Friday, January 28, 2011
I'm not of the 400 left wing Rabbis
Glen Beck loves the State of Israel and who has produced material in support of Israel which is more effective than anything that Israel ever produced) - and ignore the deeds (or the inaction) of a President who is leading Israel and our country to doom
only 400 words?
While we are waiting to see if this President, who does not utter the words Muslim and terror in the same sentence, and who worries so much about Jews adding bedrooms to apartments in historic Jewish land, will go with the multitude to do evil at the UN
the big picture is
Egypt may soon fall to extremists (Mubarak's wife and so have fled)
Lebanon falls to Hezbollah
Abbas gives 2000 to suicide bomber martyrs
Book praising suicide bombers found on Southern US border left by illegal alien tried to enter
Syria is Iran puppet
Jordan under huge pressure from all this Arab unrest
Iran exerting dominance over the region
Turkey moving steadily into extremist Moslem orbit
Christians being massacred in Egypt, Iraq etc
Arab slavery by the north Sudanese of blacks S Sudan gains strength even as more and more African Americans convert to Islam
Europe is more and more under Islamic pressure and demographic challenges
Venezuela in cahoots with Iran
N Korea in cahoots with iran
etc.
the world under Obama gets worse and worse/In His SOTU Obama devoted 400 words to foreign policy.
the big picture is
Egypt may soon fall to extremists (Mubarak's wife and so have fled)
Lebanon falls to Hezbollah
Abbas gives 2000 to suicide bomber martyrs
Book praising suicide bombers found on Southern US border left by illegal alien tried to enter
Syria is Iran puppet
Jordan under huge pressure from all this Arab unrest
Iran exerting dominance over the region
Turkey moving steadily into extremist Moslem orbit
Christians being massacred in Egypt, Iraq etc
Arab slavery by the north Sudanese of blacks S Sudan gains strength even as more and more African Americans convert to Islam
Europe is more and more under Islamic pressure and demographic challenges
Venezuela in cahoots with Iran
N Korea in cahoots with iran
etc.
the world under Obama gets worse and worse/In His SOTU Obama devoted 400 words to foreign policy.
news
Arab Unrest Shows Israel-Palestinian Conflict Not the Core of Regional Instability - Joel GreenbergHizbullah's rise to political dominance in Lebanon is not interpreted in Israel as a harbinger of renewed hostilities. "We don't see Hizbullah or other elements creating a provocation along the Israeli-Lebanese border," said Moshe Ya'alon, a vice prime minister and minister of strategic affairs, who spoke to foreign journalists Thursday. Hizbullah, as a military arm of Iran held in reserve for a possible confrontation with the West or Israel, is restrained from squandering its arsenal of missiles in a conflict that would not directly serve Iran's interests, he said.
To Israeli officials, the unrest across the region, with Israel on the sidelines, proves an assertion that has been a point of contention with the Obama administration. "For us it is very clear," Ya'alon said, "the core of this instability in the Middle East is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." (Washington Post)
Palestinians Preventing Middle East Peace Deal, Says Israeli Deputy PM - Harriet Sherwood
An agreement to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not happen in the next "one or two years," Moshe Ya'alon, Israel's deputy prime minister, said Thursday, blaming the Palestinians for the lack of progress. "We're fed up with giving and giving and giving, and not getting any real substance [in return]," he said.
He dismissed the concessions offered by Palestinian negotiators, revealed in the leaked documents, saying they were insignificant compared to the "core of the conflict - our right to exist." The Palestinians' refusal to recognize Israel as "the nation state of the Jewish people" was preventing a peace settlement, he said. Ya'alon urged Palestinian political leaders to re-educate a new generation in a "culture of peace, coexistence and reconciliation." (Guardian-UK)
Muslim Brotherhood Set to Join Egypt Protests - Souad Mekhennet and Nicholas Kulish
The Muslim Brotherhood, the largest organized opposition group in Egypt, announced Thursday that it would take part in demonstrations on Friday, lending new strength to the protests. (New York Times
To Israeli officials, the unrest across the region, with Israel on the sidelines, proves an assertion that has been a point of contention with the Obama administration. "For us it is very clear," Ya'alon said, "the core of this instability in the Middle East is not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." (Washington Post)
Palestinians Preventing Middle East Peace Deal, Says Israeli Deputy PM - Harriet Sherwood
An agreement to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not happen in the next "one or two years," Moshe Ya'alon, Israel's deputy prime minister, said Thursday, blaming the Palestinians for the lack of progress. "We're fed up with giving and giving and giving, and not getting any real substance [in return]," he said.
He dismissed the concessions offered by Palestinian negotiators, revealed in the leaked documents, saying they were insignificant compared to the "core of the conflict - our right to exist." The Palestinians' refusal to recognize Israel as "the nation state of the Jewish people" was preventing a peace settlement, he said. Ya'alon urged Palestinian political leaders to re-educate a new generation in a "culture of peace, coexistence and reconciliation." (Guardian-UK)
Muslim Brotherhood Set to Join Egypt Protests - Souad Mekhennet and Nicholas Kulish
The Muslim Brotherhood, the largest organized opposition group in Egypt, announced Thursday that it would take part in demonstrations on Friday, lending new strength to the protests. (New York Times
Thursday, January 27, 2011
my son. fighting the good fight for Israel on reddit, posted this
If you consider Palestine to be a "Sovereign" and "Independent" country that goes back through most of recorded history as many would have you to believe (or even consider there to be a historical nation of "palestinians"), then a few questions need to be answered:
* When was it founded and by whom?
* What were its borders?
* What was its capital?
* Who was the head of the government?
* What was its form of government?
* What were its major cities?
* What constituted the basis of its economy?
* Who was the Palestinian leader before Yasser Arafat?
* Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for
interpretation?
* What was the language of the country of Palestine?
* What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
* What was the name of its currency and what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian
monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, or Japanese yen on any particular date?
* And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
If these so-called "Palestinians" are anything but a generic collection of Arabs from all over the rest of the Arab world and if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, then why did they never try to become an independent and sovereign nation until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War in 1967?
Edit: The point of this is that there was never a historical palestinian people. Rather, the palestinians are refugees who have been kicked out of many other arab nations and ended up in a place that, during for instance british mandate times,was really shitty.
Please answer these for me and cite sources
* When was it founded and by whom?
* What were its borders?
* What was its capital?
* Who was the head of the government?
* What was its form of government?
* What were its major cities?
* What constituted the basis of its economy?
* Who was the Palestinian leader before Yasser Arafat?
* Was Palestine ever recognized by a country whose existence, at that time or now, leaves no room for
interpretation?
* What was the language of the country of Palestine?
* What was the prevalent religion of the country of Palestine?
* What was the name of its currency and what was the approximate exchange rate of the Palestinian
monetary unit against the US dollar, German mark, GB pound, or Japanese yen on any particular date?
* And, finally, since there is no such country today, what caused its demise and when did it occur?
If these so-called "Palestinians" are anything but a generic collection of Arabs from all over the rest of the Arab world and if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them right for self-determination, then why did they never try to become an independent and sovereign nation until Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War in 1967?
Edit: The point of this is that there was never a historical palestinian people. Rather, the palestinians are refugees who have been kicked out of many other arab nations and ended up in a place that, during for instance british mandate times,was really shitty.
Please answer these for me and cite sources
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Why PLO get to fly flag?
Rep. Allan West Talking Sense on PLO Flag
Alana Goodman - 01.25.2011 - 9:46 AM
In a press release this morning, Rep. Allan West asked why the PLO is allowed to fly its flag above its Washington office but Taiwan is not.
“By allowing this flag to be flown, the United States is extending a diplomatic right that we refrain from offering to even our own allies, like Taiwan,” said West. “This action is a diplomatic slap in the face of our greatest of allies, Israel.”
The Taiwan-PLO comparison is an excellent point. As far as officially recognized states go, Taiwan is clearly further along that path than Palestine is. The U.S. has also recognized Taiwan as a country in the past.
Here are some more comparisons between Taiwan and Palestine:
• Unlike Palestine, Taiwan has been an autonomous, self-governing entity for decades.
• Unlike Palestine, Taiwan doesn’t claim that the only way it can ever be free is if it destroys the state next to it (in this case, China).
• Unlike Palestine, Taiwan has been a reliable ally of the U.S. for years.
• Unlike Palestine, the U.S. has trusted Taiwan enough to sell it extensive arms, including F-16s under President George H.W. Bush.
West is right that this is a slap in the face to Israel — but it’s also a slap in the face to Taiwan, which has no hope of being recognized any time soon. According to West’s press release, he has joined House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in speaking out against the PLO flag being flown. Both members of Congress are asking President Obama and the State Department to rescind the authorization given to the PLO to raise the flag.
Alana Goodman - 01.25.2011 - 9:46 AM
In a press release this morning, Rep. Allan West asked why the PLO is allowed to fly its flag above its Washington office but Taiwan is not.
“By allowing this flag to be flown, the United States is extending a diplomatic right that we refrain from offering to even our own allies, like Taiwan,” said West. “This action is a diplomatic slap in the face of our greatest of allies, Israel.”
The Taiwan-PLO comparison is an excellent point. As far as officially recognized states go, Taiwan is clearly further along that path than Palestine is. The U.S. has also recognized Taiwan as a country in the past.
Here are some more comparisons between Taiwan and Palestine:
• Unlike Palestine, Taiwan has been an autonomous, self-governing entity for decades.
• Unlike Palestine, Taiwan doesn’t claim that the only way it can ever be free is if it destroys the state next to it (in this case, China).
• Unlike Palestine, Taiwan has been a reliable ally of the U.S. for years.
• Unlike Palestine, the U.S. has trusted Taiwan enough to sell it extensive arms, including F-16s under President George H.W. Bush.
West is right that this is a slap in the face to Israel — but it’s also a slap in the face to Taiwan, which has no hope of being recognized any time soon. According to West’s press release, he has joined House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen in speaking out against the PLO flag being flown. Both members of Congress are asking President Obama and the State Department to rescind the authorization given to the PLO to raise the flag.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Obama won't pressure Palestinians
For the first time since the Oslo peace process started 18 years ago, Palestinian leaders are openly refusing to negotiate with the government of Israel, and U.S. President Barack Obama's administration is doing very little about it. As Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority president, explained the policy on Dec. 9, "We will not agree to negotiate as long as settlement building continues." The Arab League is backing Abbas in this refusal, says League chief Amr Moussa, because "the direction of talks has become ineffective and it has decided against the resumption of negotiations."
But Abbas himself negotiated with seven previous Israeli prime ministers without such preconditions. For 17 years -- from the Madrid conference of October 1991 through Abbas's negotiations with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, which ended in 2008 -- negotiations moved forward while Jerusalem construction continued. Madrid, Oslo I, Oslo II, the Hebron Protocol, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David, Taba, the disengagement from Gaza, and Olmert's offer to Abbas -- all these events over the course of two decades were made possible by a continuing agreement to disagree about Israeli construction of Jewish homes in Jewish neighborhoods outside the pre-1967 line in East Jerusalem. But now, peace talks cannot even begin. Why the change?
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledges that the Palestinians are creating a new precondition for talks to begin. Settlements, she says, have "always been an issue within the negotiations.… There's never been a precondition." But Clinton has not stated any public objection to Abbas making this a new excuse not to negotiate.
Abbas himself blames Obama. As he said in November, "At first, President Obama stated in Cairo that Israel must stop all construction activities in the settlements. Could we demand less than that?" Some in the West are sympathetic to Abbas's maneuver, which they see as a form of protest against an Israeli policy to which the United States and the rest of the Middle East quartet, the four international players that steer peace efforts, also object. But when the Palestinians spurn negotiations, they are blocking the sole path to a solution of the settlement issue, which can only be a negotiated agreement over borders. As the State Department spokesman's said on Aug. 2, "Absent a direct negotiation, there will be no end to the conflict, there will be no peace agreement, and there will be no Palestinian state. That's a fact."
There is also the question of whether Abbas's motive here is actually about the settlement issue, or rather to drive a wedge between Obama and Israel and induce the United States to impose a solution in lieu of negotiations. Isn't this a reversion to the pre-Oslo strategy of rejecting contact with Israel and demanding instead that the great powers impose Arab terms on the Jewish state?
In refusing to meet with Israel, Abbas is violating one of the most important commitments his predecessor Yasir Arafat made at the start of the Oslo process, which included this pledge to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on Sept. 9, 1993: "The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides, and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations." It is also a direct violation of the pledge that Abbas himself made barely three years ago at the Annapolis conference. As witnessed by foreign ministers of 47 countries on Nov. 27, 2007: "We agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements. We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations."
Abbas is also rejecting the imperative laid down by the Middle East "Quartet" in March 2010, demanding "the resumption, without preconditions, of direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues as previously agreed by the parties." It is a repudiation of Obama's Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who said, "We do not believe in preconditions. We do not impose them. And we urge others not to impose preconditions." It is a dismissal of an objective considered vital by the Obama administration, to "re-launch negotiations as soon as possible and without preconditions, which is in the interests of everyone in the region." Abbas is spurning all appeals from Clinton, who says that "negotiations between the parties is the only means by which all of the outstanding claims arising out of the conflict can be resolved."
But the Obama administration is raising no public objection to the Palestinians' stance. It has not expressed one word of criticism of Abbas, nor used anything resembling the pressure tactics Obama has so freely used against the Israeli side. In fact, Obama did quite the opposite on Oct. 7, when he issued a special waiver of Section 7040(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act to transfer additional funds directly to the Palestinian Authority, just as it was announcing its refusal to negotiate.
Members of Congress are starting to take notice of the administration's reticence to confront Palestinian intransigence. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the incoming House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman, said on Dec. 23 of Palestinian leaders: "They know they don't have to do a darn thing; with this administration they will get a blank check, and they will always get helped out.… Try examining where they're using their money and where our U.S. dollars are going." Her Democratic counterpart, California's Howard Berman, the outgoing chairman of the committee, said a few days earlier, referring to Abbas's unilateral drive to seek early recognition of Palestinian statehood, "If they try to circumvent negotiations, they'll lose the support of a lot of people like me, and it will jeopardize their foreign aid as well."
As it happens, a statute is already in place, requiring sanctions against such violations of the solemn commitments the Palestinians made. The Middle East Peace Commitments Act of 2002 notes that "Resolution of all outstanding issues in the conflict between the two sides through negotiations" is one of the core commitments to which the Palestinian Authority has obligated itself, and it requires the president to notify Congress of such violations and impose penalties, which may include a "prohibition on United States assistance to the West Bank and Gaza." When it returns to Washington this month, the new Congress may not share Obama's reluctance to criticize Abbas. With the support of Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the new House in particular may be willing to do something about it.
But Abbas himself negotiated with seven previous Israeli prime ministers without such preconditions. For 17 years -- from the Madrid conference of October 1991 through Abbas's negotiations with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, which ended in 2008 -- negotiations moved forward while Jerusalem construction continued. Madrid, Oslo I, Oslo II, the Hebron Protocol, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David, Taba, the disengagement from Gaza, and Olmert's offer to Abbas -- all these events over the course of two decades were made possible by a continuing agreement to disagree about Israeli construction of Jewish homes in Jewish neighborhoods outside the pre-1967 line in East Jerusalem. But now, peace talks cannot even begin. Why the change?
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledges that the Palestinians are creating a new precondition for talks to begin. Settlements, she says, have "always been an issue within the negotiations.… There's never been a precondition." But Clinton has not stated any public objection to Abbas making this a new excuse not to negotiate.
Abbas himself blames Obama. As he said in November, "At first, President Obama stated in Cairo that Israel must stop all construction activities in the settlements. Could we demand less than that?" Some in the West are sympathetic to Abbas's maneuver, which they see as a form of protest against an Israeli policy to which the United States and the rest of the Middle East quartet, the four international players that steer peace efforts, also object. But when the Palestinians spurn negotiations, they are blocking the sole path to a solution of the settlement issue, which can only be a negotiated agreement over borders. As the State Department spokesman's said on Aug. 2, "Absent a direct negotiation, there will be no end to the conflict, there will be no peace agreement, and there will be no Palestinian state. That's a fact."
There is also the question of whether Abbas's motive here is actually about the settlement issue, or rather to drive a wedge between Obama and Israel and induce the United States to impose a solution in lieu of negotiations. Isn't this a reversion to the pre-Oslo strategy of rejecting contact with Israel and demanding instead that the great powers impose Arab terms on the Jewish state?
In refusing to meet with Israel, Abbas is violating one of the most important commitments his predecessor Yasir Arafat made at the start of the Oslo process, which included this pledge to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on Sept. 9, 1993: "The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides, and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations." It is also a direct violation of the pledge that Abbas himself made barely three years ago at the Annapolis conference. As witnessed by foreign ministers of 47 countries on Nov. 27, 2007: "We agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty, resolving all outstanding issues, including all core issues without exception, as specified in previous agreements. We agree to engage in vigorous, ongoing and continuous negotiations."
Abbas is also rejecting the imperative laid down by the Middle East "Quartet" in March 2010, demanding "the resumption, without preconditions, of direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues as previously agreed by the parties." It is a repudiation of Obama's Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who said, "We do not believe in preconditions. We do not impose them. And we urge others not to impose preconditions." It is a dismissal of an objective considered vital by the Obama administration, to "re-launch negotiations as soon as possible and without preconditions, which is in the interests of everyone in the region." Abbas is spurning all appeals from Clinton, who says that "negotiations between the parties is the only means by which all of the outstanding claims arising out of the conflict can be resolved."
But the Obama administration is raising no public objection to the Palestinians' stance. It has not expressed one word of criticism of Abbas, nor used anything resembling the pressure tactics Obama has so freely used against the Israeli side. In fact, Obama did quite the opposite on Oct. 7, when he issued a special waiver of Section 7040(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act to transfer additional funds directly to the Palestinian Authority, just as it was announcing its refusal to negotiate.
Members of Congress are starting to take notice of the administration's reticence to confront Palestinian intransigence. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), the incoming House Foreign Affairs Committee chairwoman, said on Dec. 23 of Palestinian leaders: "They know they don't have to do a darn thing; with this administration they will get a blank check, and they will always get helped out.… Try examining where they're using their money and where our U.S. dollars are going." Her Democratic counterpart, California's Howard Berman, the outgoing chairman of the committee, said a few days earlier, referring to Abbas's unilateral drive to seek early recognition of Palestinian statehood, "If they try to circumvent negotiations, they'll lose the support of a lot of people like me, and it will jeopardize their foreign aid as well."
As it happens, a statute is already in place, requiring sanctions against such violations of the solemn commitments the Palestinians made. The Middle East Peace Commitments Act of 2002 notes that "Resolution of all outstanding issues in the conflict between the two sides through negotiations" is one of the core commitments to which the Palestinian Authority has obligated itself, and it requires the president to notify Congress of such violations and impose penalties, which may include a "prohibition on United States assistance to the West Bank and Gaza." When it returns to Washington this month, the new Congress may not share Obama's reluctance to criticize Abbas. With the support of Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the new House in particular may be willing to do something about it.
most pro Israel congress ever
Pro-Israel activists: New congress will remain Israel ally
Photo by: AP
Pro-Israel activists: New congress will remain Israel ally
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
01/05/2011 04:50
New congress loses 4 Jews; Majority Leader Cantor to be highest ranking Jewish member ever; AIPAC: will be most pro-Israel congress ever.
Talkbacks (10)
WASHINGTON – The Congress that will be installed Wednesday might be losing four of its Jewish members, but Republicans and several pro-Israel advocates insist it will remain as supportive as ever of the Jewish state.
“The members who are taking over will be at least as strong in their pro-Israel inclinations as the people they’re replacing,” maintained Noah Silverman of the Republic Jewish Coalition, adding that “the leadership is stalwart on Israel.”
RELATED:
Republicans blast Obama for posting new Syrian envoy
Netanyahu meets with Tea Party ‘darling’ Mike Lee
Though the Democrats’ shellacking in the November election reduced the numbers of Jewish members from 43 to 39 – though a new Democrat Jewish representative and senator will be among them – Silverman pointed out that the sole Jewish Republican, incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, will be the highest-ranking Jewish member ever.
Silverman predicted that the most visible change on Israel will be the extent to which Congress now challenges the Obama administration over its handling of the Middle East.
“The biggest difference we expect is how bold and how tough an approach we expect to see in congressional oversight,” he said. The members are “going to be skeptical and ask questions and conduct vigorous oversight of government policies.”
The non-partisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee described the 112th Congress as “expected to be the most pro-Israel Congress ever” in its Near East Report on the incoming legislative class produced after the elections.
“Many of Israel’s strongest supporters were reelected,” according to the AIPAC report. “AIPAC lay leaders and staff have established relationships with every new senator” already and received position papers in which “the new members of Congress express their support for a strong US-Israel relationship.”
Photo by: AP
Pro-Israel activists: New congress will remain Israel ally
By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER
01/05/2011 04:50
New congress loses 4 Jews; Majority Leader Cantor to be highest ranking Jewish member ever; AIPAC: will be most pro-Israel congress ever.
Talkbacks (10)
WASHINGTON – The Congress that will be installed Wednesday might be losing four of its Jewish members, but Republicans and several pro-Israel advocates insist it will remain as supportive as ever of the Jewish state.
“The members who are taking over will be at least as strong in their pro-Israel inclinations as the people they’re replacing,” maintained Noah Silverman of the Republic Jewish Coalition, adding that “the leadership is stalwart on Israel.”
RELATED:
Republicans blast Obama for posting new Syrian envoy
Netanyahu meets with Tea Party ‘darling’ Mike Lee
Though the Democrats’ shellacking in the November election reduced the numbers of Jewish members from 43 to 39 – though a new Democrat Jewish representative and senator will be among them – Silverman pointed out that the sole Jewish Republican, incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, will be the highest-ranking Jewish member ever.
Silverman predicted that the most visible change on Israel will be the extent to which Congress now challenges the Obama administration over its handling of the Middle East.
“The biggest difference we expect is how bold and how tough an approach we expect to see in congressional oversight,” he said. The members are “going to be skeptical and ask questions and conduct vigorous oversight of government policies.”
The non-partisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee described the 112th Congress as “expected to be the most pro-Israel Congress ever” in its Near East Report on the incoming legislative class produced after the elections.
“Many of Israel’s strongest supporters were reelected,” according to the AIPAC report. “AIPAC lay leaders and staff have established relationships with every new senator” already and received position papers in which “the new members of Congress express their support for a strong US-Israel relationship.”
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
i wonder?
If the West Bank is occupied territory, how do the Muslims explain to 2 billion Christians that the Jewish family of Jesus lived in Bethelhem in the "West Bank" 2000 years ago. That has been Jewish land for 3000 yeard and always will be.
world debate champs
Israel wins ESL world title at debate tournament in Botswana
Debaters Michael Shapira and Meir Yarom, of the University of Haifa, named top English as a Second Language team after 12 rounds of debate.
By Riva Gold
Israel earned the title of world champions in the English as a Second Language division of the World University Debating Championships on Monday, for the second year in a row.
Debaters Michael Shapira and Meir Yarom, from the University of Haifa, were named top ESL team after 12 fierce rounds of debate at the competition.
Teams from across the world competed in the 10-day tournament, which was held this year at the University of Botswana in Gabarone. From foreign policy to internet privacy, Shapira and Yarom debated a wide range of topics before winning their title.
In the final round, which was streamed live on the internet, Haifa took on teams from Slovenia, Holland, and Malaysia to debate whether courts should break up consistently dominant political parties.
After a long deliberation, the judges awarded them the title with eight judges out of nine judges voting for their side.
This is the second consecutive year that Israel has won the title of ESL Champions, after Tel Aviv University students Yoni Cohen Idov and Uri Merhav scored the title at the World Championships in Turkey in 2010.
Israel was also successful in the tournament's parallel public speaking competition, where a student from the IDC Herzliya earned a coveted spot in the final round.
The World Debating Championships is the largest non-athletic student competition in the world, with roughly 600 teams competing. The event is dubbed by participants as the "Nerd Olympics."
Debaters Michael Shapira and Meir Yarom, of the University of Haifa, named top English as a Second Language team after 12 rounds of debate.
By Riva Gold
Israel earned the title of world champions in the English as a Second Language division of the World University Debating Championships on Monday, for the second year in a row.
Debaters Michael Shapira and Meir Yarom, from the University of Haifa, were named top ESL team after 12 fierce rounds of debate at the competition.
Teams from across the world competed in the 10-day tournament, which was held this year at the University of Botswana in Gabarone. From foreign policy to internet privacy, Shapira and Yarom debated a wide range of topics before winning their title.
In the final round, which was streamed live on the internet, Haifa took on teams from Slovenia, Holland, and Malaysia to debate whether courts should break up consistently dominant political parties.
After a long deliberation, the judges awarded them the title with eight judges out of nine judges voting for their side.
This is the second consecutive year that Israel has won the title of ESL Champions, after Tel Aviv University students Yoni Cohen Idov and Uri Merhav scored the title at the World Championships in Turkey in 2010.
Israel was also successful in the tournament's parallel public speaking competition, where a student from the IDC Herzliya earned a coveted spot in the final round.
The World Debating Championships is the largest non-athletic student competition in the world, with roughly 600 teams competing. The event is dubbed by participants as the "Nerd Olympics."
Monday, January 3, 2011
NYT and Wash Post anti Israel bias
Week's worth of stories censored by NY Times, Wash. Post
Leo Rennert
The following stories -- in the span of a week -- were widely disseminated. But none made it into the news pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post. It's all too familiar pattern that points to a biased pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel agenda in their news coverage.
Let's take a look at what these two major newspapers did not seem fit to print:
Dec. 24--Palestinian Authority TV ClaimsJesus was a Palestinian, Denies his Jewish Ancestry
Dec. 25--Abbas aims for "Judenrein" Palestinian state -- No room for a single Israeli.
Dec. 25--Hamas Ultimatum: Israel has Two Options -- Death or Leaving Palestinian Lands.
Dec. 28--Abbas Cracks Down on Main Political Rival, Mohammed Dahlan
Dec. 28--Hamas Reported Torturing, Killing Israel-bound Africans in Sinai
Dec. 29--Fatah Bans Abbas Rival from Party Meetings
Dec. 30--Journalist Who Aired Dissension in Abbas' Party Gets Five-Day Detention
Dec. 30--Poll: Solid Majorities of Palestinians Oppose Two-State Solution Along Clinton Parameters
So why did the Times and the Post engage in such conspicuous self-censorship? Because their editors and reporters are determined to paint Israel as the main obstacle to the peace process, while hiding the darker, anti-peace aspects of the Palestinian side -- both Hamas in Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party in the West Bank.
Above all, Abbas's rule has to be prettied up because the papers' news sections are heavily invested in painting him as a bona fide peace partner. So corruption, repression, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel incitement, glorification of terrorist killers, denial of historic Jewish ties to Jerusalem and Hebron, and other problematic patterns of Abbas's rule must be carefully hidden from Post and Times readers.
What makes such silence -- such self-censorship -- even more egregious and blatantly obvious is that these are two newspapers that do not hesitate to expose repression under Putin in Russia, corruption under Karzai in Afghanistan, and Mubarak's autocracy in Egypt. Yet, Abbas's rule in the West Bank fits exactly the same patterns -- but fails to make the news pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Bottom line: the Palestinian side is treated with kid gloves; Israel with the gloves off.
Leo Rennert
The following stories -- in the span of a week -- were widely disseminated. But none made it into the news pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post. It's all too familiar pattern that points to a biased pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel agenda in their news coverage.
Let's take a look at what these two major newspapers did not seem fit to print:
Dec. 24--Palestinian Authority TV ClaimsJesus was a Palestinian, Denies his Jewish Ancestry
Dec. 25--Abbas aims for "Judenrein" Palestinian state -- No room for a single Israeli.
Dec. 25--Hamas Ultimatum: Israel has Two Options -- Death or Leaving Palestinian Lands.
Dec. 28--Abbas Cracks Down on Main Political Rival, Mohammed Dahlan
Dec. 28--Hamas Reported Torturing, Killing Israel-bound Africans in Sinai
Dec. 29--Fatah Bans Abbas Rival from Party Meetings
Dec. 30--Journalist Who Aired Dissension in Abbas' Party Gets Five-Day Detention
Dec. 30--Poll: Solid Majorities of Palestinians Oppose Two-State Solution Along Clinton Parameters
So why did the Times and the Post engage in such conspicuous self-censorship? Because their editors and reporters are determined to paint Israel as the main obstacle to the peace process, while hiding the darker, anti-peace aspects of the Palestinian side -- both Hamas in Gaza and Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party in the West Bank.
Above all, Abbas's rule has to be prettied up because the papers' news sections are heavily invested in painting him as a bona fide peace partner. So corruption, repression, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel incitement, glorification of terrorist killers, denial of historic Jewish ties to Jerusalem and Hebron, and other problematic patterns of Abbas's rule must be carefully hidden from Post and Times readers.
What makes such silence -- such self-censorship -- even more egregious and blatantly obvious is that these are two newspapers that do not hesitate to expose repression under Putin in Russia, corruption under Karzai in Afghanistan, and Mubarak's autocracy in Egypt. Yet, Abbas's rule in the West Bank fits exactly the same patterns -- but fails to make the news pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post.
Bottom line: the Palestinian side is treated with kid gloves; Israel with the gloves off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
