web analytics
December 9, 2016 / 9 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘hands’

Amona Residents to Netanyahu: Our Fate Is in your Hands

Tuesday, November 15th, 2016

An emergency meeting of the Amona community residents following the Supreme Court’s ruling rejecting government’s petition to postpone the Dec. 25 demolition, called on Prime Minister Netanyahu to save the day. Avihay Boaron, Chairman of the community’s struggle committee, delivered a direct message to Prime Minister Netanyahu, saying, “If, God forbid, you will not manage an arrangement of the homes of Amona’s residents and the lives of our children, we will stand as a fortified wall together with thousands who will arrive here from across the country on that day, when we move to a tent city we will erect in the coming days, to do all we can so that Amona will not fall a second time.”

Avihay Boaron, an attorney, told Netanyahu, whose Likud party received an estimated 4 to 5 out of its 30 Knesset seats from Judea and Samaria voters: “You are the commander-in-chief and you will decide the fate of Amona. We heard you saying today that you are attentive to our distress. We’re not looking for sympathy, we demand action, not talk. The only way to take care of us is to let us stay home.” He added: “The responsibility rests with you and your government ministers.”

Tamar Nizri, one of the founders of Amona, told the Prime Minister: “You once said that you are the captain of our ship. You are the captain of our state and we believe in you, and we need you to navigate us. We need you to help us stay here and go on preparing dinner for our children and raise them and rejoice with them and go on living in this community.”

“We came here 18 years ago, a young couple with a baby girl,” Nizri continued. “She just got married a month and a half ago and lives with her husband here, in Amona… I’m telling you as one of the mothers here, we want to keep raising our children, get them married, watch our grandchildren here, climbing the trees that are yet to grow, and it’s in your hands.”

Nizri then called on Netanyahu to support the Arrangements Act, to permit her and her family to stay in their community, and “be a leader who creates a new reality.”

JNi.Media

Israeli Ambassador Tells TV’s Posner Russian Weapons Could Fall into Hezbollah’s Hands

Tuesday, November 8th, 2016

Israel has no intention to interfere in the Syrian crisis, but it is concerned over the possibility of weapons falling into the hands of the Shi’ite terrorist militia Hezbollah, Israeli Ambassador to Russia Zvi Heifetz told the Pozner program on Russian TV’s Channel 1 on Monday.

Members of Hezbollah are fighting on the side of the Syrian government forces against the Western-backed rebels and ISIS.

Vladimir Pozner, who was born in Paris to a Russian Jewish father and a French Catholic mother, was the host for many years during the Cold War of the nightly “Radio Moscow News and Commentary” show on the North America Service, and was renowned for his signature greeting, “Thank you and good evening.” Since 2010 he’s been hosting the interview show “Pozner” on Russia’s Channel 1. He has a lively and unconstrained style of hosting, often firing poignant off-the-cuff remarks at his guests. He often comments on how the political or economic topics being discussed on his show could affect the common people in Russia.

“Israel has a principle: we do not interfere in regional crises, including in what is taking place in Syria,” the ambassador said, but added his government has two issues of concern regarding the situation in Syria:

“The first issue is the possibility of weapons leaks into the hands of Hezbollah through Syria or through Iran. We’re also concerned over the presence of Hezbollah on the Golan Heights. Just imagine, if both Russia and the Western countries leave Syria one day — we’ll stay there. Everyone else will leave and we’ll stay and it is very important for us to know how we’ll stay and who our new neighbors will be,” Heifetz said.

Regarding the legitimacy of Syrian President Bashar Assad, Ambassador Heifetz said, “Assad is the president of Syria. We have known this for many years. If you mean whom we support, I’ll answer directly: we do not support anyone in Syria. Syria must solve its issues and we must solve ours.”

Hezbollah (Party of God in Arabic) has been fighting on the side of the Syrian army since 2012.

JNi.Media

Obama Shouldn’t Tie his Successor’s Hands on Israel-Palestine

Sunday, October 30th, 2016

AS THE ELECTION draws closer, the Obama administration is sending strong signals that it may make a major push to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the United Nations. Despite repeated attempts to jump-start the peace process — most notably, by Secretary of State John Kerry in 2014 — and despite repeated invitations by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to President Mahmoud Abbas to meet without preconditions, the stalemate persists. Some blame it on Palestinian unwillingness to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and to compromise to the so-called “right of return.” Others — including the current US administration — lay the blame largely at the feet of the Netanyahu government, for continuing to build in the West Bank, most recently with the approval of 98 to 300 new homes in Shiloh. Whatever the reasons — and they are complex and multifaceted — President Obama should resist any temptation to change longstanding American policy — that only direct negotiations between the parties will achieve a lasting peace — during his final weeks in office.

In particular, Obama should veto an expected French resolution in the United Nations Security Council establishing an international peace conference under the auspices of the UN. The general parameters of the French resolution, as currently drafted, would likely call for:

“Borders based on the 1967 Lines with agreed equivalent land swaps; security arrangements preserving the sovereignty of the Palestinian State and guaranteeing the security of Israel; a fair, equitable, and negotiated solution to the refugee problem; an arrangement making Jerusalem the capital of both states.”

These guidelines may sound reasonable. Indeed, they are strikingly similar to the offers made to, and rejected by, the Palestinian leadership, in 2000-2001, from former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former US President Bill Clinton and, in 2008, by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The UN, however, has disqualified itself from playing any constructive role in the peace process. Recent attempts by the UN to intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have produced unmitigated disasters. The Goldstone Report — which sought to investigate allegations of war crimes committed during the 2009 Israeli intervention in Gaza — was so blatantly biased against Israel that Richard Goldstone, who chaired the investigation, himself had to retract some of its key findings, in 2011.
Get Todays Headlines in your inbox:

Since then, the UN has done nothing to reassure Israel that the organization is capable of offering an unbiased forum for negotiations. In the past year alone, the UN has singled out Israel for special criticism on issues like health rights and, most laughably, women’s rights, while failing even to mention regimes whose record on these issues is truly abominable. Last year alone, at least 20 separate resolutions were adopted by the UN General Assembly, which singled out Israel for special criticism. In light of such behavior, the United States should not trust that Israel would receive a fair hearing at any UN-sponsored peace conference.

As Netanyahu said in his most recent speech to the General Assembly, “The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York.” In other words, the only way forward for the Israeli-Palestinian peace process is bilateral negotiations between the two parties. Netanyahu and Abbas must sit down and agree to necessary but painful compromises aimed at establishing a Palestinian state while addressing Israel’s security concerns and the realities on the ground. Resolutions like the proposed French resolution undermine such efforts by encouraging the Palestinians to believe that direct negotiations — and the mutual sacrifices they would entail — are unnecessary, and that a Palestinian state can be achieved on the basis of UN resolutions alone. It would also make it more difficult, if not impossible, for the Palestinian Authority to accept anything less than that already given them by the UN — which would in turn guarantee the failure of any realistic negotiations.

It is for these and other reasons that American policy has long been to veto or otherwise derail UN attempts to interfere with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process even when it is stalled. As Obama said in 2013:

“We seek an independent, viable, and contiguous Palestinian state as the homeland of the Palestinian people. The only way to achieve that goal is through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians themselves.”

Hillary Clinton, too, has stated that she supports bilateral negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, and her campaign has said that she “believes that a solution to this conflict cannot be imposed from without.”

Recently, however, several past and present Obama officials have apparently advised the president to support, or at least not veto, the French resolution, as well as a one-sided Palestinian push to have the UN declare Israeli settlements illegal. It would be wrong for Obama to unilaterally reverse decades of US foreign policy during the lame-duck period. After all, in 2011 his administration vetoed an almost identical Palestinian proposal that called for Israel to “immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.” Similarly, until now, Obama has repeatedly pressured the French and other European nations not to put forward any proposal related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the grounds that such initiatives discourage bilateral negotiations. This is surely the view of the majority of the Senate — which has its own constitutional authority to participate in foreign policy decisions. In fact, 88 senators signed an open letter to Obama in which they called on the president to veto any Security Council resolutions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Obama must realize that no lasting peace can be achieved in the remaining months of his presidency. There are a multitude of complex and contentious issues — most notably, the status of Jerusalem, the rights of so-called Palestinian refugees, and the situation in Gaza — that must be thoroughly addressed in order to achieve a lasting peace. Our next president will undoubtedly have to wade into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process again. The new administration — with the agreement of the Senate — should have full latitude to do what it deems most appropriate. It should not be stuck with parameters bequeathed to it by a president desperate to secure a short-term foreign policy “victory” that in the long term will make a resolution of the conflict more difficult to achieve.

If Obama feels that he must intrude in an effort to break the logjam before he leaves office, he should suggest that the current Israeli government offer proposals similar to those offered in 2000-2001 and 2008, and that this time the Palestinian leadership should accept them in face-to-face negotiations. But he should take no action (or inaction) that invites UN involvement in the peace process — involvement that would guarantee failure for any future president’s efforts to encourage a negotiated peace.

We should hear the views of both candidates on whether the United States should support or veto a Security Council Resolution that would tie their hands were they to be elected president.

 

Alan M. Dershowitz

Claim: Administration Secretly Transferred $1.7 Billion To Iran To Keep It Out Of Terror Victims’ Hands

Wednesday, September 14th, 2016

Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center – which represents American families of terror victims who have won U.S. court judgments against Iran for its support of terrorist attacks in Israel – alleged this week that the Obama administration kept secret the details of large cash payments made to Tehran in order to evade efforts by its clients to recover those funds to satisfy outstanding court awards.

A letter to Congress from attorneys Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Tel Aviv and Robert Tolchin of New York recalled that President Obama on January 17 announced the settlement of a legal dispute between the United States and Iran over $400 million held by the U.S. in a Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program account since 1979.

The administration agreed to pay the $400 million it conceded it owed Iran, plus payment of an additional $1.3 million in interest on that amount.

In recent weeks, the $1.7 billion, which was secretly paid out in cash, has come under scrutiny because the timing and circumstances of the payments appeared to confirm the Iranian claim that the White House agreed to pay the money as ransom to Tehran for the release of American hostages.

However, in light of revelations during a Sept. 8 Congressional subcommittee hearing, Shurat HaDin is asserting “it is now clear the administration has deliberately kept numerous payments to Iran secret in order to shield Iran from having to forfeit those funds to pay terror victims amounts Iran owes under outstanding U.S. judgments.”

Shurat HaDin says that under legislation passed in 2000, the U.S. was legally entitled to apply the $400 million in the FSM account to satisfy terror victims’ judgments, eliminating the $400 million balance and nearly 16 years of interest claimed by Iran.

The Shurat HaDin letter cites the “suspicious revelation” at the Congressional subcommittee hearing that the United States and Iran did not draft a written settlement agreement or any other formal documentation of the cash transfers, and that “Iran specifically directed the Iran-U.S. Tribunal at The Hague, where the claim was to be resolved through arbitration, that it not record the settlement of the claim for the parties.”

Shurat HaDin’s Darshan-Leitner said in a statement: “We believe that the secrecy in which these cash payments were made was part of an effort by the White House to conceal these payments from the terror victims and to hide the fact that it was effectively canceling Iran’s debt for its terror-related activity. This is a horrible fraud against the terror victims.

“It appears the secret cash transfers were specifically done as an end-run around the ability of the families to attach the money and enforce their federal court judgments. Instead, the administration went to great lengths to ensure that the $1.7 billion payment was shrouded in secrecy, never reduced to writing nor even recorded with The Hague, and was paid to Iran in cash as quickly and directly as possible.”

Shurat HaDin urged Congress “to take action to guarantee that further payments to Iran are not made as long as Tehran remains a state sponsor of terrorism and a threat to its neighbors “and until it has paid every judgment it owes to American victims of terror.”

 

(JNi.Media, Jewish Press staff)

Combined News Services

“With These Hands” – Nefesh B’Nefesh 2016 Yom Ha’atzmaut Video

Tuesday, May 10th, 2016

Presented in celebration of Yom Ha’atzmaut 2016, Israel’s 68th Independence Day, “With these Hands” features veteran Israelis and new arrivals, from war hero to farmer, teacher to midwife, each building Israel in their own way.

Video of the Day

Spain’s New ‘Fornicators’

Tuesday, August 20th, 2013

Originally published at the Gatestone Institute.

Public prosecutors in Spain have dropped charges of “advocating gender violence” against a Muslim cleric who, on April 2013, preached a two-hour sermon in Spanish, entitled “The Queens of Islam,” during which he made a number of pronouncements about the role of women in Spanish society, including: “Any woman who wears perfume and leaves the house and walks past men who can smell her perfume is a fornicator, and every glance she gets is a fornication.”

The case involves Malik Ibn Benaisa, a Muslim imam based in Ceuta, a Spanish exclave in North Africa where Muslims constitute about 50% of the total population.

Benaisa also said that women should be banned from wearing blue jeans and high heels and from leaving the house unless their hands and face are completely covered.

The comments, which were aired on Spanish public television, enraged women’s rights activists and triggered a nationwide debate over when religious speech becomes abusive and crosses the line into “sexual discrimination” and “gender violence.”

After Benaisa’s sermon was re-broadcast on Spanish public television for a second time during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan in July, the Secretary for Gender Equality for the Spanish Socialist Party in Ceuta, Sandra López Cantero, accused Benaisa of being an “advocate for gender violence” and called on public prosecutors to investigate the imam for violating the Spanish Penal Code.

During a press conference on July 23, Cantero recited quotes from Benaisa’s sermon: “A women cannot show her face or bare hands, she cannot wear high heeled shoes, she cannot wear blue jeans, she must wear a scarf to cover her chest, she cannot pluck her eyebrows and she cannot wear perfume because if she uses it she becomes a fornicator. A woman must keep her head down because a jealous husband can cause problems with other men. A woman should be in total submission to her husband. She has an obligation to wear the veil.”

Cantero added: “We will not allow anyone to hide behind any religion or any culture in order to advocate violence. The Socialist Party will not allow any attack on the dignity of women, wherever it may come from. We will not allow the advocacy of violence, especially in a public medium.”

For his part, the President of the center-right Government of Ceuta, Juan Jesús Vivas, said in a statement that he “manifests his defense of the unequivocal values ​​enshrined in the Spanish Constitution, and in particular, those relating to non-discrimination and equality between men and women.”

Vivas added: “The Government of Ceuta believes that all should endeavor, each within the scope of their responsibilities, to reconcile respect for all faiths with the supremacy of democratic values ​​that are the pillars of our social order and of coexistence.”

Amid considerable media controversy across Spain, Benaisa organized a press conference at the Ibn Rochd Benzúa mosque in Ceuta to defend himself. Surrounded by some 150 Muslim female supporters, Benaisa said he lamented the “de-contextualization” of his statements, which he said were aimed exclusively at “Muslim women” in accordance with “the teachings of the Prophet and the Koran.”

According to Benaisa, “My message has always been to advise and not to impose, as this is not part of Islam, because in the Koran Allah makes it clear that there is no compulsion in religion.”

Benaisa also said that the term “fornicating” was not offensive in tone and that its essence was applicable to both men and women, “who when preening themselves excessively before going out are seeking to be unfaithful to their partners and to Allah.”

Spanish public prosecutors have decided to give Benaisa the benefit of the doubt. After analyzing Benaisa’s sermon, the district attorney concluded that the imam had not broken any laws.

In a statement dated August 7, the Ceuta District Attorney said that labelling women as fornicators is not a crime: “In relation to domestic violence, the law refers to concrete action in the form of threats, injuries, coercion or abuse, while the sexual or religious discrimination section of Article 510 of the Penal Code refers to encouraging discrimination, hatred or violence. This did not occur at the conference in question.”

Soeren Kern

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/spains-new-fornicators/2013/08/20/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: