Archive for the ‘Jewish Lobby’ Category

The Historians’ War Over the Six-Day War – The Nation.

Israeli soldiers observe the compound known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount, just prior to their attack on Jerusalems Old City, during the 1967 war. (Reuters)

A historian is never alone when he writes. Even as he pounds away on the keyboard in the solitude of his room, he is conversing with other historians who have written about his topic. Past historians have covered just about everything. Almost every story has been debated and re-debated, argued and counter-argued. The historian must find his own voice and, most importantly, something new to add to the conversation. Such was my situation in the summer of 2014, when I decided to write a new history of the Six-Day War.

It is no wonder that the first image that came to my mind as I embarked upon this new project was of entering a minefield. Fifty years after it took place, the war of June 1967 is still in the news. Israels settlements in the West Bank, its antagonistic relations with the Hamas government in Gaza, and its hold over the Golan Heights are all legacies of the Six-Day War. If Israels pre-emptive strike on Arab countries on June 5 was justifiedif Israel had good reason to fear imminent annihilation by the threatening Arab armies on its bordersthen it would at least be easier to argue that Israel had a right to hold on to what it took by force in the war. However, if this was a war of choice, planned and fought to enlarge the Jewish states territory, then Israels case to maintain its presence in formerly Arab lands loses its potency.

Rivers of ink have been spilled to argue the matter, and I had to swim them. One thing that struck me immediately was how the landscape had changed over time. As writers have sought to capture the war in words, they have also described the hopes and fears of their era. The first wave of books, published shortly after the war ended, is a case in point. Written by Israeli and Western journalists, most of them reported breathlessly on Israels decisive victory over the Arab military coalition that had amassed on Israels borders. For Israelis, their triumph was a moment of redemption from the deep fear that had enveloped the country in the weeks preceding the war. For other denizens of the West, the war was a rare example of a positive story at a time when the war in Vietnam was developing into a quagmire. What happened in the Middle East seemed to be a simple tale about the miraculous victory of peace-loving Jews, ominously threatened by hostile Arabs backed by Moscow.

Like many of the early histories of the war, Randolph S. and Winston S. Churchill produced a rather pro-Israel book.

Take, for example, Randolph S. Churchill, the wayward son of the great Winston Churchill, and Winston S. Churchill, the grandson of the famous statesman. The two wrote a quick book about the war, which is still in print. They divided the labor: Randolph remained in London, kept his ear to the ground, and contacted friends in high places to reconstruct the diplomatic side of the story. Winston Junior, 27 at the time, a war correspondent like his famous grandpa, was in Israel during the war. They produced a rather pro-Israel book, despite the fact that Winston the Younger had good reason to be angry at Moshe Dayan, Israels defense minister.

On June 2, 1967, 24 hours after the one-eyed general had been appointed to his new post, Winston paid a visit to Dayans villa in a leafy Tel Aviv suburb and asked Dayan whether he thought a war would break out soon. Apparently, after spending two weeks in the Holy Land, the young Churchill was getting impatient. Dayan later wrote in his memoirs that he liked Churchill but was somewhat surprised by his temerity. Did this British journalist really expect him to disclose the exact date on which Israel would pounce?

Winston probably hoped that the historical bonds between the Churchills and Zionism would work in his favor. His grandfather, Winston Churchill the Elder, had been an ardent imperialist and an enthusiastic Zionist. In a speech he gave in 1908, Churchill maintained that the establishment of a strong, free Jewish state would be an immense advantage to the British Empire. He did not change his mind during his long career in politics. In 1951, as prime minister, Churchill had to negotiate with the Egyptian government over the future of the British compound on the Suez Canal. One evening, after drinking a certain amount of whisky, Churchill growled at his foreign minister: Tell them [the Egyptians] that if we have any more of their cheek, we will set the Jews on them and drive them back into the gutter, from which they never should have emerged.

Despite Israels historic debt to Churchill, Dayan made some misleading remarks that convinced Winston the Younger to board a plane back to London a day before the outbreak of the war. Did he begrudge Dayans subterfuge? Not at all. Winston ended this anecdote by writing: Israel, like a cowboy of the old Wild West, did not wait for her enemy to drawshe had seen the glint in Nassers eye. The book maintains the same tone throughout, barely disguising its admiration for the Jewish armed forces, describing them as one of Israels greatest achievements. It accepted unquestioningly Israeli claims that the country had been under mortal threat, and therefore within its rights to attack Arab countries.

Fast-forward to the 1980s, and one can find at least one American journalist who sought to upend the story told by the Churchills. Donald Neff grew critical of Israel during his stint as Time magazines bureau chief in Jerusalem during the 1970s. When he began his mission in Jerusalem, he liked Israel. However, as years went by, Neff later wrote, I could not ignore a disturbing blindness in some of even the most gentle Israelis. They did not seem to see the Palestinians all around them. when most Israelis did notice Palestinians their reaction to them was one of loathing or fear that quickly could escalate into violence.

Neff, in fact, was witnessing the effects of Israels long rule over the West Bank and Gaza, a legacy of the Six-Day War. One of Neffs stories for Time was an investigative report on a systematic campaign of beatings against Palestinian youths in the West Bank. To ascertain the rumors that had reached him, Neff visited a hospital in Bethlehem to see with his own eyes Palestinian teenagers with broken arms and legs. Neff was astounded that the United States could not halt the transgressions of its Jewish ally. How could it be, Neff wondered, that a country completely beholden to the United States could thumb its nose at Washington?

Unlike the Churchills, Donald Neff was not swept away by postwar enthusiasm; he told a very different story.

Removed 20 years from the event, Neff was aware of all the complications that had emerged from Israels stunning victory. Unlike Randolph and Winston Churchill, Neff was not swept away by postwar enthusiasm. And the book that he wrote, Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days That Changed the Middle East (1984), told a different story. Israel was no longer seen simply as an innocent victim of Arab aggression. Neff identified an emerging group of Israeli generals who had sought to involve their country in a war they were confident of winning. In his view, Washington allowed Israel to launch the Six-Day War only because Lyndon Johnson had been under enormous pressure from the Jewish lobby. Israels image was muddied by Neffs book, and that trend would continue in the following years.

In the late 1990s, the 30-year rule, which generally allows publication of official archival records after that period, brought about the declassification of thousands of documents in Israel, Great Britain, and the United States. Historians could now get a far more granular picture of the war and its aftermath. This led to the publication of several major books about the war. One of them was written by Michael Oren, then a research fellow at the conservative Shalem Center in Jerusalem. Later, Oren would serve as Israels ambassador to the United States.

Same as all the other historians listed above, Oren brought his biography into his writing. He grew up in New Jersey, where we were the only Jewish family, he later recalled. Every day I got beaten up at school. Every day I came home crying. The sole reason for the violence directed at him, according to Oren, was his Jewishness. His father had a cure, though: Each time his son came home with tears in his eyes, he would take him to the basement. There he kept a set of old photos that Orens uncle took when he marched into the Dachau concentration camp with other American soldiers at the end of World War II. He would tell me, Michael, do you see these pictures? This is why we need a strong Jewish state.

Michael Oren lamented a wave of revisionist writers, Israelis mostly, [who] have sought to amplify Israels guilt

In the opening pages of his book, Six Days of War (2002), Oren lamented the fact that a wave of revisionist writers, Israelis mostly, have sought to amplify Israels guiltand evince it in the debate over the borders, or even the legitimacy of the Jewish state. In a later interview with Fouad Ajami, Oren described such writers as self-styled new historians, mostly Israeli Jews of distinct leftist or Marxist orientation. Oren believed that he belonged to a different camp of more traditional historians who see a prominent Arab role in starting and perpetuating the conflict.

In many ways, Orens book revisited the Churchill version of the Six-Day War and found it perfect. His bottom line was that Israel stumbled into a war it had not wanted to wage. But, faced with a threat to their existence, the Israelis proved far more resourceful than their Arab foes had anticipated. The book, which came out only one year after the massive terrorist attack of 9/11, seemed to strike a chord with the American public. The year it was published, Oren praised George W. Bushs foreign policy, and in 2005 he wrote an article that explicated the parallels between 1967 and 2003. Like Saddam Hussein, Oren claimed, Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Egyptian president during the Six-Day War, had aspired to unite the Arab world. Just like Saddam, Oren argued, Nasser defied UN resolutions and had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Nasser wanted to wage a war of annihilation on Israel, but Israel did not wait around and launched a preemptive attack. Oren implicitly suggested that Israels war on Egypt in 1967 was as justified as the American war on Iraq in 2003. At the time, he probably thought this analogy bolstered his argument. With hindsight, this comparison only weakened it.

Orens book, an overwhelmingly military history of the conflict, is mostly devoted to a meticulous reconstruction of the major battles. The pre- and postwar periods are skimmed lightly. For Oren, the six days of war seem to mirror the six days of creation. However, Arab writers have begged to differ. Mohamed Fawzi, who was the Egyptian chief of staff during the war, titled his memoir The Three-Years War, a reference to the War of Attrition, which began immediately after the Six-Day War and continued up to 1970. It consisted of a series of artillery exchanges and commando raids along Israels eastern and southern borders; 367 Israeli officers and soldiers were killed in action as a result.

Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, the former editor of the influential Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, gave an interesting subtitle to his hefty tome about the war: Explosion in 1967: The Thirty-Year War. By doing so, Heikal was suggesting that it should be assessed within the broad context of the Israeli-Egyptian conflict, which had begun with the 1948 war for Palestine and ended not long after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In the 1973 war, more than 2,000 Israeli soldiers died, and in the following years, Israel had to give back every inch of Egyptian land it had conquered in 1967. Israels military victory in the Six-Day War may have been impressive, but in retrospect, it was just one engagement in a long, drawn-out struggle. The brilliance of Israels victory dims when looked at from a long-term perspective.

Tom Segev, a former columnist for the liberal daily Haaretz, took a more critical position in his book 1967 (2005).

Like these Arab writers, Tom Segev, who for many years had been a columnist for the liberal daily Haaretz, took a more critical position in his book 1967 (2005). Building on the findings of another Israeli historian, Ami Gluska, Segev focused on the troublesome pattern of civil-military relations in Israel. In his view, the headstrong chief of staff, Yitzhak Rabin, drew a dovish cabinet into an unnecessary confrontation with the Arab world. Rabin, supported by his colleagues in the general staff, believed Israel could escalate its confrontation with Syria with impunity. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol wanted to avoid war and ordered the military to use defensive methods in dealing with the Syrian provocations. However, the generals ignored Eshkols instructions and went ahead with preparations for a major operation against Syria. When Egypt, Syrias military ally, sent its forces into the Sinai in May of 1967 to deter Israel from attacking Syria, Israeli generals forced the prime minister to green light an all-out offensive in early June. In Segevs story, Israel is no longer a victim of Arab hostility but rather an aggressive power that pushed Arab leaders into a corner.

And so, ever since 1967, writers have been debating the Six-Day War. The sweet afterglow of military success inspired fawning chronicles of Israels victory. However, as the price of maintaining the post-1967 borders rose, more sober assessments came to the fore. New archival revelations helped historians realize just how fractured and antagonistic the Israeli decision-making process was in the years preceding the war. The focus of the story now turned from the external threat, which had largely been a myth, to the way in which Israels military establishment manipulated public opinion and strong-armed civilian leaders.

As I have argued, each historian writing about the Six-Day War brings a certain Zeitgeist to his description. My book about the war is no different. As an Israeli, I grew up in the shadow of wars. People my age are known as the winter-of-1973 generation. Our fathers came back from the harrowing battlefields of the Yom Kippur War, eager to bring new life into the world. The 1991 Gulf War forced me to watch my Holocaust-survivor grandfather put on a gas mask. No wonder I devote so much time in my volume to figuring out why the war happened in the first place.

THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX.

As a scholar, I learned my trade in an era in which the Internet and cheap flight have enabled historians to access an ever-increasing selection of archives. For that reason, my research covers more archives, including several in the former Communist bloc, and in more languages, than any of the books mentioned above. Furthermore, the same process of globalization that allowed me to travel the world also exacerbated tensions between developed and developing countries. Indeed, most discussions of international politics today, from terrorism to the growing number of refugees, revolve around this theme. For that reason, I prefer to discuss the war in its global context. For instance, I argue that Third World countries were in bad shape during the 1960s, which explains why there were so many coups and regional wars, such as the Six-Day War, in that decade.

You would think that, with all this self-confident sales talk, deep in my heart I believe that my book is the last word on the subject. It is not, and no book is the last word on anything. Historians are going to keep on arguing about how the 1967 war came about. American and Israeli writers who believe that the Arab-Israeli conflict is intractable and unsolvable are still searching for ways to portray Israels attack in 1967 as an act of self-defense. This is part of a larger narrative that depicts Israel as a Western citadel surrounded by a hostile Arab world. Historians who believe that Arab-Israeli coexistence and cooperation are possible seek to show that the war was avoidable and that a diplomatic solution to the crisis of May 1967 was within reach. In short, when we debate the Six-Day War, what we are actually arguing about are the chances for peace in the Middle East today.

Read this article:

The Historians’ War Over the Six-Day War – The Nation.

Fair Usage Law

June 6, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Neither peace nor war possible in Mideast without Turkey – Daily Sabah

U.S. President Donald Trump, who said that it was not the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center, but the Saudis, during his election campaign last February, paid his first foreign visit to Saudi Arabia. Even if Trump did not make a splash with Muslims, he pleased the Saudis and won a $380 billion arms agreement.

Following Saudi Arabia, he visited Israel where he wore a yarmulke, put his face on the Western Wall and made harsh statements about Iran, a mortal enemy of Zionism.

Where could the U.S. president go after the centers of Islam and Judaism? Yes, although Trump could not hold his wife, Melania’s hand, he managed to catch the Pope’s arm in the Vatican.

So, why will all these weapons be sold, the defense modernizations agreed on and the messages given through religions, and even sects, be used in the medium and short term?

Certainly, they will be used for war and boosting arms sales once again.

Robert Fisk, a senior Middle East correspondent of The Independent, summarizes this scenario that can be seen by all rational people who are interested in the Middle East as follows, “The aim, however, is simple: to prepare the Sunni Muslims of the Middle East for war against Shiite Muslims. With help from Israel, of course.”

In short, this is a win-win situation. Saudi Arabia is happy. Israel is happy. So, the Jewish lobby in the U.S. is happy. And of course, Trump is the happiest of them all.

However, the political players in the Middle East are not predictable elements as the Pentagon thinks. Ironically, these actors left the region to the hands of the Pentagon not to the Trump administration or the American state

For instance, Iran, which Trump intimidated amid the cheers of Saudi Arabia and Israel, claims that Riyadh supports Daesh, the latest enemy of the U.S.

Also, the outlawed PKK and its Syrian branch, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which are both secular terrorist structures that the U.S. supports against Daesh, is the henchman of the Damascus regime that Washington is trying to overthrow.

Moreover, the U.S. president’s plan to garner Saudi support in the Palestine question, which Israel considers an internal matter, is nothing short of a dream. This is because Saudi Arabia is less trustworthy than Egypt in the eyes of many Palestinians.

Coupled with Trump’s unpredictability, all of this leads to a more complicated deadlock.

We will all see how much noise Trump will be able to make against Iran, another ogre that he listed after North Korea. What is certain, though, is that, although Washington decides on a de facto state of peace that is based on open wars, low-intensity conflicts and a balance of terror, it needs Turkey not matter what the circumstances are.

In fact, Ankara is the only basis between the strength and resistance points of a pair of scales that Trump is trying to balance in his own way. Moreover, it is the only Sunni Muslim power in the region that has the potential to establish relations with Iran, just like in the uranium barter agreement in 2011. Also, it is the sole laic state which the Palestinian administration will follow without any doubt about Israel.

I think I do not need to remind people once again that Ankara has been the most important strategic partner of the U.S. against Russia and the most important power in the region, since the Cold War.

The U.S. must stop acting with the romance of Saudi Arabia’s Lawrence and look for ways to boost cooperation with Ankara, its 50-year-old ally, as soon as possible.

Here is the original post:

Neither peace nor war possible in Mideast without Turkey – Daily Sabah

Fair Usage Law

June 1, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

With Nehru writing to its PM, Israel gave arms to India in 1962 – The Hindu


The Hindu
With Nehru writing to its PM, Israel gave arms to India in 1962
The Hindu
The archives reveal that Israel remained in close touch with not just Nehru but also other members of the Nehruvian regime, including India's then ambassador to the United States B.K. Nehru, who courted the Jewish lobby in Washington to facilitate

and more »

Here is the original post:

With Nehru writing to its PM, Israel gave arms to India in 1962 – The Hindu

Fair Usage Law

May 28, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Jewish group gets information on mass graves with appeal on radio station accused of anti-Semitism – Jewish Telegraphic Agency

(JTA) A Jewish groups appeal led hundreds of radio listeners to provide information about mass graves and burial sites of Jews to a Catholic radio station that has been accused of promoting anti-Semitism.

Some 300 calls have been received by the call center at Polands Radio Maryja with information about sites of mass executions of Jews, stolen tombstones and unknown hiding places of Jews during the Holocaust, according to the From the Depths group, which made the appeal for information last week and again Wednesday on Radio Maryja.

The hosting at Radio Maryjas studios of Jonny Daniels, the London-born Israeli Jew who founded the From the Depths group in 2013, follows a controversy over a visit last year by the stations director, Father Tadeusz Rydzyk, to the Israeli Embassy in Warsaw.

Rydzyk spoke there with Ambassador Anna Azari in a meeting that liberal watchdog groups said was inappropriate in light of accusations that Radio Maryja and Rydzyk personally promote anti-Semitic hate speech.

According to a U.S. State Departmentreportfrom 2008, Radio Maryja is one of Europes most blatantly anti-Semitic media venues. A Council of Europe report stated that Radio Maryja has been openly inciting to anti-Semitism for several years.

In July 2007, Rydzyk was recorded making a number of anti-Semitic slurs, the report also stated. Rydzyk said Jews were pushing the Polish government to pay exorbitant private property restitution claims, and that Polands president was in the pocket of the Jewish lobby, according to the report.

Daniels disagrees with individuals and groups that believe this background should preclude cooperation by Jewish groups with Radio Maryja.

More often than not this so-called Polish anti-Semitism is based on a lack of knowledge and openness, Daniels said.

He was interviewed on Radio Maryja, which has millions of listeners, for the first at the end of 2016. Daniels group has received some 200 emails and phone calls with information on execution and burial sites, which the group attempts to preserve.

In a statement, Rydzyk claimed the airing of content that is deemed anti-Semitic by his radio station represents its commitment to free speech.

After 50 years of communism, our radio is the only live radio in Poland where whoever wants can call and be put on air, every opinion is welcome. This creates an honesty and openness, he said. Sometimes there are controversial opinions, but we still let people talk.

Read this article:

Jewish group gets information on mass graves with appeal on radio station accused of anti-Semitism – Jewish Telegraphic Agency

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Ownership: Imran submits money trial to Banigala land, London flat – The Express Tribune

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan. PHOTO: AFP / FILE

ISLAMABAD:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan has told the Supreme Court that it were the accusations like Zionist lobby and purchase of antique tiles levelled on Jemima Khan by the Sharifs that ended their marriage in divorce and forced his former wife to leave the country.

Khan was referring to the political campaign of the late 1990s launched against him by his political opponents. When they got nothing against him, he said, they found Jemima and targeted her Jewish family background, etc. It was in those days when a case was registered against Jemima for illegally exporting hundreds of antique tiles to the UK.

In 2002, having been hounded by allegations of still being part of the Jewish lobby and a false case [instituted] by the Sharifs of illegally taking out antique tiles (which had [actually] been purchased in a shop in the federal capital and were anything but antique) for which an FIR was also filed, Ms Jemima Khan took our two children and moved back to Landon, says Khan in his 10-page affidavit submitted in the apex court on Tuesday.

The affidavit was submitted in reply to a petition filed by PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi, seeking disqualification of the PTI chief for giving contradictory statements about the ownership of the Banigala land.

Will provide complete money trail for purchase of property in SC: Imran

Khan said parting ways with Jemima was painful, however, Jemima and he still maintains a civilized relationship.

Khan also submitted documentary evidence to establish the money trail to the ownership of the Banigala land wherein it is stated that he earned the money from playing cricket and purchased a flat in Landon in 1983.

The PTI chief said he was the sole owner of the flat and no other asset was placed under the Niazi Services Limited at any point except the London flat.

At the time of the purchase of the London flat, an offshore resident did not have to pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on the sale of [his/her] flat. In 1983, he did not know whether he would be a resident in the UK.

Imrans Bani Gala residence declared illegal

[The] deponent was advised that the flat be placed under an offshore company which would not have to pay any CGT. In case of sale, the incorporation of the Niazi Services Limited merely [act] as a vehicle with subscribed capital of GBP9 and NSL was not an asset.

According to the affidavit, the entire process was done by Barclays Private Bank and Trust Limited. Later, Khan benefitted from the Tax Amnesty Scheme 2000, the document says and adds consequently, a form of undisclosed income, the price of acquisition and the flat itself was filed. The return and tax paid was accepted by income tax authorities and has never been an issue since.

Imran stated that the Banigala land was purchased in March 2002, wherein Rashid Ali Khan was very helpful. The land was declared as belonging to the dependent (Imrans) wife. The contrary assertion that it was merely parked in her name is incorrect.

Imran says that when a malicious campaign was launched in 2002, Jemima shifted to the UK and gave money to purchase land at Banigala. Rashid Ali Khan, a close friend known to the PTI chairman since 1994, was entrusted with the task of receiving the amount sent in the dollars by Ms Jemima Khan to his Citibank account, the documents reveal.

CDA to resume survey of Bani Gala today

To the best of the deponents recall instructions to City Bank London were issued by Jemima Khan which routed the money through City Bank USA to Rashid Khans account.

The affidavit says that the entire land was mutated in Jemimas name and it was her property for all intents and purposes.

A sum of 562,415,54 was transferred on May 7, 2003 by Imran through bank transfer to Jemima Khan, returning the bridge financing arrangement done by her in the interregnum.

Regarding the Niazi Services Limited, Khan said it was kept alive because of litigation and to recover the costs awarded. However, he believed that keeping the Niazi Services Limited alive was actually a fruitless exercise after the sale of the flat.

Meanwhile, the counsel for the PTI, Anwar Mansoor Khan, contended before the three-judge bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar that the PML-N leaders plea against foreign funding was not maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution.

CDA a spectator to unauthorised construction in capital

He also submitted that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had no authority to determine the partys funding, which were got through prohibited sources in 2010 to 2013 as it was a past and closed matter, adding the matter related to foreign aid could be decided by the federal government.

Anwar expressed his wiliness that the Supreme Court may form a commission to probe the prohibited fund. The bench, however, asked him to consult his client. The hearing will resume today (Wednesday).

Read the rest here:

Ownership: Imran submits money trial to Banigala land, London flat – The Express Tribune

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Federal Program Should Be Ecumenical in Protecting Nonprofits from Terrorist Harm – The Nonprofit Quarterly (registration)

May 9, 2017; Hamodia

It is no news to anyone that a wave of anti-Semitism swept the country before and after the 2016 presidential election. Anti-Semitism seems never to actually leave the building; it lurks, waiting for a time of general intolerance when it can show itself again. During election season, it evidenced itself in threats and anti-Semitic posts to publications and a stream of threats to community centers.

The best analogy I can give is that the campaign turned over a rock and a lot of stuff began crawling out from under it, said John Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary magazine. There were these code words and dog whistles that let it appear that people who had been doing things in the shadows could now start marching forward.

Some of these groups were already prepared to some extent because of a largely unknown federal grants program. The Nonprofit Security Grants Program (NSGP) started in 2005 and provides funding support for hardening and other physical security enhancements to nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of a terrorist attack and located within one of the urban areas receiving funding under theUrban Area Security Initiative (UASI). Congress recently voted to increase this grant program from $20 million to $25 million.

NGSP was created due to influential Jewish lobby groups as part of a national post-9/11 response to heightened domestic terror threats, and funding has primarily gone to Jewish organizations. From 2007 to 2010, 734 grants, or 73.7 percent, went to Jewish organizations. Although legislation and the rules defining eligibility do not give preference to Jewish institutions, the numbers communicate otherwise.

Buried within the scoring criteria, nonprofit institutions with a religious affiliation get their eligibility scores multiplied by three, which gives these institutions a distinct advantage. Additionally, the definition of terror threat is vague: Identification and substantiation of current or persistent threats or attacks (from within or outside the U.S.) by a terrorist organization, network, or cell against the applicant based on their ideology, beliefs, or mission.

But Jewish institutions are not the only ones under consistent threat of this sort. Recently, Muslims and Muslim institutions have been the target of religiously motivated crime. In 2016, the Council on American Islamic Relations 2017 Civil Rights Report recorded that anti-Muslim bias incidents jumped 65 percent from 2014 to 2016, and that hate crimes against Muslims surged 584 percent. Anti-Islam acts targeting mosques have also shifted from efforts to block expansion or construction to more direct destruction and vandalism. These statistics alone should support a greater funding effort for Muslim organizations in the United States.

The same issue at a state level was recently covered by the Forward, which noted that Floridas budget includes a $650,000 grant for security at Jewish schoolsa line item thats raising questions among civil liberties advocates. The fact that the funding singles out one religion raises serious concerns about unconstitutional discrimination, whether intentional or not, ACLU of Florida legislative counsel Kara Gross told the Miami Herald.

Readers may remember that Muslim nonprofit organizations recently rejected more than $2 million in federal aid to prevent the radicalization of community members, citing the Trump administrations rhetoric against Muslim Americans and Islam and their new policies as their reasons for rejecting funding. It is not clear whether their objections might extend to this grant program.

In February, Muslims across the country raised over $160,000 using the crowdfunding platform LaunchGood to assist in repair costs for Jewish cemeteries that had been vandalized. The funds were initially raised to assist a synagogue in Pennsylvania; however, it gained so much support that the excess funds allowed for assistance in Illinois, Missouri, and Colorado.

Maybe there is a lesson here; while the NSGP may be important for many nonprofit organizations, they seem to create a divisive competition for limited resources. Instead, it may be important for the federal government to support organizations creating national collaboration efforts towards emergency preparedness.Suja S. Amir

Go here to read the rest:

Federal Program Should Be Ecumenical in Protecting Nonprofits from Terrorist Harm – The Nonprofit Quarterly (registration)

Fair Usage Law

May 17, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Friendless in Washington? – Daily Times

Media reports about the annual threat assessment presented to the US Senate Committee last Thursday by National Intelligence (NI) Director Daniel R Coats sound too damaging for Pakistan to ignore.

According to these reports, the US NI warns that Pakistan-based terrorist groups will present a sustained threat to US interests in the region and continue to plan and conduct attacks in India and Afghanistan.

The threat to the United States and the West from Pakistan-based terrorist groups will be persistent, the assessment maintained.

It further said that the groups that will pose the greatest threat to Pakistans internal security included the banned Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, al Qaeda, the Islamic States Khorasan group, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi al-Alami.

More worrying is the part of assessment on our nuclear programme. It said early deployment during a crisis of Pakistans smaller, more mobile nuclear weapons would increase the amount of time that systems would be outside the relative security of a storage site, increasing the risk that a coordinated attack by non-state actors might succeed in capturing a complete nuclear weapon.

The US NI assessment consolidates the pro-India tilt in the US policy for the South Asian region, which could lead to further deterioration of relations with Pakistan, which is no longer seen as a close ally in the United States.

Here is why it is so. There are a number of highly influential lobbies in Washington working over-time to malign Pakistan, create problems for Islamabad and undermine this countrys socio-economic and diplomatic interests.

The most tendentious of these lobbies is the one sponsored and funded by the American Indians. The moral and material support to this lobby from New Delhi has increased manifold since the advent of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Though its latest effort to get Pakistan declared as a pariah state for being allegedly a terror sponsoring state has miserably failed, there are no signs that it has given up its campaign in this regard.

Understandably, this campaign is finding popular traction among those Americans who are increasingly coming under the influence of the lobby suffering from Islamophobia. The anti-proliferation lobby, a highly influential circle of civil and political activists in Washington, also seems willing to join these two lobbies hoping to use the joint efforts to attain its own objective of relieving Pakistan of its nuclear assets.

The Jewish lobby has never been known to have missed an opportunity to join the anti-Pakistan voices in Washington.

And who does not know that most of the influential think tanks in Washington suffer from an acute anti-Russia and anti-China bias. Ideas that emanate from these think tanks on a daily basis have given rise to highly influential anti-Russia and anti-China lobbies in Washington.

And since the launch of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Pakistan also has, by association, become a target of the anti-China lobby. Since dubiously sourced media stories of Afghan Taliban getting material support from Russia started appearing in the international media, the anti-Russia lobby has, again by association, started classifying Pakistan as a country to be reviled regularly.

And the US media influenced by all these lobbies seem to have turned unduly hostile towards Pakistan.

When you sum up these anti-Pakistan efforts being made by all these lobbies, the effect appears to be rather highly suffocating for Pakistan in Washington. We seem to stand friendless in the capital of one of the major powers in todays multi-polar world.

Go here to see the original:

Friendless in Washington? – Daily Times

Fair Usage Law

May 13, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Fazl says he was offered money to back PTI’s ‘agenda’ in KP – The Express Tribune

JUI-F chief claims people backed by ‘Jewish lobby had offered him to join K-P government to ‘de-Islamise’…

JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman says as as he had rejected the offer, the K-P government failed miserably in achieving its goals. PHOTO: INP/File

PESHAWAR:Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman claimed on Tuesday that he had been offered money and a place in theKhyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) government in 2013 in exchange for de-Islamising the province.

Some people backed by the Jewish lobby had visited me after the 2013 general elections and offered me to join the K-P government in return for helping them eliminate the roots of Islam in the province, he told reporters after a gathering hosted by his party in Peshawar to welcome dissident members of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) youth wing.

I was told that only the PTI couldchange the opinion of the people of K-P towards the Jewish lobby, Rehman maintained.

Dawn Leaks: Fazl says state institutions reservations not unwarranted

I declined the offer as I was aware of its [the K-P governments] western agenda, he added.

The JUI-F leader said he was told that funds from abroad would be distributed among some seminaries and clerics. The main aim of the entire plan was to de-Islamise the province whose people follow Islam in its true spirit, he remarked.

Rehman went on to claim thatas hehadrejected the offer,the K-P government had failed miserably in achievingits goals.

Wewaged a war against their [Jewish] plans and have defeated them, he added.

The funding from abroad has stopped since lastyear and so the [K-P] government is now compelled to take loans from the Asian Development Bank, he maintained.

Fazl snubs JI amirs alliance proposal

Corruption, he said, had increased during the incumbent government of K-P in comparison with the figures during thetenure of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal government from 2002 to 2008.

Taking a jibe at the Imran Khan-led partys dharna politics in 2014, the JUI-F chief said: They [the PTI] spread vulgarity in the name of sit-ins for several months in Islamabad.

Rehman said young people were now joining the JUI-F and rejecting the PTI and that showed that only his party could resolve the issues of the province.

View original post here:

Fazl says he was offered money to back PTI’s ‘agenda’ in KP – The Express Tribune

Fair Usage Law

May 9, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

PTI violated law by collecting funds from abroad: PML-N – Pakistan Today

Pakistan Muslim League-N on Tuesday said Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) violated Pakistani laws by gathering funds from foreign countries for its political activities.

Talking to media here, PMLN leader Hanif Abbasi said Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was misleading Pakistanis about its financial affairs. Imran Khan collected billions in flood relief funds he said adding Imran Khan should tell about sources of his wealth.

Abbasi said he would provide all the details about corruption of Imran Khan. We will not need a commission or Joint Investigation Team (JIT) but Imran Khan will be declared guilty for his crime in the ongoing case against him in the Supreme Court. He accused that Imran Khan was taking commission from the projects in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He alleged that PTI had received funds from Israel and Jewish lobby.

MNA Talal Chaudhry said Imran Khan made many attempts to lock down Pakistan and staged sit-ins to disrupt normal life. He said Imran Khan used to come to Supreme Court every day during Panama case proceedings but now he has disappeared from the scene.

For the last one year, a storm was raised in the case of Panama Papers, he remarked. Talal said the PMLN had been asking how Bani Gala was purchased, why Imran Khan mis-declared his assets and did money laundering and tax evasion. We are not asking about father and children of Imran Khan. However, Sharif family gave a record of its three generations, Talal added.

He said Imran Khan committed financial as well as moral sins. MNA Daniyal Chaudhry said according to Pakistani law, any foreigner or foreign company could not give funds to Pakistani political parties. Daniyal said PTI had given record of its gathered funds to the Justice Department of United States.

He asked whether Imran Khan collected the funds from abroad to put pressure on democratic institutions in Pakistan. Daniyal recalled Imran Khan was able to win only one seat in the elections of 2002 and remained on the fringes of national politics for 18 years.

Link:

PTI violated law by collecting funds from abroad: PML-N – Pakistan Today

Fair Usage Law

May 9, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

The Historians’ War Over the Six-Day War – The Nation.

Israeli soldiers observe the compound known to Muslims as the Noble Sanctuary and to Jews as the Temple Mount, just prior to their attack on Jerusalems Old City, during the 1967 war. (Reuters) A historian is never alone when he writes. Even as he pounds away on the keyboard in the solitude of his room, he is conversing with other historians who have written about his topic. Past historians have covered just about everything. Almost every story has been debated and re-debated, argued and counter-argued. The historian must find his own voice and, most importantly, something new to add to the conversation. Such was my situation in the summer of 2014, when I decided to write a new history of the Six-Day War. It is no wonder that the first image that came to my mind as I embarked upon this new project was of entering a minefield. Fifty years after it took place, the war of June 1967 is still in the news. Israels settlements in the West Bank, its antagonistic relations with the Hamas government in Gaza, and its hold over the Golan Heights are all legacies of the Six-Day War. If Israels pre-emptive strike on Arab countries on June 5 was justifiedif Israel had good reason to fear imminent annihilation by the threatening Arab armies on its bordersthen it would at least be easier to argue that Israel had a right to hold on to what it took by force in the war. However, if this was a war of choice, planned and fought to enlarge the Jewish states territory, then Israels case to maintain its presence in formerly Arab lands loses its potency. Rivers of ink have been spilled to argue the matter, and I had to swim them. One thing that struck me immediately was how the landscape had changed over time. As writers have sought to capture the war in words, they have also described the hopes and fears of their era. The first wave of books, published shortly after the war ended, is a case in point. Written by Israeli and Western journalists, most of them reported breathlessly on Israels decisive victory over the Arab military coalition that had amassed on Israels borders. For Israelis, their triumph was a moment of redemption from the deep fear that had enveloped the country in the weeks preceding the war. For other denizens of the West, the war was a rare example of a positive story at a time when the war in Vietnam was developing into a quagmire. What happened in the Middle East seemed to be a simple tale about the miraculous victory of peace-loving Jews, ominously threatened by hostile Arabs backed by Moscow. Like many of the early histories of the war, Randolph S. and Winston S. Churchill produced a rather pro-Israel book. Take, for example, Randolph S. Churchill, the wayward son of the great Winston Churchill, and Winston S. Churchill, the grandson of the famous statesman. The two wrote a quick book about the war, which is still in print. They divided the labor: Randolph remained in London, kept his ear to the ground, and contacted friends in high places to reconstruct the diplomatic side of the story. Winston Junior, 27 at the time, a war correspondent like his famous grandpa, was in Israel during the war. They produced a rather pro-Israel book, despite the fact that Winston the Younger had good reason to be angry at Moshe Dayan, Israels defense minister. On June 2, 1967, 24 hours after the one-eyed general had been appointed to his new post, Winston paid a visit to Dayans villa in a leafy Tel Aviv suburb and asked Dayan whether he thought a war would break out soon. Apparently, after spending two weeks in the Holy Land, the young Churchill was getting impatient. Dayan later wrote in his memoirs that he liked Churchill but was somewhat surprised by his temerity. Did this British journalist really expect him to disclose the exact date on which Israel would pounce? Winston probably hoped that the historical bonds between the Churchills and Zionism would work in his favor. His grandfather, Winston Churchill the Elder, had been an ardent imperialist and an enthusiastic Zionist. In a speech he gave in 1908, Churchill maintained that the establishment of a strong, free Jewish state would be an immense advantage to the British Empire. He did not change his mind during his long career in politics. In 1951, as prime minister, Churchill had to negotiate with the Egyptian government over the future of the British compound on the Suez Canal. One evening, after drinking a certain amount of whisky, Churchill growled at his foreign minister: Tell them [the Egyptians] that if we have any more of their cheek, we will set the Jews on them and drive them back into the gutter, from which they never should have emerged. Despite Israels historic debt to Churchill, Dayan made some misleading remarks that convinced Winston the Younger to board a plane back to London a day before the outbreak of the war. Did he begrudge Dayans subterfuge? Not at all. Winston ended this anecdote by writing: Israel, like a cowboy of the old Wild West, did not wait for her enemy to drawshe had seen the glint in Nassers eye. The book maintains the same tone throughout, barely disguising its admiration for the Jewish armed forces, describing them as one of Israels greatest achievements. It accepted unquestioningly Israeli claims that the country had been under mortal threat, and therefore within its rights to attack Arab countries. Fast-forward to the 1980s, and one can find at least one American journalist who sought to upend the story told by the Churchills. Donald Neff grew critical of Israel during his stint as Time magazines bureau chief in Jerusalem during the 1970s. When he began his mission in Jerusalem, he liked Israel. However, as years went by, Neff later wrote, I could not ignore a disturbing blindness in some of even the most gentle Israelis. They did not seem to see the Palestinians all around them. when most Israelis did notice Palestinians their reaction to them was one of loathing or fear that quickly could escalate into violence. Neff, in fact, was witnessing the effects of Israels long rule over the West Bank and Gaza, a legacy of the Six-Day War. One of Neffs stories for Time was an investigative report on a systematic campaign of beatings against Palestinian youths in the West Bank. To ascertain the rumors that had reached him, Neff visited a hospital in Bethlehem to see with his own eyes Palestinian teenagers with broken arms and legs. Neff was astounded that the United States could not halt the transgressions of its Jewish ally. How could it be, Neff wondered, that a country completely beholden to the United States could thumb its nose at Washington? Unlike the Churchills, Donald Neff was not swept away by postwar enthusiasm; he told a very different story. Removed 20 years from the event, Neff was aware of all the complications that had emerged from Israels stunning victory. Unlike Randolph and Winston Churchill, Neff was not swept away by postwar enthusiasm. And the book that he wrote, Warriors for Jerusalem: The Six Days That Changed the Middle East (1984), told a different story. Israel was no longer seen simply as an innocent victim of Arab aggression. Neff identified an emerging group of Israeli generals who had sought to involve their country in a war they were confident of winning. In his view, Washington allowed Israel to launch the Six-Day War only because Lyndon Johnson had been under enormous pressure from the Jewish lobby. Israels image was muddied by Neffs book, and that trend would continue in the following years. In the late 1990s, the 30-year rule, which generally allows publication of official archival records after that period, brought about the declassification of thousands of documents in Israel, Great Britain, and the United States. Historians could now get a far more granular picture of the war and its aftermath. This led to the publication of several major books about the war. One of them was written by Michael Oren, then a research fellow at the conservative Shalem Center in Jerusalem. Later, Oren would serve as Israels ambassador to the United States. Same as all the other historians listed above, Oren brought his biography into his writing. He grew up in New Jersey, where we were the only Jewish family, he later recalled. Every day I got beaten up at school. Every day I came home crying. The sole reason for the violence directed at him, according to Oren, was his Jewishness. His father had a cure, though: Each time his son came home with tears in his eyes, he would take him to the basement. There he kept a set of old photos that Orens uncle took when he marched into the Dachau concentration camp with other American soldiers at the end of World War II. He would tell me, Michael, do you see these pictures? This is why we need a strong Jewish state. Michael Oren lamented a wave of revisionist writers, Israelis mostly, [who] have sought to amplify Israels guilt In the opening pages of his book, Six Days of War (2002), Oren lamented the fact that a wave of revisionist writers, Israelis mostly, have sought to amplify Israels guiltand evince it in the debate over the borders, or even the legitimacy of the Jewish state. In a later interview with Fouad Ajami, Oren described such writers as self-styled new historians, mostly Israeli Jews of distinct leftist or Marxist orientation. Oren believed that he belonged to a different camp of more traditional historians who see a prominent Arab role in starting and perpetuating the conflict. In many ways, Orens book revisited the Churchill version of the Six-Day War and found it perfect. His bottom line was that Israel stumbled into a war it had not wanted to wage. But, faced with a threat to their existence, the Israelis proved far more resourceful than their Arab foes had anticipated. The book, which came out only one year after the massive terrorist attack of 9/11, seemed to strike a chord with the American public. The year it was published, Oren praised George W. Bushs foreign policy, and in 2005 he wrote an article that explicated the parallels between 1967 and 2003. Like Saddam Hussein, Oren claimed, Gamal Abdel Nasser, the Egyptian president during the Six-Day War, had aspired to unite the Arab world. Just like Saddam, Oren argued, Nasser defied UN resolutions and had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. Nasser wanted to wage a war of annihilation on Israel, but Israel did not wait around and launched a preemptive attack. Oren implicitly suggested that Israels war on Egypt in 1967 was as justified as the American war on Iraq in 2003. At the time, he probably thought this analogy bolstered his argument. With hindsight, this comparison only weakened it. Orens book, an overwhelmingly military history of the conflict, is mostly devoted to a meticulous reconstruction of the major battles. The pre- and postwar periods are skimmed lightly. For Oren, the six days of war seem to mirror the six days of creation. However, Arab writers have begged to differ. Mohamed Fawzi, who was the Egyptian chief of staff during the war, titled his memoir The Three-Years War, a reference to the War of Attrition, which began immediately after the Six-Day War and continued up to 1970. It consisted of a series of artillery exchanges and commando raids along Israels eastern and southern borders; 367 Israeli officers and soldiers were killed in action as a result. Mohamed Hassanein Heikal, the former editor of the influential Egyptian daily Al-Ahram, gave an interesting subtitle to his hefty tome about the war: Explosion in 1967: The Thirty-Year War. By doing so, Heikal was suggesting that it should be assessed within the broad context of the Israeli-Egyptian conflict, which had begun with the 1948 war for Palestine and ended not long after the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In the 1973 war, more than 2,000 Israeli soldiers died, and in the following years, Israel had to give back every inch of Egyptian land it had conquered in 1967. Israels military victory in the Six-Day War may have been impressive, but in retrospect, it was just one engagement in a long, drawn-out struggle. The brilliance of Israels victory dims when looked at from a long-term perspective. Tom Segev, a former columnist for the liberal daily Haaretz, took a more critical position in his book 1967 (2005). Like these Arab writers, Tom Segev, who for many years had been a columnist for the liberal daily Haaretz, took a more critical position in his book 1967 (2005). Building on the findings of another Israeli historian, Ami Gluska, Segev focused on the troublesome pattern of civil-military relations in Israel. In his view, the headstrong chief of staff, Yitzhak Rabin, drew a dovish cabinet into an unnecessary confrontation with the Arab world. Rabin, supported by his colleagues in the general staff, believed Israel could escalate its confrontation with Syria with impunity. Prime Minister Levi Eshkol wanted to avoid war and ordered the military to use defensive methods in dealing with the Syrian provocations. However, the generals ignored Eshkols instructions and went ahead with preparations for a major operation against Syria. When Egypt, Syrias military ally, sent its forces into the Sinai in May of 1967 to deter Israel from attacking Syria, Israeli generals forced the prime minister to green light an all-out offensive in early June. In Segevs story, Israel is no longer a victim of Arab hostility but rather an aggressive power that pushed Arab leaders into a corner. And so, ever since 1967, writers have been debating the Six-Day War. The sweet afterglow of military success inspired fawning chronicles of Israels victory. However, as the price of maintaining the post-1967 borders rose, more sober assessments came to the fore. New archival revelations helped historians realize just how fractured and antagonistic the Israeli decision-making process was in the years preceding the war. The focus of the story now turned from the external threat, which had largely been a myth, to the way in which Israels military establishment manipulated public opinion and strong-armed civilian leaders. As I have argued, each historian writing about the Six-Day War brings a certain Zeitgeist to his description. My book about the war is no different. As an Israeli, I grew up in the shadow of wars. People my age are known as the winter-of-1973 generation. Our fathers came back from the harrowing battlefields of the Yom Kippur War, eager to bring new life into the world. The 1991 Gulf War forced me to watch my Holocaust-survivor grandfather put on a gas mask. No wonder I devote so much time in my volume to figuring out why the war happened in the first place. THE STAKES ARE HIGHER NOW THAN EVER. GET THE NATION IN YOUR INBOX. As a scholar, I learned my trade in an era in which the Internet and cheap flight have enabled historians to access an ever-increasing selection of archives. For that reason, my research covers more archives, including several in the former Communist bloc, and in more languages, than any of the books mentioned above. Furthermore, the same process of globalization that allowed me to travel the world also exacerbated tensions between developed and developing countries. Indeed, most discussions of international politics today, from terrorism to the growing number of refugees, revolve around this theme. For that reason, I prefer to discuss the war in its global context. For instance, I argue that Third World countries were in bad shape during the 1960s, which explains why there were so many coups and regional wars, such as the Six-Day War, in that decade. You would think that, with all this self-confident sales talk, deep in my heart I believe that my book is the last word on the subject. It is not, and no book is the last word on anything. Historians are going to keep on arguing about how the 1967 war came about. American and Israeli writers who believe that the Arab-Israeli conflict is intractable and unsolvable are still searching for ways to portray Israels attack in 1967 as an act of self-defense. This is part of a larger narrative that depicts Israel as a Western citadel surrounded by a hostile Arab world. Historians who believe that Arab-Israeli coexistence and cooperation are possible seek to show that the war was avoidable and that a diplomatic solution to the crisis of May 1967 was within reach. In short, when we debate the Six-Day War, what we are actually arguing about are the chances for peace in the Middle East today.

Fair Usage Law

June 6, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Neither peace nor war possible in Mideast without Turkey – Daily Sabah

U.S. President Donald Trump, who said that it was not the Iraqis that knocked down the World Trade Center, but the Saudis, during his election campaign last February, paid his first foreign visit to Saudi Arabia. Even if Trump did not make a splash with Muslims, he pleased the Saudis and won a $380 billion arms agreement. Following Saudi Arabia, he visited Israel where he wore a yarmulke, put his face on the Western Wall and made harsh statements about Iran, a mortal enemy of Zionism. Where could the U.S. president go after the centers of Islam and Judaism? Yes, although Trump could not hold his wife, Melania’s hand, he managed to catch the Pope’s arm in the Vatican. So, why will all these weapons be sold, the defense modernizations agreed on and the messages given through religions, and even sects, be used in the medium and short term? Certainly, they will be used for war and boosting arms sales once again. Robert Fisk, a senior Middle East correspondent of The Independent, summarizes this scenario that can be seen by all rational people who are interested in the Middle East as follows, “The aim, however, is simple: to prepare the Sunni Muslims of the Middle East for war against Shiite Muslims. With help from Israel, of course.” In short, this is a win-win situation. Saudi Arabia is happy. Israel is happy. So, the Jewish lobby in the U.S. is happy. And of course, Trump is the happiest of them all. However, the political players in the Middle East are not predictable elements as the Pentagon thinks. Ironically, these actors left the region to the hands of the Pentagon not to the Trump administration or the American state For instance, Iran, which Trump intimidated amid the cheers of Saudi Arabia and Israel, claims that Riyadh supports Daesh, the latest enemy of the U.S. Also, the outlawed PKK and its Syrian branch, the People’s Protection Units (YPG), which are both secular terrorist structures that the U.S. supports against Daesh, is the henchman of the Damascus regime that Washington is trying to overthrow. Moreover, the U.S. president’s plan to garner Saudi support in the Palestine question, which Israel considers an internal matter, is nothing short of a dream. This is because Saudi Arabia is less trustworthy than Egypt in the eyes of many Palestinians. Coupled with Trump’s unpredictability, all of this leads to a more complicated deadlock. We will all see how much noise Trump will be able to make against Iran, another ogre that he listed after North Korea. What is certain, though, is that, although Washington decides on a de facto state of peace that is based on open wars, low-intensity conflicts and a balance of terror, it needs Turkey not matter what the circumstances are. In fact, Ankara is the only basis between the strength and resistance points of a pair of scales that Trump is trying to balance in his own way. Moreover, it is the only Sunni Muslim power in the region that has the potential to establish relations with Iran, just like in the uranium barter agreement in 2011. Also, it is the sole laic state which the Palestinian administration will follow without any doubt about Israel. I think I do not need to remind people once again that Ankara has been the most important strategic partner of the U.S. against Russia and the most important power in the region, since the Cold War. The U.S. must stop acting with the romance of Saudi Arabia’s Lawrence and look for ways to boost cooperation with Ankara, its 50-year-old ally, as soon as possible.

Fair Usage Law

June 1, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

With Nehru writing to its PM, Israel gave arms to India in 1962 – The Hindu

The Hindu With Nehru writing to its PM, Israel gave arms to India in 1962 The Hindu The archives reveal that Israel remained in close touch with not just Nehru but also other members of the Nehruvian regime, including India's then ambassador to the United States B.K. Nehru, who courted the Jewish lobby in Washington to facilitate … and more »

Fair Usage Law

May 28, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Jewish group gets information on mass graves with appeal on radio station accused of anti-Semitism – Jewish Telegraphic Agency

(JTA) A Jewish groups appeal led hundreds of radio listeners to provide information about mass graves and burial sites of Jews to a Catholic radio station that has been accused of promoting anti-Semitism. Some 300 calls have been received by the call center at Polands Radio Maryja with information about sites of mass executions of Jews, stolen tombstones and unknown hiding places of Jews during the Holocaust, according to the From the Depths group, which made the appeal for information last week and again Wednesday on Radio Maryja. The hosting at Radio Maryjas studios of Jonny Daniels, the London-born Israeli Jew who founded the From the Depths group in 2013, follows a controversy over a visit last year by the stations director, Father Tadeusz Rydzyk, to the Israeli Embassy in Warsaw. Rydzyk spoke there with Ambassador Anna Azari in a meeting that liberal watchdog groups said was inappropriate in light of accusations that Radio Maryja and Rydzyk personally promote anti-Semitic hate speech. According to a U.S. State Departmentreportfrom 2008, Radio Maryja is one of Europes most blatantly anti-Semitic media venues. A Council of Europe report stated that Radio Maryja has been openly inciting to anti-Semitism for several years. In July 2007, Rydzyk was recorded making a number of anti-Semitic slurs, the report also stated. Rydzyk said Jews were pushing the Polish government to pay exorbitant private property restitution claims, and that Polands president was in the pocket of the Jewish lobby, according to the report. Daniels disagrees with individuals and groups that believe this background should preclude cooperation by Jewish groups with Radio Maryja. More often than not this so-called Polish anti-Semitism is based on a lack of knowledge and openness, Daniels said. He was interviewed on Radio Maryja, which has millions of listeners, for the first at the end of 2016. Daniels group has received some 200 emails and phone calls with information on execution and burial sites, which the group attempts to preserve. In a statement, Rydzyk claimed the airing of content that is deemed anti-Semitic by his radio station represents its commitment to free speech. After 50 years of communism, our radio is the only live radio in Poland where whoever wants can call and be put on air, every opinion is welcome. This creates an honesty and openness, he said. Sometimes there are controversial opinions, but we still let people talk.

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Ownership: Imran submits money trial to Banigala land, London flat – The Express Tribune

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) chairman Imran Khan. PHOTO: AFP / FILE ISLAMABAD:Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) Chairman Imran Khan has told the Supreme Court that it were the accusations like Zionist lobby and purchase of antique tiles levelled on Jemima Khan by the Sharifs that ended their marriage in divorce and forced his former wife to leave the country. Khan was referring to the political campaign of the late 1990s launched against him by his political opponents. When they got nothing against him, he said, they found Jemima and targeted her Jewish family background, etc. It was in those days when a case was registered against Jemima for illegally exporting hundreds of antique tiles to the UK. In 2002, having been hounded by allegations of still being part of the Jewish lobby and a false case [instituted] by the Sharifs of illegally taking out antique tiles (which had [actually] been purchased in a shop in the federal capital and were anything but antique) for which an FIR was also filed, Ms Jemima Khan took our two children and moved back to Landon, says Khan in his 10-page affidavit submitted in the apex court on Tuesday. The affidavit was submitted in reply to a petition filed by PML-N leader Hanif Abbasi, seeking disqualification of the PTI chief for giving contradictory statements about the ownership of the Banigala land. Will provide complete money trail for purchase of property in SC: Imran Khan said parting ways with Jemima was painful, however, Jemima and he still maintains a civilized relationship. Khan also submitted documentary evidence to establish the money trail to the ownership of the Banigala land wherein it is stated that he earned the money from playing cricket and purchased a flat in Landon in 1983. The PTI chief said he was the sole owner of the flat and no other asset was placed under the Niazi Services Limited at any point except the London flat. At the time of the purchase of the London flat, an offshore resident did not have to pay Capital Gains Tax (CGT) on the sale of [his/her] flat. In 1983, he did not know whether he would be a resident in the UK. Imrans Bani Gala residence declared illegal [The] deponent was advised that the flat be placed under an offshore company which would not have to pay any CGT. In case of sale, the incorporation of the Niazi Services Limited merely [act] as a vehicle with subscribed capital of GBP9 and NSL was not an asset. According to the affidavit, the entire process was done by Barclays Private Bank and Trust Limited. Later, Khan benefitted from the Tax Amnesty Scheme 2000, the document says and adds consequently, a form of undisclosed income, the price of acquisition and the flat itself was filed. The return and tax paid was accepted by income tax authorities and has never been an issue since. Imran stated that the Banigala land was purchased in March 2002, wherein Rashid Ali Khan was very helpful. The land was declared as belonging to the dependent (Imrans) wife. The contrary assertion that it was merely parked in her name is incorrect. Imran says that when a malicious campaign was launched in 2002, Jemima shifted to the UK and gave money to purchase land at Banigala. Rashid Ali Khan, a close friend known to the PTI chairman since 1994, was entrusted with the task of receiving the amount sent in the dollars by Ms Jemima Khan to his Citibank account, the documents reveal. CDA to resume survey of Bani Gala today To the best of the deponents recall instructions to City Bank London were issued by Jemima Khan which routed the money through City Bank USA to Rashid Khans account. The affidavit says that the entire land was mutated in Jemimas name and it was her property for all intents and purposes. A sum of 562,415,54 was transferred on May 7, 2003 by Imran through bank transfer to Jemima Khan, returning the bridge financing arrangement done by her in the interregnum. Regarding the Niazi Services Limited, Khan said it was kept alive because of litigation and to recover the costs awarded. However, he believed that keeping the Niazi Services Limited alive was actually a fruitless exercise after the sale of the flat. Meanwhile, the counsel for the PTI, Anwar Mansoor Khan, contended before the three-judge bench of the apex court headed by Chief Justice of Pakistan Mian Saqib Nisar that the PML-N leaders plea against foreign funding was not maintainable under Article 184(3) of the Constitution. CDA a spectator to unauthorised construction in capital He also submitted that the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) had no authority to determine the partys funding, which were got through prohibited sources in 2010 to 2013 as it was a past and closed matter, adding the matter related to foreign aid could be decided by the federal government. Anwar expressed his wiliness that the Supreme Court may form a commission to probe the prohibited fund. The bench, however, asked him to consult his client. The hearing will resume today (Wednesday).

Fair Usage Law

May 23, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Federal Program Should Be Ecumenical in Protecting Nonprofits from Terrorist Harm – The Nonprofit Quarterly (registration)

May 9, 2017; Hamodia It is no news to anyone that a wave of anti-Semitism swept the country before and after the 2016 presidential election. Anti-Semitism seems never to actually leave the building; it lurks, waiting for a time of general intolerance when it can show itself again. During election season, it evidenced itself in threats and anti-Semitic posts to publications and a stream of threats to community centers. The best analogy I can give is that the campaign turned over a rock and a lot of stuff began crawling out from under it, said John Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary magazine. There were these code words and dog whistles that let it appear that people who had been doing things in the shadows could now start marching forward. Some of these groups were already prepared to some extent because of a largely unknown federal grants program. The Nonprofit Security Grants Program (NSGP) started in 2005 and provides funding support for hardening and other physical security enhancements to nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of a terrorist attack and located within one of the urban areas receiving funding under theUrban Area Security Initiative (UASI). Congress recently voted to increase this grant program from $20 million to $25 million. NGSP was created due to influential Jewish lobby groups as part of a national post-9/11 response to heightened domestic terror threats, and funding has primarily gone to Jewish organizations. From 2007 to 2010, 734 grants, or 73.7 percent, went to Jewish organizations. Although legislation and the rules defining eligibility do not give preference to Jewish institutions, the numbers communicate otherwise. Buried within the scoring criteria, nonprofit institutions with a religious affiliation get their eligibility scores multiplied by three, which gives these institutions a distinct advantage. Additionally, the definition of terror threat is vague: Identification and substantiation of current or persistent threats or attacks (from within or outside the U.S.) by a terrorist organization, network, or cell against the applicant based on their ideology, beliefs, or mission. But Jewish institutions are not the only ones under consistent threat of this sort. Recently, Muslims and Muslim institutions have been the target of religiously motivated crime. In 2016, the Council on American Islamic Relations 2017 Civil Rights Report recorded that anti-Muslim bias incidents jumped 65 percent from 2014 to 2016, and that hate crimes against Muslims surged 584 percent. Anti-Islam acts targeting mosques have also shifted from efforts to block expansion or construction to more direct destruction and vandalism. These statistics alone should support a greater funding effort for Muslim organizations in the United States. The same issue at a state level was recently covered by the Forward, which noted that Floridas budget includes a $650,000 grant for security at Jewish schoolsa line item thats raising questions among civil liberties advocates. The fact that the funding singles out one religion raises serious concerns about unconstitutional discrimination, whether intentional or not, ACLU of Florida legislative counsel Kara Gross told the Miami Herald. Readers may remember that Muslim nonprofit organizations recently rejected more than $2 million in federal aid to prevent the radicalization of community members, citing the Trump administrations rhetoric against Muslim Americans and Islam and their new policies as their reasons for rejecting funding. It is not clear whether their objections might extend to this grant program. In February, Muslims across the country raised over $160,000 using the crowdfunding platform LaunchGood to assist in repair costs for Jewish cemeteries that had been vandalized. The funds were initially raised to assist a synagogue in Pennsylvania; however, it gained so much support that the excess funds allowed for assistance in Illinois, Missouri, and Colorado. Maybe there is a lesson here; while the NSGP may be important for many nonprofit organizations, they seem to create a divisive competition for limited resources. Instead, it may be important for the federal government to support organizations creating national collaboration efforts towards emergency preparedness.Suja S. Amir

Fair Usage Law

May 17, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Friendless in Washington? – Daily Times

Media reports about the annual threat assessment presented to the US Senate Committee last Thursday by National Intelligence (NI) Director Daniel R Coats sound too damaging for Pakistan to ignore. According to these reports, the US NI warns that Pakistan-based terrorist groups will present a sustained threat to US interests in the region and continue to plan and conduct attacks in India and Afghanistan. The threat to the United States and the West from Pakistan-based terrorist groups will be persistent, the assessment maintained. It further said that the groups that will pose the greatest threat to Pakistans internal security included the banned Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, Jamaat-ul-Ahrar, al Qaeda, the Islamic States Khorasan group, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi al-Alami. More worrying is the part of assessment on our nuclear programme. It said early deployment during a crisis of Pakistans smaller, more mobile nuclear weapons would increase the amount of time that systems would be outside the relative security of a storage site, increasing the risk that a coordinated attack by non-state actors might succeed in capturing a complete nuclear weapon. The US NI assessment consolidates the pro-India tilt in the US policy for the South Asian region, which could lead to further deterioration of relations with Pakistan, which is no longer seen as a close ally in the United States. Here is why it is so. There are a number of highly influential lobbies in Washington working over-time to malign Pakistan, create problems for Islamabad and undermine this countrys socio-economic and diplomatic interests. The most tendentious of these lobbies is the one sponsored and funded by the American Indians. The moral and material support to this lobby from New Delhi has increased manifold since the advent of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Though its latest effort to get Pakistan declared as a pariah state for being allegedly a terror sponsoring state has miserably failed, there are no signs that it has given up its campaign in this regard. Understandably, this campaign is finding popular traction among those Americans who are increasingly coming under the influence of the lobby suffering from Islamophobia. The anti-proliferation lobby, a highly influential circle of civil and political activists in Washington, also seems willing to join these two lobbies hoping to use the joint efforts to attain its own objective of relieving Pakistan of its nuclear assets. The Jewish lobby has never been known to have missed an opportunity to join the anti-Pakistan voices in Washington. And who does not know that most of the influential think tanks in Washington suffer from an acute anti-Russia and anti-China bias. Ideas that emanate from these think tanks on a daily basis have given rise to highly influential anti-Russia and anti-China lobbies in Washington. And since the launch of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), Pakistan also has, by association, become a target of the anti-China lobby. Since dubiously sourced media stories of Afghan Taliban getting material support from Russia started appearing in the international media, the anti-Russia lobby has, again by association, started classifying Pakistan as a country to be reviled regularly. And the US media influenced by all these lobbies seem to have turned unduly hostile towards Pakistan. When you sum up these anti-Pakistan efforts being made by all these lobbies, the effect appears to be rather highly suffocating for Pakistan in Washington. We seem to stand friendless in the capital of one of the major powers in todays multi-polar world.

Fair Usage Law

May 13, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

Fazl says he was offered money to back PTI’s ‘agenda’ in KP – The Express Tribune

JUI-F chief claims people backed by ‘Jewish lobby had offered him to join K-P government to ‘de-Islamise’… JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman says as as he had rejected the offer, the K-P government failed miserably in achieving its goals. PHOTO: INP/File PESHAWAR:Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman claimed on Tuesday that he had been offered money and a place in theKhyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) government in 2013 in exchange for de-Islamising the province. Some people backed by the Jewish lobby had visited me after the 2013 general elections and offered me to join the K-P government in return for helping them eliminate the roots of Islam in the province, he told reporters after a gathering hosted by his party in Peshawar to welcome dissident members of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) youth wing. I was told that only the PTI couldchange the opinion of the people of K-P towards the Jewish lobby, Rehman maintained. Dawn Leaks: Fazl says state institutions reservations not unwarranted I declined the offer as I was aware of its [the K-P governments] western agenda, he added. The JUI-F leader said he was told that funds from abroad would be distributed among some seminaries and clerics. The main aim of the entire plan was to de-Islamise the province whose people follow Islam in its true spirit, he remarked. Rehman went on to claim thatas hehadrejected the offer,the K-P government had failed miserably in achievingits goals. Wewaged a war against their [Jewish] plans and have defeated them, he added. The funding from abroad has stopped since lastyear and so the [K-P] government is now compelled to take loans from the Asian Development Bank, he maintained. Fazl snubs JI amirs alliance proposal Corruption, he said, had increased during the incumbent government of K-P in comparison with the figures during thetenure of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal government from 2002 to 2008. Taking a jibe at the Imran Khan-led partys dharna politics in 2014, the JUI-F chief said: They [the PTI] spread vulgarity in the name of sit-ins for several months in Islamabad. Rehman said young people were now joining the JUI-F and rejecting the PTI and that showed that only his party could resolve the issues of the province.

Fair Usage Law

May 9, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed

PTI violated law by collecting funds from abroad: PML-N – Pakistan Today

Pakistan Muslim League-N on Tuesday said Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) violated Pakistani laws by gathering funds from foreign countries for its political activities. Talking to media here, PMLN leader Hanif Abbasi said Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) was misleading Pakistanis about its financial affairs. Imran Khan collected billions in flood relief funds he said adding Imran Khan should tell about sources of his wealth. Abbasi said he would provide all the details about corruption of Imran Khan. We will not need a commission or Joint Investigation Team (JIT) but Imran Khan will be declared guilty for his crime in the ongoing case against him in the Supreme Court. He accused that Imran Khan was taking commission from the projects in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He alleged that PTI had received funds from Israel and Jewish lobby. MNA Talal Chaudhry said Imran Khan made many attempts to lock down Pakistan and staged sit-ins to disrupt normal life. He said Imran Khan used to come to Supreme Court every day during Panama case proceedings but now he has disappeared from the scene. For the last one year, a storm was raised in the case of Panama Papers, he remarked. Talal said the PMLN had been asking how Bani Gala was purchased, why Imran Khan mis-declared his assets and did money laundering and tax evasion. We are not asking about father and children of Imran Khan. However, Sharif family gave a record of its three generations, Talal added. He said Imran Khan committed financial as well as moral sins. MNA Daniyal Chaudhry said according to Pakistani law, any foreigner or foreign company could not give funds to Pakistani political parties. Daniyal said PTI had given record of its gathered funds to the Justice Department of United States. He asked whether Imran Khan collected the funds from abroad to put pressure on democratic institutions in Pakistan. Daniyal recalled Imran Khan was able to win only one seat in the elections of 2002 and remained on the fringes of national politics for 18 years.

Fair Usage Law

May 9, 2017   Posted in: Jewish Lobby  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."