COLIN POWELL'S 'JEWISH CONNECTIONS' Posted by Dafna Yee, April 30, 2004.

Yesterday, a member of the Crisis in Israel yahoo group posted an excerpt from Colin Powell's speech at the Israeli National Day Reception in Washington, April 27, 2004 ("Transcript: Powell Says Israeli Withdrawal Offers New Opportunity for Peace", http://www.usembassy.egnet.net.news4.html) My own association with Israel is a personal one as well as a professional one, and it goes back many years. As you heard, I was born in Manhattan and raised in the Bronx, and I grew up in a neighborhood which now would be called multicultural. (Laughter.) Multicultural is not a word we knew in the Bronx. (Laughter.) It was my neighborhood. (Laughter.) And people would ask me over the years, "Well, what was it like growing up as a minority?" I said, "Who knew? We all were minorities back in the Bronx." (Laughter.) I was privileged to grow up in a neighborhood with blacks, Puerto Ricans, people from all around the world, and a very large segment of the population was Jewish. Kaiserman's Bakery was on one corner, Teitelbaum's Drug Store was on another corner, the chicken market was just around the corner. Jay Sickser was the name of a man who became a very close friend of mine, a Russian Jew who came to this country to avoid disaster, and he made a home here and he gave me my first job as a young man at age 14 when I walked past his store one afternoon. And he said, "Mmm, Knabe, come here." And I worked with him for the next eight years, and over those years I picked up quite a bit of Yiddish. (Laughter.) And I have dined out on those few words over the last 50 years. (Laughter and applause.) My next door neighbor, the Klein family, they had the first television in our apartment building in New York, and I still remember the whole apartment building gathering in their home in the evenings to watch Milton Berle or Molly Goldberg, for those of you old enough to remember those shows. It was wonderful, but I got to know and appreciate Jewish life, Jewish culture. And I was about 11 years old in 1948, in May of that year, an impressionable young 11-year-old man, when the State of Israel was brought into existence. And I knew not only by listening to it on the radio, the news as it came over, and seeing it in the newspapers, I could see it in the eyes of my Jewish neighbors and my Jewish friends and my Jewish classmates what the State of Israel meant to them and to their families and what they thought it meant to the world. I, for one, am NOT favorably impressed upon reading the stories of Powell's "Jewish connections" (which are continually being thrown up at Powell's detractors). It is clear that he deliberately uses them as anecdotes to convince people that he is a friend of Israel while, at the same time, working determinedly with Israel's enemies to bring about Israel's destruction. Have Powell's Jewish supporters forgotten that Adolf Eichmann was selected to head the "Jewish Desk" precisely because he had spent considerable time in Palestine, spoke fluent Hebrew, and was considered an expert on Zionism? Here is an excerpt with the source to remind people of the dangers of being gulled by someone's "Jewish connections". "Eichmann was considered a kind of specialist. Before the war, he had visited Palestine and studied Jewish religion and the Hebrew language. His report to the leaders of the SS concerning his travels in the Holy Land convinced them that Eichmann was an expert on the subject of Zionism. Heydrich and Himmler chose Eichmann to become the head of the "Jewish desk" in Berlin, and gave him extraordinary power--nearly absolute power--over the fate of the Jewish people in Germany and in all the conquered lands. From his small office in Berlin, Adolf Eichmann pulled the strings and made the decisions that cost nearly six million Jewish lives." http://www.rossel.net/Holocaust08.htm Powell is no more a friend to Israel than Eichmann was a friend to the Jews! And telling stories about his Jewish friends, even if he tells them in Yiddish, won't change that fact! Dafna Yee is director of Jewish Watch Dog (JWD). Its website address is http://jwd-jewishwatchdog.home.comcast.net To Go To Top

THE REAL MIDEAST 'POISON' Posted by CAMERA, April 30, 2004.

In an outstanding April 30 column, "The Real Mideast 'Poison'," Charles Krauthammer included factual information and context about key issues, such as refugees, settlements, borders, Arab/Muslim anti-Semitism, and UN double standards, so often lacking in news articles. Anti-Semitism, once just a European disease, has gone global. The outgoing prime minister of Malaysia gets a standing ovation from leaders of 57 Islamic countries when he calls upon them to rise up against the Jewish conspiracy to control the world. The French ambassador to London tells dinner party guests that Israel is a "[expletive] little country . . . why should the world be in danger of World War III because of those people?" Ah, those people. Kofi Annan's personal representative in Iraq now singles out the policies of the world's one Jewish state -- and only democratic state in the Middle East -- as "the great poison in the region." The Egyptian government daily Al-Gumhuriya is less diplomatic, explaining in an article by its deputy editor that, "It is the Jews, with their hidden, filthy hands, who . . . are behind all troubles, disasters and catastrophes in the world," including, of course, the attacks of Sept. 11 and the Madrid bombings. It is in this kind of atmosphere that Israel offers unilateral withdrawal from Gaza -- uprooting 7,000 Jews, turning over to the Palestinians 21 settlements with their extensive infrastructure intact and creating the first independent Palestinian territory in history -- and is almost universally attacked. Moreover, and much overlooked, Israel will also evacuate four small West Bank settlements, which creates extensive Palestinian territorial contiguity throughout the northern half of the West Bank. The Arabs have variously denounced this as Israeli unilateralism, a departure from the "road map" and a ruse and a plot. The craven Europeans have duly followed suit. And when Tony Blair defied the mob by expressing support for the plan, he was rewarded with a letter from 52 Arabist ex-diplomats denouncing him. This Nuremberg atmosphere has reached the point where, if Israel were to announce today that it intends to live for at least another year, the U.N. Security Council would convene to discuss a resolution denouncing Israeli arrogance and unilateralism, and the United States would have to veto it. Only Britain would have the decency to abstain. It gets worse. The Bush administration has been attacked not just for supporting the Gaza plan but for bolstering Israel in this risky endeavor with two assurances: first, that the Palestinian refugees are to be repatriated not to Israel but to Palestine; and second, Israel should not be required to return to its 1967 borders. Enlightened editorial opinion has denounced this as Bush's upsetting 30 years of American diplomacy. Utter rubbish. Rejecting the so-called right of return is nothing more than opposing any final settlement that results in flooding Israel with hostile Palestinians and thus eradicating the only Jewish state on the planet. This is radical? This is something that Washington should refuse to say? What is new here? Four years ago, at Camp David, this was a central element of the Clinton plan. As was the notion of Israel's retaining a small percentage of West Bank land on which tens of thousands of Jews live. Moreover, the notion that Israel will not be forced to return to the 1967 armistice lines goes back 37 years -- to 1967 itself. The Johnson administration was instrumental in making sure that the governing document for a Middle East settlement -- Security Council Resolution 242 -- called for Israeli withdrawal to "secure and recognized boundaries," not "previous boundaries." And it called for Israel to withdraw "from territories occupied" in the 1967 war -- not "from the territories occupied," as had been demanded by the Arab states, and not from "all territories occupied" as had been demanded by the Soviet Union. Arthur Goldberg (U.S. ambassador to the United Nations), Lord Caradon (British ambassador to the U.N.) and Eugene Rostow (U.S. undersecretary of state) had negotiated this language with extreme care. They spent the subsequent decades explaining over and over again that the central U.N. resolution on the conflict did not require Israel to withdraw to the 1967 lines. Confronted with these facts, the critics say: Well, maybe this is right, but Bush should not have said this in the absence of negotiations. Good grief. This was offered to the Palestinians in negotiations -- in July 2000 at Camp David -- with even more generous Israeli concessions. Yasser Arafat said no and then launched a bloody terrorist war that has killed almost a thousand Jews and maimed thousands of others. The fact is that there are no negotiations because under the road map -- adopted even by the United Nations -- there can be no negotiations until the Palestinians end the terror and dismantle the terror apparatus. To argue that neither Israel nor the United States can act in the absence of negotiations is to give the Palestinians, by continuing the terror, a veto over any constructive actions by the United States or Israel -- whether disengaging from Gaza, uprooting settlements or establishing conditions for a final peace settlement that would ensure the survival of a Jewish state. This is an argument of singular absurdity. And a prescription for perpetual violence and perpetual stalemate. letters@charleskrauthammer.com CAMERA - Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - monitors the news and TV media for how fair they are in reporting on Israel. Their website address is www.camera.org To Go To Top

ISRAEL'S STRATEGIC FUTURE: THE FINAL REPORT OF PROJECT DANIEL Posted by Fishbein Associates, April 30, 2004.

Dear Friends and Colleagues: We would like to bring to your attention a newly published study entitled: Israel's Strategic Future: The Final Report of Project Daniel now available in the April on-line edition of NATIV, the journal of the Ariel Center for Policy Research (ACPR). The report can be viewed at the following URL: http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/. A print version of Israel's Strategic Future will soon be published by the Ariel Center as ACPR policy Paper No. 155. Authors of the Report: Louis Rene Beres, Ph.D., Professor; Project Daniel Chairman, U.S.A. Naaman Belkind, Fmr. Assistant to the Deputy Minister of Defense for Special Means, Israel. Isaac Ben-Israel, Maj. Gen. (Res.), Israel Air Force; Professor, Israel. Rand H. Fishbein, Ph.D., Fmr. Professional Staff Member, U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S.A. Adir Pridor, Ph.D., Lt. COL. (Ret.) Israel Air Force; Fmr. Head of Military Analyses, RAFAEL, Israel. Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, Fmr. MK/COL (Res.) Israel Air Force, Israel. Please direct all enquiries concerning Project Daniel to: Project Daniel Chairman, Professor Louis Rene Beres, Telephone: (765) 494-4189, Facsimile (765) 494-0833, E-mail: Beres@polsci.purdue.edu. This is the Executive Summary. The full report is available at Nativ Online (http://www.acpr.org.il/ENGLISH-NATIV/). In the Spring of 2002 a non-partisan panel comprised of six distinguished citizens of Israel and the United States came together to form Project Daniel. Four are retired military officers as well as retired senior officials in the Israeli Government and Knesset, one is a renowned scholar of International Law and one is an expert on the U.S. Congress and American defense policy. All are recognized authorities in the fields of national security and political science. The charge given to the Daniel panel by its Chairman was to examine the changing strategic environment for Israel in the Middle East, a region increasingly threatened by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). For indeed, one of the dominant realities facing Israel today is that a surprise WMD first strike by a determined and capable adversary could imperil the national life of the Jewish State. For Israel, a national security policy that relies either on diplomacy or a balance of power to discourage potential attackers is neither a real nor sufficient guarantor of survival in the WMD age. In addressing this challenge, the Daniel team chose to assess the risks and opportunities of Israel formally adopting the "Doctrine of Preemption" as its operational and fully lawful response to one or more hostile states acquiring WMD. If for any reason the Doctrine of Preemption should fail to prevent a hostile Arab state or Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, the Daniel Team advises that Israel cease immediately its current policy of nuclear ambiguity and proceed at once to a position of overt nuclear deterrence. Further to this change in policy, we also recommend that Israel make it perfectly clear to the hostile nuclear state that it would suffer prompt and maximum-yield nuclear countervalue reprisals for any level of nuclear aggression undertaken against Israel. Under certain circumstances, our Team continues, similar forms of Israeli nuclear deterrence should be directed against hostile states that threaten existential harms with biological weapons. The group's deliberations have garnered the attention of Israel's Prime Minister and his senior military staff who have conducted their own review of the report's conclusions. The landmark study, Israel's Strategic Future, argues that due to its small size, demographic density and concentrated military forces, Israel has no option but to deny would-be regional aggressors the opportunity to develop and deploy WMD weapons that pose a clear existential danger to the Jewish state. Nuclear, and certain biological weapons, in the hands of terrorist sponsoring countries such as Iran and certain Arab states constitute the greatest danger to regional stability and consequently, to the future of Israel. It is for this reason that preemption, with all of its attendant political and operational risks, may stand as the only alternative left to a small state when its adversaries clearly fail to abide by the reasonable expectations of diplomacy and self-restraint and are also determined to acquire certain Weapons of Mass Destruction. The situation is made worse by the possible emergence of Islamic "suicide states" -- those who would willingly bring about their own destruction in order to eliminate Israel's national existence. Faced with this seemingly irrational behavior, Israel has no alternative but to act first under certain circumstances, secure in the belief that International law is not a suicide pact. The Daniel authors base their thesis on the fact that preemption, or anticipatory self-defense, is an authoritative doctrine firmly grounded in customary international law. In the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy, the U.S. formally adopted preemption as a fundamental tenet of its own national security strategy in an effort to address the growing potential of future surprise attacks. Israel, Daniel's authors argue, must do the same. On a public level, the country also must continue to rely on its longstanding policy of nuclear ambiguity to discourage hostile action by seemingly rational states. The Daniel study also breaks new ground in its discussion of the place of nuclear weapons as an adjunct to conventional weapons in the composition of Israel's military arsenal. The authors draw attention to the risks brought on by a critically low Israeli defense budget and how this might contribute to a failure of deterrence. Recent years have seen Israel's qualitative and quantitative military edge eroding. This can be attributed to several factors, not the least of which are: 1.) the ongoing war with the Palestinians, 2.) the quickening pace at which the Arab/Islamic confrontation states are modernizing their arsenals, 3.) the belief that disarmament is possible now that Saddam Hussein has been toppled and Iraq, at least for the time being, does not constitute an immediate threat to Israel, and 4.) a possible overconfidence on the part of many military and political leaders that continue to believe that Israel's superior warfighting abilities will always triumph over what they see as the historic ineptitude of their Arab adversaries on the battlefield. The Daniel report provides a timely assessment of Israel's current strategic position and the growing convergence of its needs and those of the United States in a world increasingly threatened by weapons of mass destruction. It is a sobering analysis, one that already has been recognized by senior Israeli leaders for its seminal contribution to the debate over how their country should address the emergence of new and potentially catastrophic threats to its national survival. To Go To Top

HORROR AND HUMILIATION IN FALLUJAH Posted by IsrAlert, April 30, 2004.

This is a useful and interesting analysis of the psych-war potential. It was authored by "Spengler" and appeared in "Asia Times" (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FD27Ak01.html), April 27, 2004. Those who have crossed With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom Remember us - if at all - not as lost Violent souls, but only As the hollow men The stuffed men. - T S Eliot, The Hollow Men Allah is the Greatest. I bear witness that nothing deserves to be worshipped except Allah. Come to prayer. Come to success. - The Muslim call to prayer, translated by Maulana Muhammad Ali As the American military weighs the reduction of Fallujah, there come into focus the grand vulnerabilities both of the Americans and the Sunni resistance. The West cannot endure without faith that a loving Father dwells beyond the clouds that obscure His throne. Horror - the perception that cruelty has no purpose and no end - is lethal to the West. Europe is dying slowly from the horror of the 20th century's world wars, ending the way T S Eliot foresaw in the poem cited above, "not with a bang but a whimper". Despite its intrinsic optimism, America is vulnerable as well. The Islamic world cannot endure without confidence in victory, that to "come to prayer" is the same thing as to "come to success". Humiliation - the perception that the Ummah cannot reward those who submit to it - is beyond its capacity to endure. Radical Islam has risen against the West in response to its humiliation - intentional or not - at Western hands. The West can break the revolt by inflicting even worse humiliation upon the Islamists, poisoning the confidence of their supporters in the Muslim world. But radical Islam yet may horrify the West into submission, not only by large-scale acts of terrorism against Western countries, but also by provoking the West into mass destruction of life in the Islamic world. By operating in the midst of civilian populations, Islamist radicals put Western counter-insurgency in a delicate position. The Western response must be harsh enough to humble its adversaries, without turning the stomach of the Western population itself. To do this requires intelligence precise enough to target enemy resources without killing too many civilians. I am grateful to Dr Amar Manzoor for the following summary of the issues (as well as praise). He writes from the UK (my excerpts): Having read some of your articles on how radical Islam might win, I am amazed at your bravery in declaring the obvious in the cultural and deep-seated religious exclusivity which we face on a daily basis. The Islamists seems to be carrying a victory. This victory seems to be to prove that radicals are right in the perception of America. Simple fact: they are losing to win (also called the rope-a-dope strategy by [world champion boxer] Muhammed Ali). Each time the United States starts to kill and maim large numbers of civilians, and gory images are blasted to living rooms all around the world, the Islamists are appealing to the conscience of every person on the planet. Once the US does the killing, rape, pillage, murder, and looting, they [Islamists] will have won the hearts and minds of the people. Guess what, Spengler: it looks like it is working and working very well. Dr Mansoor is right, at least in large measure. Just after the fall of the Twin Towers, I wrote: The grand vulnerability of the Western mind is horror. The Nazis understood this and pursued a policy of "des Schreckens" (to cause horror) and "Entsetzens" (terror; literally, dislodgement). Horror was not merely an instrument of war in the traditional sense, but a form of Wagnerian theater, or psychological warfare on the grand scale. Hitler's tactical advantage lay in his capacity to be more horrible than his opponents could imagine. The most horrible thing of all is that he well might have succeeded if not for his own megalomaniac propensity to overreach. America, as Osama bin Laden taunted this week, lost in Vietnam. But it was not military setbacks, but the horrific images of Vietnamese civilians burned by napalm, that lost the war. America's experience in the war is enshrined in popular culture in the film Apocalypse Now, modeled after Joseph Conrad's story, The Heart of Darkness. The Belgian trading company official, Paul Kurtz, sinks into bestiality and dies with these words: 'The horror! The horror!' It was a dreadful film, but a clever reference. At the close of World War I, T S Eliot subtitled his epitaph for Western civilization, The Hollow Men, with a quote from the Conrad story: "Mr Kurtz, he dead." (Sir John Keegan is wrong: Radical Islam can win, Oct 12, 2001). There is of course more to the story, for radical Islam just as well might lose. Were the United States and its allies to carpet-bomb Fallujah in order to destroy Sunni armed resistance, the horrifying result would appall the population of the West and advance the Islamist cause. Crushing the resistance with limited civilian damage would humiliate the Islamists and weaken them. The nicety of this problem no doubt explains why the American command has taken its good time to decide upon a course of action. On the other hand, surgical strikes against resistance leaders, such as Israel's targeted killings of Hamas leaders Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and Abdel Aziz Rantisi, enervate rather than energize the Islamist side. When the long arm of Israeli vengeance can reach into the heart of the enemy camp, the Islamists are humiliated and thus weakened. Intelligence is the decisive variable in the equation, and the poor state of America's spy agencies, acknowledged by the CIA's George Tenet, has been the Achilles Heel of the coalition, as I argued in Why America is losing the intelligence war (Nov 11, 2003). But I also predicted that America's deficient capacity for human intelligence would make Washington depend more upon Israel. Precisely that appears to be happening. Nations have interests, not friends, observed Otto von Bismarck, and it is commonality of interest that brings Washington and Jerusalem together. A host of Western commentators attacked President George W Bush for taking the Israeli side over settlements and the Palestinian right of return, on the grounds that it humiliated the Arab world, and a plethora of Muslim voices bemoan their humiliation at the hands of the United States. Much, much more is to come. The "rope-a-dope" tactic Dr Mansoor cites can work both ways. Israel offers many things to Washington, including Arab-language translators, intelligence operatives, and tactical expertise in urban search-and-destroy missions. But its transcendent value to American strategy lies not in what it does, but what it is, namely an ever-present source of humiliation to the Muslim sense of self-worth. The price of recalcitrance, Bush has told the Palestinians and indirectly the Arab world at large, is that some part of the Dar al-Islam has fallen to Jewish hands for the indefinite future. Analysts unfriendly to the Muslim world speak of a "pride-and-honor culture", in which the prickliness of the Arab street regarding the Palestine issue and so-called honor killings are supposed manifestations of the same social traits. There is another way to look at the matter. Among the world's religions Christianity and Islam alone have the capacity for mass absorption of converts from different races and ethnic groups. It is hard to tell which of the two is growing faster. One of them will be the world's dominant religion in the 21st century. There is a radical difference between Islamic and Christian conversion. Both seek to supercede Judaism, but in different ways. Christianity offers a New Israel, called out from among the nations by the sacrifice of Jesus. Because God's love for mankind is the premise of the New Israel, there is a limit to Christian tolerance for bloodshed. To propose open genocide, the Nazis had to repudiate Christianity and embrace paganism only. The Christian's participation in the vicarious sacrifice of the Cross offers salvation at the end of the soul's journey. Christian practice puts enormous effort into sustaining the conviction of the promise of the Kingdom of Heaven: prayers, hymns, cathedrals, paintings, and so forth. No such concept of individual spiritual transformation exists in mainstream Islam. The individual submits wholly to Allah, who controls all things without qualification. That is Islam's enormous strength; the individual believer can leave behind the carping self-doubt of the Christians. For the same reason, however, setbacks to the Ummah are a challenge to the faith of every believer, for all events are in the hands of Allah, not those who have submitted to His will. Success therefore is a theological necessity for Islam. Humiliation for Jews and Christians is a chastisement from God; did not Jesus accept his humiliation on the cross? For Islam, humiliation is a refutation of the faith itself. For a generation, Western policy towards the Muslim world has emphasized deference towards Muslim sensibilities, the Bush White House emphatically included. It does not occur to Muslim radicals that their enhanced status in the Islamic world might prompt the West to undertake the opposite, namely to humiliate some aspects and some leaders of Islam, if not the religion itself. The Islamists' vision of the future is audacious, as Dr Mansoor recounts: Irrespective of their color, religion, or culture, we can see that their foothold and leadership methods are taking hold. This has been transferred across the world to China, South America, the Middle East, the Far East, South Asia, as well as the Central Asian republics. The general dismay coupled with the dividing lines of rich and poor in the world and the complexities of culture and capitalism are allowing their message to gain ground steadily. This means more recruits, more audacious plans in the pipeline, and even more difficulty in using third generation forces to counter fourth generation asymmetric threats which appear and disappear like ghosts. The question for me is not the method of implementation, widely regarded as terrorism, throughout the world. This has always been in existence. The question for me is the message and why it is so blindingly powerful. The message provides the impetus to the heart, and perception drives the mind into the court of the Islamist. Again, the opposite may be the case. Muslims of different ethnicity and sect are more likely to fall out when the credibility of the Islamists suffers a reverse. During the past week, the United States has for the first time humiliated the Islamic world openly and without compunction, in the small matter of the West Bank settlements. If it continues in this direction, Dr Mansoor's scenario may not work out as he expects. To Go To Top

UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL PLAN IS GOOD FOR THE ENEMY'S MORALE Posted by Yocheved Golani, April 30, 2004.

"History will not forgive us if we dismantle Gush Katif... Eighty percent of the Palestinian population interprets the proposed evacuation of Azza as a victory against Jews and Israel," Rabbi Shlomo Riskin stressed to an attentive crowd in Bet Shemesh. The April 28 gathering was part of a series of national efforts at the local level for convincing fence-sitting LIKUD members to vote against Prime Minister Sharon's Unilateral Withdrawal plan. Rabbi Riskin established his community in Efrat and Yeshivat Ohr Torah Stone after Peres and Rabin invited Jews to fill YESHA with Jewish life. With the lives of all the Jews who accepted that invitation now at stake, and the four generations of his own family situated in Efrat, Riskin explained the personal anguish he would suffer in the event of a Unilateral Withdrawal. "If a Jewish government forces me to leave Efrat, this will be a private churban bait hamikdash [devastation] for me, let alone a wider tragedy for the Jewish people." The rabbi described the sacrifices that one must halachically make in the event that peace is a viable result of that forfeiture. "That was the situation with Yamit twenty years ago, but the 'Land for Peace' proposal then resulted in the quiet situation we've had with Egypt as a result. Despite the terrible losses of the Jews who lived in Yamit, there was something to be gained by yielding territory. The Unilateral Withdrawal Plan of 2004, however, proposes no advantages to Israel. None. Hamas will take over the area and it would be disastrous for us." He sighed, "Members of the LIKUD have a chance to guide history with their votes in a few days. I wish I were a LIKUD member so I could vote against this ill-advised withdrawal plan." Particulars of the withdrawal plan demand that all Jewish properties remain intact and standing for immediate use by the enemy. "This means that we have to leave the yeshivot, synagogues and sifrei Torah, everything, to be destroyed, " Riskin cried out. He mourned the potential loss of holy objects in the event that the Gush is handed over to those who wish to obliterate Israel and the Jews. Then he described his conversation in a Russian synagogue some years ago. "The rabbi asked me a question. 'Why does the Gemara, in Moed Qatan 26A rule that if a sefer Torah is burned, we are required to tear kria [an intentionally mournful rip of clothing] twice once for the destruction of the parchment and once for the loss of the letters? A passage in the Talmud (Avoda Zara 18a) teaches otherwise. When the Romans murdered Rabbi Hananya Ben Tradyon, the father of Brurya and father in-law of Rabbi Meir, by burning him alive wrapped up in a sefer Torah scroll, he told his students that although the parchment of the Torah was burning, the holy letters were flying heavenwards. - If the letters themselves withstand the burning, why are we required to perform a second kria due to the fact that they were burned with the parchment?' I didn't know, and the Russian rabbi told me the following answer. 'The law requiring one to tear kria twice upon witnessing the burning of a sefer Torah applies only if the sefer Torah is burned by Jews. In such a case, the holy letters do not rise heavenward. We mourn for them separately. Goyim cannot destroy the truth within the letters of our G-D-given Torah. When goyim burn a sefer Torah, the letters rise to heaven. But Jews who desecrate the ideals of that Torah trap those letters. They don't rise. Therefore only one kria is required on account of the destruction of the parchment. '" Riskin underscored the story with the observation, "The holy alef-bet does not rise with the parchment because the action of the Jews themselves caused this manifold chillul HaShem [disgrace before G-D]". If the government of Israel decrees that such a loss will happen, it will be a great, great chillul HaShem! We'll have done this to ourselves." Trying to reassure questioners in the audience who wondered aloud if Sharon would ignore a vote against his evacuation plan Riskin passionately said, "Sharon is not in a position to defy his party. The people of the LIKUD have the power to defeat the proposed exile of our people. This [proposed withdrawal] is a wrong move." Fielding remarks in favor of ceding the Gush from audience member David Eisen, Riskin asked him to explain the potential advantages of withdrawal to the crowd. Eisen instead noted that while serving in the regular IDF as well as in reserve duty, his unit of 500 soldiers was stationed in Southern Gush Katif in 2002. And, inter alia, placed in charge of the defense of three settlements near the Palestinian city of Rafiah, he and the majority of his united were dismayed to learn that of what they considered to be a small number of homes in the area. Those soldiers felt that since the IDF is not blessed with unlimited resources, they were failing their duties to apprehend terrorists and destroy tunnels smuggling weapons and ammunition from Egypt due to the need to concentrate precious resources to the protection of these families. "I think that as in Yamit, the government should raze all the homes and buildings, including the synagogues, as [influential] rabbis decided in 1982, and for Sharon to surrender territorythat other Jews consider to be critical for Israel's defense." Noting that this matter is disputed by the IDF, Eisen stated that "... it is incumbent upon the Israeli government to explain that this action is being made for the nation's security needs... the current borders in Gaza are not defensible..." In response to Eisen's objection that the Torah-land analogy was inappropriate, Rabbi Riskin retracted his analogy equating the dismantling of settlements in the Gush by a democratically elected Jewish government with Jews burning Torah scrolls themselves. Riskin stressed that the situation is much larger than those families and that the deployment of 500 soldiers in that location protected such mainstream Israeli cities as Ashkelon and Tel Aviv, which would need far more soldiers for protection without the Gush as an impediment to terrorism. He maintained that opening the Gush Katif gateway to the rest of Israel would be disastrous. Eisen, however, remained in favor of the unilateral withdrawal. Incredulous at his lack of logic, audience members spoke among themselves that "The purpose of the Yishuvim is to prevail over future terrorism." Riskin summed up the wisdom of Israel keeping the upper hand over terrorism by keeping the land deeded to the Jews by G-D. Citing Biblical verses he concluded, "It's His to give and He gave it to the Jews? Hanan Ashrawi, whose voice is not heard much in public these days, recently said that '[Palestinian] violence has been a failure,' meaning that we almost had them on their knees. Experience shows us that every time Israel withdraws, terrorism only increases. " Riskin ended his presentation saying, "One of the most important things you fight in a war is the enemy's morale. A withdrawal would be a prize for terrorism." The author can be reached at www.yochevedgolani.com To Go To Top

ISRAEL BUS NUMBER 19 RALLY Posted by Kitty Carr, April 30, 2004.

I am a devout Christian, a self-proclaimed conservative, a long-time Republican and former Bush supporter. This is what I wrote to Christians For Israel, who are bringing Bus #19, a Jerusalem bus that was bombed by Arab terrorists to Washington on May 6th. Dear Christians for Israel, I'm not exactly sure what your point is in bringing the bombed Israeli bus to Washington. It could be filled with corpses, and Bush would still speak of "two states living side by side in peace, harmony and luv." (He has a Vision, you know). Dr. James Hutchens, the editor of "Christians for Israel" who is sponsoring this event, has already assured President Bush in his article "Is Bush Boxing With God?" that no matter what Bush does, he can count on Dr. Hutchens' vote: "I voted for you before and fully expect to do so again. I say this as a fellow-follower of Jesus Christ." Dr. Hutchens was certainly right in pointing out that Israel and Jerusalem are not up for negotiation or division, although at Bush's age and as a 'fellow-follower' of Jesus Christ, one might wonder why Bush doesn't already know these things. However, this is the point with which I vehemently disagree: I would never vote a second time for someone whose intention is to betray Israel! It is remarkable that while Bush is promising the Palestinians a state, he seems oblivious to their insanity and never questions their legitimacy. (See for example "Arab-Israel Conflict Facts" by Steven Shamrak on http://tzemach.org/fyi/articles/forgotten_facts.htm.) If the Palestinians are anything but generic Arabs from all over the Arab world, if they really have a genuine ethnic identity that gives them the right of self-determination, then why did they never try to become independent until the Arabs suffered their devastating defeat in the Six Day War? It can no longer be ignored or denied that President Bush is not only protecting the terrorist Arafat, he is financially supporting the PA, courtesy of US taxpayers. Despite Bush's speech on June 24, 2002, in which he said "Today Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing, terrorism," just one year and twenty-six successful suicide attacks later, on July 25, 2003, Bush met with Mahmoud Abbas, aka Abu Mazen, Arafat's hand-picked replacement, (which is BushSpeak for "elected") and established a joint U.S., Palestine Economic Development Group to promote jobs, growth and investment in the Palestinian economy. Bush praised Abbas for his commitment to fighting terrorism. Said Bush, "It is necessary for this good man (Abbas) to fight off the terrorist activity that creates the conditions of insecurity for not only Israel, but for the peaceful Palestinian people." (The good man Abbas, a terrorist, Holocaust revisionist, conspiracy theorist, founding member of Fatah, a member of the Palestine National Council [since 1968] and the PLO Executive Committee, had no such intentions. Terrorist attacks on Aug. 12, 2003 killed 2 and wounded three. Another attack on Aug. 19, 2003 killed twenty-three and wounded over 130 Israelis.) Bush further said, "To meet the goal we have set, we must improve the daily lives of ordinary Palestinians. For just this purpose, I recently approved a grant of $20 million directly to the Palestinian Authority." According to USAID/WBG, (U.S. Agency for International Development/West Bank and Gaza) "U.S. law specifically prohibits cash assistance to the PA.", which is why this "first time ever" cash transfer required a Presidential waiver. (Documents released June 5, 2002 (http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/6/ International%20Financial%20Aid%20to%20the%20Palestinian%20Aut), proved that International financial aid to the PA is redirected to terrorist elements. What changed between June, 2002, when the PA was "encouraging terrorism" and July, 2003, when the PA became the recipient of such American largesse and our joint partner in a "Palestine Economic Development Group"?) But $20 million is pocket change. According to the State Department, $120 million was given to the PA through the USAID/WBG in 2003 for "in-kind assistance" and another $129 million went to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. (Palestinian terror activists in the PA areas, who were arrested and interrogated by Israeli security forces during 2002, admitted that UNRWA facilities, equipment and vehicles were used for assisting in carrying out terror attacks. Can you say "Oil-For-Food"?) When Israel tried to protect itself from American-funded Palestinian terrorism by building a fence around its borders, Powell's offices announced that the Administration is going to deduct from its aid package to Israel any money spent on "settlements." Moreover, as part of the U.S. sanctions, Powell and his people have announced that this "settlement activity" includes the construction of Israel's "security fence." (The State Department has never threatened to withhold money from the PA). As Israel was being "threatened" by Powell, the Palestinian Authority [PA] NGOs refused to sign a declaration that they will not use USAID grant money for terrorist purposes, because they don't believe killing innocent Jews is terrorism. USAID is panicked! They won't take our money! Nothing, absolutely nothing, has changed since January 3, 2002, when Israel seized the Karine-A, a ship laden with 50 tons of arms bound for the Palestinian Authority (PA). The United States held out hope that Arafat could still be induced to halt the terrorist attacks against Israel and to fulfill the other obligations he had committed to in the Oslo agreements. The seizure of the Karine-A appeared to be a clear indication that Arafat not only was unwilling to end the violence, he was importing arms to escalate the war against Israel. When Bush learned of the ship's seizure, he called Arafat and asked him to explain the shipment. Arafat acted as though he knew nothing about it. U.S. intelligence verified the Israeli account that Arafat's "money man" had paid for and arranged the arms shipment, so Bush knew that Arafat was lying to him. From that point on, the United States deemed Arafat "compromised by terror," and the administration began to push for his removal as leader of the PA. Incredibly on April 1, 2002, a reporter asked Bush a question - Mr. President, under your doctrine, a terrorist or someone who aids a terrorist is the equivalent of a terrorist. So what's keeping Chairman Arafat -- what's keeping you from labeling Chairman Arafat a terrorist? THE PRESIDENT: Chairman Arafat has agreed to a peace process. He's agreed to the Tenet plan. He's agreed to the Mitchell plan. He has negotiated with parties as to how to achieve peace. And, of course, our hope is that he accepts the Tenet plan. That's what General Zinni is in the Middle East doing, working to get this Tenet agreement in place, which is a series of concrete steps to reduce the violence in the Middle East. (Violence caused by whom? Wasn't the fact that Bush had caught "Chairman" Arafat lying about the importation of arms to be used against Israel enough proof that the "Chairman" is a liar?) In March-April 2002, Israel was engaged in what it called "Operation Defensive Shield" to "root out terrorists from the West Bank. Israeli troops moved into various towns in the West Bank and took measures to arrest or kill terrorists and to dismantle their infrastructure. The United States did not criticize the operation for the first week. It was not until April 8 that Bush publicly demanded that Israel withdraw without delay from the towns the military had entered. Israel did not comply and, for several days, virtually every news report began with a statement to the effect that Israel was defying the president. Israel ultimately withdrew its troops and declared the operation over on April 25." The documents seized during Operation Defensive proved several things: * Yasser Arafat was personally involved in the planning and execution of terror attacks. He encouraged them ideologically, authorized them financially and personally headed the Fatah Al Aqsa Brigades organization; * The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Fatah are One and the Same, and Yasser Arafat is their Leader and Commander; * The Palestinian Authority established close links with the "forces of evil" - Iran and Iraq. These countries supplied funds and terrorist warfare equipment to the Authority; * Syria supplied the Hamas and Islamic Jihad with the funds, enabling them to found and operate the terrorist infrastructure in Jenin; * Saudi Arabia financially supported the families of terrorists, including families of suicide bombers who carried out mass murder attacks in Israel. Documents were captured that indicate direct and systematic Saudi financial support of the families of Palestinian terrorists, including the families of suicide terrorists who carried out lethal attacks inside Israel. In addition, documents were found that show direct Saudi aid to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hamas, two organizations that have been declared terror organizations by the US. It seems as if the president is almost willing to commit political suicide to protect the terrorist Arafat. How can there be victory in the War on Terror when the most notorious terrorist and exporter of terrorism is declared off-limits? Bush is aware of the connection between the PA, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Yet he refuses to acknowledge these connections because doing so would expose Arafat as the Main Monster Terrorist. And this he refuses to do. In fact he goes out of his way to show sympathy for the "Palestinians". On April 30, 2002, he said "there are a lot of Palestinians who wonder whether life is worth living." Let's see. They celebrate death. They blow themselves up. They encourage their children to seek heroic death (Shahada) for Allah. (Go to http://www.pmw.org.il/new/ to see clips of the PA indoctrination of children - including one of Arafat telling a teen-aged interviewer that children should seek Shahada), plus there were twenty suicide bombings in 2002 before this speech, and yet, Bush wonders. "Clearly," he said, "There are people in the Middle East who would use terror as a weapon to derail any peace process." People? What people? Surely not the Contemplative Palestinians! The Freedonians maybe? Bush specifically identifies the Palestinians as wondering "whether life is worth living", yet it is unnamed faceless 'people' who use terror. Who writes his speeches? James Baker? This is clearly a War on Islamic Terror, yet Bush refers to Islam as a "religion of peace", and a "great religion hijacked by terrorists". He seems blissfully ignorant of Islam's intention to turn America into an Islamic State. Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman of CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), said, "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education." According to AntiCAIR, an organization dedicated to exposing CAIR's ties to terrorism, Omar Ahmed, co-founder of CAIR, said, "Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." Unfortunately for America, Anti-CAIR reports that "Since September 11th, prominent Wahhabi-backed leaders have been granted meetings with President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and FBI Director Robert Mueller. These meetings are then used to further the notion that Wahhabi-funded organizations like CAIR are fit to represent America's estimated 6 million Muslims. "This strategy has permitted the Wahhabi Lobby, as the collection of pressure groups are called, to become the de facto pool of consultants for government agencies willing to compromise vigilance for ethno-sensitivity in the War on Terror. The true agendas of groups like CAIR are obscured or forgotten in the process, and Wahhabis are given a blank check to oppose anti-terror policies that threaten to expose their connection to the terrorist support network in the U.S." If America forsakes Israel for Bush's Israel-For-Votes plan, Israel will survive, but America will not. In past times, Republicrats could count on Republicans' votes, because "where else are we going to go?" But those days are over. I, for one, am not voting for Bush again. This seems to be a dilemma for Christians who profess love for Israel. Voting for Bush would be good for America, but bad for Israel. Voting for Kerry is unthinkable. What to do? Vote for Bush, whose betrayal of Israel can no longer be ignored? Dr Hutchens and other Christian and Jewish leaders should encourage their readers, groups, whatever, to let Bush know that if he continues on his maniacal betrayal of Israel, they will not vote for him! But I've never heard, not once, anybody say this, and who knows? Maybe one voice is all it would take.Then maybe hundreds or thousands of voices telling Bush "no vote" unless he changes his course - abandon the 'Roadmap', and include Israel as our ally in the war on terror! Our government is determined to establish a Palestinian Terrorist Democracy, and supports Palestinian terrorism with taxpayers' money, which makes me complicit, so my first vote for Bush was my last vote for Bush. I'll sit this presidential election out. To Go To Top

DON'T REPEAT THESE MISTAKES, MR. SHARON Posted by Gush Katif, April 25, 2004.

MY MISTAKE In an exclusive interview with Maariv Ariel Sharon admits (January 11, 1994): "I made a mistake supporting Begin's decision to uproot settlements." A MISTAKE Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a special interview with Maariv said: "The Oslo Agreements were a total failure. A terrible, historic mistake. A huge error." MR. SHARON, DON'T REPEAT THESE MISTAKES. To Go To Top

THE RETURN OF THE LOST TRIBES Posted by David Ben-Ariel, April 30, 2004.

Nachmanides (Moshe ben Nachman, 1194-1270) was one of the greatest Biblical scholars of all times. He attached importance to the subject of the Lost Ten Tribes and spoke of them in several places. In the following articles, Nachmanides gives us some important insights. There were actually thirteen tribes of Israel. The people of Israel include two sections, which are the Ten Tribes of "Israel" and the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin known collectively as Judah. Several Exiles occurred to the people of Israel. The Bible prophesied each one separately. Nachmanides discusses these prophecies and distinguishes between them. Just as part of Judah was exiled with the northern tribes so too did some people from the ten tribes remain with Judah. Their descendants are now to be found amongst the present-day Jews. The overwhelming majority of the Ten Tribes however were exiled by the Assyrians and NEVER returned though they are destined to do so. The Ten Tribes (said Nachmanides in ca. 1260 CE) are still in Tserefath (Gaul and its region) and "at the ends of the north." THE TWO STICKS OF EZEKIEL 37 In Ezekiel [chapter thirty-seven] it speaks of future re-union: [Ezek 37:16] Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions: Here it speaks of a FUTURE Redemption for both Judah and Israel. Where it says, "For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions" by "the children of Israel his companions" it means Benjamin who was attached to Judah. Similarly it says, "For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim and for all the house of Israel his companions." The section is quite plain. The two kingdoms will unite into one kingdom under the House of David. The Israelites went into Exile and ever since then Ephraim and all [the ten tribes of northern] Israel have NEVER been in the Land of Israel. Concerning the FUTURE it says, "And the heathen shall know that I the LORD do sanctify Israel, when my sanctuary shall be in the midst of them for evermore" Behold I will recall a matter that is expressly mentioned many times in Scripture. It is known that with the Return of the Exiles under Ezra only the Tribes of Judah and Benjamin returned. These had been exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. This is what it says concerning the beginning of that Redemption, [Ezra 1:5] Then rose up the chief of the fathers of Judah and Benjamin, and the priests, and the Levites, with all them whose spirit God had raised, to go up to build the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem". And on their return it says, [Ezra 2:1] Now these are the children of the province that went up out of the captivity, of those which had been carried away, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had carried away unto Babylon, and came again unto Jerusalem and Judah, every one unto his city; When they laid the foundations of the Temple it says, [Ezra 4:1] Now when the adversaries of Judah and Benjamin heard that the children of the captivity builded the temple unto the LORD God of Israel; This is the highest level. The establishment of the status of Ezra is expressly mentioned here, [Ezra 8:1] These are now the chief of their fathers, and this is the genealogy of them that went up with me from Babylon, in the reign of Artaxerxes the king. After this, [Ezra 10:7] And they made proclamation throughout Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of the captivity, that they should gather themselves together unto Jerusalem; concerning the deportation of foreign women. It says, [Ezra 10:9] Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin gathered themselves together unto Jerusalem Whilst they had settled in the land it says, [Neh 11:1]"And the rulers of the people dwelt at Jerusalem: the rest of the people also cast lots, to bring one of ten to dwell in Jerusalem the holy city, and nine parts to dwell in other cities." And it says there, [Neh 11:4] "And at Jerusalem dwelt certain of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin. Of the children of Judah; Neh 11:7] And these are the sons of Benjamin;... The cities of their settlement are related," [Neh 11:25] And for the villages, with their fields, some of the children of Judah dwelt at Kiryat Arba, and in...These same cities are also recalled as being in the inheritances of Judah and Benjamin in the Book of Joshua [when they first entered the land]. Together with all this we acknowledge the view of our sages may their memories be blessed and Heaven Forbid that we should not agree with them. They said in the Midrash Seder Olam, Let me clarify the matter for you. You have already noticed that in the Second Redemption [i.e. the redemption of Ezra, the First Redemption was the coming out of Egypt]. Only those returned who had been exiled to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar. Over these people had the decree of a seventy-year Exile been made. These are Judah and Benjamin as well as the Cohanim [priests] who dwelt in Jerusalem and who pertained to the Kingdom of Judah. This was as it was written concerning the initial split of the Kingdom between the northern ten tribes and the Kingdom of Judah, "having Judah and Benjamin on his side" (2-Chronicles 11;12), "And the priests and the Levites that were in all Israel resorted to him out of all their coasts" (2-Chronicles 11;13): [The southern Kingdom of Judah encompassed the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi]. The Kingdom of Israel included the ten northern Tribes. These were exiled by Sancheribc as it says, "For he rent Israel from the house of David; and they made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: and Jeroboam drave Israel from following the LORD, and made them sin a great sin" (2-Kings 17;11). "Until the LORD removed Israel out of his sight...so was Israel exiled out of their own land to Assyria unto this day" (2-Kings 17;12). This is a proof that all the Kingdom of Israel was exiled to Assyria but the Kingdom of David remained as it was until Nebucahdnessar exiled them to Babylon. The Kingdom of David included Judah and Benjamin. It says, "There was none left but the tribe of Judah only" (2-Kings 17;18). This indicates the Kingdom of the Tribe of Judah that included the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin. It also appears from the simple meaning of the text, that before the exile of the northern country by Senacherib there were gathered into the cities of Judah people from the neighboring tribes of Menasseh, Ephraim, and Simeon and these then dwelt in the heritage of Judah. Or . This explains what was said concerning King Josiah, "They delivered the money that was brought into the house of God which the Levites that kept the doors had gathered of the hand of Manasseh and Ephraim, and of all the remnant of Israel, and of all Judah and Benjamin" (2-Chronicles 34; 9). Prior to that time in the period King Asa it was written, "And he gathered all Judah and Benjamin, and the strangers with them out of Ephraim and Menasseh, and out of Simeon: for they fell to him out of Israel in abundance when they saw the LORD his God was with him" (2-Chronicles 15; 9). Those from the Tribes of Ephraim and Shimeon from Israel that were present (2-Chronicles 35;18) with Judah were they who dwelt in the Land of Judah or perhaps to some degree also those who had dwelt in their own territories adjoining Judah and had fled to Judah. They are referred (in 2-Chronicles 35;18) to in a general sense as "from Israel" and not by their specific tribes since they represented only a small portion of their tribe. These are they who returned under Ezra with the Jews from Babylon. They were not expressly mentioned by their tribes since they were attached to Judah. They all settled in the cities of Judah. There was no Redemption for the Ten Tribes who remained in exile. I will now explain somewhat a clearly expressed section that still requires clarification. It says concerning the genealogy of Benjamin in the Book of Chronicles. It is written about the genealogy of all Israel in this work (1-Chronicles 9;1-3). Judah was exiled to Babylon due to their infidelity. Out of the first to return from this exile were priests ("Cohans") and Levites and the Natins who settled in the cities of Israel. In Jerusalem there settled descendants of Judah and Benjamin along with descendants of Ephraim, and Menasseh: [1Chr 9:1] So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression. [1Chr 9:2] Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in their cities were, the Israelites, the priests, Levites, and the Nethinims. [1Chr 9:3] And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh; Our sages (Talmud, Baba Batra 15;a) recalled that Ezra was the one who wrote the Book of Chronicles. His aim was to let us knew the genealogies of those who returned with him from Babylon. Ezra in Chronicles begins his account with Adam at the head and from whom all the genealogies begin. He keeps going in summary manner until he comes to our own tribes of Israel. He then first gives the genealogy of Judah at length. After that he does not give the genealogies of all the other tribes but only some of them and these he goes through in summarized form until he gets to Benjamin. He then becomes apologetic and says, "So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they were written in the book of the kings of Israel" [1Chr 9:1]. This is as if to say that he does not need to recount their genealogies at length for they are still in exile. He goes on to say, "And Judah, who were carried away to Babylon for their transgression" [1Chr 9:1]. It is as if he is saying that, he really has only to relate the genealogy of one other tribe apart from Judah. The tribe spoken of is the tribe of Benjamin whose genealogy together with that of Judah he has already given. They are the ones who were exiled to babylon and they are the ones returning in the time of Ezra. The other tribes have their genealogies given, "In the book of the kings of Israel" This book [-that has since been lost] is perhaps in their hands in their place of exile. Ezra then goes on to tell of the settlement of those who returned with him: "Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions" [1Chr 9:2]. That is to say, those who were the first to return from Babylon settled in their citie. These included Israelites, Cohans (i.e. priests), Levites, and Nathinim as stated xpressly in the Book of Ezra, "in the cities of Judah dwelt every one in his possession in their cities, to wit, Israel, the priests, and the Levites, and the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants" (Nehemiah 11;3). [The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah are now separate books but Nachmanides refers to both of both together as "The Book of Ezra."]. He goes on to say, "And at Jerusalem dwelt certain of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin. [Neh 11:4]. He also said, "And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh" [1Chr 9:3]. He only recalls in detail however the genealogies of Judah and Benjamin whose names and family-trees he elaborates upon. Even here he does not give all the genealogies but only a section of them as is the practice in Scripture. He also speaks of the Priestly families and the Levites, whom he says "hitherto waited in the king's gate eastward: they were porters in the companies of the children of Levi"[1Chr 9:18]. That is to so, that with their return from exile they were appointed on the gates of the Second Temple just as they had been so appointed in the First: "All these which were chosen to be porters in the gates were two hundred and twelve. These were reckoned by their genealogy in their villages, whom David and Samuel the seer did ordain in their set office" [1Chr 9:22]. We have explained this section in accordance with the opinion of our sages of blessed memory. These said that in the time of the Second Temple a few refugees from the other tribes also came up. They did not come from all of the other tribes but only from Ephraim and Menasseh. [Another authority however, Tosefot in Arakin 32;a, says that, "from each and every tribe a few returned"]. These few were not enough to be termed a tribe in their own right or even part of a tribe> due to their minority position they were included amongst the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin and dwelt in their cities. This Second Redemption was not meant for the other tribes. Look at the genealogy of the Tribe of Rueben in this Book of Chronicles and you will find that Ezra gives their familial connections until he reaches Beera who was exiled by Tiglathpileser the King of Assyria (1-Chronicles 5). He then stops. All of those other tribes whose family trees he mentions he also does not continue with after the Assyrian Exile. Rueben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Menasseh: "And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away, even the Reubenites, and the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, and brought them unto Halah, and Habor, and Hara, and to the river Gozan, unto this day" [1-Chr 5:26]. When re recalls the genealogy of Judah he speaks firstly of the King and of Zerubabel and his sons who were amongst those coming into the Land with Ezra himself. "And them that had escaped from the sword carried he away to Babylon; where they were servants to him and his sons until the reign of the kingdom of Persia". [2-Chr 36; 20}. The Book of Chronicles speaks of the exile to Babylon and of the first year of Cyrus,"Now in the first year of Cyrus king of Persia" [2-Chr 36:22]. The Book of Ezra also speaks of these events in the same way that is additional proof that Ezra wrote Chronicles. Where Chronicles finishes the Book of Ezra begins. They are in effect like unto book concerning genealogies and the Second redemption that took place at that time. We have not revealed very new in the above discussion but by bringing a few scattered verses together we ha clarified an issue. It has been made quite clear from our study that the only ones who returned from the Babylonian Exile were they who belonged to the Kingdom of Judah. Those however who are termed the House of Ephraim, or The House of Israel, meaning the Ten Tribes are still in Exile in Assyria. These Tribes did not have any participants in the Second redemption, as I have noted. The Second Redemption took place with permission of Cyrus, King of Persia. Before then it is known from the Book of Esther the great dispersion and enormous division that existed amongst our people in all the countries of King Ahaserus from India Cush. After this only a few came up with Ezra from Babylon, about 1,500 men. In my opinion it seems probably that the license of Cyrus applied only to those who had belonged to the Kingdom of Judah meaning the people of Jerusalem. Cyrus commanded these wherever they may then have been in his entire kingdom to return to their land. The commandment was directed to these to go forth and to re-build the Temple. "Who is there among you of all his people? his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem, which is in Judah..." [Ezra 1:3]. If you wish to claim that permission was given to all of Israel as it says, "Cyrus king of Persia...made a proclamation throughout all his kingdom" [Ezra 1:1], meaning that the proclamation also must have reached the Ten Tribes then it may be answered that the other tribes did not wish to go up at that stage since they knew their time had not come. The vision of Obadiah deals with events that were to occur after the exile of Jerusalem to Babylon. [Obad 1:11] In the day that thou stoodest on the other side, in the day that the strangers carried away captive his forces, and foreigners entered into his gates, and cast lots upon Jerusalem, even thou wast as one of them. [Obad 1:18] And the house of Jacob shall be a fire, and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of Esau for stubble, and they shall kindle in them, and devour them; and there shall not be any remaining of the house of Esau; for the LORD hath spoken it. There are those who say that this prophecy is referring to King Hezekiah in the Second Temple period but those who think this are in error. It is obvious from scripture that this term, i.e. house of Joseph, applies to the Kingdom of Israel who are the Ten Tribes. They should be ashamed not to recognize this fact! The above verse proves it! When was the House of Joseph like a flame devouring the stubble of Esau? Not on Biblical times! The Ten Tribes had already been exiled and they are still in Exile, in the area of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath: "And this first exile of the children of Israel who are [now] from Canaan unto Zarephath" [Obad 1:20]. These places are at the extremes of the north. The verse continues, "and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south" [Obad 1:20]. Those who were exiled to "Sepharad" [meaning Spain] were the Jews of Jerusalem who were taken away by Titus and Vespasian when the Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans and not before then. The others were The Ten Tribes who were exiled in the First Exile. These have not returned as has been claimed. It says, [Obad 1:19] And they of the south shall possess the mount of Esau; and they of the plain the Philistines: and they shall possess the fields of Ephraim, and the fields of Samaria: and Benjamin shall possess Gilead. [Obad 1:20] And the captivity of this host of the children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south. [Obad 1:21] And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the LORD's. "Zarephath" according to Rabbinical Commentators (Rashi, Iben Ezra, Radak, and all Medieval authorities) refers to France or more specifically northern France and probably included present-day Belgium and Holland. The words translated in the KJ as "the captivity of this host" in Hebrew ["Galut HaChail"] can also mean "the first exile" and so was the understanding of Rabbinical Commentators. When did they come back and when were these enormous exiled groups ingathered to inherit the cities of Ephraim and Samaria? When did saviours go up on Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau? In the time of Ezra only a few returned as pigeons to their dovecotes. It says, "the kingdom shall be the LORD's" [Obad 1:21]. At that time everyone will openly acknowledge the Kingdom of God. "And the LORD shall be King over all the earth" (Zechariah 14;9). This too will happen in the future. The general principle concerning these and all similar verses concerning the Redemption of Israel and the fall of Edom and the like is that it is all for the future. "The punishment of your iniquity is finished daughter of Zion; he will no more carry you away into captivity. He will visit your iniquity, daughter of Edom; he will discover your sins" (Lamentations 4;22). This is all for the future. "He will no more carry you away into captivity," is instructing us about the future redemption. If it was otherwise what would be the point of saying to those in exile that they would no longer be exiled unless it meant that they really are destined to be redeemed from the exile they are in? Also, "he will visit your iniquity, daughter of Edom; he will discover your sins", must be for the future. It could not be speaking of the past for it was they who were beaten by Herod the Edomite in the time of the Second Temple. It all must pertain to the future. It is impossible that this was all conditional, that they did not desrve it, and that the prophecies were spoken for nothing. It is pertinent that at the time of their exile Israel were sinning and transgressing. Even so, it was prophesied, "The punishment of your iniquity is finished daughter of Zion; he will no more carry you away into captivity" (Lamentations 4;22). This was not conditional, meaning to say that on condition that they repented then they would have been redeemed. This is not the way of Prophecies to make such limited conditions. Rather it is all pertyaining to the future. Zechariah lived in the Second Temple period. Zechariah said, "Behold, the day of the LORD is coming," and so on in great detail that without any doubt can only be referring to some future day. So too, were these passages explained by the Commentators and by our holy sages of blessed memory. David Ben-Ariel is author of "Beyond Babylon: Europe's Rise and Fall", His website address ishttp://www.benariel.com To Go To Top

<>bPRAYER TO SAVE GUSH KATIF Posted by Gush Katif, April 30, 2004.

We request that all teachers in all the schools and yeshivot spend time praying with their students, to strengthen the hearts of the voters, that they should vote with faith in G-d and with security in His Holy Name, with love. We pray also to strengthen the hearts of all those working with great dedication over the past few weeks, encouraging those who may be weak and hold up failing knees. May it be His will that G-d should help us succeed. The order of prayer: Those in schools and at home. Say the enclosed prayer anywhere and at any time. Also Psalms and selichot. And in particular, Psalm 119, according to the alef-bet. Reciting the verses of Eretz (alef, resh, tzadi) Eretz Yisrael (alef, resh tzadi - yod, shin, resh, alef, lamed) and Gush Katif (gimel, vov, shin, kuf, tet, yod, pe) And may it be G-d's will to see our failings, will have mercy, and overcome our failings, and redeem us a complete redemption quickly in our days. To Go To Top

DON'T BOMB; ARABS WOULDN'T LIKE US Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 30, 2004.

It is difficult for the West to defend itself, nowadays. Half the Westerners are "progressives." But how progressive is it to support the socially backward Arabs who wish to drag Western social progress centuries backward?. These "humanitarian" "progressives" decry the deaths of Arabs in combat, especially if civilians killed accidentally, but not the deaths of Westerners, even if civilians. The only inconsistency they recognize is Pres. Bush's, not their own. When terrorists murder Iraqis, Arabs blame the coalition forces. The Arabs have a national neurosis over the matter of blame and shame. They fail to blame the perpetrators. The Arabs argue that it is the Coalition's fault for not properly protecting the people. How many Iraqis inform on the terrorists? Those who don't are accomplices. The Iraqi Arabs and some of the "progressives" recently advised the US armed forces not to bombard Iraqi cities in which terrorists and guerrillas are holed up. The reason given is that otherwise Arabs not part of the insurgency would join it. If we bomb the terrorists, the people would come to hate the US. And if we don't, they blame us for not protecting them. Shall we deceive ourselves and imagine that the West is not already hated by the Arab Muslims? We have the right to defend ourselves, but sometimes lack the will. The "progressives" sap it. Their concept of Western bombardment, kept alive by sensationalist newspapers parading US might and technical prowess, is obsolete. In modern warfare, neither the US nor Israel flatten cities. We use precision bombing. Only the immediate area of terrorist fortification is bombed. More humane than that, warfare cannot get. True progressives would praise the US and Israel for such restraint and damn the Arabs for starting wars and their terrorists for waging it in criminal ways as by investing civilian areas. Blame the perpetrators! "COMPENSATE THE P.A. FOR YESHA LAND ISRAEL TAKES" There is a theory that if Israel annexes parts of Yesha, then it should turn over to the P.A. equal parts of Israel. This theory would be unfair if Israel were a large country not threatened by its neighbors, including the very entity it is asked to turn the territory over to. It is ridiculous for a tiny country threatened by its neighbors, including that entity, now making war on it. The notion assumes that Yesha belongs to the Arabs. It does not. As the unallocated part of the Palestine Mandate, it is reserved for Jewish national development. Israel has the best legal claim to Yesha, all of it. That legal claim derives from the Jewish people's historical and religious claim, recognized by the League of Nations and endorsed by the UN Charter. To those claims add: (1) Necessity for national security, which is fundamental to international law and invoked by the aggressive behavior of the Arabs; and (2) Arab forfeiture of their claim due to massive war crimes and crimes against humanity. Many of our contemporaries, ignorant of history, international law, and religious validation except when claimed by Muslims, and perverse about who commits war crimes, have gotten it into their heads that any resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict should be one of "land for peace," as if peace were something the Jews should pay for, rather than are entitled to. Peres, Sharon, and the State Dept. think that Israel should give up land and merely hope the Arabs would make peace. I'm not sure the State Dept. hopes the Arabs would make peace. The other advocates of land-for-peace think Israel should give up land if the Arabs dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. The State Dept. and the Arabs try to get the others to imagine that the Arabs already have abandoned terrorism. They all deem the Arabs are entitled to the Territories. They never figured out that the arbitrary armistice lines forming Yesha have no significance. Neither do they realize how poor a claim to the area the Arabs have. Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com. To Go To Top

FIRST SIGNS OF LIKUD ELECTION TAMPERING Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, April 30, 2004.

(IsraelNN.com) Some veteran members of the Likud Party, Yesha residents, were less than pleased to learn their names have mysteriously vanished from the party roster, making it impossible for them to vote in the party's referendum on Sunday. Proponents of the prime minister's unilateral Gaza withdrawal plan, the subject of the referendum, are well aware that Yesha residents will be voting against the plan. Included among those unable to vote are attorney Motti Mintzer and his wife Tzvia, residents of the Shomron community of Elkana. The Mintzers have been Likud members and paid their dues for some thirty years. Mintzer inquired as to his polling station and was shocked to learn he and his wife do not appear among those eligible to vote. Mintzer plans to take his case to the Likud Court today. He is requesting that members whom have paid their annual party membership fees be permitted to vote even if they do not appear on the voting rosters. According to correspondent Haggai Huberman, the names of Moshe and Hana Kleinman has been wiped from the party roster. They too live in Elkana. The names of other Elkana residents, Likud members, have also been wiped from the list. A similar situation has been detected in Gush Katif. Residents of Kfar Darom, paid Likud members, do not appear among those eligible to take part in the referendum. Similar situations have been discovered among party members residing in Atzmona and Tel-Katifa, also Gush Katif area communities. To Go To Top

COMMENTS ON THINK-ISRAEL Posted by Dr. Babu Suseelan, April 30, 2004.

Think-Israel is an excellent, constructive and comprehensive and instructive website. You provide the readers tools and information to make critical judgment on complex issues affecting the middle East, Israel and the world. You present a bold and rational analysis on the dangers posed by Muslim terrorists and its disastrous consequences for democratic societies around the world. Leftist media have been distorting the real menace of Jihadi Terrorism and undermining Israel's effort to bring peace, prosperity and security in the Middle East. Congratulations for your systemic analysis on current events. [Editor note: Dr. Suseelan expresses so well what we are endeavoring to accomplish, we couldn't resist sharing.] To Go To Top

THE IMMINENT VICTORY OF THOSE FEIGLINS Posted by Steve Plaut, April 30, 2004.

The question is no longer whether or not Ariel Sharon's "Disengagement Plan" will pass the referendum on it to be held this coming Monday, but rather by which gap the "plan" will be shot down by the Likud voters. The polls in Israel are showing the opponents to the plan within the Likud outnumbering the supporters by between 2% and 7%, and I have a month's salary on a bet saying the gap will actually be in the double digits. All this, in spite of the fact that almost the entire leadership of the Likud has come out to back and support Sharon on the "plan", some albeit half-heartedly. In trying to stampede Likud voters into backing approval for his "plan", Sharon is moving from desperation into Orwellism. Yesterday, in Sharon's first major adventure into the netherworld of Orwellistic Newspeak, he declared that a defeat in the referendum for his proposal would be a "victory for Arafat". By inference, a defeat over Arafat would consist, I guess, of expelling Jewish settlers from their homes and handing over a judenrein Gaza Strip to the PLO in which it will organize rocket factories, training facilities, and from which it will send out countless suicide bombers. And someone forgot to tell the Palestinians that passage of the Sharon "Disengagement Plan" would be a defeat for Arafat. Palestinian Media Watch, a watchdog group that documents the contents of the PLO's controlled "Palestinian" media, issued a report that these media unanimously view a passage of the Sharon "plan" as an enormous victory for their "armed struggle" over the Jewish subhumans and a tremendous achievement, a precedent for the dismantling of all of Israel (Haaretz, April 30). More importantly, this is actually the very first test in Israel of direct democracy, and the very first time a ballot proposition has been brought before even a PART of the electorate (only Likud voters are participating in the referendum, which makes it easier for the lemming politicians to dismiss it as a meaningless gesture). That fact may be even more significant than the actual results of the vote. This could open up incredible new possibilities, if it were to become the precedent for future ballot propositions, in which Israelis actually get to say what they want. Heaven knows where THAT could lead - maybe even to accountability of court judges! The fact of the matter is that every single time, without exception, Israeli voters were offered an opportunity to vote for or against "Oslo", they voted against it. And every single time that they voted AGAINST "Oslo", the politicians then ignored the public will and carried out "Oslo" appeasements and capitulations anyway. It all started when Israelis elected Yitzhak Rabin, who ran on a platform declaring unambiguously, "No Deals with the PLO," and then months later spat on the voters and struck the Oslo "deal." By 1996, Rabin had been assassinated by Yigal Amir, and Shimon Peres was beaten in the next vote handsomely by Netanyahu. Netanyahu then ran for re-election and lost, but that was because voting for him was no longer voting against Oslo. Netanyahu as Prime Minister had out-Oslo-ed even Shimon Peres. In any case, Ehud Barak won largely thanks to the Arab voters supporting him at the polls. When Ehud Barak later ran for re-election, he was defeated in a landslide by voters opposed to Oslo. Sharon was elected simply because the public opposed "Oslo". When Sharon ran again, this time against Amram Mitzna, Sharon trounced him by an even larger landslide. But, like all those before him, Sharon then declared war on the Israeli voters who had elected him to stop Oslo, and he re-dedicated himself to carrying out large parts of the political agenda of the Israeli Left. For twelve years, Israeli voters have been disenfranchised over and over and over again. But they were not cowed by the cynicism of the politicians, as the vote this coming week on the referendum will show. Whenever they are given a chance, they show how thoroughly they reject the "Oslo" program of "land for sound bytes". The intellectual underpinnings for the "disengagement plan" are little more than an insult to the intelligence. Supposedly the "disengagement" will allow the PLO to "prove itself" and its intentions, to impose its will and control over the Gaza Strip and begin "nation building", with US and Euro support. But even if "testing" the PLO's intentions is still regarded as something positive, even if we pretend we do not know what those intentions are precisely, even if we think that allowing the PLO to impose its will over the Gaza Strip is something constructive, there is no reason whatsoever why such a "test" requires the expulsion of Jews who live in the Gaza Strip. The Jews live in two small areas within the Strip. Why can't the PLO impose its will on the rest of the Gaza Strip where Jews do NOT live and THERE prove its intentions? Why can't removal of settlements be withheld as a reward or bargaining chip for AFTER the PLO is put to the test? Why can't advocates of removing settlements propose that this be done as a reward for the PLO AFTER it has complied and shown its peaceful intentions? In other words, even if one believes in the thinking behind the Sharon-Bush initiative for unilateral disengagement by Israel and the supposed forcing of the PLO to demonstrate its commitment to nation building, none of that logically requires immediate Israeli expulsion of Jewish settlers, especially when the expulsion would be long BEFORE the PLO complies with anything at all and after it has violated every single punctuation mark in every one of its past commitments. And that logical fallacy is why Sharon is about to get creamed by his own party constituents. The Left will no doubt denounce Sharon for having planned to lose the referendum all along to avoid making concessions to the PLO, and wouldn't it be heavenly if they were correct. A much more realistic explanation is that Sharon's referendum was a strategic attempt to take the prosecutorial heat off himself and his family by appeasing the Israeli Left, which happens to control the Attorney General's office, the Israeli media and the courts. A victory over the "disengagement plan" will be an enormous victory for Moshe Feiglin and his militant wing within the Likud (militant in the very best sense of the term). Feiglin is already being demonized by the Likud demagogic establishment, who are denouncing "those Feiglins" as fanatics endangering the party. Moshe was the initiator of the anti-Oslo Zo Artseinu movement in the 90s. He was railroaded before a court under Netanyahu's reign and convicted of "sedition" because he and his people blocked a traffic intersection. After doing community service, Feiglin decided to take his fight to the innards of the Likud, challenging the Likud leadership from within. He and his camp won a respectable minority position within the party's central committee. While I have some quibbles with Feiglin over some of his choices of tactics and positions, he is the only truly consistent anti-Oslo activist-leader at this point inside the Likud, although may well represent the rank and file far better than Sharon and Ehud Olmert. Feiglin's people have led the battle AGAINST Sharon's proposal in the referendum, and the defeat of Sharon's plan will make Feiglin a much more significant player in the Israeli political scene. May we be blessed with many many more of "those Feiglins". Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. To Go To Top

THEY WERE 'IMPRINTED' Posted by Gail Winston, April 30, 2004.

Dear Friends, Remember the inspiring film: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"? The people who went to the mountain with the flat top (where the extraterrestials had landed) were "imprinted" with the vision and the need to go there. On Israel Independence Day Yom Hatzmaut, 120,000 people spontaneously drove, walked, bussed, bicycled to Gush Katif in Gaza. They were imprinted with the vision that the 8000 men, women and children who live there for 3 generations and who work there to make our salads green. This is the vision that they are imbued with. True Zionism. True patriotism. True pioneers. They live their lives in a beautiful place - a place given to them by G-d - a place where Abraham and Isaac lived in our Biblical history - a place that was barren sand dunes - a place that they made beautiful. As an avid reader of all the Internet and Email incoming traffic (sometimes 350 to 400 messages a day) I didn't see any notices or flyers about the Gush Katif rally. Yes, there were some speakers planned. But, no one expected 120,000 Israelis of all kinds, religious and not, young babies and older savtas, rightists and probably some Leftists who haven't forgotten what Zionism really is or why the Kibbutzim and Moshavim were built. It was truly a traffic jam that may have saved Eretz Yisrael as David Wilder said, because it proves that all Israelis love all of Israel - from the biggest cities to the least grains of sand that protect the biggest cities. The people voted with their feet. The news media claimed 'only' 70,000 went BUT, they didn't include those who sat in the traffic jam - happily - for 7 hours, just to be a part of it. Or those who left their cars & buses & hiked to the rally point. If you will it, the legend became reality. We dreamed it and became a proud, sovereign nation. We will vote for it and it will come true. VOTE ON SUNDAY TO KEEP ISRAEL WHOLE. GUSH KATIF DEFENDS TEL AVIV, BEER-SHEVA, JERUSALEM & HAIFA. IF JEWS AREN'T SAFE THERE, WHERE WILL THEY EVER BE SAFE. IT'S UP TO ALL OF US!!! LOVE GAIL WINSTON Gail Winston is founder of M.E.I.R., Mid East Information Resource. To Go To Top

AN EXCHANGE ABOUT GAZA Posted by Itamar Weisbrod, April 30, 2004.

Someone sent around a letter to students encouraging them not to attend a rally on behalf of Gush Katif in Toronto, Ontario. I wrote back a response. I was factual but I hope I made the students understand our connection to Gaza and why we must not expel Jews from their homes. The Anti-Gush Katif letter: Hi everyone, I just have a thought that I'd like to share with you with regard to the rally for Gush katif. Ariel Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan and Bush's full (written) support has perhaps brought us the closest ever to a viable resolution to the conflict in Israel between Arabs/Palestinians and Israel and the Jewish people. Never before has the US actually backed Israel's demand that there should be no right of return for Palestinians, that a full return to the 1949 armistice lines is impossible and unrealistic, and Israel's full, unequivocal right to defend itself and its citizens. Settlement blocks like Gush Katif, neve dekalim, chevron, and many others at this time prevent Israel from having any reasonable chance at peace and security. In order for there to be peace in Israel compromises have to be made, even Ariel Sharon, notorious for his idealism, realizes this. Meanwhile, Sharon has secured Israel's ability to retain major west bank settlement blocks with large Jewish/Israeli populations and prevented jeapordizing Israel's status as a Jewish state by disallowing the right of return for 1948 displaced palestinians. Sharon has compromised in a manner that is truly maximally beneficial for Israel and at the same time provides innocent Palestinians a true Palestinian state. Israel will be able to defend itself more efficiently, and upon realizing that they can not and will not be able to destroy Israel and Israel's continued battle against them, Palestinian extremists will eventually lose support and die out. I remember learning in yeshiva that a negative nevuah (prophecy) can always be turned around. A positive one can not. In this light, we don't necessarily need an apocalyptic war to re-establish the nation of Israel in the land of Israel. We don't need soldiers and civilains regularly dying in order to sustain a rigid idealism, holding on to every little ounce of traditional Eretz Yisrael. I believe at a certain point Pekuach Nefesh (the sanctity of life) and Israel's peace and security prevails. Even without bits and pieces of the West Bank and Gaza we can all still return to Zion, build Jersualem and the nation of Israel. Please support Israel and Ariel Sharon in this incredible oppurtunity and let's stand united as one people all realizing the same dream. Thanks for reading, Anonymous [he prefered to keep his name a secret] My Response The rally in support of residents of Gush Katif is an event supported by the Toronto Zionist Council and supported by Mizrahi, a Zionist organization. As we all know, Bnei Akiva believes in Am Yisrael (the Nation of Israel), B'eretz Yisrael (in the Land of Israel), al pi Torat Yisrael (the Torah of Israel). Therefore, it is well within the ideology of Bnei Akiva/Mizrahi to be supportive of the Jewish communities in Gush Katif. Even we didn't have their support, I'd still encourage all to attend, as it is well within the Zionist values within which most of us have been taught since we were kids. I would also like to point out some factual inaccuracies in the letter. First of all, Bush's implicit stance on the issues raised remains just that - implicit. As Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post pointed out this weekend, at no time did Bush explicitly state that Washington's official policy will be that Israel can keep certain settlement blocks. Moreover, this is not the first time that a U.S. President has made such statements. Even Clinton stated that Israel would not be expected to withdraw to 1948 borders. Secondly, I would challenge the accuracy of the letter writer's geographical information. Neve Dekalim and Hevron are not settlement blocks; they are individual settlements. Nevei Dekalim is in the block of Gush Katif, and Hevron in the Kiryat Arba/Lower Gush Etzion Block. This geographical inaccuracy, while it may seem irrelevant, may actually shed light on the educational level of the opinion I am opposing, because this is largely a geographical issue. Additionally, Sharon is planning on withdrawal from Gaza and northern Shomron communities. The 5 settlement blocks that Bush hinted that Israel may be able to hold on to includes the Kiryat Arba block. Sharon hasn't yet planned on giving Hevron away, and it is even on the list of settlements he wants to keep. Attacking the holy city of Hevron by saying that it is "preventing Israel from having any reasonable chance at peace and security" is far from the truth and is void of logic. Blaming Israel's security problems on settlements is buying into one of the biggest lies the Palestinians have sold to the world. It is unfortunate that it was bought by some Jews too. Jewish presence in parts of Biblical Israel is no cause or reason for Arabs to not be able to live there also. The extent to which a "Jewish presence" causes 'difficulties' for the Arab residents of Yesha is not due to settlers, to Jews, living there, it is due to their society's and religion's embrace of terrorism! It is due to their savage murder of Israelis. It is their responsibility to take charge of their society. If they didn't kill and murder and steal and hurt us, if their imams didn't call for jihad, if they didn't send 13 year old's to blow themselves up, they would have all the same civil liberties that we do. Our right to life, our right to exist as a Jewish People in the Land of Israel, supercedes their 'civil right' to freedom of movement when they abuse that right and become murderers. For true equality, they need to take responsibility for their actions. 'Noble' liberals such as Dershowitz or Beilin (laughable) threaten true equality. For them, the belief that Arabs can actually be held responsible for their own society, that Arabs could actually live peacefully with us, is a myth. Therefore, we must separate ourselves from them to ensure 'peace'. We must make sure there aren't too many Arabs in Israel, because aside from the problem of the vote (a question I will leave for another letter), who wants to live next to an Arab? That is the 'liberal' thinking of Israel. I deplore this double standard - this hypocrisy. For them, the 'therefore' is that the Jews abandon their biblical homeland, so they are separated from the Arabs. NO! Jews will stay in Yesha, and the Arabs better just get used to it and accept it, and learn how to get along with us. And if they can't, we shouldn't be the ones who have to leave. Ripping Jews out of their homes, simply because they are Jewish, is discriminatory and racist. It is fascinating that many no longer even feel the need to cloak this discrimination, with many explicitly referring to the need to dismantle "Jewish settlements" and not even bothering to cloak the term by referring to them as "Israeli settlements". What bothers everyone so much about "settlements" isn't the settlements, it is the idea of, the horror of, having to have a Jewish neighbor. For the Arabs, this is out of pure hatred, and for others, especially 'Leftist' Jews, it is the fear of what empowerment and strength will be given to the right and to the religious sectors of Israeli society if Jews are allowed to maintain and keep their roots and attachment to such historic and religiously evocative areas as Hevron and Shechem. Michael Freund, a former advisor to Binyamin Netanyahu, stated this point powerfully in his op-ed in the Jerusalem Post on February 4th, 2004: the desire to expel Jews from Gaza because of their religious and or ethnic identity is pure and simple racism. If there were Israeli Jews, Christians, and Muslims or American 'olim' from Jewish, Christian, and Muslim origin, all would be allowed to stay and live in the "Disputed Territories" except for those that are Jewish. The only identifying mark that is of consequence is their religion, and if you are Jewish, then you aren't allowed to live in certain areas. If Israeli settlers are expelled from Gaza, Israel will not be able to defend itself efficiently, as is pointed out by top army personnel and even by the Chief of Staff himself, Moshe Yaalon. Yaalon came out against the plan for security reasons, claiming that withdrawal from the Gaza Strip will only encourage more terror and make it easier for Arab terrorist groups to perpetrate attacks. Aside from many other top army officials sharing this opinion, the thoughts of the army Chief of Staff should be making it clear enough that it is completely incorrect to think that expelling the Jewish residents of Gush Katif would in any way improve Israel's security. One should not assume there are people more knowledgeable on counter-terrorism tactics than the Chief of Staff of the Israeli army. Also, claiming that Palestinian extremists would lose support because Israel is willing to compromise is nothing more than a pipe dream. Israel has offered to compromise before and give up far more than Sharon is putting on the table now, and that has only resulted in increased terrorism. The letter writer shows a complete lack of understanding of the Palestinian/Arab culture and their history. Never once in the Arab/Israeli conflict has compromise on the Israeli side been met with Arab acceptance and a decrease in Arab terror - in fact, it has had the exact opposite. To deny this is denying factual history and ignoring the lessons from the past. It is correct that an "apocalyptic" war is not necessary to re-establish the Nation of Israel in the Land of Israel. The way to avoid that, according to commentary on the nevua of the final geula, is the return of the Nation to the Land (meaning Aliya). But to say that soldiers and civilians are dying in order to "sustain a rigid idealism, holding on to every little ounce of traditional Eretz Yisrael" is blaming the settlements for Israel's security problems. This is a total fallacy and one of the major lies told by the Palestinians to the world. There has been terror by Arabs against Jews before the state was created, long before the current settlement enterprise. It is wrong to demonize a sector of the nation and blame them for Israel's security problems, when that exact issue was in place long before 1967. This too shows a complete lack of understanding of Israel's history and ignores decades of Arab terror against Jews, and is, quite frankly, a misleading oversimplification. Let it be known right now that Jewish presence in Gaza is NOT causing the deaths of any soldiers or civilians. This is a myth, meant to blame someone other than the actual terrorists for terrorism. The settlement block of Gush Katif is further away from Gaza City (where 1 of the 1.2 million Arabs of Gaza live) than from major Israeli cities such as Sderot, Ahskelon, and Netivot. Between these cities and Gush Katif is the same protection: fences, army and space. When Sderot is rocketed from the northern Gaza, and when Gush Katif is rocketed - why is one met with a call to defend, and one met with a call to retreat? It is because of the myth that the settlements are at fault - a myth which even some Jews choose to pass off as truth. When any Jewish city is attacked, whether it be Gush Katif or Ashkelon, it is because they are JEWISH cities, NOT because they are settlements. Top army officials have even supported certain settlements, citing security reasons. They argue that having a Jewish presence in areas like Gaza and Hevron makes it easier for the Israeli army to operate and do their job. One last thing - it is questionable that the call for unity was sincere since the letter writer singled out and demonized a sector of out nation and called for the expulsion of Jews from their homes. Let's call a spade a spade. If one is in favour of discrimination against a part of the nation, then it is far from a unified vision of a dream. I realize that the opposing ideology is not discriminating against Jewish settlers as an end in and of itself. It is unquestionably a means to an end. It was an empty call for unity, while concurrently advocating fundamentally non-unified acts. David ben Gurion said it way back in 1937. "No Jew has the right to yield the rights of the Jewish People in Israel. No Jew has the authority to do so. No Jewish body has the authority to do so. Not even the entire Jewish People alive today has the right to yield any part of Israel. It is the right of the Jewish People over the generations, a right that under no conditions can be cancelled. Even if Jews during a specific period proclaim they are relinquishing this right, they have neither the power nor the authority to deny it to future generations. No concession of this type is binding or obligates the Jewish People. Our right to the country - the entire country - exists as an eternal right, and we shall not yield this historic right until its full and complete redemption is realised." -David Ben Gurion, at the Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, 1937 B'Ahavat Yisrael, Itamar Weisbrod Itamar Weisbrod is at Bar Ilan University in Israel - in political science and war strategy. To Go To Top

THE PARASITES ARE SALIVATING OVER THE LOOT THEY EXPECT Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, April 29, 2004.

The talk of the parasites is over the transfer of what the Jews built in Israel with vision, sweat and hardship. But, the parasites have always fed on what Jews create, build and accumulate. We watched the Germans confiscate everything that the European Jews had built: homes, furniture, art, bank accounts, factories and, then when that was all in their hands, they stole the gold fillings from their teeth. Not to be left out, the French did the same. Ask Jacques Chirac about his days as Mayor of Paris when he gave Jewish apartments to his friends, business acquaintances and had stolen art from the Jews hanging on his office walls that had been turned over to the Germans. The same could be said for the Soviets, the Poles, the Lithuanians, the Croatians, the Dutch, the Swedes, the Finns, the Norwegians, et al. All the parasites fed on what they could steal from the industrious Jews. Just leave them alone for while and, when they have built what the predators want, they attack and plunder. When the Jews finally escaped from the graveyards of Europe to Israel, it was the Arabs turn to feed off the Jews. Armies from the surrounding seven nations attacked in 1948 and were ignominiously defeated. They were driven from the field of battle by untrained Jews, some straight off the boat or, at least, those boats the hateful British missed in their blockade. The Arabs, having lost to a rag-tag army of Jews with junk weapons from the scrap yards of Europe, were enraged. So, like hyenas, they fell upon the property of the Jews in their nations, just like the Nazis with whom they tried to partner up with during WWII. So, like the Nazis, they plundered the homes, factories, farms, bank accounts, inventories of whatever merchandise the Jews carried in their stores. Like the scavaging beasts they have always been, they fell on the loot and whatever the Jews had built. They drove their Jews out with only clothes on their back. But, the Jews of Israel who themselves had little, absorbed their 750,000 Jewish refugees forced out by the Arab countries and all those Jewish refugees from the death camps of Europe - unlike the Arabs who rejected their 450,000 or so refugees. Now, with the help of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and, at the insistence of the Bush family and cronies, the Arab Muslim Palestinian terrorist organizations will have their turn to snarl and hiss over whatever the Jews have built which they never could. Meanwhile, the corrupt parasites of the West have taken over the negotiations of how they will distribute the wealth and property of the Jews in Gush Katif, Gaza. Like the Nazis and their co-partners, the Europeans, they will be the overseers for the division of the loot. It was bad enough when the ravenous beasts of Germany gathered the Jews of Europe and plundered all they had - even to the gold teeth of the dead. But, what is worse is that this creature, for I cannot bring myself to call him a Jew, is the traitor who sold the land he did not own and wants to give their property to the lowest level of the Arabs, the Palestinians who have been murdering Jews for peace since 1993. They are a predatory people driven by a predatory religion. This is Ariel Sharon's choice of who is to receive his great gift of perfidy. May all those who feed on the bodies and properties of dead Jews be consigned to be buried in the sewers of Gaza. May their families suffer a thousand fold for their crimes against the Jews. May their nations fail - as have all other nations who fed on the Jews. Cursed be their days; cursed be their nights. Next Tuesday, the infamous Quartet composed of the U.N., the European Union, Russia and the Arabist U.S. Department of State representing the American Administration will meet to decide the fate of the Jews - much the same as the Nazis did at Wannsee. There Heydrich, Eichmann, among others of Hitler's executioners met to finalize their Final Solution to their Jewish Question and plan the confiscation of the assets of the Jews. The State Department wants the Quartet to dispose of the settlers' properties to the Arab Muslim Palestinians. They want this transfer of assets done in an "orderly manner". Translate that to mean that Sharon is supposed to deploy a Jewish army to force the evacuation of 8,000 Jewish men, women and children so the Arab Muslim Palestinian terrorists can occupy the homes, factories, farms with no resistance. The Jews will protest mightily but they will not lift up a violent hand against the Jewish army - although they may take appropriate action if the Arab Muslims try to take what belongs to the Jews by their work on the land, by their historical roots on the land and by the promise of G-d to the Jews for the land. Then the Quartet will try to carve up the Jews' property so the Arab Palestinians will not snarl and fight each other in greedy acquisition of what they could never have built up for themselves. These are the diseased carrion eaters who feed on the carcasses of the dead. I have no doubt that Jews will die defending their homes and all they have built. But, the hyenas, vultures down to the blue flies of the Palestinians' will pour in to feed. May G-d damn their eyes for all eternity. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel, Gamla (http://gamla.org.il/english) and the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm) To Go To Top

STAUNCHLY ANTI-ISRAEL Posted by David Basch, April 29, 2004.

"Traditional Israelis should not fool themselves about what is taking place. The shots that Sharon is firing are directed at the heart of Jewish Israel..." "The fortified and militarily supplied Gaza that Sharon will be creating, ... like Iraq, will have become the magnet for Muslim fighters worldwide...." "It is doubly exasperating that Sharon claims that Israel will be "tougher on the Arabs" after such a surrender.... Israel could be just as tough right now in responding to savage, beastly, Arab attacks and with the same results on world opinion...." It is disappointing to learn that some of the most staunchly anti-Israel forces in the world are none other than Sharon and his government. Sharon not only proposes to ethnically cleanse Jews from their homes and lands but he is engaged as a fervent supporter of Arab propaganda against Israel and as a slanderer of Israel. In Sharon's eyes, Israel is an "occupier" of Arab territory, though the territory Israel holds is the very territory set aside by the Mandate of Palestine for a Jewish homeland. It is not necessary now to go into all the reasons again as to why it is Israel that holds full claim to her lands against the fraudulently made Arab claims to them and to a national existence and history that never was. Sharon, sworn to falsehood, knows all this and is yet surrendering to the Arabs. With Israeli government support of the false claims of the Arabs, is it any wonder that universally everyone, including Diaspora Jews, takes the part of the Arabs in the Arab attempt to steal the heritage of the Jewish people in Israel? Mind you, Sharon does not state that Israel must withdraw from the Gaza territory because of military necessity -- which would be false anyway -- but he declares that otherwise Israel would be occupying Arab territory. What a slander!!! For Sharon's information, not only is there not such a thing as "Arab land" separate from that held by a bonifide Arab nation -- and the motley of Arabs in Israel's territories never in history was a nation -- to the Arabs ALL OF ISRAEL is "occupied Arab territory," a designation that the Arabs hold a priori as Muslim-Arabs and as counter to the categories of history. Thus, Arab views will not change one iota no matter what surrenders Sharon offers until the vanishing of Israel. Sharon ought to know by now that Arab determination to destroy Israel is a constant and that Israel must not to give this enemy any advantage that can be used in pursuing his goal. It is doubly exasperating that Sharon claims that Israel will be "tougher on the Arabs" after such a surrender. The fact is that Israel could be just as tough right now in responding to savage, beastly, Arab attacks and with the same results on world opinion. But the gains for Israel in responding in a firm way, right now, would be that Israelis would know that they fights for what belongs to the nation against those who will not acknowledge this right and that Israel will be undertaking such battles at a time that the Arabs will not be enjoying the enhanced military conditions of a fortified and militarily supplied Gaza that Sharon will be creating, which, like Iraq, will have become the magnet for Muslim fighters worldwide. It is clear to see that the Gaza surrender of land and the ethnic self-cleansing of Jews constitute solid defeats for Israel and her claims in the land of Israel. The Arabs will use this new gain to further bolster their falsely made claims as phony, "historic Palestinians" to demand the heritage of the Jewish people, including what the Arabs call their own, exclusive historic Jerusalem. It is a bad situation made worse by an Israel that insists on shooting itself in the foot. Traditional Israelis should not fool themselves about what is taking place. The shots that Sharon is firing are directed at the heart of Jewish Israel. It shows his contempt for the Judaism of Jewish Israel in the name of a half-baked universalism that is only universal in its hatred of Judaism. This must weaken the fabric of Israel and Israel's claims to world support of Jewry and its supporters on that account. For if Israel is in business for itself as "israel" with small letter "I" and is not the hope of the Jewish people and its heritage, what is it? A secular, Hebrew speaking version of Cuba is a thing unto itself and will reap the harvest of its actions like all nations of history, many of which having vanished into the dust-bin of history. What is to be done? In a nation in which general strikes go on paralyzing the country for what appear to the outside as trivial matters of a few bucks in salary raises, how is it that the traditional Jews of Israel cannot mount a national strike to shut down Israeli operations for the sake of the cause of Jewish Israel and its lands and communities? If the traditional sectors of Israel fail at this time to halt the despicable Sharon policy of turning against the Jewish people, they will be admitting to the ineptitude and incapability of their sector of society, as though being traditionally Jewish incapacitates Israelis in holding power and in influencing their society. It was bad enough that this sector could not in 50 years turn out a credible national leader -- the one that did emerge was roundly delegitimized and dismissed -- but it will have shown that the interests of this portion of traditional Israeli society could be summarily dismissed without consequences to those who flout them. Such a situation of traditional political paralysis should not go on for a day longer. Leftist Israel has for the past decades been in obsessive support of an incompetent and delusional Universalist philosophy that has empowered the Arab enemy. A glance at the record reveals the leftist ineptitude -- if not madness -- that has misread the character of the enemy, failing to see that this Arab enemy is implacably devoted to Israel's destruction. How else but as madness can one interpret the Israeli surrender to a defeated and exiled Arab enemy that was then brought in to inherit Jewish lands? Surely we deal with rank Leftist madness, which madness is even greater than anyone could anticipate since the Leftists have shown themselves incapable of learning from this history. How long will traditional Israel suffer such Leftist enemies of the nation to hold sway in the land without hearing from a solid, separate, traditional political party that finally acts in its own name? To Go To Top

GAZA, SHOMRON "DISENGAGEMENT" LACKS ANY THREAD OF LOGIC Posted by Moshe Burt, April 29, 2004.

By his renewed threats upon Arafat, on the heels of the assassinations of the two Hamas leaders, Arik Sharon has exposed the inconsistencies, contradictions and irrationality of his proposed disengagement and withdrawal from Gaza and from chunk of the Shomron in conclusive, unequivocal terms. And the argument against such a "disengagement" has been helped immeasurably by comments and clarifications made by none other than the administration of US President Gerorge W. Bush. When Prime Minister Sharon stated that "he no longer feels bound by a pledge he made three years ago to US President George W. Bush not to harm Yasser Arafat", he has blown his own arguments and logic to smitherines regarding American "promises" being rescinded if his dismantlement of Gaza and a chunk of the Shomron are not approved in the upcoming Likud referrendum. For if he were sooo concerned about possible cancellation of Bush's "committments or promises", why would he have spoken in a provocative way just now, mere days before the Likud referen