Advice for an Israel Hater

By Sam Sokolove on Wednesday, August 25th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Categories: Opinion, Uncategorized

By Sam Sokolove

When you swaggered into the UNM Law lecture hall, in all your tattooed, black-shirted glory, you might as well have had a word balloon hovering over your shaved head announcing HERE COMES TROUBLE. To emphasize the point you gave a smug grin and nod to a dour police officer — an adolescent punk move I hadn’t seen since my friends and I got kicked out of a Burger King by a rent-a-cop for rowdy behavior in 1985.

Sure enough, Asher Yarden, the Consul General of Israel to the Southwest was there that July afternoon to play his part – diplomat and attorney addressing the topic “Israel’s Gaza Choices: A Governmental Perspective” — and you were there to play yours – vehement opponent of the Jewish State.
You played your hand early during Yarden’s opening remarks when you bellowed, “That’s a lie!” a la Congressman Joe Wilson. But if this was a performance opportunity for you, when the time came for your show-stopping monologue, you let loose with the following — transcribed with ellipses and pauses included for full dramatic effect:

“I’m very much not impressed with your lack of honesty and your cowardice in actually confronting the issues that, uh, confront us as U.S. citizens or Israelis… how can you defend…I’m interested in you as a lawyer, how can you defend or justify…I guess, uh, lawyers have a bad reputation; I don’t believe that all lawyers are crooks or pathological liars. I think that the law, especially the international human rights law is a beautiful, uh, thing, with roots in, uh…and if you look at the origin of the word ‘genocide” it was created by a Hungarian Jew, and much of the framework of international human rights law comes out of that, uh, World War Two era. Now, how can you, as a lawyer, stand here and (pause)…I’d like to hear you defend the use of white phosphorous on a civilian population, I’d like to hear you explain how if Israel is now longer the occupying power in Gaza…and as in occupying power, for example in the West Bank, Israel has responsibility for the care and wellbeing of the civilian population…if you say Israel is not the occupying power, why is Israel blockading the borders and incarcerating one and a half million people? If you can justify the use of white phosphorous and bombing hospitals and bombing ambulances, I would love to hear it.”

The Consul General tried his best to let you hear it, beginning to explain that while white phosphorus is actually completely permissible under international law (not to mention, critical in concealing troop movements during combat), it had been newly outlawed by Israel on purely humanitarian grounds. In fact, he tried to address your more coherent points, one by one, but you wouldn’t let him. Instead, you chose to interrupt and bellow, “You’re polluting the air with these horrendous lies… you’re coming here to spread lies!”

Another attendee asked you to stop making a speech. “I’m not making a speech, I’m making a statement,” you corrected. And when chastised for haranguing rather than dialoguing, you resorted to whining, “There can be no dialogue if you’re kicking someone in the face!”

After refusing every attempt to allow the Consul General to actually respond, a police officer kindly helped escort your noticeably unkicked-self from your room, which resulted in an attendee sighing, “This is what he wants.” As you were led out you then shouted your punch-line at last: “People of conscience, people of faith, supporting boycott, divestment and sanctions!”

Not exactly Sic semper tyrannis, but at least you managed to get it in. And In all fairness, you certainly did better than the scowling older gentlemen who yelled “Israel is a pirate!” when the Gaza Flotilla issue was addressed.
As you do more of this sort of playacting in the future, here are some suggestions. I know you don’t care for ‘paternalism’ (you chided the Consul General for that when he dared offer you some perspective), so consider this advice from someone who has seen some really outstanding anti-Israel activism in his time:

Firstly, allow time for a response: the infantile tactic of shouting down an Israeli diplomat didn’t do much for the now-suspended UC Irvine Muslim Student Association, did it? You should know better.

Secondly, rehearse: Get those lines down — an anti-Israel rant should be concise and to-the-point, so double-check your information, even the stuff you just make up – for example, the “Hungarian Jew” you alluded to, Rafael Lemkin, was actually Polish. Not a big deal for you, maybe, but a certainly big deal for Poles.

Thirdly, Dress to impress: the ersatz Henry Rollins costume definitely works for the iconic Henry; on a belligerent thirty-something, not so much. Khakis and a blazer is the international uniform to get you taken seriously in almost any setting, especially when you’re well past draft age.

Fourthly, exploit your identifiably-Jewish surname earlier: don’t wait until the end to spring this on us like an Agatha Christie twist: make sure that you establish credibility as an Israel-hating Jew earlier. Look to the Neturei Karta for inspiration – they’ve rocked their peyos in photo-ops with Ahmadinejad and Arafat, after all.

Bottom line: don’t give up. You’ve got promise as a first-class bigot, and how do you get to bash Israel and Zionism at much bigger houses like the U.N. Security Council and Britain’s National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education?

Practice, practice, practice.


Boycott the boycotters

By Sam Sokolove on Wednesday, August 25th, 2010 at 3:14 pm
Categories: Uncategorized

August 25, 2010 By Roz Rothstein and Roberta Seid

Anti-Israel activists are now putting all their energy into their Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign (BDS). Their goal is to portray Israel and Israelis as pariahs that should be excluded from all international spheres—diplomatic, political, economic, social, and cultural.

Jews have been victims of such policies before. In the millennia of anti-Semitism in Europe and the Middle East, they have been singled out, demonized, and excluded, as they were, for example, in 13th century England and 1930’s Europe. The Jewish State, too, has experienced such policies since its founding when Arab nations implemented strict exclusion and boycotts against Israel, most of which are still in place. The current global BDS campaign began in 2001 and grew after 2005, when Israel effectively defeated the terrorist campaign known as the Second Intifada. Today, hard core anti-Israel activists around the world are feverishly lobbying artists, universities, churches, retailers, unions, municipalities, and other institutions to adopt BDS.

Any public figures, retailers, institutions or organizations that adopt or defer to BDS policies should themselves be boycotted.

They should be boycotted because they advocate destructive rather than constructive, measures. BDS is anti-coexistence, undermines peace efforts, and does nothing to help Palestinians begin state building, improve their lives, or move toward reconciliation.

They should be boycotted because BDS policies are fundamentally anti-Semitic even though some of the movement’s advocates are Jews. The campaign uses the propaganda techniques and imagery of classical anti-Semitism now applied not to individual Jews, but to the world’s largest Jewish community and its only Jewish State. Boycott activists strip away all context for Israel’s actions, such as ongoing terrorism and the virulent ideology that propels it, in order to depict Israel as motivated by sheer malice in what are often simply modern blood libels. They obsessively put a microscope on Israel to detect its flaws, and expect it to live up to standards they do not expect of any other nation. They never call for BDS against nations that do systematically commit war crimes and human rights abuses, such as Ahmadinejad’s Iran, Bashir’s Sudan, Lebanon’s apartheid practices against Palestinians, or Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus and violent repression of its Kurdish minority.

They should be boycotted because of their hypocrisy. Where was the outrage of the boycotters, who claim to be champions of social justice and human rights, when the Palestinian suicide bombing campaign targeted innocent Jewish men, women, and children, and Hamas fired thousands of rockets from Gaza into Israeli communities, murdering toddlers and turning daily life into a lethal game of Russian roulette? Where were they when Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust even as he called for genocide against Jews? Where is their protest against the Judeophobic incitement that dominates the Middle East? Their callous indifference and implicit support of murdering Jews is both morally perverse and anti-Semitic.

Above all, they should be boycotted because they endorse the agendas of the dictatorial regimes and radical Islamist groups who share their hatred of the Jewish State and who are also enemies of human rights, social justice values, tolerance, and modernity. These states and groups like Hamas oppress women, persecute religious and other minorities, and oppress their own citizens. Those who adopt BDS should be exposed and pay the price for supporting and enabling the intransigent enemies of humanitarian and liberal values.

Boycotting those who comply with BDS means that any university that does not unequivocally denounce campus divestment campaigns should not receive another nickel from donors who care about fairness, the survival of Israel, and modern liberal values. Recording artists who refuse to perform in Israel should be labeled as extremists for the regressive, anti-Semitic values they endorse. Fair-minded people should stop buying their records and attending their concerts. Consumers should boycott any retailers who refuse to stock Israeli products, and support the new StandWithUs campaign, “BIG” and “RIG,” acronyms for “Buy Israeli Goods” and “Request Israeli Goods.”

It is time to expose the distorted values that drive the BDS movement, and its alliance with the most repressive and dangerous forces in the world today. It is time to unequivocally say no to this BDS movement and to all who would consider complying with it.

Roz Rothstein is CEO of StandWithUs. Roberta Seid, PhD is Education Director, StandWithUs


The Ugly Truth About BDS (Great new video!)

By Sam Sokolove on Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 at 9:04 am
Categories: Uncategorized

The Truth about BDS


The anti-Israel boycott campaign: a study in failure

By Sam Sokolove on Monday, July 12th, 2010 at 10:00 am
Categories: Uncategorized

By Robert Fulford, National Post

Shahid Alam, writing this week in a Cairo magazine, Al-Ahram, declared that “slowly but steadily, the Western people are throwing their support behind the campaign to divest from, boycott and impose sanctions on Israel.” It certainly seems that way. I’ve read often, over many years, about students demanding that their universities sell whatever stocks they own in Israeli companies and in corporations supporting the defence of Israel. I’ve read, too, about boycotts of Israeli products and attempts to get churches and corporations to sell Israel-connected stocks.

In Canada, a union proposed that Israeli professors not be allowed to lecture here. And of course, everyone knows that Elvis Costello recently deprived Israelis of the two performances he was scheduled to give in Israel, on grounds of “conscience.”

This is all part of a plan coordinated by Palestinian leaders and activists to pressure Israel with boycotts, divestment and sanctions (routinely abbreviated on websites and placards as “BDS”). The more mild-mannered supporters of BDS say they want to encourage Israel to improve its treatment of Palestinians and seek peace. It seems clear to me that their main goal is to destroy Israel.

Given the publicity BDS has received, the program should be on the way to success. And probably it has helped discourage some Israelis and their supporters. But is it working on a more practical level? Surprisingly, the clear answer seems to be No.

Jon Haber, a Boston writer who runs the website Divest This! (divest-this. com), recently reported in The Jerusalem Post that — despite the passage of nearly a decade of BDS activism — not one college or university has sold even one share of a company the divesters identify as an immoral supporter of Israel. The divesters are good at attracting crowds, writing manifestos, passing motions and getting their opinions onto TV. But they get few results: Boards of universities, corporations and churches all reject divestment proposals.

In May, the divesters were greatly cheered by news that Deutsche Bank had sold its shares in Elbit, the Israeli arms company. Wiltrud Rosch-Metzler, a campaigner with Pax Christi Germany, called that “a huge success.” A representative of various Palestinian organizations said: “Palestinian civil society warmly welcomes the principled decision taken by Deutsche Bank.”

This news was closely followed by Deutsche Bank’s announcement that it was untrue. The bank pointed out that it had no Elbit shares to sell. Evan Jones of the University of Sydney, trying to argue last week that the BDS movement “has acquired fresh impetus after each Israeli outrage,” had to acknowledge that, “Alas, the heralded divestment of Deutsche Bank from Israel’s largest defense firm appears to have been a false alarm.”

Last year, a group called Students for Justice in Palestine celebrated its triumph at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass. They claimed Hampshire had become the first college or university in the United States to divest from companies involved with Israel. But the board claimed its decision said nothing at all about Israel. True, the idea of ethical investment had been raised by Students for Justice in Palestine, but the board’s decision to sell the college’s shares in an investment fund was based on a study of 200 companies said to have violated the college’s standards for social responsibility in labour practices, environmental abuse, unsafe workplaces, etc. The students had named six companies it accused of supporting Israel’s occupation of Palestinian land. Three of the six failed a screen for socially responsible investing based on their sales of military equipment, employee safety record and other violations. Two of the companies named by the students passed the screen. A sixth company turned out not to be on the list of the college’s investments. Less than a stirring victory.

Curiously, during the period when enemies of Israel were doing their best to cut its economic lifelines, Israel’s economy remained in much better shape than equivalent economies elsewhere. As David Rosenberg wrote recently in a paper published by the Gloria Center, “Israel experienced no more than a mild recession as a result of the global financial crisis that began in 2007.” Of all the OECD nations, Israel was the last to show signs of recession (in the fourth quarter of 2008) and among the first to begin recovering (in the second quarter of 2009). While under verbal attack from gangs of ranters in every corner of Europe and North America, it had by far the shortest downturn in the OECD.


Progressive? Then Don’t Boycott Israel!

By Sam Sokolove on Tuesday, June 29th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Categories: Uncategorized

Ben Cohen

It was an expose in the best traditions of investigative journalism: Commerce Department documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act that detailed how, between 1965 and 1977, more than one thousand American corporations colluded in the economic boycott of a small, embattled country, in a bid to please a group of powerful, oil-producing states. Though the boycott was prohibited under U.S. law, the government consciously looked the other way as these corporations went the extra mile in complying with the boycott. Like when they discriminated against employees deemed to have compromising ethnic ties to the targeted country.

The article in question appeared in 1981. The object of the boycott, organized by the League of Arab States, was Israel. And the magazine that published these revelations was The Nation.

How times have changed. Three decades after it named and shamed those American corporations who cozied up to some of the most repressive and reactionary countries on earth, The Nation has become the house journal of the American branch of the movement to subject Israel — and only Israel — to a campaign of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS for short.)

A recent issue of the magazine included a piece by Adam Horowitz and Philip Weiss endorsing BDS with zealot-like enthusiasm. Rich in distortions and half-truths, the article was at its most preposterous in depicting BDS as a grassroots movement assembling Palestinians, anti-Zionist Jews, human rights advocates and labor unionists in a moral crusade against Zionism.

Scratch beneath this complacent self-image and you quickly understand that the origins of the BDS movement have more in common with a black shirt than a rainbow flag. Horowitz and Weiss point out that there is an established boycott tradition among the Palestinians, citing their embargo against the Jewish community in Palestine during the upheavals of 1936. What they don’t mention is that the 1936 boycott was accompanied by a paroxysm of violence against Jews and their property. Nor do they mention that the Palestinian leadership, under Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was unashamedly pro-Nazi. Indeed, the policy of simultaneously boycotting and beating the Jews had been introduced by Hitler when he assumed power three years earlier.

In 1945, al Husseini’s Nazi-derived policy was formalized by the Arab League Council, which declared a boycott of “Jewish” and “Zionist” goods. In 1948, the Arab League launched a separate office to enforce an economic boycott of the State of Israel that functioned upon three levels, by targeting Israeli companies, foreign companies working in Israel, and foreign companies conducting business with other companies with an operational base in Israel.

Given these parameters, it was inevitable that the application of the boycott would blur the line between Israel as a state and Jews as a people. That point was cogently grasped by Mark Green and Steven Solow, the authors of the 1981 Nation piece. “There is nothing necessarily objectionable in economic boycotts of one country or community by another,” they wrote. Yet, they added, “the Arab embargo of Israel can be distinguished from other boycotts by the way it discriminated not only against a country but against an entire religious group. Thus American Jews were sometimes penalized by their employers simply because they were Jews.”

However much BDS advocates insist otherwise, that observation remains true today. Unlike, say, the African-American boycott of segregated buses, which aimed to change a racist policy and did not apply to whites in general, the boycott of Israel reaches much wider. Any Israeli who does not explicitly disavow his or her country is fair game — and those who declare their solidarity with Israelis are, as a consequence, equally suspect.

Crucially, the “United Call for BDS,” which Horowitz and Weiss approvingly link to, dates the Israeli occupation as beginning not in 1967, following the Six Day War, but in 1948, when Israel was created. This is no accident, for the aim of the BDS movement is not to effect a change in Israeli policy, but to dismantle the state which makes those policies.

Diehard anti-Zionists won’t be bothered by that, of course. Still, there is a much larger group of people within the orbit of the BDS movement — like the U.S. Presbyterian Church, which gathers in a few days time to discuss a report which includes a comparison of Israel with Nazi Germany — who may wish to consider where the demonizing rhetoric and toxic origins of the boycott campaign might lead them.

In addition, as the Presbyterians deliberate on a resolution to divest from Caterpillar Inc., the bete noire of BDS advocates, they might ponder the following. In their Nation article from 1981, Caterpillar was named by Green and Solow as one of those corporations complying with the Arab boycott. They quoted a Caterpillar spokesman confirming that the company would cooperate with Arab requests for information about such vital operational matters as whether there were any Jews on the payroll (”If somebody wanted to do business with us and wanted to confirm a fact, we did it,” the spokesman said.)

Isn’t it ironic? Caterpillar abandoned those racist practices. Now, the BDS movement wants Caterpillar to readopt them — and is telling the public to scorn the company until it does so. No doubt, the Mufti of Jerusalem would approve.

Follow Ben S. Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ZWord


Flotilla Sought Provocation, Not to Provide Assistance

By Sam Sokolove on Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010 at 7:39 am
Categories: Uncategorized

The primary aim of the Gaza flotilla was not to provide humanitarian relief; it was to cause a provocation with Israel.

Its top organizers and some of its participants are radicals with ties to terrorist groups that sought a violent confrontation. In contrast, the Israeli navy had worked hard to plan a peaceful interception of the six ships and its personnel only used force when their lives were at risk. Israel has legitimate self-defense reasons to inspect the cargo going into the Hamas-controlled area, where the U.S.-designated terrorist group has smuggled in thousands of munitions and rockets for use in attacks against Israeli civilians.

The flotilla’s organizers willfully ignored repeated warnings that they would be denied entry—including messages from the European Union—and rejected offers by Israel to transfer humanitarian goods through the Israeli port of Ashdod.

One of the flotilla’s leaders, Greta Berlin, stated that “this mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege on 1.5 million Palestinians,” the AFP reported on May 27.

The head of the group that organized the flotilla, Bulent Yildirim (left), is closely linked with Ismail Haniyeh’s U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.

 The main organizer of the flotilla—whose members led the assault on the IDF—was the Turkish Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH), which has publicly affirmed its links to Hamas, maintains an office in Gaza and has ties to other terrorist organizations.

IHH has also been linked to al-Qaeda and played a role in al-Qaeda’s failed Millennium bombing of Los Angeles International Airport, according to French counter-terrorism magistrate Jean-Louis Bruguière, who testified during the trial of failed bomber Ahmed Ressam.

The Israeli navy had worked hard to plan a peaceful interception of the six ships and the soldiers only used force when their lives were at risk.

 Individuals aboard the vessels had clearly prepared for violence, chanting an Islamic battle cry recalling the killing of Jews and calling for martyrdom, according to an Al-Jazeera report.

 While intercepting six ships attempting to break the naval blockade of Gaza after frequent warnings not to proceed, Israeli soldiers were attacked immediately upon boarding one of them.

The outnumbered soldiers were immediately and brutally attacked with crowbars, clubs and knives and shot at with guns stolen from soldiers, seven of whom were injured. One soldier was thrown to a lower deck 30 feet below and sustained a severe head injury.

 Israeli soldiers reacted with the utmost restraint. Only when their lives were in danger did they seek and receive permission to open fire.

Regrettably, nine flotilla participants were killed and others injured. Seven Israeli soldiers were injured.

Israel has a legitimate right to self-defense and reason to be concerned about cargo going unchecked into Hamas-controlled Gaza.

The charter of Hamas, the U.S.-designated terrorist group that seized Gaza in an armed coup from the Palestinian Authority in 2007, calls for the destruction of Israel.

Israel’s actions are aimed at blocking arms and explosives shipments to Hamas, which is at war with the Jewish state. Hamas has fired more than 7,000 rockets and mortar shells into Israel since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005.

Hamas continues to operate a vast network of tunnels under Gaza, which it uses to smuggle in weapons from Iran and Syria for attacks against Israeli civilians. It also has repeatedly sought to smuggle weapons through the sea.

 According to international legal experts, it is legitimate for a state to impose an embargo on international waters during wartime. Israel’s detention of the flotilla ships—and its use of force to defend its soldiers when attacked by some of the radicals—is acceptable under international law.

 Egypt also has imposed a blockade on Gaza to protect its own internal security by constructing an underground steel wall along the Sinai-Gaza border to help stymie the flow of illicit goods.

Israel continues to facilitate a vast operation to provide humanitarian goods and medical services to the people of Gaza.

Since the end of the Gaza war in 2009, Israel has facilitated the transfer of more than a million tons of humanitarian supplies to Gaza and 133 million liters of fuel. Israel is now in the process of unloading the items from the flotilla and is transferring legitimate humanitarian items into Gaza via established mechanisms.

 To handle the delivery of humanitarian aid and other civilian issues related to Palestinian life in Gaza and the West Bank, Israel has a special unit in the Ministry of Defense—the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT).

The U.N. issued a presidential statement condemning the events leading up to the incident, which some have interpreted as a criticism of Israel.

It would have been preferable if the U.N. and Obama administration had blocked any action implying criticism of Israel for defending itself.

Nonetheless, intervention by the United States prevented passage of a Security Council resolution condemning Israel.

The administration continues to express its confidence in Israel’s ability to conduct its own investigation of the incident despite calls for an international inquiry.

During the Security Council deliberations, Alejandro Wolff, deputy U.S. representative to the U.N., said the “direct delivery by sea [of humanitarian supplies] is neither appropriate nor responsible” and criticized Hamas’ “continued arms smuggling and commitment to terrorism.”

The United States must now maintain its longstanding position not to allow the Security Council and other U.N. organs such as the U.N. Human Rights Council to exploit unfortunate incidents by passing biased, anti-Israel resolutions that obscure the truth and accomplish nothing.


Gaza Flotilla Incident: Background from Jewish Federations of North America

By Sam Sokolove on Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 at 1:34 pm
Categories: Advocacy, News

Early on the morning of May 31, Israel Defense Forces naval forces intercepted six ships attempting to break the naval blockade of the Gaza Strip.

The intercept took place after numerous warnings from Israel and the Israel Navy that were issued prior to the action. The Israel Navy requested the ships to redirect toward Ashdod, where they would be able to unload their cargo which would then be transferred to Gaza over land after undergoing security inspections. The IDF stressed that the passengers could then return to their point of departure on the same vessels.

During the interception of the ships, the demonstrators onboard attacked the IDF naval personnel with live gunfire as well as light weaponry including knives, crowbars and clubs. The demonstrators had clearly prepared weapons in advance for this specific purpose.

According to reports from sea, on board the flotilla that was seeking to break the maritime closure on the Gaza Strip, IDF forces apprehended two violent activists holding pistols. These militants apparently grabbed the pistols from IDF forces and opened fire on the soldiers.

The activists were carrying 10,000 tons of reported aid to Gaza. Israel provides 15,000 tons of aid weekly to Gaza.

As a result of this life-threatening activity, naval forces employed riot dispersal means, including, when they determined that their lives were in immediate danger, live fire. According to initial reports, these events resulted in at least 9 deaths among the demonstrators and numerous injured.

A number of Israeli naval personnel were injured, some from gunfire and others from knives and crowbars. Two of the soldiers are seriously wounded and the remainder sustained light injuries.

All of the injured, Israelis and foreigners, are currently being evacuated by a fleet of IDF helicopters to hospitals in Israel.

Reports from IDF forces on the scene are that some of the participants onboard the ships had planned a lynch-mob attack, using lethal force on the boarding forces.

The events are still unfolding. The ships have been berthed in the Ashdod port, where IDF naval forces will perform security checks in order to identify the people on board the ships and their equipment.

The IDF naval operation was carried out under orders from the political leadership to halt the flotilla from reaching the Gaza Strip and breaching the naval blockade.

Other important facts:

The provocateurs were organized by an Islamist organization that has links to fundamentalist jihadi groups. The extremists brought small children on board knowing that they intended to violate international maritime law.

The activists were carrying 10,000 tons of what they said was aid. Israel transfers about 15,000 tons of supplies and humanitarian aid every week to the people of Gaza.

Israel has said that it will deliver any humanitarian aid to Gaza, as it does daily.

“We fully intend to go to Gaza regardless of any intimidation or threats of violence against us, they are going to have to forcefully stop us,” said one of the flotilla’s organizers. Using the Arabic term ‘intifada,’ Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said “We call on all Arabs and Muslims to rise up in front of Zionist embassies across the whole world. Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh said this week: “If the ships reach Gaza it is a victory; if they are intercepted, it will be a victory too.”

Israel left Gaza in hopes of peace in 2005 and in return received more than 10,000 rockets and terrorist attacks.

No country would allow illegal entry of any vessel into their waters without a security check.

Earlier this week, Noam Shalit, father of Hamas-held Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, approached the flotilla’s organizers asking them to take supplies to Gilad. He was refused.


Statement from Prime Minister Netanyahu

By Sam Sokolove on Tuesday, June 1st, 2010 at 1:17 pm
Categories: News, Uncategorized

Last night a regrettable incident occurred, during which people were killed and others were injured. IDF soldiers who were compelled to defend their lives were also injured. This incident was the result of an intentional provocation of forces which support Iran and its terrorist enclave, Hamas, in the Gaza Strip. This enclave, Hamas, has fired thousands of missiles at the State of Israel, and it is amassing thousands more.

This is a clear case of self-defense. Israel cannot allow the free flow of weapons, rockets and missiles to the terrorist base of Hamas in Gaza. It’s a terrorist base supported by Iran; it’s already fired thousands of rockets at Israeli cities; it seeks to smuggle in thousands more, and this is why Israel must inspect the goods that come into Gaza. It’s also a clear case of self-defense because as our soldiers were inspecting these ships, they were attacked - they were almost lynched. They were attacked with clubs, with knives, perhaps with live gunfire, and they had to defend themselves - they were going to be killed. Israel will not allow its soldiers to be lynched and neither would any other self-respecting country.

Our policy is simple. We say: any goods, any humanitarian aid to Gaza, can enter. What we want to prevent is their ability to bring in war materiel - missiles, rockets, the means for constructing casings for missiles and rockets. This has been our policy and yesterday we told the flotilla - which was not a simple, innocent flotilla - to bring their goods into Ashdod. We told them that we would examine their cargo and allow those goods that could not be used as weapons or shielding materials for Hamas into Gaza.

Five of the six ships accepted these terms without violence. Apparently, the sixth ship, the largest, which had on board hundreds of people, had a premeditated plan to harm IDF soldiers. When the first soldiers dropped down onto the deck of the ship, they were attacked by a violent mob and were compelled to defend their lives. That is when the unfortunate events took place.

We have a simple policy, which will continue. That policy is: we have no argument or fight with the population of Gaza. We are interested in allowing them to continue their regular routines. We want to prevent any humanitarian crisis in Gaza, but we are fighting the Hamas organization, which threatens the citizens of Israel and fires missiles at Israeli cities. It is our duty to defend the citizens of Israel, protect Israel’s cities and ensure the security of the State of Israel - and we will continue to do so.


State to State: New Mexico and Israel

By Sam Sokolove on Friday, May 14th, 2010 at 9:27 am
Categories: General Commentary, Uncategorized

From: AIPAC  

http://www.aipac.org/NearEastReport/20100510/New_Mexico.html

 

The people of New Mexico face the same challenge confronting all desert communities—too many people and too little water. With an average annual rainfall of only 8.9 inches and limited natural resources, New Mexico struggles to meet the water demand required by its two million residents.

The state has found a natural ally in a tiny desert country in the Middle East: Israel. The Jewish state is a world leader in water conservation. It recycles a staggering 80 percent of its water. By comparison, New Mexico, a U.S. state on the forefront of water management, recycles only four percent of its water.

While the two states are more than 7,000 miles apart, Israeli and New Mexican government and business leaders came together last February in Albuquerque for a symposium on clean water and natural resource management.

Roee Madai, Israel’s Consul for Economic Affairs, praised his country’s relationship with New Mexico. “We have natural synergy and great similarity in vital and immediate need for clean energy and water technology,” Madai said. He added that New Mexico is a “prime location for collaboration and cooperative ventures.”

New Mexico is home to a tiny Jewish community—less than one percent of the state’s total population. It is common interests and goals, rather than family or cultural ties, that have brought the two states together.

A Trading Partner
In 2008, New Mexican businesses exported over $27 million in goods to Israel; the total value of exports since 1996 exceeds $490 million. In recent years, New Mexico has also expanded its direct investment in Israel, purchasing a combined total of $15 million in Israel bonds. Israel is now New Mexico’s 11th leading international trading partner—a remarkable ranking given that Israel only has about seven million people.

“I’m proud that my state has invested heavily in Israel’s economy,” said then-New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson during his presidential run. The state’s investments have paid dividends.

New Mexico businesses and institutions have profited from their state’s expanded trading partnership with Israel. For example, the Albuquerque-based Lumidigm Inc., a multi-spectral imaging biometrics company, and the Israel-based BioGuard Components and Technologies Ltd. have inked a multi-million dollar contract to produce biometric security sensors. The devices include fingerprinting and other scanning devices used to protect and secure government and commercial facilities around the world.

New Mexico education centers have also benefitted by receiving millions of dollars for joint U.S.-Israeli agriculture and technology research grants.

Formalizing New Mexico-Israel Ties

During a 2008 trip to Israel, Gov. Richardson signed a letter of agreement formalizing efforts to promote trade between his state and Israel. New Mexico is one of 20 states with a trade office in Israel.

The deep ties extend to New Mexico’s urban centers. The state’s largest city, Albuquerque, is a sister city with Rehovot, an Israeli city of more than 100,000 people.

Both cities are home to major academic and research institutions and stand at the center of their respective state’s technology booms. The partnership between them expands opportunities for business-to-business contacts and, ultimately, could provide a platform for additional investment and trade between Israel and New Mexico.

For more information on the relationship between Israel and New Mexico, visit the Jewish Virtual Library.


Some of the Reasons to Invest in Israel

By Sam Sokolove on Wednesday, May 5th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Categories: General Commentary, Israel

By Yoram Ettinger

1. According to TopForeignStocks.com (May 2, 2010), Some of the reasons to invest in Israel are:

*The banking sector remained stable during the global credit crisis and emerged strong last year. Unlike many banks in the West, none of the banks had any large sub-prime exposure and needed to be bailed out by the state. The five largest banks - Hapoalim group, Bank Leumi Bank, Discount Bank, Mizrahi-Tfahot Bank group and First International Bank - are all well capitalized and their capital adequacy ratio is much higher than the minimum required by Basel standards.

*Israel runs a current account surplus. In 2009, the current account soared 243% to $7.2 billion.

*By the end of this month MSCI will upgrade Israel to a developed market [OECD]. Hence Israel will join this select group of 23 other developed countries in the index.

*The high-tech industry forms a large part of the Israeli economy. While Germany is known for engineering, Israel can be called as a high-tech powerhouse. Some have called the incredible growth of the hi-tech industry in a short period of time as a hi-tech miracle. The country is a global leader in many hi-tech sectors such as electronics, generic pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and aeronautics. Export of products by the hi-tech industry has grown at an annual rate of 8.5% in the last five years. In March 2010, the sector brought in $2.1B in export revenue. In the manufacturing sector, sale of hi-tech products forms the largest source of export revenue as the chart for 2008 shows below.

*Israel has the largest number of companies listed on the NASDAQ than any other country except Canada. This is very significant considering the country’s population is relatively small compared to many other countries such as India, China, Brazil, UK, France, etc.

*A December, 2009 Bank of America Merrill Lynch report titled “Playing Defense” recommended Israel as an attractive investment destination and recommended companies especially in the banks and telecom sector.

According to Merrill Lynch, some of the reasons for investing in Israel were the strong currency vs. the US dollar, the resilient economic performance among other emerging markets and the strong leadership performance shown by The Bank of Israel and Israel’s Ministry of Finance in handling the economy.

*The rate of investment in research and development as percentage of GDP in Israel is the highest in the world. High R&D spending coupled with a highly skilled and educated workforce spawns hundreds of start-ups producing many successful commercial products. Israel has the highest number of scientists and engineers per capita in the world. Hence one of the areas where Israel excels compared to other OECD countries is the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) sector which forms a considerable portion of exports. Little wonder that after Silicon Valley, Israel has the highest concentration of start-ups anywhere in the world.

*Many of Israel’s leading multinational companies weathered the credit crisis and continue to expand both domestically and abroad. Companies like Teva Pharmaceuticals (TEVA), the world’s largest generic drug maker, generate most of their earnings from overseas markets. The Top 25 Israeli multinationals had over US $40B in foreign sales including exports) in 2008. The top five firms in this category are Israel Corporation, Elco Holdings, Teva, Amdocs (DOX) and Ormat (ORA).

*Some of the other factors that make Israel an attractive destination for investment are: general government consumption accounts for a small portion of the total GDP, relative low unemployment rate, stable and growing housing market, very low growth in debt to GDP during 2009, the Tel-Aviv 25 Index beating the S&P 500 over the last five years, etc.

2. The $1.8BN NY-based private equity fund, Pegasus Capital Advisors, has increased its Israel-dedicated fund by $150MN, focusing on water technologies, alternative energy and homeland security technologies. Pegasus invested $100MN in Israeli companies during 2005-8, acquiring controlling interest in 5 companies (Globes business daily, April 5, 2010).
3. The European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), which supports exceptional R&D projects, awarded 17MN Euros to 34 Israeli companies and researchers. The total received by Israeli companies and academic researchers, from the FP7 amounts to 290MN Euros (Globes, May 3).

4. Canada’s Enablence has acquired Israel’s Teledata for $50MN (Globes, April 16). Google made its 1st Israeli acquisition - LabPixies for $25MN (April 28).


Older Posts »

All content Copyright © 2009 by The Jewish Federation of New Mexico
Designed, developed, and maintained by netwmd.com, LLC