ISRAEL AND JEWISH WORLD NEWS

GET CONNECTED TO THE JEWISH WORLD: Links to World Jewish Organizations, Communities, Services. Businesses, Arts, Synagogues, People, Help lines & Israel Officials, Cabinet, Government, embassies and consulates and much more...in the NEW YORK JEWISH HERALD  http://www.newyorkjewishherald.com

______________________________________________________________________________

Clarification Regarding TV Pool for Amona

IDF SPOKESPERSON UPDATE. As previously stated, due to space constraints, it has been decided that the FPA in coordination with the IDF will set up a joint APTN and Reuters TV media pool in Amona for TV crews wishing to receive live filmed footage of  the evacuation. Press wishing to receive the footage should contact either Tzion from APTN or Reuters TV. Additional TV crews and any reporter or stills photographer wishing to enter the evacuation area by foot will be free to do so. It should be noted that there is a walking distance of approximately 1 mile to Amona. Please take this into consideration when preparing your equipment.
 

DM Mofaz wants large retreat in wake of Hamas victory
By Amos Harel 

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz says Hamas' election victory gives Israel an incentive to decide in favor of a unilateral withdrawal from the West Bank. He believes such a decision will be made within a year. Mofaz thinks the diplomatic picture will become clear by the end of the year. If it seems certain that there is no Palestinian negotiating partner, then Israel will have to set new, defensible borders for itself.
These positions, which have not been made public, bring Mofaz closer to the line taken by Kadima, his party. In his speech last Tuesday at the Herzliya Conference, the day before the Palestinian elections, Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert avoided talking explicitly about another withdrawal in the West Bank. "We would prefer an agreement," Olmert said. "If our expected partners in the negotiations under the road map do not uphold their commitments, we will preserve Israeli interests in every way." Mofaz believes that with Hamas leading the Palestinian Authority, it will be impossible to return to the road map. Israel will have to forge an alternative route based on a broad national consensus of the need to ensure Israel's Jewish and democratic nature, with a significant Jewish majority. It will include a new map, based on a united Jerusalem; reinforcing the settlement blocs and retaining the Jordan Valley; and territorial concessions (giving up isolated settlements) in order to maintain the demographic advantage. Mofaz believes that such arrangements will be easier for Israel, will garner international support and serve as a better base for eventually renewing negotiations. Still, Mofaz is wary of calling these measures a unilateral withdrawal, instead terming them a "move of national consensus." Mofaz has in recent days voiced objections to the idea, supported by Olmert, of freezing Israel's payments to the PA. Aides to the defense minister say that without the funds, the PA will face collapse. Part of the PA's current economic crisis has been attributed to Fatah's election economics during the campaign period, including a near-50 percent salary hike for government employees. In general, Mofaz believes that Israel must take a step-by-step approach with the new PA government. He views the coming months as a transition period in which Israeli-Palestinian relations will be reshaped in light of the expected formation of a Hamas government. Mofaz think that Hamas will seek to appoint as ministers people who are not directly associated with the organization in order to reduce international pressure on the PA and to maintain a line of communication with Israel. Mofaz brushes off criticism of the intelligence services for failing to predict Hamas' victory. Like MK Yuval Steinitz (Likud), chairman of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Mofaz thinks the Shin Bet
came closest to successfully forecasting the election results.

Acting PM Olmert's Remarks Following His Meeting With German Chancellor Merkel
(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser). Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert met yesterday evening  with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and made the following remarks: "We are very pleased to host you on your first visit to the State of Israel as Chancellor and we are especially pleased that you have come to visit.  We are one of the first countries that you are visiting in the context of your new position as German Chancellor. We are marking 40 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel and Germany (http://tinyurl.com/ccwnp).  We are united in our deep obligation to continue cultivating bilateral relations in the diplomatic, security, economic and social spheres. Israel and Germany are important trade partners and the scope of bilateral this year and last year is $4.3 billion.  Germany is Israel's second biggest trading partner. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the very important cooperation and the considerable assistance that Germany has provided Israel regarding our POWs and MIAs, especially Ron Arad. I would like to thank you for your deep commitment to the struggle against international terrorism and for the steps you are taking to make it more difficult for and/or prevent terrorist organizations from receiving financing via charitable organizations, the European activities of which you are blocking. We held a very important conversation on several issue on both our agenda and that of the international community.  I would like to point out with great satisfaction that regarding the recent regrettable developments in the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the wake of Hamas's victory in the elections, we have reached a clear understanding about the principles that must guide the international community regarding the future of the PA.  Both you and I, both Germany and Israel, believe that there can be no acceptance of terrorism and no negotiations with terrorist groups, nor with a government that is composed in this or that fashion of groups that engage in terrorism and which are not prepared to recognize the existence of the State of Israel.  I very much appreciate this joint stand which is shared by us, Europe and the US. I would like to not with great satisfaction the commitment that Germany has shown to the struggle against anti-Semitism.  Such phenomena have found increasing expression in Europe in recent years.  We cannot be indifferent.  I note with satisfaction the commitment of Germany and of your government to the forceful and unreserved struggle against such phenomena. I would like to express the condolences of the State and Government of Israel to Germany on the passing of former President Johannes Rau (http://tinyurl.com/dbfh3), who was a great leader, and a great friend of Israel and of the city of Jerusalem.  We share in the sorrow of the German people over the death of the former President. Finally, we also discussed the Iranian issue which is very much disturbing both us and the international community.  I thank you for Germany's efforts in struggling against the Iranian nuclear danger.  We are dealing with this issue and will continue to do so and I believe that we will continue working together in order to remove this danger from our agenda and that of the entire international community. And again, thank you for your visit and for your friendship with Israel."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel made the following remarks: "I thank you for the reception and on my behalf and that of the German people, I would like to say that we are thinking of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and wish a quick recovery and all the best. I have come here on my first visit, a get-acquainted visit, because I wanted to emphasize how important the state of Israel is to me. We discussed the establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel and\ are now marking 40 years of such relations and I wanted to say that due to our past, in wake of the Holocaust and the Nazi Party, relations between Germany and Israel will always be very special and we also want to develop future relations so that the new generation will be able to benefit from relations in the diplomatic, scientific, cultural and other spheres.  We want the younger generation to benefit from this as well. We discussed the current situation, the PA elections and Hamas's victory.  Cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians - as it has been made clear - will be possible only if they meet three conditions: The renunciation of terrorism and violence, recognizing Israel's existence and right to exist, and accepting all of the existing Israeli-Palestinian agreements.  This is Germany's position and we will also make it clear to the European Union and I believe that we will receive its assent on this issue as well. We discussed the situation in Iran and the threat to Israel in the wake of Iran's armament efforts and we said that this is not only a threat to Israel but to the entire democratic world.  Iran is now crossing a red line and Germany finds to be unacceptable the Iranian President's remarks regarding the distortion of history and we cannot countenance this.  We will work to expand the refusal to accept Iran's position and we will create a broad base that will refute this position. Thank you, we also have many future projects that we will be able to consult about."

In response to a question about the transfer of funds to the PA, Acting Prime Minister Olmert replied: "I have no intention whatsoever of allowing the transfer of funds that will be used for terrorism.  We will not lend a hand to this.  We are not prepared - under any circumstances - to see funds transferred by the Israeli Government come under the eventual control of murderers who are interested in attacking Israeli citizens.  At this stage, we are studying the situation and checking on developments, and we are, of course, very sensitive to Abu Mazen's authority and position, but in the circumstances that have been created we have to be cautious."

In response to a question on future Israeli-German relations, Acting Prime Minister Olmert replied: "There will never be normalization in relations between Israel and Germany.  Neither we nor the Germans can expect the existence of normal relations as with other countries.  Our bilateral relations will always be intertwined with memories that will never be erased from the heart of any Jew and, I believe, from the heart of any German.  The substantive question is whether we are able to build on the basis of this memory a relationship that will give hope both to us and to Germany that such things will never happen again.  I would like to add that there is a generation of Germans that is leading Germany today and Chancellor Merkel is certainly its outstanding representative.  They are committed to the same values that we are. They understand the depth, scope and significance of the struggle of the State of Israel and the Jewish People to build a better future for ourselves in this land.  This basis of understanding assures that future bilateral relations will embody cooperation, mutual assistance, a broad economic partnership and the development of cultural relations, based on these values, principles and memories."



Exchange of Correspondence with US State Dept. regarding their "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices"

SUMMARY: The following correspondence between NGO Monitor and the US State Department took place regarding the publication of the State Department's "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices," and in particular the section on "Israel and the Occupied Territories."

      Dr. Paula Dobriansky
      Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs
      U.S. Department of State

      Dear Dr. Dobriansky,

As the editor of NGO Monitor, I am writing to you regarding the use of claims by various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the State Department's "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices," and in particular for the section on "Israel and the Occupied Territories." Given the impact of this report, it is important that it is credible, accurate and impartial. In this regard, reliance on NGOs as sources of information and analysis regarding human rights practices in the context of conflicts involving terrorism and warfare is highly problematic. Previous years' reports have included extensive quotes from NGOs that display a consistent anti-Israel political bias (in sharp contrast with the norms of universal human rights), publish claims that lack credibility, and ignore the complexities of human rights requirements in the context of mass terror. These highly politicized NGOs include the Union of Palestinian Medical Relief Committees (UPMRC), the Public Committee against Torture in Israel (PCATI), Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I), B'tselem, Adalah, Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT), Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch. Many are active participants in incitement and the "Durban" strategy of demonizing Israel through false allegations of human rights abuses and selective citations of international law.  Detailed NGO Monitor reports have shown that these NGOs consistently promote this political agenda at the expense of accurate analysis. In contrast to the text of the 2004 report on "Israel and the Occupied Territories," many of these groups cannot be considered to be "reputable international organizations" and "credible NGOs." And citing their publications as fact leads to serious inaccuracies, while simultaneously giving credence to their often distorted reports and political "campaigns", including efforts to impose academic boycotts, and divestment. Thus, the reports by "human rights groups" regarding the "alleged abuse of preventative or administrative detention orders," and their claims "that Israeli closures impeded and, at times, completely prevented their work" must be examined in detail. NGO Monitor's analyses shows that these NGOs and their claims, as cited in the 2004 report, lack credibility and reflect a strongly biased political agenda that exploits universal human rights norms in an unacceptable manner. The absence of credibility: Most of the NGOs cited in the 2004 report do not have an independent research capability, are unable or unwilling to document allegations for verification, accept and rely heavily on politically motivated claims and anecdotal information, and selectively discriminate between sources based not on credibility but on political agendas. As the former head of Amnesty International's branch in Israel has
revealed, this NGO does not have the independent research capacity to support numerous claims of human rights violations. (Michael Ehrlich, "Amnesty International do your homework" The Jerusalem Post, June 2, 2005) Similarly, Alan Dershowitz sought to verify allegations in Amnesty's reports: "On Aug. 23, 2005, I spoke with Donatella Rovera, who is AI's researcher on Israel and the Occupied Territories and asked her to provide the data on which she had based her conclusion that violence against women had escalated to an 'unprecedented level' during the occupation, and especially during its most militarized phase. Rovera confirmed that the report was based on anecdotal information, primarily from Palestinian NGOs. 'We talk to anyone who would talk to us,' she said. When I asked her for a list of the NGO's that were the sources of the information, she refused to provide them because 'there are things we can simply not provide to outsiders.' It is impossible under these circumstances for any outside researcher to replicate AI's study and to confirm or disconfirm its conclusions." (Alan M. Dershowitz, "Scapegoat to the World," National Post, September 17, 2005)

The lack of credibility for NGO claims is also visible in the reports issued by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and B'tselem, including those quoted directly in the State Department's 2004 country report on "Israel and the Occupied Territories". B'tselem's claims regarding Palestinian casualties and other issues related to the conflict, as cited in this report, cannot be verified independently, and are generally based on Palestinian sources. Similarly, HRW's report "Razing Rafah," is the source for the claim that
"the IDF actions destroyed over 50 percent of Rafah's roads and elements of its water, sewage, and electrical systems." As the text of the report itself clearly shows, these allegations are based on a combination of Palestinian "eye-witnesses" and sympathetic journalists, and they lack credibility. In assessing the HRW report, a senior IDF officer (Brigadier General Michael Herzog) has noted: "When reporting on dead Palestinians throughout the Rafah report, HRW provides statistics showing that in each individual confrontation Israelis killed more civilians than armed people. How exactly do they know? In fact, Israeli statistics in all of these cases show quite the opposite. So how did they choose between the conflicting versions? Also, how exactly did they count houses in Rafah- how exactly did they distinguish between inhabited and uninhabited houses/tin huts/shacks? I recall, for example, that on the eve of the Israeli military incursion into Rafah in May 2004 when it was clear to the local population that the Israelis were coming, we noticed that some of them were taking off the roofs of their homes (mostly huts). Our information indicated that this was done so as to be able to claim that their homes were damaged by the Israelis and demand compensation from international relief bodies (such as UNRWA)."  In addition, HRW's criticism of IDF efforts to detect tunnels used by Palestinian terrorists to smuggle weapons into Rafah, cites unqualified "experts", including a low level sales clerk. In contrast to HRW's claim to have relied on military experts, the emphasis on this report is political, including the claim that "Rafah residents believe that the IDF's tunnel-hunting missions, which account for most of the 1,600 homes destroyed in the camp, are a pretext to punish Rafah as a whole and undermine support for the resistance". (p. 36) This is a biased and blatant political statement, and contradicts HRW's claim to reflect a professional impartial assessment. These examples are only a few of the numerous cases in which NGOs active in the Arab-Israeli conflict zone publish distorted and misleading allegations. Repetition of these claims without independent verification further distorts the record, and undermines the credibility of the State Department's country report. Political Biases and the Removal of the Context of Terrorism: The impact of low credibility and the absence of independent research among NGOs is compounded by the overt bias in their agendas and priorities, which is counter to the core principle of universality in human rights. For example, the claims of many NGOs cited in the State Department's 2004 country report on "Israel and the Occupied Territories" consistently strip the context of Palestinian terrorism and the obligation of the Israeli government to provide security to its citizens. NGO Monitor's detailed examination of the reports issued by HRW on the Middle East during the period between 2000 and 2004 clearly demonstrate the disproportionate emphasis on condemnation of Israel for responses to terrorism. These political NGOs consistently under report or simply ignore the basic abuses of Israeli human rights.  Commenting on HRW's reports, Brigadier General Michael Herzog notes "I have not noticed HRW refer to the terrible phenomenon of Palestinians in Gaza and Rafah, holding on to body organs of Israeli soldiers in order to barter with them, refusing to return them, and even displaying them in public. In one case, we were horrified to watch a picture of Palestinians play soccer with the head of an Israeli soldier. Where is all of this in HRW reports?" Thus, reliance on NGOs with strong political agendas for information and analysis automatically repeats their political bias and selective agendas, while removing the vital context of responses to terror. The frequent references and quotes from an organization known as Physicians for Human Rights-Israel (PHR-I) provides a case in point. In the report for 2004, PHR-I is cited in reference to its petitions to the Israeli courts regarding allegations of "systematic abuse of prisoners," its claims to have been "denied access to Gaza for 3 years," and in other areas. However, as NGO Monitor's detailed analysis of this NGO have demonstrated, PHR-I is primarily a political organization that opposes Israeli government policies, and uses the language of human rights to pursue this objective. As a result, the Israeli Medical Association has ended cooperation with this organization. (PHR-I is an independent NGO, and not a branch of the U.S.-based Physicians for Human Rights.) By repeating the
claims of PHR-I without independent assessment, the U.S. State Department is providing credence to the unverified claims, and indirectly endorsing this political agenda. Similarly, the report for 2004 repeats numerous allegations provided by pro-Palestinian political activists such as CPT and Adalah. These pro-Palestinian political organizations consistently strip away the context of Palestinian violence, terror, and the background of the conflict from their reports. The credibility of claims such as "security forces assaulted residents of Beineh in their homes and caused widespread property damage during the demolitions," is therefore highly questionable. In the context of a terror campaign in which over 1000 Israelis have been murdered in bus bombings, café attacks, and numerous other assaults, the legitimacy of counter-terror actions cannot be assessed in a vacuum. The State Department is clearly aware of the problems involved in relying on NGOs for evidence of human rights violations, as the 2004 report mentions that "Public criticism [of the PA] from [NGOs] has been somewhat less forthcoming since the outbreak of the Intifada, with several NGOs voluntarily deciding to defer criticism of the PA's human rights performance. Observers noted that documentation of abuses was very limited." This being the case, we strongly urge the State Department to refrain from repeating unverified allegations of politicized NGOs in the 2005 report. Sincerely, Professor Gerald Steinberg
 

ISRAEL AND JEWISH WORLD NEWS

GET CONNECTED TO THE JEWISH WORLD: Links to World Jewish Organizations, Communities, Services. Businesses, Arts, Synagogues, People, Help lines & Israel Officials, Cabinet, Government, embassies and consulates and much more...in the NEW YORK JEWISH HERALD  http://www.newyorkjewishherald.com

Statement From the Prime Minister's Bureau [PA elections]

(Communicated by the Prime Minister's Media Adviser). Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert this evening , held a security discussion in the wake of the results of the Palestinian Authority (PA) elections.  Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Public Security Minister Gideon Ezra, Minister Tzahi Hanegbi, IDF Chief-of-Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz, ISA Director Yuval Diskin and other senior officials attended the discussion. The following statement was released: "Today, it became known that the PA elections have resulted in a victory for Hamas.  There is no doubt that - from Israel's point-of-view - a new situation has been created. In the Roadmap, the PA committed itself to dismantling all of the terrorist organizations operating in its area.  Israel has upheld the Roadmap and has demanded - and continues to demand - that PA Chairman Abu Mazen implement the obligation to dismantle the terrorist organizations and their infrastructures. Approximately one year ago, the PA decided to hold elections for its Legislative Council and to enable the main terrorist organization - Hamas - to take part in these elections.  At the same time, the PA and its Chairman made a commitment - both to us and to the international community - that a condition for Hamas's participation in these elections was that upon their conclusion the PA would work to disarm Hamas and turn it from a terrorist organization into a political organization, in accordance with its requirements under the Roadmap. The international community agreed to reverse the order and allow the PA to hold the elections before the dismantling of the terrorist organizations. We demand that the PA and its Chairman honor this commitment in the shortest timeframe and both disarm Hamas and the other terrorist organizations and dismantle their other abilities to perpetrate acts of terrorism. The State of Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian administration if its members include an armed terrorist organization that calls for the destruction of the State of Israel; in any case, Israel will continue to fight terrorism with a heavy hand, everywhere. Hamas has been declared to be a terrorist organization by most of the international community.  The international community will not accept a situation in which a terrorist organization takes part in an administration that seeks to enjoy international legitimacy. Acting Prime Minister Olmert and Foreign Minister Livni will be in contact with international leaders ahead of the upcoming Quartet meeting and the upcoming meeting of European Union foreign ministers, which are due to take place next week.  Israel will demand that the entire international community compel the PA and its Chairman to implement the commitment to eliminate Hamas as a terrorist organization that calls for Israel's destruction." [IMRA: It shold be noted that ealier this week FM Livni declined to answer . IMRA if  puttting all terrorists on the PA payroll as cops would constitute dismantling and disarming.]


____________________________________________________________
 

THE JERUSALEM MUNICIPALITY TO NAME 160 STREETS IN EASTERN JERUSALEM
 

The Jerusalem municipality will approve 160 new street names in eastern Jerusalem over the next month. The names were chosen by a joint committee, consisting of municipal representatives, neighborhood dignitaries and eastern Jerusalem delegates. Background: For dozens of years many streets in eastern Jerusalem don't have any names or a specific address. This happened since under the Jordanian regime many streets were not named, in addition to the vast expansion of construction in the Arab neighborhoods. Once Uri Lupolianski was elected as mayor of Jerusalem he held a meeting with representatives from the Arab neighborhoods and local dignitaries, who asked him to settle the issue of street names and addresses, since this situation, that's been going on for dozens of years, caused the residents there serious difficulties to receive mail and other services. Mayor Lupolianski has ordered to establish a special committee to tackle this situation. "Every person should have an address. The importance of an address goes beyond the municipal level, it's also symbolic", Lupolianski noted. "An address helps to determine an identity and sense of belonging; it helps to feel at home. If we, as a state, wish to keep Jerusalem united, we must treat all the people equally and prevent any feeling of discrimination." The advising committee to the naming committee, headed by former city councilman Shimshon Nir, has done an extensive and thorough research, which resulted in locating many dozens of nameless streets, negotiations with local leaders and dignitaries and the recommendation to name 160 streets. The neighborhoods in question are Um Lison, A-Suana (Mount of Olives), Beit Zafafa, Sharafat, Jabel Mucaber, The Muslim Quarter, Silwan, Abidia, Isawiya, Zur Baher, Um Tuba, Ras El Amud and Shoafat. The recommended street names will be brought to approval in the next session of the municipal naming committee and then approved by the city council. -Br. Aaron Lerner

_____________________________________________________________________

University of Haifa Survey: Israeli Arab Leaders More Radical than Supporters

IMRA: The survey was carried out in 2004. HAIFA. January 16--Israeli Arab leaders are much more radical than their supporters.  One result is they remain in perpetual opposition to Israel's ruling government, unable to gain the support or understanding of the Jewish public, which they need to improve the status of the country's Arab minority. These conclusions emerge from a survey of the Israeli Arab public conducted by Prof. Sammy Smooha of the University of Haifa.  It is one of this sociologist's ongoing measures of Jewish-Arab relations.  The lack of correspondence between the positions of Arab leaders not connected with the Jewish establishment and Arab voters for Arab parties is striking, Smooha said.  For example, he found that whereas 60.2% of the voters for Arab parties agree that Arab citizens need to accept Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, only 18.2% of the non-establishment leaders do. Overwhelmingly these leaders define themselves as anti-Zionist (85.7%), but most of their voters do not (only 32% do).  Asked whether Palestinian refugees should receive appropriate compensation and in return be allowed to return to a Palestinian state, only 22.4% of the leaders, versus 65.4% of the voters agreed to the proposition.  The leaders' radicalism also manifests itself in attitudes toward illegal demonstrations.  This means of struggle received the support of 34.7% of the leaders, but merely 7.3% of their supporters. The general Arab community largely-82.1%--believes that with the settlement of the Palestinian question, all the claims of each side and the conflict will come to an end.  Less than half the non-establishment Israeli Arab leadership believes this-44.9%.  Apparently, Smooha commented, Israeli Arab leaders think that the Palestinians will be ill-satisfied with any agreement and there will be no end to the conflict.  The survey was based on 700 face-to-face interviews with the Arab public, as well as with 85 Arab public figures, 49 of whom operate outside the Jewish establishment.  "If the positions of the non-establishment leadership are more radical than those of voters for Arab parties, they are all the more radical than the more moderate stands taken by Arab voters for Jewish parties," Smooha claims.  By not being partners to decision-making and management of the State, he continues, "their distancing from responsibility enables them to preserve ideological purity. They do not have to be flexible or compromise." At the same, he notes, they "cannot give real solutions to their supporters and so are forced to make do with marketing ideas in order to gain public support." The growing competition among Arab leaders for the Arab public' s support, Smooha believes, constitutes a lever for the escalation of positions.  "All they have to give their public is protest, criticism of the government, support of the Palestinian people, and demands for changes in policy and the regime.  There are no appointments (to office), no budgets, no changes in policy or other resources." The University of Haifa sociologist concludes that coopting Arabs into the government may contribute to a closing of the gap in positions betweenIsraeli Arabs and Jews.
 

Hebron community responds to being declared "closed military zone", Hebron family petitions court

1. Hebron declared "closed military zone" Israeli central command General Yair Nave tonight declared all of Hebron to be a 'closed military zone.' According to this military order, only residents of Hebron will be allowed into the city. All others will have to request 'special permission' from the "Judea' regional brigade." The order is due to be in effect until January 22. A Hebron spokesman issued the following statement: The latest decree declared against Hebron's Jewish community represents the evil personified by various forces and officials in the State of Israel.  Hebron, the first Jewish city in Eretz Yisrael, the roots of the Jewish people, site of Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Caves of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, was closed to the Jewish people for 19 years, between 1948 and 1967, when under Jordanian occupation following the War of Independence. Entrance to Ma'arat HaMachpela was off-limits to Jews for 700 years, from 1267, following the Mameluk victory over the Crusaders, until the Six-Day War in 1967. Now, the State of Israel, impersonating the Mameluks and the Jordanians, is again closing Ma'arat HaMachpela to Jews. True, not all Jews - only those few million not yet living in Hebron. What could be more dastardly than placing the 2nd holiest site to the Jewish people in all the world, again, off-limits? It could be worse - the Wall could be closed to all Jews not living in the Old City. And it wouldn't surprise us if this too happens one day. Any regime that is capable of attempting to place Hebron off-limits is capable of anything. The total responsibility for all events having occurred in Hebron over the past week lies with the Israeli government, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, Defense Minister Shaul Mufaz, and the military personnel willing to carry out expulsion orders. The best way to restore 'law and order" in Hebron, is not by forbidding Jews to enter the city; rather it is to rescind expulsion notices and allow Jews to continue to live and expand in the City of the Forefathers.

2. Hebron family goes to court Rabbi Yisrael and Mrs. Tzippy Shlissel today petitioned the "Shalom" court in Beit Shemsh, requested an injunction preventing expulsion from their home in the Mitzpe Shalhevet neighborhood. Rabbi Shlissel is the dean of the Ohr Shlomo Torah Study Center in the Admot Ishai (Tel Rumeida) neighborhood of Hebron. The center is named after his father-in-law Rabbi Shlomo Ra'anan, the 63 year old grandson of Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaKohen Kook, killed by terrorists over 7 years ago at his home in that neighborhood. Parents of 10 children, the Shlissels moved to Hebron following the murder in order to be closer to Tzippy's mother, Chaya.

The main points of the Shissel's claim:
1. We were never issued an eviction notice and were not included in any legal proceeding dealing with our home.
2. A special judicial committee recommended by majority vote to rent the property under discussion to the Jewish community of Hebron. This would allow us to remain living in our home.
3. We have proven (in this claim) that the military has already told the Supreme Court that they intend rent the property to the Jewish Community of Hebron and they have agreed to rent the property.
4. We have proven that legally, the Jewish Community of Hebron must provide us with alternative housing should we be expelled from our home and that they will be responsible for any damages caused by the expulsion.

In light of these claims, we request that the court issue an injunction preventing expulsion until another decision is reached. Source: The Hebron Press Office

West battles to pull Iran's leader back from Judgment Day bomb

General Uzi Dayan, former head of Israel's national security council: "Iran is an imminent danger to Israel."

President  Bush is expected to invite Ehud Olmert, the acting Israeli prime minister, to Washington next month for talks on Iran. The timing is sensitive. Israel goes to the polls in March and it would be bad form for the White House to give the successor to Ariel Sharon an apparent electoral boost. But the Iranian threat is considered so serious that Bush may not want to wait. Before the massive stroke that left him in a coma, Sharon had declared: "Israel will not accept a nuclear weapon equipped Iran." He had quietly ordered the Israeli Defence Forces to be ready to launch air strikes against nuclear sites in the Islamic republic if necessary. "The whole issue is now with the Americans," said an Israeli defence source. "Once we get the green light, we're ready." For now the light has stalled on amber. Condoleezza Rice, the American secretary of state, chastised Iran last week for its "dangerous defiance" and warned that "the president of the United States never takes any of his options off the table". She added, however, that diplomacy was the best way to solve the crisis: "If the international community stays united, it has a chance to work."

....Some Israelis have declared themselves willing to shoulder the burden. "We should attack and we are capable of completing the job," said General Uzi Dayan, former head of Israel's national security council, last week. "Iran is an imminent danger to Israel." Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the right-wing Likud party, has backed the destruction of Iranian nuclear facilities, although Olmert's Kadima party looks the more likely election winner. At the Hatzerim air base on the edge of the Negev desert, the elite 69 strategic F-15 I squadron is ready to attack. Months of preparations have been completed and the young pilots have finished training for the long-haul flights that will be necessary to reach Iran and back without refuelling. The planes, costing GBP 60m each, are equipped with secret state-of-the-art weaponry and precision bombs that have yet to be tested in battle. Two submarines capable of launching cruise missiles are on standby: one hidden in the depths of the Persian Gulf, the other stationed in the Israeli port of Haifa. Inan attack they will be used to receive high quality signal intelligence. Israel's elite special forces are also prepared for their role - flying into Iran by helicopter to sabotage the underground targets that cannot be bombed from the air.That Israel has a plan of action surprises nobody, but it is a long way from pressing the start key. Its air force successfully bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981 but, mindful of the lessons of that attack, the mullahs have dispersed their nuclear sites around Iran. There are thought to be at least 40 targets, some buried deep in the ground. "What we now have is a lot of targets, which makes the operation much more difficult," said Ze'ev Raz, the former pilot who led the attack on Osirak. It is inconceivable that the Israelis could strike without the support of the Americans. "The reality is that it would have to be a sponsored mission because the Israelis would have to fly across Iraqi or Turkish air space," said a senior British defence official. "Then there is the question of retaliation. Iran has got ballistic missiles and some chemical weapons. What would happen if they used them?" A wave of terrorism could be unleashed against Israeli and Jewish targets. On Israel's southern border with Lebanon, Iran's Hezbollah allies could fire off rockets- although, as with Osirak, there would be plenty of Arab nations relieved that Iran had been de-fanged. The consequences, however, are so unpredictable that Perle believes it would be safer for America to take on the job itself. "If the only credible solution to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is an air strike to destroy their facilities, we are far better able to do it than the Israelis. The worst thing would be to attack and not succeed." If Olmert comes to Washington next month, Bush is certain to warn him against acting precipitately. "Our working assumption is that the Americans will try to pour water on our military plans," said an Israeli defence source. One of the questions uppermost in the policymakers' minds is the state of  public opinion in Iran. It is overwhelmingly likely that an attack would inflame people against the American "Great Satan" and Israel. Not only would Iranian national pride be wounded; civilian casualties could also provoke fury at a time when pro-western sentiment in Iran had been on the rise. For Perle, the correct strategy is obvious: hold off military action for now and extend vigorous support to the internal opposition in Iran. As he sees it: "There's nothing being done there. We're giving the mullahs a free ride." Mounting international pressure on Iran could test the unity of the Islamic regime and the Iranian people. The son of an ironworker, Ahmadinejad's humble background and simple lifestyle have won him the respect of many of the poorest Iranians, who still hope he will fulfill election promises to fight unemployment and corruption. The country's political elites, although aghast at his gaucheness, mostly support his nuclear policy out of national pride. "Ahmadinejad is using the nuclear question to play to the domestic gallery," said a Foreign Office official. "He has revived the sentiments of the 1980s. That's his philosophy."

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, has been one of Ahmadinejad's most outspoken critics but he has remained silent on the nuclear issue. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader of Iran who has the final say on all matters, is said to favour Ahmadinejad's uncompromising stance. Some reformists are concerned by Iran's defiance of world opinion. Mohammad Reza Khatami, the younger brother of Ahmadinejad's predecessor as president, believes that the country should not risk international isolation. "It's impossible to put very strict and broad sanctions in place against Iran. The world is not unified and it needs Iran's oil," said Khatami. "But it is important that Iranians feel they are part of the world and their isolation would have a very heavy effect on them." How to put pressure on the regime without punishing its citizens is a vexing question for the security council. One idea floated last week was to ban Iran from the World Cup, for which the country has qualified for the first time. "It would give a very clear signal to Iran that the international community will not accept what they are doing," said Michael Ancram, the Conservative MP. That was not the view from the terraces in Tehran on Friday, where the Iranian team Persepolis was playing Germany's Bayern Munich in front of a home crowd for the first time since 1972. Many fans expressed relief that the German team had ignored the political fallout over the nuclear issue and turned up to play. In London, Straw soon rejected the idea anyway, saying he was "not certain" that sports sanctions would help. "Sports sanctions hurt the people, not the regime," said a spokesman. Other suggestions for sanctions include blocking travel visas for the political elite and halting Iran's application for membership of the World Trade Organisation. China - Iran's top oil importer, with burgeoning energy needs - is likely to veto all but the mildest of diplomatic sanctions. "It would be a replay of the Iraq debate," said one western diplomat gloomily. Only last month a high-level Chinese delegation slipped into Tehran for talks on an oil and gas deal worth more than $57 billion. The two nations also have military links stretching back to the Iran-Iraq war. The Russians are furious that their attempt to play the go- between with Iran and the West has gone nowhere. They had hoped that Ahmadinejad would take up their offer to enrich uranium in Russia for Iran's civilian needs.  His humiliating lack of interest led to some unusually sharp criticism of  the Iranians last week. Even so, it is highly doubtful that President Vladimir Putin would support stringent sanctions jeopardising Moscow's huge economic and strategic interests in the region. Even the French and Germans have warned that economic sanctions are "premature". As a first step, the UN security council president is likely to issue a stern statement condemning Iran, a move likely to be interpreted in Tehran as a sign of western weakness. The pressure will then be increased by degrees but it is a risky gambit that will allow Iran to continue its nuclear work.

The Israelis believe that time is running out. Its nuclear scientists claim that Iran is fast approaching the "point of no return" when it will have the technical expertise to enrich uranium to bomb-grade purity. According to a study by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, Iran will be three years away from producing a nuclear bomb if it can feed the uranium through 1,000 centrifuges that it hopes to operate at Natanz. A 50,000-centrifuge plant being built nearby could hasten the process considerably. The 2½ years of talks with the Iranians have already sped by. By the time the talking stops, Iran may have the know-how to build what the rest of the world dreads: an "Islamic" bomb. Additional reporting: Michael Sheridan, Bangkok, Mark Franchetti, Moscow, Tom Walker and Flora Bagenal Where sanctions have succeeded and failed. The easiest sanctions the United Nations security council could impose on Iran would be travel restrictions on members of the Tehran theocracy and a freeze on assets held abroad. But any sanctions affecting trade and investment would probably be vetoed by China and Russia, given their reliance on energy deals with Iran.An oil embargo is extremely unlikely. If the UN fails to agree on measures, the European Union could impose its own sanctions. These would probably mirror those applied to Zimbabwe and would include a travel ban and an assets freeze, plus a halt to investment and exploration. Whatever the eventual package, sanctions have an extremely mixed record and have rarely proved effective. Among cases where sanctions have worked without military force are: Libya 1992-99. An arms embargo, assets freeze, flight bans and a ban on imports of oil
equipment led the Gadaffi regime eventually to hand over the Lockerbie bombing suspects; later it gave up its nuclear research programme. South Africa 1974-94 Arms embargo and ban on cultural and sporting links helped to end apartheid. Instances where sanctions largely failed and regimes were overthrown by military intervention include: Iraq 1990-2003 Comprehensive sanctions prevented Saddam Hussein developing weapons of mass destruction but caused widespread suffering. Saddam was removed by the US-led invasion in 2003. Yugoslavia 1992-96 comprehensive sanctions may have increased Slobodan Milosevic's popularity at home. Nato's bombing in 1999 pressured the Serbian population into pushing him from office. Afghanistan 1999-2002. Despite aviation and financial sanctions, the Taliban regime continued to shelter Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden until US attacks ended its rule. In Somalia, Liberia, Angola, Sudan, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Eritrea and  Ethiopia in the 1990s, embargoes proved useless in ending fighting and the  black market in small calibre arms. -By Sarah Buxter and Uzi Mahnaimi
 

Israel to U.S.: Strike on Iran is feasible
Israel's military brass has concluded that an Israeli or U.S. strike on Iran could eliminate that nation's nuclear weapons facilities. Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz ordered such a report as part of strategic cooperation talks with the United States. Israeli military chief Maj. Gen. Aharon Zeevi-Farkash discussed the report during his visit to the United States last week. Zeevi-Farkash met the heads of several U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency, and argued that an air strike against Iran was feasible and would set back Teheran's nuclear program for up to a decade. Asked last week whether Iran's nuclear weapons program could be eliminated in a military strike, Halutz did not blink. "Professionally, the answer is yes," Halutz told a defense seminar in Tel Aviv. Zeevi-Farkash has gained credibility in the U.S. intelligence community. He headed several joint forums in which Israel provided accurate intelligence on Syria and Iran as well as assessments on Iraq's Saddam Hussein. But the Bush administration has quelled any serious U.S. discussion over any attack on Iran. U.S. intelligence assessments say the administration could wait until at least 2008 before Iran emerged as a nuclear threat. That would give the United States enough time to implement plans to complete its military withdrawal from Iraq over the next 18 months. Source: Geostrategy

Bar-Ilan to Host International Conference on Academic Freedom and the Politics of Boycotts

Ramat Gan, Israel: Following the successful campaign to persuade the British Association of University Teachers (AUT) to rescind its proposed boycott of Bar-Ilan and Haifa universities, the International Advisory Board for Academic Freedom (IAB) has scheduled an international conference on Academic Freedom and the Politics of Boycotts to be held at Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan on January 25-26, 2006. "The principles of academic freedom and equality among members of the scientific community have a long and revered history" said Prof Gerald Steinberg, Chair of the Conference Committee.   "The right to follow the research trail and search for knowledge without regard to whose interests and power may be threatened is not an empty slogan to be tossed away by political and ideological fashion". The conference will examine aspects of academic freedom in the broadest sense, including the origins and conceptual development and the debate regarding legitimate limitations and exceptions. Presentations will discuss the changes in the status of academic freedom in a number of countries, from Europe (West and East) and North America to the Middle East, to China. The second day will focus on political dimensions, beginning with an examination of the complex boundary between political and academic freedom, and the question of whether those who advocate academic boycotts in support of political agendas are, in fact, seeking to curtail the rights of free speech of those who have different views. Other panels will examine the context of the boycott efforts in the framework of the ongoing political struggle in Britain and elsewhere related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, including examination of the factors that gave rise to and sustained these efforts singling out Israel, the role of anti-Semitism, the "Durban" strategy, links to the divestment campaign, and the role of powerful NGOs. Finally, the roundtable that will close the conference will examine the strategies that were employed in response to the boycott vote, and the implications of these efforts for future such efforts. The Conference organizing committee plans to publish the conference proceedings on the internet and in print form. Conference panels include diplomats, such as the British Ambassador Simon McDonald and the European Ambassador Ramiro Cibrian - Uzal. Outstanding scholars appearing include: Prof. Alan Dershowitz from Harvard Law School, described by Newsweek as America's "most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights"(www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/biography.html); Adv. Anthony Julius, former lawyer for Princess Diana and author of "Anti-Semitism in the UK", who helped with the boycott reversal, and represented Professor Deborah E. Lipstadt, participating in the conference as well, in her famous case against David John Cawdell Irving, British Holocaust denier; Anne Bayefsky, senior fellow with the Hudson Institute, and a professor at Touro College in New York, who is known for her human rights website www.bayefsky.com (launched 2003)  dedicated to enhancing the implementation of the human rights legal standards of the United Nations; Prof. Asa Kasher from Tel-Aviv University, winner of the Israel Prize for Philosophy, 2000. The Conference's Honorary Board includes world known authors A.B. Yehoshua, Professor of literature at Haifa University and Amos Oz, Professor of literature at Ben Gurion University.

For further information on the upcoming conference and for interview coordination contact: Ofir Frankel, Manager, International Campaign for Academic Freedom. Office ofthe Rector, Bar-Ilan university, Ramat-Gan 52900, Israel