Dear Family & Friends,

Traveling deletes work time. Sorry about the missing days.

Today before Shabbat much urgent news – several should be first, so I highlighted with yellow those that should be first.

#5 International Farhud Day strikes a deep chord for me. I started M.E.I.R., Mid East Information Resource after the vote in the UN that Zionism is Racism. M.E.I.R was & is a Jewish Speakers’ Bureau to fight Arab Propaganda. In re-reading my newsletters from 1976 onward, I’m struck by the fact that I started the Jewish practice of Media Monitoring. I had organized series of seminars taught by professionals who volunteered to train u.

I learned & then taught the deep history of our Jews from Arab Countries.

Joan Peters, z’l, gave me the 16 mm film: “The Dhimmi: To Be A Jew in Arab Lands”, created by WOJAC, World Organization for Jews in Arab Countries, which showed one of the very few documented histories of our past generations living in the Muslim Arab world. I carried that film, a 16 mm projector, movie screen & lots of documentary papers plus applications for AIPAC, subscriptions to the Jerusalem Post; Save Soviet Jewry letters, etc.

We learned & were taught by a Persian Jew that we couldn’t trust Muslim Arabs to keep their word after a negotiation & signed contracts with them were useless. They practiced Taqqiya (Deception) & had to break such contracts after 10 years. Read “The Hudabaiya Treaty”. He escaped from Iran; his family didn’t until much later.

This is just a tiny bit of my relevant biography but, WOW, does Farhud Day speak to & for all of us.

Have a wonderful Shabbat night, day & see you again Moetzi Shabbat or Yom Rishon,

All the very best, Gail/Geula/Savta/Savta Raba x2/Mom

1.US, World Powers Offering Nuclear Equipment to Iran

2.Iran’s Supreme Leader Nixing Terms for Nuclear Deal

3.JINSA’s Gaza Conflict Task Force Report in JTA

4.The blowback from the Oren revelations

5.International Farhud Day: An Insider’s Eyewitness Account

6.The Scorpion, The Frog and The Pope by Susan Warner

7.Al Jazeera Reporter Endorses Terrorists by Rachael Hanna

8.WikiLeaks Reveals Saudi Cable: ‘Iran Sent Nukes to Sudan’

9.UN Commission of Inquiry Report-Where is Hamas?

1.US, World Powers Offering Nuclear Equipment to Iran: In a last-ditch effort the US and world powers offer Iran nuclear equipment to sweeten their deal. By: Hana Levi Julian Published: 6/24/15

 Iran’s nuclear enrichment facility at Fordow is in an underground bunker. Photo Credit: screen capture YouTube

A secret eight-page document obtained Tuesday and revealed exclusively by The Associated Press shows just how far the U.S. and world powers are willing to go for a nuclear deal with a Iran.

Dated June 19 and entitled “Civil Nuclear Cooperation,” the document appears to make it clear the international delegation is providing everything Iran needs to produce peaceful nuclear power. Among the equipment to be provided are “high-tech reactors and other state-of-the-art equipment.”

Also on Tuesday, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said in a speech broadcast live on national state television that Tehran would not agree to a long-term freeze on nuclear development. Nor would he allow international inspectors into military nuclear sites. Finally, he demanded that all sanctions against Iran be lifted immediately upon signing a deal with the U.S. led group of world powers.

In offering cutting-edge light-water nuclear reactors to replace its heavy-water facility at Arak – which if completed can produce several atomic weapons per year – in effect the group appears to call Iran’s bluff. Either it truly wants to produce nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or not. If Iran turns the offer down, its intentions are clear.

But according to Omri Ceren of The Israel Project, it may not be that simple. “There is no ‘peaceful only.’ All of this stuff can be re-purposed for weapons work,” he wrote in an emailed reply to JewishPress.com.

“As the annex is written right now… this is no longer a deal to stop the Iranian nuclear program,” he pointed out in a brief prepared for TIP. “It’s a deal to let the Iranians perfect their nuclear program with international assistance and under international protection.

“Some country in the P5+1 will be helping the Iranians develop next-generation centrifuges in a facility impenetrable to American and Israeli bombs,” Ceren contended. “Conversely, any country that wants to sabotage that development will be unable to do so, because the program will be protected and maintained by a major power.

“As the centrifuges are being developed they’ll be spinning non-nuclear elements, but once they’re perfected the Iranians will be able to use them to enrich uranium. The international community will literally be investing in helping Iran achieve a zero breakout.”

About the Author: Hana Levi Julian is a Middle East news analyst with a degree in Mass Communication and Journalism from Southern Connecticut State University. A past columnist with The Jewish Press and senior editor at Arutz 7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and other media outlets, in addition to her years working in broadcast journalism.

US, World Powers Offering Nuclear Equipment to Iran

**************************************************************************

2.Iran’s Supreme Leader Nixing Terms for Nuclear Deal By: Hana Levi Julian JewishPress.com Published: June 24th, 2015

Speaking Tuesday, Iran’s Supreme Leader nixed the terms for a nuclear deal with world powers.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei Photo Credit: Khamenei.ir

Iranian nuclear scientists are expected to maintain their pace and make good progress in the field – with or without sanctions or a deal for relief – according to a report on state TV.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei made it clear Tuesday that he has ruled out any freeze on sensitive nuclear work, state television reported.

The deal being offered by the six world powers (the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) offers relief from sanctions imposed on Tehran, linked to verifications by the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency that Iran has halted its sensitive nuclear development program. The deal is to extend over a 10 year period.

In return, the UN is to lift the economic sanctions that have crippled Iran’s economy, using a step-down system linked to IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear plants and research facilities.

But Iran’s Supreme Leader has nixed all that, and demands that sanctions be removed immediately as well.

“Freezing Iran’s research and development for a long time, like 10 or 12 years, is not acceptable,” Khamenei responded in a speech that was broadcast live over Iran state television.

“Sanctions should be lifted immediately when the deal is signed and it should not be linked to verification by the UN watchdog body.

“Inspection of our military sites is out of the question and is one of our red lines.

“America is hoping to destroy our nuclear industry altogether. Our negotiators’ aim is to safeguard Iran’s integrity … and our nuclear achievements during the talks.”

It is Khamenei who has the authority to make the final decision on anything dealing with nuclear technology in Iran; thus as it stands now, it is likely that unless he suddenly changes his mind – or the delegation is willing to accept his terms — the deal is likely to be scrapped.

Or talks will again be extended, as they have been twice before.

Negotiations so far are scheduled to end – “one way or the other” – on June 30.

Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has been pressuring the world powers to walk away from “this bad deal” and warning Iran would not keep its end of the bargain. It has already been discovered that Iran was increasing its uranium enrichment production during the nuclear agreement talks, even though it had already committed to halting such production as a good faith measure during negotiations.

Israel maintains that Iran cannot be trusted to fulfill its side of any future deal, either.

About the Author: Hana Levi Julian is a Middle East news analyst with a degree in Mass Communication and Journalism from Southern Connecticut State University. A past columnist with The Jewish Press and senior editor at Arutz 7, Ms. Julian has written for Babble.com, Chabad.org and other media outlets, in addition to her years working in broadcast journalism.

BDS please – please – please boycott this from Israel: THE NEW CANCER VACCINE. http://jewtube.tv/innovation/new-israeli-cancer-vaccine-may-work-90-cancer-types/

More on Israel and the weekly Torah Portion and stories

www.rabbipauli.blogspot.com RP

3.JINSA’s Gaza Conflict Task Force Report in JTA This time, Israel and its supporters came prepared By Ron Kampeas and Marcy Oster – JTA June 23, 2015 Anticipating what they believed would be an unfair U.N. report on last summer’s Gaza War, the Israeli government and friendly groups in the United States were ready with at least three reports they say better reflects the reality of the five-week engagement between Israel and Hamas. The U.N. report, issued Monday, said Israel’s military and Palestinian armed groups committed “serious violations” of international human rights law during the conflict that in some cases may amount to war crimes. While the 183-page report of the U.N. Commission of Inquiry on the 2014 Gaza conflict accused both sides of possible war crimes, its findings focused more on what it considers Israeli wrongdoing in its operation known as Protective Edge. “The commission was deeply moved by the immense suffering of Palestinian and Israeli victims, who have been subjected to repeated rounds of violence,” reads the conclusions section. Israel refused to cooperate with the commission, as it had with a similar commission after the 2009 war that resulted in the Goldstone Report, which stirred controversy. This time, however, Israel had prepared its own report that said the escalation of attacks on Israel by Hamas and other terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip justified its broader military operation under international law. It was released last week. Additionally, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs in March commissioned a report by a panel of former U.S. military officials and legal experts. And earlier this month, the High Level International Military Group, a panel of retired military and diplomatic officials from NATO countries, came together under the “Friends of Israel” initiative and issued its own exonerating report. Statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israel-friendly groups in reaction to the U.N. report alluded to the counter-reports. “Fair-minded observers recently investigated Israel’s conduct in the Gaza campaign,” Netanyahu said in his statement Monday. “They include senior generals from the United States and NATO countries. They found that not only did Israel uphold the highest standards of international law, in the laws of armed conflict, they said that Israel exceeded the highest standards.” The American Israel Public Affairs Committee in its statement cited the High Level International Military Group’s finding that “Israel not only met a reasonable international standard of observance of the laws of armed conflict, but in many cases significantly exceeded that standard.” One reason for coming prepared this time around: The Palestinian Authority this year established a relationship with the International Criminal Court, which is assessing whether to institute criminal proceedings against Israeli and Palestinian officials in the wake of the war. ICC prosecutors must show that there has been no serious attempt to bring to account those responsible for abuses in order for the court to step in. An array of investigations could mitigate an international prosecution. “We urge the administration and Congress to stand by our ally, particularly if international bodies seek to exploit this report to punish Israel,” AIPAC said in its statement. The writing of the U.N. report was directed by Mary McGowan Davis, a former justice of the Supreme Court of New York. Davis replaced the original head, William Schabas, who resigned in April. Israel provided evidence to the U.N. Human Rights Council in Geneva that Schabas, a Canadian international law professor, had authored a seven-page legal briefing on behalf of the PLO for which he was paid. The only other panel member was Doudou Dienne of Senegal, a former U.N. watchdog on racism and on post-conflict in the Ivory Coast. The report called on Israel to “provide sufficient details on its targeting decisions to allow an independent assessment of the legality of the attacks conducted by the Israel Defense Forces and to assist victims in their quest for the truth.” It acknowledged that providing details on the targeting decisions could be a security risk for Israel that could “jeopardize intelligence sources,” but said that did not excuse Israel from doing so. The report called on Israel to hold its soldiers and officers accountable for the breaches of international law during the conflict in Gaza. On the Palestinian side, the report said that “the commission has serious concerns with regard to the inherently indiscriminate nature of most of the projectiles directed towards Israel by these groups and to the targeting of civilians, which violate international humanitarian law and may amount to a war crime. The increased level of fear among Israeli civilians resulting from the use of tunnels was palpable. The commission also condemns the extrajudicial executions of alleged ‘collaborators,’ which amount to a war crime.” The report said that a “persistent lack of implementation” of recommendations by previous commissions of inquiry, fact-finding missions, U.N. treaty bodies, special procedures and other United Nations bodies “lies at the heart of the systematic recurrence of violations in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” Past U.N. commissions have recommended that Israeli and Palestinian authorities conduct good-faith investigations of the allegations and proceed with prosecutions where necessary. Netanyahu reportedly has ordered his government ministers to refrain from commenting on the report until it can be studied and a response formulated. Davis, in an interview with Israel’s Channel 2 Television, denied bias. “I think we tried very hard to be even-handed, and there’s no bias at all in the report,” she said, according to the Times of Israel. Responding to Netanyahu’s claims that the commission was not fair-minded, Davis said, “Well, I would say that he’s wrong. I doubt he had time to read all 183 pages. He’s a busy man.” JINSA’s Gaza Conflict Task Force Report in JTA

4.The blowback from the Oren revelations 6/24/15  Michael Oren, former Israeli Ambassador to America IIsi The fierce reactions to Kulanu MK and former Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren’s evaluation of the Obama administration in his new book, and in particular to three articles he penned titled “How Obama abandoned Israel,” “Why Obama is wrong about Iran being ‘rational’ on nukes” and “How Obama opened his heart to the ‘Muslim world,’” were predictable. He has enraged the administration, created enormous anxiety and polarized a situation within the American Jewish community. Publication coincided with the U.S. Supreme Court upholding the administration’s right to overrule a bipartisan congressional decision that required the State Department to allow U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to designate on their passports that they were born in Israel. Instead, the administration is able to perpetuate its practice of refusing to recognize that the capital Jerusalem is an integral part of Israel. Oren released his book – already on Amazon’s bestseller list – earlier than scheduled (click here for Amazon link). He hoped that it would impact on Congress and strengthen its resolve if, as appears likely, President Barack Obama continues his path of capitulation toward Iran. Left unblocked, this path will enable Iran – the most dangerous global terrorist entity in the world, which makes no secret of its determination to wipe Israel off the face of the earth – to emerge as a nuclear-armed power. The decision by Oren to express his damning evaluation of the nature and motivations of Obama’s diplomatic abandonment of Israel, without inhibitions, stunned all who had either been engaged or followed events in the Middle East. Until now, much of what Oren outlined has been discussed quietly in Jewish quarters, but by and large, the community’s leaders preferred to bury their heads in the sand and declined to publicly express their apprehensions. Oren made it clear that Obama maintained and even strengthened the defense relationship with Israel. But, notwithstanding a few exceptions such as statements he made at the United Nations and during his visit to Israel, from the day of his inauguration he systematically pursued his objective to create daylight between Israel and the United States in order to build bridges with the Islamic world. Oren stressed that while “nobody has a monopoly on making mistakes” and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as well as Obama made mistakes, it was Obama who deliberately acted to weaken and “jettison” the relationship. Oren cites chapter and verse of Obama’s humiliation of Netanyahu and his double standards in continuing to condemn Israel and not even once confront the PA and Abbas, thus reinforcing Palestinian extremism and encouraging their intransigency and refusal to compromise. He points to Obama’s use of the word “appalling” in reference to Israel’s activity in the last Gaza war, and his chilling delay of arms shipments to the IDF during the war. He notes that Obama does not even accuse those who perpetrated the murderous attack on the kosher delicatessen in Paris of engaging in anti-Semitism, preferring to condemn them as “vicious zealots who … randomly shot a bunch of folks in a deli.” In his Foreign Policy article, Oren speculates that Obama’s abandonment by his mother’s Muslim husbands prompted him in his later life to seek acceptance from their coreligionists. The response from the administration was, predictably, one of outrage. There were demands for apologies and Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, who effectively called Oren a liar, requested Netanyahu to condemn and dissociate himself from the remarks. The prime minister’s response was that Oren was not speaking on behalf of the government and that he did not intend to comment. Netanyahu has been treated far more shabbily by Obama and his administration than any leader of a rogue state. Only a few months ago, he was described as “chickenshit” by senior personnel, and former senior peace negotiator Ambassador Martin Indyk has repeatedly slandered and debased him. However, at no stage did we hear any repudiation by Obama of these constant vile attacks on a purported ally. Under pressure from Shapiro, some ministers dissociated themselves and even condemned Oren. Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon, the head of Oren’s Kulanu party, criticized Oren and perhaps went overboard when he reaffirmed his “sincere appreciation for President Obama’s efforts to stand by Israel and defend its interests.” There was also criticism from Public Security and Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan and Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely. Although the administration has bitterly condemned Oren and accused him of distorting reality, there has been a distinct absence of articles refuting him – for the simple reason that the facts he presented cannot be denied. In fact, Democrat Alan Dershowitz has explicitly endorsed Oren’s view that the Obama administration deliberately sought to damage the relationship between the U.S. and Israel. Needless to say, the liberals are now up in arms, shrieking against an ambassador whom they admired and considered had been appointed to the post because of his liberal inclinations. He published articles in the left-wing media and the liberal Jewish weekly The Forward named him as one of the five most influential American Jews in the world. He campaigned vigorously against Netanyahu before the election. Even now he expresses the hope that Hillary Clinton will be elected as the next U.S. president. It is therefore impossible to write him off as a right-winger. The most consistent rebuttal of Oren by the administration and liberals are pathetic attempts to personally besmirch him as a hedonist and opportunist willing to sell his soul to promote sales of his book to conservative Republicans who despise their president. The greatest impact, which has yet to be fully assessed, is within the Jewish community. Oren does not mince words about his abhorrence with the manner in which certain Jewish “liberals” in the administration and media, such as Thomas Friedman and Leon Wieseltier, have goaded Obama to toughen his attitude toward Israel. I predict that when the dust settles, nothing will change with the far-Left liberals whose veneration of Obama is almost messianic. But among more open-minded pro-Israel Democrats, Oren is likely to have a profound impact and will hopefully encourage some of them to review their position. The conservatives will of course claim that they were always on the right side of the angels and that Oren is merely stating what they have been saying for years. What is more important is what impact Oren’s public revelations will have on the Jewish leaders. any of them are deeply distressed by Oren’s outbursts. As of now, aside from the Anti-Defamation League’s retiring chief, Abe Foxman, dismissing Oren’s views as “conspiracy theories with an element of pseudo psychoanalysis,” little is being publicly said, but there is undoubtedly intense discussion taking place behind the scenes. Many claim that this will drive the administration into a frenzy and intensify the anti-Israeli diplomatic moves. There is a case for this attitude but surely – especially in light of the additional revelations by Oren – quietly sitting on the sidelines has proven to be and remains the wrong approach. Now albeit belatedly, is the time to speak up, promoting the case for Israel and respectfully, honestly and publicly rebutting Obama’s distorted and one-sided approach. Hopefully it will strengthen and unite the committed Jewish community, and it may even have a major positive impact on Congress as the Iranian capitulation policy comes to a head. For many Americans and congressmen the revelations of Oren will come as a shock to them. It is too early to tell, but Oren’s intervention may have long-term positive repercussions impacting on the balance of Obama’s term of office as well as long-standing American policy. We can only pray that will be the outcome. Isi Leibler may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com This column was originally published in the and The blowback from the Oren revelations

5.International Farhud Day: An Insider’s Eyewitness Account By: Edwin Black JewishPress.com Published: June 24th, 2015

Farhud Memorial in Ramat Gan

While I was speaking to the packed room, a woman I did not know, sitting in the front row, slowly shook her tear-stained head in disbelief and muttered softly … barely audible … “I never thought I would hear these words in this building.”

The woman, it turns out, was of Iraqi Jewish ancestry. The building was the iconic United Nations Headquarters in Manhattan, astride the East River. The event was in a hall routinely used by the UN Security Council. The day was June 1, 2015. The occasion was the proclamation of “International Farhud Day” at the UN as a live global event broadcast by UN TV.

Farhud in an Arabic dialect means violent dispossession. The words I spoke that gripped the woman listening described in detail how the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, leader of the Arab community in Mandate Palestine, organized a blood-curdling massacre by Nazi-allied Arabs against Baghdad’s peaceful Jewish community on June 1-2, 1941. The ensuing mass rape, beheading, murder, burning, and looting spree was the first step in a process that throughout the Arab world effectively ended 2,600 years of Jewish existence in those lands. Ultimately, some 850,000 to 900,000 Jews were systemically pauperized and made stateless in a coordinated forced exodus from the Arab world.

Many Sephardic Jews consider the 1941 Farhud, which murdered and maimed hundreds, to be their Kristallnacht.

However, for the past 74 years, neither the facts about the brutal, two-day pogrom, nor the culpability of the Nazified Iraqi and Palestinian Arab perpetrators, nor the expulsion of 850,000 Jewish refugees from the Arab world that followed were topics the UN wanted to hear of. Nor for the past 74 years was this blood-letting and its aftermath commemorated in the vast chronicles of organized Holocaust remembrances. Nor for the past 74 years was this constellation of tragedies commonly known and/or spoken of within the Jewish community. In fact, it took years of highly acrimonious, sometimes public, debate with and pressure on the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum only recently successful to eveninduce the USHMM to recognize either the atrocity that occurred or the Mufti’s role in the killing as a Holocaust-era persecution.

Indeed, the Farhud is most often referred to as the “forgotten pogrom.” I first wrote about this massacre, in fleeting passage, in my 2004 book, Banking on Baghdad. My articles on the subject in the media, drawn from the book, such as those syndicated by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, were typically headlined “The Forgotten Pogrom.” That spawned the 2005 Farhud Recognition Project, which endeavored to bring this brutal Holocaust chapter into history’s sightlines.

Half a decade later, in 2010, I went further and published an entire book devoted to the topic, The Farhud: Roots of the Arab-Nazi Alliance in the Holocaust. Yet, ten years after being “rediscovered” and right through the week before the UN event, Jewish media articles were still referring to the Farhud as the “forgotten pogrom.” Conference of Presidents vice chairman, Malcolm Hoenlein, in his introductory remarks at the June 1, 2015 UN event, poignantly asked this question: “I must wonder why it took 74 years for the world to recognize the tragedy of the Farhud.”

Certainly, that was the question of the day. Three main reasons explain how mass carnage as barbaric as the Farhud remained out of earshot and over the horizon of Holocaust awareness.

First, persecution of Jewish victims in Arab countries did not conform to the established line of study that followed the classic Holocaust definition, as archetypically expressed by the USHMM’s mission statement: “The Holocaust was the state-sponsored, systematic persecution and annihilation of European Jewry by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945.” Note the pivotal word “European.” This geographic qualifier left out the Jews of Iraq as well as their persecuted coreligionists in North Africa, where some 17 concentration camps were established by Vichy-allied and Nazi influenced Arab regimes.

Second, because the persecution of Jews in Arab lands during WWII and their forced exodus was considered beyond the thematic horizon, the type of well-financed and skilled scholarship that has riveted world attention on the Holocaust in Europe, generally by-passed the Sephardic experience. Certainly, the overwhelming blood and eternal sorrow of the Holocaust genocide was experienced by European Jewry. But their deeply tragic suffering, including that endured by my Polish parents, who survived, does not exclude the examination of other groups. Years of focus on the plight of Gypsies, Jews in Japan, and other persecuted groups proves that. Undeniably, a solid nexus clasps the events of the Middle East, roiling in oil, colonialism, and League of Nations Mandates, to a European theatre brimming with war crimes and military campaigns.

After the 1941 Farhud and during the subsequent years Husseini was on Hitler’s payroll, the Mufti of Jerusalem toured European concentration camps and intervened at the highest levels to send European children to death camps in occupied Poland rather than see them rescued them into Mandate Palestine. In his diary, Husseini called Adolf Eichmann “a rare diamond.” What’s more, the tens of thousands of Nazified Arabs who fought in three Waffen SS Divisions in the Balkans and across all of Europe, were fighting for a Palestine and a greater Middle East Arab causethat hinged on Jewish extermination and colonial upheaval.

Husseni and Hitler

When I wrote The Farhud in 2010, the focus was on excavating the details of a forgotten pogrom and a forgotten Nazi alliance. Only in recent years has a renewed trickle of excellent scholarship yielded gripping new research into the Arab role in the Holocaust. For example, there is Islam and Nazi Germany’s War, which The Wall Street Journal reviewed as “impeccably researched.” A second book,Nazis, Islamists, and the Making of the Modern Middle East, by meticulous Arab and Turkish culture researcher Wolfgang Schwanitz, was published by Yale University Press. There are several excellent others.

Third, critics say, that many of the leading Jewish newspapers and wire services, now vastly more politicized than they were in the prior decade, did not devote sufficient space and informed knowledge to the topic. Moreover, some these critics suggest that in recent years, the Jewish press seemed to have marginalized the atrocity and its aftermath as a political discussion. “When former Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon was doing his 2012 campaign for Jewish refugees from Arab lands,” asserts Lyn Julius of the British organization HARIF – Association of Jews from North Africa and the Middle East, “hardly a day went by when certain Jewish or Israeli newspapers did not politicize the matter, or suggest Israel was exploiting the issue for political gain.”

In that vein, the day before the June 1, 2015 UN event, one prominent Jewish newspaper published an article on the Farhud, which included this observation: “Now, Jewish organizations and the Israeli government deploy it [memory of the Farhud] frequently to support their claims for refugee recognition on behalf of Middle Eastern Jews.” Before the UN ceremony, three different irate members of the audience showed me this article on their tablets, and the consensus of disdain was expressed by one Sephardic gentleman who objected, first quoting the newspaper with derision: “‘Deploy it frequently to support their claims for refugee recognition on behalf of Middle Eastern Jews?’” and then adding, “They would never say such a thing about the European Kristallnacht!” The complainers were equally astonished that this prominent article made no mention of the Mufti of Jerusalem. They felt the complete omission of Husseini’s involvement and the marginalization of their nightmare was typical of the roadblocks they had encountered during their decades-long struggle for recognition of their anguish.

But on June 1, 2015, yes, 74 inexcusably years late and, yes, not an hour too soon, after waiting for thirty minutes beneath a gaggle of umbrellas in the torrential rain at a narrow admittance gate on First Ave, and then into a packed hall at the UN, attended by diplomats from several countries, human rights activists of various causes and key Jewish leaders from a communal spectrum, in an event broadcast worldwide live by the UN itself, the stalwarts of Farhud memory gathered to finally make the proclamation of International Farhud Day — and made it loud and clear. In doing so, they made history by simply recognizing history.

All they wanted was to be remembered — to change the headline on their suffering from “the forgotten pogrom” to “the not forgotten pogrom.” All they wanted was to draw back the curtain of their sorrow without an asterisk, without a parenthetical, without a “but also” or a “however” or a political catchphrase to qualify or filter their disconsolation. In short, they wanted to take their place in the annals of misery for the same reason all other Jews gather into that space: so they can help whisper endlessly the words “never again” as a beacon to humanity.

That happened on June 1, 2015, 74 years too late but not a minute too soon. The official proclamation was read aloud that day to the world: “On behalf of Iraqi Jews everywhere who yearn to commemorate the Farhud, the Holocaust-era massacre by Arab nationalists in coordination with the Nazis, which occurred June 1-2, 1941 in Baghdad, killing hundreds of innocent Jews and brutalizing thousands more, and pillaging their property …. and on behalf of those who recognize that Palestinian Arab leaders, including the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, were central instigators of the violence in Baghdad, along with Iraqi Prime Minister Rashid Ali al-Gailani and the Golden Square coup plotters … and on behalf of those who yearn to recognize that the Farhud was the first step in the process which resulted in the forced exodus of 850,000 to 900,000 Jewish refugees from centuries of peaceful existence in Arab countries … The organizations and individuals assembled and represented here, this June 1, 2015, in New York City at the United Nations, do hereby proclaim June 1st as International Farhud Day, to recognize and commemorate the Nazi-allied massacre by Arabs, the mass forced exodus that followed, and the 850,000 to 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab Lands. We recognize this date as a lamented day of history that should not be forgotten.”

Seven parchment copies were signed by the five key organizers: Rabbi Elie Abadie of Jews for Justice in Arab Lands, Alyza D. Lewin for both the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists and the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, Maurice Shohet of the World Organization of Jews in Iraq, Avi Posnick for StandWithus, and myself as historian. Signing as witness for the proceedings was Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Numerous Jewish and non-Jewish organizations both here and abroad added their voices as co-sponsors, such as Philadelphia-based Scholars for Peace in the Middle East, HARIF – Association of Jews from North Africa and the Middle East in London, the Zionist Federation of Great Britain, and theBabylonian Heritage Society of Israel.

On behalf of Congressional Israel-Allies Caucus in the House of Representatives, co-chair Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), issued a public statement expressing “deepest solidarity with Iraqi and the Arab world’s Jews. Franks declared, “Today we will change the first of June from a day of a near-forgotten tragedy into International Farhud Day – a day of commemoration – when we call on the entire world to remember the disaster that befell the Arab world’s Jews, and to do justice by them and their descendants.”

Those who know the complex inter-relations and brimming calendar of the Jewish communal scene would understandably guess that such an international and multi-organizational undertaking at the UN as a live global event no less would necessitate many months of tedious planning, and probably a grant or two from the donor community. In fact, the entire enterprise took just six weeks from the first light bulb email on April 9 to the culminating applause of Farhud Day on June 1, 2015.

As a testament to the long overdue recognition and the deep-seated and visceral understanding of the tragedy, uncharacteristically, the prime movers came together immediately, cohesively, and with humanitarian synchrony. There was no real funding, except for the shoestring contributions of the participants. A team of volunteers were found to man the event.

Key among the responsible parties was Alyza Lewin who had successfully coordinated a UN event on UNRWA some months earlier. The two organizations she represented, the American Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists and the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists, combined the heft of their juridical grasp of international law and human rights abuses to inject the needed gravitas and perspective.

Rabbi Elie Abadie, born in Beirut, heads up Justice for Jews from Arab Countries and has long been a warrior for recognition of both the Farhud and the unrecognized and forgotten nightmare of 850,000 to 900,000 Jewish refugees from Arab countries. When he agreed to be program moderator, Rabbi Abadie imbued the effort with the long overlooked activist fire needed to fuel the effort.

Maurice Shohet, as head of the World Organization of Jews from Iraq added the indispensable historical sinew to the survivor and descendant community. His dignity and intrinsic epicentral voice was listened to at all times as the program was developed.

StandWithUs, as America’s pre-eminent Jewish and Israel defense organization, was not new to the topic. For years, its president Roz Rothstein had elevated the Farhud and the related forced expulsion of Jews from Arab Lands to a prominent place in the constellation of StandWithUs causes.

My end was simply the history. History, when connected to the present, can be a spark plug for the future.

Unlisted in the list of proclamation signers, was Israel’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations. Its mighty efforts bored through tunnels of UN bureaucracy and secured the space, time, and broadcast slot at the UN. Israel’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations,

Ambassador David Roet came forward to provide introductory remarks for the UN program and, in so doing, revealed his family’s personal connection to the historical injustice of the Holocaust — a credential all too often known among Israeli diplomats.

Two Long Island Jewish high schools, Mesivta and Shalhevet, organized a bus of students who came to witness the making of history.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry devoted a page International Farhud Day. The Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles opened a page as well. So did the Israeli Consulate in Boston.

Google added the day to their online calendar cites. Within 48 hours of the event, a simple Google search yielded more than 5,000 entries for “International Farhud Day.” Hashtags such as for #FarhudDay appeared.

From that very rainy moment June 1, 2015 at the UN and going forward, memories of the day Baghdad burned in 1941, will no longer be invisible, muffled, or parenthesized. The long, painful threnody of the Holocaust that never lacks for cadenzas now includes a refrain for the Jews of Baghdad and 850,000 of their co-religionists across the Arab world for whom the persecution never stopped when the Third Reich was toppled in May 1945.

For them, forever more, we have imbued an added dimension, in a macabre cubist process that never lacks for additional dimensions, when we look out, look back, and look within, to intone the haunting always-wafting injunction: Never Again.

The Author addressing UN group

June 24, 2015 at 5:00 am http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6034/pope-francis-jews-israel

Pope Francis recently declared Palestine to be a state. Thus, he writes a new chapter in the divisive history between Catholics and Jews.

The history of the Catholic Church is a two-thousand year old story of anti-Judaism, conspicuous by frequent massacres, murders, forced conversions, torture, pogroms, expulsions, demonization and other unspeakable acts of violence and offense.

The fable of the Scorpion and the Frog illustrates the notion that certain acts are not merely random chance but are as predictable as a “DNA” profile.

A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, “How do I know you won’t sting me?”

The scorpion says, “Because if I do, I will die too.”

So they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog has just enough time to gasp “Why?”

The scorpion replies: “Because it is my nature; it is what I do….”

This year, the Catholic Church is celebrating the 50^th Anniversary of Nostra aetate. Written in 1965, the document is a declaration of the relation of the Catholic Church to non-Christian religions including Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews (or what the document calls “Abraham’s stock”).

Its purpose was to promote “unity and love among men.” At the same time, it served as a tool to start the repair of what had become an insurmountable rift between Catholics and Jews.

While the document has played a role in bridging one of the wide gaps between the two groups by releasing Jews from the burden of responsibility for the death of Jesus, it nevertheless fails to address a key issue for Jewish people — the declaration of Israel as their historic, legitimate and legal homeland.

During the first few months after Pope Francis’s March 2013 election, the Jewish community expressed hope that the Catholic Church would continue what appeared to be a warming relationship.

“Francis declared that ‘since the Second Vatican Council, we have rediscovered that the Jewish People are still for us the holy root that produced Jesus.’ He also stated that despite the horrors inflicted on the Jewish People by the Shoah, ‘God never abandoned his covenant with Israel, and notwithstanding their terrible suffering over the centuries, the Jewish People have kept their faith. For this, we will never be sufficiently grateful to them as a Church, but also as human beings….”

Some optimistic Jewish leaders argue that, while there is a lot more work to do, the process of reconciliation has been steadily moving forward.

Current events, unfortunately, suggest a more pessimistic perspective.[1]

Israel is battling for its legitimacy and its very existence on every front, and Jews throughout the world are confronting a vigorous, revitalized and often violent resurgence of anti-Semitism.

Even as the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas call almost daily for death to the Jews, the Pope has declared terrorist and Holocaust denier, Mahmoud Abbas, “a man of peace.”

In his declaration of Palestine as a recognized “state“, the Pope has spurned Israel’s existential security concerns in order to advance a bond with the Palestinians before both parties have agreed to even basic terms of a peace agreement.

The symbolic timing (May 13) of the Pope’s ex officio declaration of a Palestinian state couldn’t be more obvious or more offensive to Israel: 1. Israel’s Independence Day celebrates the birth of the State in 1948; 2. Nakba Day (Catastrophe Day), the Palestinian day of mourning for the loss of their land to the State of Israel; 3.The summer celebrations of Nostra aetate, commemorating a vision of harmony.

Such a reckless affirmation is also a caustic reminder that Jewish-Catholic reconciliation work is far from complete.

Is the Catholic Church, like the scorpion, simply standing against the Jewish state because it is part of Church’s DNA? Do the Pope’s sympathies with the Palestinian narrative suggest the beginning of a return to the days of a Catholic Church riddled with thousands of examples of Jew-hatred?

Among the many diverse threads woven into the fabric of the Church, anti-Semitism stands at the forefront. The fabric of all of Christianity was set against the Jews from the outset.

While the timing of the Pope’s announcement was shocking, it was nonetheless predictable. It is an echo of a long-held theology of the Catholic Church, which turned against its own Jewish heritage within a mere fifty years after the Apostle Paul died.[2]

The theological grandfather of contemporary Christian anti-Semitism is known as “Replacement Theology” or what is dubbed by scholars “supersessionism.“ This is the ancient idea that the Christian Church “replaced” God’s “chosen” people.

By 135 CE, the newly emerging gentile Church had lost much of the Jewish vigor that had energized the period of the Hebrew New Testament writings.

In the generation after the Apostle Paul died, the gentile Church Fathers began penning tomes of anti-Jewish theology and commentary.[3] Early second-century writers and theologians such as Tertullian and Origen inverted the Jewishness of the Jesus story and began to demonize the Jewish people, using their very own Hebrew scriptures as a cudgel.

The thesis of “Replacement Theology,” according to Dr. Jim Showers, Executive Director of Friends of Israel, “maintains that, because the Jewish people rejected Jesus as the Messiah, God has replaced or superseded ethnic Israel with the Church and punished them by rescinding all of His covenant promises.”

This early narrative proclaimed, “the Church as the New Israel,” and fused with the idea that “the Church is the heir of God’s promises to Abraham”. Thus, the Church nullified God’s original, unequivocal, irrevocable and eternal promise of the land and nation to Israel in His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It was these early Church Fathers (125 – 325 CE) who first carved the “DNA” of Jew hatred in stone.

At the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE, the Church put its final stamp on an anti-Jewish legacy. Among the Council’s many proclamations, it designated a pagan day, Easter, to replace Passover as a way to separate itself from its Jewish roots.

At the conclusion of the Council, Constantine’s summary letter to the attending Bishops stated:

“For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people… We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews… our worship follows a… more convenient course… we desire dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews… How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are almost certainly blinded.”[4]

“Replacement Theology” deliberately poisoned the ancestral roots of Christianity. The two-thousand year war against the Jewish people began there.

Despite attempts by post-World War II popes to reconcile with the Jews, Pope Francis has, perhaps inadvertently, taken the first steps to disassemble any progress toward that goal. By preemptively positing a Palestinian state, he has essentially re-ignited the ceasefire lines of this age-old conflict. The Pope’s declaration inspires the already hate-infested Palestinians to commit murder with a symbolic pontifical blessing.

The New York Times reported on the occasion of Pope Francis’s 2014 visit to the Holy Land:

“Pope Francis plans to give a strong show of support for a sovereign Palestinian state when he makes his first visit to the Holy Land this weekend, becoming the first pontiff to travel directly into the occupied West Bank rather than passing through Israel.

The pope’s decision to fly straight to Bethlehem from Jordan would be a symbolic lift to the Palestinians at any time. But its resonance is even greater given his tremendous popularity, his focus on the downtrodden, and his timing amid the recent collapse of peace talks and the Palestine Liberation Organization’s unity pact with the militant group Hamas.”

On that same visit, the Pope also made a “surprise” stop at an Israeli security wall to pray and to pose for photos. “By chance,” he parked himself for prayer within camera range, beneath graffiti with the slogan: “Bethlehem look like Warsaw Ghetto.” Does he need to say more?

After nineteen centuries of Christian persecution; after a modern-day genocide upon which the Catholic world turned its back, just when the Jewish people and Israel might have looked for a ray of hope toward continued reconciliation, Pope Francis is making a pact with the devil. “Nothing new here,” said the scorpion to the frog; “it is what I do.”

Perhaps it is premature to assign the term “anti-Semitism” to Pope Francis’s current “missteps.” However, it does not push the envelope too far to suggest that the Pope’s view of the Jews and Israel is a product of a lifetime of Catholic and Replacement Theology bias.

At this momentous time, the Pope’s repentance would be a welcome acknowledgement of Israel’s right to exist.

Susan Warner is a Distinguished Senior Fellow of Gatestone Institute and co-founder of a Christian group, Olive Tree Ministries in Wilmington, DE, USA. She has been writing and teaching about Israel and the Middle East for over 15 years. She can be reached at israelolivetree@yahoo.com.

[1] Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist, writes for Israel National News and has authored the book, “The Vatican Against Israel: J’accuse“.

[2] For those who are interested in exploring some of these historical issues in depth, there is an interesting and informative essay about the relationship between the Jews and the early church by John J. Parsons. Parsons has compiled a worthwhile, not too lengthy, discussion of Replacement Theology, anti-Semitism and other related issues.

[3] Tertullian (circa 135CE) and Origen (circa 185CE) were two of the earliest theologians against the Jews. All of their extant writings are available online. Tertullian’s commentaries are entitledAdversus Judaeos (Against the Jews). Comments on Origen here.

[4] Letter of Constantine to the churches after the Council of Nicaea (325AD).

7.Al Jazeera Reporter Endorses Terrorists by Rachael Hanna
June 24, 2015 at 4:00 am http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6027/al-jazeera-terrorists

Why is Ahmad Zaidan, Al Jazeera’s Islamabad bureau chief, tacitly endorsing a terrorist organization?

In an op-ed for Al Jazeera’s English website on June 2, entitled “Nusra Front’s quest for a united Syria,” Zaidan writes that the Islamist militant rebel group in Syria is distancing itself from Al-Qaeda and “positioning itself as the natural heir of jihadi ideology.”

The Al Nusra Front, Al-Qaeda’s offshoot in Syria, is one of the largest, most powerful and best-organized rebel groups fighting the Assad regime, and in December 2012 it landed on the U.S. State Department List of Terrorist Organizations. Officially designated as an alias of Al-Qaeda, Al Nusra was branded for the more than 600 attacks it had claimed responsibility for since November 2011, many of which had taken the lives of innocent Syrian civilians. Recent victories as part of a rebel coalition against the Assad regime in the northwest province of Idlib have further bolstered Al Nusra and strengthened the group’s leadership position among Syria’s anti-government forces.

Zaidan’s bias in favor of Nusra is clear almost immediately, when he notes that when he was covering Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, his “hosts” from those two terror organizations never offered him more than “simple tea and bread for breakfast,” whereas his Al Nusra hosts had generously laid out a “dozen dishes” for him. However, his appreciation of a wider range of breakfast options quickly turns to using his position as a leading reporter for the most influential news network in the Middle East — and the larger Muslim world — essentially to act as a mouthpiece for Al Nusra.

Zaidan recounts and quotes extensively from a separate interview conducted by Al Jazeera Arabic on May 27 with Al Nusra’s leader, Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, to emphasize differences between Jolani’s leadership tactics and those of Al-Qaeda under Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Zaidan writes that Jolani “defies al-Qaeda’s legacy of going after minorities,” highlighting a promise from Jolani that if the Alawites (an offshoot sect of Shia Islam to which Syria’s ruling family and many of its supporters belong) were to abandon the Assad regime, they “would be welcome” in a new Syria.

Jolani, according to Zaidan, also promised that Druze communities in Syria would be protected; as a result of that statement, he has received support from Walid Jumblatt, leader of the Lebanese Druze.

The problem with Zaidan’s translation of the interview with Jolani from Arabic to English is that he leaves out a critical caveat that Jolani made regarding protection of the Alawites, considered by many Sunni Islamists, including Al-Qaeda and Al Nusra, not to be true Muslims, but apostates of Islam. A Guardian article, reporting on Jolani’s interview with Al Jazeera, accurately translated Jolani’s relevant quote as: “If the Alawites leave their religion and leave Bashar al-Assad, we will protect them.” [Emphasis added.]

Zaidan seemingly manipulated the original quote to obscure that Al Nusra is, in fact, not tolerant of other religions or religious minorities, and that only religious conversion would allow Alawites to remain safely in Syria under Al Nusra leadership.

Also absent from Zaidan’s characterization of Al Nusra as more tolerant than Al-Qaeda, is any mention of Syria’s significant Christian minority, which makes up about 10% of the population.

The Guardian article, however, does translate Jolani’s remarks on Christians; his words are far from accepting. The Guardian paraphrases Jolani as saying that “in a future state ruled by Islamic law, the financially capable would pay ‘jizya,’ or tax reserved for non-Muslims.”

Zaidan’s misleading translation and editing of Jolani’s interview reveal more than bias: they demonstrate a violation of a basic principle of journalistic ethics: not to manipulate quotes from sources in a way that fundamentally changes their meaning. Zaidan has done just that — and to support a terrorist organization, no less.

Many who commented on Zaidan’s article noticed his deceitful omission. Journalist Evan Hill, who speaks Arabic and has covered the Middle East for both Al Jazeera and the Guardian, tweeted, “Is it me or does Zaidan leave out the part of the Alawite quote where he said ‘give up your beliefs’?”

Having less-than-subtly revealed his support for Al Nusra, Zaidan continues sounding off as an unofficial media spokesman for the group. He cites “recent leaks” that Al Nusra leaders have decided to leave “the al-Qaeda umbrella and operate exclusively as a Syrian party aiming to establish an Islamic State,” although a public announcement of such a break has yet to happen.

According to Zaidan, “[S]uch a move, whenever made, would not only satisfy Nusra’s followers,” of which Zaidan certainly seems to be one; it would “also pull the carpet from under the feet of ISIL.” In other words, as his article’s subtitle, “Nusra Front is positioning itself as the natural heir of jihadi ideology,” makes clear, Al Nusra sees itself as the group that will upstage the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) to control Islamist jihadi ideology in Syria — hardly a comforting alternative to Assad and ISIS.

The Middle East — especially Syria and Iraq — needs a great deal of humanitarian aid just now; what it does not need is competition between brutal, seventh century-styled Islamic states. Nevertheless, Zaidan seems to be of the opinion that the way to take down ISIS is a competing caliphate.

Certainly, the half-hearted U.S.-led strategy for fighting ISIS has thus far failed to produce any promising signs that ISIS is on the retreat — especially since the loss of Ramadi in Anbar province last month. Leaving terrorist groups to duke it out, however, has also failed to end the conflict.

The excuse Zaidan offers for his support of Al Nusra is that the international community — as well as any non-Islamist rebel forces on the ground in Syria — have failed to help citizens under siege from the Assad regime, and that these failures have led to increased sympathy among the population for Islamist rebel groups who “exercise real power.”

While this is an accurate, although overly simple, assessment of the situation in Syria, it hardly seems a sufficient reason for Zaidan, as a leading reporter for a major global news network, with unparalleled media influence in the Muslim world, to endorse the cause of a terrorist organization.

To Zaidan, however, not only is the current situation in Syria reason enough to throw his support behind Al Nusra, it is also a reason to chastise the United States for not having already gotten on the group’s bandwagon. Comparing Al Nusra to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Zaidan writes: “Washington used to depict the PLO as a terrorist outfit — but then took a U-turn.” Zaidan’s use of the word “depict” is telling; to him, Al Nusra is not a terrorist group; rather it is unfairly being labeled one by the United States.

Instead, he suggests that the U.S. should repeat history and change its tactics toward Al Nusra. However, this change would entail the U.S. supporting a group that does not believe in religious tolerance even among Muslims; that views Christians as second-class citizens, and that uses terrorist tactics, including the attempted use of chemical weapons, in its fighting against the Assad regime, just as the regime has done.

Zaidan draws another parallel to support Al Nusra: between Al Nusra and the Taliban in Afghanistan. He notes that the group was “once the main target of the US military, but is not currently designated as a ‘terrorist organization’ by either the UN, UK or the US.” Finally, he reminds his readers that Washington no longer brands “Hezbollah or Iranian Quds Force’s Qassem Soleimani” as terrorists.

Zaidan argues that since the United States has changed relationships with these current or former terrorist organizations, it should take another extremely dangerous militant Islamist group off its terrorist list.

However, Zaidan’s comparisons should raise concerns about whom the Obama administration designates as terrorists — or even chooses as strategic partners: If these groups are not America’s enemies, who is?

Zaidan proceeds to call the Obama administration hypocritical for supporting “alien” Shia militias “fighting on behalf of Baghdad,” but not demonstrating the same support for “Syrian fighters — such as those who make up Nusra’s ranks” waging war against Assad. Again, Zaidan’s argument should give the White House pause as to whom the U.S. is partnering with in Iraq. Iranian-backed Shia militias, while they may be committed to fighting ISIS, can hardly be considered long-term partners for a stable Iraq.

In his closing thoughts, Zaidan makes a half-hearted attempt to mention the importance of “tolerance” and “build[ing] bridges” in Syria, although given his support for a group whose goal is supposedly to convert everyone to its extremist brand of Sunni Islam or force discriminating taxes on them, honest reconciliation does not seem to be a priority for him.

More alarming than Zaidan’s support for Al Nusra and his editorial dishonestly is that Al Jazeera allowed this article to be published. Zaidan is entitled to express his opinions, regardless of how unsettling they might be. This was, after all, an op-ed piece; the disclaimer at the bottom clearly states that the views presented in the article do not represent the views of Al Jazeera. So while Al Jazeera should not have censored Zaidan for the content of his piece, it was irresponsible and unethical to have published an article that, through deceitful editing practices, grossly misrepresents Al Nusra’s ideology.

As for Zaidan, whatever sympathies he may have for Al Nusra, his loyalty to the ethics of his profession and his responsibility to his readers evidently do not outweigh his loyalties to a terrorist organization.

Rachael Hanna is Associate Managing Editor of the Harvard Political Review.

8.WikiLeaks Reveals Saudi Cable: ‘Iran Sent Nukes to Sudan’

JewishPress.com By: Hana Levi Julian Published: June 23rd, 2015

Map of Saudi Arabia and eastern Africa. Photo Credit: Google map

Iran may have sent advanced nuclear equipment to Sudan in 2012, according to a cable from the Saudi Arabian embassy in Khartoum revealed by WikiLeaks.

“The embassy’s sources advise that Iranian containers arrived this week at Khartoum airport containing sensitive technical equipment in the form of fast centrifuges for enriching uranium, and a second shipment is expected to arrive this week,” the document was quoted by Reuters as saying. It was allegedly marked “TOP SECRET” and dated February 2012.

More than 60,000 cables and documents released by WikiLeaks were alleged to be official Saudi communications. Riyadh has not commented on the specific documents, and has said they are “probably faked.”

The international watchdog organization publishes news leaks of secret and classified information; it said it will eventually publish up to 500,000 Saudi documents but did not reveal the source.

There were no details about the source of the information, nor was any further evidence made available. The international community is not aware of any nuclear program existent in Sudan, and there have been no previous public reports of Iran having sent any nuclear equipment to the African nation.

However, Iran has in the past used Sudan as a conduit through which to ship weapons to terrorist groups in Gaza and its warships have made the Port of Sudan a routine stopping place in the region.

A Sudanese munitions factory was mysteriously destroyed in October 2012. The government of Sudan claimed the Khartoum factory was blown up in an air strike by Israeli fighter pilots.

Israel declined to comment about the accusation. But senior officials did not hesitate to mention Sudan’s role in serving as a transit point for weapons being shipped from Iran via the Sinai Peninsula to terror groups in Gaza and elsewhere.

In March 2014, Israel intercepted the Klos-C off the shores of Sudan as it was headed to Gaza, laden with long-range M-302 missiles and other weapons shipped from Iran.

Tehran is the second-biggest supplier of arms to the African nation, according to a Small Arms Survey report issued last year. However, until this point, there has been no mention that any of the materials, equipment or weapons were nuclear.

H.E. Mr. Joachim Rücker, President of the United Nations Human Rights Council

H.E. Ms. Filloreta Kodra, Vice President of the United Nations Human Rights Council

H.E. Mr. Juan Esteban Aguirre Martínez, Vice President of the United Nations Human Rights Council

H.E. Mr. Mukhtar Tileuberdi, Vice President of the United Nations Human Rights Council

H.E. Mr. Mothusi Bruce Rabasha Palai , Vice President and Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council

H.E. Mr. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais Wilson, 52 Rue des Pâquis, CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland. February 22, 2015

Excellences,

Re: A call to re-examine the status and validity of the international commission of inquiry following recent developments

In the name of lawyers and academics throughout the world associated with, and supporting the Legal Forum for Israel, and as representatives of the civil society in Israel, we must urge you to re-examine the validity of the report of the international commission of inquiry (hereinafter: CoI), assigned with investigating “all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014? (United Nations Human Rights Council [hereinafter: UNHRC] statement, 11 August 2014), which is due to be published in March.

We urge you to examine the fact that the conclusions and recommendations of this report may very well been compromised by Mr. William Schabas’ leadership throughout the critical time he headed the commission, especially given the latest developments and discoveries regarding Mr. Schabas.

We urge the UNHRC to declare the CoI’s report inadmissible, and to declare any conclusions and recommendations by this committee to be null and void, and this for the following reasons:

On 2 February, Mr. William Schabas stepped down from the UNHRC CoI he headed. The reason for Mr. Schabas’s resignation was the decision by the Bureau of the Human Rights Council to examine findings that Mr. Schabas had received money from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (hereinafter: PLO) for legal work and the decision to request a legal opinion on the matter from UN Headquarters.

Mr. Schabas accepted the post despite having a conflict of interest due to his contractual relationship with the PLO on a matter relevant to the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry. Mr. Schabas has written a legal opinion for the Palestine Liberation Organization in 2012, for which he was paid $1,300. This fact was not disclosed both by Mr. Schabas himself and by the PLO. Mr. Schabas was not completely truthful in declaring on a UN application form for a previous position that he has “no official, professional, personal or financial relationships that might cause him/her to limit the extent of their inquiries, to limit disclosure, or to weaken or slant findings in any way.” Mr. Schabas continued to deny his conflict of interest after being appointed as Chairman of the CoI.

Mr. Schabas has previously expressed outspoken hostility towards Israel, both in statements and actions, which should have precluded his participation in the CoI from the start (the attached links are for several examples of comments and written statements made by Mr. Schabas that clearly demonstrate that he has already solidified his opinions on Israel, including its conduct during previous conflicts with Hamas, and past efforts to bring Israel to the ICC).[1]

Mr. Schabas has harmed the cause of international justice and human rights by accepting the position of head of the Commission despite his well-documented anti-Israel bias and despite understanding full well the conflict of interest created by his previous work for the PLO.

Mr. Schabas’ resignation cannot erase in retrospect the impact his bias has had on the entire committee and its work. Furthermore, even though Mr. Schabas claimed he has stepped down immediately to prevent the issue from overshadowing the preparation of the report and its findings, which are due to be published in March, Mr. Schabas’ imprint on the final report cannot be cleanse after he directed and conducted the five-months-long research and evidence-gathering phases, with the drafting work already begun.

According to a statement released by the UNHRC on August 11, 2014, “The President of the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Baudelaire Ndong Ella (Gabon), announced today the appointment of Amal Alamuddin, Doudou Diène and William Schabas to serve as members of the independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law.… in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014.” The facts stated above seem to question the independent nature of this commission, and that of any of its findings.

In light all the above, we fear that The UNHRC is risking the reputation of the UN and human rights by showing an extreme bias against the State of Israel. This bias already found expression in appointing, time after time, people known for their hostility and bias against Israel to positions relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (such as Mr. Schabas, and the previous two “Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories”, Mr. Richard Falk and Mr. John Dugard). By taking the findings of the CoI seriously after the resignation of Mr. William Schabas, the UNHRC is following that tradition and discrediting itself.

Moreover, the committee is meant to serve as judge and jury, representing the international community’s interest and as such its conclusions may have extensive and serious implications. Given that, the UNHRC is obligated to protect due process beyond any reasonable doubt. The doubts raised by facts shown in this letter clearly create valid and serious concerns regarding Mr. Schabas’ ability to impartially lead an inquiry with regards to Israel.

We fully support the noble cause of the UNHRC as it is declared in their mandate, and urges the UNHRC to avoid taking actions that might further undermine their position as objective, fair and true protectors of human right.

In conclusion, there seems to be no doubt as to the path the UNHRC must take. We urge the UNHRC to declare the CoI’s report inadmissible, not be satisfied with the mere resignation of Mr. Schabas at this point and to declare any conclusions and recommendations by this committee to be null and void.

Sincerely, Nachi Eyal, CEO, The Legal Forum for Israel

Yifa Seagl, Esq., International Action Division, The Legal Forum for Israel?

Copy: H.E. Mr. Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations

H.E. Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

The Legal Forum for Israel. International Action Division, POB 7442 Jerusalem, Israel 91073.
Tel: 972-2-502-2202 Fax: 972-2-502-2844 e-mail: office@haforum.org.il