Monday, August 11, 2014
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Will Britain’s powerful Zionist lobby forgive Sayeeda Warsi? - By M Ghazali Khan - TwoCircles.net
Will Britain’s powerful Zionist lobby forgive Sayeeda Warsi? - By M Ghazali Khan - TwoCircles
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Will Britain’s powerful Zionist lobby forgive Sayeeda Warsi?
Submitted by TwoCircles.net
on 7 August 2014 -
10:14pm
The first ever female Muslim Minister in the history of Britain, Sayeeda Warsi, has displayed extraordinary courage by resigning as a Foreign Office Minister over David Cameron Government’s “morally indefensible” stand on Israeli barbarism in Gaza.
Such moral courage is a rare quality in any politician anywhere in the world. Those who put their conscience before political interests are very rare. And when it comes to Muslim politicians sadly this quality is even rarer.
Sayeeda Warsi, married and mother of a daughter, was born to immigrant Pakistani parents. She studied and practiced law before contesting first election against Labour in 2004 and was talent spotted by Conservative leader Michael Howard, who offered her a new role as vice-chairman of the party.
She describes her father, a former mill worker who later built a £2m a year bed-building company, as a great inspiration for her and gives him all the credit of giving her ideals and principles and who, at the height of a controversy, had lectured her as, “Sayeeda, what is the point in being in a position of leadership if you don’t lead on issues that are so fundamental? This is so stomach churningly sick that you should have been out there condemning it as loudly as you could. Uniquely, you are in a position to show leadership on this.”
Sayeeda Warsi is not the first British minister to have taken such a courageous and high moral stand and to have made such a self-sacrifice though. Before her International Development Secretary Claire Short, leader of the Commons Robin Cook and Home Office Minister John Denham had left Tony Blair’s cabinet in 2003 over Iraq.
However, as someone from a working class Muslim family background, who gained such a prominence in British politics, to have taken such a bold and principled stand would not be an easy thing for many Asian or black politicians.
She has been praised and commended for her courage by many, especially by the Muslims not only in Britain but outside as well. India’s leading Urdu newspaper Inquilab in its editorial (6 August 2014) writes: “…her resignation in protest against Britain’s policies on Palestine is not only a pleasing event but is also such a courageous act that should embarrass and put to shame those Muslim states and their heads who have either buried their heads, like an ostrich in the sand or have adopted complete silence or have been issuing feeble statements and have been making futile efforts to be counted among those who have some sense of self-dignity and self-respect.”
Reminding its readers that Lady Warsi was demoted in 2012, London’s free distribution Evening Standard says, “…she was always a little too independent-minded for the comfort of the party leadership. Her criticisms of Israel’s war in Gaza, via Twitter, have further discomfited the PM.”
Criticising Mr Cameron on his pro-Israeli policies the paper writes, “The departure also highlights Mr Cameron’s keenness to avoid taking any real position on the conflict, since while Ms Warsi cited the Government’s “policy on Gaza” as her reason, in truth it has no policy beyond expressions of concern at casualties and a token £3 million extra in aid. Ministers have refused to condemn Israel…”
However, in Britain many withinand outside supporters of her party have disapproved her action with sneer and contempt. A cynical column published in the pro-Conservative Daily Mail went to the extent of calling Ms Warsi’s resignation as the result of her ungratefulness to David Cameron and her over ambitious disposition. It reads, “As a display of cynicism and disloyalty, the timing of Baroness Warsi’s resignation from the Government could not have been more calculating.” And it goes on, “A veteran of PR photo-calls — as a daughter of Pakistani immigrants, she attended her first Cabinet meeting wearing a pink and gold shalwar kameez — Warsi knew the impact of her departure would be far greater coming only hours after she had been seen sitting alongside the Duchess of Cornwall at the Abbey…one questions whether her departure also owes much to her resentment over her stalled ministerial career.”
“Sayeeda Warsi's resignation was brave, but was it wise?” asks Guardian’s assistant editor and columnist Michael White. “Speaking out and enjoying renewed freedom to do so can be exhilarating, but it can also be lonely and self-defeating. ‘If only I was still in government,’ Warsi will find herself saying. Catalyst or 24-hour wonder? Warsi will discover in due course.” He concludes.
But then this is not the first time when Lady Warsi has spoken up her mind. In 2011, when she was the co-chair of Conservative Party, she made the headlines when, in a speech in Leicester University, she attacked growing Islamophobia in Britain where, she said, prejudice against Muslims had "passed the dinner-table test" and become socially acceptable in the UK.
Earlier in 2009 addressing Conservative Party conference she had said that anti-Muslim hatred had become Britain's last socially acceptable form of bigotry and claimed in a magazine article that taking a pop at the Muslim community in the media sold papers and didn't really matter.
As it happens on such rare historical occasions, her straightforwardness, boldness and commitment in what she believes in will be, and is being, interpreted in various ways. From some quarters she will even be accused of stoking anti-Semitic feelings. However, the pro-Israeli Jewish Chronical reported her in 2011 as saying at the European Institute for the Study of Anti-Semitism Lecture at the House of Commons that it was, “abhorrent that some people actually believe that anti-Semitism does not exist in the world today.
“We must drain the poison of anti-Semitism from our country. As a Muslim, for me, Islamophobia is personal. But for me, Anti-Semitism is just as important.” The paper had reported.
Reporting her resignation and acknowledging her contribution towards better community relations Jewish Chronical said, “During her time in government she had worked closely with Jewish communities and organisations, concentrating particularly on Holocaust remembrance and the role of women in religion.”
Conservative Party’s Mayor of London Boris Johnson, a self-proclaimed Zionist, and an Israeli supporter, who at times also boasts of his Muslim ancestry, has expressed the hope that Warsi will come back. However, the fact is that as of now her political career seems to come to an end. Britain’s powerful Israeli lobby has never forgiven anyone who has crossed what they consider to be the limits that should not be crossed: criticism on Israel’ brutal policies. One of those who have had to pay a heavy price for this “crime” was David Mellor, himself a Jewish and a Foreign Office Minister in Mrs Thatcher’s cabinet.
There have been assassination attempts on Warsi’s character in the past. With her having taken such a brave stand it is very unlikely that Warsi will be allowed to come back.
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Tuesday, August 5, 2014
A History of Obama-Netanyahu Tensions - The New York Times International
http://www.nytimes.com/
MARCH 2010
“The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now.”
During a visit to the country by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Israel’s Interior Ministry announces plans to build 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, a move defying American demands to freeze new settlements.
— Statement by Mr. Biden
NOVEMBER 2010
“I'm concerned that we’re not seeing each side make the extra effort involved to get a breakthrough. Each of these incremental steps can end up breaking trust.”
As the Obama administration works to restart talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, another announcement of new settlement plans comes out of Israel. Mr. Obama expresses concern over the effect of the release on the peace process, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel responds.
— Mr. Obama
“Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.”
— Statement by Mr. Netanyahu’s office
MAY 2011
“Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both houses of Congress.”
Mr. Netanyahu pushes back against President Obama’s endorsement of using Israel’s 1967 boundaries as a starting point for the creation of a Palestinian state. He cites a letter from President George W. Bush saying it would be unrealistic to expect that negotiations would result in 1967 boundaries.
— Statement by Mr. Netanyahu
NOVEMBER 2011
“You are fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you.”
During a Group of 20 summit meeting, several French journalists overhear a private conversation between Mr. Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France about Mr. Netanyahu.
— Mr. Obama
SEPTEMBER 2012
“Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”
Mr. Netanyahu issues harsh comments in an apparent response to a statement by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said the United States was “not setting deadlines” on Iran’s nuclear program before issuing a military response.
— Mr. Netanyahu
APRIL 2014
“Poof, that was sort of the moment. We find ourselves where we are.”
In testimony before a congressional committee, Secretary of State John Kerry says that while both sides bore responsibility for faltering peace talks, the latest announcement of new settlements by Israel was the key event for the deadlock.
— Mr. Kerry
JUNE 2014
“I think the United States must make it absolutely clear to the Palestinian president that his pact with Hamas, a terrorist organization that seeks Israel’s liquidation, is simply unacceptable.”
Mr. Netanyahu expresses frustration over the Obama administration’s decision to work with the new Palestinian government, which was formed with the consent of the militant group Hamas.
— Mr. Netanyahu, to The Associated Press
The New York Times
Middle East|A History of Obama-Netanyahu Tensions
A History of Obama-Netanyahu Tensions
The State Department’s condemnation
of an Israeli strike on a United Nations school in Gaza on Sunday was just the
latest is a series of clashes between the Obama administration and Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. AUG. 4, 2014
“The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now.”
During a visit to the country by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., Israel’s Interior Ministry announces plans to build 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, a move defying American demands to freeze new settlements.
— Statement by Mr. Biden
NOVEMBER 2010
“I'm concerned that we’re not seeing each side make the extra effort involved to get a breakthrough. Each of these incremental steps can end up breaking trust.”
As the Obama administration works to restart talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, another announcement of new settlement plans comes out of Israel. Mr. Obama expresses concern over the effect of the release on the peace process, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel responds.
— Mr. Obama
“Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.”
— Statement by Mr. Netanyahu’s office
MAY 2011
“Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both houses of Congress.”
Mr. Netanyahu pushes back against President Obama’s endorsement of using Israel’s 1967 boundaries as a starting point for the creation of a Palestinian state. He cites a letter from President George W. Bush saying it would be unrealistic to expect that negotiations would result in 1967 boundaries.
— Statement by Mr. Netanyahu
NOVEMBER 2011
“You are fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you.”
During a Group of 20 summit meeting, several French journalists overhear a private conversation between Mr. Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France about Mr. Netanyahu.
— Mr. Obama
SEPTEMBER 2012
“Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel.”
Mr. Netanyahu issues harsh comments in an apparent response to a statement by then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who said the United States was “not setting deadlines” on Iran’s nuclear program before issuing a military response.
— Mr. Netanyahu
APRIL 2014
“Poof, that was sort of the moment. We find ourselves where we are.”
In testimony before a congressional committee, Secretary of State John Kerry says that while both sides bore responsibility for faltering peace talks, the latest announcement of new settlements by Israel was the key event for the deadlock.
— Mr. Kerry
JUNE 2014
“I think the United States must make it absolutely clear to the Palestinian president that his pact with Hamas, a terrorist organization that seeks Israel’s liquidation, is simply unacceptable.”
Mr. Netanyahu expresses frustration over the Obama administration’s decision to work with the new Palestinian government, which was formed with the consent of the militant group Hamas.
— Mr. Netanyahu, to The Associated Press
The New York Times
- © 2014 The New York Times Company
- Contact Us
- Work With Us
- Advertise
- Your Ad Choices
- Privacy
- Terms of Service
- Terms of Sale
----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Monday, August 4, 2014
Israel - Winning the battle, losing the war - The Economist
http://www.economist.com/news/
HAMAS has ruled Gaza since 2007 and there is not much to admire. The Islamist party is harsh, narrow-minded and intolerant of dissent. Its charter is anti-Semitic. It fires rockets into Israeli territory and builds tunnels under it to kill or kidnap Israeli soldiers. It knows that the Israeli attacks it provokes will kill hundreds of Palestinian civilians, which will garner sympathy around the world. It is also weaker than it was, for it is now losing the military battle against Israel.
By contrast Israel is the most successful state in the Middle East. It is the region’s only true democracy—a hub of invention, enterprise and creativity. Israel has overwhelming firepower in the fight in Gaza. Most of its people are united behind their soldiers and have the firm backing of America’s Congress. Yet, though Israel is winning the battle, it is struggling in the war for world opinion (see article). That matters in part because Israel is a cosmopolitan trading country that looks to its American ally for security, but also because Israel needs to hear some of what its critics are saying.
Anti-Semitism: a very light sleeper
A generation ago, Israel had the best of the argument with Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation, in many ways a less vile outfit than Hamas. Young Europeans spent their gap years on kibbutzim. The Western world cheered when Israeli commandos rescued Jewish hostages from the terminal building in Uganda’s Entebbe airport in 1976.
But as the occupation of Palestinian territory has dragged on, sympathy has seeped away. In a poll published in June, before the destruction of Gaza, the citizens of 23 countries put the balance of those who think Israel is a good or bad influence on the world at minus 26%, ranking it below Russia and above only North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. A growing number of Europeans call Israel racist (with the sinister flourish that Israelis, of all people, should know better). And even in America, where a solid majority backs Israel, the share that thinks its actions against the Palestinians are unjustified has risen since 2002 by five percentage points, to 39%. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, Israel is backed by just a quarter.
Many Israelis, and their most fervent supporters in Congress, see today’s hostility as the culmination of a long process of demonisation, double standards and delegitimisation. They have a point. Holding a country to high standards, as Israel’s critics do, can be a compliment—yet against Israel, morality is often used as a cudgel. The common slur that Israel is an apartheid state ignores the fact that Israel’s minorities, such as the Druze, Arabs and Bahais, are protected by the country’s independent courts—including the highest, which has a sitting Arab Israeli judge. The “BDS” campaign to impose boycotts, encourage divestment and introduce sanctions calls not just for an end to the occupation of the West Bank and for equal rights, but also for the right of return of all Palestinian refugees—in other words, for the erosion of Israel as a Jewish homeland. Protests in France against the fighting in Gaza led to attacks on synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses.
No wonder that many Israelis feel that the world is against them, and believe that criticism of Israel is often a mask for antipathy towards Jews. But they would be wrong to ignore it entirely. That is partly because public opinion matters. For a trading nation built on the idea of liberty, delegitimisation is, in the words of an Israeli think-tank, “a strategic threat”. But it is also because some of the foreign criticism is right.
Please, hear them
That begins with the scale of the violence in Gaza. Some 1,400 Palestinians have died in the past few weeks, compared with 56 Israeli soldiers and four civilians. Even allowing for Hamas’s brutality, no democracy should be happy with a military strategy that results in the death of so many children (let alone the crass claim from Israel’s ambassador to Washington that its soldiers deserve a Nobel peace prize). The destruction is driving support towards Hamas and away from the moderate Palestinians who are Israel’s best chance for peace.
But more than that, Israel needs to hear what its critics say about the need for a two-state solution, which remains the only one that will work. Time is not on Israel’s side. Palestinians may already outnumber Israelis in the lands they share. Without two states, Israelis and Palestinians will be left with one that contains them both. The risk for Israel is of either a permanent, non-democratic occupation that disenfranchises Palestinians, or a democracy in which Jews are in a minority. Neither would be the Jewish homeland with equal rights for all that Israel’s founding fathers intended.
America’s secretary of state, John Kerry, has made a Herculean effort to forge peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians along the lines of two states for two peoples. When the talks broke down, a few months ago, he blamed Israel’s settler lobby. That outraged right-wing Israelis. And now the left has joined in the derision because he proposed a ceasefire in Gaza that Israelis thought favoured Hamas. But Mr Kerry is right. If Israel continues to build settlements in the occupied territory, it will gobble up land that would belong to an independent Palestinian state, making peace harder to reach.
The same goes for what appears to be Israel’s strategy towards both Gaza and the West Bank. Having created a huge open-air prison in Gaza, Israel remains committed to a blockade that contains Hamas—but also ensures that ever more Palestinians grow up angry. On the West Bank, Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has gone backwards: he has said that Israel cannot relinquish security control of the West Bank for fear of Islamist attack. That implies an intention to consolidate the occupation, thus withdrawing all hope from Palestinian moderates. The West Bank would be likely to explode too, then, while the demographic clock ticked on.
For all the blood and misery in Gaza, Mr Netanyahu will soon have a chance to show he has heard the critics. Having won his battle, he could return to the negotiating table, this time with a genuine offer of peace. Every true friend of Israel should press him to do so.
From the print edition: Leaders
Israel - Winning the battle, losing the war
For all its military might, Israel faces a grim future unless it can secure peace
Aug 2nd 2014 | From the print edition
HAMAS has ruled Gaza since 2007 and there is not much to admire. The Islamist party is harsh, narrow-minded and intolerant of dissent. Its charter is anti-Semitic. It fires rockets into Israeli territory and builds tunnels under it to kill or kidnap Israeli soldiers. It knows that the Israeli attacks it provokes will kill hundreds of Palestinian civilians, which will garner sympathy around the world. It is also weaker than it was, for it is now losing the military battle against Israel.
By contrast Israel is the most successful state in the Middle East. It is the region’s only true democracy—a hub of invention, enterprise and creativity. Israel has overwhelming firepower in the fight in Gaza. Most of its people are united behind their soldiers and have the firm backing of America’s Congress. Yet, though Israel is winning the battle, it is struggling in the war for world opinion (see article). That matters in part because Israel is a cosmopolitan trading country that looks to its American ally for security, but also because Israel needs to hear some of what its critics are saying.
In this section
- Winning the battle, losing the war
- An unloved billionaire
- Eighth time unlucky
- Stuffed
- Fundamental fears
Anti-Semitism: a very light sleeper
A generation ago, Israel had the best of the argument with Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation, in many ways a less vile outfit than Hamas. Young Europeans spent their gap years on kibbutzim. The Western world cheered when Israeli commandos rescued Jewish hostages from the terminal building in Uganda’s Entebbe airport in 1976.
But as the occupation of Palestinian territory has dragged on, sympathy has seeped away. In a poll published in June, before the destruction of Gaza, the citizens of 23 countries put the balance of those who think Israel is a good or bad influence on the world at minus 26%, ranking it below Russia and above only North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. A growing number of Europeans call Israel racist (with the sinister flourish that Israelis, of all people, should know better). And even in America, where a solid majority backs Israel, the share that thinks its actions against the Palestinians are unjustified has risen since 2002 by five percentage points, to 39%. Among 18- to 29-year-olds, Israel is backed by just a quarter.
Many Israelis, and their most fervent supporters in Congress, see today’s hostility as the culmination of a long process of demonisation, double standards and delegitimisation. They have a point. Holding a country to high standards, as Israel’s critics do, can be a compliment—yet against Israel, morality is often used as a cudgel. The common slur that Israel is an apartheid state ignores the fact that Israel’s minorities, such as the Druze, Arabs and Bahais, are protected by the country’s independent courts—including the highest, which has a sitting Arab Israeli judge. The “BDS” campaign to impose boycotts, encourage divestment and introduce sanctions calls not just for an end to the occupation of the West Bank and for equal rights, but also for the right of return of all Palestinian refugees—in other words, for the erosion of Israel as a Jewish homeland. Protests in France against the fighting in Gaza led to attacks on synagogues and Jewish-owned businesses.
No wonder that many Israelis feel that the world is against them, and believe that criticism of Israel is often a mask for antipathy towards Jews. But they would be wrong to ignore it entirely. That is partly because public opinion matters. For a trading nation built on the idea of liberty, delegitimisation is, in the words of an Israeli think-tank, “a strategic threat”. But it is also because some of the foreign criticism is right.
Please, hear them
That begins with the scale of the violence in Gaza. Some 1,400 Palestinians have died in the past few weeks, compared with 56 Israeli soldiers and four civilians. Even allowing for Hamas’s brutality, no democracy should be happy with a military strategy that results in the death of so many children (let alone the crass claim from Israel’s ambassador to Washington that its soldiers deserve a Nobel peace prize). The destruction is driving support towards Hamas and away from the moderate Palestinians who are Israel’s best chance for peace.
But more than that, Israel needs to hear what its critics say about the need for a two-state solution, which remains the only one that will work. Time is not on Israel’s side. Palestinians may already outnumber Israelis in the lands they share. Without two states, Israelis and Palestinians will be left with one that contains them both. The risk for Israel is of either a permanent, non-democratic occupation that disenfranchises Palestinians, or a democracy in which Jews are in a minority. Neither would be the Jewish homeland with equal rights for all that Israel’s founding fathers intended.
America’s secretary of state, John Kerry, has made a Herculean effort to forge peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians along the lines of two states for two peoples. When the talks broke down, a few months ago, he blamed Israel’s settler lobby. That outraged right-wing Israelis. And now the left has joined in the derision because he proposed a ceasefire in Gaza that Israelis thought favoured Hamas. But Mr Kerry is right. If Israel continues to build settlements in the occupied territory, it will gobble up land that would belong to an independent Palestinian state, making peace harder to reach.
The same goes for what appears to be Israel’s strategy towards both Gaza and the West Bank. Having created a huge open-air prison in Gaza, Israel remains committed to a blockade that contains Hamas—but also ensures that ever more Palestinians grow up angry. On the West Bank, Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has gone backwards: he has said that Israel cannot relinquish security control of the West Bank for fear of Islamist attack. That implies an intention to consolidate the occupation, thus withdrawing all hope from Palestinian moderates. The West Bank would be likely to explode too, then, while the demographic clock ticked on.
For all the blood and misery in Gaza, Mr Netanyahu will soon have a chance to show he has heard the critics. Having won his battle, he could return to the negotiating table, this time with a genuine offer of peace. Every true friend of Israel should press him to do so.
From the print edition: Leaders
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)