proud of the bloody jobs?

5) Because of some of our Muslim brothers only, there are extra security forces in the West. In addition, USA has launched fingerprint system lately at the airports and the crossing points; US immigration and air carriers have produced some special types of software which promptly recognise all Muslim names. As well, recently, airlines like British Airways had to cancel some flights to the US continent for the possible security threats. Why are these all happening for? Just for our Muslim brothers!!!

Are we still proud of these humiliations?

6) Our brothers, the real Muslim people from Middle East do not give citizenships even to the guest Muslims although someone is born in those vast deserts. In addition, countries like Saudi Arabia and other some Middle Eastern countries grant social benefits upon sexes, races and religions.

Shall we still speak out that we are proud of the rude discrimination?

7) I have a lot of friends in North America who are Shiks, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Jews and many others. I wonder why I always get to hear the same outdated folk stories only from Muslims such as praising the great leaders Saddam Hussein and Arafat; criticising Israel, USA, and Bush's policies always; who is winning or losing in next US elections?; Jews leaders and their influences in USA etc. It is really amazing!!!

I never hear these types of rubbish criticisms from my other non-Muslim friends.

So, shall we still be proud of our identical holy thinking?

8) Actually, who are we? How do we learn Islam? How do get to raise our voice? As a matter of fact, our ancestors are brainwashed by the Arab Bedouins several hundred years ago that's how we are now Muslims. Since then, we try to become the typical followers of Prophet Mohamed, and we start believing in almighty Allah and Holy Koran. I believe no-one has any objection to accept this truth. No matter what there are some or many good learning materials in Koran and Mohamed's life. Please, let me not discuss other teaching parts from Koran and Mohamed for now.

By the way, can we Muslims even utilize the good parts from Koran and Hadiths?

These books strongly teach us NOT to cheat, lie, do bribery, do corruptions etc. However, what results do we see in the Muslim world? Muslim countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan etc. climb the top positions for corruptions. In addition, leaders like Yasir Arafat, Arabian Royals and so on are exploiting their national revenue. On average da! ta, the rape rate in the Muslim countries is much higher than non-Muslim nations. Actually, there are lots more things to write on corruptions and crimes. Anyways, where are the wonderful ingredients of Islam here? Who fails to keep the Koran's and Mohamed's those priceless doctrines? Of course, we Muslims fail to organise the law and order situation in our lands. Again, my dear readers, I get the saaaaaaaame thing to tell you why we should emphatically say we are proud to be Muslims.

Now, some Islamists might want to beat me that why I blame all Muslims because of few bigots. However, I do not impose all criticisms on all Muslims. Please let me clarify a possible claim of some Islamists or Muslims: it is good to hear that they do not like the terrorisms of some of our brothers. But, when USA and UK increase securities in their lands, take some necessary steps against terrorisms, and go fighting with our terrorist brothers, then why do those Islamists or most Muslims defy USA and UK, and keep supporting our terrorist brothers? During the war on terrorism in 2001, I observed from different sources that approximately 95% Muslims around the world was against the Anglo-American war. Now, which one I should choose from possible comments: hating or supporting terrorist brothers? I am not a fool I would pick both of them. Whatsoever, in fact, the main thing is nothing but most Muslims are affected with Islamic virus (SKM's idea). These days, it would be the funniest thing to claim that "we are proud to be Muslims" without any strong reasons.

Some Bangladeshi illiterate Mullahs told me few years ago "those who believe humans are originally generated from the monkeys (Darwin's theory); those people are really from the monkeys. But, we believe in Allah, so we are NOT from the monkeys. Allah sends us to this earth". As we know, almost all Muslims have the same ideas, and they frequently invite us to cry out that "we are proud to be Muslims", so, who really knows, those Mullahs' idea might not be wrong.

Ayatollah Khomeini’s on Sex with Children and Animals

The leader of the Iranian Revolution in 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, wrote extensively on Islamic Jurisprudence. A two-volume book, which was published originally in Arabic, was called ‘Tahrir al Wasilah’. Translated into Farsi, the book is called “Tahrirolvasyleh.” (read entire text here.) Khomeini also had another treatise on Islamic rules for living, called in English, “The Little Green Book.”
(see entire text here.)

It is useful to understand what an esteemed Islamic leader such as the Ayatollah teaches his followers.

Here are some excerpts from “Tahrirolvasyleh” which Muslims probably don’t want you to know about Islam:

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. If a man does penetrate and damage the child then, he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl will not count as one of his four permanent wives and the man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister… It is better for a girl to marry at such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband’s house, rather than her father’s home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven. ["Tahrirolvasyleh", fourth edition, Qom, Iran, 1990]

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable.

If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned.

Wine and all intoxicating beverages are impure, but opium and hashish are not.

If a man sodomises the son, brother, or father of his wife after their marriage, the marriage remains valid.

During sexual intercourse, if the penis enters a woman’s vagina or a man’s anus, fully or only as far as the circumcision ring, both partners become impure, even if they have not reached puberty; they must consequently perform ablutions.

A woman who has contracted a continuing marriage does not have the right to go out of the house without her husband’s permission; she must remain at his disposal for the fulfilment of any one of his desires, and may not refuse herself to him except for a religiously valid reason. If she is totally submissive to him, the husband must provide her with her food, clothing, and lodging, whether or not he has the means to do so. A woman who refuses herself to her husband is guilty, and may not demand from him food, clothing, lodging, or any later sexual relations; however, she retains the right to be paid damages if she is repudiated.

If a father (or paternal grandfather) marries off his daughter (or granddaughter) in her absence without knowing for a certainty that she is alive, the marriage becomes null and void as soon as it is established that she was dead at the time of the marriage.

It is not illegal for an adult male to ‘thigh’ or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her. ["The Little Green Book"]

If a man commits adultery with an unmarried woman, and subsequently marries her, the child born of that marriage will be a bastard unless the parents can be sure it was conceived after they were married. A child born of an adulterous father is legitimate.Ali [son in law of Mohammed], having cut off the hands of two thieves, treated their wounds and offered them his hospitality, and this affected them so much that they became utterly devoted to him; or again when he heard that the marauding army of Muawiyah had abused a woman of one of the tribes, he was so upset and moved to pity he declared: “If a man died after such an occurrence, no one could blame him.” And yet, despite a nature as sensitive as that, Ali bared his sword and hacked the perpetrators to pieces. This is the meaning of justice.- “The Sayings of Ayatollah Khomeini, Political, Philosophical, Social and Religious” (The Little Green Book), ISBN number 0-553-14032-9.

Pedophilia is legal in Iran.... and Islam

In June, 2002 Iranian authorities approved a law raising the age at which girls can marry without parental consent from 9 to 13. The elected legislature actually passed the bill in 2000, but the “Guardian Council”, a 12-man body of conservative clerics, vetoed it as contradicting Islamic Sharia law. Iran’s clerical establishment insists that the marriage of young girls is a means to combat immorality. The Expediency Council, which arbitrates between the elected parliament and the theocratic Guardian Council, timidly passed the measure. The law however does not change the age at which children can get married (nine for girls and 14 for boys), but says that girls below the age of 13 and boys younger than 15 need their parents’ permission and the approval of a “Righteous Court.” Reformists state that the new law does not protect children, since most of those who marry at such a young age do so by force.

A religious decree by Khomeini ordered that girl prisoners who are virgins must be raped before execution, to prevent them from entering heaven. A Guard conducts the rape the night before execution. The next day, a marriage certificate is issued by a mullah, who sends it to the girl’s family, along with a box of chocolates as a wedding gift.

It is quite common in Iran for older men to marry children, as long as they pay the appropriate bride-price to the girl’s family. This basically means that a father can sell his daughter to whomever he wants, whilst the mad mullahs see this as a means of maintaining purity. We prefer to call this child prostitution and rape, especially given that Iran’s clerics approve of the ‘tradition’ of ‘temporary marriage’ (Mut’a), which can last less than 24 hours and may be repeated as many times as desired. This form of exploitation is widespread and legitimises sex with young children. The man may even visit his temporary wife every weekend at her father’s house, for about $10 per visit.

Khomeini on prostitution and Mut’a (temporary marriage)

“It ispermissible to do Mut’a with an adulteress, but with aversion, particularly if she is a well-known prostitute. If Mut’a is done with her, she should be told to give-up her profession.”

The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"



Additions:

1) BBC, Friday, 24 February 2006:
A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.

They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.

"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.

Mr Alifi, of Hai Malakal in Upper Nile State, told the Juba Post newspaper that he heard a loud noise around midnight on 13 February and immediately rushed outside to find Mr Tombe with his goat.

"When I asked him: 'What are you doing there?', he fell off the back of the goat, so I captured and tied him up."

Mr Alifi then called elders to decide how to deal with the case.

"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife," Mr Alifi told the newspaper.

2) March 15, 2010:
Gulf News reports that a guard has been arrested for having sex with the animals he was guarding on a farm. Muslim readers writing in to comment in the newspaper want to to know if the animals are still fit for eating.

Saudi Arabia Unblocks Facebook

Social networking site briefly blocked because it doesn't conform to kingdom's values.

Saudi Arabia's communications authority unblocked Facebook on Saturday after shutting down the popular social networking website for a few hours.

An official with Saudi's Communications and Information Technology Commission said the kingdom blocked the site briefly Saturday because the content had "crossed a line" with the country's conservative values.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to the media, later said the communications authority lifted the ban. The reason the commission reversed its decision hours later was not immediately clear.

Earlier this week, a blogger who set off an uproar in the Arab world by claiming he was God and hurling insults at the Prophet Muhammad was arrested through a sting that used Facebook to track him down.

Walid Husayin, 26, a barber from the West Bank town of Qalqilya, now faces a potential life prison sentence on heresy charges for "insulting the divine essence." Many in this conservative Muslim town say he should be killed for renouncing Islam, and even family members say he should remain behind bars for life.



Associated Press

Israel's Red Lines

Bibi must make clear to our US allies where we stand on key issues

by Ari Harow

For those who closely follow American politics, there was a strong sense of déjà vu as last week's elections results started coming in. Once again a newly elected popular president watched his poll numbers drop as initial euphoria evaporates once the harsh economic realities refuse to disappear and it becomes apparent that all can not be cured with a few speeches.

Here in Israel the immediate question that inevitably crops up once the dust has settled is: "what does this mean for us?" While the long-term answer to this question is heatedly debated, what is clear is that this new political reality offers a unique window of opportunity for Prime Minister Netanyahu to further clarify and crystallize Israel's red lines in negotiation with the Palestinians when he meets with key administration officials in the United States this week.

The professional pundit class seems split in their predictions on how President Obama will react to last weeks "shellacking" of Democrats.

Some think that the president will realize that the American public is disappointed with his performance to date, resulting in a refocusing of his efforts on his domestic agenda and attempting to turn the economy around with the hope of salvaging the remainder of his term, and winning reelection in 2012.

Other experts warn that once it becomes apparent to Obama that there is little he can do within his power to actually lower the stubbornly high unemployment rate, he will turn to overseas adventures where the president has much more authority to act without congressional approval. This path may very well result in a renewed effort by the Administration to reach their stated goal of a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian agreement within a year. Needless to say, Israel's best interests may not be at the top of the agenda for an Administration that is racing to hold a South Lawn ceremony within 10 months.

As President Obama and his advisors contemplate which of these paths to chose, it is vital that Prime Minister Netanyahu take this opportunity to once again clearly state Israel's red lines in negotiating with the Palestinians. Whether this clarification serves to bolster our friends in Congress, or remind the Administration as they plan any new initiatives, it is crucial that our American allies understand where we stand on these issues as we inch closer to returning to direct negotiations with the Palestinians.

Thankfully, the prime minister does not need to start from scratch. In his historic speech at Bar Ilan University in June of 2009, Netanyahu laid out three key areas where Israel's red lines cannot be crossed.

The Palestinians must agree to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. While some Palestinians have belittled this demand as an unnecessary game of semantics, nothing can be further from the truth. We unfortunately are witnesses on a daily basis to the indoctrination of the next generation of Palestinians as children are taught to deny the Jewish people's right to a state in ANY part of the Land of Israel.

This is the message that Palestinian youths are taught in official Palestinian Authority schools, broadcasts and even in children programming. We cannot hope to live in peace with neighbors who do not believe that we have even the most basic right of existence in this land.

Jerusalem cannot be divided
Israel must remain within defensible borders as the result of any peace agreement. We cannot compromise on territorial concessions in the Jordan Valley or on the mountain ridges of Judea and Samaria which overlook the center of our country. We have learned the lessons of the Lebanon and Gaza withdrawals and we simply cannot let ourselves repeat these mistakes when the population centers of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv and the strategic Ben Gurion Airport are at stake.

Finally, Jerusalem can never be divided again. Jerusalem – Zion itself – is the raison d'être for our national existence here in Israel and it is the glue that holds the entire Jewish people together. We are already witness to a steady elimination of our sovereignty in the capital. Daily news reports are full of stories of PA officials funding schools and social clubs, ambulances refusing to serve certain neighborhoods due to stone throwing, and Jews fearing to visit the graves of their ancestors on the Mount of Olives where they are subjected to daily violent attacks.

Without a clear stance on this most basic issue we will soon find ourselves chased out of the city we dreamed of for 2,000 years.

As fate (or good planning) would have it, the prime minister finds himself in the US this week meeting with Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton during this pivotal period. Now is the time to explain to these and other Administration officials that just as the US has vital interests that it works tirelessly to safeguard, Israel too must stand strong on our principles or the chance of reaching a just, lasting and true peace will quickly fade and collapse as happened too many times in the past.

The new Congress in Washington, and the policy choices that the Administration will soon make, present an opportunity for the prime minister to reiterate and elaborate on the important points that he made in his Bar Ilan speech. These points are all vital in ensuring that Israel's basic interests are protected.

I hope that the prime minister makes the most of his trip to the US this week and ensures that all of our friends in Washington know that while our yearning for peace is genuine and strong, Israel will not waver on these key fundamental issues.




Ynet News

The Arab Slave of Iran

President Assad flexing his muscles, but behind the scenes Iran is calling the shots

by Farid Ghadry

In Islam, slavery was institutionalized and promoted as a necessity during wars. We find throughout our history, during al-Foutouhat (Conquests), many occasions upon which the “enemy” was subjected to servitude by a Muslim master abiding by his Koranic beliefs.

Even today, we see its enduring finger prints in Islamic societies in the form of sex trade, premature forced marriages, abusive household masters, female mutilations, etc… But we also witness slavery today in Machiavellian form across many Islamic societies in the Middle East. On that basis, there is ample evidence to suggest that Assad has become Iran’s Arab slave.

The conclusion is based on several circumstantial factors. In 2000, Assad ascended to power at the age of 34. While still learning how to use power, he was supposedly attacking the greatest power in Iraq with suicide missions. Given his background as a trained healthcare provider, it is quite a stretch to think he was capable of such a bold policy without Iranian assistance and help.

Another factor is the futility of the US State Department to peel Assad from Ahmadinejad even though the stars were aligned for such a successful outcome with a new US president eager for dialogue. That failure remains a mystery to many who are still scratching their heads. If you add, as well, how Assad has yielded to Hezbollah in Lebanon, one cannot but come to the same conclusion of how an Arab slave functions under the Iranian grip.

However, to confuse this relationship, Iran spreads misinformation to the fact that Assad is about to battle Hezbollah in Lebanon and believe it or not, some very smart people actually believe it.

In September, and according to several intelligence sources, Assad has reshuffled the heads of his four security pillars, some with Generals favored strongly by Iran. One specifically is Maj. Gen. Zouhair Hamad, probably hand-picked by the IRGC, to run Syria’s internal security. Again, this demonstrates clearly the inconsistency one can detect between Assad’s boldness on the world stage and his subjugation to Iran over Syria’s internal affairs.

For the chess players amongst us, how is it possible to jump from a player with less than a 1,000-rating to a master overnight? The explanation is simple.

Long list of Iranian demands
Assad has become a slave of Iran because his father dictated to him that he is not to lose power at any cost. It also seems that Iran was present in the same room. In 2004, hypothetically speaking, Assad asked himself a question: Who can protect my rule best, the Americans or the Iranians? Under an American umbrella, his rule would be safe from another war but he will continuously be playing the music chair in a room of old Arab leaders he cannot associate with and a new rising power in his neighborhood. With Iran, his back would be protected but he can play the role of the spoiler against the West and other Arab rulers the way his father taught him how.

In return, Ahmadinejad asked for and received a long list of demands to include weapon delivery to Hezbollah, a big footprint of Iranian military and religious assets and symbols inside Syria, a NATO-like weapon exchange program to include storage and upgrade of missile systems to protect Iran, and more importantly, a Hezbollah footprint inside Syria just in case Assad turns his back on Iran.

But as master chess players, the Iranians also asked Assad to keep the West on its heels by feeding the US with intelligence on al-Qaeda-type terrorists who also happen to be enemies of Iran and Syria and provide hope that he would be willing to switch sides.

The region is settling into this new master/slave arrangement between Ahmadinejad and Assad that few believe exists as they watch Assad flex his muscles. But behind the scene, Iran is pulling the levers and it is in the interest of the Iranians to provide Assad, the Arab, with a long leach he can use to bite his neighbors on behalf of the Mullahs. As an example, Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah sold Lebanon for pennies because he feared Iranian intrusion into Shia-majority Dammam in the Eastern Province through Iraq. Guess who indirectly fed Abdullah with such hogwash? None other than Iran.

While Bashar Assad’s father treated power as a soft asset to be exploited in a discreet manner, his son exploits it to grandstand the Arab League, the West and Israel. The funny part is that Assad, the Arab slave of Iran, believes that his own supremacy is what keeps him in power. That’s what happens when an ophthalmologist fails to check his own eyes.




Ynet news

Iran Fails to Get Seat on UN Women Board

'We have made no secret of our concern that Iran joining the board of would have been an inauspicious start,' US Ambassador Rice says. Specialist for Human Rights Watch group 'extremely relieved'.

Iran failed to secure a seat on a key board running the new UN super agency to improve women's rights as fierce lobbying by western nations and rights groups swayed an election Wednesday.

Saudi Arabia, whose candidacy was also criticized, got an automatic seat and rights groups said they will now seek to put the spotlight on the kingdom's record.

Iran was beaten to an Asian seat on the executive board by East Timor, a late entrant to the contest, in a vote at the UN General Assembly. Four UN agencies were merged this year to set up UN Women under the leadership of former Chilean president Michelle Bachelet.

Iran had originally been guaranteed a place as the Asia region had put forward 10 candidates for 10 seats. Iran and Pakistan were on the agreed list.

East Timor risked the wrath of its Asian neighbors by putting itself forward as a spoiler late last week, as controversy mounted over Iran's rights record, diplomats said. It won 36 votes against 19 for Iran.

The United States, European Union, Australia and Canada carried out an intensive diplomatic campaign to thwart Iran, diplomats said.

"It was an expression of disapproval of Iran's rights record," Norway's UN ambassador Morten Wetland told AFP, explaining his country's decision to back East Timor.

"They lost and they lost handily," commented US ambassador Susan Rice on Iran's defeat.

"We have made no secret of our concern that Iran joining the board of UN Women would have been an inauspicious start to that board," she told reporters.

'Shocking system of male guardianship'
Campaigners had highlighted Iran's treatment of women, including the case of Sakineh Mohammadi-Ashtiani who was sentenced to be stoned to death for adultery. Though Iran has said this will not be carried out, reports say she could now be hanged after being found guilty of the murder of her husband.

"We are extremely relieved," said Philippe Bolopion, UN specialist for the Human Rights Watch group. "Iran has a catastrophic record on rights," he said.

"It is a country which has distinguished itself by actively repressing women's rights activists, they have harassed many and imprisoned some," he told AFP.

A resolution on Iran's human rights is to be voted at the UN General Assembly next week and is already the subject of intense new lobbying, diplomats said.

Iranian Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi had said before the vote that having either Iran or Saudi Arabia on the board of UN Women would "a joke".

Ebadi said that Saudi Arabia's record on women is worse than Iran.

In Saudi Arabia women are forbidden to drive and cannot take major decisions without the permission of a male relative.

It secured an automatic seat from a group of donor countries for which there was no vote.

The US ambassador said that UN Women is "a vitally important institution", and questioned about the Saudi presence she added: "I am not going to deny that there were several countries that are going to join the board of UN Women that have less than stellar records on women's rights and indeed human rights."

The HRW specialist said that Saudi Arabia had "bought" a seat on the UN Women board.

"They have one of the worst records in the world when it comes to women's rights. But by being on the board they have essentially put the spotlight on their own record," said Bolopion.

"We want to use this spotlight to push them to start making some significant progress. By working to put an end to the shocking system of male guardianship, by which women in Saudi Arabia cannot make any important decisions in their lives," he said.




Ynet news

Arab-Israel Negotiations are a Game

The Blackmailer's Paradox: Arab-Israel Negotiations are a Game

by Prof. Yisrael Aumann

Two men — let us call them Reuben and Simon — are put in a small room containing a suitcase filled with bills totaling $100,000. The owner of the suitcase announces the following:

"I will give you the money in the suitcase under one condition...you have to negotiate an agreement on how to divide it. That is the only way I will agree to give you the money."

Reuben is a rational person and realizes the golden opportunity that has fallen his way. He turns to Simon with the obvious suggestion: "You take half and I'll take half, that way each of us will have $50,000."

To his surprise, Simon frowns at him and says, in a tone that leaves no room for doubt: "Look here, I don't know what your plans are for the money, but I don't intend to leave this room with less than $90,000. If you accept that, fine. If not, we can both go home without any of the money."

Reuben can hardly believe his ears. What has happened to Simon he asks himself. Why should he get 90% of the money and I just 10%? He decides to try to convince Simon to accept his view. "Let's be logical," he urges him, "We are in the same situation, we both want the money. Let's divide the money equally and both of us will profit."

Simon, however, doesn't seem perturbed by his friend's logic He listens attentively, but when Reuben is finished he says, even more emphatically than before: "90-10 or nothing. That is my last offer."

Reuben's face turns red with anger. He is about to punch Simon in the nose, but he steps back. He realizes that Simon is not going to relent, and that the only way he can leave the room with any money is to give in to him. He straightens his clothes, takes $10,000 from the suitcase, shakes Simon's hand and leaves the room humiliated.

This case is called 'The Blackmailer's Paradox" in game theory. The paradox is that Reuben the rational is forced to behave irrationally by definition, in order to achieve maximum results in the face of the situation that has evolved. What brings about this bizarre outcome is the fact Simon is sure of himself and doesn't flinch when making his exorbitant demand. This convinces Reuben that he must give in so as to make the best of the situation.

The Arab-Israeli Conflict:
The relationship between Israel and the Arab countries is conducted along the lines of this paradox. At each stage of negotiation, the Arabs present impossible, unacceptable starting positions. They act sure of themselves and as if they totally believe in what they are asking for, and make it clear to Israel that there is no chance of their backing down.

Invariably, Israel agrees to their blackmailing demands because otherwise she will leave the room empty handed. The most blatant example of this is the negotiations with Syria that have been taking place with different levels of negotiators for years. The Syrians made sure that it was clear from the beginning that they would not compromise on one millimeter of the Golan Heights.

The Israeli side, eager to have a peace agreement with Syria, internalized the Syrian position so well, that the Israeli public is sure that the starting point for future negotiations with Syria has to include complete withdrawal from the Golan Heights, this despite its critical strategic importance in ensuring secure borders for Israel.

The Losing Solution:
According to game theory, Israel has to change certain basic perceptions in order to improve her chances in the negotiations game with the Arabs and win the long term political struggle:

a. Willingness to forego agreements:
Israel's political stand is based on the principle that agreements must be reached with the Arabs at any price, that the lack of agreements is untenable. In the Blackmailer's Paradox, Reuben's behavior is the result of his feeling that he must leave the room with some money, no matter how little. Because Reuben cannot imagine himself leaving the room with empty hands, he is easy prey for Simon, and ends up leaving with a certain amount of money, but in the role of the humiliated loser. This is similar to the way Israel handles negotiations, her mental state making her unable to reject suggestions that do not advance her interests.

b. Taking repetition into account
Game theory relates to onetime situations differently than to situations that repeat themselves. A situation that repeats itself over any length of time, creates, paradoxically, strategic parity that leads to cooperation between the opposing sides. This cooperation occurs when both sides realize that the game is going to repeat itself, and that since they must weigh the influence present moves will have on future games, there is a balancing factor at play. Reuben saw his problem as a onetime event, and behaved accordingly. Had he told Simon instead that he would not forego the amount he deserves even if he sustains a total loss, he would have changed the game results for an indefinite period. It is probably true that he would still have left the game empty handed, but at the next meeting with Simon, the latter would remember Reuben's original suggestion and would try to reach a compromise.
That is how Israel has to behave, looking at the long term in order to improve her position in future negotiations, even if it means continuing a state of war and fore going an agreement.

c. Faith in your opinions
Another element that creates the "Blackmailer's Paradox" is the unwavering belief of one side in its opinion. Simon exemplifies that. This faith gives a contender inner confidence in his cause at the start and eventually convinces his rival as well. The result is that the opposing side wants to reach an agreement, even at the expense of irrational surrender that is considerably distanced from his opening position. Several years ago, I spoke to a senior officer who claimed that Israel must withdraw from the Golan Heights in the framework of a peace treaty, because the Golan is holy land to the Syrians and they will never give it up. I explained to him that first the Syrians convinced themselves that the Golan is holy land to them, and then proceeded to convince you as well. The Syrians' unflinching belief that they are in the right convinces us to give in to their dictates. The only solution to that is for us to believe unwaveringly in the righteousness of our cause. Only complete faith in our demands can succeed in convincing our Syrian opponent to take our opinion into account.

As in all of science, game theory does not take sides in moral and value judgments. It analyzes strategically the behavior of opposing sides in a game they play against one another. The State of Israel is in the midst of one such game opposite its enemies. As in every game, the Arab-Israeli game involves interests that create the framework of the game and its rules.

Sadly, Israel ignores the basic principles of game theory. If Israel would be wise enough to behave according to those principles, her political status and de facto, her security status, would improve substantially. ? 

Eiditor's Note: Some of the readers' comments point out other considerations.
1. Dr.Auman's Analysis ?I respectfully disagree with at least part of Dr. Auman's analysis because of a simple reason. In his model, both Reuben and Simon want to walk away with money; Simon is merely trying to maximize his return by playing on the insecurities of Reuben (through the blackmail). So the theory is if Simon presses his position strong enough, he'll walk away with more. But our Arab cousins are not interested in any solution that doesn't totally destroy Reuben even if it leaves him with nothing! (c.f. suicide bombing) ?em, brooklyn (07/06/10)

2. Prof. Aumann left out one big important factor! ?As Arafat himself pointed out after the Clinton administration attempt at "Lets Help Israel and the Pals Negotiate:" The most strategic game the Pals are playing is the game they play with with their own people. Arafat told Clinton: " If I go back with what you offered, my own people will lynch me and find a new leader! " ?hiddenheard, (07/06/10)

3. A different game is played ?1. The $100,000 money that is offered for negotiations was originally robbed from Reuben and rightfully belongs to him. ?2. Simon is paid billions on the side to encourage him to negotiate. If he ends the game he will lose those billions. So it's in his interest to continue the game indefinitely. ?3. It is not the case that the $100k is in the suitcase. It is actually in Reuben's bank account. The game consists of convincing Reuben to make a "unilateral (cash) withdrawal " and hand the money to over to Simon, who will use the money to finance his robbery operations against Reuben. ?Eliezer, Brooklyn (07/06/10)

4. Blackmail ?The present situation only continues because of the prevalence of Jew-hatred in the world. Egypt and Jordan have accepted massive aide packages for peace. So they fight a war by proxy using the "palestinians ". It works beautifully, by remaining "stateless " these people do not have to abide by any laws, and there are enough splinter factions that if one is appeased another can make new demands. We go along with the charade hoping that someday things will improve. When will anyone ever point out that the emperor is naked? Israel WON a defensive war against Egypt and Jordan. "displaced " citizens of those countries should be under their control. Arabs that choose to leave Israel fall into that category, as well as any who can not pledge an oath of loyalty. It should be up to Egypt and Jordan to control them, and or give them a state. Pure and simple. ?bb, Karmiel (07/06/10)

5. Tactical Changes ?Logic and reason are not of any value in this type of negotiation. Morality and common sense mean nothing either. The best example of a well-prepared player in this game is a professional gambler. Frankly, the stakes are too high to allow anyone else. Probably a poker genius with years of experience in high-risk games would react best under intolerable pressure, and could pull off more than one victory with ease. Faith is also a critical factor, so a person whose beliefs are rock-solid is essential. Perhaps Mr. Netanyahu could employ an adviser with those traits, e.g., an orthodox Rabbi who makes a living at the casinos in Nevada.... shrewd, supremely confident, lucky and with a friend in the highest of all places. ?Dorian, Sparks (07/06/10)

 
Yisrael Aumann is a professor at the Center for the Study of Rationality in the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel. He also holds a visiting position at Stony Brook University and is one of the founding members of the Center for Game Theory in Economics at Stony Brook. Aumann received a Nobel award in Economics in 2005 for his work on conflict and cooperation through game-theory analysis.




Israel national news

No Such Thing as Persian Civilization

Nasrallah Provokes Iran: No Such Thing as Persian Civilization

In video posted on YouTube, Hezbollah leader says Ayatollah Khomeini was an 'Arab and son of an Arab, descendant of Muhammad'; praises Khamenei's handling of post-election unrest.

VIDEO - "Today there is no such thing as Persian civilization in Iran. There is an Islamic civilization in Iran. There is (prophet) Muhammad's religion in Iran," Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah said in a YouTube video which angered many in the Islamic Republic.




The head of the Lebanese Shiite group went as far as saying that the leader of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, as well as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, are of Arab descent.

"Khomeini is an Arab and the son of an Arab who is a descendant of Muhammad. Khamenei is a descendant of the Arab dynasty of Muhammad's descendants," he said.

In the video, Nasrallah also addressed the civil unrest that followed the disputed presidential elections of June 12, 2009 and praised Khamenei's handling of the crisis. "Iran – the regime, government and people were blessed with a wise, courageous and merciful leader in the imam Khamenei," said the Hezbollah chief.

The comments were made in two separate speeches delivered by Nasrallah. It is not known who posted the video on YouTube, but some estimate it may be elements trying to drive a wedge between Iran and Hezbollah in the aftermath of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Lebanon.

The remarks elicited numerous responses, particularly from Iranian bloggers and internet surfers abroad. A group of Iranian exiles even set up a Facebook page titled, "We, Iranian, hate Nasrallah." More than 6,000 people have already joined the online protest against Nasrallah.

The "Green Embassy Campaign," which was set up by Iranian diplomats who defected to the West, called Nasrallah's comments "worrying" and "baseless." They said the remarks are indicative of the price the regime in Tehran is willing to pay in order to be considered the leader of the Islamic world, even at the expense of Persian history.

The majority of Iranians are Shiite Muslims, while most Arabs are Sunni Muslims




Ynet News

Shameful Double Standard

Abuses of non-Western regimes excused, democracies' sins magnified

by Frayda Leibtag

Human Rights Watch (HRW), one of the world's largest non-government organizations, is failing in its mandate to protect universal human rights. In closed societies where the organization's work is most needed, and where its work is most difficult to pursue, HRW repeatedly falls far short of fulfilling its mission.

The organization’s recent reports on migrant workers demonstrate these severe shortcomings. One report ('Walls at Every Turn') examined Kuwait, where migrant workers face serious abuse such as extortion and sexual exploitation. The other report ('Slow Reform' ) addressed the worldwide problem of violations against migrant workers, with an emphasis on Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. So far, so good.

But when HRW's researcher Bill Van Esveld chose to publish an op-ed on this important topic, his focus was on migrant workers in Israel. Instead of drawing attention to the problem of closed societies, which lack basic democratic mechanisms to address the mistreatment of migrants, and where international outcry may be the only publicity allotted to the victims, Van Esveld chose to highlight the one open country in the region that, in fact, has its own very public, vibrant debate on the most appropriate policies to implement regarding migrant workers.

This op-ed is indicative of how HRW's Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division downplays the systematic abuses of human rights taking place in closed, totalitarian regimes, while targeting open, democratic societies. This ideological double standard violates the universality of human rights and highlights the moral decomposition within HRW.

Other reports by HRW further demonstrate this troubling trend. A 35-page HRW report on a decade of human rights in Syria describes the state of Syrian human rights as 'bleak,' a categorization that does not do justice to the egregious violations committed at the highest institutional levels. The equally feeble 'recommendations' section adopts a bureaucratic approach, directed exclusively to President Bashar al-Assad. He is enjoined to enact, amend, introduce and remove a variety of laws; and to set up commissions. To alleviate restrictions on freedom of expression, HRW urges: 'stop blocking websites for their content.'

Similarly, in a recent report on Saudi Arabia, MENA overlooked the extent to which King Abdullah and the rest of the Saudi leadership are responsible for the very repressive practices that they are asked to counteract. The regime’s totalitarian grip on its citizens is minimized, with HRW naively turning to King Abdullah to enforce equal rights and freedoms.

Post-colonial ideology
This failure to properly address closed societies, and to focus primarily on democracies, led HRW founder Robert Bernstein to denounce the organization that he began. He explained in a New York Times op-ed (Oct. 2009) that HRW has 'cast aside its important distinction between open and closed societies' and has abandoned its 'original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters.' Van Esveld's article is another example.

There are a number of factors driving HRW's moral decline. First, HRW's leaders reflect a post-colonial ideology that patronizingly excuses the abuses of non-Western regimes and magnifies the alleged sins of democracies. HRW's lack of access to reliable information in closed societies also contributes to the agenda bias. But, instead of criticizing the potential harassment, or worse, for individuals who speak out against the regime, HRW echoes their silence.

In contrast, the open nature of democracies enables an obsessive, often aggressive stance regarding accusations of abuse in these nations. For instance, NGO Monitor's research has shown that HRW's ability to access every aspect of Israeli society feeds a hyper-critical approach to Israel and a loss of perspective and context.

The number and intensity of NGO reports and critiques of open societies should not be confused with the advancement of a universal human rights agenda. Saudi Arabia executes homosexuals, Iran stones adulterers, and Qatar discriminates against women, but HRW's MENA division persistently downplays these human rights violations. Now add to this list Kuwait's treatment of migrant workers. Without major reform of the MENA division, and a renewed commitment to seriously addressing the human rights abuses in closed societies, HRW will continue to lose credibility.




Ynew News

Report: Hezbollah Getting Ready to Take Over Lebanon

Al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper says Shiite group, together with other elements, planning to take over Lebanon as international tribunal prepares to issue ruling on Hariri assassination.

Hezbollah is gearing up to take over Lebanon ahead of an international tribunal's ruling on the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The London-based al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper reported Tuesday that the Islamist group has been in contact with Shiite group Amal and pro-Syrian organizations in Lebanon in order to set a plan to seize control of the country after the court's ruling.

A source close to Hezbollah told the paper that the plan, which is focused on Beirut and south Lebanon, "Will end Saad Hariri and the Saudis' tenure in Lebanon for good." It is estimated that the UN court will place Hezbollah responsible for the Hariri's assassination.

On Monday, the Al Akhbar daily reported that "key element in the opposition (i.e Hezbollah) is holding an electronic discourse with Lebanese elements."

According to al-Sharq al-Awsat, the parties discussed the division of areas between the various forces in a way which will allow them to seize control of their respective areas when the time comes.

It was also reported that as part of preparations, Beirut will be divided into three military zones.

'No one can predict future'
A senior Hezbollah source refused to confirm or deny the report but said, "Everyone knows that the state in the Lebanon is a reason for concern, because all of the opportunities to 'solve the situation' have thus far failed.

"It would not be useful to discuss scenarios in the media, however no one can predict what will happen in the future," he added.

The Amal movement denied the report and said it was not in a position "to make plans for conflicts."

Last week, Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah called on the Lebanese people not to cooperate with IJC clerks after they visited a gynecological practice near Beirut and were attacked by 150 women who snatched one of their cases containing investigation materials.

Rafik Hariri

Ynet News