The complacency of the American Jewish community in regards to a hero like Pollard speaks volumes in itself on every issue. Why was Pollard given a lawyer who had sympathies to Palestine from the start is another issue. Why would we want to reprimand a guy for protecting Jews from Iraqi chemical weapons and WMDS? The very thought of why this happened sickens me... and it is easy to understand why so many Jews voted for Obama if they back stab a guy who stood up for Jews who was Jewish.
(daledamos.blogspot.com)Until recently, most campaigns did not provide the positions of their candidates on this issue. But now that the U.S. Jewish leaders plan to send delegations to visit Pollard in jail - candidates are thinking about adding their positions on the issue to their talking points.
So far, Newt Gingrich said he'll think about clemency, because the convicted spy spent enough time in jail. Mitt Romney refused to commit to release Pollard should he become president. It is still controversial - but it's certainly interesting to see that to commit to military attack against a country of over 70 million is easier than to commit to release one veteran prisoner.
During the course of this past year, many public figures have come out in favor of clemency for Jonathan Pollard--but nothing happened.
Now, could Election Year pressure for the Jewish vote do the trick?
Maybe a better question is: why the Jewish leaders waited till now to do this?
In any case, just as Pollard did not approve as his release being used as a bargaining chip for the extension of a building freeze, I don't think he will approve being used by Republicans looking for a way to pick up Jewish votes.
BTW... Romney just lost my vote. He either frees Pollard or he's out. Romney will not use Pollard as a bargaining chip. I don't trust Romney... and it isn't because of any other reason then his actions
from what I know about Islam... they don't like dogs very much. Those dogs might be the best way to protect anyone who doesn't tow the line to appeasement. One almost wishes we would throw the entire middle east to the dogs.
At least 150 wild dogs, many running in feral packs, have for months been roaming the streets of the Ras Hamis neighborhood, at the edge of Shuafat, itself a village within the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem.
The city has a full staff of dog catchers, but because of security concerns, a municipal spokesperson told reporters, they could only be sent in to do their jobs with an IDF or police crew to protect them, because of the strong likelihood that they will be pelted with stones or beaten with metal pipes – or worse – as has occurred on numerous occasions in the past.
As a result, residents of the neighborhood say they have taken to arming themselves with bricks and pipes to fight off the dog menace. The dogs, say the residents, are particularly vicious, and have chased and attacked many people, especially the elderly and children, who have a hard time outrunning them.
Attorney Nasrian Alian from the Israel Civil Rights Association said that the problem was present in all Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. “In 2010 over 1,000 dogs were caught in Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem. The city's Veterinary Service does not provide sufficient services for the neighborhood and does not even operate in some of them – and they fail to do the job properly in areas where they do operate,” she told reporters.
In response, the municipality said that the IDF no longer permits municipal workers to enter some Arab neighborhoods without a security detail to protect them. Shuafat is one of those neighborhoods, the city said.
Attacks on Israeli workers in Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods are not uncommon, and numerous workers have been badly injured when Arabs converged on them as they tried to undertake maintenance work in Arab areas.
If they can't be civil, let them deal with - or go to - the dogs all by themselves.
oh... but it is diplomacy right? We are merely dealing with moderates... just like the Muslim Brotherhood... and the MoveOn.org and Think Progress people will not stop pushing that idea. They will tell you that you are the radical for having a position, when their position is the radical silencing opinion.
Nassir Abdulaziz Al-Nasser, president of the 193-nation assembly, called for a "minute of silence" before the start of a routine meeting at 3:00 p.m. EST in the half-empty UN General Assembly hall.
"It is my sad duty to pay tribute to the memory of the late Kim Jong-il, Secretary-General of the Workers Party of Korea, Chairman of the National Defense Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army, who passed away on Saturday, Dec. 17," he said.
The minute of silence lasted for 25 seconds before Nasser proceeded with the scheduled meeting. The United States, European Union member states and Japan were among the countries that boycotted the tribute to Kim Jong-il.
North Korea's UN mission made a similar request to the Security Council, but Western diplomats said it was rejected.
"We didn't think it would be appropriate," a diplomat told Reuters on condition of anonymity.
Several Western diplomats said Pyongyang's request for Kim to be honored was highly unusual. They voiced surprise that Nassir had granted it and added that their delegations would most likely boycott the moment of silence in the assembly.
Speaking at a news conference, Nasser cited "protocol" as the reason for agreeing to the request from North Korea, a full UN member. One diplomat said the reason for granting the request was probably because Kim was an acting head of state.
A reminder: North Korea is under UN sanctions because of its nuclear program (and ought to be under them for being a nuclear proliferator), and many of its people eat grass because there is nothing else to eat. That the United Nations considers Kim worthy of emulation speaks volumes as to the mentality that pervades the organization.
The spokesman of Egypt's ultraconservative Islamist party told Israeli Army Radio in unprecedented remarks broadcast Wednesday that the group is not opposed to the country's historic peace treaty with Israel.
Yousseri Hamad's interview with the Israeli broadcaster is unusual for followers of the Salafi Islamic trend, who typically shun Israel for its policies toward Palestinians and its annexation of east Jerusalem, home to Islam's third-holiest site.
The interview countered Israeli fears that Islamist parties would seek to cut ties with Israel.
In his remarks to the Israeli station, Hamad said the Salafi Nour Party is committed to agreements signed by previous Egyptian governments, including the 1979 peace treaty with Israel.
"We are not opposed to the agreement, and we are saying that Egypt is committed to the agreements that previous Egyptian government have signed," he said, noting that if Egyptians want changes on the treaty, "the place for that is the negotiation table."
In response to the interview, Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said the comments were worth considering.
"This is certainly food for thought and we will of course keep observing very attentively developments in Egypt," he said.
Salafi Muslims follow a strict interpretation of Islam similar to that practiced in Saudi Arabia. The Salafi Nour Party in Egypt has so far won a quarter of the seats in Egypt's parliamentary elections, placing it second only to the more moderate Muslim Brotherhood.
After the interview aired, Hamad told The Associated Press that he did not know he was talking to Israeli Army Radio, and he was told only it was for an Israeli broadcaster. He claimed that had he known, he would not have agreed to the Army Radio interview because "they occupy our Palestinian brothers."
He also said that his party "without doubt" supports changes to the agreement, including raising troop levels in the Sinai Peninsula, which borders Israel. He also said that there need to be guarantees for Palestinians.
"We call for full Sinai rights for Egypt and for our brothers in Palestine and occupied lands, and we see this as directly related to the agreement," he told the AP.
Hammad, however, later said he had been "ambushed" by the Israeli reporter that conducted the interview, who, says Hammad, had introduced himself as an Iraqi journalist.
The interview had prompted surprise in Israel – and outrage in Egypt – that a member of Egypt’s hard-line Salafist movement would grant an interview to an Israeli media outlet, especially one associated with the military.
Hammad told Al Arabiya.net that he received an anonymous phone call and when he started the conversation with the caller, the Israeli journalist at first presented himself as an Iraqi one and spoke with him in Arabic.
“If I knew [the caller being a journalist from the Isareli army radio station], I would not have talked to him,” he said, adding “this is a media deceit and I reject such approach.”
The spokesman said only at the end of the interview the journalist said that he is Israeli.
Speaking of Nour, Hudson-NY has a must-read piece saying that the party isn't really Salafi - but Wahhabi.
(Carl) This should come as no surprise. Harvard's Middle East Studies Center is run by a BDS'er and has an agenda that fits his profile.
The detailed report, published by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) highlights the Center’s Director Paul Beran’s longtime activism in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel. In 2004 it says, he participated in the Presbyterian Church’s BDS campaign and claimed that he formed an alliance with an extreme anti-Israel group in order to counter criticism from “Zionists and their ilk.” The report details how following the failure of a similar BDS petition in Somerville, MA, Beran accused the town mayor, pension-fund manager and elected state representatives who voted against it of being “recruited by pro-Israel groups” and urged divestment activists to counter “Zionist backlash.”
The report mentions that in 2007 Beran protested the enrollment of former Israeli Chief of Staff Dan Halutz into a Harvard Business School course,calling him “a noted war criminal,” although the General was never tried or found guilty of any war crimes.
Reached on the phone by the Algemeiner, Beran declined to comment.
The report finds that the Center’s speakers, recommended resources and course syllabi (some of which are available online) similarly reflect a one-sided focus. Recommended readings heavily favor anti-Zionist writings, including works by deceased professor Edward Said, a Palestinian advocate, and former Israeli professor Ilan Pappé, the driving force behind academic boycotts of Israel. (CAMERA points out that Pappé’s scholarship is now under critical scrutiny as he is charged with fabricating a quote that alleges to show how Israel planned to expel Arabs in an article published in the Journal of Palestine Studies and in his 2006 book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. He was also harshly criticized for promoting a graduate thesis centered on a bogus claim of an Israeli massacre of Palestinians that was formally recanted in a libel case). Also mentioned in the report is the Center’s recommendation of the propaganda film, Occupation 101, featuring such well-known defamers of Israel as Noam Chomsky and Richard Falk.
While the current administration has a stake in referring to the Muslim Brotherhood as "moderate" and "largely secular," there is a reality very different from the view at Foggy Bottom.
The Brotherhood is a popular movement of Islam founded in 1928 by Hasan al Banna, the most prominent representative of what is sometimes referred to as Islamism. For al Banna, whatever ails the Muslim world – the umma – can be addressed by the simple sentence: "Islam is the solution." Religious law – Shariah, or "The Way" – is to be restored to its central place as an organizing principle for every sphere of life.
From the Muslim Brotherhood's point of view, whatever ails the world can be traced to the West's pernicious influence. The West stole scientific secrets, deprived Muslims of their religious faith and converted them into docile subjects. While resentment is the main current of Islamism, it has curiously united with modern mass media to spread the faith. Similarly, while the West is deplored, the technical achievements of the West are often welcomed, and even aspects of democracy – such as the civil code – which can be exploited to advance Islam, are admired. The Brotherhood openly calls for free elections, but only as a way to gain and legitimate its authority. This duality is what confuses the detractors of Islamism. Hoping for the best, some critics rely on their assertions of what we would like to believe, that the Muslim Brotherhood is indeed "moderate" and "largely secular."
In the recent Egyptian elections, journalists distinguished between the "moderate" Muslim Brotherhood and the extreme Salafists -- without noting that al Banna considered himself a Salafist, as apparently do most of the members of the Brotherhood. The Islamist synthesis of modernity and tradition is attractive to those torn between these two ideological perspectives. But make no mistake, the Muslim Brotherhood accepts modernity only to the extent it confirms an uncompromising commitment to religious dogma and imperial political designs.
According to the Islamist world view, Allah has vouchsafed to mankind a full and perfect doctrine of human behavior. And to the extent the political order is predicated on divine decree, there isn't room for rejection, whether it be in the name of democracy or individual rights. Laws cannot be passed that explicitly challenge the commands of Allah. If people can be permitted to do what Allah has forbidden, Shariah law can never be compatible with liberal democracy. If the Koran, written by the Archangel Gabriel, at the behest of Allah, says the consumption of alcohol is forbidden, there is no authority that can grant legislative sanction. In this case, as in so many others, the religious value system guarantees "civilized" behavior. So when Islamists say they want representative government, what they mean is legislation compatible with the Koran.
Who is the ultimate arbiter of state-based legislation? The imams who reflect the wisdom and compassion of Allah. For the Brotherhood, there must be absolute loyalty to fixed and eternal rules, a condition that inevitably suffocates research, free will, science and art.
Egypt is now caught in a web woven by the Muslim Brotherhood. Democracy without the Brotherhood is inconceivable, and democracy with the Brotherhood is impossible. The movement cannot be denied if free elections are permitted, but the infrastructure of democracy cannot be created so long as there is a formal adherence to Shariah.
Yet ,in most Arab countries the Muslim Brotherhood is the best organized group. This grants it an advantage over liberal rivals that are splintered into many fractions. If the West confronts the Brotherhood's leadership, it merely confirms the belief that the conspiracists are right in theor beief that the West is trying to undermine Islam. If the West does not confront the Islamists, the liberals are bound to be defeated. Damned if you do; damned if you don't. In a Kantian sense, democratic impulses should – at some point – rise to the surface, especially if Brotherhood policies do not produce jobs or adequate food supplies. Dictatorships have a way of destroying themselves when the "eternal verities" that they hold onto cannot yield the basic human needs that have been promised. It is one thing to be a good Muslim who prays five times a day; it is quite another thing to rely on one meal a day for sustenance.
Herbert London is president emeritus of Hudson Institute, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Books).
(REPLAY) When Chevron took part in World AIDS day I noticed that someone was filtering hashtags. you can expect to see more of this on twitter. Don't say I didn't warn everyone when everyone was thumbing their nose at facebook exclusively.
(finance.yahoo.com) DUBAI (Reuters) - Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, an investor in some of the world's top companies, has bought a stake in Twitter for $300 million, gaining another foothold in the global media industry.
Alwaleed, a nephew of Saudi Arabia's king and estimated by Forbes magazine to be the 26th richest person in the world with a $19.6 billion fortune, already owns a 7 percent stake in News Corp and plans to start a cable news channel.
The purchase is remarkable because Twitter was a key means of communication for protesters in the Arab Spring revolts this year, violence that threatened Saudi Arabia until the kingdom unveiled a populist $130 billion social spending package.
Twitter, which allows people to send 140-character messages, or Tweets, to groups of followers, is one of the internet's most popular social networking services, along with Facebook and Zynga.
The Twitter stake, bought jointly by Alwaleed and his Kingdom Holding Co investment firm, resulted from "months of negotiations," Kingdom said.
Bernhard Warner, co-founder of analysis and advisory firm Social Media Influence, said: "The Arab world, of course, knows full well the value of Twitter. In the past year, it has been a force in politics, in regime change, so there is not a single person in that region in a position of influence who is not following the increasing power of Twitter.
"(Alwaleed) must see Twitter as something that is going to be a really powerful broadcast channel," he said, adding the Saudi had got into the internet boom belatedly, with mixed results, and appeared to be "kind of late" to the game again.
Investors in Saudi Arabia were more bullish, sending shares in Kingdom up 7 percent to 8.40 riyals.
"One of the few sectors to record significant revenue gains in the last three years has been technology, which is why Kingdom would see Twitter as a good addition to its diversified portfolio," said Hesham Tuffaha, head of asset management at Bakheet Investment Group in Riyadh.
Saudis are increasingly turning to satellite television, online news providers and social networking to stay abreast of world events. The world's No. 1 oil exporter announced a series of stricter regulations for journalists earlier this year.
Alwaleed, who has a sizeable stake in Citigroup, has spoken in favour of broader political participation, fair elections and effective job creation across the Arab world.
IPO HOPES
Investors are eagerly anticipating an initial public offering from Twitter, which said in September it was in no hurry to go public. It raised $400 million in venture capital financing this summer.
It now counts more than 100 million active users who log onto the service at least once a month. Facebook, the world's largest social network has more than 750 million active users.
Internet search giant Google recently launched a social networking service dubbed Google+ which some observers say could lure users away from Twitter.
Shares in online games developer Zynga ended at a 5 percent discount to their issue price on their trading debut on Friday, and analysts said any valuation for Twitter could be misleading.
"You could put any number of zeroes behind a valuation of a private company. Before it goes public, it is almost meaningless," said Warner.
"This is a very small group of investors which has put money into this thing. That will be diluted and diluted and diluted again until it goes public. And that is when we will see what the value is. These are kind of magic numbers at the moment."
Kingdom owns a near-30 percent stake in Saudi Research and Marketing Group, which runs a range of media titles.
"Our investment in Twitter reaffirms our ability in identifying suitable opportunities to invest in promising, high-growth businesses with a global impact," Alwaleed said.
Alwaleed subscribed $500 million to last year's General Motors IPO. In August, he unveiled plans to build the world's tallest tower in Jeddah.
(Reporting by Sitaraman Shankar; Additional reporting by Georgina Prodhan in London and Matt Smith in Dubai; Editing by Erica Billingham and Dan Lalor)
The complacency of the American Jewish community in regards to a hero like Pollard speaks volumes in itself on every issue. Why was Pollard given a lawyer who had sympathies to Palestine from the start is another issue. Why would we want to reprimand a guy for protecting Jews from Iraqi chemical weapons and WMDS? The very thought of why this happened sickens me... and it is easy to understand why so many Jews voted for Obama if they back stab a guy who stood up for Jews who was Jewish.
