Ernie Moore

ZUBEIDI IN HOT WATER

ernmoore@barnabuspress.com — Sat, 19 May 2012 04:33:00 GMT

He once had an Israeli girlfriend who was arrested by the Israeli intelligence forces and questioned. Why? Because her boyfriend was an active terrorist.

Then, as often is the case, the terrorist became a politician in the Palestinian government. Arafat and later, Abbas, worked to get him immunity from arrest for past crimes against Israelis. He became a member of the PLO, part of the Jenin apparatus and claimed to have turned in his weapons, agreed to recognize Israel and play it peacefully.

Maybe not.

Read the following and you decide for yourself:

Palestinian Authority arrests former militant Zakaria Zubeidi

Reason for the arrest in Jenin of former Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade commander is unknown.

By Avi Issacharoff

Palestinian Authority security forces arrested Zakaria Zubeidi, former commander of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, in Jenin on Saturday. The reason for the arrest is unknown.

Zubeidi is considered to be one of the most powerful people in the city’s refugee camp, and lately there have been signs of tension between him and the Palestinian Authority. Fatah's secretary general in Jenin, Ita Abu Ramila, extradited Zubeidi into Palestinian Authority security forces custody.

Last week, Jenin District Governor Kadura Musa died of a heart attack after unknown assailants fired shots at his home. At first, a theory arose attributing the attacks to gunmen loyal to a clan that suffered the loss of a member at the hands of Palestinian police two weeks prior to the shooting. It is not known if there is a connection between Zubeidi, Abu Ramila, and the shots fired at the governor’s home.

Zubeidi, who was granted amnesty by Israel nearly two and a half years ago, had has status changed to “wanted” once again in late 2011. Then, Palestinian security forces informed Zubeidi that due to Israeli requests, he was required to remain held at a security forces compound or else Israel would find and arrest him. Nearly a week later, his “wanted” status was removed.

In the summer of 2007, an agreement was reached between the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade and Israel, in which 178 Brigade activists desisted from all terrorist activities and turned their weapons into the Palestinian Authority in exchange for amnesty. As part of the agreement, Zubeidi received amnesty as well. Then, Zubeidi claimed that Brigade members committed to cease attacking Israel and joined the Palestinian Authority security forces before he received any guarantees that Israel would not act against them.

More ...

WILL THE TWO STATE IDEA NEVER DIE?

ernmoore@barnabuspress.com — Fri, 18 May 2012 04:22:00 GMT

Like a blood-sucking vampire without a stake in its heart, the two-state idea of a Palestinian and an Israeli nation living side by side seems to live forever.

Most of our readers know that this was a 1947-hatched idea that the Arabs rejected (they weren’t called Palestinians back then, that’s newer).

The Arab idea then until 1967 was to just kill as many Jews as possible and run the rest off. God and the Jews had different ideas, and in June, 1967 they won the war in six days, took the Arab enclaves and began what the Arabs called the “occupation.”

Then with Shimon Peres’ pals, the Oslo Accords came into being. Arafat brought his fighting troops to Gaza and the West Bank, and so-called negotiations began.

Today, there are no talks, but there are still talks about talks. The Palestinians won’t talk without pre-conditions. That basically means that they get their demands met ahead of the talks then they get together with Israel and talk about implementing them. (My oversimplification.)

Now that the ever-suave Saeb Erekat has just suffered a heart attack, that further delays any talks.

But what about the whole idea of Two States? The INSS has some thoughts in a recent publication that we thought you would appreciate:

Have the Palestinians Despaired of the Two-State Formula?

INSS Insight No. 331, May 2, 2012
Sher, Gilead and Shalom, Zaki

Abu Alaa on the Peace Process and Two-States-for-Two-Peoples

In a recently published essay, Ahmed Qurei (Abu Alaa) called for the Palestinian leadership to consider renouncing the two-state formula that underlies the Israeli-Palestinian political process. As a possible alternative, he suggests examining the idea of a bi-national state: “The two-state plan,” he writes, “has lost its vitality and has gradually expired after a long period strewn with hopes for a just resolution and comprehensive peace in the region.”

Abu Alaa, the most senior Palestinian negotiator in the last twenty years, places most of the blame on the Israeli governments of these decades, claiming they paid lip service to the two-state vision but systematically worked to prevent its realization, especially via the settlements. As the person charged with the Jerusalem portfolio in the Palestinian Authority, Abu Alaa places special emphasis on the accelerated process of “the Judaization of Jerusalem” that is making it impossible to turn East Jerusalem into the capital of the Palestinian state. At the same time, Abu Alaa does not ignore the role played by Arab states that have, according to him, shown “indifference to the needs of the Palestinians,” and that of the international community, which demonstrates “hypocrisy” in its conduct toward the Palestinians.

Sari Nusseibeh on Two-States-for-Two-Peoples

A similar idea was floated a few months ago by Prof. Sari Nusseibeh: "There is no East Jerusalem any more," he stated. "East Jerusalem has already become a misnomer. But a Palestinian state without East Jerusalem as its capital is a no-no." The pursuit of two states is like a "fantasy bubble." Half a million Israelis, he explains, currently live in the West Bank. “Can you take away half a million people?” he asks. His answer is unambiguous: “No, you cannot…in politics not everything is always possible.”

Unlike Abu Alaa, Nusseibeh does not absolve the PA of responsibility, and along with blame on Israel he claims that “it took us, the Palestinians, a long time to accept that we should recognize Israel as a state.” Now, he stressed, the Palestinians need a farsighted and accountable leader. Nusseibeh does not point to a possible permanent solution, perhaps because of a reluctance to predict long term moves under current circumstances. He proposes an interim solution ("transition") of a unified nation, whereby “the Jews could run the country" and the Palestinians "would be allowed to have basic rights.”

In his opinion, a proposal of this sort would be embraced by Israel, as such a proposal was made long ago by Israeli intellectuals, the most prominent of whom was Martin Buber. The realization of such a plan would finally allow the Palestinians the freedom to move and work wherever they want within the borders of a single country. They would also be able to realize the right of return. The one-state solution would allow the establishment of Palestinian enclaves in places where Palestinians used to live and to which Palestinians would be able to return.

Indeed, it has been several years since Nusseibeh has been thought to have any significant influence in the PA government. Nonetheless, his ideas and those of Abu Alaa are by no means uncommon in the Palestinian arena. Other figures, albeit less well-known, have expressed themselves in similar terms with slight differences.

The Background to the Change

These remarks apparently reflect growing despair within the Palestinian leadership regarding hope for the peace process with Israel in general and the viability of a two-state solution in particular. This sense propelled the Palestinian bid for international recognition of a Palestinian state unilaterally via UN institutions rather than through negotiations.

The current situation assessment by many circles within the Palestinian public seems to be based on the following considerations:

The hopes pinned on President Obama and his ability to force Israel to stop construction in the settlements and accept an arrangement in line with the Palestinian position have been dashed. The question of whether Obama cannot or doesn’t want to impose his will is irrelevant from the Palestinians’ perspective. In practice, the result is a complete deadlock in the political process, along with accelerated construction in the Jewish West Bank.

Under Prime Minister Netanyahu, Israel has succeeded in effecting dramatic change in the global agenda. Over a year ago the Palestinian issue was high on the American agenda: senior figures in the administration repeatedly claimed that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was one of the major factors in the region’s instability. Therefore its resolution was a primary interest of the United States and an element of great importance in enhancing the status of the US in this region. These statements are no longer heard. The Iranian issue currently tops the Western agenda and has pushed the Palestinian question to the sidelines.

The "Arab Spring," led by the events in Syria and Egypt, has helped sideline the Palestinian issue. The Arab League, which in the past was important in raising the Palestinian issue on the global agenda, has lost much of its power and can no longer serve as a leading actor on the international arena.

Until recently, Netanyahu’s right wing government has demonstrated impressive survival skills. It has exhibited stability and cohesion and seems to have persuaded many on the international arena that in light of the upheavals in the Arab world, engagement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires a cautious, gradual approach.

Conclusion

Within the Palestinian leadership and other circles, a recognition that the Israeli-Palestinian peace process cannot lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel is gradually taking root. The perception that Israeli governments have paid lip service to the two-state solution but have in fact not done much to make it happen is palpable.

With Israel led to date by a right wing government, the Palestinians' sense of helplessness in breaking the deadlock has intensified. The contours of a Palestinian state as outlined by Prime Minister Netanyahu (including a demilitarized state, Israeli control of the Jordan Valley, and a united Jerusalem under Israeli control) have almost certainly added to the Palestinian sense that a dialogue with Israel will not yield any satisfactory results for the Palestinians.

Nevertheless, the current Palestinian leadership still clings to the two-state vision. In an April 16, 2012 interview with al-Ayyam, Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas] stated: "Israel is making the two-state vision impossible to realize because of the construction in the settlements…In the end, [however,] despite Israel’s efforts, the two-state vision will continue to exist. I’ve heard many calls for the establishment of a single state. I wouldn’t want to prevent people from speaking freely, but I support the two-state vision."

Against this backdrop, and since the appeal to the United Nations has thus far not led to the desired results, from the Palestinian point of view, all that remains to be done by the Palestinian leadership is to hope that one or more of the following ensues:

a. The Iranian problem is solved one way or another in the coming months, which would allow the reinstatement of the Palestinian issue on the top of the global agenda.

b. President Obama, who has demonstrated a deep commitment to settling the conflict on the basis of the two-state formula, will be elected to a second term. Lacking the political constraints of a candidate seeking reelection, President Obama could level intense pressure on Israel and force it to soften its stances and progress toward a permanent solution.

c. The idea that maintaining the status quo and that the lack of a settlement on the basis of the two-state solution is a scenario that endangers the Jewish and democratic nature of the State of Israel will intensify among Israeli public opinion, and later, within the country’s leadership. This idea, so the Palestinians may hope, will enjoy large public support in the coming elections.

If these hopes are ultimately dashed, and perhaps even before that, the Palestinian leadership, for lack of a better choice, will likely turn again to a unilateral move. In a meeting with a Geneva initiative delegation in early April, Abu Mazen stated that if within a month he does not receive a positive response from Prime Minister Netanyahu to his letter, the PA will turn to the UN General Assembly and ask to upgrade its status from observer to non-member state.

If the unilateral move again fails to generate the desired outcome, and in light of the PA’s stance that rules out widespread violence against Israel, the position of Abu Alaa, Nusseibeh, and others will likely take greater hold among the Palestinian public in general and its leadership in particular. INSS - The Institute for National Security Studies

More ...

ARROGANCE INSURMOUNTABLE!

ernmoore@barnabuspress.com — Thu, 17 May 2012 06:56:00 GMT

Elliott Abrams’ piece for the Weekly Standard (below) is a masterpiece.

He is discussing the “I” President, Obama, telling the world that America’s military is fighting for him.

Oh??!

Since when. We have lots of contact with the military and believe me they are not on Obama’s side like he seems to think. The photo above shows seemingly joyful soldiers with their hands up to the President. But, look closely. He is handing out military “challenge” coins. Souvenirs that these guys will carry. Do they want the coins or do they want Barry the Osama killer?

Believe me there are lots of military people who are furious about Obama’s taking victory rounds for something that was accomplished by intelligence he once trashed by people and programs that he ranted against until finally he had to man up and allow the raid.

The military is not fighting for Obama. Take our word for it.

Article begins:

‘On My Behalf’

Really?

BY ELLIOTT ABRAMS, Weekly Standard

Mr. Obama’s statement yesterday was a marvel:

“I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I talked to friends and family and neighbors, when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together; when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that ‘don't ask, don't tell’ is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I've just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.”

Mr. Obama actually did bare his soul unintentionally today (perhaps the Biden disease is catching) with his astonishing characterization of American fighting men and women, whom he referred to as “those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf.” Really?

Most Americans thought they were fighting for the country, not on Barack Obama’s behalf. Slip of the tongue, to be sure, but can one think of another president who’d have made it? They are fighting under his command, under his orders, to be sure, but this particular locution is offensive and solipsistic. Mr. Obama has switched his position on the sanctity of marriage back and forth and has a new one, again, today, revealed when politics made that advisable to him and to his campaign. Whether this is the end or he will “evolve” some more is anyone’s guess.

More ...

WHO CAN BEAT OBAMA?

ernmoore@barnabuspress.com — Wed, 16 May 2012 05:00:00 GMT

A Texas INMATE took 40% of the West Virginia Democrat primary vote.

This is not a joke, but clear testimony that a typically Democrat state is fed up with the President’s war on energy, specifically in this case, coal.

How unpopular can Obama get? Texas INMATE gets 40 per cent of votes against President in West Virginia primary

Prisoner Keith Judd got 40% of vote in West Virginia to Obama's 60%

Inmate 11593-051 got on ballot by paying $2,500 fee and filing forms

Attracting 15% of vote normally qualifies candidate for a delegate to the Democratic National Convention

Just how unpopular is President Obama in some parts of the country? Enough that a man in prison in Texas received four out of 10 votes in West Virginia's Democratic presidential primary.

Inmate Keith Judd is serving 17 years for extortion at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Texas. He was sentenced in 1999 for making threats against the University of New Mexico.

With 93 per cent of precincts reporting, Obama was receiving just under 60 per cent of the vote to Judd's 40 per cent.

Popular prisoner: Inmate Keith Judd (pictured left) who is serving time at the Beaumont Federal Correctional Institution in Texas, received around 40% of votes in West Virginia's primary, coming a close second to President Obama

For some West Virginia Democrats, simply running against Obama is enough to get Judd, or Inmate Number 11593-051, votes.

'I voted against Obama,' said Ronnie Brown, a 43-year-old electrician from Cross Lanes who called himself a conservative Democrat.

'I don't like him. He didn't carry the state before and I'm not going to let him carry it again.'

When asked which presidential candidate he voted for, Brown said: 'That guy out of Texas.'

Judd was able to get on the state ballot by paying a $2,500 fee and filing a form known as a notarized certification of announcement, said Jake Glance, a spokesman for the Secretary of State's office.

According to the Charleston Gazette, Judd circulated his political standpoints to local media. These include opposing national health care reform on the grounds that it violates the 10th Amendment.

He also cites the U.S. Constitution, saying that incarcerated felons should not be disqualified from voting.

Attracting at least 15 per cent of the vote would normally qualify a candidate for a delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

Jaded: Some voters said they were happy to vote for anyone besides Obama

But state Democratic Party Executive Director Derek Scarbro said no one has filed to be a delegate for Judd.

The state party also believes that Judd has failed to file paperwork required of presidential candidates, but officials continued to research the matter, Mr Scarbro said. There may also be issues because the man is an inmate in federal prison.

Voters in other conservative states showed their displeasure with Obama in Democratic primaries last March.

In Oklahoma, anti-abortion protestor Randall Terry got 18 per cent of the primary vote. A lawyer from Tennessee, John Wolfe, pulled nearly 18,000 votes in the Louisiana primary.

Winning: Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won West Virginia's GOP primary Tuesday with more than 69 per cent of the vote

In Alabama, 18 per cent of Democratic voters chose 'uncommitted' in the primary rather than vote for Obama.

Obama's energy policies and the Environmental Protection Agency's handling of mining-related permits have incurred the wrath of West Virginia's coal industry.

With the state the nation's second-biggest producer of this fossil fuel, Governor Earl Ray Tomblin and Senator Joe Manchin - both Democrats have championed the industry - have declined to say whether they will support Obama in November.

Hillary Rodham Clinton beat Obama in the state's 2008 primary, and he lost the state to Republican John McCain in the general election.

The latest state-by-state Gallup poll, released in January, found Obama with a 32.7 per cent approval rating in West Virginia.

The president had a lower approval rating only in Utah, Idaho, Oklahoma and Wyoming.

'Keith Judd's performance is embarrassing for Obama and our great state,' outgoing West Virginia GOP Chairman Mike Stuart said.

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney won West Virginia's GOP primary on Tuesday with more than 69 per cent of the vote, with 93 per cent of precincts reporting. Rick Santorum followed with 12 per cent, while Ron Paul had 11 per cent.

Mr Brown, the Cross Lanes electrician, went to the polls on Tuesday with his 22-year-old daughter, Emily. She planned to vote for Judd too until she found out where Judd has been living.

'I'm not voting for somebody who's in prison,' she said.

However she was certain about one thing: 'I just want to vote against Barack Obama.'

More ...

DOUBLE INEPTNESS: US & UN

ernmoore@barnabuspress.com — Tue, 15 May 2012 07:21:00 GMT

Professor Barry Rubin has great insights. Whether foreign policy, local politics or just plain common sense, he has incisive commentary on what’s happening around the world. In this piece he’s pointing his bright light on the ineptness of the US and the UN.

Some of us remember the old days when the US didn’t bow to the, … oh well, you know.

The Region: A disgrace in the making

By BARRY RUBIN
06/05/2012

US policy toward Syria is turning into a scandal on both strategic and humanitarian grounds.

US policy toward Syria is turning into a scandal on both strategic and humanitarian grounds. The next three months will be wasted in a toothless observer effort during which time the Syrian regime will go on massacring people and mopping up the rebellion. In addition, US policymakers admit that they have no real back-up policy or idea what they should do next.
And then, to show how ridiculous the whole thing is, Syrian troops opened fire at oppositionists trying to talk to the UN monitors, forcing the observers to flee for their lives and injuring eight demonstrators. The UN responds by proposing a few dozen more equally helpless observers.
This is the same UN that in 2006 promised Israel that it would intercept Syrian weapons being smuggled to Hezbollah in Lebanon and stop that radical group from reoccupying its pre-war positions in the south of the country. In six years, not a single weapon has been intercepted and not a single Hezbollah terrorist stopped. On the contrary, with Syrian backing, Hezbollah has terrorized the thousands of soldiers in the UN forces in Lebanon.
There should be no question as to what should be done. Along with Iran, North Korea and Cuba, the Syrian regime is the most anti-American government in the world. It has done everything possible to sabotage US interests, to sponsor terrorism and to block peace. The Syrian regime is also Iran’s main ally.
Any conceivable president who cared about or understood US interests would make the overthrow of the Syrian regime a top priority for the United States. I’m not talking about sending troops or going to war but about every conceivable other means. This should be blindingly obvious.
In addition, any competent president would work hard to help the moderate pro-democratic forces in the Syrian opposition so that they can gain power in the country. Instead, the Obama administration that subcontracted dealing with the Syrian regime to the UN has subcontracted dealing with the Syrian opposition to the Islamist regime in Turkey. Not surprisingly, the Turkish regime has pushed Muslim Brothers and other Islamists and their clients into the “official” leadership of the Syrian opposition, the Syrian National Council. This has led to a fracturing of opposition leadership.
And the Syrian regime is being rewarded with no more pressure and being given the ability to stall for time even though it has already violated the cease-fire. This is not merely a bad US and Western policy; it is the worst possible policy, lacking any strategy to undermine the radicals and help the moderates.
After two-and-a-half years of the Obama administration treating this enemy as a friend we have seen almost a year of dithering over the opportunity to get rid of the regime. It is like when the administration ignored the stealing of the election in Iran and the opposition movement there, as if it wanted to coddle, not confound, the Tehran regime. It also came to the rescue of the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, pressing Israel to minimize sanctions.
In contrast, the administration has not hesitated to overthrow an ally in Egypt, and came close to doing that in Bahrain. The pattern is that the radical side breaks every agreement, rejects compromise and escalates aggression and the Obama administration takes it all with a smile on its face and a song in its heart.
But back to Syria. Even the pro-Obama CNN network is amazed by US policy. It admits the UN mission will fail, agrees that the Syrian government is the aggressor in shredding the ceasefire – using heavy weapons aimed at civilian targets, and adds:
“Monitoring missions can only work when the parties to a conflict have had enough of fighting or can be coerced into negotiation by outside powers. The Arab League mission members in Syria earlier this year were little more than bystanders, unable or unwilling to operate amid the government crackdown... the [Syrian] government has made it clear that the observers won’t have free rein.”
Ahmad Fawzi, spokesman for the UN envoy Kofi Annan, whose past record hardly inspires confidence, says two truly shocking things: “The United States is leaving it in the hands of Kofi Annan, as is the rest of the world... We’re the only path in town. There is no alternative.”
But why should the United States turn over its policy to the UN, especially since a number of members are pro-Syrian regime and blocking any serious action? And have we really reached a point in time when the UN can present itself as the only channel for international action?
In other words, it is assumed that the United States can have no independent policy. CNN accepts that view, adding, “That in itself illustrates how few options there are for the West to influence events in Syria.”
That’s nonsense. There are many other options. But how can there be hope for any alternative when a US official actually admits:
“Our allies were coming back to us and saying, ‘What’s your next move?,’ and we were forced to admit we didn’t have one.”
The US economy is merely hopelessly in debt, but US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, is hopelessly bankrupt.

The writer’s book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. He is director of global research in the International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and a featured columnist at PJM and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

More ...

THE JOY OF FOOD

ernmoore@barnabuspress.com — Mon, 14 May 2012 07:36:00 GMT

Israelis truly enjoy their food. And food in Israel is phenomenal. Street food to fancy restaurants, it’s there for the seeker. And for those who aren’t particularly taken by kosher food, there is plenty to choose from in Israel.

Having said that, there is plenty of kosher chow that will grab you if you know what to pick.

Leaving that discussion, let’s just offer you some summer fare for our favorite food guru in the South.

Summer cookin'

By GOURMETKOSHERCOOKING.COM
03/05/2012

As the weather heats up, it's time to move on from winter soups and stews to lighter fish dishes and salads.

The warm weather is upon us and that calls for summer cooking. We need to move from the heavy stews and soups of winter to lighter fare – fishes, salads and the fruit-based desserts of summer. Here are just a few suggestions along those lines.
Asian Salmon Patties
2 scallions, minced
2 tablespoons shredded ginger
1 cup panko
¼ cup mayonnaise
1 tablespoon hoisin sauce
1 tablespoon soy sauce
1 tablespoon Dijon mustard
1 egg, beaten
1-1/2 pounds salmon fillets, cooked, skinned and flaked
1/3 cup vegetable oil
Line a baking sheet with wax paper. Mix the scallions, ginger, 1/3 cup of the panko, mayonnaise, hoisin sauce, soy sauce, mustard and egg.
Add the salmon and mix well. Let stand for 5 minutes, then shape into patties and place on the baking sheet. Place the remaining panko in a shallow dish.
Coat the patties in the panko and return to the baking sheet. Heat the oil in a nonstick skillet over medium heat until very hot. Add the patties and cook until golden, about 3 minutes per side. Transfer to paper towels to dry.
If desired, serve with Ginger Tartar Sauce.
Ginger Tartar Sauce
1/3 cup mayonnaise
1 scallion, minced
1 tablespoon shredded fresh ginger
1 teaspoon Dijon mustard
Mix all ingredients together and refrigerate until ready for use.
Black Bean Corn Salsa Salad

1 (14-ounce) can black beans, drained
1 (14-ounce) can corn kernels, drained
2 small cucumbers, chopped
¼ red onion, diced
1/3 cup chopped cilantro
½ red pepper, chopped
1 avocado, chopped
½ cup chopped jicama (optional)
4 tablespoons salsa
2 tablespoons lime juice
2 tablespoons olive oil
¼ teaspoon crushed red pepper flakes
Salt and pepper to taste
Mix all ingredients together. Chill and serve within 3 hours.
Blueberry-Lemon Bundt Cake

1 cup (2 sticks) margarine, at room temperature
1 cup sugar
1 cup brown sugar
4 eggs
1 teaspoon vanilla
2-1/2 cups flour
2 teaspoons baking powder
1 cup tofutti sour cream
2 cups blueberries, washed and drained well
2 teaspoons flour
Glaze:
1-1/2 cups powdered sugar
4 tablespoons lemon juice
Preheat oven to 350 degrees.
Cream together margarine and sugars. Beat in eggs and vanilla. Combine dry ingredients and add to margarine mixture alternatively with sour cream, beginning and ending with dry ingredients.
Toss blueberries with 2 teaspoons flour and gently fold into batter. Pour into greased 12-cup Bundt pan and bake for 60 minutes.
Cool in pan for about 20 minutes before removing to wire rack.
When cake is completely cooled, combine glaze ingredients and drizzle over cake.

More ...

GOOD ARABS?

ernmoore@barnabuspress.com — Sun, 13 May 2012 06:27:00 GMT

Be sure to read the op-ed below which ran on Ynet’s internet page by Racheli Malek-Boda.

In answer to the headline: Don’t be foolish. Of course there are good Arabs in the Land. Better than that, there are some wonderful Arab people. When I lived in the Nachalot neighborhood the workers who handled apartment repairs where great people and more than competent craftsmen.

When we first moved to Israel in 2006, a man we viewed as a God-send, actually accompanied us to the grocery store and pointed out brands of a wide variety of products his wife preferred. He showed us the best values in furniture, taught us both Arabic and Hebrew words, and became a friend. Though we haven’t seen him for a couple of years, he is still considered a friend.

When we moved from Arnona, one of the Arab workers in the apartment complex told the manager, referring to me, “He is a very good man.” He didn’t draw lines based on race or culture.

But there is a definite cultural divide.

As you read the following piece, I’m sure it will challenge your heart and mind as it did my own. Enjoy:

The Arab who saved my boy
Op-ed: Settler wonders why we only trust Jews, despite presence of many good Arabs
Racheli Malek-Boda
I remember the first time I realized that as a religious/rightist/settler I was expected to hate Arabs, or at least treat them as second-class citizens. It happened in high school, during a trip to Jerusalem. We passed through the Muslim quarter's market and I wanted to purchase a small drum. I finalized a good deal with the peddler, when suddenly one teacher called me over, and quietly whispered: "We shouldn't support the Arabs."

About six months ago, my partner and I decided to happily leave bourgeoisie life behind and move to a community located beyond the Green Line, for the sake of our children's future. We are Zionists who love the land, yet it was not an idealistic move. We simply liked what we saw, liked the people living there, and stayed.

Since then, I see them every day – cars packed with local Palestinian laborers undergoing security checks at the entrance to the community en route to our new construction project. I never gave much attention to them. It seemed natural to me that Arabs are building our community, until the week where this strange status quo shattered.

It happened when I was on the way to kindergarten with my child. I met a neighbor and stopped to talk to her, when suddenly he let go of my hand and ran to the road to look at a tractor driving in reverse. One of the laborers who saw him immediately leapt to the road and pulled my child away. "It's very dangerous here," he told me. "Lucky thing you were here," I responded, and added: "Thank you, you saved my child."

A day later, I left the community to go shopping and saw the same laborer waiting for a ride. Should I stop? I asked myself. It was a matter of seconds, and I just drove past him, leaving dust in my wake. "Chances are that he is a good person," I thought to myself later. "Yet his friends already murdered six hikers in the nearby wadi. I can't take a risk."

Indifferent to all of them

I see them every day. They dive into the water at the spring next to the community, cut my chicken breast at the supermarket, and pack my bags at the cash register. On the eve of Independence Day, one of them even wished me a happy holiday (how was I supposed to respond – "Have a good Nakba day?") [EDM: Nakba is the Arab word for “catastrophe” referring to the day in 1967 that Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza.]

They are almost always nice, smiling, and provide excellent service. At times I can't help but ask myself: Why doesn't it work between us? Why are they good enough to fix my pipes and build my home, but are not reliable enough for me to give them a ride?

Why is it that every time I have a chance to return the favor, I'm thinking about horrific, racist scenarios such as: Maybe he's a terrorist? Maybe he's a rapist? Why is it that when the time comes to put my faith in people, I only trust Jews, as if there were never any rapists, murderers or criminals amongst us?

But that's life, and there's no justice. A large group of people that only want to live peacefully are forced to pay a heavy price for the actions of a small, dominant and bloodthirsty group. What do good Arabs look like? I don't know. I'm indifferent to all of them, including ones who truly don't deserve it.

Today, as is the case every day, I passed through the French Hill junction. Two Arab boys, apparently from the nearby village, cleaned the windshields of passing cars. Suddenly one of them walked over and started cleaning my windshield. "No, thanks. I washed my car yesterday," I told him.

"A shekel…" he whispered. "Just one shekel…" His face was full of scratches, and a huge scar adorned his neck.

"In a different world, it could have been my own child at that junction," I thought to myself, and was shocked by the very thought. The light changed and people started honking. I quickly pulled out my wallet and grabbed a 50 shekel bill. "Do good things with it," I muttered to the boy.

I drove on, and wouldn't stop crying all the way to work.

More ...

US WANTS A PIECE OF THE PIE

ernmoore@barnabuspress.com — Sat, 12 May 2012 04:16:00 GMT

The Iron Dome anti-missile system that Israel has developed is working. It has the ability to target incoming rockets from Gaza, determine which are headed into desert, un-populated areas and ignore them, and which are headed toward Israel’s populated areas and strike them mid-air destroying them. It is a marvelous system.

Now, word comes from Israel HaYom that the United States wants access to the technology.

That seems fair to us since millions of US dollars have contributed to Iron Dome development.

Here’s the report. You decide for yourself:

Report: Pentagon wants bang for its Iron Dome buck

Defense News reports that the U.S. is asking for “appropriate rights" to the Israeli-developed technology and wants "U.S.-based co-production of the system’s high-speed intercepting missiles" in exchange for an additional $680 million.

Israel Hayom Staff

The $680 million in additional U.S. funding for Israel's Iron Dome short-range anti-rocket defense system will come with strings attached, according to a report by Defense News on Monday. The report states that Washington is asking for “'appropriate rights' to the Israeli-developed technology and U.S.-based coproduction of the system’s high-speed intercepting missiles."

Defense News says that U.S. aid for the project may be provided over the next 29 months and the funds, together with another $205 million approved in 2011 legislation, brings U.S. taxpayer investment in the Israeli system to nearly $900 million.

Israel's anti-missile defense capability is set to receive a boost next year with the expected delivery of a fifth Iron Dome battery to the Israel Air Force. Barring any last-minute changes, the fifth battery is expected to arrive early next year, followed by a sixth battery a few months later.

The fourth Iron Dome battery was activated last month, and will be fully operational should a new round of violence necessitate it, marking the first time four Iron Dome batteries will operate in the country simultaneously. The fourth battery was installed in the central Israeli Dan region for the first time, signaling a possible assessment by the defense establishment that a renewed round of rocket fire could reach the densely populated center of the country. The Israel Defense Forces said the deployment was part of a predetermined operational test of the system.

According to Defense News, an Israeli official said the proposed $680 million would be used to cover four additional Iron Dome batteries, which include an Eltamultimission radar, Iron Dome launchers, Tamir interceptors and the system’s command-and-control unit.

On Apr. 26, Israel's Independence Day, Defense Minister Ehud Barak reportedly praised “the initiative of the Pentagon, with the approval of the White House and with bipartisan support in Congress, to legislate additional aid to enable Israel to deploy 10 batteries and thousands of interceptors of the Iron Dome.”

Barak reportedly did not make reference to the conditions Washington has set for its support of Iron Dome, which he has called “the fruit of Israel’s indigenous defense industry.”

More ...

THE TEMPEST IN THE MINT-TEA GLASS

ernmoore@barnabuspress.com — Fri, 11 May 2012 08:42:00 GMT

MK Ben-Eliezer blew his stack, then later calmed down and apologized. He isn’t the only person who is furious at the Likud-Kadima partnership.

Why all the uproar? Why would some of the Kadima Members of the Knesset actually skip the meeting where the new coalition was approved? Why can’t Bibi just add whomever will join the party?

“A majority of 71 coalition MKs voted to approve Kadima's entry into the government, with 23 members of the opposition voting against the motion. Three members of Kadima, angry over the surprise agreement between Kadima and Likud, a backroom deal that sent shock waves through the Israeli political system, were no-shows.” (Israel HaYom)

Let’s do the math. 120 members in the Knesset. According to one set of numbers Kadima has 41 and Likud 21. If all those two parties vote, we can get up to 62, but… according to HaYom, three Kadima members bugged out and didn’t vote. Why not?

Because – we suspect – they were totally loyal to Tzipi Livni. That means they viscerally hate Bibi and now add Mofaz to that black list. With Mofaz in charge of their party, they won’t be getting a juicy post in the new government. With Bibi having the votes they won’t be getting any programs in their home districts. That is not Israeli, it is politics everywhere.

The remaining positive votes came from other coalition member-parties.

But that’s not the end of the situation.

Eli Yishai the leader of the Shas Party, made up of Sephardic Jews, who is a member of the coalition, said in so many words, “We aren’t leaving, and Netanyahu still will need us down the road.” He’s no doubt right on that count, but for now there are lots of people wondering if Mofaz and his people will begin to demand some of the plum jobs in the government.

And this coup by Benjamin Netanyahu and Mofaz is not the first time that “trick plays” have happened. As Israel HaYom recounted, “Meretz Chairwoman Zahava Gal-On commented on the events of the day in the Knesset and said, ‘The stinking maneuver of the 1990s was tiny compared to this one. This was a mega-stinking maneuver.’ Gal-On was referring to a political move in 1990, in which current President Shimon Peres and then-Shas leader Aryeh Deri tried to topple the government of then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir by quitting the national unity government and installing Peres as prime minister instead. The incident was dubbed the "stinking maneuver" by Yitzhak Rabin, who at the time was Peres' Labor party rival.”

Politics in Israel is not something for the weak or fearful. It is in-your-face, hardball and anyone who thinks otherwise is in for a jolt.

If you think about it, Iran might want to watch all this and reconsider all the bluster about wiping out Israel.

More ...

WHAT DOES BIBI GET?

ernmoore@barnabuspress.com — Fri, 11 May 2012 07:27:00 GMT

History-making majority. A challenge-proof ability to enact what he needs through the Knesset.

A coalition member agrees not to oppose the Prime Minister in the Knesset. It is go along or go alone, meaning dropping out of the coalition.

He gets an unassailable position to determine both diplomatic and social policy. In this case, things like the Tal Law regarding the Hassidic community’s mandatory participation in the military or national service.

What does Mofaz get?

As Caroline Glick wrote, “Mofaz’s reason for acting as he did is clear. Kadima was set to lose half its seats in the Knesset in the next election.
“It may still lose half its seats in the next election. It may split apart. A million things can happen. But Mofaz probably figured that whereas if the elections were held in September he’d be blamed for the loss, by October 2013, he will have figured out someone else to blame for the defeat of his party.”

In the meantime, Mofaz can bask in the glory that he played an integral part in sustaining the largest coalition in Israel’s history. He was the linchpin.

That is important, if only on a personal or personality basis, since for most politicians he surely had seemed a shadow of the “greats” in the system.

There is something else at play here. Bibi has for the past few months seemed sort of “all thumbs” with one aide resigning under a shadow, social unrest from the far left and the Ethiopian quarter, as well as other areas.

Now he can be seen as someone who plays the political game with deftness, and controls events rather than be controlled by them.

Right now, it’s good being Bibi.

More ...