ALIVE AND WELL AND LIVING IN LONDON. WHY WON'T BRITAIN EXTRADITE ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS? Posted by Olivier Guitta, April 30, 2007.

This article is reprinted with permission of The Weekly Standard. where it first appeared in Volume 12, Issue 32.

A few days before the March 11 suicide bombing that rocked Casablanca, Moroccan police arrested a big fish: Saad Husseini, number two in the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group (GICM), the outfit responsible for terror attacks in Casablanca in 2003 and Madrid in 2004 that killed a total of 236 people. But while Husseini sits in jail, his boss, Mohamed Guerbouzi, lives a free man in Britain, despite being sentenced in absentia to a 20-year term by a Moroccan court. Morocco has sought Guerbouzi's extradition, but the British government refuses even to arrest him, deeming the evidence provided insufficient, according to the newspaper Aujourd'hui Le Maroc. Indeed, London still hosts a Who's Who of dangerous Islamists -- Rachid Ghannouchi, leader of the main Tunisian Islamist party; Anjem Choudary, deported from Lebanon to the United Kingdom in 2005 and seen taking part in the violent protests of the Danish cartoons of Muhammad; the Saudi national Saad al-Faqih, listed as a supporter of al Qaeda by both the U.S. Treasury and the United Nations, and so on. There's a reason for the moniker the British capital earned in the 1990s (also the title of a 2006 book by the journalist Melanie Phillips) -- Londonistan. For over a decade, French authorities have been frustrated by their British counterparts' relative inaction on extremism. In the 1990s, when a French investigative magistrate went to London to interview eight suspected members of the Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA), for instance, British authorities denied him access to the suspects. In 1998 and 1999, the DGSE, the French equivalent to the CIA, reportedly mounted its own surveillance of London's Finsbury Park mosque and of extremist leaders such as Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada. Christophe Chaboud, head of the French antiterrorism coordination unit, told the Guardian that Britain failed to take action against Abu Hamza long after it was given ample evidence of his extensive involvement in terrorism. It wasn't until 2004 that Hamza was finally arrested. He is now serving a seven-year sentence for soliciting murder and inciting racial violence. And it took Britain ten years to finally extradite Rachid Ramda, the mastermind of the 1995 terror campaign in France that killed 8 and injured more than 100. One explanation for the tolerance British authorities display toward Islamic radicals was offered by Alain Chouet, former head of the antiterrorism unit at the DGSE. Citing British colleagues, he told authors Stéphane Berthomet and Guillaume Bigot in 2005 that Islamists had deposited hundreds of millions of pounds in London banks. Said Chouet, "Nobody wanted to kill the golden goose." Defenders of British policy reasoned that by allowing radicals to stay in Britain, the authorities could keep them under surveillance and thus prevent attacks on the homeland. Unfortunately, that calculation turned out to be wrong. On July 7, 2005, London was attacked, at a cost of 52 lives, and Prime Minister Blair announced, "The rules of the game have changed." He appointed a select committee to advise him on tackling extremism. One of its members, however, was none other than Tariq Ramadan, the controversial Swiss Islamist denied entry to the United States in 2004 and to France as long ago as 1995 for his dubious connections. Unsurprisingly, the first recommendation of this task force was to cancel Holocaust Memorial Day (instituted in 2001) because it was "offensive to Muslims," a recommendation that so far has not been adopted. One of Britain's main Muslim nongovernmental organizations, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), describes Muslim Brotherhood leader Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi -- who defends suicide attacks on civilians in Israel and U.S. troops in Iraq in his popular commentaries on Al Jazeera TV -- as a "defender of human rights." The MCB spokesman recently stated, "To call for violence against British society is unacceptable," implying that against other countries it might be fine. The longtime general secretary of the MCB, Iqbal Sacranie -- knighted by the queen in 2005 -- said of writer Salman Rushdie back in 1989, after the Ayatollah Khomeini deemed Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses blasphemous and called for his murder: "Death perhaps is a bit too easy for him." Rushdie recently retorted: "If that's the only moderate Muslim Blair could find!" According to conservative MP Michael Gove, this picture is dispiriting for genuinely moderate Muslims. They see the most religiously conservative and politically provocative groups enjoy the lion's share of attention, and they wonder how serious the British government is about countering extremism. By and large, though, British Muslims are the most radicalized Muslim community in Europe. An ICM Poll survey in February 2006 found that 40 percent of British Muslims favor the institution of sharia (Islamic law) in Britain. Another sometime adviser to the British government, Ahmad Thomson -- a Rhodesia-born convert to Islam and a member of the Association of Muslim Lawyers -- used this smooth formulation in the Cambridge University magazine Ar-Risaakh a couple of years ago: "I look forward to the day when the majority of British people have voted in favour of being governed in accordance with the Sharia of Islam." Thomson has argued that "Blair decided to go to war in Iraq because he is under the influence of a sinister group of Jews and Free Masons." Since the bombings of 7/7, British authorities have clamped down on a few of the most vocal radical preachers, prosecuting Abu Hamza, for example, and expelling Omar Bakri. Yet proselytism is still going strong, if a little more discreetly. Lord Carlile, who was a parliamentary "reviewer" of Britain's antiterrorist laws, estimates that more than 20 radical imams are still preaching. Mosques are no longer the preferred recruiting ground, however, according to journalist Dominique Thomas: Prayer rooms, college campuses, and prisons have assumed that distinction. The director of the London-based Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, Patrick Sookhdeo -- who predicted several years ago that the next wave of radical Islam in Britain would involve suicide bombings -- is critical of British authorities. In 2006, Sookhdeo told the Telegraph: "The whole approach towards Muslim militants was based on appeasement; 7/7 proved that that approach does not work--yet it is still being followed." He envisions Islamic communities within Britain eventually forming a state within a state if the government does not stop making concessions to Islamist leaders. If that sounds alarmist, consider that in September 2006, British police agreed to consult with a panel of Muslim leaders prior to launching counterterrorist operations. Panel members will offer to assess whether the information police have regarding a suspect is adequate and how a raid will impact community relations. This general approach is having an impact on Britain's foreign policy. Pressure is mounting from the Muslim community, seconded by Labour party politicians, for Britain to abandon its close links with America. Arabists in the Foreign Office also advocate closer links to Islamists like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and a drawing back from the Atlanticist legacy. [Editor's Note: read about the Muslim Brotherhood in Think-Israel Featured Articles for March-April 2007.] The young man in charge of Islamic affairs at the Foreign Office, Mockbul Ali, is himself an Islamist, who successfully lobbied to allow Sheikh Qaradawi -- still barred from the United States -- to visit London. Almost two years after 7/7, British authorities seem oblivious to the consequences of their tolerance. But they might ask themselves: Why should anyone assume that British shoe bomber Richard Reid was an isolated case? The truth is, as long as extremist recruiters continue to operate more or less freely in the United Kingdom, Britain must be considered a potential source of danger to American security -- a state of affairs that could seriously damage relations with our best ally in Europe. Olivier Guitta is a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant based in Washington, D.C. He speaks four languages, including Arabic; he has long experience in international banking and portfolio management; he has a solid reputation for significant articles in serious journals and newspapers; and he is a contributing editor for the prestigious counterterrorism blog: http://www.counterterrorism.org. He has recently launched The Croissant (http://www.thecroissant.com/), a foreign affairs and counterterrorism newsletter. The first two issues are free and can be accessed directly: First Issue and Second Issue. To Go To Top

MODERATE MUSLIMS WANT HIRSI ALI KILLED FOR APOSTASY Posted by Andrew Bostom, April 30, 2007.

This comes from the April 22, 2007 Jihad Watch http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/2007/04/016163print.html

Pennsylvania Imam Fouad ElBayly said: "Ayaan Hirsi Ali should be put to death. But only in a Muslim country, not in America," and "it's a very merciful religion if you try to understand it." A "community debate" in Pennsylvania: "Furor over author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs debate on religious freedom," by Robin Acton in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, (with thanks to Joe): ...A community debate over religious freedom surfaced in Western Pennsylvania last week when Dutch feminist author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali refugee who has lived under the threat of death for denouncing her Muslim upbringing, made an appearance at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown. Islamic leaders tried to block the lecture, which was sponsored through an endowment from the Frank J. and Sylvia T. Pasquerilla Lecture Series. They argued that Hirsi Ali's attacks against the Muslim faith in her book, "Infidel," and movie, "Submission," are "poisonous and unjustified" and create dissension in their community. Although university officials listened to Islamic leaders' concerns, the lecture planned last year took place Tuesday evening under tight security, with no incidents. Imam Fouad ElBayly, president of the Johnstown Islamic Center, was among those who objected to Hirsi Ali's appearance. "She has been identified as one who has defamed the faith. If you come into the faith, you must abide by the laws, and when you decide to defame it deliberately, the sentence is death," said ElBayly, who came to the U.S. from Egypt in 1976. Hirsi Ali, an atheist, has been critical of many Muslim beliefs, particularly on subjects of sexual morality, the treatment of women and female genital mutilation. In her essay "The Caged Virgin," she also wrote of punishment, noting that "a Muslim's relationship with God is one of fear." "Our God demands total submission. He rewards you if you follow His rules meticulously. He punishes you cruelly if you break His rules, both on earth, with illness and natural disasters, and in the hereafter, with hellfire," she wrote.... Although ElBayly believes a death sentence is warranted for Hirsi Ali, he stressed that America is not the jurisdiction where such a crime should be punished. Instead, Hirsi Ali should be judged in a Muslim country after being given a trial, he added. "If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment," he said. "It's a very merciful religion if you try to understand it." Zahida Chaudhary, a member of the education council and education secretary at the Muslim Community Center of Greater Pittsburgh in Monroeville, insisted that Islam is a peaceful religion. "The Prophet Mohammed was a peacemaker and a role model for humanity," she said. "My understanding is that he was a peaceful person who believed that religion was a choice. He tried to teach people and bring them into it, not punish them." In fact, he said, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him'" (Bukhari 9.84.57). Editor's note -- Ian Fletcher added this comment: "You know something is wrong when only the extremists are willing to speak the truth. " There was a dreadful article in the Times of London the other day, claiming that a new poll proves British Moslems are "model citizens." The only decent rebuttal I've found is by the British National Party, the post-fascist party in England. Post-fascist! The mainstream is totally in thrall to this "moderate Moslems" myth. This is BNP's rebuttal of London Muslim poll. It appeared at http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsld=1472 The recent Times article (Michael Binyon, "Poll reveals Muslims as model citizens" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1662695.ece), claiming that a new poll shows Muslim Londoners are 'model citizens', is merely the latest example of the time-honoured art of deliberately-biased polling. It proves basically nothing, except that the Times, once the house organ of the old-time establishment, is now the perfectly-tuned spokesman of the new, liberal, establishment. The poll numbers are probably not literally faked, though this cannot be ruled out. The trick is all in the selection of rigged questions, and knowing how to call the right people, at the right time, so as to get the desired result. For start, many of the responses simply do not support the 'model citizens' claim. When the poll cheerfully reports that '81% of London Muslims condemn violence even if used in a noble cause', this implies that 19% of London Muslims do support violence in (their idea of) a noble cause. As there are 600,000 Muslims in London, this implies that 114,000 of them support violence. 114,000. One-hundred-and-fourteen thousand -- in London alone. Given that this number is somewhat larger than the number of soldiers on active service in the British Army (107,730), it would seem to present a problem. No wonder MI5 reports there are more than 200 terrorist cells in Britain. We must wonder similarly about the reported fact that '74% are loyal to Britain', which implies that 26% (156,000 people) are not, and that '82% respect other religions,' which implies that 18% (108,000 people) do not. And these figures are based upon self-reported information, from believers in a religion that explicitly condones lying to non-believers, which they call in Arabic taqiyya, usually translated 'dissimulation'. One could easily have titled the Times article 'Over one hundred thousand London Muslims support violence'. By the same logic, the Times would have reported, during the Blitz, about how a majority of German aircraft were sitting peacefully in their aerodromes, and only a small percentage were bombing Britain on any given day. Passive majority fraud This article is a virtual case study of a classic type of liberal sophistry: the fraud of the passive majority. It may be quite true that most Muslims in Britain have no interest in attacking or taking over our society. But the same was probably true of Hitler Germany. It was certainly true of Soviet Russia, where during the Cold War the author knew many perfectly nice Russians, who had no interest whatsoever in their communist rulers' attempt to conquer the world. But this was irrelevant, as these nice Russians weren't the ones holding the launch keys to the SS-22 nuclear missiles. In any society, the politically active population, the ones who take a real part in government, affect relations between that society and others, and attack others or behave themselves, are a small percentage. The fact that most of the population is not like them, but is passive, does not make them go away, or cease to have potentially lethal effects. Interpretation What is the right interpretation of this polling data? For a start, it follows that, if nearly a fifth of Muslims support violence against us, we should not admit any more of them. After all, we will never be able to tell, who sincerely renounces violence and who doesn't, until too late. Even worse, letting 'benign' Muslims into the country is no guarantee that they will remain benign forever. Muslims are getting more radical, all over the world, all the time, and Britain is no exception. And even 'benign' Muslims harm us, by giving social, demographic, political, and economic mass to Islam in Britain, and by providing camouflage to radicals. When push comes to shove, they may not support violence themselves, but they will side with their own people against the rest of us. Finally, even 'benign' Muslims believe, if they are genuine Muslims at all, in spreading their faith -- which is contrary to our interests, and an assault upon our identity as a people, even if done without force. Other aspects of this poll border on the comical. For example, it reports that London Muslims have twice the confidence in government as the general public, as if this were obviously a good thing. But since our government is dreadful, and has amply demonstrated its dishonesty over Iraq and a dozen other issues, why is 'confidence' in it necessarily the appropriate attitude? Confidence in government is an attribute of tyranny: Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam Hussein could probably have produced impressive polls about 'confidence' in themselves. A healthy scepticism towards power, and thus towards government, is the fitting attitude for a democracy. No wonder every Muslim nation is a tyranny, albeit of varying degrees of severity. Perhaps Muslims like our government so much because they realise that it takes their side against us, and is dedicated to forcing foreigners like them down the throats of an unwilling native population. How was this nasty piece of spin arranged? The poll states, on its own website, that it was designed with the help of 'a panel of world-renowned scientists ... [who] include John Esposito.' Mr. Esposito is the founding Director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University in Washington, USA. This institution received a gift of $20 million from the 'prince' (gangster, more like it, given the character of the Saudi regime), to further the Saudi aim of penetrating and Islamifying the West. He also happens to be the single largest shareholder in the holding company that owns the Times. Hopefully, the British people can't be bought as easily as a single newspaper. Andrew G. Bostom, M.D., M.S., is an Associate Professor of Medicine at Brown University Medical School. He is the author of The Legacy of Jihad. To Go To Top

SOCRATES HOLDS A PRESS CONFERENCE Posted by Israel Zwick, April 30, 2007.

This was published in CNPublications.net March 30, 2007. (Author's Note: The Socratic Method is a technique which utilizes a series of questions to expose inadequacies and inconsistencies in the beliefs of an interlocutor. Ultimately a new and better hypothesis is formed. The technique is commonly employed in legal education, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and forensic investigations. Peter Falk humorously employed this technique in his popular TV detective series, Colombo. In the following fictional article, a spokesman for the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, IMFA, uses the technique with a reporter from the BBC at a press conference) The article is archived at http://cnpublications.net/2007/03/30/socrates-meets-colombo/#comment-10423

IMFA: Now that I have explained my government's opposition to the Saudi Peace Initiative because it omits dialogue, negotiation, and regional cooperation, I'll take some questions. I'll start with Richard from BBC. BBC: Sir, why is the Government of Israel (GOI) opposed to dismantling the illegal Jewish settlements that were built on occupied Palestinian territory? IMFA: I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Could you please explain it? BBC: I'll try to phrase it simply. When will the GOI begin to dismantle the Jewish settlements that were built illegally in the West Bank? IMFA: Are you referring to the established Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria? BBC: You can call them that, but former Secretary of State James Baker and former President Jimmy Carter have referred to these settlements as "obstacles to peace." So wouldn't it advance the cause of peace if these illegal settlements were removed? IMFA: Why are they illegal settlements? BBC: Everyone knows that they were built illegally on occupied Palestinian lands, not Jewish lands. IMFA: Are you suggesting that Jews have no right to live in the environs of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Jericho, Shechem, and Shiloh, where they have strong historical connections? BBC: I'm only suggesting that illegal settlements built on occupied Palestinian lands should be dismantled and returned to the Palestinians so they can build a contiguous independent state. IMFA: I'm not sure that I understand. There are also Jewish communities in London, Paris, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Toronto, Melbourne, Johannesburg, Miami, Buenos Aries, and hundreds of other cities. Should they also be dismantled because they aren't built on Jewish lands and are interfering with the contiguity of the host state? BBC: Oh, no! I would never suggest that. Jews have been living in those cities for many years and should continue to live there. But there were no Jews in the West Bank when the illegal settlements were established. IMFA: When Israeli troops entered the area in June, 1967, they discovered many desecrated Jewish cemeteries there. What does that suggest to you? BBC: I suppose it suggests that Jews once lived and died there? Apparently they abandoned the area. IMFA: How do you think that happened? BBC: I suppose it had something to do with the population shifts during the war in 1948 and 1949, which resulted in the Armistice Lines of 1949. IMFA: So Jews have no right to live there anymore? BBC: Well, they shouldn't be living on occupied Palestinian lands that are needed for a Palestinian state. IMFA: I'm not sure that I understand. There are hundreds of ethnic minority groups in the world that are involved in "liberation" movements. Do they all deserve their own sovereign independent state? BBC: No of course not. We can't have the world carved up into hundreds of microstates which may not be able to function independently. But the Palestinians are a dispersed and oppressed people who have been suffering since 1948. They deserve their own state, free from oppression and occupation. IMFA: Suppose a group of African Muslims from Darfur established a community in Judea, would you say that they should leave also? BBC: Oh, no. Those people have been subjected to enormous persecution and torture. It would be immoral to uproot them from an area where they can live in peace, free from harassment and discrimination. They're entitled to that and should be given every consideration to live in freedom and tolerance. As long as they are peaceful and productive, there would be no valid reason to uproot them. IMFA: So perhaps they should also be given a sovereign, independent state since they are a dispersed minority group. BBC: That wouldn't be necessary since they can continue to live elsewhere as a minority group with full democratic and civil rights. IMFA: Yet, the Jewish settlements in the area should be dismantled? BBC: They had no right to build settlements on occupied lands when they could have built communities in the northern Galil and the southern Negev, there's plenty of undeveloped land there. IMFA: So Jews have no right to live a few kilometers from their holy sites in Jerusalem, Hebron, and Bethlehem? BBC: Not if the settlements were established illegally on occupied Palestinian lands. IMFA: Why do you call them "occupied Palestinian lands?" BBC: Because the Israeli military invaded them in June 1967 and occupied them. IMFA: Who was controlling those lands when the Israeli army entered in June 1967. BBC: I believe it was King Hussein of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. IMFA: Was King Hussein a Palestinian? BBC: No, he was a Hashemite and controlled the areas since the Armistice lines of 1949. IMFA: Who controlled the areas before that? BBC: The British government controlled them for about 30 years under a mandate from the League of Nations. IMFA: Before that, who controlled them? BBC: For many years, they were part of the Ottoman Empire. IMFA: So the Palestinians controlled the Ottoman Empire? BBC: Oh no, the Palestinians never had an independent state, and were always dominated and controlled by others, so it's time for them to have their own state. IMFA: And no Jews should be allowed to live there? BBC: Well, the Jews fled and abandoned the area after the Hebron Massacre in 1929 and during the war in 1948. So when Israel defeated Jordan in 1967, there were no Jewish homes or synagogues in the West Bank. IMFA: So if I understand your question correctly, you are asking when will the GOI dismantle established Jewish communities that were built on liberated, reclaimed, and purchased Jewish lands. Is that correct? BBC: Well, not exactly, I mean umm...that...umm...well...may I ask another question? IMFA: Sure, go right ahead. BBC: When will the GOI dismantle the concrete barrier that is creating an apartheid system and violating the humanitarian rights of the Palestinian people? IMFA: I'm not sure that I understand the question, could you please explain it? BBC: I hear my cell phone ringing; I think my editor is trying to reach me. Perhaps you should call on the representative from Reuters. Excuse me. Contact Israel Zwick at israel.zwick@earthlink.net or go to his website: www.cnpublications.net To Go To Top

GALL OF THE HASHEMITES Posted by Bryna Berchuck, April 30, 2007.

This was published March 8, 2007 as a New York Sun Editorial.

If one were to distill 110% wrongheadedness and then distill it again a second, third, and fourth time, one couldn't come up with a speech as purely wrongheaded as the one that the Hashemite king, Abdullah II, delivered yesterday to a joint meeting of Congress. The king's aim amounted to blaming Israel for all the world's problems. "The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine," the king said. "This is the core issue. And this core issue is not only producing severe consequences for our region, it is producing severe consequences for our world." Balderdash is the kindest way to describe it. It doesn't track with the actions of the violent terrorists, and it doesn't track with their statements. If the terrorists are upset about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, why are they setting off bombs in Indonesia and Spain and Saudi Arabia and Iraq, which are hardly in the vanguard of support for Israel? Given that the terrorists state publicly that their end goal is to make all of Europe and America subject to Islamic law, why should we believe that in fact they have the far more modest goal of merely seizing land belonging to the Jewish state? In a speech on American soil, Abdullah incredibly snubbed his own country and his own family when he referred to "Sixty years of Palestinian dispossession." Why, his family knows all about Palestinian Arab dispossession. The gall of the son of King Hussein, who perpetrated what the Arabs call Black September, fetching up in the Congress to lecture the Americans on Palestinian Arab dispossession is astounding. Abdullah well knows that Jordan controlled the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967. If the Palestinian Arabs were dispossessed during that period it was no one's fault but the Hashemites', who didn't exactly use those decades, or the years after, to race to establish a Palestinian Arab state. Abdullah made reference to a Saudi proposal from 2002 that he described as the "Arab Peace Initiative." That plan would be more accurately described as the Arab Destruction of Israel Initiative. Its aim was to seek to reward the second so-called intifada, which followed the collapse of President Clinton's Camp David II, by giving the Palestinian Arabs half of the Israeli capital of Jerusalem. The Saudis not only sought to divide Israel's capital in Jerusalem but also to force Israel to abandon Jerusalem's Old City, retreat to militarily indefensible borders, and absorb within those borders enough Arab "refugees" so that its character as a Jewish state would be eradicated. No one fell for it save for Thomas Friedman of the New York Times. Abdullah's speech yesterday won negative reviews from many of the Democratic lawmakers who now control Congress. The New York Times' Paris edition quoted Rep. Steve Israel of Long Island as saying, "I was troubled to hear the suggestion that the fact that Sunni and Shia are murdering each other is somehow the fault of the Israelis. This implication is a dangerous one and completely unacceptable." The chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Rep. Thomas Lantos, was quoted by Fox News as saying the speech was "Profoundly disappointing... a missed opportunity." One of the effects of the Islamist terrorist onslaught of recent years is that more Americans have thought more deeply about these matters. They will not be gulled by a foreign potentate offering up Israel as a scapegoat for troubles that originate with the failings of the Arab and Islamic world and their nondemocratic leaders, Abdullah among them. To Go To Top

A PALESTINIAN "RIGHT OF RETURN"? Posted by Bryna Berch, April 30, 2007.

This was written by Michael Medved and it appeared April 4, 2007 on the Townhall website (http://townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/04/04/ a_palestinian_right_of_return). Michael Medved is a film critic, best-selling author and nationally syndicated radio talk show host. Mr. Medved analysizes what's wrong with a major Arab PR item. The Arabs who fled Israel when the Arab states invaded the fledgling country, have, unlike any other group of refugees ever, have been living generation after generation supported by UNRHA Their right of return is presented as innocuous, reasonable, worthy of human compassion. Medved tells us why it is not innocuous.

One of the most annoying quirks of our major media outlets involves their consistently misleading characterization of the current debate about demands for a Palestinian "right of return." The latest Arab League peace proposal, recycled with much fanfare from a 2002 Saudi plan, includes a requirement that Israel should accept untold millions of Palestinians who would relocate into Israel itself, rather than making their homes in the newly created Palestinian State. Leading newspapers invariably describe this demand in terms that suggest that refugees would get "the right to return to their original homes inside Israel." (New York Times, front page, 3/31/07). Of course, this endlessly repeated phraseology sounds fair, compassionate, appropriate -- conjuring up images of patient, oppressed, long-suffering innocents, finally able to return to their ancient roots and ancestral lands, shedding tears of joy as they renew and rebuild the "homes" they lost nearly sixty years ago. Even worse, America's Journal of Record (and nearly all other publications and news sources) summarize Israel's objection to this "right" as a "fear that admitting large numbers of Palestinians would undermine the Jewish nature of the state." Unfortunately, this ridiculously distorted description of Israel's point of view carries the connotation that the objection is purely racist: that the Israelis feel that the continued existence of their "Jewish State" is so precarious that they can't even consider admitting non-Jews (Actually, thousands of non-Jews arrive in Israel every month, prominently including workers from Thailand, the Philippines, Rumania and other nations). Prime Minister Ehud Olmert recently re-enforced the impression of Israeli intransigence and anti-Palestinian racism with an unequivocal Passover-eve interview with the Jerusalem Post. "I'll never accept a solution that is based on their return to Israel, any number," he declared. "I will not agree to accept any kind of Israeli responsibility for the refugees." Without doubt, overwhelming majorities of Israelis agree with the Prime Minister in rejecting the "right of return" concept, but his inability to express the proper basis for that rejection helps explain why his approval rating in polls has fallen lower than that of any prior leader in Israeli history. The ongoing dispute over the fate of the refugees actually proves that the basis for the Arab-Israeli struggle hasn't changed in 60 years. The "War of Independence" began in 1948 because the Palestinians and their Arab supporters refused to accept the idea of an independent Jewish state in their midst, regardless of its borders or the clear-cut Jewish majority in the land originally mandated by the UN. Today, the insistence on a "right of return" shows that the Arabs still refuse to accept Israel as a sovereign nation, entitled to control its own destiny. After all, they demand not only a right for any Palestinian to make his home in the new Palestinian State that the peace plan proposes, but they insist on an equal right for Palestinians to live in Israel proper. In other words, they demand not one Palestinian homeland, but two: one of them east of the Jordan, and the other one west of the Jordan. As part of the ludicrous "peace proposal," Israel would give up two of the basics of national existence: the right to control entry into the country, and to define citizenship. (And yes, as I've long acknowledged, immigration activists in the US are right to insist on our need to similarly control our own borders and to limit and regulate who gets the chance to live here. Without that ability * for Israel, or for the United States*sovereignty is hollow and meaningless). Tzipi Livni, Israel's popular Foreign Minister, articulates the core issue far more clearly than Prime Minister Olmert. "Just as Israel is the homeland for 800,000 Jewish refugees who fled or were expelled from Arab countries," she says, "so a new state of Palestine should be the homeland for Palestinian refugees." Actually, the Arab League and the United Nations currently count some 4.3 million Palestinians as "refugees" or the descendants of refugees -- a hugely inflated figure which, if nothing else, gives the lie to claims of Israeli "genocide." After all, if 700,000 Palestinian refugees of 1948-9 have now become 4.3 million -- multiplying by some 600% in less than 60 years -- it's hardly an indication of genocide. Few populations on earth -- certainly not American or Israeli -- have boasted that sort of explosive growth during this period. Moreover, only a small minority of the refugees (and of the Palestinian population in general) were actually land-owners. Most were tenant farmers or "fellahin" or urban tradesmen, and most had arrived only recently in the area from their homes in Egypt, Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, lured by the economic opportunities presented by the surging Jewish population in the 1920's and '30's. The idea that the great-great-grandchildren of such arrivals possess some inviolable connection to specific landscape in today's bustling Tel Aviv or Haifa is both illogical and altogether unenforceable. The Israeli position may sound harsh in Prime Minister Olmert's formulation, but it remains eminently reasonable: if the Palestinians will negotiate peace, they get to decide who lives in their new state, but they don't get to decide who lives in the neighboring state of Israel. What's the sense behind the very idea of a "two state solution" if the Palestinians insist upon a similar "right" to live in both states? No, the debate isn't about compassion for refugees, or protecting the "Jewish character of Israel" (a phrase that brings up the old, discredited "Zionism-is-racism" charge), or ethnic cleansing, or any other distracting issue cited by the American press. The issue, as always, is Arab refusal to accept Israel's existence and sovereignty. Until the Palestinians and their Islamic allies come to terms with the reality and permanence of a restored state on the ancient homeland of the Jewish people, and drop the ludicrous demands about a "right to return," peace negotiations will go absolutely nowhere. To Go To Top

MOSHE BRODETZKY: A TRUE SON OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE Posted by David Haimson, April 30, 2007.

This appeared in http://www.amfac.net//Brodetzky.html

Moshe Brodetzky in Jerusalem, 1948 I am not much of a writer, however, I feel that there has been an important story that has been neglected, the story of a modest Jewish hero. You can obtain more information about his heroic efforts from Moshe Arens. I met him in September, 1941 at the City College of New York when he was changing his clothes next to me in a gym class. I struck up a conversation when I noticed his Tzitzit. He asked me if I was interested in Zionism, and since I am a seventh generation Sabra I said, "Of course." He invited me to attend a meeting of a Betar group of students, which eventually included Moshe Arens who later became Defense Minister of Israel three times.He indicated that he was in the R.O.T.C. (Reserve Officers Training Corps of the U.S. Army). Since the U.S. was not at war, I asked him why he had joined the R.O.T.C. He said that in the near future the Jewish people would need trained soldiers to fight for an independent Jewish state. The U.S. did get into the war, of course, and Moshe soon found himself in Europe, fighting the Nazis. By the time World War II was over, he was a hero and a highly-decorated officer. Moshe went to Palestine to study at the Hebrew University. At that time the fight against the British Mandatory regime was in full swing, so he joined the Etzel (the Irgun Zvai Leumi underground). When the State of Israel was declared in 1948, he remained in the Etzel batallion in Jerusalem and joined the fight against the attacking Arabs. He fought at Ramat Rachel, and was one of the heros of that battle. He was also in command of the Irgun force on Mount Zion. In The History of the Irgun, (David Niv Inc.), there is a partial description of the battle of Ramat Rachel: One of the commanders, 'Daniel' (Moshe Brodetzky), an American Betari ex-serviceman who, as a student at the university had joined Etzel (Irgun) at the outset of the fighting, was one of the first to be wounded at Ramat Rachel. He lay with his wounded comrades without aid or even water to sustain him. Looking around him and seeing what was happening, he took a sten and ran to the firing aperture. He knew there was no hope of leaving Ramat Rachel alive unless everyone fough to the bitter end. He went back to the wounded, encouraged them, and sent them to the firing aperture. Everyone who could drag themselves to the front did so and fought. The battle was now focusing on the enemy's armored column. Wounded men tried to repel the onslaught with stens in their hands. The attack was checked, and the tanks suddenly stopped advancing. His citation read: HEADQARTERS 71ST INFANTRY DIVISION APO 360, U. S. ARMY 22 MAY 1945 GENERAL ORDERS NUMBER 23 AWARD OF THE SILVER STAR MOSES BRODETZKY, 0557667, 2ND LIEUTENANT, INFANTRY, COMPANY, 5TH INFANTRY, FOR GALLANTRY IN ACTION AGAINST THE ENEMY ON 24 MARCH 1945, IN THE VICINITY OF WESTHEIM, GERMANY. DURING THE ATTACK ON WESTHEIM, THE ADVANCE OF THE 2ND BATTALION, 5TH INFANTRY, HAD BEEN HELD UP FOR NINETY MINUTES BY WELL ENTRENCHED ENEMY RIFLEMEN, AND MACHINE GUNNERS, WHO INFLICTED SEVERE CASUALTIES ON COMPANIES E AND G, OF THE BATTALION. WITH UTTER DISREGARD FOR PERSONAL SAFETY, LIEUTENANT BRODETZKY LED HIS PLATOON FORWARD TO A STREAM WHERE INTENSE FIRE PREVENTED THE PLATOON FROM CROSSING. LIEUTENANT BRODETZKY THEN SELECTED FOUR MEN FROM THE PLATOON AND MADE A SUCCESSFUL CROSSING TO CONTINUE ADVANCING UNTIL CONTACT WAS MADE WITH THE ENEMY'S LEFT FLANK. AT THIS POINT HE DEMANDED THE ENEMY TO SURRENDER. SEVERAL OF THE ENEMY TROOPS OBEYED HIS ORDER, BUT THE OTHERS OPENED FIRE ON LIEUTENANT BRODETZKY.WITH DETERMINATION AND BOLDNESS, LIEUTENANT BRODETZKY CONTINUED TO ADVANCE DESTROYING THE MACHINE GUNS, CAPTURING NINETEEN ENEMY SOLDIERS, AND KILLING FOUR, INCLUDING ONE GERMAN OFFICER. LIUTENANT BRODETZKY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WOUNDED IN THE FOOT AND LEG, BUT RETURNED UNAIDED TO HIS UNIT WITH INFORMATION THAT MATERIALLY AIDED IN THE ADVANCE OF THE BATTALION AND ROUTING OF THE ENEMY. LIEUTENANT BRODETZKY'S COURAGEOUS LEADERSHIP, DEVOTION TO DUTY.AND GALLANTRY IN ACTION EXEMPLIFIES THE TRADITION OF THE ARMED FORCES ENTERED MILITARY SERVICE FROM NEW YORK, NEW YORK. In the 1950's, Brodetzky lived in Washington, D.C., and was in the forefront of the fight for the right of Soviet Jewry to leave for Israel. Moshe now lives in East Talpiot, Jerusalem. This modest Jew deserves to be lauded for his valiant fight for the realization of our people's dreams. Dave Haimson [Editor's Note: Moshe Brodetzky lived in the Washington D.C. area in the 1950s and '60s. He was the leader in the "Let My People Go" campaign to persuade the USSR to let Jews leave for Israel. He developed innovative and creative ways of dramatising the plight of the Soviet Jews. I remember when he got people who worked in D.C. to use their lunch hour to stand in a silent vigil in front of the Russian embassy. Every day there were people standing in front of the embassy. I remember thinking it was pointless just standing there. It wasn't. I don't know if it had any effect on the Russians inside the building but it raised awareness in the community. His was the leadership that persuaded the official Jewish leaders to take a stand for the Jews of Silence.] Contact David Haimson at DvHaimson@aol.com To Go To Top

REPORT: MISSILE THREAT LEAVES ISRAEL 'NO ALTERNATIVE' TO CONQUERING TERRITORY Posted by UCI, April 30, 2007.

This report comes from the Institute for National Strategic Studies (www.geostrategy-direct.com).

TEL AVIV -- Israel must conquer territory in Lebanon or other areas to halt what is expected to be heavy missile strikes in the next Middle East war. A report by the Institute for National Strategic Studies said the 2006 war against Hizbullah demonstrated the ineffectiveness of an air attack against unconventional militaries. The report, "The Limitations of Stand-off Firepower-Based Operations: On Stand-off Warfare, Maneuver, and Decision," asserted that Israel must employ its ground forces to invade enemy territory and destroy missile launchers. "It seems, therefore, that in Israel's security reality there is no alternative to maneuvering and conquering territory in order to win wars," stated the report, authored by reserve air force intelligence officer Ron Tira. "This is reinforced by the assessment that in the next war -- including its closing stages -- the Israeli home front will be subjected to enemy rocket and missile fire." During the 34-day war that ended in August 2006, Hizbullah fired an estimated 4,500 rockets into Israel. Israel's air force destroyed Iranian-origin medium-range Hizbullah launchers, but largely failed to locate short-range Katyushas, which represented the bulk of the attacks. The report, which envisioned a near-term war with Syria, marks a departure of nearly a decade of Israeli doctrine that saw the air force as the prime solution to missile and rocket strikes. During the Hizbullah war, Israeli politicians and commanders insisted that the army would be used sparingly and not capture Lebanese territory. "Indeed, in the years leading up to the second Lebanon War, the scope of training and the allocation of resources for classic formations were reduced to the extent that at the outbreak of the second Lebanon War, it is doubtful whether the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] had adequate classic capabilities," the report said. The report said Israel's military sought to adopt the U.S. concept of standoff firepower operations, albeit with insufficient technology and training. Tira said the SFO concept failed during the Lebanon war. Tira said the Israeli military employed air power in an effort to force the Lebanese government to stop Hizbullah rocket attacks and intimidate the Iranian-sponsored militia into a ceasefire. Israel's military and government believed that they could force a change Hizbullah behavior without defeating it, he said. The report said the army was more effective than the air force in ensuring a halt in enemy operations. Tira pointed to the Israeli war in Lebanon in 1982, in which Palestinian missile fire was halted within 48 hours. "In such a situation, in which each side uses strategic firepower against its enemy, conquering territory may serve as a clear indicator of victory that successfully exacts the heavy price of war," the report said. "Moreover, at the tactical level, capturing territory may be the more efficient means of preventing, or at least reducing, rocket launches. And in a war against terror, presence in the field offers intelligence and operational superiority, which cannot be achieved by standoff measures." The report warned that the SFO concept would not work in future wars in either Lebanon or Syria. Tira pointed to the 2006 war in which Israel failed to identify threats despite numerous ground- and air-based sensors, including unmanned aerial vehicles. "Due to the structure of Hizbullah, which was planned in advance to withstand SFO and therefore made Israeli fire less effective, Israel failed on the strategic, operational, and tactical levels," the report said. "Israel did not succeeding in generating decapitation, paralysis, blindness, or any other effect that substantially harms the will or functioning of the organization's command and control echelon." UCI -- The Unity Coalition for Israel -- (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel." "Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!" To Go To Top

PERFIDY: ISRAEL'S ROLE IN THE POLLARD CASE Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, April 30, 2007.

This is from Esther Pollard's Speech at Midreshet Moriah, April 29, 2007.

A chronology of betrayal and abandonment bodes ill for the fate of all of Israel's captives. Successive Prime Ministers have always maintained that the Government of Israel has done, and continues to do, everything in its power to bring all of Israel's captives home. But is this true? Can we believe our leaders when they tell us that they are doing everything to bring Jonathan Pollard and all of our boys home? Is it even possible to investigate? Israel's captives, Ron Arad, Tzvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz, Zarcharia Baumel, Guy Hever, Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev, and of course, my husband Jonathan Pollard, have been in captivity some for as long as 25 years, and others for a matter of months. We do not know what happened, and what is currently happening to most of our captives and MIAs. We do not know, for the most part, where they are, who is holding them, and what has ultimately been their fate. We do know however, what has happened to one of them, my husband, Jonathan Pollard. If we look into his case, and study the attitude and action (or shall we say lack of action) of the government of Israel over the last 22 years, we may be able to learn something about the fate all of our captives and MIAs. First of all a little background: My husband, Jonathan Pollard, is an Israeli agent in captivity, currently completing his 22nd year of a life sentence in the United States for his service to the security of The State of Israel. The information that Jonathan provided to Israel included Iranian, Iraqi, Libyan and Syrian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities -- all being developed for use against Israel. He also provided information on ballistic missile development by these countries and information on up-coming terrorist attacks planned against Israeli civilian targets. Israel was legally entitled to this vital security information according to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding signed by both countries. But the information was deliberately being withheld from Israel as the result of an illegal intelligence embargo implemented by former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and former Deputy Director of the CIA Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, whose pro-Arab tilt did not jibe with declared US foreign policy. In the beginning Jonathan volunteered his services and only later did he become a bona fide agent on behalf of the State of Israel. His zeal to save Israeli lives was his sole motivation. Even the sentencing judge -- who was no friend of the case -- recognized that Jonathan was an ideologue, not a mercenary, and therefore declined to impose a monetary fine. The median sentence for the offense that Jonathan committed -- passing classified information to an ally with no intent to harm the US -- is 2 to four years. Jonathan is the only spy in the history of the United States to receive a life sentence for this offense. Jonathan is now in his 22nd year of a life sentence with no end in sight. Now that we have some background, let's go back to the beginning and have a look at Israel's role. From the time that Jonathan was first arrested in 1985, Israel cravenly denied all ties to him, and cooperated fully with the American prosecution to secure a life sentence for him. In fact, Israel handed over to the US all of the evidence needed to prosecute Jonathan. Without this evidence, the US had no case against him and would have been forced to set him free. In betraying Jonathan and by handing over the evidence against him, Israel earned for itself the dishonorable distinction of becoming the first and only country in the history of modern espionage ever to assist in the indictment and prosecution of its own agent! Israel was duplicitous towards her agent, right from the time the case broke. The very first thing Israel did at the time was to order Jonathan to hold off the FBI while it evacuated all the rest of the team to Israel. Jonathan did as he was told, stalling his American interrogators until all the rest of the Israelis involved in his operation were whisked away to safety. Only Jonathan was left to face the wrath of the Americans. Although he did not know it at the time, there was never any intention of rescuing him; he had been designated by Israel, from the outset, to be the scapegoat that would take the blame for the whole operation. After his arrest Jonathan at first refused to cooperate, while he waited for Israel to make good on its promise to rescue him. But instead of implementing a rescue plan, Israel returned the documents to the United States with Jonathan's fingerprints still on them. When that happened, Jonathan had no choice but to cooperate with his interrogators and to plead guilty. Jonathan never had a trial. He gave up his right to a trial in a plea agreement, which Jonathan honored and the US violated on every count; but which Jonathan's original attorney never protested. You see, Israel cunningly paid for Jonathan's first lawyer, Richard Hibey, a Lebanese American. And, as you know, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Because of Hibey's treachery, instead of the usual 2 to 4 year sentence for the crime he committed, Jonathan received an unlimited life sentence. After the sentencing hearing, Hibey had 10 days to file a document -- a "notice of intent to appeal" -- to protect Jonathan's right to appeal his life sentence. Taking all his cues from his paymasters not his client who at the time was held incommunicado, Hibey did not file the document. As a result, to this very day, Jonathan has never been allowed to appeal his life sentence. Ever since Israel secured and paid for the lawyer who secured an unlimited life sentence for Jonathan without possibility of appeal, the Government of Israel has refused to pay a cent for the lawyers who are trying to help Jonathan! This is such an important fact that I will repeat it: Israel bought and paid for the lawyer who secured an unlimited life sentence for Jonathan and who deprived him forever of his right to appeal that sentence; and ever since then, Israel has refused to pay a cent for lawyers who have been trying to get Jonathan out of prison! After his sentencing hearing, Jonathan was whisked off to a prison facility for the criminally insane, where he was held in solitary confinement, naked and incommunicado, and in inhumane conditions for a year. The Americans, in consultation with the Mossad, eventually transferred Jonathan to USP Marion in Illinois. USP Marion is the harshest prison in the American federal system. Jonathan was assigned to solitary confinement in K Unit, the harshest unit of USP Marion. Having studied Jonathan's psychological profile, the Mossad advised the Americans that Pollard was unlikely to survive the rigors of solitary confinement. I should point out here that Jonathan did not work for the Mossad. He worked for a competitor of the Mossad, LAKAM. Jonathan's operation severely embarrassed the Mossad by providing the information to Israel that the Mossad should have been providing, but did not. To this very day, the Mossad has never forgiven Jonathan and continues to collaborate with his captors to keep him buried alive. Thus, right from the outset, it was through under-handed collaboration between Israel and the Americans that the evil plan was hatched to have Jonathan Pollard die in prison. He was either supposed to become so depressed in solitary confinement that he would choose to die by his own hand, or if that failed, arrangements would be made to have him killed by "accident" by one of the guards. If we had hours and hours, I could tell you many anecdotes of attempts on Jonathan's life, but for now, suffice to say that there are numerous examples. Why did they want Jonathan to die, you ask? Very simple. For Israel, it would solve the problem. When Jonathan was arrested, Israel's top officials, all of whom were involved in the operation up to their eyeballs and wanted to protect their own careers, lied and said they knew nothing about Jonathan's operation. They claimed that Pollard was a "freelancer" who acted on his own. If he died in prison, Israel's top officials would never have to admit the truth. All of the same officials who were holding high government office or were a key part of the Defense/Intelligence establishment in Israel when Jonathan was first arrested are still in government service to this day. This is an unusual phenomenon; one that simply does not occur in other countries. These officials may have changed hats or offices here and there, but by and large the same inept, corrupt, self-serving politicians and officials are still around to plague us some two decades later. They are still waiting for Jonathan to die in prison to absolve themselves of any last vestiges of responsibility for him. As for the US, they wanted Jonathan to die in prison so that their own lie, that the Israeli spy Pollard was "the worst spy in the history of the United States", would similarly endure forever. For the heavily pro-Arab US State Department and others in the Administration, the arrest of Jonathan Pollard, the Jewish spy for the Jewish State, was a goldmine of opportunity. The Pollard case has been used by these anti-Israel officials for two decades to call into question Israel's reliability as an ally, and the loyalty of the American Jewish community. For these hostile elements in the US administration, the myth of a dastardly Jewish super-spy is one that is so valuable politically that they cannot afford to ever have it disproven. It would have been convenient for them as well, if Jonathan were to just die in prison. But, G-d has had other plans for Jonathan. In spite of Israel's betrayal, neglect, abandonment, and its endless lies; and in spite of the US perversion of justice and inhumane treatment, Jonathan survived nearly 7 years of harsh treatment in solitary confinement at USP Marion. While still in solitary confinement, he fought a difficult battle, on his own, without any assistance from Israel, to be transferred to an open population prison. In 1993 he won the battle, and he was transferred to FCI Butner, the same federal prison where he is housed to this day. Jonathan's transfer to Butner did not change Israel's plan for Jonathan at all. Within a couple of weeks of the time Jonathan was transferred to open population, the Government of Israel sent a Mossad agent to visit him. The agent came with an official suggestion for Jonathan: that he solve the problem for Israel by killing himself. The agent said that the Government of Israel would even assist him to kill himself, if he wished. When Jonathan declined this "solution", the Mossad agent mocked him, saying that if he were really a man, he would kill himself. That was in 1993. Up to and including that time, the Government of Israel was still denying that Jonathan worked for the State, and pretending that its only interest in him was purely humanitarian -- Jewish charity, so to speak. In attempt to get the Government of Israel to stop its lies and abandonment and to force it to protect Jonathan, he requested Israeli Citizenship. The government, of course, refused. So Jonathan took the government to court. He filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Israel, based on the law which states that all those who serve the security needs of the State have an automatic right to citizenship. Out of fear of what might come out in court if a hearing were to be held, the government backed down. In return for Jonathan canceling his petition with the Supreme Court, the government granted Jonathan citizenship in 1995. This was a major event. It was the moment when everyone, including the US, expected that Israel would step up to the plate and begin an intensive push to bring Jonathan home. But that did not occur. On the contrary, Israel gave him citizenship and then quickly turned its back on him again. Israel did absolutely nothing to help him or to protect him. Neglected, abandoned, and ill, two more years went by without any improvement in his situation. Jonathan had to sue again to try to get Israel's attention. This time he sued to force the government of Israel to admit that he was an Israeli agent who had served the security interests of the country. Again Jonathan filed a petition in Supreme Court. -- By the way, contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of Jonathan. The Supreme Court, as a matter of routine, always provides cover for the Government, and no relief for Jonathan. -- In this case, once again, the State feared that the Court might intervene and that there was a risk of the truth coming to light, so the State agreed to formally recognize Jonathan as its agent, provided that he dropped his lawsuit. Jonathan obliged and was formally recognized as an Israeli agent in 1998. As soon as Jonathan was recognized as an Israeli agent, the Government of Israel had only to do 2 things in order to precipitate critical changes in Jonathan's situation. First of all, it was supposed to include his name on the list of captives held by the Ministry of Defense. By adding his name to list, the Ministry would be able to immediately implement all of his rights as an agent in captivity, including taking steps to secure his immediate release. The second thing the State of Israel was supposed to do was to officially inform the United States Department of Justice, the Bureau of Prisons and the American State Department that Jonathan Pollard is an Israeli agent and that the Government of Israel intends to seek his release. Sounds simple doesn't it? Just put Jonathan Pollard's name on a list at the Ministry of Defense in Israel ; and officially inform the Americans of his status as an agent in captivity. That is all that Israel had to do! But, even these simple, basic steps were never taken by Israel! To this very day, the Government of Israel has never officially informed the US that Jonathan is her agent. If that were done, the US would be forced to treat Jonathan as an agent in captivity, and not as a common criminal. The US would not have dared to afflict him or abuse him, if he were classified as an agent in captivity. But, to this day, the US still considers Jonathan to be nothing more than a common criminal, and continues to treat him as such. Moreover, because Israel never officially informed the US that Jonathan is her agent, Israel refused to put his name on the list of captives at the ministry of defense, for fear of how the Americans might react. As long as Jonathan's name is kept off of the list, and as long as he Israel never treats him appropriately, as an agent in captivity, the Americans can continue to rest assured that Israel has no plans to seek his release. What exactly does it mean that Jonathan's name does not appear on the list at the Ministry of Defense? It means, among other things, that he is effectively deprived of all of his rights as an agent in captivity. For example, in 22 years, neither Jonathan nor I have ever received a cent from the Government of Israel --- even though Jonathan has a right to his salary and other benefits while in captivity. Jonathan and I receive no medical, legal or moral assistance from the Government of Israel and never have. I am a cancer survivor and have undergone surgery and treatment for this illness, without any assistance from the government of Israel. Indeed, during the worst of times of my illness, when my husband was worried sick about me and could not be at my side to comfort or assist me, not a single Israeli official ever picked up the telephone to even inquire about my health. People often ask where I live, given our precarious situation. A kindly Jerusalem widow heard of our financial distress and offered me a room in her small apartment. That is where I, the wife of an Israeli agent in captivity, live. Worst of all, the most serious implication of Jonathan's name being left off of the list of captives at the Ministry of Defense is that Jonathan's release has never been a priority on the official agenda of the Ministry of Defense, the Foreign Ministry, or of the Prime Minister's office, as it is with every other agent in captivity. Instead for the last 22 years, successive governments of Israel have maintained the charade, pretending that Jonathan is not an agent, and not in captivity. This is accomplished by studiously keeping his file out of the hands of the appropriate office at the Ministry of Defense, and instead always keeping it in the hands of some special official who has neither the interest, nor the authority, nor the mandate to do anything for Jonathan. The official who holds Jonathan's file has always been someone high up in the Mossad, or high up in the prime Minister's office. In the past the file was held by the likes of Danny Yatom -- the Mossad attaché to Peres and Rabin; or Moshe Kochanovsky, a special ops agent at the Ministry of Defense; and today it is held by Cabinet Secretary, Israel Maimon. What this means in practical terms, is that each of these 'guardians' of Jonathan's file are "the address". Anyone with questions about Pollard's treatment or his situation can turn to this special address. Anyone wanting to move his case forward can turn to them. But, of course, because they are a special address, there is no law which obliges them to respond! Get it? Anyone can ask about Pollard, but absolutely no one in charge of his file has to answer! To this day there is still no Israeli plan for Jonathan's release. There never was. To this day, the original plan for Jonathan Pollard remains in place; and the special official holding his file, maintains the plan with no exception. According to Jonathan's file, he is still supposed to die in prison. And of course, since the special guardian of the Pollard file answers to no one, there is no oversight, no appeal, and no protest possible. What about Wye, you ask? Didn't Israel try to get Jonathan at Wye? Let's look at the facts: Jonathan was supposed to be the quid pro quo for the 750 murderers and terrorists that Israel released as part of the Wye Accords. The Knesset Record in the aftermath of the summit states that the deal that was made at Wye for the release of Jonathan Pollard was not a deal between two individuals (Clinton and Netanyahu) but between the two countries and the deal is still in effect. Nevertheless, Israel released the murderers and terrorists, but never collected Jonathan's freedom! Think about it! This was the first time that Israel released murderers with blood on their hands, and they used Jonathan as the excuse. He was supposed to be the quid pro quo, not the excuse! In all of the time since then, Israel has conveniently "forgotten" that she has already bought Jonathan's freedom and paid the full price. Tell me, how does a country pay the price in blood, and then just "forget" to collect its part of the deal, our captive!? The fact that my husband Jonathan Pollard is still alive after 22 years of abuse and affliction in some of the harshest conditions of the US Federal Prison System; the fact that he still lives and breathes; and every single day that he survives, is an absolute and utter miracle! As for the Government of Israel, their original plan for Jonathan has not changed one iota in 22 years. Mr. Olmert and his buddies, including Shimon Peres and Rafi Eitan, and a whole gang of Mossadniks are still waiting patiently for Jonathan to die in prison, G-d forbid! As we asked earlier, can we trust what our Prime Minister and other government officials are telling us about their devotion to our captives? I maintain that we can trust them. But not when they are speaking publicly or talking to the media; only when they are speaking behind closed doors. Here are a few examples of what Israeli officials, who are obliged to seek Jonathan's release, have had to say about the matter privately: ARIK SHARON: Former Prime Minister of Israel, scandalized the late Rechavam Ze'evi, when he told him point blank: "The only way I will ever agree to bring Pollard home is in a coffin." YITZHAK SHAMIR: another former Prime Minister of Israel, in separate meetings with Jonathan's attorney Larry Dub, and with his parents, told them: "A sovereign state has to know how to abandon those who serve the state, if the need arises." EZER WEIZMAN: the former President of Israel, acting on behalf of the Government of Israel, arranged a meeting with Jonathan's brother, Harvey and attempted to give him a message of condolences for Jonathan's parents on the loss of their son. Harvey was outraged and angrily responded, "My brother is still alive! How dare you refer to him as if he were dead?!" SHIMON PERES: Israel's deputy Prime Minister, speaking to 2 ministers who sought his assistance in advancing freedom for Pollard said, "Pollard is a lost cause. Nothing to do. Just forget him!" RAFI EITAN: Pollard's former handler and today a Government Minister told me, and Larry Dub that his only regret about the Pollard case was that he had failed to put a bullet through Jonathan's head when he sought refuge at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. To this day, Eitan tells reporters that he feels no personal sense of responsibility for Pollard; that what happened to Pollard was "an operational failure, nothing personal." As for EHUD OLMERT, Israel's current Prime Minister, his only interest -- as expressed to behind-the-scenes contacts -- is in freeing the terrorist murderer, Marwan Barghouti, not Jonathan Pollard. He does not even feign interest in Pollard. Olmert envisions sharing the Nobel peace prize with Barghouti! Let me remind you, Jonathan was not a drug dealer or a scoundrel, who betrayed the State to Hizbullah for profit, like Elchanon Tanenbaum. But then Tanenbaum was a personal family friend a former prime minister. So, the State of Israel paid a disproportionate price for his release, despite the damage that Tanenbaum did to our national security. Jonathan was and is a bona fide Israeli agent. From what I myself have heard from top level government officials, the information that Jonathan gave to Israel virtually saved us from another holocaust. And this is how the Government of Israel treats a man who served the State and who saved the lives of countless Israeli citizens? Payback is 22 years in prison on behalf of the State of Israel??! Are Israel's top officials so in thrall to the US that they cannot, will not, defend Israel's own national interests? But they do go to bat for anyone who, like Tanenbaum, promotes their own personal agenda. Have all of our captives, Jonathan included, become as dispensable as throw-away paper cups because their release does not serve the personal interests of Israel's elected officials? Jonathan is now in his 22nd year of a life sentence with no end in sight. The Government of Israel claims that it is doing all that it can for Jonathan Pollard. As we have seen, the facts do not support the Government's contention. Moreover, if this is the way that the Government behaves towards a thoroughly visible captive like Jonathan, one who is able to speak for himself, one who can be visited, one who writes and phones and whose condition is known; then you can surely imagine how the Government is behaving towards those captives who are not visible, who cannot speak for themselves, and whose condition we do not know. If you think about it, and you ask yourself some very simple questions, you will come to the same conclusions that Jonathan and I were forced to come to, by our own experience. Then you will surely understand a very basic premise. Namely, that we have both a right and an obligation to remember those who have fallen in the service of the State. We must honor the memory of those who are no longer alive. We must appreciate the sacrifice that they made for our continued existence. But there is no reason to memorialize those who still live: Ron Arad, Tzvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz, Zarcharia Baumel, Guy Hever, Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev, and my husband Jonathan Pollard. Remembering them, while they are still alive and in captivity, instead of bringing them home is a travesty! It is the height of hypocrisy! And it is a crime against humanity. There is an absolute obligation to bring them home, without any further delay! And, I am not recommending that Israel free murderers and terrorists to bring them home. No other nation in the world --- only Israel ---opens the doors to its jails and frees murderers and terrorists to secure the release of its captives -- and even after doing so repeatedly, still does not secure the release of her captives. Recently, 15 British sailors were taken captive by Iran. Does anyone know how many terrorists Britain released in order to secure their release? Not a single one! That is right! Not a single terrorist or murderer was released by Britain to secure the release of their hostages from Iran. They were freed the way normal nations free their captives -- intensive behind the scenes "negotiations", or threats or whatever, but no release of murderers and terrorists. Only Israel claims that it has to release murderers and terrorists! This is not the way to secure the release of captives, and this is not the way a nation with any self-respect behaves! Enough is enough! It is time to stop the lies and hypocrisy by the government of Israel! It is time to stop releasing murderers and terrorists! It is time to stop holding memorial services for our captives and MIAs! It is time to rescue our boys in captivity, instead of memorializing them! I do not have to tell our government how to free a captive! Nor do they need me to teach them that negotiation does not mean capitulation to terror! Or that when negotiation fails there are other means! It is time for the Government of Israel to fulfill its obligation to those who have faithfully served the State, and have gone into captivity as a result. It is time to bring Jonathan Pollard and all of our captives and MIAs home, now, while they are still alive! No more charades; no more games; no more lies; and no more excuses! No other alternative is acceptable. See Also: Did You Know? (An Updated Quick and Dirty of the Facts) by Esther Pollard http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2007/012607.htm Bashing Pollard does not comport with the Facts (Marking the 21st anniversary of incarceration) by Nissan GanOr http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2006/112206.htm The Facts Page http://www.jonathanpollard.org/facts.htm The Information Page http://www.jonathanpollard.org/info.htm Contact Justice for Jonathan Pollard at justice4jp@gmail.com To Go To Top

THE RA'S IRAQ WAR RESOLUTION IS MISGUIDED AND DESTRUCTIVE Posted by David Meir-Levi, April 30, 2007.

TO: jmeyers@rabbinicalassembly.org Dear Rabbi Meyers, I learned recently that the Rabbinical Assembly is considering a resolution to urge our Congress and President to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq in accordance with a time-table that has been described by others as 'cut and run' (or 'trim and trot'). It seems to me that the Rabbinical Assembly has entered, apparently unprepared, in to an arena in which the expertise of the Assembly is not adequate for the task of assessing the strategic and/or tactical needs of the United States, Israel, and the free world, with regard to the current war in Iraq. As I understand it, having been a conservative Jew both in the United States and in Israel for most of my adult life (I was bar-mitzvah'd in an Orthodox synagogue but thereafter found the Conservative setting far more appropriate for my spiritual needs), the Rabbinical Assembly is highly competent to offer guidance on issues of religion, morality, Torah learning, Halacha, and social dynamics relating to any of the aforementioned. The Iraq war is none of the above. Decisions about the Iraq war demand expertise and clear-sighted analysis, of both strategy and tactic, regarding a host of complex geo-political and military issues. No disrespect (God forbid!), but I must question the competence of the RA to offer guidance in these arenas. And, indeed, it seems to me fair to request that you and other leaders of the RA explain to your constituency (which includes me and my family) what exactly are your credentials which equip you to pass judgment on the decisions of, or to offer countervailing direction to, our generals and those of our political leaders who see the need to remain engaged in Iraq until the country has been stabilized and the terrorist enemy defeated. This is not to say that our generals, and/or our political leaders, are above criticism; but rather I inquire as to the ways and the means whereby the RA can ascertain that one course of action in this problematic and perilous military arena is clearly superior to another. And my primary motivation for raising this inquiry is the errors of fact that I detect in your resolution. There is much debate about the current strategy, and about the effectiveness of the 'surge' in troop support for the anti-terrorist offensive: but it is clear that our top general and his support staff, as well as speakers at the recent AIPAC conference, are united in their belief that a 'cut and run' (or 'trim and trot') strategy is a recipe for disaster...and a recipe for an Islamo-fascist victory. The latter is the reason why the elected leaders of Iraq are also adamant that the USA, and other coalition forces, must remain in Iraq until the terrorist guerrilla forces have been defeated. Otherwise, there is no hope for stability and freedom, democracy and social progress, in Iraq. Even worse, a victory for the Islamo-fascist terrorists is most likely to result in: a. a bloodbath from civil war in Iraq, the likes of which will make the current terror war look tame b. a powerful strategic and PR victory for Iran, whose leader has vowed the nuclear destruction of Israel, the annihilation of Jews everywhere, as well as 'a world without America' c. a WMD arms race among the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, as well as Egypt and Libya (a dynamic that bodes ill for the entire world, but puts Israel in immediate and extreme existential peril) d. a catastrophic blow to the economy of the western world, as a triumphant Iran (no matter who wins the civil war, the real winners will be Iran, and Syria and Hezbollah) gains control directly or indirectly over nearly 40% of the world's petroleum reserves, and uncontested supervision over the straits of Hormuz through which most of the world's oil is shipped. e. the probable break-up of Iraq into its three warring constituencies, with the additional regional geo-political upheavals of an independent Kurdistan that immediately presses for an irredentist Turkish Kurdish secession, and of a terrified Sunni heartland which calls upon its Saudi allies to support it in its fight against Iranian and Iraqi Shi'ite revenge f. the emergence of a greatly strengthened Syria and Hezbollah, who, as vassals to victorious Iran, now boast greater political and military power in the eastern Mediterranean, more and better weaponry, and far less reluctance than ever before to flex their muscles against both Lebanon and Israel g. a significant enhancement of Iran's ability to export, and support, Islamo-fascist terrorism world-wide as a natural next step in the inexorable march of Islam to global ascendancy with the coming of the hidden Imam and the catastrophic end-of-days scenario of a Moslem Armageddon h. and, perhaps most ominous of all, the heightened motivation of Islamo-fascist terrorists everywhere to attack Israel and the west because, as will be manifest by our retreat, godless secular materialistic America is a 'paper tiger' (just as bin-Laden has prophesied) and has been defeated by Islamic religious God-fearing Iran. Such a perception of American weakness will, as supporters of 'staying the course in Iraq' have argued, bring the front line of the terror war from Iraq to the shores of the USA. The real question that faces our leaders regarding our continued efforts in Iraq is: where do you want the casualties? This is an ugly question. But it is one that our Islamo-fascist terrorist enemies force us to answer. On one hand, continued American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, until the defeat of el-Qaeda, the defeat of el-Qaeda-in-Iraq, the defeat of the resurgent Taliban, the defeat of Muqtada es-Sadr's Mahdi army, and the suppression of Iranian aspirations of nuclear supremacy and Middle Eastern hegemony, have all been achieved, will entail more fighting, more casualties, more destruction in Iraq. This is bad. On the other hand, a 'cut and run' strategy now will energize the terrorist visionaries, as described above, and leave us with a far stronger and more motivated enemy whose ultimate goal is nothing less than the destruction of Western civilization. This is far worse, far more costly, than the first option. It seems to me that the RA resolution makes the wrong choice, if indeed its rabbis are aware that they are in fact making this choice. And then there is another aspect of the issue which the RA seems to have ignored (and please correct me if I am wrong): Senator Joe Lieberman, in his speech at the AIPAC conference, condemned those politicians who "elevate party interests over the national interest." This is a very serious accusation. According to Senator Lieberman, some American politicians are willing to sacrifice American national interests in the current war, in order to make political gains against President Bush and the Republican party. Such a partisan attitude toward American policy in Iraq, and toward the need for the United States to lead the world in the current war against global Islamo-fascist terrorism, is typical of venal politicians...not enlightened statespersons. Has the RA tested the motives for some Democratic Party leaders, who condemn the current White House strategy in Iraq, against the possibility that their rush to condemn, and the urgency of their strident calls for retreat, are functions of their personal political aspirations, and not the product of thoughtful analysis and objective evaluation of what is best for the USA, for Iraq, for the world? Finally, consider the input from Israeli leaders. Prime Minister Olmert and Tzipi Livni both made impassioned pleas at the AIPAC conference for continued American involvement in the stabilization of Iraq, the defeat of the terrorists there, and the suppression of Iranian hegemonic aspirations. They, probably more so than the rabbis of the RA, have a clear picture of what will happen in and to Israel if Iran and its terrorist minions win. In light of the above, I most sincerely and emphatically urge you to speak out against this RA resolution. Even if one believes that we got in to this war for the wrong reasons, and perhaps should not have entered it in the first place, it is beyond rational debate that a premature retreat will leave only greater and more horrific destruction and destabilization in its wake; and the victory of Iran and her terrorists will bring about only more terror, more war, more destruction, and, perhaps, a nuclear attack on Israel as well. David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com To Go To Top

AIRPORT ADDS FOOT BASINS FOR MUSLIM CABBIES Posted by Jerry Jonas, April 30, 2007.

The first is a news item in World Net Daily (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55417). The second is a review of Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad by Hal Lindsey.

The Kansas City International Airport has added several foot-washing basins in restrooms to accommodate a growing number of Muslim taxicab drivers who requested the facilities to prepare for daily Islamic prayer, WND has learned. The move concerns airport police who worry about Middle Eastern men loitering inside the building. After 9/11, the airport beefed up its police force to help prevent terrorist attacks. "Why are we constructing places of worship for them inside our airports?" said an airport official who requested anonymity. "Why are we catering to their rituals? We don't do it for any other religion." Other major airports also are dealing with increased demands from Muslim cabdrivers. For instance, cabbies at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport recently caused a stir when they refused to carry passengers possessing alcoholic beverages or accompanied by seeing-eye dogs. Alcohol is forbidden in Islam, and dogs are considered unclean. There are approximately 250 taxicab drivers operating at KCI Airport in Missouri, one of the largest airports in the U.S., linking some 10 million passengers between mid-America and other U.S. cities. Approximately 70 percent of the drivers are of Middle Eastern heritage and practice the Islamic faith, sources say. KCI Airport Police are responsible for the cab drivers, including the holding areas of the building. The KCI Aviation Department, which oversees the police, recently expanded the taxicab facility restroom area to include the construction of four individual foot-washing benches. The cost of the project is not immediately known. A spokeswoman for the engineering department said she could not break out the figures. KCI Airport Police Capt. Jim Harmon declined comment, explaining, "This is a touchy subject." He referred questions to the KCI Aviation Department. In a cleansing ritual known as ablution, Muslims are required to wash their feet before praying to Allah five times a day. They often complain that public restroom sinks do not accommodate their needs. Floor-level basins make it easier for them to perform their foot-washing ritual. The Council on American-Islamic Relations has pressed government agencies and businesses to install the foot basins in restrooms. The controversial Muslim lobby group advises employers to allow Muslim workers time to perform both the washing ritual and prayer, which "is usually about 15 minutes," according to a pamphlet CAIR publishes called, "An Employer's Guide to Islamic Religious Practices." The Islamic purification ritual, known in Arabic as wudu, involves a 10-step process, which includes: 1. Praising Allah while washing both hands up to the wrist three times, making sure that the water reaches between fingers and under rings. 2. Rinsing out the mouth thoroughly three times, using the right hand (the one not used for cleaning private parts) to bring the water to the mouth. 3. Snorting water into the nostrils from the right hand, three times, to cleanse them of demons that Muslims believe reside there, clearing the passages of any mucous using the left hand. 4. Washing off the tip of the nose with the left hand. 5. Washing the entire face three times from right ear to left ear. 6. Continuing to wash from forehead to throat. 7. Washing the right arm and then the left arm, three times, from the wrist up to the elbow, removing watches. 8. Moving wetted palms over the head from the top of the forehead to the back of the head. 9. Passing the wetted tips of the fingers into the grooves and holes of both ears, and also passing the wetted thumbs behind the ears and ear lobes. 10. Finally, washing both feet to the ankles starting with the right foot, including between the toes, then reciting: "Ash-hadu an la ilaha illal lahu wa ashhadu anna Muammadan 'abduhu wa rasuluh" -- meaning there is no god but Allah and he has no partners, and Muhammad is his servant and messenger. Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad by Hal Lindsey. Best-selling author Hal Lindsey explains how, on Sept. 11, an ancient fight-to-the-death conflict exploded on the shores of the U.S. Though most Americans didn't realize it, we were already involved in this struggle. A struggle driven by a hatred that goes back over 4,000 years. Islamic fundamentalism's purpose is to replace the Judeo-Christian world order with an Islamic world order. Every American needs to understand the enormity of the threat we face -- and why. In the aftermath of 9/11 most Americans are asking: Why do so many Muslims hate Jews? Why do Islamic fundamentalists hate the United States and call it "The Great Satan?" Why did Islamic terrorists sacrifice their own lives to kill Americans? Do Islamic fundamentalists have access to weapons of mass destruction? Could Islamic terrorists imperil the survival of the United States? What light does Bible prophecy shed on this? Does the Koran call for violence and conquest? Are the Islamic fundamentalists an aberration of the Muslim religion, or are they - as they claim - the "True followers of Mohammad?" This book will answer these questions with both Biblical and secular history. It will also bring new hope to the coming "perilous times." Contact Jerry Jonas at jdjonas@yahoo.com To Go To Top

FORMER CIA DIRECTOR CONFIRMS NUCLEAR THREAT Posted by Michael Travis, April 30, 2007.

Interesting isn't it? Our Government has spent billions of taxpayer's dollars trying to cover-up "Allied" (Saudi-Pakistani etc.) involvement in the attacks of 9-11 and subsequent campaigns against the United States and Judeo-Christian culture. Within the last several weeks one of our investigators has been told that "Al-Qaeda" is not a threat, and "we are most concerned with computer hackers"......by the Special Agent in Charge of the Miami FBI Office. The same SAC dismissed as "crackpots" and "persons with zero credibility" such extremely credible individuals as; Dr.Hamid Mir, John Loftus, and former CIA Director James Woolsey. The question is "why"? Why the insulting cover-up, and why have we been charged billions of dollars that should have been spent fighting terrorists...and not apologizing for them. George Tenet is merely one of thousands of former government officials and journalists who have attempted to warn the American people of the danger posed by the Islamists in our midst. Hopefully Tenet's efforts will fall on a few patriotic ears before Mainstream Media goes back to more important subjects; like Angelina and Brad, Madonna, and Britney Spears. "In one especially chilling assertion, Tenet reveals that several intelligence sources were indicating in fall 2001 that a small nuclear weapon may have been smuggled into the United States." This article by Robert Windrem and Alex Johnson of NBC News is called "The long reach and ambitions of al-Qaida." It is archived at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18357494/ MSNBC InteractiveRobert Windrem is an investigative producer for NBC News. Alex Johnson is a reporter for MSNBC.com.

Tenet book details chilling plots to kill Gore, acquire nuclear weapons NEW YORK - Former CIA Director George Tenet's defense of his agency's performance in the lead-up to the war in Iraq will echo from now through Election Day next year, but other disclosures in his new book are equally sobering and, in laying out the scope of al-Qaida's ambitions, sometimes far more frightening. The book, "At the Center of the Storm," which is being published Monday, reveals that al-Qaida or groups affiliated with it have undertaken several other operations aimed at equaling or even surpassing the carnage of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The operations, which either were thwarted by authorities or were canceled for one reason or another, included efforts to assassinate Vice President Al Gore with anti-tank missiles during a trip to Saudi Arabia, release cyanide in the New York subway system and procure weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, from Pakistani nuclear scientists. In one especially chilling assertion, Tenet reveals that several intelligence sources were indicating in fall 2001 that a small nuclear weapon may have been smuggled into the United States. The plot to kill Gore Tenet discloses that in 1998, Saudi officials foiled a plot by Abdel Rahim al-Nashiri to smuggle four Sagger anti-tank missiles from Yemen into Saudi Arabia a week or so before Gore was scheduled to visit the kingdom. But their reluctance to let the United States know what was going on created significant tension between the two nations. Tenet writes that it was reasonable to have expected the Saudis to pass the information along as soon as possible, but they did not. After low-level discussions failed to produce a sense of urgency among the Saudis, Tenet flew to Riyadh to meet with Prince Naif, the interior minister and the man in charge of the Saudi secret police. Tenet describes meeting with Naif in an opulent palace in Riyadh. He was accompanied by two colleagues, Deputy Director John McLaughlin and John Brennan, director of the CIA's National Counterterrorism Center. Naif, by contrast, was joined by dozens of Saudi officials. Tenet said he struggled to remain polite as Naif filibustered. Eventually, he had enough. He edged toward the prince, put his hand on his knee and asked, "Your royal highness, what do you think it will look like if someday I have to tell the Washington Post that you held out data that might have helped us track down al Qaeda murderers, perhaps even plotters who want to assassinate our vice president?" Tenet told the prince he would be coming back each week to make sure intelligence flowed both ways. Overall, however, Tenet makes it clear that he had warm relations with Saudi leaders. He says King Abdullah was instrumental in breaking logjam of the flow of intelligence and cites Naif's son, the Saudis' counterterrorism chief, as one of Washington's best friends in countering al-Qaida. Al-Qaida's WMD plans Tenet's most frightening chapter is on al-Qaida's plans to develop weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. It is titled "They Want to Change the World." Tenet writes that U.S. intelligence agencies "established that Al Qaeda had clear intent to acquire chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons to cause mass casualties in the United States." According to Tenet, intelligence officials learned that Saudi extremist elements were planning to conduct a cyanide gas attack on the New York subway system in fall 2003 using a homemade device. But first, they requested permission from al-Qaida leaders. "Chillingly, word came back from Ayman al-Zawahiri in early 2003 to cancel the operation and recall the operatives who were already staged in New York 'because we have something better in mind.'" Al-Qaida's nuclear ambitions It is the story of al-Qaida's efforts to acquire weapons or weapons technology from Pakistan that anchors the most chilling part of that section. The terrorist network made two separate efforts to persuade Pakistani scientists to provide it with nuclear weapons from their stockpile of about 50 nuclear weapons, highly enriched uranium and plutonium, and vast weapons infrastructure. In 1998, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida's leader, was rebuffed, for unclear reasons. About two years later, he had better luck when al-Qaida reached out to a charity for Afghan refugees run by Pakistani nuclear scientists. Although some of the details of this effort have been previously reported, the extent of the effort went much further than what was publicly known. In 2000, Tenet writes, the charity's founder, Sultan Bashir-ud-Din Mahmood, and others at Pakistan's nuclear weapons agency agreed to help Mahmood in his effort to share weapons of mass destruction with the Taliban leaders of Afghanistan. In fact, Tenet said, U.S. intelligence learned that bin Laden and Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban's leader, had met with Mahmood and an aide in August 2001 in Afghanistan. Tenet describes the initial Pakistani investigation as "ill-fated" and writes that the Pakistanis treated the charity officials with deference in their interrogations. Showdown with Musharraf So he went to Pakistan and met with Musharraf, warning about the outrage that would explode if it emerged that Pakistan was allowing nuclear scientists to help bin Laden acquire nuclear weapons. Musharraf pooh-poohed the concerns, arguing that bin Laden and his associates were "men living in caves" who could not possibly take possession of such weapons, Tenet writes. Under interrogation, however, Mahmood subsequently confirmed the details of the August 2001 meeting with bin Laden. At the same time, in the fall of 2001, Tenet writes, U.S. intelligence began picking up rumors from several reliable sources that a small nuclear device had been smuggled into the United States, for probable use in New York City. The Energy Department sent detection equipment to New York, he adds. Tenet concludes that a nuclear detonation in a U.S. city is al-Qaida's ultimate goal. "I'm concerned this is where UBL and his operatives want to go," he writes. "If they can arrange to set off a mushroom cloud, they make history. ... My deepest fear is that this exactly what they intend." To Go To Top

PA LEADER CALLS FOR KILLING ALL JEWS AND AMERICANS Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, April 30, 2007.

Last week PMW released the text of this call for the killing of all Americans and Jews, preached by the Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, Dr. Ahmad Bahar on Palestinian television. Israel is referred to as a "cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation," and the US is said to be "on its way to disappear." Due to its importance PMW is now releasing the subtitled video. The following is the transcript: Dr. Ahmad Bahar (acting Speaker, Palestinian Legislative Council): "This is Islam, that was ahead of its time with regards to human rights in the treatment of prisoners, but our people was afflicted by the cancerous lump, that is the Jews, in the heart of the Arab nation... Be certain that America is on its way to disappear, America is wallowing [in blood] today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine... Make us victorious over the infidel people... Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies, Allah, take hold of the Americans and their allies... Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don't leave even one."[PA TV, April 20, 2007] Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -- Palestinian Media Watch -- (http://www.pmw.org.il). PMW is based in Jerusalem. Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative. Contact pmw@pmw.org.il To Go To Top

OLMERT'S GREATEST MIS-CALCULATION! Posted by Batya Medad, April 30, 2007.

Last summer, when it was clear to everyone, even the Israeli Government, that there had to be a "commission of inquiry" to "investigate" and affix blame for the badly-managed war, the public wanted an "independent" commission. That wasn't what Prime Minister Olmert wanted. He did not want ambitious politicians, from the coalition and opposition and "independent do-gooders" to have control over the investigation. So Olmert appointed his own "inspection team," the Israeli public was disappointed. It was just another example of the political corruption. Everyone expected the Winograd Commission, which met in secret, unlike Israel's previous commissions, to find ways of white-washing the disaster. That's common sense, nu? But this is Israel, where common sense does not rule. Just like the elections that brought Arik Sharon to power, when we celebrated the election of pro-Eretz Yisrael politicians. We were certain that this new government would be the best ever. But what did we get? We got Disengagement, the unilateral withdrawal from Gush Katif and the Northern Sinai! Jewish communities were destroyed, and thousands of innocent, patriotic Israeli citizens were exiled from their homes. Their businesses were destroyed, and now almost two years later, most are listlessly, idling their days in "caravilla"-refugee camps, buying food with the lasts cents of their "compensation." And what did the Winograd Report say? Winograd Blames Olmert, Peretz, Halutz Winograd report: PM was unprepared Olmert, Peretz, Halutz failed in their roles, war report says War probe report accuses Olmert of 'severe failure' PM to Kadima: I have no intention of resigning Yes, it put most of the blame on the politicians in charge, Ehud Olmert and Amir Peretz. Now, of course we all knew that Olmert and Peretz were out of their league, trying to run the country. That's no surprise. The report also had some serious things to say about the top army brass. Personally, I think that the ones most to blame are Ehud Barak and Kadima MK Shaul Mofaz. Barak, former Chief of Staff and the one competing with Olmert as Israel's worst Prime Minister. Remember that he was PM when the intifada became most deadly, and his government didn't last. Now he considers himself rehabilitated and is running against Peretz and others to head the Labor Party. Mofaz is a former COS and also Minister of Defense. They built today's IDF. The question is: Why didn't the Winograd Commission concentrate its criticism on the army? I think that because most of us had such little faith in them, it bothered them. The commission is made up of good people, and they wanted to show that Olmert didn't control them. That's why they made a point of blaming him over all others. If the same people had been appointed by the Knesset or courts as an independent commission, they most probably would have been more even-handed. Of course, Olmert's still in power and I'm pretty sure that the government, or at least this Knesset, will hold onto their seats until the two-year pension kicks in. Hem lo friyerim! They're not fools to miss out on such a good deal, nu? But in the meantime, down in the Heartland, we're working hard and praying. If a cool operator like Olmert can miss-calculate, what about ordinary folks like us? Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il This article is archived at http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2007/04/olmerts-greatest-miss-calculation.html To Go To Top

AVINERI ATTACKS MOONBATS FOR PROPOSING TO DO AWAY WITH HATIKVA TO APPEASE THE ARABS Posted by Steven Plaut, April 30, 2007.

After the Haaretz Canaanites came out in favor of dumping Hatikva as the national anthem, they were answered by Prof. Shlomo Avineri. Avineri is hardly a hardcore rightwinger. He was a cheerleader for Oslo, even endorsing the leftwing campaign of McCarthyism against free speech for the Right (endorsing the false claim that rightwing rhetoric caused the Rabin assassination). In the past he was quite close to Peres' positions, but recently has shifted a bit toward center. Here is his piece. It's called "Don't sing, but show respect" and it was in Ha'aretz (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/853684.html).

It is not every day that a publisher decides to print his positions in his newspaper, and therefore great importance should be attached to what Amos Schocken wrote in his article, "Toward the next 60 years" (April 19). Many of the points he raises are correct and logical, especially regarding the imperviousness of the government and Israeli society to many material and social aspects of the Arab public's life in Israel. It is difficult, however, to agree with him on one point - the issue of the national anthem. It is certainly possible to understand the feelings of Israel's Arab citizens who find it difficult to identify with "the Jewish soul's yearning," but making this the starting point for a proposal to replace "Hatikva" with what Schocken calls a democratic and egalitarian anthem is a far cry. If the anthem is nothing but the lowest common denominator acceptable to all groups in Israel, then one must take into account the ultra-Orthodox Jewish public, for whom "Hatikva" is not acceptable due to its Zionist nature. Furthermore, for the Jewish national-religious public, "Hatikva" is defective because it does not mention the Lord. A serious look at national anthems around the world - and I am sure Mr. Schocken will not object to going beyond the provincial Israeli confines - finds the large majority to be problematic. It is enough to cite as examples two strictly democratic countries - Britain and France. The British national anthem entreats the Lord to watch over the country's monarch, who is also the head of the Anglican Church. Millions of Catholics, non-Anglican Protestants, Muslims and Jews, among others, live in Britain today. There is also no small number of republicans there who would like to do away with the institution of the monarchy completely. Did Jews or Muslims ever suggest changing the British national anthem? Did any British liberal ever claim that the anthem's words affect his rights or status? The French national anthem, "La Marseillaise," is a revolutionary song full of violence and threats against those who oppose the Republic. It is no secret that to this day, there are many millions in France who consider the execution of Louis XVI a historic crime, and one could imagine that they disagree with the words of the anthem. However, they do not propose changing it. For better or for worse, a national anthem symbolizes the dominant historical trend - which sometimes (as in France) was born of blood and fire. I understand the difficulty of Israeli Arabs, just like that of Jews or Muslims in Britain, or royalists or Muslims in France - but the latter are not suggesting their national anthems be changed. Citizens may decline to sing the anthem, but they should be expected to respect the symbols of the majority. In neither Britain nor France does the minority question the legitimacy of the body politic that represents the beliefs, the symbols and the narrative of the majority. In Israel, the Arab proposal to change "Hatikva" stems not from the difficulty of singing the words of the anthem, but rather from the desire to question the State of Israel as the national state of the Jews. It is preferable to say these things openly. The Schocken family, like tens of thousands of other Jewish families in Germany, enjoyed equal rights and unprecedented economic prosperity during the period of the German emperors, Kaiser Wilhelm I and Kaiser Wilhelm II. Did any one of them consider demanding that the German national anthem be changed because it was an anthem of emperors and Christians? 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. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il To Go To Top

FOR FANATICAL MUSLIMS, MIGRATION IS PART OF 'THIRD WAVE' ATTACK ON EUROPE Posted by Michael Travis, April 30, 2007.

This essay is excerpted from remarks by Princeton historian Bernard Lewis, who was awarded the Irving Kristol Award at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington last week. His most recent books include "What Went Wrong?: The Clash Between Islam and Modernity in the Middle East" (2002); "The Crisis of Islam: Holy War and Unholy Terror" (2003); and "From Babel to Dragomans: Interpreting the Middle East" (2004).

In the eyes of a fanatical and resolute minority of Muslims, the third wave of attack on Christendom and Europe has clearly begun. The first wave dates from the very beginning of Islam, when the new faith spilled out of the Arabian Peninsula, where it was born, into the Middle East and beyond. It was then that Muslims conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa -- all at that time part of the Christian world -- and went beyond into Europe. There, they conquered a sizable part of southwestern Europe, including Spain, Portugal and southern Italy, all of which became part of the Islamic world, and even crossed the Pyrenees and occupied for a while parts of France. The second wave was conducted not by Arabs and Moors but by Turks and Tartars. In the mid-13th century, the Mongol conquerors of Russia were converted to Islam. The Turks, who had already conquered Anatolia, advanced into Europe and in 1453 they captured the ancient Christian citadel of Constantinople. They conquered a large part of the Balkans, and for a while ruled half of Hungary. Twice they reached as far as Vienna, to which they laid siege in 1529 and again in 1683. Barbary corsairs from North Africa went to Iceland -- the uttermost limit -- and to several places in Western Europe, including notably a raid on Baltimore (the original one, in Ireland) in 1631. The third wave is taking a different form: terror and migration. The subject of terror has been discussed frequently and in great detail. What I want to address here is the other aspect, which is of more particular relevance to Europe today -- the question of migration. In earlier times, it was inconceivable that a Muslim would voluntarily move to a non-Muslim country. Muslim jurists have discussed at great length in the textbooks and manuals of shari`a whether it permissible for a Muslim to live in or even visit a non-Muslim country -- and what he must do if he finds himself in a non-Muslim country. Generally speaking, this was considered under certain specific headings. A captive or a prisoner of war obviously has no choice, but he must preserve his faith and get home as soon as possible. The second case is that of an unbeliever in the land of the unbelievers who sees the light and embraces the true faith -- in other words, becomes a Muslim. He, too, must leave as soon as possible and go to a Muslim country. The third case is that of a visitor. For a long time, the only purpose of a visit to a non-Muslim country that was considered legitimate was to ransom captives. This was later expanded to also include diplomatic and commercial missions. With the advance of the European counterattack, there was a new issue in this ongoing debate. What is the position of a Muslim if his country is conquered by infidels? May he stay or must he leave? We have some interesting documents from the late 15th century, when the reconquest of Spain was completed and Moroccan jurists were discussing this question. The general answer was that it is not permissible for a Muslim to stay. But what if the Christian government that takes over is tolerant? This proved to be a purely hypothetical question, of course. The answer, though, was no; even then they may not stay, because the temptation to apostasy would be even greater. They must leave and hope that in God's good time they will be able to reconquer their homelands and restore the true faith. This was the line taken by most jurists. There were some, at first a minority, later a more important group, who said it is permissible for Muslims to stay provided that certain conditions are met, mainly that they are allowed to practice their faith. This raises another question: What is meant by practicing their faith? Here I would remind the reader that we are dealing not only with a different religion but also with a different concept of what religion is about, referring especially to what Muslims call the shari`a, the holy law of Islam. Shari`a covered a wide range of matters regarded as secular in the Christian world even during the medieval period, and it certainly does so today in what some call the post-Christian era of the Western world. There are obviously now many attractions that draw Muslims to Europe, including the opportunities for employment and welfare offered, particularly in view of the growing economic impoverishment of much of the Muslim world. They also have freedom of expression and education, which they lack at home. This is, by the way, a great incentive to the terrorists who migrate. Terrorists have far greater freedom of preparation and operation in Europe -- and to a degree also in America -- than they do in most Islamic lands. THE QUESTION OF ASSIMILATION Assimilation is another issue much discussed nowadays. How far is it possible for Muslim migrants who have settled in Europe, in North America and elsewhere to become part of those countries in which they settle, in the way that so many other waves of immigrants have done? To answer this question we need to address the basic differences in what precisely is meant by assimilation and acceptance. Here there is an immediate and obvious difference between the European and American situations. For an immigrant to become an American means a change of political allegiance. For an immigrant to become a Frenchman or a German means a change of ethnic identity. Changing political allegiance is certainly very much easier and more practical than changing ethnic identity, either in one's own feelings or in one's measure of acceptance. England had it both ways. If you were naturalized, you became British but you did not become English. There is also the important difference in what one means by religion. For Muslims, issues such as marriage, divorce and inheritance are covered by shari`a. Since antiquity in the Western world -- the Christian world -- these have been secular matters. The distinction of church and state, spiritual and temporal, lay and ecclesiastical, is a Christian distinction that has no place in Islamic history and therefore is difficult to explain to Muslims, even in the present day. Until very recently they did not even have a vocabulary to express it. They have one now. What are the European responses to this situation? In Europe, as in the United States, a frequent response is what is variously known as multiculturalism and political correctness. In the Muslim world, there are no such inhibitions. They are very conscious of their identity. They know who they are and what they are and what they want, a quality that we seem to have lost to a very large extent. This is a source of strength in the one, of weakness in the other. The Islamic radicals have even been able to find some allies in Europe. They have a left-wing appeal to the anti-U.S. elements in Europe, for whom they have, so to speak, replaced the Soviets. They have a right-wing appeal to the anti-Jewish elements in Europe, replacing the Axis. They have been able to win considerable support under both headings. For some in Europe, their hatreds apparently outweigh their loyalties. There is an interesting exception to that in Germany, where the Muslims are mostly Turkish. There, they have often tended to equate themselves with the Jews, to see themselves as having succeeded the Jews as the victims of German racism and persecution. I remember a meeting in Berlin convened to discuss the new Muslim minorities in Europe. In the evening I was asked by a Muslim group of Turks to join them and hear what they had to say about it, which was very interesting. The statement that sticks most vividly in my mind from one of them was, "In a thousand years they (the Germans) were unable to accept 400,000 Jews. What hope is there that they will accept two million Turks?" Some Turks in Germany used this very skillfully in playing on German feelings of guilt in order to inhibit any effective measures to protect German identity, which, I would say, like others in Europe is becoming endangered. THE QUESTION OF TOLERANCE Finally, let me address the question of tolerance. You will recall that at the end of the first phase of the Christian reconquest, after Spain and Portugal and Sicily, Muslims -- by that time numerous in the reconquered lands -- were given a choice: baptism, exile or death. In the former Ottoman lands in southeastern Europe, the leaders of what you might call the reconquest were somewhat more tolerant but not a great deal more. Some Muslim minorities remained in some Balkan countries, with troubles still going on at the present day in Kosovo and Bosnia. Nevertheless, I mention this point because of the very sharp contrast with the treatment of Christians and other non-Muslims in the Islamic lands at that time. When Muslims came to Europe, they had a certain expectation of tolerance. They felt that they were entitled to at least the degree of tolerance that they had accorded to non-Muslims in the great Muslim empires of the past. Both their expectations and their experience were very different. Coming to European countries, they got both more and less than they had expected. They got more in the sense that they received in theory and often in practice equal political rights, equal access to the professions, all the benefits of the welfare state, freedom of expression, and so on and so forth. But they also got significantly less than they had given in traditional Islamic states. In the Ottoman Empire, for example, non-Muslim communities had separate organizations and ran their own affairs. They collected their own taxes and enforced their own laws. There were several Christian communities, each living under its own leadership and recognized by the state. These communities ran their own schools and education systems, and administered their own laws in such matters as marriage, divorce, inheritance and the like. The Jews did the same. This meant that three men living on the same street could die and their estates would be distributed under three different legal systems if one happened to be Jewish, one Christian and one Muslim. A Jew could be punished by a rabbinical court and jailed for violating the Sabbath or eating on Yom Kippur. A Christian could be arrested and imprisoned for taking a second wife. Bigamy is a Christian offense; it was not an Islamic or an Ottoman offense. Muslim immigrants do not have that degree of independence in their own social and legal life in the modern state. It is quite unrealistic for them to expect it, given the nature of the modern state, but that is not how they see it. They feel that they are entitled to receive what they gave. As one Muslim friend of mine in Europe put it, "We allowed you to practice monogamy, why should you not allow us to practice polygamy?" Such questions -- polygamy, in particular -- raise important issues of a more practical nature. Isn't an immigrant who is permitted to come to France or Germany entitled to bring his family with him? But what exactly does his family consist of? They are increasingly demanding and getting permission to bring plural wives. The enforcement of shari`a is a little more difficult. This has become an extremely sensitive issue. Another extremely sensitive issue, closely related to this, is the position of women, which is of course very different between Christendom and Islam. This has indeed been one of the major differences between the two societies. WILL THE THIRD WAVE SUCCEED? Where do we stand now? Is it third time lucky? It is not impossible. Muslim immigrants have certain clear advantages. They have fervor and conviction, which in most Western countries are either weak or lacking. They are self-assured of the rightness of their cause, whereas we spend most of our time in self-denigration and self-abasement. They have loyalty and discipline, and perhaps most important of all, they have demography. The combination of natural increase and migration that is producing major population changes could lead within the foreseeable future to significant majorities in at least some European cities or even countries. But we also have some advantages, the most important of which are knowledge and freedom. The appeal of genuine modern knowledge in a society that, in the more distant past, had a long record of scientific and scholarly achievement is obvious. They are keenly and painfully aware of their relative backwardness and welcome the opportunity to rectify it. Less obvious but also powerful is the appeal of freedom. In the past, in the Islamic world the word freedom was not used in a political sense. Freedom was a legal concept. You were free if you were not a slave. They did not use freedom and slavery as a metaphor for good and bad government, as we have done for a long time in the Western world. The terms they used to denote good and bad government are justice and injustice. A good government is a just government, one in which the Holy Law, including its limitations on sovereign authority, is strictly enforced. The Islamic tradition, in theory and, until the onset of modernization, to a large degree in practice, emphatically rejects despotic and arbitrary government. Living under justice is the nearest approach to what we would call freedom. But the idea of freedom in its Western interpretation is making headway. It is becoming more and more understood, more and more appreciated and more and more desired. It is perhaps in the long run our best hope, perhaps even our only hope, of surviving this developing struggle. Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com To Go To Top

HOW ISRAEL BUNGLED THE SECOND LEBANON WAR Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, April 30, 2007.

The following by Efraim Inbar of Bar Ilan University is an accurate evaluation of the inept bungling by Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, Chief-of-Staff (resigned) Dan Halutz and their advisor and Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni in the brief War against the assault by Hezb'Allah Summer 2006. These people are directly responsible for the unnecessary deaths and injuries of soldiers and civilians which should have driven them from their offices of power immediately after the debacle. Instead, they were allowed to keep their jobs and go on to do further damage to Israel's security. The Knesset could have closed down the most incompetent government Israel has ever known but instead, they remained silent in order to keep their paying jobs with the perks to which they have become accustomed. By not taking such action they thereby became partners to the disgrace and the loss of so many lives. I also include the Olmert appointed Winograd Investigating Commission who deliberately dragged their feet to issue a partial report which could have been assembled in 30 days. The final report will be issued in August 2007 - insuring that Olmert and Peretz will keep their seats until then. The so-called elite of Israel, including politicians, politicized generals, the Leftist Hebrew Media have dragged the nation of Israel down to levels where crooks are controlling Israel's future. Clearly, it is past time to clean house, fumigate those offices and select a new breed of leaders. This is by Efraim Inbar, and it appeared in Mid East Quarterly, Summer 2007 published by the Middle East Forum (http://www.meforum.org/article/1686). Efraim Inbar is Professor of political studies at Bar-Ilan U. and director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. He thanks Ian Blomberg, Sara H. Krulewich and Tamara Sternlieb for research assistance.

Israel's leadership was ill-prepared for the summer 2006 war against Hezbollah. Israeli politicians and planners displayed strategic blindness. While denying the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) victory, they squandered an opportunity to destroy the bulk of Hezbollah's military presence in southern Lebanon, settle regional scores, enhance Israel's deterrence, and strengthen Jerusalem's alliance with Washington. The Failure of Deterrence For more than six years, between Israel's May 2000 unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon and the outbreak of war in July 2006, Israeli officials sought to contain the Hezbollah threat. Preoccupied with a renewed Palestinian uprising in the West Bank and Gaza and a protracted terrorist campaign, Israel policymakers hoped restraint would suffice. They stuck to their policy despite such Hezbollah provocations as soldier abductions, Katyusha barrages, and cross-border terrorist attacks.[1] Not only would a tough response against Hezbollah risk a second front and perhaps escalation with Syria but Israeli politicians were loath to disrupt the economic development in northern Israel that followed the Lebanon withdrawal.[2] This does not mean that Israeli officials did not take Hezbollah seriously. After leaving southern Lebanon, Israeli officials considered the group to be a nuisance, but in recent years, their assessment changed, and they acknowledged Hezbollah to be a strategic threat.[3] In July 2003, outgoing IDF chief of staff Lt. Gen. Shaul Mofaz, who subsequently became defense minister, warned of the growing Hezbollah threat.[4] His successor, Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, cautioned that much of northern Israel was vulnerable to Hezbollah's missiles.[5] Politicians and former intelligence officers also said that they had warned the government.[6] Still, many IDF leaders believed that minimal force if not diplomacy would suffice to minimize the threat. Chief of the Northern Command Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, for example, said, "There is nothing that can be solved just by the military ... There is a need for a diplomatic solution," adding, "I do not believe that anyone wants to go back into Lebanon."[7] Restraint ended on July 12, 2006, when Hezbollah terrorists attacked an Israeli patrol on the Israeli side of the border and abducted two soldiers.[8] The attack came just nineteen days after Palestinian terrorists staged a similar cross border raid from Gaza.[9] Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Amir Peretz ordered a forceful reaction.[10] IDF chief of staff Dan Halutz, who had not even mentioned Lebanon in his tour d'horizon at the Herzliya Conference seven months earlier, acknowledged that "the way we finish this [operation in Lebanon] will have ramifications for the entire Middle East."[11] He was right. The end of military operations on August 14, 2006, with the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1701[12] had implications not only in Israel and Lebanon but also across the region. Failure to Prepare As soon as the guns fell silent, Israeli officials began to take stock of their new situation. There was unease. Declarations of victory rang hollow. While politicians and military officials squabbled over responsibility, the government appointed an inquiry committee headed by judge Eliyahu Winograd to sort the situation out. Still, the fact that there were serious strategic errors was clear. Israel's highest political and military echelons committed serious strategic errors in preparation for, during execution, and in the aftermath of the 2006 Lebanon campaign. Together, these errors enabled Hezbollah to persevere against the larger, better-equipped Israeli military and emerge as perhaps an even greater threat. Failure to prepare undercut Israeli operations from the start. Before the war, Israeli planners had unrealistic expectations about armed conflict with Hezbollah. They planned for small skirmishes, not for a large-scale, conventional military campaign. Some of Israel's reluctance to plan for action inside Lebanon might have been rooted in former prime minister Ariel Sharon's legacy. As defense minister, Sharon presided over the 1982 Lebanon war, and many Israelis consider him responsible for the subsequent imbroglio.[13] In 1983, the Kahan Commission found Sharon negligent for his failure to predict and stop a Lebanese militia's massacre of Palestinian refugees at Sabra and Shatilla.[14] Sharon's subsequent attempts to rehabilitate his image during his premiership (2001-06) would be undercut if he again involved Israeli forces in Lebanon. Inattention by the General Staff toward Lebanon reflected Israeli assumptions about the unlikelihood of any land war on its borders. Udi Adam complained that the highest military forum hardly discussed the Lebanese front.[15] Perhaps as a result, the IDF failed to estimate adequately its needs prior to the war. Effective March 2007, Shaul Mofaz, defense minister between November 2002 and March 2006, had scheduled a gradual reduction in conscript military service and also initiated a new law shortening reserve duty and reducing training. According to Maj. Gen. Benny Ganz, chief of Israel's ground forces, the government had cut allocations for training reserve units by US$800 million since 2001.[16] Budgetary constraints also led the IDF to reduce the size of tank formations, and budgetary officials pressured the Israeli military to discontinue production of its top-line Merkava tank. In addition, because of cost, the IDF declined to install the Trophy anti-missile system on most tanks and did not provide the Israeli air force with bunker buster bombs.[17] Only a number of special forces received training geared to operations in southern Lebanon, but even these units lacked the latest intelligence when ordered across the border because the heads of military intelligence refrained from transferring data collected on Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon to units in the field.[18] Further underlying Israel's lack of preparation was the failure of its leadership to acknowledge the operation against Hezbollah to be a war rather than a retaliatory raid or more limited military action. The Israeli government, for example, never declared a state of emergency, nor did it enact its wartime administrative and legal powers. Delays in mobilization of reserve forces reflected the military leadership's failure to realize it faced a war. Israel's leadership also failed to understand the strategic significance of the cumulative Katyusha strikes. An IDF statement of its strategic goals presented to the Israeli government at the beginning of the conflict failed to even mention home-front defense.[19] Over the course of several years, Israel's intelligence organs had neglected to collect intelligence regarding Hezbollah's short range Katyushas.[20] Military officials had considered such rockets as weapons of little consequence because of their inaccuracy and small warheads. In the initial stage of the war, Halutz said that "short range rockets are not a decisive weapon." [21] But the war showed Israel's northern population to be ill-prepared to withstand a large rocket barrage. Most of the short-range Katyushas fell in empty fields and caused little damage, but 25 percent of the nearly 4,000 missiles launched hit urban areas and paralyzed the whole of northern Israel, its main port, refineries, and many other strategic installations.[22] Over one million Israelis lived in bomb shelters and about 300,000 temporarily left their homes and sought refuge in the south. Olmert was very wrong in stating on August 3, 2006, that the war could not be measured by counting thenumber of missiles falling on Israel.[23] The continuous barrage of Katyushas at Israel's northern cities supported Hezbollah's claim to victory. Only in the last stages of the war did the attempt to limit the Katyusha salvoes become an operational goal. Israel's failure to allocate sufficient funds towards the development of an adequate missile defense system to provide protection against the Hezbollah threat was a strategic mistake. While Israeli military industries mastered several technological responses against short-range missiles, Israel had refrained from turning them operational. Only after the war, in February 2007, did the Ministry of Defense approve the development of defensive weapon systems against short- and intermediate-range missiles. The newly-approved Rafael Armament Development Authority's Iron Dome and Magic Wand systems will eventually defend against Qassam rockets, short-range Katyushas, and medium-range Iranian-made Zelzal missiles while existing Arrow missiles can protect Israel from longer-range Syrian and Iranian missiles. Over-reliance on airpower was another strategic folly. While the IDF had long invested in its airpower, until the 1990s, it believed land forces to be critical for victory. Yet, after the 1991 Kuwait war, many military strategists, not only in the United States, but also elsewhere, began to consider airpower to be seductive.[24] Among political leaders, airpower is especially tempting. It offers great destructive capability without high risk in home casualties. Maj. Gen. (res.) Eitan Ben-Eliyahu, former chief of the Israeli air force, admitted that the fixation with new technologies was addictive and obscured thinking.[25] The Israeli Air Force leadership convinced Israeli politicians that they could expand their military role beyond traditional air missions and cope effectively with new security challenges. Halutz had commanded the air force between April 2000 and July 2004, and his enthusiasm for airpower was unequivocal.[26] As chief of staff, Halutz planned cuts in the IDF's ground forces and emphasized reliance on the air force.[27] The IDF sought to tackle low-intensity conflict with a combination of airpower and special forces.[28] Yuval Steinitz, former chair of the Knesset (parliament)'s Committee on Security and Foreign Affairs, questioned the wisdom of giving airpower such a high priority on both a budgetary and a doctrinaire level,[29] but he was the exception rather than the rule. Over-sensitivity to casualties also hampered Israeli operations. Maj. Gen. Elazar Stern, head of the IDF's manpower branch, complained after the war that the IDF did not complete some missions due to casualties, [30] an assessment with which Maj. Gen. (res.) Yoram Yair, head of one of the postwar IDF inquiry committees, agreed.[31] During the war, Halutz opposed a ground incursion into Lebanon as anything but the last resort.[32] Even when Olmert and Peretz decided to insert special forces into Lebanon to deal with the Katyusha threat, Halutz resisted a large-scale land operation.[33] His hesitation enabled Hezbollah to continue its rocket salvoes into Israel for a month. The reluctance to commit ground troops to battle betrays a gap between Israel's leadership and its people. Both political and military leaders misjudged the resilience of Israeli society. At the beginning of 2004, Ya'alon asserted that the weakest link in Israel's national defense was the lack of public stamina.[34] While vice premier in 2005, Olmert said, "We are tired of fighting; we are tired of being courageous; we are tired of winning; we are tired of defeating our enemies." [35] The current chief of the Northern Command, Maj. Gen. Benny Ganz, said that while worried about Hezbollah's missiles, he was more concerned about the ability of Israeli society to withstand the pressures of war.[36] Such concerns were misplaced. Israeli society demonstrated high stamina, even during wars of attrition. Israelis did not surrender to the post-September 2000 Palestinian terror campaign,[37] a sentiment reflected in recent polls.[38] Israeli society would have been willing to absorb greater casualties to bring an effective end to the Hezbollah threat. Even parents who had lost a child in the Hezbollah war backed its expansion. Nor did combat unit recruitment suffer because of the war.[39] The cost of the Israeli leadership's miscalculation of societal strength goes beyond opportunities lost. Israel's reluctance to commit troops to battle signaled weakness. The widespread perception within the Arab world that Israeli society is sensitive to the loss of human life invites aggression. It was such a perception that motivated Palestinians to renew their terror campaign in September 2000.[40] Unrealistic Goals Unrealistic goals compounded poor preparation. Israeli political and military leaders erred in their belief that Israeli pressure on Hezbollah and the weak Lebanese government could generate a political process in which the Lebanese army could achieve a monopoly over the use of force in Lebanon.[41] From the earliest stages of the war, Israeli leaders insisted that they could encourage Lebanon to become a regular state and that the Israeli army could crush Hezbollah's Lebanese state-within-a-state. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert saw force as instrumental to implementing UNSCR 1559, which called for strengthening the central government in Lebanon by both removing foreign forces and disbanding militias.[42] He stated that the military operation constituted "an almost unique opportunity to change the rules in Lebanon."[43] Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni declared that the goal of the campaign was "to promote a process that will bring about a long-term and fundamental change in the political reality" and to create a regime in Lebanon that would be responsible for its entire territory.[44] She argued that the harder the IDF hit Hezbollah, the easier it would be for the Lebanese government and the world to implement UNSCR 1559.[45] Peretz's statement that Israel would not end its campaign until reality changed in Lebanon reflected the broad view of the Israeli political leadership.[46] The military from at least the time of Ya'alon's tenure as chief-of-staff accepted the same logic. Both Maj. Gen. Gadi Eizencott, chief of operations in the general staff, and Brig. Gen. (res.) Yossi Kuperwasser, former director of research at the IDF intelligence branch, believed that Israel's use of force could change the political equation in Lebanon.[47] From the first day of the campaign, Halutz advocated attacking infrastructure beyond southern Lebanon to pressure the Lebanese government to counter Hezbollah.[48] This logic of transformation through force was reminiscent of the earlier attempt to transform Lebanese society through force. In 1982, Israeli officials sought not only to expel the Palestinian Liberation Organization but also to normalize relations with Beirut and its newly-empowered government. In the contemporary Middle East, though, force seldom creates a new political environment.[49] For years after signing the Oslo accords, Israeli politicians turned a blind eye to Palestinian Authority actions rather than acknowledge that Yasir Arafat's administration did not live up to its agreements. In Lebanon, Israeli leaders might have adopted more modest goals. Rather than seek to change Lebanon's reality, they might have instead sought only to eviscerate Hezbollah's ability to harm Israel. Fear of escalation clouded Olmert's strategic judgment. On the first day of the conflict, Mossad chief Maj. Gen. Meir Dagan recommended the Israeli air force target Syrian sites.[50] Instead, Olmert sought to placate. Israeli leaders repeatedly said Israel had no intention of expanding its military activities to target Syria.[51] Peretz even called for a renewal of peace negotiations with Syria.[52] Even when Hezbollah was launching Syrian missiles at Israeli cities, Israeli military officials announced that retaliating against Syria was not under consideration.[53] Rather than pressure Damascus to stop its resupply of missiles to Hezbollah, such statements, in effect, blessed the Syrian government's proxy warfare. Such rhetoric contrasted sharply with past practice when the threat of escalation coerced Israel's adversaries into accepting its conditions. The Syrian government was susceptible to such pressure. After the February 14, 2005 assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, apparently at the Syrian leadership's behest, joint condemnation by Washington, Paris, and Riyadh reverberated through Damascus. Israeli officials enjoyed similar sympathy after Hezbollah initiated the summer 2006 conflict. At the Group of Eight (G8) heads of states meeting in St. Petersburg, Russia, on July 17, 2006, an open microphone caught U.S. president George W. Bush saying that they needed "Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit."[54] But, Israel's military restraint cost it an opportunity to eliminate Syria's long-range missile capability. The risks of regional escalation were minimal. Iran was in no position to intervene directly. Tehran, rushing to complete its nuclear program, did not want to create a pretext for international action against it. A successful campaign against Syria could have weakened Hezbollah and might even have strengthened the Lebanese government more than destroying Lebanese infrastructure did. An Israeli strike against Syrian targets would have signaled Israel's determination to deal with terrorist and proxy threats, enhancing Israeli deterrence. It would have also diminished both Iranian influence in the region and Tehran's ability to retaliate through Hezbollah in the event that its nuclear installations were attacked. Bungling the Aftermath How Israel ended the war augmented its failure. UNSCR 1701 marked the first time in Israeli history that Jerusalem had sought a U.N. resolution to end a war. Jerusalem's involvement in drafting the Security Council resolution reflected a new, misplaced faith in the U.N. Israeli foreign minister Livni said that prevention of Syrian arms transfers to Hezbollah,[55] the group's disarmament, and an overhaul of the U.N. forces in southern Lebanon were among Israel's requirements for a cease-fire. The Israeli foreign ministry sought to replace the ineffective United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), deployed there since 1978, with a more "robust" international force,[56] at least in the interim period before the Lebanese army could deploy southward and exert its authority over all Lebanese territory.[57] According to Livni, the Israeli government expected the U.N. contingent to have coercive military capability to enable it "to control the passages on the Lebanese-Syrian border, to aid the Lebanese army in deploying properly, and to fully implement UNSCR 1559, particularly in disarming the Hezbollah."[58] Olmert initially sought to have the Lebanese army deploy its forces southward. In a meeting with Israeli diplomats on July 18, he said that the idea of an international force was "a good headline" but that Israel's experience "shows that there is nothing behind it."[59] Yet, after learning of the weakness of the Lebanese army, he agreed to deploy a U.N. force instead. The Israeli military concurred that an international force in south Lebanon and a U.N.-imposed arms embargo could be effective.[60] But the U.N. mandate determines that in the event that UNIFIL personnel come across caches of weapons or gunmen, they should call upon the Lebanese army to handle the situation. The European-enhanced UNIFIL not only shows little inclination to use force to implement UNSCR 1701 but also hampers Israeli monitoring of weapons trafficking across the Lebanese-Syrian border. The French government, for example, denounced Israeli flights over Lebanon to monitor continuing violations of the arms embargo by Hezbollah. On October 19, 2006, the French commander of UNIFIL even threatened to shoot at Israeli planes if they came too close to his troops.[61] A few days later, Berlin complained that Israeli planes had taken aim at one of their ships.[62] Unfortunately, the U.N. favors ineffectiveness over conflict. Secretary-general Kofi Annan advocated "flexibility" in the deployment of UNIFIL along the Syria-Lebanon border,[63] in effect blessing non-enforcement. Damascus has continued to funnel arms to Hezbollah, something that both prominent Lebanese officials and the U.S. government acknowledge.[64] By November 2006, according to Israeli military officials, Hezbollah had replenished nearly half of its prewar stockpiles of short-range missiles and small arms.[65] In December 2006, Mossad chief Meir Dagan told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Syria continued to arm Hezbollah and sought to overthrow the independent-leaning Lebanese government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.[66] While the new UNIFIL might be no more effective than its pre-2006 incarnation, its damaging impact is greater. It now not only restricts possible Israeli action against Hezbollah but also creates a precedent for an international force in the West Bank and/or Gaza, a move long sought by the Palestinian Liberation Organization that successive Israeli governments have resisted. Conclusions When war erupted in summer 2006, Israel enjoyed overwhelming military superiority and favorable political conditions. However, its strategic follies and operational deficiencies resulted in a faltering, indecisive war. The Israeli military could have administered a serious blow to Hezbollah from the air during the first few days of the war or, alternatively, destroyed most of Hezbollah's military presence in southern Lebanon with a large land invasion. Unfortunately, Israel's political and military leadership had no clear concept of what victory over Hezbollah entailed. Israel squandered an important opportunity to settle regional scores. It left unchecked Iran's apparent efforts to expand Shi'I influence in Lebanon and left untouched Syria's potential for mischief in Lebanon. Hezbollah's resilience against the Israeli bombardment emboldened it to withstand future Israeli assaults, and Israel's failure to succeed emboldened regional radicals. Israel is a strong state, but it can ill-afford such failure. It lives in a dangerous neighborhood in which military might is the guarantee for survival. Halutz has initiated an intensive and comprehensive inquiry process and resigned. In the past, the IDF has proved its capacity to learn from its mistakes and improve. Some deficiencies can be easily corrected. Increases in the defense budget could provide the means to implement some lessons learned, for example, longer training for reserve units and procurement of better weapon systems. Less easy to correct are deficiencies in strategic thinking. Post-modern notions have blurred the strategic clarity of Israel's political leadership and its defense and foreign affairs establishment. The economic cost of building a strong military force may be high, but it is not an optional expense. Too often, wishful thinking supplants reality. Should Israeli officials recognize their mistakes, however, they will find much with which to restore unquestioned Israeli regional deterrence. The war demonstrated that Israel is a strong state. It has the spirit to fight. Its soldiers won each encounter with Hezbollah. The Israeli home front displayed great resilience, and Israel's economy continued to bloom. With adequate preparation, Jerusalem might attain a clear victory in the next round, which, however unfortunate, the outcome of the 2006 war makes inevitable. Footnotes [1] For a chronology of Hezbollah attacks and incursions, see "Hizbullah Attacks along Israel's Northern Border May 2000 - June 2006," Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, June 1, 2006. [2] Ha'aretz (Tel Aviv), July 24, 2006. [3] See Eyal Zisser, "Hezbollah & Israel: Strategic Threat on the Northern Border," Israel Affairs, Jan. 2006, pp. 86-106. [4] Ariella Ringel-Hoffman, "Time Works against Us," Yedi'ot Aharonot (Tel Aviv), July 5, 2002. [5] Ari Shavit, "Colleagues Undermine You," Ha'aretz, Aug. 8, 2003. [6] See the interview with Yuval Steinitz, Defense News, Jan. 29, 2007; comments of Aharon Zeevi-Farkash, former chief of the intelligence branch of the IDF, Channel 2 (Jerusalem), Nov. 5, 2006. [7] The Jerusalem Post, July 21, 2006. [8] The Jerusalem Post, July 13, 2007. [9] The Jerusalem Post, June 26, 2007. [10] Ilan Kfir, Haadama Raasha (Tel Aviv: Ma'ariv, 2006), pp. 21, 23. [11] The Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2006. [12] Resolution text:"Situation in the Middle East," UNSC Resolution 1701, U.N. NY, Aug. 11, 2006. [13] Zeev Schiff and Ehud Yaari, Milhememet Sholal (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 1984), pp. 380-8.[14] 104 Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Events at the Refugee Camps in Beirut (The Kahan Commission), Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Feb. 8, 1983. [15] Ofer Shelah and Yoav Limor, Shvuyim Bilvanon (Tel Aviv: Miskal, 2007), p. 128. [16] Ha'aretz, Nov. 29, 2006. [17] Kfir, Haadama Raasha, p. 178. [18] Ha'aretz, Nov. 4, 2006. [19] Zeev Schiff, "Let Us Be Realistic," Ha'aretz, Oct. 20, 2006. [20] Ha'aretz, Feb. 16, 2007. [21] Shelah and Limor, Shvuyim Bilvanon, p. 160. [22] For a detailed analysis of the Katyusha attacks, see Uzi Rubin, "The Rocket Attacks on Northern Israel during the Summer of 2006", Mideast Security and Policy Studies (Ramat Gan: The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, forthcoming). [23] Kfir, Haadama Raasha, p. 189. [24] Eliot A. Cohen, "The Mystique of U.S. Air Power," Foreign Affairs, Jan./Feb. 1994, pp. 109-24. [25] Eitan Ben-Eliyahu, public lecture, Tel Aviv University, Dec. 19, 2006; Meir Finkel, "The Rites of Technology in the IDF -- Return the Balance to the Land Build-Up," Maarachot, June 2006, p 40-5. [26] Biton Heil Haavir, Israeli Air Force, May 2000, p. 7. [27] Shelah and Limor, Shvuyim Bilvanon, p. 137. [28] Shmuel Gordon, The Vulture and the Snake, Mideast Security and Policy Studies, no. 39 (Ramat Gan: Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University, July 1998). [29] Yuval Steinitz, "The Sea as Israel's Strategic Depth," Maarachot, May 2002; idem, "It Is Missiles," Maarachot, Dec. 2005, pp. 70-4. [30] Ha'aretz, Nov. 4, 2006. [31] Ha'aretz, Oct. 18, 2006. [32] The Jerusalem Post, July 20, 2006; Kfir, Haadama Raasha, p. 293; Shelah and Limor, Shvuyim Bilvanon, pp. 118. [33] Ha'aretz, Jan. 23, 2007. [34] Ha'aretz, Jan. 13, 2004. [35] Ehud Olmert, remarks, Israel Policy Forum Tribute Dinner, New York, June 9, 2005. [36] "The Chief of the Northern Command: The Struggle of the Right Is More Dangerous than theHezbollah Missiles," Globes (Tel Aviv), Jan. 11, 2005. [37] Avi Kober, "From Blitzkrieg to Attrition: Israel's Attrition Strategy and Staying Power," Small Wars and Insurgencies, June 2005, pp. 216-40; Meir Elran, "Israel's National Resilience. The Influence of the Second Intifada on Israeli Society," memorandum 81 (Tel Aviv: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Jan. 2006); Nadav Morag, "The Economic and Social Effects of Terrorism: Israel, 2000-2004," Middle East Review of International Affairs, Sept. 2006. [38] "Maagar Mochot" poll reported by Israeli radio Reshet Bet, Dec. 28, 2006. [39] The Jerusalem Post, Nov. 19, 2006. [40] Amos Harel and Avi Isacharoff, Hamilchama Hashviit (Tel Aviv: Miskal, 2004), p. 54. [41] Schiff, "Let Us Be Realistic." [42] Ehud Olmert, Knesset statement, July 17, 2006, official transcript, p. 2; UNSC resolution 1559. [43] Ehud Olmert, statement to heads of municipalities, July 31, 2006, official transcript, p. 4. [44] Tzipi Livni & Javier Solana, EU envoy, news conference, July 19, 2006; Tzipi Livni, statement to the Knesset, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Aug. 8, 2006; The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 24, 2006. [45] The Jerusalem Post, July 20, 2006. [46] The Jerusalem Post, July 17, 2006. [47] "Interview with Yossi Kuperwasser," Hatzofe (Tel Aviv), Oct. 20, 2006, p. 7-8; Shelah and Limor, Shvuyim Bilvanon, p. 50; Ha'aretz, Sept. 15, 2006. [48] Kfir, Haadama Raasha, p. 22; Shelah and Limor, Shvuyim Bilvanon, p. 50. [49] For a discussion of attaining goals, see Avi Kober, "Israeli War Objectives into an Era of Negativism," Journal of Strategic Studies, June 2001, pp. 176-201. [50] Kfir, Haadama Raasha, p. 22; Shelah and Limor, Shvuyim Bilvanon, p. 51. [51] Channel 7 News (Ofra), July 26, 2006; The Jerusalem Post, July 28, 2006. [52] MSN News, Aug. 15, 2006.[53] The Jerusalem Post, July 19, 2006. [54] The Jerusalem Post, July 18, 2006. [55] Tzipi Livni, foreign minister, Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to the Knesset, Aug. 8, 2006. [56] Ha'aretz, Oct. 1, 2006. [57] The Jerusalem Post, July 19, 2006. [58] "Interview with Yossi Kuperwasser," Hatzofe. [59] The Jerusalem Post, July 19, 2006. [60] Shelah and Limor, Haadama Raasha, p. 167; "Interview with Yossi Kuperwasser," Hatzofe. [61] Yedi'ot Aharonot, Oct. 20, 2006. [62] The Jerusalem Post, Oct. 28, 2006. [63] Ha'aretz, Aug. 31, 2006. [64] The Washington Times, Nov. 1, 2006. [65] Time, Nov. 24, 2006. [66] Ynet, Dec. 18, 2006. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at winstonmedia@comcast.net To Go To Top

ISRAEL: OBSTACLE OR KEY TO JEWISH IDENTITY? Posted by Moshe Feiglin, April 30, 2007.

On the morning of the recent Holocaust Memorial Day, Israel announced that it would allow the transfer of fifty million dollars worth of weapons to the personal security force of PA President Abu Mazen. Does anyone doubt that these weapons will ultimately be used against us? Reality has proven time and again that Jews are murdered as a result of these weapons transfers. So why do we allow them to continue? "How did the Jews of the Holocaust era allow the Germans to do what they did?" the brave Israelis arrogantly proclaimed. "After all, those Jews knew where they were being led." And what about us? We clearly understand that Jews will be killed with these weapons. What are we doing about it? It seems that as we mark the 59th year of Israel's independence, the blood of the Jewish People is still cheap. The prevailing thought is that It is only natural that the Arabs of Gaza must be supplied with weapons and that in half a year or so those weapons will kill Jews. Then we will supply them with more weapons to protect us from the weapons that we gave them today, that were supposed to protect us from the weapons that we gave them yesterday. That's just the way it is; we have no control over it. We must come to terms with this Russian roulette and absolve ourselves of any responsibility and hope that we or our loved ones will not pay the price. Luckily, we can still demonstrate. And there actually were demonstrations just before Holocaust Memorial Day. They were even stormy. However, these demonstrations were only about the rise in university tuition. Were there demonstrations against the weapons being transferred to Gaza? About the Jews that will die? No. Why demonstrate? It is a fact of life that a certain percentage of Jews will be killed in terrorist attacks. It is like the sun that rises in the east. Have you ever seen a demonstration against the rising of the sun? After Israel's news announced the weapons transfer, Holocaust survivor and former Knesset Speaker Dov Shilanski was interviewed. "For me," he said, "the State of Israel is the guarantee that the Holocaust will never happen again." I deeply respect Dov Shilanski, but I can not understand the basis of his opinion: Israel's military strength? That has turned out to be disappointing, at the very least. Anyone who can't figure out why should drive over to Sderot and watch the Arab rockets falling like rain every day. And what about the exile mentality that has supposedly ended? It has only gotten worse. We have recently encountered a new Iranian mass-murderer who unabashedly announces his intentions to destroy Israel: "Why do the Arabs have to pay the price of your Holocaust?" And the brave, new Israelis have no answer. They are helpless. According to all logic, Shilanski is wrong. The State of Israel that denies its own heritage is leading us toward another Holocaust. If I did not believe in G-d, I would get my family out of Israel post haste. But I believe in the G-d of Israel and His Nation. I believe that G-d's will is that we remain in Israel. I believe in the Torah and in the prophecies that reassure us that the final redemption will be eternal. The question is not if we will survive, but what will be the price. And that depends on us. When we flee our Jewish identity and destiny, our enemies flourish. I believe that when we connect to our national identity, new, fresh forces of life awaken within our Nation. It is then that we will understand the importance and power of our State. We will understand that although the State of Israel has been used to deny our Jewish destiny, it is actually the tool that will express it. When we connect to our destiny, we will do much more than merely exist or survive. We will thrive. And no one will dare dream of destroying Israel. Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. or send an email to news@jewishisrael.org To Go To Top

SHAKY TIMES Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 30, 2007.

Shameful. There is no other word for it: The conclusions of interim report on the conduct of the War in Lebanon, as presented by Judge Eliyahu Winograd, who chaired the committee charged with the investigation. I knew it, and yet facing it now, I find it still takes my breath away, as it must the breath of most persons in this nation. Olmert "formulated his stance without a second thought, without being presented with a detailed military plan, without considering the complex conditions of fighting in Lebanon. There was no organized consultation with others, mainly outside of army, despite his lack of diplomatic and military experience. "The prime minister is responsible for failing to clearly set out the aims of the war, and for there not being a clear definition of aims of war and ways to achieve them...All of these factors come together to form a serious failure of judgment, responsibility, and caution. "The decision to go forward with a harsh, immediate military response was not taken on the basis of a well-planned strategy.... "The IDF's response would result in massive fire on the home front, which the IDF didn't have an answer to. There was no information on the state of the army, despite the need for such information. "The IDF didn't show creativity in making options available. It didn't demand that reserves be called up, which would have allowed them to be trained and equipped ahead of a needed ground operation. "The main responsibility for these severe failures are placed on the prime minister, the defense minister, and the former chief of staff. Had they acted differently, the results would have been different. .." Peretz, says Winograd, had no experience in military procedures, yet made decisions unilaterally without consulting others or compensating for his lack of knowledge. Chief of Staff Halutz's "culpability is made more severe in light of the fact that he knew that the prime minister and the defense minister had no experience." He led them to believe that the army was ready when it wasn't..."he did not act with responsibility, good judgment, and professionalism." Winograd said "many others" share culpability for this state of affairs. He pointed to the previous governments that had allowed Hezbollah to strengthen at our border..."The ability of Hezbollah to sit on the border, and dictate the level of escalation, was made possible by the 2000 retreat of the IDF from southern Lebanon..." Winograd also faulted the rest of the government (i.e., the ministers) who exhibited "unjustified faith in the decision makers." "For 25 years, there [hadn't] been a war. The IDF was not ready for war, for a number of reasons, among them being that the political and military leaders decided that the age of wars [had] ended, and that the IDF had enough deterrence power... "We believe that we must look beyond the decision making failures, at these issues which form central questions, raised by the Lebanon War. These are the questions standing at the heart of our existence as a Jewish and democratic state." Please G-d, let this serve as a signal lesson, so that next time will be different. Let us move to a healing of the nation. ~~~~~~~~~~ What will happen now? I cannot yet say. I have no crystal ball, only my deepest hopes. Are Olmert and Peretz, along with the coalition, so shameless, so without sense of responsibility, that they will maneuver and fight to stay in power in spite of this report? Without a doubt. Kadima ministers have met in special session and are formulating responses. Olmert went into the meeting declaring, "The last thing the nation needs is early elections." In fact, he actually said, "It would be wrong" for him to resign, as if he's being noble to refrain from doing so. Peres agreed, saying "Elections would serve no purpose." From other members of the coalition we're also starting to see the spin: This is a chance to correct things, let's not make this political. Let's focus on the future, not the past. Let's not give Nasrallah a victory by bringing down the government. It is a positive thing if changes are made within the system that was criticized. Olmert plans to appoint a special committee from within the cabinet tomorrow to review the report. But this doesn't mean the clamor will not be such that ultimately the government will have to fall. Reports are that Olmert's opponents are waiting for the final Winograd report which will be released this summer and promises to be even more damning. YNet cited one unnamed "Kadima official" as saying: the report "did Prime Minister Ehud Olmert a favor. Now he can go home of his own accord, or he'll be sent home in July. The report is extremely clear. It allows Olmert to pack up his things himself. Only someone illiterate wouldn't understand the Winograd report." And Dan Halutz, who resigned as Chief of Staff said: "I didn't shrug off my responsibility for the military's performance on others, and I condemn anybody else's effort to evade responsibility." ~~~~~~~~~~ In recent days, as other members of Olmert's Kadima party rushed to defend him, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has been silent. This has not escaped notice, and her claims of just being distracted by other matters or whatever are not playing well. I am hearing that -- whatever happens to him -- Olmert is sufficiently irritated that he would move to block Livni from taking his place. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to Attorney Yossi Fuchs -- a very fine lawyer and expert on constitutional law -- this is the scenario as it may unfold: Fuchs says that Olmert must resign because the precedent has been set by the Kahn Commission that investigated Sabra and Shatila in 1982. The Commission declared that one who is "found to bear ministerial responsibility for a grave security or political fiasco, must resign or be fired" -- and Ariel Sharon, who was found responsible for not preventing the Sabra and Shatila massacre, resigned immediately. Says Fuchs, the Kahn Commission had status as a governmental commission of inquiry, a status that the Winograd Committee (a review committee) was not endowed with on its establishment. However, in response to a suit that was brought, the Government of Israel stated that the Committee would have the same authorities as those of a governmental commission of inquiry. (This, I must add, is an issue I've seen much debated of late.) Therefore, if Olmert does not resign within a reasonable length of time, Fuchs and others will file a suit in the High Court to force him to do so. Will this play? It depends on the High Court. I would not hold my breath, although Fuchs had some marked successes with suits filed on behalf of the residents of Gush Katif after their expulsion. In any event, Fuchs says that it is not just Olmert who would resign. According to Clause 19 of Basic Law (Israel functions with basic law, not a written constitution), if the prime minister resigns, the entire government resigns with him. Livni now has the title of Acting Prime Minister, but that only applies if the prime minister falls ill, not in a situation such as this. She cannot just step into Olmert's place and carry on. The president -- in this instance Acting President Dalia Itzik -- then selects an MK to establish a new government. Normally the MK most likely to be able to formulate a new coalition is selected, and, undoubtedly, Netanyahu is waiting for this moment. But the choice is strictly up to the president. (In theory, if Livni were to be awarded leadership of the Kadima party via an internal process, I imagine she could be called upon. However, her election as successor to Olmert is not a certain thing -- as others would vie for this position and Olmert would presumably block her to the best of his ability.) During the interim of time allocated to the MK for formulating a new government, the old government stays in place. If the MK fails to form a new government, elections would be held. ~~~~~~~~~~ Joke of the day: I read a statement made by PM Abbas, indicating that he hopes the Winograd Committee results will not interfere with the peace process. ~~~~~~~~~~ Doesn't seem to me that Abbas is doing his part for the "peace process." According to a report released today by the Middle East News Line, even after receiving training and new equipment from the US, Abbas's Presidential Guard is failing in its role at the border between Gaza and Egypt. Guard commanders are reluctant to use force to stop Palestinian infiltrators into Gaza (who may be terrorists or may be smuggling material) -- especially if they are from Fatah. Just a few days ago Fatah gunmen attacked the security forces at the Rafah Crossing. The lessons here are significant (if only the US were to learn them): It is impossible to effectively bolster forces "loyal" to Abbas in actions against other Palestinians. ~~~~~~~~~~ The IDF operating in Nablus last night, found a bomb ready to be set off and dismantled it. Meanwhile, 17 Palestinian Arab fugitives throughout Judea and Samaria were arrested. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info To Go To Top

CRITERIA FOR RELEASING TERRORISTS Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 30, 2007.

THE MIRACLE CONTINUES The Arabs keep firing missiles at Siderot, but most still land in fields and the rest cause few casualties (latest was 4/10, reported in IMRA). LIBERAL BIAS LEADS TO TERRORISM No wonder some American youth support terrorism or become terrorists! At least (which is more reasonable), no wonder many American college students have no respect for authority -- many American textbooks are biased against America. Popular textbook author Howard Zinn writes that a wealthy elite benefited from WWII. (Japan attacked the US and the Axis would have murdered millions more people, if the Allies did not stop them. Those millions benefited.) Claiming that Abraham Lincoln signed bills that catered to business lobbyists, Mr. Zinn derides the Emancipation Proclamation as without moral decency. (I don't know about the business legislation, but that would not degrade the value of the Emancipation.) Zinn explains his purpose, that if recruits knew "the history of lies and violence that have accompanied American foreign policy, they would not be enticed into joining the armed forces" (Alicia Colon, NY Sun, 4/10, p.2). How the pendulum has swung away from the exaggerated praise for America in my school days, which I was skeptical of! There are negatives and positives about American history. History books should not stress the one or the other but be objective. We are not responsible for what people did in totally different eras. For example, the US is not bad now for having had slavery long ago. Our past age of imperialism has been incorrectly cited as evidence against our intervention in Iraq, which intervention is not imperialistic. ISRAELI CRITERIA FOR RELEASING TERRORIST PRISONERS Instead of killing off the terrorists until the remaining ones release the one prisoner of the P.A., Israel is considering another lopsided exchange of many terrorists for him (although half the terrorists released resume terrorism and kill more Israelis). The question then becomes which ones to release. The government used to set as its criteria that it may, in good conscience, release only those without "blood on their hands." What does that mean? (1) Terrorists whose raids did not succeed in drawing blood, would be released for another attempt, this time perhaps successful. (2) Suicide bombers usually die in their own blast. The several members of their cells who ordered, planned, and arranged the bombings do not literally have blood on their hands. They could be released, too, although they are more responsible for the war crimes than the minions who actually set off the explosions. Now, however, the government is considering releasing convicted murderers (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 4/10). Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@verizon.net To Go To Top

WHY THE PEACEFUL MAJORITY IS IRRELEVANT Posted by Fred Reifenberg, April 29, 2007.

This was written by Paul E. Marek and it was published on March 18, 2007 in Arutz Sheva (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6996). At the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, can contribute to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.

History lessons are often incredibly simple. I used to know a man whose family were German aristocracy prior to World War II. They owned a number of large industries and estates. I asked him how many German people were true Nazis, and the answer he gave has stuck with me and guided my attitude toward fanaticism ever since. "Very few people were true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories." We are told again and again by experts and talking heads that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars world wide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or execute honor killings. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard, quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority" is the "silent majority," and it is cowed and extraneous. Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people. The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war-mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across Southeast Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians - most killed by sword, shovel and bayonet. And who can forget Rwanda, which collapsed into butchery? Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"? History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt; yet, for all our powers of reason, we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because, like my friend from Germany, they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Bosnians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us, watching it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life. Editor's Note: This was a comment by a reader of the original article: "Moderate"? "Peace-Loving"? How about "lazy"? Let's get this straight. Jihad, according to the Koran, is a POSITIVE MIZVAH. All Moslems everywhere are obligated as a collective entity to wage war upon Dar al-Harb "until there is no more tumult, nor oppression, and the religion is for Allah". In other words, until the subjugation of the entire world under the banner of Islam. Further, when any territory that formerly belonged to Dar al-Islam falls back under the control of Dar al-Harb (e.g. Spain, India, Sicily, the French Riviera, portions of the Alps, most of the Balkans and, oh yes, Eretz Israel), it is an OBLIGATORY INDIVIDUAL IMPERATIVE for every Moslem to PERSONALLY participate in Jihad until the territory is reconquered. This is Islam. There is no school of Islamic jurisprudence that disagrees with this. So, what, pray tell, is a Moslem "moderate"? Any Moslem "moderate" is as Moslem as a reform "rabbi" is a rabbi. mike, Vienna, VA (21/03/07) See Fred Reifenberg's photo art on his website: http://fredslinksblogspotcom.blogspot.com/ To Go To Top

IS THERE ANYTHING TO CELEBRATE? Posted by Steven Shamrak, April 29, 2007.

Celebrating Independence 59 years ago, the Jews were finally able take control over part of the Jewish ancestral land and create the State of Israel. It was a time of national climax and the triumph of modern Zionism. We lost 1% of the Jewish population in Palestine during the Independence war later, and were not able to retrieve most of the Jewish land. But nothing could dim the fact that after 2000 years of life in exile, Jews were once again in charge of their land! At this moment, during the celebration of our independence, the current gutless and traitorous political leadership of the country is talking about "painful sacrifice". We had already made them in 1922, by letting Britain to cut off Trans-Jordan and the Golan Heights, respectively 77% and 5% of our land; in 1948, by agreeing on a ridiculous maze-map the left over crumbs that the UN had allocated for Jews in order to facilitate 'Holocaust-2' by Arab states. Now Olmert is paving the way for more concessions to the Arab terrorists. It will create more demands from Arabs and more Jewish lives will be lost. Nothing will please the enemies of the Jewish people, Arabs and other 'well-wishers', until they extort the final 'concession' -- destruction of Israel! Under unyielding pressure from the International anti-Semitic hypocrisy, Israel has made an endless string of concessions and sacrifices during the past 59 years. Unfortunately the pressure has been severe during the last two decades. And the corrupt, aimless and gutless leadership of Israel was not able to resist it. As a result, Israel has being ruled by people with no integrity or national character! At the moment, the Jews are in a worse position than we were in 1948. The years of political impotence, corruption and selfishness have only brought the denigration of our national, moral and spiritual identity. With a weak Israel, we are experiencing the rise of the international anti-Semitism conducted by Muslims and the predominately Left political spectrum. The Jews in Israel and the Jewish communities worldwide have been continuously losing their national identity Self-criticism has become the national trait; support of true Zionism is highly unpopular among Jews. Jews have nothing to be proud about or celebrate this year! Israel must shake off its "they will not allow us" mentality and elect a new, vibrant, nationalistic government, which is prepared to end the hypocrisy forever and re-unite all Jewish land and Jewish people. Only then will Jews have something to celebrate next year! Food for Thought The process of restoration of the Jewish state in Palestine started long before the WW-2. Creation of the state of Israel, contrary to Muslim and anti-Semitic propaganda, is not a result of Holocaust. It is the conclusion of many years of relentless Zionist work and of the League of Nation resolution of 1922, which unfortunately was highly distorted by anti-Semitically inclined world powers. More Criminal Offences? Ehud Olmert is facing a third criminal probe after a government watchdog's recommendation that police investigate his role in granting a multimillion-dollar loan to a former business partner. Mr Olmert is already being probed about allegations that while he was finance minister he tried to influence the sale of the Israeli State's stake in a major bank, Bank Leumi. The comptroller is also investigating how Mr Olmert came to acquire a house in Jerusalem's up market German Colony area from an overseas backer. (It is time to clean the house of the rubbish!) Fostering Thuggery in IDF. MK Tzvi Hendel (NRP/National Union) has asked the Chairman of the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to investigate what he calls the army's "scandalous behavior" towards thousands of people who marched to Homesh on Independence Day. "Not allowing drinking water to get through to the people, including women and children; prevention of medical treatment to marchers who fainted..." "A unmistakable political stench emanates from these draconian decisions," Hendel wrote in his letter, "and they were manifest in the soldiers' vulgar behavior towards the marchers..." Security Fence -- Traitor's Admission. During a recent meeting UN representative Livni admitted that while local Arabs often complain that the fence will hurt their chances to build a state in the area, the fence actually promotes their goal. (There is no more pretence that by building the fence, Kadima traitors care about the lives of Jews in Israel. It was covert plan of surrender and betrayal from the beginning!) Facing Second War of Independence. MK Israel Hasson (Israel Our Home) stated that former Balad MK Azmi Bishara, who left Israel nearly three weeks ago and announced his resignation from the Knesset while in Egypt, would already be in prison in a "normal" country. "If we don't wake up now, we will have to fight for our independence again very soon. It will be a second war for independence against Israel's Arabs who will be supported by Hamas," he said. (Does anyone listen? But in the next war, we must set clear objective! Arabs view moderation as a weakness.) Cost of Oslo War. Arab terrorists have killed 864 Israelis and wounded more than 14,000 others since they launched the Oslo War, also known as the Second Intifada, in October 2000. The number of terrorism fatalities represents half of the 1,635 citizens who died in terrorist attacks since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. Sixty-six people in Israel died in terrorist attacks in the past year. (Killing Jews in Israel has become the sickening normality! Who needs the War when we have such a 'wonderful' Peace!) Quote of the Week: "The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized... Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."- Menachem Begin, the day after the U.N. vote to partition Palestine. 'Go to hell' from Moderate Muslim. Former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami has called for peaceful dialogue with the West, but cursed Israeli journalists who approached him at the sixth Eurasion Media Forum in Kazakhstan, saying, "Go to hell!" (Will the British National Union of Journalists (NUJ) vote for boycott of Iran for this despicable behaviour, as they did against Israel?) Truce or Convenience of Hudna. Hamas ended its 'truce' with Israel by firing 40 rockets and 70 mortars from Gaza, declaring an end to a five-month cease-fire which actually never existed - more than 230 rocket attacks were launched against Israel. A spokesman for Hamas' armed wing said "This is a message to the Zionist enemy that our strikes will continue. We are ready to kidnap more and more, and kill more and more of your soldiers." (This is a "hit and run" policy. Whenever Arabs want to, they break the truce, knowing that Olmert's government will welcome another Hudna! Yet again, Olmert has opted for another limited response to a major terror attack.) UN and PA Building on Jewish-Owned Land in Jerusalem. Land in Jerusalem owned by a Jewish group, estimated to be worth about $38 million, and purchased primarily using Jewish donor funds has been used for the illegal construction of dozens of Palestinian apartment buildings, a refugee camp and a United Nations school. The Jewish National Fund, which owns the properties, has done little to boot the Arab squatters from its land "One can almost say this is a fraud being perpetrated on the donors of this land. If the JNF doesn't do something about it, a message will be sent that we don't care that Arabs steal Jewish-donated land." said Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America. (These politically correct 'idiots' have been silent about Jewish-owned land left behind in Syria and Jordan, and selling out the Jewish dream in Israel now. But no one cares!) Was Elvis a Jew? In 1998, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled, "All Shook Up in the Holy Land" exposing Elvis Presley's unlikely Jewish lineage. Apparently, Elvis' maternal great-great grandmother, Nancy Burdine, was a Jew. Her daughter gave birth to Doll Mansell who gave birth to Gladys Smith who gave birth to Elvis. Although it sounds improbable, according to Jewish law, which confers Jewish lineage by way of the mother, (strangely) that makes Elvis Presley Jewish. (Rabbis and Israeli governments are unwilling define the Jewish land clearly. In order to avoid controversy, the issue of "Who is a Jew?" had been buried deep long ago! We will never achieve our goals by "keeping our heads in the sand"! Ambiguity creates uncertainty. Uncertainty destroys the people's will. Only well defined objectives are easily attainable!) Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement. For the last 3 years, he has been publishing internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict -- independently, not as a member of any organization or political movement. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com To Go To Top

CEASE PROCESS, NOT PEACE PROCESS Posted by Barry Rubin, April 29, 2007.

The world's approach to the Middle East is largely based on resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thousands of diplomatic hours, plane tickets, innocent reams of paper, and posh hotel rooms are being devoted to this effort. The pace of time, cost, and attention is accelerating. But what if the problem cannot be fixed, at least for decades? Doesn't this require serious thought? Instead, the actual, unpleasant, reality is denied. This approach, while ultimately unsatisfactory and even dangerous, makes some sense. Spending lots of time trying out various unworkable options might keep these issues from becoming worse. It also covers those who do so from being blamed for the inevitable failure and future crises we can expect. Still, there should be a lot more people explaining the true situation. Here is what we are told about the range of current policy options: - Talk a lot. A good dialogue never hurts and they might even serve food. So Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert will meet Palestinian Authority (PA) nominal chief executive Mahmoud Abbas every couple of weeks. No harm. Let's both sides look cooperative and eager for peace. But nothing will come out of this either. - Throw in lots of money. Estimates are that around $1.2 billion was given as aid to the PA last year. This is more than during several previous years before the declared sanctions against the Hamas-led regime, not including money smuggled in by Hamas itself. Palestinians are the biggest per capita aid recipients in the world, even in a period when aid has supposedly been reduced. And yet, this does not mean that Palestinians are living well. The aid disappears into corruption or paid to PA employees who do nothing useful or as welfare payments to people prevented by bad regime policies and chaos from anything economically productive. At best, aid maintains the status quo, thus preventing material pressure for change (a more moderate government, peace with Israel, a crackdown on corruption and lawlessness). At worst, it subsidizes terrorist gunmen, schools that teach Jews are sub-humans who should be killed, and continued Hamas rule. - Sanctions to put pressure for moderation, peace, and change. See previous item. If such sanctions have failed, it is partly because so much money is being provided any way. While there is an attempt to target the sanctions against Hamas itself, funds can simply be moved around too easily to really fulfill this goal. European governments seem to feel that aid originally provided on condition that the Palestinians achieve a full and lasting peace with Israel should continue after they have rejected this option. - Build up "moderate" Fatah to counter radical Hamas. This is a clever strategy, which would be very appropriate except for one small problem--Fatah does not support it. Of course, in saying this I don't mean that Fatah opposes Western help to itself (in fact, it is largely waiting around for outsiders to solve its problems and put it back into power.) The first problem is that Fatah is not doing anything to help itself. Since Hamas took power in January 2005, it is impossible to detect any effort by Fatah to reform itself, strengthen its leadership, fight corruption in its ranks, or develop its unity. All the shortcomings that led Fatah to defeat in the January 2005 elections are still present. Nobody can save an organization that acts as if it is so bent on its own destruction. The second problem is that Fatah's main strategy in "combating" Hamas is to imitate it. Not that everyone in Fatah is radical and certainly not Islamist. But aside from the statements of a few, including Mahmoud himself, there is no big difference between them. The third problem is that Fatah has accepted a role as Hamas' junior partner. The two groups are rivals. But at present, they are allies. - Make Hamas moderate. Take one percent of Hamas leaders' statements in English. Discard the rest and everything said by them in Arabic. Throw in the belief that no one can really be radical. Ignore the fact that they think they are divinely directed and need not change since they are winning. Mix well with ignorance and voila, Hamas Moderation Stew, makes millions of portions. So if the two-state solution won't work, what does one do? Here, too, there is a bad back-up plan: the one-state solution. Since the Palestinians have produced a failed state, this brilliant concept proposes that having wrecked Palestine, one might as well wreck Israel too. Sort of expand outward the corruption, hatred, violence, and chaos. No, thanks. However, the good news is that since this is unsolvable, the Middle East, with whatever appropriate help from the world, could try to solve a few other problems like terrorism, dictatorship, economic and social backwardness, inequality for women, inadequate educational systems, and so on. For now, however, we are out of space or I would tell you how the United States can simultaneously stabilize Iraq; win Iraqi Shia away from Iran; keep the Sunni happy; reconcile U.S with Iranian and Syrian interests; and defeat an insurgency by those happy to see the country leveled and millions murdered as long as they could claim to rule it. The true proper option, though this isn't going to happen, is to "decertify" the Palestinian movement. Since it did not deliver on its peace process promises and has essentially reverted to the pre-1993 policies (Hamas, actually, is back beyond 1974), the world should return to its positions of that era. That was when people understood that the movement sought to destroy Israel and was using terrorism. One day, was the hope, the movement would become moderate and a compromise solution could be negotiated with it. Until that happened, it would receive neither aid nor recognition. We're still waiting. Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. He is co-author of Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, (Oxford University Press). His latest book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, was published by Wiley in November 2005. Prof. Rubin's columns can be read online at: http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. To Go To Top

JEWISH WOMAN BRUTALIZED BY MUSLIM ARABS IN FRANCE Posted by Kannan Devan, April 29, 2007.

Discrimination, harassment and brutalization against Jewish people are on the increase in France because of emerging anti Semite groups and Holocaust deniers. Deniers simply refuse to admit that anti-Semites are a threat at all, and commonly accuse Jews as alarmists suffering from hysteria. Despite a global wave of attacks on Jewish targets, they either dismiss the evidence point blank or blame the victims. Phony liberals, bogus intellectuals and misguided politicians come up with phony theories to justify anti-Semites. They are not only betraying Jewish people but also digging graves for freedom loving people around the world. It seems that more than a half-century after the Holocaust has anti-Semites returned with a vengeance in France? Islam generate hatred that is now threatening not only Jewish people but the entire world. This was written by Ezra HaLevi and it was published in Arutz-Sheva (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122270).

(IsraelNN.com) A young Jewish woman was brutalized by two Muslim Arabs in France Thursday. Audrey Brachelle, 22, was attacked in the French city of Marseilles Thursday evening. The attack began as she walked back from her job as an accountant at a textile factory toward the metro station in the La Rose neighborhood of the city, which is home to many Jews. Two Arab men followed her and attempted to steal her cell phone. After they grabbed it, the attackers noticed the Jewish ornament on the woman's necklace, at which point she says they realized she was Jewish and began focusing on brutalizing her rather than stealing her phone. The men then punched her in the face, sliced her dress with a knife and carved at least one Nazi swastika into her chest. They also cut off a clump of her hair. Despite the swastikas and epithets expressed by the attackers, the French government is hesitating to admit that the attack was an anti-Jewish one. French Jews say the government is hesitant to admit the attack was anti-Semitic as that would have political ramifications and sway the upcoming presidential elections set to take place May 6. France is home to a huge community of Muslim Arabs, who have enjoyed the nation's liberal immigration policies but brought with them the anti-Semitism of their nations of origin. Violence and anti-Semitism of French Arabs has been a cause espoused by candidate Nicolas Sarkozy, who has accused his left-wing opponent Segolene Royal of being lenient in dealing with the phenomena. Local Marseilles Arabs have been quoted in the left-wing press in France and elsewhere positing that the attack was staged in order to score votes for Sarkozy. They point to a case in 2004 where a woman with similar claims, including that swastikas were carved into her body, later admitted to have made the story up. As it turned out, she was not even Jewish. The Jews of France are still reeling from the events of last year. In February, 2006, the murder of Ilan Halimi shocked the French Jewish community. Halimi was kidnapped by French Muslims and brutally tortured to death. Just last week, Rabbi Elie Dahan, rabbi of Nord-Pas-de-Calais in northern France, was violently attacked by a man who yelled "dirty Jew" at him while pummeling him in the face at the Paris North train station. In a step reminiscent of pre-Holocaust times, the Chief Rabbis of France and Norway have called on Jews in those countries not to go outside with obvious Jewish symbols. Contact Kannan Devan at kannanivmn@yahoo.com To Go To Top

TAKE YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE Sand... Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, April 29, 2007.

Or be buried in it forever. Since last summer's disastrous war against Hizbullah, Israel has continued on a suicidal downward slope. Just as Lebanon 2006 failed due to years of inexcusable poor planning and political decisions (regardless of admitted external pressures from "powerful friends"), Israel will face even worse to come if it persists in acting like the proverbial ostrich. As is well known by now, many in the Arab/Muslim world have been deeply encouraged by Israel's lack luster performance against Hizbullah. The Syrians are said to be setting up traps similar to those encountered by Israel in south Lebanon to add to their formidable arms and troop modernization and build up. Scores of thousands of more advanced rockets and missiles are ready to do far more damage than those Hizbullah tasted success with...despite Israel's advantage in the air. Hopefully, Baby Assad understands that if he starts something, Damascus will look like the Hizbullah part of Beirut last year. But -- with the current Israeli leadership -- that's not necessarily the case...and it should be. Emboldened by Hizbullah's relative success and Israel's willingness over the decades to repeatedly trade hundreds or thousands of Arab prisoners -- many with blood on their hands, who get released only to kill more Jews again and again -- for one or two of their own (or sometimes just the latters' bones), Hamas is now threatening to kidnap more Israelis and Jews worldwide. There is nothing we can do to change the nature of the beast Israel faces. It is what it is...regardless of what Dr. Condoleezza Rice, her State Department, and unfortunately the President, himself, say or try to make it look like. Fatah...Hamas...when it comes to the subject of living in peace and accepting the permanency of the Jewish State of Israel, it makes no difference. The recent Mecca Accords should have proved this to any doubters who had their brains, eyes and ears functioning properly. So, there is no one more to blame for Israel's current predicament than Israel itself. Recently, a group of Jews having an Independence celebration picnic were surrounded by thousands of Israeli Arabs threatening them with violence, waving Hamas and PLO flags, and so forth. And Olmert's Government's reaction was stalled, minimal, and late in coming. A bit earlier, the same thing happened to Jews in Jaffa. Indeed, these stories -- like those involving actions against the state by Arab members of Israel's Parliament, the Knesset -- have been on the rise and not uncommon for many years. Decades ago, the late Rabbi Meir Kahane warned of such things and the need to take solid action and was branded a racist and extremist. He was as correct then as he is now. What nation would put up with the events mentioned above committed by its own citizens...in this case, the freest Arabs anywhere in the Middle East? Over twenty thousand Arabs who opposed Hafez al-Assad in Syria were eliminated in short order in his Hama Solution. Ditto in Iraq and all over the Arab world...and those folks just opposed the regime -- not the very state in which they lived. The time is running out for the Israeli Left's delusions and cowardice to continue. The time to act -- and act decisively -- is now. Israel must unabashedly confront this problem head on. It must try its best to reason with its Arab citizens. Some will undoubtedly prove to be loyal. Many, indeed, know how good they have it -- especially when glancing at what Abbass and Hamas have to offer. But, for those who take aim at their Jewish neighbors and the very state in which they live, the time for play has passed. Arabs have almost two dozen states to date, conquered mostly from non-Arab peoples. Trials for treason must be forthcoming with expulsion as the punishment. These are long overdue. Let the guilty choose from those above states or the Palestinian Arab territories where to go. Jews just have one, tiny, reborn state -- and they don't need to be intimidated in it by fellow Arab citizens who have more rights in Israel than they would have in any Arab and/or Muslim state. Just as half of Israel's Jews are from refugee families who lived in so-called Arab states, Israel's Arab citizens live in a Jewish state. Why is it alright for the one but not the other? I don't care how politically incorrect it sounds...As Kahane wrote decades ago, They Must Go. No nation would tolerate a potentially deadly fifth column openly aiding and abetting avowed enemies sworn to that very nation's destruction. Putting these folks in jail will just cost the Israeli tax payer money and will be yet more temptation for the blackmailers. Israel must send a new message in this post-Lebanon '06 era if it wants to avoid utter catastrophe. Leaving the treason issue and moving onto another, Israel must enact swift execution for those who murder Jews and their accomplices. That will also mean getting rid of Lefty suicidal judges as well. Murderers of Jewish babes and other innocents need to be dispatched quickly...or not taken alive in the first place. Such folks think nothing about blowing buses and restaurants up along with everyone inside. If Arabs insist on continuously using their folks as human shields, then let the international community intervene since this is most certainly against the Geneva Conventions -- the Perfidy Clause, among others. If this is continues to be ignored, then those same Conventions authorize Israel to do what needs to be done anyway to engage its deadly enemy. By swiftly executing capital offenders, Israel will avoid the constant blackmail it is subjected to (and going on right now yet again) for the return of a few prisoners who, unlike the Arab ones, have never been visited by the International Red Cross to determine if they're even still alive. Next, as stated in the beginning, the Arabs have boasted that they're hunting for more Jews to kidnap. So what's Israel going to do about it? React and call for more alerts? Not anywhere near enough... Israel needs to be more proactive, not reactive...like in the good 'ole days. And it needs to be unpredictable. Very unpredictable. I've been screaming this for years... It must leave all Arabs worrying about what its next move may be. The next meeting of "militants" must fear having that very meeting. Arab leaders must come to fear for their own lives if they threaten Jews this way...and they are doing just that. Israel knows how to do this well. It just needs to start once again...and even better this time around. Israel needs to have surprises waiting for those Arab gatherings where hundreds of "militants" -- amassed together, with rifles firing into the air -- are screaming for Jewish blood. The latter need to be taken out en masse...not just one or two at a time, a waste of very expensive missiles. Anything less than fighting to win is unacceptable at this point. The Arabs have made clear (if there was ever really any doubt) both with their Mecca Accords and the Saudi Peace (of the grave ) Plan what their intentions are...the same as they always have been -- regardless of what their assorted whitewashers say. Israel must have exponentially devastating increments of justice awaiting enemies sworn to the death of both Jews and The Jew Of The Nations...and it must not hesitate at putting it into effect -- regardless of what the hypocrites elsewhere will say. Worrying about the latter is what has gotten Israel into the mess it's in right now. And, again, it's time for Arab leadership itself to also pay the price for its behavior. Both the head and the body of the snake must be dealt with. If a state can't or won't control (or actually promotes) the violence of its citizens against its neighbors, then it can't complain when those neighbors do what's necessary for their own security. America's own Powell Doctrine calls for massive retaliation against our own enemies. An Israel roughly the size of New Jersey can't afford to do less -- especially given the neighborhood it lives in. It must put fear back into the Arabs' thinking. While this is unfortunate, it's true. I wish there was another way. Unfortunately, for Arabs, there isn't -- short of Israel's disappearance. The earlier peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan came about not due to any Arab love for Jews. The fear of Pyrrhic victory did the trick. But 1967 and 1973 are long in the past...memories have faded, and so forth. Israel must take extreme care not be lured to fight according to the Arabs' game plan as it did in Lebanon last summer. It must come up with major, conclusive new shocks of its own. The Jews did not ask for this war. But if the Arabs insist on deliberately waging it from amidst their own non-combatants, using them as human shields, then -- as the Geneva Conventions say -- the consequences will rest upon their own heads. Israel must lose no sleep over this. If it means withdrawing from the United Nations, taking cuts in American aid, or whatever...so be it. Enough of fighting a murderous, inhumane enemy -- which deliberately targets Jewish children and uses its own kids as shields -- with one hand tied behind the back. Both Hamas and Fatah must be taught the long overdue, excruciatingly painful lesson Hizbullah was unfortunately spared. The State Department and the President won't like this (not to mention others), as they're still trying to shove Fatah's latter day Arafatians down Israel's throat as "moderates." Israel must act decisively anyway. It's very existence is at stake at this point. It may mean that new Israeli elections must be ushered in, if at all possible, first. Olmert's crew and their delusions brought about Lebanon 2006 and other potential disasters. If Israel does what it takes to follow through on all of this, it may yet avoid the next costlier war with Syria and perhaps Iran as well. Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php To Go To Top

ENTIRE WORLD IS NOT AGAINST US Posted by Martin Sherman, April 29, 2007.

Israel could win battle for global public opinion -- if it truly wanted to An article recently published in Yedioth Ahronoth ("Entire world is against us," by Yonatan Yavin) attempted to paint a depressing picture of Israel's international isolation, and to propose a reason for this unfortunate state of affairs. Its analysis, however, was regrettably misleading, both as to the diagnosis of the malady and to the prescription for remedy -- allegedly the need for Israel to "change its perception rather than its image," whatever that might mean. Reality is of course very different. The truth is that in many countries across the globe, there are huge pools of enthusiastic support for Israel, and identification with the Zionist endeavor, which could, and should, be effectively tapped and marshaled. For example take the Evangelical Movement, which constitutes an enormous and rapidly-growing segment of humanity -- by most accounts even more rapidly than Islam -- from the Americas through Africa and into Asia. With estimated membership of between 500 million and one billion, and increasing economic and political clout, this is a group that is staunchly -- some would say, fiercely -- pro-Israel. In the USA, their numbers are estimated at around 60-80 million with some sources suggesting that this may be as high as 100 million. Clearly, if properly mobilized, no US president could be elected against the collective will of this group. Israel's accomplishments do not go unnoticed There is also widespread international esteem for Israel's manifold accomplishments -- not only in the military sphere, although this should not be understated -- but also in agriculture, science and hi-tech, with the country often being held up as a model for emulation. Just why this abundance of positive sentiment is not converted into political support is detailed below. Moreover, the question of Israel's international stature should not only be approached in terms of the affinity manifested toward it but also by the animosity, both latent and overt, that prevails, or can be caused to prevail, towards Israel's foes. In this regard, the suppression of women (gender apartheid) and the persecution of all non-Muslim religions (creed apartheid) across the Arab and Islamic world constitute sensitive pressure points for Israel to mount an effective diplomatic offensive designed to alienate liberal Western support from its opponents. In particular, the question of the status of women in the Arab (and the wider Islamic world) is becoming an issue of acute interest and increasingly harsh criticism in growing sectors of Western public opinion. Indeed half the population of the world (the female half) -- and certainly half of that portion of the world that purports to subscribe to a libertarian value-system -- has good reason to feel both trepidation and aversion toward Israel's enemies. Sadly, however -- and again for reasons detailed below -- Israeli diplomacy has been alarmingly remiss in mustering this potential antipathy against Israel's antagonists in order to put them on the defensive in the battle for world opinion. This of course raises the question of "why?" Why is all the potential affinity for Israel not being energetically harvested; why is all the latent aversion towards its adversaries not being resolutely harnessed? For in under any dispassionate analysis of the objective parameters, the poor image of Israel on the international stage is difficult to fathom. So why does the county fare so poorly in the media war? Size of Israel's PR budget revealing The answer to this is shocking but simple: Israel is losing the war for international opinion because -- in the final analysis -- she does not really want to win it! Or at least the official organs charged with administering this war do not. If this appears to be a rather radical and far-fetched explanation consider the following: How does one gauge the resolve of an organization to attain a given objective? Among other things, by the amount of resources it allots for the attainment of the said objective. In this regard, the size of Israel's official PR (Hasbarah) budget is very revealing, for it is little more than a medium-large commercial company would spend on advertising. This dearth of resources devoted to winning over the hearts and minds of the international community is not to be explained by any objective paucity. For when the government wishes to accomplish a goal, it has little trouble in finding the means to do so. When it decided to build the separation barrier it found billions of unbudgeted shekels; when it decided to "disengage" from Gaza, it hastily raised billions of unbudgeted dollars; and when it planned to "converge" from Judea and Samaria, it was undaunted by the estimates of tens of billions of dollars needed for implementation. So what lies behind the blatant half-heartedness and faint-heartedness of Israeli efforts to win international support? The key to the answer lies in the worldview of the entrenched elites in Israeli society -- the legal establishment, media establishment and that portion of the academic establishment which interfaces with the media (notably the social sciences and humanities but not the natural and exact sciences.) This is the body that de facto influences the course the country takes, far more than the de jure results of any elections, and its worldview is one that that is incompatible with portraying the Arabs, Arab society, and Arab regimes as they truly are. It is therefore also incompatible with achieving victory in the battle for public opinion. This worldview, motivated more by socio-cultural animosity for their domestic adversaries rather than any genuine affinity for the national interest, cannot be reconciled with an accurate portrayal of the Arab world -- especially the Palestinians -- as a viciously cruel and intolerant society permeated by violence and corruption at almost all levels. For any such portrayal would make nonsense of the support for Israeli withdrawal to frontiers that would leave the country in a perilously precarious situation -- with its international airport, its maritime harbors, its major roads and railways, power stations, water installations all hopelessly vulnerable to attack. How could anyone justify, especially in the wake of the recent war with the Hizbullah, abandoning such vitally important territory to a regime dominated by radical Muslim elements, where journalists are harassed, press freedom trampled on, political opponents lynched, honor killings of women by their male relatives endorsed or at least socially condoned, homosexuals hounded, and Christians persecuted? So to vindicate adherence to a worldview that advocates far reaching concessions to the Palestinians -- something that has perversely and paradoxically become the cultural litmus test of "enlightened liberal" identity -- the propagation of two falsehoods has become an essential prerequisite. Both are highly detrimental -- indeed crippling -- to Israel's ability to garner international support: Projection of a fallaciously favorable image of the Palestinians -- which precludes victory in the battle for the hearts and minds of the international community. Creation of an equally fallacious illusion that without capitulation to Palestinian demands, ubiquitous international isolation and animosity are unavoidable -- which creates the impression that defeat in this battle is inevitable Unless the Israeli public realizes this and rises up against the detrimental conduct of its establishment elites, it will be impossible to arrest the country's ongoing slide into oblivion. Editor's Note: These were some of the comments made by readers of the article when it appeared on Ynet. Our official Hasbara adopts the untruths propagated by Israel enemies, such as that Western Palestine is Palestine, and this is in clear distinction, to Israel's official Hasbara until Oslo began, when Israel's MFA propagated the message that "Jordan is Palestine" Israeli hasbara has to revert to its objectively true pre-Oslo line and inculcates in the world some basic facts, in particular that there is already a Palestinian Arab State on four-fifths of Palestine (see in particular Julius Stone's book; chapter in pp 22-25) and that there is already an Arab state (being one nation according to their own documents means they deserve one state only). This is cardinal since the whole world thinks that Israel "occupies" "Palestinian land" and thus prevents Palestinian Arab "self-determination". If we kept hammering and focusing on these basic facts, also mentioning Jewish refugees from Arab countries, in particular whenever "Palestinian refugees" are mentioned, than we could change Israel's position dramatically. Dr Yoram Shifftan, Darom, Israel (04.01.07) The leftist media has portrayed Israel as the oppressor and the Palestinian Arabs as the underdog.They downplay the terrorism and the intolerances in the Arab culture.This perception should be fought!! Sam, Beer-Sheva (03.28.07) i agree -- the budget is small -- thnx god; otherwise it would be wasted incompetently. the major problem is that it goes primarily to the foreign office. now, when you have in charge of "hasbara" (both at the helm in the fo headquarters & abroad in the embassies) a kid (albeit hard working, intelligent and well-intentioned) who yesterday was in charge of some diplomatic desk, whose training is either law or foreign relations or some such, and today he/she is a press officer or some such, that person has not the foggiest idea of what to do. press officers who are posted to a country for years at a time have no idea of who the leading journalists are, how to approach them, how to utilize them. offers by evangelical broadcasters for free time are cast asside. the diplo's themselves are so full of themselves, their self-righteousness and importance (the cadets course is more ego inflating than a pilots course) that they put off nearly everyone they meet. the result is so many macherim and charlatans selling ideas that they stand to make alot if money from. there are simply no professionals doing the job (take for example the "branding of israel" recently by a public relations firm for the tourism ministry -- their report and proposals were a joke -- an expensive joke, and implementation is a joke even further and many shekels more off. and so much could be done: israel had a great coup (one) with the bus at the hague, and even that was an idea fed to them under the desk by a well-wisher. unfortunately we ourselves are the ones who through pure shlemmielity provide such brilliant coverage of ourselves (mossad criminals getting caught, big-mouth idiot politicians, blatantly and stupidly corrupt politicians, really well-behaved tourists, company reps abroad who treat the "locals" like "natives", an establishment that's run by its own guards, the list is endless), and you realize that any positive pr we're getting is probably the best we deserve. oferdesade, israel, (03.28.07) Finally someone gets it Rod, Fargo N.Dakota (03.28.07) But truth be told the Israeli Govt. takes advice from the Leftist Jewish groups in the U.S. Rod, Fargo N.Dakota (03.28.07) what is it about liberal, secular education that makes Jews gutless. There used to be something called "hope and wisdom" which seems to have been abandoned by most intellectuals. Stewart Miller, USA (03.28.07) stewartmiller@engineer.com Dr. Martin Sherman is a political scientist at Tel Aviv University This article was published March 28, 2007 in Ynet News ( http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3382250,00.html). To Go To Top

WINOGRAD FINDINGS LEAD TO CALLS FOR OLMERT TO RESIGN Posted by Hillel Fendel, April 29, 2007.

The interim Winograd report on the Second Lebanon War has not yet been published, but leaked previews have already prompted calls for the government's resignation. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and ex-IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz all came in for varying degrees of sharp criticism regarding their functioning in last summer's war with Hizbullah. Some details of the preliminary findings were publicized by Channel Ten news over the weekend. Though the members of the Winograd Commission were practically hand-picked by Olmert, they found him to have "failed" in the way he oversaw the war. The word "failure" repeats itself several times in the Commission's summary of his performance, though neither he, nor anyone else, is specifically called upon to resign. Findings in Brief Olmert "acted with hastiness and arrogance," the Commission found. He did not consult with bodies other than the IDF, such as the National Security Council, and did not even convene the mini-security Cabinet before ordering the army to act. He was led by the army, instead of leading. The Prime Minister did not demand that the army provide him with alternatives, and did not properly deal with the "local operation" becoming a full-fledged war. Peretz was castigated for assuming the position of Defense Minister altogether without having been properly prepared for such. He also did not properly study the problems at hand, and did not consult sufficiently with the experts in his office. Peretz was cleared of responsibility for the army's lack of preparation, which largely occurred in the years before he became Defense Minister. Gen. Halutz, who resigned following the army's internal investigation of the war three months ago, was found to have belittled Hizbullah's Katyusha rocket capacities, and did not provide alternatives to the government. Full Version on Monday The full version of the report is to be publicized at 5 PM on Monday, and Olmert will receive a copy one hour earlier. Though the Commission was appointed in order to review the errors of the Second Lebanon War so that the proper lessons might be learned and the deficiencies be corrected, the immediate result of the leaked findings appears to be only political. The question at hand is: Will public opinion force the Prime Minister to resign? Olmert and allies are bracing to remain in power, the Opposition has already begun steps to oust the government, and some members of Kadima and other coalition parties are remaining on the fence, waiting to see what develops. Opposition leader MK Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud met on Friday with far-left Meretz party leader MK Yossi Beilin, to discuss the report's political ramifications. Beilin said, unsurprisingly, that he would not support a replacement government headed by Netanyahu. Despite this, following the Channel Ten revelations, Beilin said that Olmert must resign immediately. Within the coalition, Labor's Danny Yatom -- an underdog in the Labor race for party leader next month -- said the entire government must resign. MKs Zevulun Orlev and Aryeh Eldad (National Union/National Religious Party) also called, once again, for Olmert's resignation. National Union faction chairman MK Uri Ariel has already submitted a legislative proposal for the dissolution of the Knesset and new elections. "The Winograd conclusions and the resulting public sentiment require that we prepare for new elections," Ariel explained, "and we might as well come up with an agreed-upon date among the various parties." Anti-Government Rally on Thursday A large anti-government protest rally has already been announced for this Thursday in Tel Aviv. The protest has been called by the Civil Coalition, headed by retired IDF General Uzi Dayan. A critical question is whether Olmert's Kadima party will stick with him. On the one hand, Kadima generally supported the war effort whole-heartedly, but some pockets of resistance were heard within a few days of the beginning of the war. Most worrisome for Olmert is the fact that his main competitor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, will be able to say that she asked for limitations on the offensive and the opening of diplomatic channels just days after the war started, but Olmert did not agree. Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Israel National News. To Go To Top

BEHIND THE LINES: THE PRICE OF A FREE PRESS Posted by Bryna Berch, April 29, 2007.

This was written by Anshel Pfeffer and was published March 9, 2007 in the Jerusalem Post. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=3&cid=117317 Contact him at anshel@ejemm.com There were a couple of good ideas that came in as comments by readers of the article: Gili -- Canada 03/09/2007 17:35 In my view the government should present the press with two options: 1) Find a way to deliver the same level of reporting on both sides or 2) Accept limits on its reporting A war is not about being nice. It's about winning. If the press can't do its job of reporting of what is really going on on the other side then they lose their right to do the same on our side during the war. Total Collapse of Information Security Abraham 03/09/2007 16:49 The "live war" had caught the Directorate of Military Intelligence unprepared. The Information Security Department was a total disaster. Irresponsible Israeli correspondents encouraged by the dysfunctional Military Censorship Department disclosed waypoints to the enemy. In one instance more than 10 paras from the headquarters companies were killed as the enemy received pinpoint information as to the whereabouts of the company. The IDF doesn't have a functional information security policy!!

An important study on last summer's war has just been published by the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government. It is the first to give a comprehensive explanation of how, in an asymmetrical war "between a state [Israel] and a militant, secretive, religiously fundamentalist sect or faction [Hizbullah]," the fight is just as much about information and image as it is about military gains. After reading dozens of articles on the role of the media in the war (and writing quite a few myself), I can safely say that this insightful study (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/research_publications/papers/ research_papers/R29.pdf), written by veteran reporter, author and broadcaster Marvin Kalb, makes real sense of what we were doing during those fateful 34 days. It is a must-read for journalists, the military, politicians, spokesmen and news consumers. Kalb writes that Lebanon was "the first really 'live' war in history." The two wars in Iraq, with broadcasts of the bombing of Baghdad and reporters "embedded" with advancing units, were a mere taste of what technology has to offer. This time, every aspect of warfare -- the troops going in and out of the battlefield, bombs and missiles falling, the dead, the wounded, the refugees -- was brought to viewers in real time, "as though the world had a front-row seat on the blood and gore of modern warfare." The implications of this are only now beginning to be understood. Al-Arabiya's director of news and current affairs, Emile Nakhle, called the technological breakthrough "broadcast via broadband. In places not accessible by car, in the middle of conflict areas for example, a sole reporter with a laptop and small camera can shoot, edit, feed and do live interviews." This stream of immediate images, seemingly without any filtering, would seem like a positive development -- in principle enabling viewers to reach their own conclusions. But, as Kalb shows, the new coverage is anything but objective. Miniaturization, wireless broadcasting and high-speed links enable news organizations to overcome technical obstacles. Censorship and intimidation, however, still remain. Which means that democratic societies living by the ideals of a free and unfettered press will always be at a disadvantage to dictatorships and oppressive ideologies, adept at manipulating the media. As Kalb writes: "A closed society conveys the impression of order and discipline; an open society, buffeted by the crosswinds of reality and rumor, criticism and revelation, conveys the impression of disorder, chaos and uncertainty." Israel's campaign was remarkably transparent: Journalists achieved unprecedented levels of access to its forces. As a result, every failure and mishap on the battlefield -- and relative chaos on the home front -- was highlighted. On this point I have only a minor factual argument with Kalb, who writes that Israeli "officials made a clumsy effort to control and contain the coverage, but essentially failed." As a reporter who covered the war on all three fronts (Lebanon, Gaza and the quiet but tense Syrian front), I was not aware of any real effort on the part of the IDF to limit media access -- except, perhaps, for the faceless clerks in the military censorship office who occasionally crossed out minor details in my reports. The only significant censorship I felt was my own, in the cases in which I realized that the timing of certain reports might put our forces in danger. At no stage was I barred from roaming the border area, talking with soldiers and officers about to enter Lebanon or fresh from battle. From the experience of colleagues, I know that there were very few instances of this happening, and it was almost always the result of local initiatives by field commanders, not orders from above. The normally closed field headquarters and even air force bases were routinely opened to media visits. Even openly hostile Arab TV networks, such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya, were allowed to operate in almost total freedom and film IDF units preparing for battle.   ON THE other side, Hizbullah controlled the journalists covering the situation in Lebanon with an iron fist. Media tours of Hizbullah-controlled areas, where the IDF's bombing was mainly concentrated, were tightly managed, with foreign reporters being sternly warned against wandering off and talking to local residents unsupervised. Infringement of these rules would be punished by the confiscation of cameras and disbarment from any further visits or access to Hizbullah members. According to Kalb, only CNN's Anderson Cooper openly admitted to having operated under these rules. Hizbullah also forbade any photographs of its fighters. Cameramen were warned never to show men with guns or ammunition. The only armed personnel seen during this war were IDF soldiers; Hizbullah remained throughout a phantom army. Another scene almost never shown was the hundreds of Hizbullah firing positions and missile launch sites within residential areas and private homes, the cause of many civilian deaths and a violation of international law. The one exception was when the Australian Herald Sun smuggled a series of incriminating photos out of Beirut, but they were only shown after the IDF managed to capture some of these sites intact. These methods, Kalb writes, created "a narrative that depicted a selfless movement touched by God and blessed by a religious fervor and determination to resist the enemy, the infidel, and ultimately achieve a 'divine victory,' no matter the cost in life and treasure. The narrative contained no mention of Hizbullah's dependence upon Iran and Syria for a steady flow of arms and financial resources." Not that there was any shortage of footage coming out of Lebanon. But it dealt almost exclusively with the results of the IDF bombing and the Lebanese civilian casualties. Few news organizations made an effort to balance these pictures with those of the damage from Hizbullah's indiscriminate bombing of Israeli civilians. Neither was any effort made to show that Israel's attacks were concentrated mainly on areas of Hizbullah activity, leaving the rest of Beirut and other Lebanese towns and cities relatively unscathed. Kalb quotes New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Steven Erlanger, who was upset by a photo in his paper of the leveled Dahia quarter in South Beirut. Erlanger said that it "bothered me a great deal. We did a satellite photo of southern Beirut, of Dahia, which was quite destroyed, and we didn't print near it a larger photo of the rest of Beirut, which I think was a failure to provide context." This style of coverage is what changed the general tone of reporting, which in the first few days of the war still reminded that it was Hizbullah that had begun the war, and turned the accusation of "disproportionality" made by Israel's critics into common media currency. Kalb describes the "combustible mix of 24/7 cable news, call-in radio and television programs, Internet bloggers and on-line Web sites, cellphones and iPods" which has deeply influenced much of the mainstream media, giving it a populist slant and transforming "the media from objective observer to fiery advocate, becoming in fact a weapon of modern warfare." He believes that we have entered a new media age in which the reporter has become the commentator and very often is himself a "part of the story." This new reality has both positive and negative implications which are only now coming to light.   MOST OF the details in Kalb's paper were already known to media observers, though his keen analysis offers the first real perspective on this "information war." Two crucial questions he raises have special relevance for the Israeli media. One is the prominence that every IDF screw-up received in the local media. The other is that the war's result was so inconclusive that it caused feelings of disappointment and anger among the public toward both the military and the political leadership. There is no proof that the IDF made more mistakes or was in any way less professional than in past wars. What has changed is the media's viewpoint, thanks to official openness and modern technology. As Kalb remarks in a slightly different context, "Scholars say that if the media had had the technology during World War II to show photos and videotape of Allied bombing attacks on German and Japanese civilians, and to hear their tales of woe on 24/7 cable news programs, the morality of the war (though unlikely the outcome) would have been significantly different." This week I interviewed a veteran paratrooper, one of the officers who led the assault on the Old City of Jerusalem in the Six Day War. "We made all the same mistakes then," he said. "The commanders were no better, probably even worse. It just wasn't reported."   HOW CAN the media balance between its duty to report failure and incompetence, which in many cases might remain neglected if not for the publicity, and the need to create a proper perspective from which to view the war? Which leads us to the next question. In a confrontation in which information is a weapon, should a democracy curb freedom of the press when its adversary is craftily manipulating the media and utilizing every report in the free press as military intelligence? (Hizbullah had a special section that monitored every detail in the Israeli and international press, and passed on up-to-date information to its forces in the field.) Is the price of living in an open democracy too heavy in time of war? How can a free country put its case across to a free press? Kalb quotes former US secretary of state Colin Powell who, when asked how he would have responded to a reporter revealing the exact location of his forces during battle on live television, answered: "I'd have locked all of you up... the American people would have stripped your skin off." That was a decade ago, today's generals are not so sure in their answers. The unavoidable conclusion as Kalb sees it -- and it is very difficult to argue with him -- is that "in strictly military terms, Israel did not lose to Hizbullah in this war, but it clearly did not win. In the war of information, news and propaganda, the battlefield central to Hizbullah's strategy, Israel lost this war." And he makes a worrisome prediction that the outcome on other battlefields of the war on terror could be similar. One of the most interesting quotes in his paper is from Col. David Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency expert, who explains that when insurgents attack a US convoy in Iraq, "they are not doing that because they want to reduce the number of Humvees we have in Iraq by one. They're doing it because they want spectacular media footage of a burning Humvee. If [Osama] bin Laden didn't have access to global media, satellite communications and the Internet, he'd just be a cranky guy in a cave." To Go To Top

HOLLYWOOD HASN'T A CLUE Posted by Arlene Peck, April 29, 2007.

Talking to the wall on America's Left Coast. Sometimes, I think I'm talking to the wall when I seek to educate the Hollywood crowd in the hope of somehow getting them to realize that we are in a war. We're facing a real war, with an enemy who wants to actually kill us. If the Islamist savages had their druthers, we'd all be beheaded or living in submission to whatever it is that they think is Allah's will. Actually, I think that we, in the US, are so soft that we have no concept of what terror is. In the star-studded surroundings in which I live, I am usually astounded at the utter lack of comprehension of what is facing us. When I say "us," it's a collective thing -- Jew, Christian, Buddhist, white, black or purple. If you're not one of them, the Islamists want us dead. Theirs is a culture that thrives on, and lives for, death. It's difficult to face the reality of terror when you live in a home with security systems and bodyguards behind gated walls. Most of us don't know what it's like to walk outside and find the car gone, or up on blocks with the wheels gone. For sure, we can't imagine catching a bus on which someone is riding next to us with a bomb under his or her coat. With the Hollywood crowd, everything is "over there." The media gives coverage to A "terror attack" would be when the hair stylist moves without leaving a forwarding address. people who make their livings pretending to be someone else. And courage in Hollywood is getting up the guts to ask for another five or ten million dollars for a picture. I tend to speak in basic terms. Some have even dared to call me "politically incorrect," and frankly, I don't give a diddly-squat. The people out here, and probably most people around our wonderful country, don't have a clue as to the dangers lurking. I tell it like I see it, folks; and Hollywood, as I know it, is oblivious to the real terror. Their version of a "terror attack" would be when the mechanic for their new Lexus goes back to visit family in Tijuana, or the hair stylist moves without leaving a forwarding address. A shortage of Botox would be a major disaster. Frankly, I find it difficult to work with people who have no sense of mission. Out here, the only "mission" that I see concerns whether the agent called with an audition. To tell the truth, I think I'd rather deal with the stupid than the indifferent. Although I truly think that most of those living around me have the IQ of an eggplant when it comes to realizing the immediate danger we're facing, there is an off chance that they can be educated. How do I get them to see that they cry for endangered baby seals and dolphins at peril in the sea, yet ignore that men treat their farm animals better than the women in many Middle Eastern countries? Somehow, Hollywood cannot grasp the significance of 'honor killings' when one of these women is raped. In sick, evil minds, this brings shame to the family and, naturally, the victim must be killed. I am surrounded by an elite group of stars who have fashion shows for children, yet somehow fail to see that there is a culture that glorifies sexual contact with infants and "marrying" children less than ten years old. Worse, Hollywood holds major fund-raisers for the new boy on the horizon with an educational background in a Wahabee school -- that scares the begeeses out of me. Obama for President? Yet, folks, it's even more heartbreaking to see that Israel is floundering, having lost the fire in her belly. Until the past few years, I may have been upset and angry with Israel's leadership, which I saw was becoming increasingly more corrupt and incompetent, but it's difficult to have any warm fuzzy feelings when the President of Israel is suspected of rape. Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister, has a stack of charges for which he is being investigated; the least of which should be gross incompetence. No one trusts the candidate in the running for Commissioner of Police. Who else? Oh, the Tax Commissioner is on the verge of being charged for criminal activity and has already resigned. Did I leave anybody out? Oops. Let's not forget the chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee being investigated, as probably most of the Knesset ought to be. It's bigger than George Bush or Dick Cheney or Olmert's thirst for power and greed combined. I never once felt that the Jews of Israel wavered in their commitment. And, because of that and despite the distance, it was easy for me to think and respond to the Jewish State as if I was an "American-born Israeli." When living there, I found it amazing how even the secular Jews were proud to be Jewish. They cherished their Jewishness to the core. Because they were proud to be Jewish, so was I. I was ecstatic to be part of that. It was that sense of purpose that made us all feel that we were one people. That's why, after going to a few breakfast meetings with some powerful ministers and good old down home preachers, interspersed with some well-known rabbis, I was also delighted to see that there is now a Christian-Israel nexus in place, with both of these communities working together to face the serious issues that concern us. This is an annex of the organization that I have named "Hollywood Against Terrorism". I figured, this way, you could be a red or blue state. It would be possible to be either Right or Left, with the blandness of the title. However, the mission isn't bland. Even the secular Jews were proud to be Jewish. For some reason, the people in Hollywood are listened to. Why, I'm not too sure, as I've rarely found anyone here familiar with the problems facing us, or well educated or well traveled enough to know the situation enough to discuss it. Just to give you an idea of what a coma they exist in, I'll tell you about a lovely lady I recently had on my television show. She is a very big soap star and truly a caring person who works selflessly on several organizations, and even travels to Africa every year to bring a child back for heart surgery. Yet, when I tried to get her to put her name on the list of concerned celebrities, she looked blankly at me and said, "I don't think so. I'd really like to help but it's really not my thing." Her "thing"? She, and the rest of us, better start making it our "thing" or we're lost. For years, I have been writing in my columns that we better pay attention and accept the fact that nothing that has been going on in the Islamic 'crusade' -- which seems to have exacerbated over the past ten or 15 years -- has anything to do with Israel (other than the pure hatred that Muslims, as taught from Islamic texts, have for the Jews). And now, the Islamists are openly showing that the Christians are also in their sights. For that matter, so is any other group that doesn't grovel at the foot of their prophet, Mohammad. Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com This was published as an opinion piece in Arutz-Sheva and it is archived at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/6988 To Go To Top

THE PRICE OF PALESTINIANISM Posted by Bryna Berch, April 29, 2007.

This was written by P. David Hornik. It appeared March 28, 2007 in Front Page Magazine (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27565). Contact him at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com

"It is impossible to ignore the fact that the chairman of the PA blatantly breached commitments that he gave Israel, especially the commitment that a national unity government would not be established before Gilad Shalit was released," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his cabinet on Sunday. He was referring to PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas; and to the Israeli soldier abducted by terrorists who infiltrated Israel from Abbas's PA last June. Olmert added that Abbas's commitment was "given to me time and time again, also during the trilateral meeting [between Olmert, Abbas, and Condoleezza Rice five weeks ago], and it was also given to leaders of foreign states. These leaders, who heard this clear commitment, wondered how it was possible to break this commitment so blatantly." Olmert also complained that "the political platform of the Palestinian unity government grants legitimacy to violent resistance, violating [Abbas's] promise..." Olmert, not notable for moral backbone or consistency, publicly berated the sainted Abbas knowing that both Secretary of State Rice and Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon had arrived for another flurry of diplomatic activity centering on the PA chairman. Olmert may be surprised at the relentlessness of even American Palestinianism, which continues on the same track even at a time when Abbas has formally "united," in a subservient role, with Hamas. The corrupting influence of Palestinianism was dramatically on display Sunday when Ban, as part of a visit to Abbas in Ramallah, proceeded to the tomb of Yasser Arafat, where he laid a wreath of white flowers and closed his eyes in reverential silence. On Monday Ban went on to visit Yad Vashem, Israel's Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem. It is hard to imagine a more grotesque sequence of events. Whereas the Nazi mass murderers, some of whose work is on display at Yad Vashem, are still generally reviled in the West and sometimes were even punished, Arafat's grave is now a pilgrimage site for world leaders. Being a Palestinian figure, Arafat was given a status as a sainted statesman that Israel itself finally endorsed in the 1990s. Arafat died royally in Paris, was gushingly eulogized by President Chirac, and was buried with full honors in Ramallah as an international rostrum of dignitaries attended. And his legacy lives on. Every time you hear about another attempt to blow up passenger planes, or about the latest suicide bombings in Baghdad or elsewhere, think of Arafat, who did more than any other individual to pioneer these forms of savagery. And now the head of an organization that was created sixty years ago to promote world peace, on a visit to Arafat's longtime lieutenant and successor, goes to Arafat's grave to pay homage. Such is the corrupting influence of Palestinianism. As for Rice, one might dismiss her latest round of Ramallah-Jerusalem parleys as a passing performance meant to shore up America's standing with its putative Sunni allies, who are said to require "progress on the Palestinian issue" before agreeing to cooperate against Iran. True, Rice left Israel after browbeating Olmert to commit to"political horizon" talks with Abbas. Olmert had previously said such talks were no-go as long as Abbas was officially a cog in a Hamas mechanism. Not to mention Olmert's bitter words on Sunday about Abbas's credibility. But Abbas is, in any case, powerless and the Olmert government may be on its last leg. The Bush administration is well into its tenure and faces both Republicans and Democrats in Congress who are not pushovers for Palestinianism. One problem with such complacency is that according to reports, the Americans are, nevertheless, serious. "State [Department] officials," claims ynetnews.com, "have made it clear ... that the US is working toward an Israeli-Arab summit, mediated by the Quartet, by the end of May." Akiva Eldar of Haaretz says he was told by Ban that "the international Quartet is planning to invite to its next meeting Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab Quartet -- comprising Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates. ... " Whether or not the US and the rest of the Quartet are actually pursuing such a gang-up -- a dire scenario in which representatives of a tottering, radically unpopular Israeli government would face representatives of profoundly anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist regimes in a supposed quest for peace -- the damage is being done. Rice and Ban, with their latest antics in Israel and the PA, are further driving home some basic tenets of Palestinianism: that the Palestinians are a legitimate society, needing and deserving a state, no matter how they and their leaders behave, and no matter -- according to more extreme Palestinianism, which Rice sometimes adopts -- what concerns Israel has about its security and survival. And no matter what the costs in regional stability and longer-term American interests. Heedlessly transferring land from Israeli to terrorist control, whether in the West Bank, Lebanon, or Gaza, does not have a good record so far. Even an Israeli leader of Olmert's ilk somewhat grasps this by now. One does not expect much from the head of the UN. One still hopes the US is not hell-bent on pushing Israel into "peace" with Fatah-Hamas. To Go To Top

JUDGE POSNER ON JUSTICE BARAK Posted by Steven Plaut, April 29, 2007.

1. Richard Posner is one of the most distinguished law professors and judges in America and arguably in the world. He long served as professor at the University of Chicago, is considered one of the fathers of the "law and economics" school of thought, was the chief justice of U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. His name has sometimes been raised as a possible US Supreme Court judge. He has written numerous books and academic articles (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/faculty/posner-r). And he thinks Judge Aharon Barak, who recently retired as Chief Justice of Israel's Supreme Court, was one of the worst senior judges in the world. He is not shy about saying so. Haaretz today (Hebrew only) (http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo= 853377&contrassID=2&subContrassID=21&sbSubContrassID=0) reports at length on Posner's attack on Judge Aharon Barak. Posner calls Barak a legal buccaneer, reports Haaretz. Posner claims that he agrees with Robert Bork when the latter characterized Barak as breaking all records for judicial hubris. Posner's comments also appear in a review of Barak's new book in the New Republic (https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20070423&s=posner042307). Posner attacks Barak for his anti-democratic "judicial activism" and claims Barak invented out of thin air and with no legal basis a right of "judicial review" of laws in Israel by its judges. He compares Barak's invention of judicial powers to Napoleon crowning himself emperor. He accuses Barak of seeking to grab rule away from legislators for judges. He warns American courts not to rely on foreign legal opinions such as those written by Barak, because they are not based on proper respect for democracy and the role of judges. 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. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il To Go To Top

NEW AID PACKAGE TO GUSH KATIF EXPELLEES FALLS FAR SHORT OF PROMISES Posted by Sara Shomron, April 29, 2007.

Recently it was reported that the Israeli govt. approved 500 million NIS additional compensation for Gush Katif expellees. There were several reports in the press detailing the distribution of monies to individual families, particularly Ynet, April 25, 2007 "Gush Katif evacuees to get new aid package" by Itamar Eichner. According to a recent pamphlet compiled by involved Knesset members, the amounts of money to be given to expelled families have been exaggerated in the press. For example: former residents of Gush Katif over 3 years of age will not receive any "vetek" money (based on years of residence). That is, family members will not receive the 7000 NIS as reported on Ynet. Children 3 years of age and under, who previously did not receive vetek compensation will now receive 1-3 years of vetek money for years lived in Gush Katif. Also the lump sum grant of 230,000 NIS as reported in Ynet was exaggerated. The grant varies from 125,000 to 185,000 NIS depending on the number of minor children and only applies to home owners. Further, this payment will be paid out over several installments over several years from now. Families that lived in public housing receive only 50% of this grant and families that rented private housing in Gush Katif do not receive this grant. Private renters, who in the original compensation law received no housing compensation will now receive a paltry 35,000 NIS per adult and 15,000 NIS -- 20,000 NIS for each additional minor child up to 4 children only. Again this money is paid in installments over several years and ONLY paid if the family builds a home in a reestablished Gush Katif community. The new allocation does allow families from "unrecognized" communities (eg. Tel Katifa, Shirat Hayam) to receive what their fellow residents received in "recognized" communities. Additionally, home owners who were paid the minimum ($750 per meter) housing compensation will be upgraded to $850 per meter -- still far below the average building costs in Israel. Those reestablishing their businesses will receive 15% of the startup costs instead of the previous 10%. There will be a continuation of rent subsidies for those in temporary govt. "caravillas" provided they build new homes in reestablished Gush Katif communities. As for unemployed residents, only those who are currently unemployed and previously qualified for unemployment payments (histaglut) will be able to receive an extension of this benefit. Finally, no benefits will be given unless the residents sign a form that gives up their right to sue the govt. for any additional compensation. For those who previously were unable to afford to buy a new home in their new location outside Gush Katif or the northern Shomron, they will still be unable to afford such a purchase. Bottom line, the government continues to deny the former residents of Gush Katif the financial means to recreate their previous housing and high levels of unemployment will continue to plague expellees. [Editor's note: Read David Bedein's article, where he writes how the Israeli Government told the American Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations that the expellees were well-compensated. "PR firms working with the PM office marketed that false data -- making it nearly impossible for disengagement evictees to raise funds, since every Jewish federation had the word from these PR firms that every family was fully compensated and relocated to a new homes."] Sara Shomron is a former resident of Gush Katif. Contact her at shomron@email.com To Go To Top

MAY 30, 2007: FIRST LOD AIRPORT MASSACRE REMEMBRANCE DAY Posted by Antonio de la Cruz, April 29, 2007.

What was the Lod Airport Massacre? (Please refer to this link in order: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre). During the the May 30th 1972 Lod Airport Massacre sixteen American civilians from Puerto Rico were mass murdered by the same terror that now haunts civilization. That night, the blood of those killed and wounded, Israelis and Puertorricans, mixed together at that airport terminal. America suffered at Lod the highest death toll by a terror attack on Americans in foreign soil 11 years before the US Marine Barracks in Beirut and the worst death toll of US civilians 29 years before 9-11. Following are nine points that I hope can answer your questions and give you an idea about what can you do to help do justice to these victims of terror: 1) Memory and conscience... I am seeking your help in order to raise conscience and memory in the mainland and the world of what happened at Lod airport on May 30th 1972. Can op/ed articles, letters to the editor, phone calls to talk radio can be made? What can be donde? 2) Bring survivors together.... Senator Garriga, the sponsor of the bill made into Law (find Law 144 attached) declaring every May 30th Lod Remembrance Day received this e mail on occasion of May 30th 2007 being the FIRST Day of Remembrance: " -----Original Message----- From: Joel R. Sent: Miércoles, 18 de Abril de 2007 02:03 p.m. To: José Garriga Picó (Senador) Subject: Día de Recordación de la Masacre de Lod Ley para declarar el día 30 de mayo de cada año el "Día de Recordación de la Masacre de Lod". Ley Núm. 144 de 2 de agosto de 2006 Hon. José Garriga Picó: Excuse me for writing in English -- I know some Spanish, but not enough to make myself clear. I understand that you sponsored the law recognizing 30 Mayo as a day to remember the tragic events at Lod Airport in Israel. Your law is an eloquent way to remember the many victims, and I laud you for it. I am a survivor of the massacre. I was 19 years old at the time, traveling alone. I vividly remember the Puerto Rican pilgrimage group on the plane -- their joyous singing and anticipation made everyone else feel good about the journey. I am saddened to this day, nearly 35 years later, when I think of them. I presently live in the Washington, DC area. If there is a memorial service planned for 30 May, is there anything I can do to contribute? It is the least I can do to repay those wonderful people who made my own lone pilgrimage a happy one until evil struck us all. Regards, Joel R. The Senator answered that his attendance will be most welcome and housing arrangements can be made to host him in the island. Contribute.....Can anymore Lod Massacre survivors from Virginia or New York or Puerto Rico or wherever can be made aware of the MAy 30th Remembrance Day? Can this be made a nationwide issue of interest? It should. Friends, can you lend us a little help? Ideas? How can the boat can be rocked? 3) Primary sources... We are compiling primary historical references. CAn anyone seek into a library like NYC or DC for this article? Steinhoff, Patricia G., "Portrait of a Terrorist: An Interview with Kozo Okamoto," Asian Survey, 16 (9), September 1976: 830-45 Dr Steihoff made an interview in 1976 with Kozo Okamoto for Asian Survey Magazine where he opened up his twisted mind. COLOD -- the Support Group for Lod Massacre Victims and Families -- is intersted in finding a copy that can be copied and faxed or scanned or an original magazine to be sold for their coming webpage. 4) Whats your story...? It always irked me the fact that Lod was all but forgotten. here...unspoken of..not teached...not reported...all the while reading literature related to terrorism where the Lod Massacre was widely known and discussed ! Why the censorship I asked myself... I enede up as panelist on a radio talk show together with members of the Jewish community analizing/cometing the news coming from Israel,Irak,Iran,Europe,etc regarding Islamist terror, anti Semitism, etc and historuy of the Middle East. There we started talking about Lod, ended up finding survviors,reuniting them on air. I have been active for 5 years now in bringing back to the collective memory the historical significance and the need for memory and conscience of what happened there as a way to educate about hate ideologies, the need for tolerance, to stand firm for basic human democratic values and conscience that terror do not discriminate...innocents are "inconsequential" as Kozo Okamoto, the sole surviving terrorist stated when asked how did he felt about the fact that for every Jew killed at Lod two Puertorrican pilgrims were killed. 5) Well....We Are On The Way To Make Them "Inconsequential" No More...! Many groups in Puerto Rico (Church and civic) have joined COLOD -the Support Group for Lod Massacre victims and Families in the eforts to have a day of remembrance. The Jewish community with whom I am honored to share with and help in information initiatives in the media, schools,etc and in a radio talk show has been instrumental in informing the people af a non fact, a piece of history conveniently brushed under the rug. Israel memorializes them and even supported the amputees and orphans economically, our Jewish community remembers too as well as the Methodits,Baptist and Pentecostal churches. But it is not teached at all and remebered sporadically by media and goverment on 1985,2000 and 2002 nd not oficially recognized....until now. Senator Jose Garriga Pico authored a Senate Bill to create a Lod Massacre Remembrance Day and finally after some hairy moments and a lot of lobbying and cajoling was made into Law 144 of 2006. If you read Moises Behar op ed article in the island's main English language newspaper The San Juan Star take note that the Bill (810) was defeated at the House....but thanks to the Senator, public outrage and survivor lobbying the Bill (now 1535) was re submitted and voted for unanimously on both houses and sent to the Governor for signing...in a week...seldom seem speed in legislative bureaucracy! On Augst 2, 2006 it was signed into Law 144. 6) Why it was forgotten....? Why taking Lod MAssacre out of history, from local,national history ? Some of it has to do with many in the media and academia-even a few in government- hushing something ideologically inconvenient as Marxist terrorists redeeming the Arab Palestinian cause by murdering humble,chanting,Puertorrican religious pilgrims from rural Puerto Rico. Other reasons are apathy, ignorance, intellectual cowardice, vanality, callouness, anti Semitic/Anti Zionist prejudice, old anti Protestant prejudice(tough the Methodist Choir and the Catholic choir of the town of Hatillo travelled together and was murdered/maimed together) and social prejudice because of the fact they for the most part were countryside people. 7) The importance... The Lod Massacre was the first attack of its kind, the first event of the phenomena of transnational terrorism. The JRA and PFLP shared Marxism Leninism revolutionary zeal that viewed guerrilla warfare as an essential tool for accelerating change, both organizations were composed primarily of urban middle class students and "intellectuals" and a common revolutionary strategy of terror and urban guerrilla warfare......and they shared anti Semitism/antiSionism. The terror attack at Lod was made more heinous by the violence enhancing/rationalizing properties Anti Semitism/Anti Zionism has on groups from the PFLP and the Red Japanese Army to Al Qaeda 8) Justice pending to be done...... I understand that no warrant on the head of Okamoto exists. I have searched but to no avail for any such document. If so, I believe Kozo Okamoto, the surviving terrorist of the JRA, has to be indicted by the United States on charges of murder and other charges that may be appropriate against American Citizens particularly on the person of the late wife of Rev Jose Vega Franqui, Vasthi Zila Morales, who was personally killed by Okamoto as the Rev testified during Okamoto's process in 1972 and later in 2000 when Interpol interviewed him regarding the failed extradition efforts to bring Okamoto to justice from his safe haven in Hizbullah/Sirian controlled Beirut. Okamoto is now free in Lebanon, granted political asylum and later honorary citizenship in 2000 after the Lebanese government was pressured by Hezbollah, Syria and extremist activists the world over since he was engaged in "acts of resistance against Israel" and was a "political prisoner" in Israel. There is no US warrant for his capture for the Lod atrocity. Why, one may ask, if the Lod pilgrims were US citizens, there have been no such federal action taken as it has been the case for acts against other US citizens? The Japanese government has a warrant for Okamoto and other few JRA members still at large. Why this lapse? Why the Achille Lauro or TWA Flight 827 terror murders and not the Lod Airport Massacre victims? I believe that it is time for action now that Senator Garriga Pico's Senate Bill is now Law (Law Num 144 August 2, 2006) after signing by the Governor Acevedo Vila. ********************************************************* We hope our efforts could be known nationwide, so all of us can work shoulder to shoulder for the common good and further the cause of Freedom, Liberty, Justice and Civilization as we know it. ************************************************** COLOD can be reached at kolamipr@yahoo.com, **Mr David Guzman coordinator. (939)645-6682 C.......(787)897-8895 H. **Vasthi Vega Morales -daughter of Rev Vega Franqui -survivor-and Vasthi Zila Morales(killed at the Lod Massacre) at vnvm77@yahoo.com **Rev Jose Vega Franqui -survivor-at iglesiafeliz@yahoo.com ************************************************************************* Its historic importance. San Juan Star, The (Puerto Rico) "Remembering the Lod Massacre -- Commentary" by Moisés Behar, a Puerto Rican analyst of Middle Eastern issues. June 24, 2006 A few nights ago, I watched a commercial announcing the premiere of a TV program on the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, explaining that the U.S. diplomats held hostage by the Khomeini regime were the first American victims of Islamic fundamentalist terror. Aware that there were previous attacks against Americans committed by "secular" and "nationalistic" Middle Eastern terrorist organizations, I decided to do some research to find out who were the first American victims of Middle Eastern terrorism. The results of my research confirmed my suspicion that the Puerto Ricans victim of the Lod Massacre were among the first American victims. Prior to the attack on the Puerto Rican pilgrims, 47 people died, and among them six Americans, when a bomb planted by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) exploded aboard a Swiss Air jet on Feb. 21, 1970. Two years later, on May 30, 1972, a threeman hit squad from the Japanese Red Army, under the direct orders of the PFLP, massacred 24 people and injured 78 at the Lod Airport in Tel Aviv, Israel. Sixteen of the dead were Puerto Ricans on a pilgrimage tour. The hit squad entered the terminal dressed in business suits and carrying what appeared to be violin cases. As the three men passed the ticket counter area, they suddenly pulled automatic weapons from their cases and began firing on the crowd indiscriminately. They also threw hand grenades into the bodies of the victims. ********************************************************************* During the Israeli counterattack at the airport, one of the terrorists, Yasuyuki Yasuda, ran out of ammunition and was killed by his companions. A second terrorist, Tsuyoshi Okudaira, committed suicide by detonating a grenade against his body. The third terrorist, Kozo Okamoto, was captured while attempting to flee from the terminal. Israel sentenced Okamoto to life in prison, but was released as part of a 1983 prisoner exchange with Palestinian militant factions. By now, the reader might be asking what is the connection between a Japanese hit-squad, a Palestinian Marxist terrorist organization, and radical Islamic Fundamentalism. Here is the answer. During the 1970s, Middle Eastern terrorist organizations of all ideologies -- fundamentalist, nationalistic and communist -- jointly trained and coordinated attacks against Israel and the West. To avoid raising suspicion by security forces, these organizations sometimes used the Japanese Red Army as their "mercenaries." Funding came from Libya, Syria, and after the Shah's topple from power, from Iran. The Japanese Red Army conducted its training in Baalbek, Lebanon, a region that has been described as the "lion's cage of terrorism." Although more than 30 years have passed since the Lod Massacre, this tragedy still remains a vivid memory for those who survived and for the relatives of the deceased. Carrying a message that is never too late to remember, these survivors and relatives walked the hallways of the Legislature of Puerto Rico.Responding to their call, Sen. José Garriga Picó introduced a bill establishing an annual remembrance day to honor the victims. The Senate unanimously approved the bill, but the House of Representatives voted against it. Some House members publicly disregarded the importance of approving this bill.* * The project was re submitted It is important to recognize the Lod victims, especially when we are living in times when anyone can become a victim of terrorism.This tragic event serves to remind us that terror does not distinguish or discriminate and it can happen anywhere in the world.Whether there is an official remembrance day or not, we should all remember and educate about this tragic event.Every May 30 should be a day of observance to honor the victims. Schools should invite the survivors for presentations. Our educational process should not stop in the island, but extend to the mainland as well.All of our fellow Americans should remember that Puerto Ricans were among the first American victims of terrorism. Antonio de la Cruz is from Puerto Rico. Contact him at highlanderpr51@yahoo.com To Go To Top

TRANSITIONS AREN'T ALWAYS BEAUTIFUL Posted by Batya Medad, April 29, 2007.

Morning Haze Dawns and sunsets are usually very beautiful, with glorious spectrums of color. The key word here is "usually." Here in Israel the transition between winter and summer is sometimes grey and depressing. Usually, when I focus my camera on the west at the end of the day, I photograph gorgeous colors. Not now. Dawn and dusk are dull at best, and sometimes even frightening. Is Israeli society also going through some sort of winter to summer transition? Shimon Peres is the last of the politicians who was involved in pre-state activities and is still active. But unlike most, he denies the importance of history. (hat tip: Moshe Burt, "Israel and The Sin of Expulsion" from http://www.sefer-torah.com/blog/) Emotionally healthy and successful people are always learning from the past, building on it and going forward. What horrors await a country and people who only think of the here and now? Nobody lives forever, and even Shimon Peres will die someday. Forty years after the Six Days war, Israeli society is beginning to resemble that pre-war time, when it looked like the struggling young country was about to fold. A popular joke ended with: Will the last person leaving, please turn out the lights? Our 59th Anniversary statistics included the depressing fact that some statisticians claim that more Israelis are leaving than immigrants are arriving. Contrary to the first 19 years of the state, today, Israel is one of the most modern and technically advanced nations on the earth. Materially, we are on par if not higher than western Europe. People come from the third world to work and save money. The Left wing and the media (actually one and the same) have been predicting a "civil war." They demonize the most patriotic sector of society. [Editor's note: see below, here and here.] That's how they motivate the police to attack the innocent. Israeli society is now in a stage of transition. It is up to us whether Redemption is next. Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il This article is archived at http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/2007/04/transitions-arent-always-beautiful.html The photo art accompanying "Dawn" is not part of the original article. It was made by Fred Reifenberg and is from http://fredslinksblogspotcom.blogspot.com/ To Go To Top

TAKING OUR DESTINY INTO OUR OWN HANDS Posted by Avodah, April 28, 2007.

This was writen by Ari Soffer and it appeared April 26, 2007 in Arutz-Sheva (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7087). Ari Soffer, a student in London, England, is a youth coordinator for a local religious Zionist organisation (called Sinai). He hopes to soon accomplish his dream of making Aliyah.

A few months ago, there were two stories that gained much attention from the media in Israel, as well as internationally. The first was the much-talked-about sleaze and corruption that has hit almost every single politician and public figure in Israel. The trail has lead from more minor MKs, to the former Justice Minister Chaim Ramon, Israeli President Moshe Katzav, Prime Minster Ehud Olmert and Chief of Police Moshe Karadi. (In fact, so far had this stench of corruption emanated, that the authorities were seemingly unable to find a single "clean" public figure to take up the post of Chief of Police. Yaakov Ganot, who succeeded Karadi, was in fact implicated in a corruption scandal in 1994, although he was acquitted.) The other major story to burst into the headlines at the time was that of the violent riots by Muslims in Jerusalem, lead by the popular Muslim leader Sheikh Raad Salah, in what they said was a response to a series of repairs being carried out on a walkway at the Rambam (or Mughrabim) Gate, which was damaged during a snowstorm not so long ago. Muslims worldwide accused the Israeli authorities of seeking to "undermine" and "vandalise" the "Al-Aksa Mosque" and its surroundings -- despite the fact that the dig was located far away from the Al-Aksa complex. In the face of a significant amount of international pressure, coupled with violent Arab intimidation, the Israeli government once again caved in, in part, agreeing to allow Turkish officials to "inspect" the site. Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski joined in calls to suspend, or even scrap, the dig altogether. Once again, the Islamic world was shown that if they want to get their own way, all they need to do is resort to violence. At a first glance, these two stories seemed completely unrelated, but upon further examination, each is revealed as just a symptom of a far greater problem. It is said that "he who controls the Temple Mount, controls all of Israel," and today this could not be more obviously true. After the insane move of actually handing the Temple Mount over to the Waqf (Islamic religious authority) only hours after its conquest in 1967, the Israel authorities and media, as well as the international community, have ignored the criminal desecration by the Islamic authorities of thousands of years' worth of valuable artifacts, dating back to the times of the First and Second Jewish Temples, which once stood on the Temple Mount. This blatant attempt by the Waqf to deny a Jewish connection to the Mount (as expressed in their many sermons), is only compounded by the fact that legally, only Muslims may pray on the Mount, with Jews often forbidden even to enter the area (that is, the areas that are permitted to be entered by Jewish Law). The latest rioting was, in fact, totally within the overall policy of the Waqf to deny entry to the Mount to all non-Muslims -- the Rambam Gate just so happens to be the only path up to the Temple Mount that is used by non-Muslims. What greater corruption can there be, what greater "sleaze" exists, than when Jewish politicians and supposed "leaders" hand away our holiest site to be desecrated? And it is not only the Temple Mount; we all remember the sites of Muslim rioters tearing apart and burning down the Tomb of Joseph, the burning down of the ancient Shalom Al Yisrael synagogue in Jericho, among other instances. Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook, z.tz.l., went to great pains to stress the importance of the "secular Zionist" movement of his time, in that it was rebuilding Eretz Yisrael when religious communities were shirking their duty to do so. Yet, at the very same time, he emphasised that if the secular Zionists would remain devoid of Torah, then eventually the time would come when they would turn rotten and have to be "shed" as a klippa ("shell"), which covers the holy light of the Jewish Nation. Today, we see that the rabbi's analysis could not be truer. Corruption began the moment the politicians decided that Israel would be a mere "State of the Jews," in which Judaism was no more the state religion than Islam or Christianity. This, instead of a true, Jewish State, in which the Torah would be accepted in full by the nation and all hostile elements would be excluded. But the religious are not blameless, either. Besides the lamentable lack of religious participation in the setting up of Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael, even today we continue to ignore the tragedy that happens before our very eyes. We pray at the Kotel, and we think that is enough. Never mind that our holiest site is still off-limits to us, and that the Muslims daily desecrate it, digging up and destroying or dumping all remains from the Temples -- no, the Kotel is all we need. How sad that we have indeed forgotten Jerusalem, as it says in the Kuzari: just as the spiritual centre of Israel is Jerusalem, the spiritual centre of Jerusalem is the Temple Mount. Right-wing, left-wing, "centrist" -- they have all failed us; as have the pseudo-religious parties of the Knesset, whose MKs have had many years to shout out loud about abandoning the Temple Mount and many other sins, but who have chosen not to in exchange for ministerial positions and government funding. It is time for the Jewish people as a whole to shake off these corrupt individuals and demand the Law of Israel in the Land of Israel. It is time that we stood up for the honour of Jerusalem, as it is being trampled by those who wish to deny our connection to it (and how sad it is that the Muslims are willing to take to the streets for the sake of Jerusalem, but we are not). If we do not, then we are all complicit in the national corruption; what is at stake here is more than just the reputation of the Israeli government or of one or another minister, but the very sanctity of the Land of Israel itself. Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com To Go To Top

THE PERCEPTION OF WEAKNESS: WAR AND PEACE INVOLVE ISSUES OF PERCEPTION Posted by Avodah, April 28, 2007.

This was written by Mark Silverberg and it appeared April 26, 2007 in Arutz-Sheva (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/7085). Mark Silverberg is a former member of the Justice Department and a past director of the Canadian Jewish Congress (Western Office). He served as a consultant to the secretary general of the Jewish Agency in Jerusalem during the first Intifada. An attorney, Mark is currently executive director of the Jewish Federation of Northeastern Pennsylvania in Scranton. He has published extensively on Middle East affairs and American foreign policy in the region, and is the author of The Quartermasters of Terror: Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Jihad (Wyndham Hall Press, 2005).

Matters of war and peace involve issues of mutual perception as much as ideologies or interests. Historically, when enemies perceived each other to be strong, the deterrent effect of that perception prevented war. During the Cold War, the concept of "mutually assured destruction" led both America and the former Soviet Union to conclude that nuclear war was a "zero-sum game" that neither could win. Similarly, history tells us that peace can prevail when enemies perceive themselves as weak. After the Hundred Years' War (1337-1453) ravaged much of England and France, the memory of that destruction kept both nations out of direct conflict with one another for more than two centuries. Unfortunately, history is replete with wars that were caused by incorrect perceptions of an enemy's true power. In World War II, Hitler miscalculated the collective strength of the Allies in the European theater just as Japanese General Hideki Tojo underestimated the massive power of the United States in the Far East. Admiral Yamamoto, commander of the Japanese fleet, wrote in his diary immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor: "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant." Nowhere, however, are these misperceptions of power more clearly delineated than in the Arab-Israeli conflict. When Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, the fact that it withdrew so quickly, abandoning equipment to Hizbullah and placing Israel's Lebanese Christian allies at grave risk, signaled weakness to its enemies. Hizbullah and the Palestinians concluded that Israel was not prepared to accept casualties in defense of its national interests. In the summer of 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat unthinkable concessions, including a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, control of the Temple Mount and ninety-five percent of the West Bank. Arafat balked, concluding that each Israeli concession signaled weakness and the hope of greater opportunities if he turned up the violence. Within three months of the Lebanon withdrawal, he unleashed the second intifada. Again, between 2000 and 2006, despite Israel's knowledge that Hizbullah was building massive reinforced underground concrete bunkers along its northern border, the Israeli government refused to authorize the necessary action to destroy the threat. Despite overwhelming evidence that Hizbullah was rearming, Israel made no attempt to interfere with the transfer of Iranian weapons to Damascus, refrained from attacking Syrian convoys transferring those advanced weapons to Hizbullah in Lebanon, and failed to attack Hizbullah missile sites in southern Lebanon. This restraint reinforced Hizbullah's perception of Israeli weakness, and that perception ultimately led to the Second Lebanon War last summer. What Israel perceives as restraint in the face of provocation, Hizbullah, Hamas and the other enemies of Israel perceive as opportunity in the face of weakness. Although Israel emerged from the Lebanon War tarnished but victorious (objectively speaking), subjectively, in the eyes of Hizbullah and rest of the Arab world, Israel had been "exposed" as weak, disorganized, demoralized and, most of all, no longer invincible. With uninterrupted Iranian and Syrian financial, military and logistical support behind it, Hizbullah was able to damage an Israeli naval cruiser, rain 4,000 missiles down on Israel's northern population, force over a million Israelis to live in bomb shelters for weeks, and destroy many of Israel's armored vehicles with advanced Iranian RPGs -- all of which created the perception of vulnerability, weakness and fear. In the south, the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza during the summer of 2005 was interpreted as yet another manifestation of Israel's weakness. As a result, Hamas, the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade and Islamic Jihad continue to prepare for war. By fighting a defensive war, based on the faulty strategy that aggression can be contained or otherwise "managed," the government of Israel has created the false perception of weakness in the minds of its enemies. This will have serious repercussions because, perceptions aside, the truth is that the Israeli war machine continues to retain the capacity to vanquish not only Hizbullah and Hamas, but any state (Arab or Persian) that threatens its existence. Unfortunately, in the eyes of these enemies (whose delusions of grandeur are surpassed only by their unmitigated arrogance), the perception is that Israel is now ripe for the taking; and Israel has done little to alter that perception. When Hamas spokesmen deliver sermons in Palestinian mosques citing the religious duty of the faithful to slaughter "the Zionist occupiers," and Palestinian television broadcasts these sermons live, when the Palestinian Ministry of Higher Education introduces 12th-grade textbooks denying the Holocaust ever happened, while the Prime Minister of Israel continues to conduct "business as usual" with the Palestinian Authority President -- who has neither the ability nor the intention of stopping the incitement and hatred -- the perception of Israeli weakness is reinforced. When the Prime Minister of Israel gives his approval to the training and arming of the Hamas-dominated Palestinian security services, knowing from past experience the probability that both will, at some point in the near future, be turned against IDF soldiers, the perception of Israeli weakness is reinforced. When the Saudi Initiative (which includes, inter alia, a call for the "right of return of Palestinian refugees") is presented to Israel as "non-negotiable," and the government of Israel responds that the initiative is "interesting," the perception of Israeli weakness is reinforced. When, in the face of negative Arab responses, the Prime Minister proposes that Israel enter into talks with any available combination of Arab governments, the perception of Israeli weakness is reinforced. When Israeli security sources document that Hamas is preparing for war, and is constructing tunnels and underground concrete bunkers along the lines of Hizbullah's fortifications in southern Lebanon, that Hamas is being financed by, and armed with advanced weaponry from, Iran, and that it is providing missiles for Islamic Jihad's attacks on Israel -- all without fear of massive Israeli retaliation -- the perception of Israeli weakness is reinforced. When senior Israeli defense officials warn of an unprecedented missile build-up on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights and note Syrian threats to "liberate" the Heights by force, while the government of Israel continues to signal a willingness to deal with Syria, the perception of Israeli weakness is reinforced. In the Middle East, if history is any judge, this perception will inevitably lead to war. In democratic societies, seeking a resolution of international issues through negotiation, mediation and compromise is considered standard diplomatic practice. But in the Arab Middle East, where the lines between the interests of secular nationalists (who seek the establishment of a viable, stable Palestinian state) and radical Islamists (who want an Islamic Palestinian state and a judenrein Middle East) are fading fast, any effort at compromise is perceived as an opportunity to vanquish the weaker adversary. The probability is that Israel's enemies in Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria and Iran have incorrectly concluded that Israeli resolve is faltering and that its fighting spirit can be broken. That perception is not only wrong, it's dangerous. Today, Israel is hearing the same "extermination rhetoric" it heard four decades ago in the months and weeks preceding the Six-Day War. What we are witnessing is a replay of history, tragic as it is, because the false perception of Israeli weakness can only end when the perception of Israeli invincibility has been restored in the minds of Israel's enemies. Unfortunately, as has so often been the case, it will take a major war to do it. Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com To Go To Top

ANDREW BOSTOM'S NEW BOOK: "THE LEGACY OF ISLAMIC ANTISEMITISM" Posted by P. Kaufman, April 28, 2007.

This comes from the book jacket summary.

This comprehensive, meticulously documented collection of scholarly articles presents indisputable evidence that a readily discernible, uniquely Islamic antisemitism -- a specific Muslim hatred of Jews -- has been expressed continuously since the advent of Islam. Debunking the conventional wisdom, which continues to assert that Muslim animosity toward Jews is entirely a 20th-century phenomenon fueled mainly by the protracted Arab-Israeli conflict, leading scholars provide example after example of antisemitic motifs in Muslim documents reaching back to the beginnings of Islam. The contributors show that the Koran itself is a significant source of hostility toward Jews, as well as other foundational Muslim texts including the hadith (the words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded by pious Muslim transmitters) and the sira (the earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad). Many other examples are adduced in the writings of influential Muslim jurists, theologians, and scholars, from the Middle Ages through the contemporary era. These primary sources, and seminal secondary analyses translated here for the first time into English -- such as Hartwig Hirschfeld's mid-1880s essays on Muhammad's subjugation of the Jews of Medina and George Vajda's elegant, comprehensive 1937 study of the hadith -- detail the sacralized rationale for Islam's anti-Jewish bigotry. Numerous complementary historical accounts illustrate the resulting plight of Jewish communities in the Muslim world across space and time, culminating in the genocidal threat posed to the Jews of Israel today. Scholars, educators, and interested lay readers will find this collection an invaluable resource for understanding the phenomenon of Muslim antisemitism, past and present. To Go To Top

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD'S DUPING OF AMERICA Posted by Rachel Ehrenfeld, April 28, 2007.

This article was published April 20, 2007 in American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/04/the_muslim_bortherhoods_duping.html The original article has live links to additional material.

Making the Muslim Brotherhood a major player in Middle East politics seems to be one of the few subjects on which both Democrats and Republicans seem to agree. Neither the State Department nor the White House commented after U.S. House Majority Leader Stanley Hoyer met in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood's parliamentarian leader, Mohammed Saad el-Katatni. Hoyer and el-Katani discussed recent developments in the Middle East, and the "Brotherhood's vision." This meeting took place just one day after the conclusion of the Muslim Brotherhood 5th Cairo Conference: The International Campaign Against US & Zionist Occupation, in which delegations from Hizbollah and Hamas took part. The participants cheered as Muslim Brotherhood General Guide Muhammad Mahdi 'Akef declared, "the devil Bush and his allies were now the ones sowing terror and aggression worldwide." Akef's rant, translated from Arabic by MEMRI, blamed Bush for "sending American youth to die by the thousands ...at the expense of the poor in the U.S. and across the world." His statement sounds similar to the claim of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that "The president's policies have failed, and...[he] endangers our troops and hurts our national security." While the Democratic leadership does everything possible to demonstrate their diplomatic acumen before the 2008 U.S. presidential elections, it is less clear why the Administration is also courting this radical Muslim organization. Indeed, both the Democrats and the Administration are playing right into the Muslim Brotherhood's hand, inadvertently supporting its propaganda offensive against the U.S. Still more worrisome is the apparent dismissal by American political leaders on both sides of the aisle, of ongoing declarations and fatwas hostile to the U.S., issued by MB leaders since 9/11. In his February 22 weekly address posted until recently on the MB Arabic website, ikwanpress.com, Akef claimed that the cracks in "the Western offensive against Islam," are "the failure the American war machine to break the rock of the Iraqi opposition, the difficulties facing the coalition forces in Afghanistan, and the military defeat of the Israeli armed forces in Lebanon and against the Palestinians." Akef called on the Arabs and Muslims to continue terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Israel "until they withdraw completely from the Middle East." Akef reassured his followers that "the jihad will lead to smashing Western civilization and replacing it with Islam which will dominate the world," according to a translation by Jonathan D. Halevi, director of Orient Research Group. As this demonstrates, the MB under Akef's leadership follows in the path of its predecessor Mustafa Mashour, who in August 2002, stated: "we will not give up (the goal) of restoring the Muslim Caliphate." (Asharq Al-Awsat, 9 Aug. 2002). But none of this is reported in the mainstream media. Instead, the press, rather than objectively covering the MB's declared mission to establish a global Caliphate, has joined the ranks of political advocates portraying the MB as "moderate" and "reformist." Meanwhile, Hamas, the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, busily fortifies its economic and military strength. According to recent Hamas disclosures, theirs is the largest military force in the Gaza strip, comprising 15,000 combatants. Through its rapidly growing power, Hamas is evidently laying the groundwork for full control of the PA, and the election of Khalid Mashaal as the next PA chairman, thus, solidifying the MB takeover. Despite these alarming developments, U.S. State Department officials (under heavy Saudi pressure) continue to lean on Israel to negotiate with the inconsequential current PA chairman, Mahmoud Abbas. Moreover, the U.S. ban on financial aid to the Hamas-led PA did not prevent the international community in 2006, from sinking more than $1.2 billion- mostly U.S. funds -- in aid into the corrupt, terrorist Palestinian government. Hamas, allegedly, had no access to these funds. However, Hamas runs most PA government offices. Moreover, Hamas members on many occasions have boasted that funds and weapons given to Abbas' Fatah end up in their hands. Although the U.S. says it will have nothing to do with Hamas, it has approved a $59 million package in "non-lethal" assistance (weapons and military training) to PA security forces, ostensibly controlled by Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. U.S. pressure led Israel to agree to this arrangement, despite the fact that similar provisions since the 1994 establishment of the PA, resulted in the murders of at least 1,064 Israeli civilians, and the wounding of more than 15,000. Most of these atrocities were perpetrated with weapons, training and funding supplied by the international community. The failure to hold the PA accountable since its inception only encouraged Palestinian corruption and violence, and facilitated Hamas' rise to power. Now, dependence on Saudi oil and investments seem to push the U.S. and the international community to accept demands to legitimize Hamas, thereby establishing MB reign over the Palestinians. Democrats and Republicans alike are only deluding themselves in believing that negotiations with the MB and their terrorist offspring will alter their drive to establish a global Caliphate. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of American Center for Democracy (ACD), and a board member for the Committee on the Present Danger; Alyssa A. Lappen is a senior fellow at the ACD. To Go To Top

MILITARY CONFRONTATION WITH HAMAS IN GAZA IS INEVITABLE Posted by Daily Alert, April 28, 2007.

This article was written By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff and it appeared April 25, 2007 in Haaretz (http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/852023.html).

From Israel's perspective, the timing of Hamas' attack on southern Israel on Monday was problematic. With the government and army virtually paralyzed by fear of the upcoming publication of the Winograd Committee's report, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert cannot easily order a harsh reprisal in Gaza. And this time, good intelligence and the army's preparedness foiled what was apparently another kidnapping attempt, which ostensibly enables Olmert to make do with a limited response. Yet the premier must ask himself whether this would not be a mistake. Just as Hamas did in its kidnapping of Gilad Shalit last June, the organization, or parts of it, is signaling that all its promises of a cease-fire are nonbinding. Since Hamas agreed to the cease-fire in Gaza, more than 200 Qassam rockets have been fired at Israel from Gaza and some 50 bombs have been planted along the border fence. Hamas' military wing was involved in many of these attacks. On the tactical level, the lessons of Shalit's kidnapping were learned: For instance, the army is now allowed to penetrate a few hundred meters into Gaza in order to thwart kidnappings. Yet it must be remembered that last July's kidnapping of two soldiers along the northern border by Hezbollah was preceded by many attempted kidnappings that Israel successfully foiled; it was Israel's muted response to these attempts that convinced Hezbollah that it would only pay a minimal price for a successful abduction. Unlike its response to previous thwarted kidnappings, the army refrained from celebrating on Monday. This was partly due to the two successful abductions that occurred last year, but also to awareness that a major escalation in Gaza is likely relatively soon. Olmert will remain unenthusiastic about a large-scale operation in Gaza even after the Winograd report is published. But for years, Israel's response to Palestinian attacks has been based on one thing only: the attacks' results. A successful kidnapping, or a Qassam rocket that causes multiple deaths, will hasten the decision to act. Olmert is well acquainted with the situation assessment of GOC Southern Command Yoav Galant: that a military confrontation with Hamas is inevitable. The organization's ideology, its ongoing attacks and its military buildup in Gaza all lead to this conclusion. And from Israel's perspective, Galant believes, the sooner the better, before Hamas' military might grows any further. Meanwhile, the army is preparing, and on a scale that some liken to the preparations preceding the first Lebanon War in 1982. In Israel, such preparations tend to be self-fulfilling prophecies. Hamas' claim of responsibility for Monday's rocket and mortar fire was unusual. Since November, it has refrained from such announcements. This time, Hamas was apparently motivated by a desire to regain its fighting image in the eyes of the Palestinian public. Its statement even exaggerated the number of rockets and missiles fired. The attack was apparently timed for Independence Day to maximize its effect. Palestinian security officials on Monday claimed that Hamas deliberately aimed at open areas, in order to prevent a massive Israeli response, but fired enough rockets to create the impression that it is once again leading the fight and to divert attention from the failures of the new Palestinian unity government. This government has not managed to end the bloody gang wars in Gaza, nor has it ended the Hamas-Fatah rivalry: Both sides are busily arming and recruiting in preparation for renewed infighting. It seems the only thing that can save the Gazans from civil war is a large-scale Israeli military operation. The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To Go To Top

NEW YORK TIMES TELLS AN INCOMPLETE STORY -- AS USUAL Posted by Noam Bedein, April 28, 2007.

This is in response to a New York Times article[1]. Jennifer Medina writes about the thriving youth culture which exists in the shelters of Sderot. She neglects to mention that 25 out of 58 public shelters in Sderot are currently unfit for human habitation. Sderot has suffered over the past six years from the missiles from Gaza which have reigned on the city -- 1400 missiles since the disengagement, and almost 200 missiles since the "cease fire" was declared on November 26th. As the head of Sderot security told our agency[2] "...in 18 of them there isn't any electricity source nor a functioning faucet, seven others are flooded with rain water and are in terrible condition...". We cannot get a straight answer from the Israeli government as to why that is so. What is clear is that no youth culture thrives in these 25 shelters. This is a short film that illustrates the neglect of the government of Sderot and a modest project facilitated by the Sderot Information Center for the Western Negev. If you have 12 minutes, please watch this movie. It takes a few seconds to download. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-972718064631834705 Footnotes 1. "Give Them Shelter: Where Rockets, and Drums, Go Boom", by Jennifer Medina appeared in the April 27th 2007 edition of the New York Times, (www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/world/middleeast/27sderot.html?ref=world). 2.  http://sderotmedia.com/?p=244 Noam Bedein is Director News Service for Sderot and the Western Negev, Sderot Information Center for the Western Negev Ltd. Contact him at noam@sderotmedia.com To Go To Top

THE THREAT OF WAR HEIGHTENS Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, April 28, 2007.

Iran and its proxies prepare for war against the United States and Israel. U.S. battleships float menacingly along the Persian coast, ready to launch missiles. Mesmerized jihad junkies, perhaps worldwide, shrouded in demonic de rigueur suicide attire, wait ominously for commands to explode, believing such acts of martyrdom will stamp their visas to a Koran sanctioned brothel in paradise. Is a blood soaked catastrophe inevitable, or is there a better way to confront radical Islam, a metastasizing twenty-first century cancer that must be eliminated? Like all malignant tumors, jihadist endeavors must be nourished, in this case financed by extorted fossil fuel revenues from civil mostly non-Muslim industrial nations. Indeed, a throwback energy source responsible for financially enabling an anti-secular in effect anti-survival mutated throwback mentality, is furthermore unfit to fuel a consequentially feverish planet beginning to rebel against its presumably most intelligent species as well as mostly all currently adapted life forms. Weaning off oil dependency is win win, no doubt starving radical Islam while concurrently respecting our only home in the universe. If war is to be avoided, even at this late hour, prescient logical strategic planning is vital. The civil world must intensely consider recent intelligent reports suggesting Iran and its extending jihadist tentacles are no military pushovers, then ruminate over the perilous possibly calamitous consequences of all out war against Iran, Syria, possibly Sudan and other kindred spirit Islamic nations, and most ominously the terrorist cells disseminated in all directions. Yet, illogic abounds in other matters, suggesting nations do not always act in their best interests. We note forces commanded by the House of Saud, itself financer of Islamic fanatics indoctrinated in Wahhabi madrassas a/k/a human bomb factories, itself ironically allied in a symbiotic relationship with the presumed 'war on terror' Bush Administration, just arrested 172 Islamic fanatics, many if not most, perhaps even more ironically, monetarily nourished in those same madrassas financed by those same Saudi captors, caught most propitiously before blowing up oil installations, attacking Saudi public officials, and storming prisons to free terrorist suspects. Hmmm! Lets get this straight. Civil non-Muslim industrial nations underwrite the very enemies yearning to annihilate 'the infidel'-namely them-by buying their oil. The royal House of Saud, an ally of America, finances then captures Islamic fanatics, bent on in effect overthrowing that Saudi government as well as destroying the oil infrastructure ruled by those same Saudi robed rogue financers. With disconnected thinking of that magnitude, might a possibility exist that such muddled leaders craft a well thought out plan, avoid a blood bath, disassemble fanatical Islam, and propel mankind into an emerging twenty-first century relatively unscathed? The civilized secular world is in dire need of a wise leaders, possessing formidable skills, able to convince the sane segment of our beleaguered species that the per barrel price of oil must forthwith drop drastically, at least temporarily, thus choking off much of the metaphorical blood supply nourishing the Persian malignancy and its perilous proxies. This will require extensive cooperation by the House of Saud, OPEC's prime mover and shaker, as well as Big Oil, and each oil producing power affixed to this planet not totally in bed with Iran, including non-Muslim nations ruled by the likes of Hugo Chavez and Vladimir Putin, both cozy with Iran; no easy task. Yet, if the monetary cost of war is not made prohibitive for Iran and its henchmen, they will continue to enhance the potency of and further distribute their weaponry, likely pushing the world towards a military confrontation of immense proportions in the near future. Indeed, intelligence estimates concerning the military prowess and extent of a growing evil empire are likely accurate. The fact that out-of-control Iraq has become a training ground for jihadists, the fact that American troops and coalition forces remain bogged down in Iraq's dysfunctional uncivil war, does not help matters from a military perspective. Furthermore, if Iran loses the lion's share of its revenue, economic hardship could spur a major revolution manned by disgruntled Iranian youths yearning to throw off the shackles of fundamentalist Islamic repression. Hizbullah, Hamas, and other jihadist groups, as well as Syria, would also suffer from lack of funding, perhaps spurring revolutions in their enclaves as well. This could only make the world a safer place. Let us hope that the right secular leaders 'seize the day', effectuating such a strategy, dropping the price of oil sufficiently to slay today's maniacal beast. Let us further hope that the world also begins to wean itself off a fossil fuel dependency for the sake of our challenged planet. Might an intelligent Knesset increase funding for Israeli scientists to develop a cheap and efficient energy alternative? If such strategies are not soon enacted, mankind will get what it deserves, a most bitter lesson to absorb! Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net To Go To Top

AL AQSA BRIGADES: "THE TRUCE HAS ENDED, RESISTANCE WILL TARGET ALL ISRAELI CITIES" Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 28, 2007.

This appeared in Maan News (www.maannews.net/en/index.php?opr=ShowDetails&ID=21579).

Gaza -- Ma'an -- The Fatah-affiliated Al Aqsa Brigades renewed its confirmation that the truce with the Israelis has ended and accused the Israeli government of forcing the cessation of the truce by its continued killing and decimation of the Palestinians. Spokesman of the brigades, Abu Fuad, condemned the killing of four Palestinians in the Gaza Strip on Saturday, saying "the Israeli escalation seeks to export the Israeli internal crisis and target Palestinian unity". Abu Fuad blamed the Israeli government for the escalation and threatened that resistance operations will now include all Israeli cities. He said "the recent Israeli escalation came at a time that the Israeli government is experiencing its worse era; as the scandals haunt its ministers." He described the current Israeli government as "the weakest government in Israeli history." Abu Fuad criticized the Arab position and described the Arabs as "sycophants" that are "begging Israel to accept their initiative." He added that since there is no preventative element on the Arab and the Islamic sides the Israelis will continue their "aggression against the Palestinians, profiting from the Arab weakness and western bias in favour of Israel". Abu Fuad called on all faction leaders to unite in their stance and to form a united operation. He says "the Israeli aggression will not stop as long as we are not united in our political and military operations." Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Geneva Switzerland. Contact her at iii44@aol.com To Go To Top

AS GAZA BURNS Posted by Aramy, April 27, 2007.

This was written by Avi Issacharoff and it was published today in Haaretz (www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=853107).

Members of the Abu-Sharah family, one of the most famous clans in the Gaza Strip, marched through the streets of Gaza City on Tuesday, carrying the body of Hassan Abu-Sharah. They took the body straight to the courtyard of the Palestinian parliament. Palestinian policemen tried to prevent the group from entering, but several dozen armed men from the clan easily pushed past them and started shooting in the air. They demanded that the Palestinian Authority arrest Hassan's murderers, although they were aware that the chances of the security forces taking such action were virtually nil. Hassan, 54, had been shot dead two days earlier by members of one of the largest and strongest clans in the city: the Durmush clan. Supporters of clan head Mumtaz Durmush -- who call themselves the Army of Islam -- had apparently, due to a mistake in identity, abducted Abu-Sharah and then executed him, disposing of his body in the Tel al-Hawa neighborhood. On the day that the Abu-Sharah clan marched with the body, the Army of Islam published a statement admitting its responsibility for the murder and claiming it had been a mistake. Mumtaz Durmush's men even apologized in the statement and called on the Abu-Sharah family to show restraint. But the family was not placated by the announcement and demanded revenge. It was only when some members of the parliament emerged from the building to speak with the demonstrators that they were persuaded to stop their protest and to bury Hassan. Mumtaz Durmush was also apparently involved in the abductions of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and of BBC correspondent Alan Johnston. "Everyone in Gaza knows who is holding Johnston," a Palestinian officer who is a member of Fatah says bitterly. "But no one dares to take action against them. The Sabra neighborhood where the Durmush clan members live looks like a giant army camp. Hamas and Fatah are busy fighting each other rather than preparing a plan to take over Sabra." Incidents like the killing of Abu-Sharah have become common in Gaza. On Saturday, the day before Hassan was murdered, the following incidents were recorded in the Strip: Militants from Hamas' Operational Force kidnapped a member of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' presidential guard in the Jabalya refugee camp; in response, members of the victim's family abducted a Hamas activist; and during negotiations to stop escalation of the confrontation, one of the soldiers in the Hamas force threw a hand grenade in the family's direction and wounded three of its members. Additionally, a few hours earlier, armed men, apparently from the Army of Islam, blew up part of the American International School in the northern Gaza Strip. They did not touch the guards on duty there, but explained to them that "it is forbidden to guard an institution belonging to infidels." Casualty lists In addition to the murder of Hassan Abu-Sharah, on Sunday, two members of the Abu-Amer family were murdered and a third was injured. The background for this was apparently a feud between clans. On that same day, the deputy head of the Palestinian manufacturers' association was also shot and wounded while someone tried to steal his car. Two passersby were injured by gunshots during an attempt to attack a toy salesman in Gaza City, and a member of the Hamas Operational Force was injured by shots fired at the organization's headquarters in the center of the Strip. On Monday, 12-year-old Muhammad al-Saadi was killed in northern Gaza by a stray bullet shot during an exchange of fire by rival clans near his home. Five-year-old Iyat al-Jarad was critically injured in the head also by a stray bullet while playing near her house in Beit Lahia. In other incidents, another seven Palestinians were injured by gunshots and in fights, and one Hamas activist who was working with explosives in his house was wounded when some of them went off. In addition, unidentified gunmen fired at two buildings housing the headquarters of security forces controlled by Fatah, but there were no casualties. On Wednesday, two 12-year-olds were killed in the northern Strip and in Gaza City. One was killed by a bullet accidentally fired from a weapon found in his home; the other was killed in a random shooting near his house. Also a 27-year-old woman was killed in the Bureij refugee camp during a shoot-out between clans. In other incidents, a member of military intelligence and a 12-year-old boy were wounded by gunfire during a confrontation between rival families; two youths were injured in the northern part of Gaza when an explosive device went off; and the car of Ahmed al-Marani, the attorney general in the Gaza Strip, was stolen in an armed robbery. According to data released by the Ramallah Center for Human Rights, since the start of 2007, 63 Palestinians have been killed and some 400 injured in clashes because of the chaos in the security situation. Most of the casualties were in the Gaza Strip, which is beginning to resemble the Somalian capital of Mogadishu. Tens of thousands of men armed with light weapons and RPGs do whatever they think fit; the Palestinian police are not effective and the courts are not functioning. In armed feuds between clans, the Palestinian security forces do not get involved at all. Heavy price The "council of elders," a body that consists of the heads of clans, tries to effect a compromise that will make it possible for the families of a murdered person to receive suitable compensation. However, because of the financial situation in Gaza, most of these rivalries continue to claim a heavy price in blood. One of the worst hit sectors of the population, because of the absence of proper legislation, is women: Almost every week, women are murdered in Gaza because of what is called "family honor." They are buried in secret and in haste without any publicity. The Christians in Gaza have also become victims of violence. A library owned by a Palestinian Christian was set on fire, apparently solely because of the owner's religion. Dozens of Internet cafes have been set alight or bombed by Islamic extremists, who consider them dangerous for the youth. The bombing of the American school is yet another example of the activity of fundamentalist elements that do not have the support even of Hamas. People who deal in weapons, drugs or prostitution are enjoying unprecedented prosperity, even though the Hamas security mechanism referred to as the "implementation force" brags about its ability to counteract these phenomena. "The implementation force sends text messages every day to journalists in which it reports that hashish dealers, or those dealing in prostitution, have been caught," says A., a Gaza journalist. "But why don't they deal with the armed robbery of vehicles or with those who abducted Johnston? No one prevents blood revenge between families. What would I do if someone attacked a member of my family? I'd also murder the murderers, who are immediately released from jail. Every armed man has a clan or organization behind him, of which the police are afraid, and therefore the police release the suspects." The journalist adds: "There are two options today that could take us out of this situation: Someone strong in the Gaza Strip who does not care about a confrontation with the clans, or an Israeli occupation. Many people in the Strip hope that Israel will reoccupy it because these phenomena were not prevalent during the Israeli occupation." Hamas is becoming Fatah Tuesday was a relatively quiet day, compared to the last few weeks in Gaza: Unknown assailants attacked and seriously injured a resident of Khan Yunis, hitting him over the head with a blunt instrument, and armed gunmen shot at the car of Majdi Arabeed, head of the Voice of Freedom radio station in Gaza, but there were no casualties. Two years and three months ago, Arabeed was very seriously wounded by shots from an Israel Defense Forces unit operating in the Gaza Strip while he was filming a report together with Channel 10 correspondent Shlomi Eldar. He recovered and went back to work. But in recent days he has once again become a target -- this time of Palestinian armed men. It is not clear whether they are from one of the Islamic movements or one of the rival clans. "There is no law in Gaza," he says. "No one talks any more about negotiations or about freeing prisoners. They are all busy with the question of who killed whom and how. The police are afraid of the gunmen because if they try to arrest them, they will immediately be depicted as collaborating with Israel. In addition, the competition between the various forces of Fatah and Hamas has become destructive from their point of view, and their image is negative. Everyone stores up weapons at home to defend themselves. Even if the state prosecutor publishes an arrest order against a resident of Gaza, who is able to arrest him if he and his family are armed?" Arabeed claims that the responsibility lies with Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh's Hamas government, which is not able to function. Some analysts in Gaza believe that Hamas' decision to fire Qassam rockets at Israel on Independence Day was an attempt to make the Palestinian public forget the movement's failure to restore order in the streets of the Strip. It seems as if Hamas is trying to remind the Palestinian public once again of its "good old" image as a terrorist organization that fights Israel fearlessly. But the chaos in Gaza has also had an effect on its ranks. "They have become like us," one Fatah activist says. "They fight over everything: money, positions, ranks, who will be director general and who will be captain in the offices and the security mechanisms that they are responsible for. There is no longer one leader who decides everything. The authority of Khaled Meshal, the head of the political bureau, has been badly eroded since the Mecca agreement. Their message to the Palestinian people is not uniform; all of a sudden, they sound like a supermarket of different ideas, just like Fatah was at one stage: [Hamas co-founder] Mahmoud al-Zahar speaks about destroying Israel, while Haniyeh broadcasts a moderate message. The military wing does whatever it wants." Israel doesn't need to take comfort in these remarks. In the reality that is Gaza, where economic hardship screams out, there are quite a few Palestinians who wish to send Qassam rockets at its northern neighbor -- and not necessarily for ideological reasons. The head of a unit of launchers gets $5,000 from the organization that sends him on his mission for releasing a salvo of rockets -- an enormous sum in Gazan terms. The members of the unit receive several hundred dollars. The economic temptation is immense. It is less important to those launching the rockets whether the target is actually hit. That may be important only to those who wish to see the IDF return as an occupier to Gaza. Contact Aramy at aramy964@gmail.com To Go To Top

AND THEY WISH TO SHUT OUR VOICE Posted by Salah Choudhury, April 27, 2007.

Intolerant are the Islamist radicals. They don't want anyone to raise voice and say -enough to the increasing trend of spreading religious hatred and provoking people with the false interpretations of Koran, saying "Jews and Christians are your enemies, go for jihad (holy war) against them". When the Islamofascist clerics openly give sermons saying, "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people", Islamic scholars like Imam Sheikh Abdul Haadi Palazzi, terming the interpretation of this verse of Koran said, "This quotation is based on a false translation, since the word "Awliya'", does not mean "friends", but rather "tutors". A correct translation is "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for tutors. They are respectively tutors to each other. And whoso among you takes them for tutors is indeed one of them. Verily Allah guides not the unjust people". The verse refers to a time when Islam was developing, and is an appeal to avoid considering it as a sort of sub-sect depending on Judaism or Christianity. "Do not take as tutors" means "Do not depend on them for your understanding of religion, for guidance in theology and ethics, etc." Apart from this, Islam surely does not forbid friendship between Muslims and non-Muslims, to the point that a Muslim man can take a Jewish or a Christian woman as his wife and mother of his children. The Qur'an describes marriage as a relation of "intimate love and mercy" and explains that this same relation can actually exist between a Muslim man and a Jewish or Christian woman. Were ordinary friendship with Jews and Christians forbidden, the Qur'an itself could never permit a relation of "intimate love and mercy" with those with whom friendship is not permissible." Certainly there are thousands of hidden axes of the Islamist radicals, waiting to execute voices like Imam Palazzi at the first chance, because, if such noble message will get spread, possibly in a very near future, blood-monger Islamofascists will not find any more innocent pray to fall into their traps of so-called holy war. This had been quite a regular experience for me and my family since 2003, when for the first time, I wrote in my own newspaper, Weekly Blitz, about how the jihadist were being bred in madrassas and kindergarten madrassas. We wrote that, cadres for the militant organizations have been recruited from the thousands of madrassahs (Islamic schools), that have mushroomed throughout the country. Many are located along the Indian border in the west and north, where young radicals from both countries are taught the virtues of orthodox Islam. Funding for the madrassas comes from donations from local communities and international Islamic charities, such as the Saudi Arabia based and immensely wealthy Rabitat Al Alam Al Islami. The madrassas fill an important function in a country where basic education is available only to a few, especially in the impoverished countryside, but, as Bangladeshi journalist Salahuddin Babar said: "Once the students graduate from the madrassas, they either join mosques as imams or similar religious-related jobs. There are hundreds of thousands of mosques, so there is employment in that field. But they find it difficult to get employment in secular institutions. Certain quarters grab this opportunity to brainwash them, make them into religious fanatics rather than modern Muslims." A retired civil servant has called the madrassahs a "potential political time bomb". According to latest estimates, there are at least 64,000 in Bangladesh, most of which are beyond any form of governmental control or supervision. Moderate Muslims note that the Taliban was born in similar madrassahs in Pakistan's Northwest Frontier Province and in Afghan refugee camps, where they promoted a new radical and extremely militant model for 'Islamic revolutions'. Evil forces became active in suffocating my voice by bringing extremely ridiculous false sedition, treason and blasphemy charges. To justify their notoriety, they said, "By praising the Jews and Christians, by demanding relations between Bangladesh and Israel and by forecasting the so-called rise of Islamist militancy in this country." I have tarnished the image of Bangladesh in the international arena. Almost each month, I have to face a radical inclined judge in Dhaka, who has the absolute power to award me capital punishment for my 'crime' mentioned above. Only during 2006, they tried twice to kill me, while each of the moment, my family and I live in extreme danger. Radical Islamist leader, Noor Hussain Noorani, personally threatened my life terming me as an 'agent of Ahmedias'. Noorani heads the radical Khatmey Nabuat Movement (KNM), which clashed with police several times when it tried to attack the Ahmadi prayer services in Bangladesh. The Ahmadi are a Muslim group that has angered fundamentalists by its belief that Muhammed was not the final prophet, and for their belief in the crucifixion of Jesus. KNM and others have been demanding that the government declare the Ahamadi non-Muslim. They are allied with various Muslim extremist groups in pressing that agenda and the imposition of Sharia (Muslim law) throughout all of Bangladesh. The reason behind Noorani's anger was publication of a number of articles and editorials in Weekly Blitz exposing the nasty attack on the Ahmedia community by Islamofascists. Although, these threats were not new to me. Wgen I was arrested on 29th November 2003 and sent to prison, some of the prisoners, who were considered to be fans of Saddam Hussain or Ossama Bin Laden tried to physically assault me or even kill right inside the prison. They were instigated by several notorious elements in doing this. Some of my friends abroad several times suggested me to leave Bangladesh and take asylum abroad. But, to me, there is no dignity or honor in retreating from my mission of peace. I know for sure, if I will retreat from this very 'battle field', which is filled with religious fanatics or abandon my mission, anyone else might think twice before raising a strong voice to say no to jihad. Thanks to my Jewish brother Dr. Richard Benkin, thanks to US Congressman Mark Steven Kirk and Nita Lowey, thanks to European Parliament, thanks to Senator Ursula Stephens and many more esteemed people and my friends, admirers and supporters around the world, who are kindly putting their extremely important support to my mission. Although such substantial international concerns are yet to raise the Bangladesh authorities from their state of virtual demise in fear of Islamist radicals. The case brought against me possibly stands as witness that, Bangladesh at least does not deserve to claim as a moderate Muslim nation. Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury is a journalist, columnist, author, and publisher and editor of "Weekly Blitz" published from Dhaka, Bangladesh. Internet edition of this newspaper is available on www.weeklyblitz.net. Email him at salahuddinshoaibchoudhury@yahoo.com This article is archived at http://www.countercurrents.org/choudhury270407.htm To Go To Top

ISRAEL'S FAILED HASBARA (INFORMATION) WAR Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, April 27, 2007.

I, among others, have been fighting Israel's lack of defensive "Hasbara" for the last 24 years. Israel's Foreign Minister, coupled with most of her Prime Ministers, have purposely crippled any formal efforts to provide the world Media (including her own Media) with accurate, on-time and/or pre-emptive information. Think of all the past blunders where false information about Israel flooded the world Media. Only after weeks had passed was any effort made to correct the false record and the false impression world wide. We find Israel's Foreign Ministers either remain silent or apologizing for things that never happened. Some may recall the apologies blurted out by Israel in the video that showed Mohammed al Dura and his father being shot and killed -- only later by doing forensic journalism, determined that the shots came from Palestinian Arabs shooting. But, the Media buried the rebuttal of the false story that al Dura was killed by Israeli shooters. Something deep in Israel's ruling class psyche seems to mandate only "they" may say the words to defend the nation's image and are quick to accept blame where there was none. Most are inept, non-professionals in "Hasbara" (information) and their comments are usually late, inarticulate and the result of inner circle party hacks who do not have a clue about Israel's image in the world, particularly during a time of crisis, war and/or counter-terror operations. Worse yet, foreign journalists are free to offer any negative or inaccurate spin on the stories they write, film or broadcast back to their home base corporations. The journalists have usually been treated with kid gloves. Even if they are responsible for egregiously false stories or manipulated photos, no attempt is usually made to lift their credentials and send them packing. One excellent exception: a Reuters photographer issued doctored photos from Beirut and a story supposedly about Lebanese rescuing dead babies from a building in Qana, bombed by the Israelis at a Hezb'Allah missile launching site -- 7 hours before the building collapsed. Fortunately, the website or blog called LittleGreenFootballs exposed this "Faux-tography" (while coining this new word). The Reuters photographer was fired and all of his photos were taken off the Reuters archive. This may have been only a drop-in-the-bucket or the tip-of-the-iceberg, but it shows what's out there and proves how corrective action can be taken by alert civilians with today's communications and internet technology. This is not true of reporters stationed in Lebanon, Syria, Gaza, Iran, Saudi Arabia...et al. Here the reportage is invariably favorable to their host governments and fearful of being scooped up to be chained to a radiator for months as happened during Yassir Arafat's 12 year Civil War in Lebanon. At least 10 media people were killed during that terror war and the rest of the journalists remained holed up at the Commodore Hotel in Beirut, receiving and forwarding the Press Releases handed out by Arafat's brother. I would call this the "Commodore Syndrome". Israel, on the other hand, allows reporters and film crews to wander unimpeded, to report fairly or to fabricate and spin their stories any way they (or their editors' prejudices) want. One can understand why the U.S. had sequestered journalists when they attacked Grenada. Journalists who write erroneous stories intended to arouse the civilians back home against the government's efforts have, in effect, joined the enemy. WHAT DOES DISINFORMATION AGAINST JEWS & THE JEWISH STATE ACCOMPLISH? Joseph Goebbels' doctrine of tapping in on the Church-driven hatred already in place across Europe as he created his Nazi propaganda demonizing the Jewish people. What often was just below the surface, he encouraged to vomit up so even nations like the 'cultured' France became anxious to pre-emptively turn their Jews over to the Gestapo for transport to concentration camps and almost certain death by starvation, work, disease, or outright execution. Today, once again, we see hostile anti-Israel stories in LeMonde, Figaro and other French media sources, encouraging the public to hate the Jews more openly and therefore to presumably, appease the hostile Muslim immigrants who have taken over large sections of French cities as they flow in and achieve "critical mass". In England, one is sometimes reminded of the Dark Ages as the elite of England say publically that they can now forget the Holocaust and speak openly about their dislike for Israel and their own Jewish citizens. Remember it was during Great Britain's Mandate of Palestine that they imported Arab Muslim cheap labor without counting them and put a quota on the number of Jews who could enter. Instead, they cut off 70% of what was to supposed to be the Jewish homeland and gave it over to Emir Abdullah of Jordan. The British Mandate was created to give the Jews their own Land back "to create a Jewish homeland and closely settle the land." (1) WHERE DOES THIS COVERT AND OVERT BIGOTRY GET ITS VICIOUS ENERGY AND JUSTIFICATION? The Media! Just listen to the BBC and its ever-present pro-Arab/anti-Israel-Jew slant, filling the ears of the English-speaking citizens of the world who might own radios. Read The Guardian and the London Times for their twisting screed against the Jews and the Jewish State of Israel which gives you an idea what disinformation/propaganda can do in a nation with a well-documented history of Church and Aristocracy anti-Semites. Naturally, media disinformation and manipulation is even more blatant in the Arab world as al Ahram of Egypt consistently rants against Israel and the Jews. Al Jazeera.net began offering Net News to the Arab world in 2000 and initiated an English channel in 2006. Since 2003 Al Arabiya, based in Dubai Media City, Al Arabiya started 24-hour Arabic-language news channel broadcasting across five continents to millions of viewers. Together they offer TV propaganda so the ill-informed street masses can be stirred into a constant state of rage against the Jews and "Crusaders", their euphemistic term for westerners and Christians. Hezb'Allah started the 2006 Summer Hezb'Allah War, firing thousands of Katyusha rockets from Lebanon into Northern Israel. Within weeks (or less) Global Media began to spin the news that "somehow" it was Israel who provoked Hezb'Allah. The Media consistently downplays Syria's role of weapons' supplier to Hezb'Allah -- aided by Iran. The Left Liberal Global Media barely mentions Syria's shipment of arms and explosives to Hezb'Allah -- or the U.N. abdication of their claimed role in keeping Hezb'Allah from re-occupying southern Lebanon on Israel's borders. This propaganda spin effectively stopped Israel from achieving a conclusive win, thereby leaving in place the basic organization of Iran to Syria to Hezb'Allah. This also permitted the world nations to emplace the totally ineffective U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon. This allowed the Syrians and Iranians to increase the re-supply of Hezb'Allah to at least 20,000 missiles and nurturing the rat-lines of terrorists, explosives and weapons flowing from Syria and Iran into Iraq to blow up American soldiers and construction workers, as well as Iraqi men, women and children in massive daily massacres. Where is the Media rage on this matter? As you can see, information and dis-information is a vital part of War and Terrorism. Regrettably, Israel's leaders invariably failed to answer in time or pre-emptively help the Media speak about the realities of Hezb'Allah, Hamas/Fatah, Syria and Iran as to their ultimate openly and loudly declared purpose to savage Israel and drive her off the map/into the sea. Can Israel adopt a more aggressive stance with respect to Hasbara? They could BUT they are invariably late, using inarticulate spokespersons. When they get a good spokesperson, they restrict whatever information he or she might impart. Or they find that person "politically incorrect" because he or she might defend the Jewish right and need to keep Judea, Samaria and Gaza, the Golan Heights, Jordan Valley and all of Jerusalem. Because the U.S. State Department has convinced Israel that this is NOT what they wish. Almost all of the "politically correct" politicians/spokespersons/media people are driven away from any position of being helpful. Jewish activists world-wide have proven themselves over the years by putting out Hasbara information in real time and with a correct, positive and pro-Israel/pro-Jewish point of view. Will Israeli leaders ever use these sources? Of course not. They would rather fail than to admit that their political leaders cannot direct their own Foreign and Prime Ministries to do the job. We occasionally hear from Shimon Peres who is the darling of the liberal Global Media as he panders to the Arab Muslim point of view. One can only cringe when Shimon in his Polish accent speaks about the benefits of "piss" (how he invariably says: "Peace") -- with Arafat before and now with Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen)...and even with Hamas. Peres (Hebrew word for 'vulture') speaks about surrendering Land G-d gave to the Jewish people and building islands out into the Mediterranean Sea which he believes the Palestinians could not possibly claim as Islamic Land. (Oh no? Just watch them.) Of course, he never divulges how Israel will pay for all this. First he has to uproot and evict the 500,000 Jewish men, women and children (250,000 from Judea and Samaria plus 250,000 from those parts of Jerusalem the Muslims claim that Jordan controlled for 19 years from 1948 to 1967). Then who would pay the Billions to build his floating islands. Peres has another favorite gambit. He has said at open Press Conferences that it would better to give up the Golan and have Arab/Muslim hotels on the Heights rather than Jewish tanks. Of course, he means to dispense with 20,000 or more Jewish men, women and children who have built their beautiful homes up there, and the vineyards, and the famous wineries, etc. What then would I do if charged with the responsibility of Israel's Hasbara? First I would bring in every accredited correspondent and tell them that any misleading or false information in their reportage would cause them to forfeit their credentials. If they persist or their home-based newspapers, TV stations persist in provoking their civilians in a Goebbels-like hate propaganda theme, I would insist that their representatives pack their bags and go back home. I would not, as is common among Arab Muslims -- be they so-called Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians, Hezb'Allah, Hamas, Fatah or from any other Terror organization, threaten their lives, kidnap correspondents, photographers or videographers -- or otherwise use life threatening fear to insure flattering stories -- as in the "Commodore Syndrome" (see above). It is highly probable that a War is coming, possibly this summer. Israel should be putting out accurate information NOW! Instead they are consumed with the investigations of Olmert and other ministers and Olmert's plans to install Tzippi Livni as Prime Minister should he, Olmert be forced out of office by any one of the many probes into various corrupt practices of his. Have you ever hear Livni speak English? Let alone be articulate in explaining Israel's position? Amir Peretz is worse as his psycho-babble makes him look and sound like a dunce. Of course, the very articulate Binyamin Netanyahu (Bibi), who seems to be holding back, awaiting Olmert and Livni's commitment to abandon Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights, Jordan Valley and divide Jerusalem in a choreographed war meant to satisfy Bush, Rice and Baker. Presumably, he hopes to then become Prime Minister with all the blame of battle casualties falling (rightfully) on Olmert and his Kadima/Labor rabble. Bibi can then become the great orator -- too little and too late. The Israeli leadership, such as it is, could call upon Jews and Christians world-wide to flood the Media with very loud objections to their bias. Those who are already able to communicate through E-mail and Blogs should be contacted so there will be no repeat of the silence of the Jews during WW2. Flagship journals like the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the L.A. Times, NPR, CNN, et al would not be allowed to pump out disinformation or no information as they once did and are now once again doing. I must say that FOX NEWS generally does make the effort to give us straight news with excellent anchor-persons, such as Jennifer Griffin. As I suggested earlier, Media-persons stationed in Israel should get a new standard of ethical reporting or simply have to leave the country. Of course, they could always be shipped off to Syria, Iran, Beirut or Gaza and accept the rule of reporting as laid out by the Terrorists. ### 1. British Mandate for Palestine "The Palestine Mandate, The Council of the League of Nations" from July 24, 1922 ...from the "[Winston] Churchill White Paper of 1922, which again reiterated the right of the Jews to a Homeland in Palestine. At this time, Britain detached all of the area east of the Jordan river from Palestine and gave it to the Hashemi family as an independent Arab state. Many historians believe that this was a sop to the Hashemites, who had lost Syria to the French and Saudi Arabia to ibn Saud." & See Article 6: "Administration of Palestine...shall facilitate Jewish immigration and shall encourage...close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purpose." Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at winstonmedia@comcast.net To Go To Top

JEWISH OLYMPIC SWIMMER Posted by Judith Prewitt, April 27, 2007.

Contact Judith Prewitt at madameprofessor@sbcglobal.net To Go To Top

DISSENT ON WAR WITH IRAN Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 26, 2007.

HOW P.A. TERRORISM WORKS Kalkilya is one of the "quieter" P.A. cities. ("Quiet" is the English word Israelis use to mean few terrorist attacks emanating from there.) During the period of "quiet," Kalkilyans did not attack Israel, because they weren't ready to, not because they were peaceful there. Thanks to help from Iran, Hamas has built a terrorist structure there, and is ready to attack several places. Recently a Kalkilyan drove explosives into Tel Aviv, to strike Passover crowds. But he drove back, where his car exploded by accident. He did he penetrate the security fence, on which Israel is spending billions? By marrying an Israeli Arab, he was able to get Israeli ID and license plates. Israeli forbearance at checkpoints, lest it harm the Arabs' quality of life, let him in. In Israel, one hand doesn't wash the other, it scratches the other. Israeli security forces arrested 19 Hamas operatives involved in that mission and in planning other attacks (Arutz-7, 4/10). The concept of "quiet" is false. Sparing the Arabs' quality of life costs innocent lives. Multiculturalism allows the enemy to live in Israel and bring in terrorists from outside. Liberalism is suicidal. PRISONER SWAP -- chilling Arab demand Hamas listed 45 prominent terrorists it wants to exchange for one Israeli. The 45 have murdered and wounded hundreds of Israelis (Arutz-7, 4/10). This is confusing, because earlier the list was said to include about 1400. Neither exchange is reasonable, because to save one Israeli, enough terrorists would be released to murder another hundred Israelis! In a war of attrition, the Arabs can afford more losses, but it would be Israel that suffers more losses. No exchange would be right, because terrorists deserve jail or execution, whereas the Israeli was kidnapped specifically for exchange. I think that Israel must crack down on the terrorists with such force that they never again dare to kidnap an Israeli. Ideally, Israel simply should wipe out all the terrorists. DISSENT ON WAR WITH IRAN Youssef Ibrahim thinks that if the West makes war on Iran, the whole population would participate against the West (NY Sun, 4/9, p.5). Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@verizon.net To Go To Top

UNFULFILLED UJC PLEDGE FOR JEWS IN SDEROT Posted by Buddy Macy, April 26, 2007.

Dear UJC Professional/Supporter: It is critical that you read the entire 2 links below by David Bedein of the Israel Resource News Agency. The Jews of Sderot depend on you. Buddy Macy Little Falls, NJ

Will the UJC Fulfill its Pledge to Sderot? (partial quote) "At this point in time, the commitment of the UJC philanthropy to provide $4 million in aid to the mental health services in Sderot is only on paper." http://israelbehindthenews.com/Archives/Feb-16-07.htm#query UJC Misrepresentation of News Piece on UJC Allocations to Sderot (partial quote) "The question remains: What will be the UJC 2007 allocation to health, education and social services of the Jewish communities of Sderot and the Western Negev, in light of the fact that these communities have suffered more than 100 missile attacks SINCE Israel's self-imposed cease-fire on November 26th, 2006?" http://israelbehindthenews.com/Archives/Feb-20-07.htm#accountability Contact Buddy Macy at vegibud@gmail.com. To Go To Top

JEWISH DEMOGRAPHIC MOMENTUM Posted by Yoram Ettinger, April 26, 2007.

This comes from the American-Israel Demographic Research Group (AIDRG). Contact Bennett Zimmerman at 310 617 4180.

As Israel's Celebrates 59th Independence Day, American-Israel Demographic Research Group (AIDRG) reports acceleration in Jewish demographic momentum and rapid convergence of Arab and Jewish fertility levels in Israel. The AIDRG current trends and updated "Forecast for Israel 2025" projects a 79% Jewish majority population and long-term population stability between Jewish-Arab population groups in Israel. By 2025, Israel's most Orthodox Jewish communities will grow from 16% to 23% of Israel's total population (and from 20% to 29% of Jewish sector) Israel's secular/traditional Jewish sector will fall from 64% to 56% of Israel's total population (and from 80% to 71% of Jewish sector) Israel's Arab sector will grow from 20% to 21% of Israel's total population After 2025, the Jewish majority will rebound past its current 80% position as natural growth in high growth Jewish sectors overtakes growth in Arab population groups. Demographic Leadership in Israel is shifted from Arab to Jewish population groups As the current Jewish 'baby boomers' begin to enter their childbearing years while the current contraction of births and an aging Arab community will limit growth rates in Israel's Arab community. The mid-case 2025 forecast holds current Jewish fertility levels steady at 2.75 births per woman and annual net aliyah of 20,000 based on the recent 5 year average and internal targets of Israel's Jewish Agency. The AIDRG forecast gradually reduces Arab fertility levels to 2.4 births/woman by 2025 where they stabilize at this long-term intermediate rate. As aliyah has lessened, the Jewish total fertility rate (TFR), or the number of children a woman is likely to bear over her lifetime, has been rising. Faster convergence in Arab and Jewish fertility or upturns in aliyah would increase the Jewish percentage to 83% by 2025 from the current 80%. If Arab fertility only declines to 3.0, the current Arab rate in northern Israel, the Jewish population will decline to 77%. Breakout in Jewish Demographic momentum Fertility rates in Israel, the highest of any advanced industrial nation, rose steadily to over 2.75 births/woman among Jews. Jewish births surged from 80,000 in 1995 to 109,000 in 2006, an increase of 36% and an acceleration of 4% in 2006 alone. Jewish births have grown from 69% of all births in 1995 to 74% in 2006 and 76% in January 2007. These changes have been recorded ahead of an expected surge in Jewish births following a markedly higher pregnancy rate recorded shortly after Israel's month long Lebanon war last summer. Net annual aliyah (immigrants plus returning Israelis less emigrants) has averaged over 50,000 as recently as 1996 through 2000 and 20,000 per year from 2001 through 2005, adding further demographic strength to the Jewish sector. (ICBS, Sources of Population Growth, 2001-2005, 99.4K Net Migration to Jewish sector, http://www1.cbs.gov.il/shnaton57/download/st02_02.xls). AIDRG Introduces Spotlight Forecast Israel's Fastest Growing Orthodox Jewish Sector The AIDRG introduces a growth forecast for the 20% most Orthodox segment.. Based on ICBS regional population and fertility data, AIDRG has derived fertility in this group as currently 4.5 births/woman. While the ICBS rightly releases detailed reports on the Druze and Christian Arabs, communities each totaling only slightly over 100,000 persons, there is almost no information segregated for large communities within the Jewish community that display similar fertility patterns. The Orthodox sector is as large as Israel's entire Moslem community, as example, and is experiencing no signs of letup in robust fertility, yet it has remained under-analyzed in Israel. A separate population forecast was conduced for this community through 2025 and Beyond. Fertility are held steady through 2025 and beyond to understand the impact of continued robust patterns by Israel's most furtive major population group. The highest fertility rates in Israel on a sustained basis act to propel Jewish demographic momentum, especially after children being born today in these sectors begin to have children two decades from now. Maintenance of their patterns over time has a very powerful impact on Jewish growth rates in Israel. The separation of the groups does not have a dramatic impact initially to population levels, but after 2025 the demographic momentum in births accelerates as children in the community today begin to have children. AIDRG Spotlights Rising Fertility in Israel's Majority Secular Jewish Sector and Normalization of Immigrant Fertility to Israeli Norm Births in the corresponding 80% of the Jewish population are 2.1 births/woman. While it is often anecdotally true that religious person in Israel with high fertility characteristics will indeed have more grandkids than his or her secular counterpart with lower fertility patterns, the long-term Jewish demographic breakout in Israel depends on the participation of all sectors of the larger Jewish population group. Because the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews live in large urban zones such as Tel Aviv and the Central District, the upturn in the fertility rate in Israel's more secular zones has immediate impact on increasing the number of children today. Childbearing choices have the potential to add most to the Jewish demographic momentum in exactly the large sectors where it was least expected in Israel's prior forecasts. Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union who were expected to repeat fertility characteristics in this group are now adopting Israeli norms as their family size increases while in Israel. Orthodox, secular and new immigrants sectors all experienced increased fertility in 2006 and all sectors are leading to a demographic breakout in the Jewish community. Convergence of Arab fertility patterns to Israeli norms The increased momentum on the Jewish sector is occurring as lower fertility patterns are measured in all sectors of Israel's Arab community. The lower fertility is occurring among an Arab generation that was expected by Israeli demographers to repeat fertility patterns of their mothers, while these women are not even repeating fertility patterns of their older sisters. Israel Arab births in Israel rose from 36,500 in 1995 to 41,000 in 2000 and then stabilized [for five years]. In 2005, Israel Arab births fell 5% in one year to 38,800 and have remained at this level in 2006, similar to levels recorded a decade ago Arab fertility rates have plunged from over 9.0 births/woman in the 1960s to 4.4 in 2000 to 3.6 in 2006. Arab and Jewish fertility have converged in the most heavily Arab populated zones in Israel: Half of Israel's Arab population lives in the North where fertility levels have fallen to 3 births/woman, a rate now almost equal to the overall Israeli Jewish rate. Christian Arabs continue to exhibit fertility levels of 2.1, barely at replacement level while Israeli Druze now match the Israeli Jewish norm. In Jerusalem, rapidly falling Arab fertility from 4.5 births in 2004 to 3.9 births in 2005 now match a steadily rising Jewish fertility of 3.9 births/woman while Jewish fertility of 4.7 births/woman in West Bank suburbs stands above all other groups in the Jerusalem Metro Area 150 thousand Bedouin in Northern Negev, the last Arab community with high fertility rates, have witnessed a decline from 9.6 2004 to 7 births/woman in 2006. The full impact of reduced government monetary incentives is yet to be measured. Bedouin in the Negev still present critical sociological and demographic challenge for Israel Focused policies to normalize the Bedouin community's behavior would bring a further convergence in Jewish and Arab fertility levels. If Israel wishes to maintain the current convergence of Arab and Jewish fertility, Israel must address the issue now. Only 2% of Israeli 20 year old women are from the Bedouin Negev, but 4% of Israeli 10 years olds are from the same community. High teenage pregnancy rates and early marriage of Israel's youngest citizens to men many times their age remains both a sociological challenge and human rights challenge for many young Israeli Arab women who do not have the life choices characteristic of a modern society. High Bedouin fertility also involves law enforcement issues including polygamy, smuggling of women, birth under false identity, and fraud in collection of government support payments. AIDRG analysis of emerging trends in Israel is based on data released by the ICBS and published for public use. Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il The American-Demographic Research Group (AIDRG), is led by Bennett Zimmerman, Roberta Seid, Michael L. Wise, and Yoram Ettinger. The AIDRG authored "Arab Population in the West Bank and Gaza: The Million Person Gap," (Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies) and debuted their Forecast for Israel and West Bank 2025 at Israel's Herzliya Policy Conference and at the American Enterprise Institute. The studies can be found at www.aidrg.com To Go To Top

BEATING FREEDOM OF SPEECH Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 26, 2007.

This was written by Robert Spencer and it appeared on Front Page (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=27980) Magazine. p>Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of six books, seven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith and the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad.

On Thursday, April 12, a gang of Somali thugs on a downtown Oslo street attacked Kadra, a Somali woman who now lives in Norway, and beat her senseless, breaking several of her ribs. They were enraged at her for her recent statement that the Qur'an's views of women needed reevaluation. They also might have been angry because of her role in revealing the widespread support among imams in Norway for female genital mutilation; Kadra exposed their support for this horrific procedure using a hidden camera in a 2000 documentary for Norwegian television. As they beat her, Kadra's attackers shouted Allahu akbar -- Allah is great -- and recited verses from the Qur'an. "I was terrified," she said. "While I lay on the pavement they kicked me and screamed that I had trampled on the Koran." The following Tuesday, two men in Mississauga, Ontario, attacked journalist Jawaad Faizi, who writes for the Pakistan Post, a newspaper based in Mississauga. The attackers told Faizi to stop "writing against Islam," and particularly to stop criticizing an Islamic organization, Idara Minhaj-ul-Quran, and its leader, a Muslim cleric named Allama Tahir-Ul-Qadri. Faizi, a native of Lahore, Pakistan, said, "I had so many problems back home as a journalist, but I'm shocked that this is happening here." Of course, "writing against Islam," or being perceived as having done so, has always been dangerous, as Salman Rushdie and many others can attest. The New York Times reported in 2002 that a professor at the University of Nablus in the West Bank, Suliman Bashear, who "argued that Islam developed as a religion gradually rather than emerging fully formed from the mouth of the Prophet," was for this novel and, from the point of view of traditional Islam, heretical teaching, thrown out of a second-story window by his students. In 1947, the Iranian lawyer Ahmad Kasravi was murdered in court by Islamic radicals; Kasravi was there to defend himself against charges that he had attacked Islam. Four years later, members of the same radical Muslim group, Fadayan-e Islam, assassinated Iranian Prime Minister Haji-Ali Razmara after a group of Muslim clerics issued a fatwa calling for his death. In 1992, the Egyptian writer Faraj Foda was murdered by Muslims enraged at his "apostasy" from Islam -- another offense for which traditional Islamic law prescribes the death penalty. Foda's countryman, the Nobel Prizewinning novelist Naguib Mahfouz, was stabbed in 1994 after accusations of blasphemy. Under Pakistan's blasphemy laws, many non-Muslims have been arrested, tortured, and sentenced to die on the slimmest of evidence. But for such things to happen in Iran and Egypt, two countries where Islamic radicalism is widespread, is one thing; to have them happen in Oslo and Mississauga, Ontario is quite another. But this kind of thing has happened before in the West. On November 2, 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh was bicycling through the streets of Amsterdam when Mohammed Bouyeri, a Muslim wearing traditional Islamic clothing, began shooting at him. After Van Gogh fell off his bike, Bouyeri ran up to him and began slitting his throat, attempting to behead him. In his agony, van Gogh pleaded with his killer, "Can't we talk about this?" Bouyeri replied by stabbing van Gogh repeatedly and leaving a note on a knife stabbed into the body. The note contained verses from the Qur'an and threats to other Dutch public figures who opposed the flood of Muslim immigrants into the Netherlands. Bouyeri killed van Gogh because of the filmmaker's twelve-minute video Submission, which had aired on Dutch TV a few weeks before the murder. A collaboration between van Gogh and the Somali ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was then a member of the Dutch Parliament, Submission decried the mistreatment of Muslim women -- and even featured images of battered women wearing see-through robes that exposed their breasts, with verses from the Qur'an written on their bodies. At his trial, Bouyeri was unrepentant -- and absolutely clear about why he murdered van Gogh. "I did what I did purely out my beliefs," he explained, Qur'an in hand. "I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan and felt insulted...If I ever get free, I would do it again." He was, he said, acting in accord with Islamic law: "What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet." The attacks on Kadra and Faizi show that there are many others in the West today who believe that they must likewise act upon Allah's commands and victimize those whom they deem to have offended Islam. This is a challenge to all Western governments, for it is a challenge to the freedom of speech that is rooted in the constitutions and laws of Western states, and ultimately is intimately connected with the freedom of conscience and the Judeo-Christian view of the dignity of the human being before God. Western leaders should move now to make it abundantly clear that attacks on "blasphemers" and "heretics" will not be tolerated; that those who believe that Sharia should be the highest law of the land are not welcome here; and that the West will defend our Judeo-Christian culture and heritage. Otherwise, only one thing is certain: there will be many, many more such attacks. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Geneva Switzerland. Contact her at iii44@aol.com To Go To Top

THE ANSWER IS OLD SPARKY: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT WINS ANOTHER ROUND OF ARGUMENT Posted by Steven Plaut, April 26, 2007.

Whenever the issue of the death penalty arises, including in Israel, its opponents start screaming about all the "wrongfully convicted and executed" people. The urban myth of wrongfully executed innocents is one of the most common in the media. Writing in the Wall Street Journal this week, judge Morris B. Hoffman (Colorado district court judge and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Colorado) takes a serious look at that claim. It is complete nonsense. Hoffman observes: "One of the earliest and most oft-cited works on wrongful convictions was a 1987 study done by Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet, claiming that 23 of the 350 capital defendants whose cases they examined (including Sacco and Vanzetti) were executed despite their factual innocence. Yet the method by which Mr. Bedau (a philosopher) and Mr. Radelet (a sociologist) determined whether the executed defendants were actually innocent was to reconstruct from the trial record, and contemporaneous newspaper reports, a one-sided narrative from which some doubt about factual guilt might plausibly be argued. Scholars immediately criticized this methodology, and challenged Messrs. Bedau and Radelet to come up with a single case of a demonstrably innocent person executed in America in the modern era. Messrs. Bedau and Radelet have not only been unable to do so. One of them has recently admitted that their label "innocent" was really just a way of saying there were errors in the trial, that guilt seemed to them to be a "close call," and that some of those close calls must surely, as a statistical matter, have involved some factually innocent people....It is a giant leap from an erroneous trial ruling to reversible error, and another giant leap from reversible error to actual innocence." Hoffman goes on to calculate the wrongful post-trial conviction rate in the US as only 0.013%. But since only 5% of cases go to court trial in the US, the overall wrongful conviction rate is around 0.00065%. And there is no evidence that any wrongfully convicted person was ever executed in the US. So instead of trying to deal with terrorism through capitulation and appeasement, maybe Israel should try capital punishment! The entire country was forced into the Oslo debacle under the slogan "Let's give it a try." So regarding capital punishment, why not give it a try? This is called "The 'Innocence' Myth," and was written by Morris B. Hoffman, who is a Colorado district court judge and an adjunct professor of law at the University of Colorado. This article was adapted from a forthcoming issue of the Chicago-Kent Law Review.

Criminal defendants in the United States are sometimes wrongfully convicted. If that's news to you, you don't know much about human fallibility. You must also have somehow managed to avoid the increasingly shrill polemics issuing, daily it seems, from our nation's law schools and their "innocence projects," which have spent the last 20 years trying to paint a picture of our criminal justice system so dismal that a rightful conviction seems the exception and not the rule. The director of one of those innocence projects said in a 2002 magazine interview that "we as a nation" would rather have the criminal justice system convict 10 innocent people than let one guilty person go free, inverting the famous Blackstone Ratio. Today, that project's Web site lists as one of its missions the duty to educate the public about the "prevalence" of wrongful convictions. But what is the real wrongful conviction rate? Innocence projects, and the liturgies that have grown up around them, are strangely silent when it comes to that question. And of course in imperfect complex systems, it is the error rate that matters. That means we must look not only at the number of wrongfully convicted defendants, but also at the number of rightly convicted ones. And there lies the empirical challenge. Before the advent of DNA testing, there were only a few narrow circumstances in which we could confidently assess a defendant's guilt by any method other than the trial itself. In the era before the corpus delicti rule was vigorously enforced, "victims" of "murder" occasionally resurfaced very much alive. Fingerprints and some other kinds of pre-DNA forensic evidence discovered after trial could sometimes do the trick. Later confessions by the "real" criminal could also prove convictions wrongful, though, of course, there is the problem of false confessions. Perhaps because of these definitional challenges, there has been very little in the way of comprehensive study of wrongful conviction rates. But that hasn't stopped the mythmakers. One of the earliest and most oft-cited works on wrongful convictions was a 1987 study done by Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet, claiming that 23 of the 350 capital defendants whose cases they examined (including Sacco and Vanzetti) were executed despite their factual innocence. Yet the method by which Mr. Bedau (a philosopher) and Mr. Radelet (a sociologist) determined whether the executed defendants were actually innocent was to reconstruct from the trial record, and contemporaneous newspaper reports, a one-sided narrative from which some doubt about factual guilt might plausibly be argued. Scholars immediately criticized this methodology, and challenged Messrs. Bedau and Radelet to come up with a single case of a demonstrably innocent person executed in America in the modern era. Messrs. Bedau and Radelet have not only been unable to do so, one of them has recently admitted that their label "innocent" was really just a way of saying there were errors in the trial, that guilt seemed to them to be a "close call," and that some of those close calls must surely, as a statistical matter, have involved some factually innocent people. The mythmakers also directly conflate trial error rates with wrongful conviction rates. Studies showing astonishingly high error rates in capital trials have very little to do with the question of the rate at which innocent people are being convicted. I can't remember a single trial over which I have presided -- including dozens of homicides -- in which, looking back, I didn't make at least one error in ruling on objections. It is a giant leap from an erroneous trial ruling to reversible error, and another giant leap from reversible error to actual innocence. Much of the empirical confusion about wrongful conviction rates has been driven by histrionics over the death penalty. To a large and unfortunate extent, the debate about wrongful convictions in a capital context has become a proxy for arguments in favor and against the death penalty. Lost in the cross fire is any reliable data about the actual wrongful conviction rate. But the innocence data can be mined for some approximations. And those approximations suggest that the actual rate of wrongful convictions in the United States is vanishingly small. In the first place, almost all criminal defendants plead guilty. The national plea bargaining rate is around 95%. That means that even if juries get it right only 80% of the time (an assumption at which most sensible scholars would cringe), the overall post-trial wrongful conviction rate would still be only around 1%. But the real wrongful conviction rate is almost certainly lower, and significantly so. Earlier this week the innocence project at Cardozo School of Law issued a press release celebrating the 200th person exonerated by DNA testing. But in the 20 years innocence projects have been operating, there were roughly two million criminal trials in the U.S. Assuming as many as 25% of those trials resulted in acquittals (and ignoring, as the innocence merchants are wont to do, the problem of wrongful acquittals), the wrongful post-trial conviction rate is only 0.013%. Since only 5% of cases are tried, that would place the overall wrongful conviction rate at around 0.00065%. Of course, this is just a lower bound estimate, based on several admittedly questionable assumptions, including that the innocence-project data is representative, and that no innocent people plead guilty. But even if this estimate is an order of magnitude or two low, it is still considerably less than the mythmakers would have us believe. Even cases that make it to trial are rarely about factual innocence -- that is, whether the defendant actually committed the acts with which he is charged. Yes, there are the occasional "whodunits" -- I even had a homicide whodunit earlier this year -- and even categories of cases in which factual guilt is more likely to be a legitimately contested issue, such as sex assaults. But those cases are very much the exception. The vast majority of criminal trials in America are not about factual guilt or innocence, they are about the defendant's state of mind at the time of the crime, and therefore about the level of offense of which the defendant will be convicted. Exaggerations about the unreliability of the criminal justice system are not just matters of scholastic impurity and pedagogical extremism; they threaten to become self-fulfilling. In a system as dependent on plea bargaining as ours, a widespread belief that the system is hopelessly unreliable will only encourage innocent defendants to plead guilty to lesser offenses. It also leaves many jurors, who expect "whodunits," unprepared for the real work of the typical criminal jury -- to decide the defendant's level of culpability -- and therefore unduly resistant to defenses based on lack of culpability. Of course, the work of innocence projects is incredibly important and should be celebrated, even if the projects had identified just one wrongfully convicted defendant, let alone hundreds. That's because trials should be about truth, and errors in truth detection -- whether convicting the innocent or acquitting the guilty -- should concern us all. Innocence projects may also have significant things to teach us about discrete points in the criminal justice system that are particularly prone to error (such as coerced confessions and cross-racial identification). But it is a mistake for them to stretch their results beyond all statistical sense. All defendants are entitled at trial to the scrupulous presumption of their innocence. They are not entitled to the post-conviction presumption that the criminal justice system is about as reliable as tossing a coin. 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. Or write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il To Go To Top

HOW THE MEDIA PARTNERED WITH HEZBOLLAH: HARVARD'S CAUTIONARY REPORT Posted by Naomi Ragen, April 26, 2007.

This is by Frida Ghitis and it appeared April 22, 2007 in World Politics Watch (http://worldpoliticswatch.com/author.aspx?id=36). Frida Ghitis writes on world affairs.

While the war between Israel and Hezbollah raged in Lebanon and Israel last summer, it became clear that media coverage had itself started to play an important role in determining the ultimate outcome of that war. It seemed clear that news coverage would affect the course of the conflict. And it quickly transpired that Hezbollah would become the beneficiary of the media's manipulation. A close examination of the media's role during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon comes now from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, in an analysis of qthe war published in a paper whose subtitle should give pause to journalists covering international conflict: "The Israeli-Hezbollah War of 2006: The Media as a Weapon in Asymmetrical Conflict." Marvin Kalb, of Harvard's Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, methodically traces the transformation of the media "from objective observer to fiery advocate." Kalb painstakingly details how Hezbollah exercised absolute control over how journalists portrayed its side of the conflict, while Israel became "victimized by its own openness." The lessons from the Harvard paper go well beyqond historic analysis. Kalb's thoroughly and persuasively documented case points to the challenges to journalists in future "asymmetrical" conflicts in which a radical militia provides access only to journalists agreeing to the strictest of rules. Journalists did Hezbollah's work, offering little resistance to the Islamic militia's effort to portray itself as an idealistic and heroic army of the people, facing an aggressive and ruthless enemy. With Hezbollah's unchallenged control of journalists' access within its territory, it managed to almost completely eliminate from the narrative crucial facts, such as the fact that it deliberately fired its weapons from deep within civilian population centers, counting on Israeli forces to have no choice but defend themselves by targeting rocket launchers where they stood. Hezbollah's strong support from Syria and Iran -- including the provision of deadly weapons -- faded in the coverage, as the conflict increasingly became portrayed as pitting one powerful army against a band of heroic defenders of a civilian population. Gradually lost in the coverage was the fact that the war began when Hezbollah infiltrated Israel, kidnapping two of its soldiers (still held to this day) and killing eight Israelis. Despite the undisputed fact that Hezbollah triggered the war, Israel was painted as the aggressor, as images of the war overtook the context. Israelis by the hundreds of thousands became the target of rocket fire aimed at civilian centers. Women and children, Jews and Arabs, young and old, spent more than a month living in underground shelters while nearly 4000 Hezbollah rockets rained on Israel. The coverage from Israel, however, quickly moved away from the anxiety-filled civilian areas, which were not terribly telegenic, and onto the front lines where armed, uniformed soldiers could be seen by television cameramen and reporters. By contrast, armed Hezbollah fighters were all but invisible to the media. Also invisible were Hezbollah's thousands of rockets and rocket launchers strategically positioned near schools, hospitals and apartment buildings. Within Hezbollah territory, journalists were led through scenes of the destruction caused by Israel. Journalists rarely complained about Hezbollah's restrictions, but they frequently complained about Israel's efforts to limit coverage deemed useful to the enemy. Still, circumventing Israeli restrictions proved easy in a country like Israel, while in Hezbollah-controlled areas it proved all but impossible. Cameras enjoyed full access to civilian victims of Israel's actions, but never to the perpetrators of violence against Israel. And in Israel journalists could interview soldiers complaining about the weaknesses in Israeli tactics. On more than one occasion, Hezbollah choreographed theater for visiting journalists, with ambulances ordered to parade on command for journalists, who rarely challenged the inconsistencies in what they saw. Bloggers, for example, noticed a perfectly unharmed Lebanese man standing in a picture, not long after he had been seen being "rescued" from the crushing rubble of a building. Before long, Hezbollah had achieved a definitive propaganda victory. The media had not only acquiesced to tell Hezbollah's version of the war, they had started contributing to the creation of the narrative, with at least one Reuters photographer altering photographs to make Israeli attacks look more damaging. And many reporters simply failed to offer much context. The study quotes the New York Times' Stephen Erlanger commenting on a satellite picture published by his paper. The picture showed a southern suburb of Beirut, which was largely destroyed. Erlanger said it "bothered me a great deal," because the image with no context failed to show that this was a small part of a Beirut, and the rest of the city was largely undamaged by the war. According to the Harvard paper, Arab TV network Al Arabiya portrayed Arabs as the victims in 95 percent of its stories, while Al Jazeera did it in 70 percent of its reports. Arab journalists' bias against Israel is hardly surprising, but consider this: Al Jazeera's coverage portrayed Israel as the aggressor just as often as did the four main German television programs. And if you think American journalists held no bias against Israel, you may be surprised to know that "On the front pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, Israel was portrayed as the aggressor nearly twice as often in the headlines and exactly three times as often in the photos." The Harvard paper shows the need for journalists to brace themselves and remain vigilant when they cover conflicts between open societies on one side, and media-controlling militias on the other. These conflicts, which we will undoubtedly continue to see, demand that journalists make a greater effort to provide context and to keep from become willing collaborators with one side. Islamic militant groups, such as al-Qaida and others, have openly described their strategy of manipulating the media and winning on the "information battlefield." Hezbollah, too, had a well crafted, and ultimately successful media plan. The challenge to keep from being used will be greatest for journalists in the field, but editors back in the newsroom also must look closely at what their organizations produce. They must be aware that their reporters on the ground are the target of media campaigns by those they cover, and that reporters can become emotionally allied with one side, as we saw last summer in Lebanon. Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter. To Go To Top

MYTHS OF ISLAM: HOW MANY DO YOU BUY INTO? Posted by Unity Coalition for Israel, April 26, 2007.

This was written by Susan MacAllen and it was published April 23, 2007 on the Family Security Foundation website (www.FamilySecurityMatters.org).

I was recently present at a dinner conversation that became heated when the subject of Islam and terrorism came up. As usual, the liberals shouted down the conservative voice, convinced of their own infallible belief in the good of all religions, their commitment to multiculturalism at all costs, the stupidity of those who think Islam a threat. "It's about a few radicals!" they exclaimed in exasperation. "Islam is a peaceful religion!" The truth is, this is the belief of many in the West. Given the foundations of our way of thinking, the values at the very core of our societies, it is nearly impossible to get the truth into people's heads: that Islam ITSELF is a problem. So why should it matter whether people get this concept as we go about our daily lives or to our dinner parties? To the extent that people fail to realize the blatant fact that Islam itself is the problem, we remain unprepared, and the danger to us all increases. Over time, societies change. Power shifts from one group to another, one cultural background to another, one religious system to another. This is the history of human kind, and such change is inevitable. However, not all changes in history have been for the good of the populace. Some changes have resulted in a supreme power shift, bloodshed and destruction. Which are we headed for? The answer to that question will depend upon how honest we are about discussing the coming change. But we in the West tend to misunderstand fundamental realities about Islam, and thus we make dangerously inaccurate assumptions about its values. In this limited space, I would like to address just a few of the myths about Islam one hears at dinner parties and at water coolers, and unfortunately on the nightly news... Myth: Islam is a peaceful religion. Truth: When we hear this, we understand the meaning of the statement from a very Western perspective, but the meaning intended by the Muslim speaker is very different. "Peaceful religion" to a Judeo-Christian trained mind means a religion that embraces and practices peaceful intentions toward all others. When an Islamist says "peaceful religion" he means a religion whose ultimate goal is peace upon earth -- when all non-believers submit to it. "Islam" does not translate to "peace" as some people falsely believe. Its meaning is "submission;" -- that is, submission to Allah and to Islam, of all peoples of the earth. This is the mission of Islam -- using violence against non-believers to achieve that goal is absolutely condoned and is a stated legitimate tenet of Islam. Myth: Mohammed was a prophet for peace and a "good person". Truth: It is true that Mohammad had some wise things to say. In his early days of preaching he was peaceful. However, as his following grew, his frustration at his political rivals also grew. He became a killer -- a leader of a band of thugs who "converted" by the sword. (When not by sword physically, it was by social deprivation and isolation -- forced submission to Islam.) He was brutal and merciless, intent on spreading his ideology primarily for political purposes. Many "moderate" Muslims struggle greatly with reconciling this history with their desire to see good in their faith. What do you do when you hunger for wisdom and your prophet is a brute? Myth: Most Muslims don't believe in violence. Truth: This is a moot point. Those who don't embrace violence are silent and intimidated, while those who do are in power -- in Muslim society, in the Middle East, and in the West. An opposition which has been bullied into acquiescence is not a real opposition threatening the bullies in any realistic way. Myth: We need to embrace Muslims as peaceful people and be inclusive in our culture. Truth: For us, practicing multiculturalism means showing respect for the beliefs of others. But for many Muslims it means that we should implicitly acknowledge the superiority of Islam or, in other words, our own submission. We fail to comprehend that Islam is not a religion in the same sense Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taosim, or Judaism are. It is not a code for ethical living in relation to morality and all humankind, including the propagation of peace. In fact, Islamism is more a political ideology, advocating openly for the establishment of Islam as law of the land. The idea of ethical Islamist living is not separable from political power. There is NO separation of church and state in Islam. Myth: Suicide bombers come from poor families, are underprivileged, uneducated and war-weary. Truth: The majority of suicide bombers are middle class or even wealthy. They are usually literate and educated. They have in common that they have been indoctrinated by an Islamist-philosophy-based society to believe that killing the infidel is a path to glory and that their faith requires it as the ultimate sacrifice for the good of Islam. Such few examples only begin to illustrate the enormous differences between the mind of a person raised in the West or in Buddhist tradition, or Hindu tradition, and that of one raised in Islam. Recently I read a piece where the very articulate writer, whom we'll call Larry X, made a common mistake in judgment -- precisely the type of which we are speaking. He speaks of the radicals who have hijacked Islam and made it violent. I wrote to him: "I appreciate your thoughts very much. But you seem to be making the mistake many in the West make. For example, when you say the radical Islamists "have taken Islam and turned it into a violent medieval ideology", you are mistaken. Islam IS and always HAS been a violent medieval ideology. Assuming that Christians and Muslims can somehow get together, sing Kumbayah and write up a list of human rights declarations is naive: the very core, the very values of Islam are so different from those of the West, that this common ground would be evasive." I realize that it makes Westerners uncomfortable to be confronted with the statement that negotiation with Islam is not possible. We want to believe that there is always room for negotiation, for joint efforts in peace building. However, clinging to that belief in the face of the reality of an Islamist mindset is not realistic, and it will be the death of Western society. As we spin our wheels trying to negotiate peace with a religion that does not define peace in the same way we do, the political agenda of a political religious ideology is easily establishing itself within our shores, and this is in direct opposition to many of our constitutional values. The issue isn't all about us versus them. It's about our commitment to peace not only for ourselves, but for millions of Muslim lives caught up in the violence of Islam. And so our final most important myth: Myth: Islam is a religion like any other, worthy of respect. Truth: It is unlike any other. True Islam advocates violence, is political in nature, embraces dominance, tortures its own followers, and does not contain a seed of tolerance for other belief systems. When one understands this, one cannot in good conscience treat it as an equal to other religions. We need to correct our teachers, politicians and newscasters who make incorrect assumptions that we all share values in common. I wish you were right about it, Larry. But I know you aren't. We need to be better informed, and to be brave enough to say at the next dinner party: Islam IS the problem. UCI -- The Unity Coalition for Israel -- (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel." "Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!" To Go To Top

SAUDI ROYALS MASK A JIHAD AGENDA Posted by Avodah, April 26, 2007.

This was written by Youssef Ibrahim and it appeared April 23, 2007 in the New York Sun http://www.nysun.com/article/52999

Keeping Saudi Arabia's royal family safe from radical Islamists is the West's strategic concern and delusion. The only intelligent question for America about Saudi Arabia is: Should we deal with the royals of the house of Saud or go directly to their bearded, Kalashnikov-toting Osama bin Laden-loving followers? For half a century, the West has preferred to believe that its choice in Saudi Arabia is the moderate, friendly Saudi royal family or the wild-eyed, sandal-clad zombies of jihad, disregarding the seamless relationship between the two. We have blithely ignored that Mr. bin Laden was a product and a protégé -- even a full-fledged member -- of the ruling establishment in Saudi Arabia. Indeed, his 52 brothers and other members of his family have intermarried widely with the royal family. Since Abdulaziz Al-Saud founded his kingdom in 1932, power in Saudi Arabia has rested in the hands of one rabid group of Muslim jihadists: the 40,000 perfumed princes and princesses of the Saud tribal dynasty. They are the public face of Saudi Arabia, the folks who show up in the White House as ambassadors to America. In Saudi Arabia, these royals nurture a vast entourage and infrastructure of palaces, attached mosques, religious schools, and charitable networks at home and, more important, abroad. These institutions are tied to elegant public princes, but also to many more we never see overseas. They dole out the money and in return demand blind obedience and a steady stream of Wahhabite devotees. Saudi royal wealth has funded not only hundreds of religious schools inside the kingdom, but also hundreds more in Pakistan, Egypt, Afghanistan, Britain, America, and Asia. The network stretches far and wide, and Wahhabi recruits create the fodder that supplies suicide bombers for Hamas, the Taliban, Iraqi jihadis, and Pakistani-British transit bombers. There is little difference between the royals and their infrastructure. The idea of two camps is a fiction brilliantly spun by American public relations artists aided by legions of purchased lobbyists and American politicians. So the question, again, is whether we want to deal with the royals or the nuts. I propose the latter. For starters, it serves transparency. Why allow an enemy to hide behind seductive royals when most of the family consists of die-hard jihadists who fund Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Islamic terror groups worldwide? The game allows "royals" to pose as friends as they supply our former presidents and politicians -- President George H.W. Bush, President Clinton, President Carter, and our current commander in chief, among others -- with hefty business deals and promises of more to, in effect, give cover to a jihad agenda. Dealing directly with the bearded and the sandaled also makes America far more secure. Thanks to the current system of bribery, the Saudis have gotten away with murder. In the 48 hours after the attacks of September 11, 2001, the White House -- under pressure from the Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar -- permitted more than 50 members of the bin Laden family to leave America secretly when almost every other flight in and out of the country was grounded. Detaining and questioning some of this group would have landed a few of them in Guantanamo and yielded crucial information, but they purchased a White House pass to escape. And had it not been for the "special relationship" between America and Saudi Arabia, 15 of the 19 hijackers who flew planes into buildings that day would not have been allowed to live and train here in the first place. Most of all, the ability to call a spade a spade would increase America's credibility in the Muslim world immensely. This royal family, so beloved by the Bush administration and other White Houses, carries out beheadings, cuts off legs and hands, orders women stoned for adultery, and has reduced half of its society to the status of concubine. Dumping it will give a considerable boost to any noble American project in the Arab world. Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com To Go To Top

P.A. ARABS LIKE MATZOS Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 26, 2007.

WHOM THE U.S. & ISRAEL ARMS The US and Israel are arming Fatah. Their rationale is that its leader, Abbas, is moderate and would use those arms to defeat Hamas and make peace with Israel. One of the commanders of Fatah, however, wanted by Israel for past terrorism, took responsibility for another, recent terrorist attack. He said he doesn't care what Abbas says, the armed struggle goes on (IMRA, 4/5). His sentiment is common. The premise for arming Fatah is mistaken for that and other reasons. The means and ends of Fatah are similar to those of Hamas. The same thing was said about Arafat, and he, too, did not make peace. Is that too difficult a lesson to learn? Being pro-Arab or appeasement-minded, the governments of the US and Israel don't have the sense to promote their national security. Instead, they cripple Zionism. Israel's Left thinks peace is something to negotiate with fanatics rather than to force from them. ARABS WANT 3 PALESTINIAN ARAB STATES The Palestinian Arabs want statehood for the P.A.. They nevertheless also want to be able to live in Israel (Prof. Steven Plaut, 4/5). Then the Jews wouldn't have a state of their own, while the Palestinian Arabs already have a state, called Jordan. They are greedy. ARABS LIKE MATZOS Israeli Arabs like matzos. Jews eat them for religious reasons, whereas the Arabs enjoy them as crackers. They want more and more of them (IMRA, 4/6). UNO MAY EVACUATE FROM GAZA There is so much internecine warfare in Gaza that the UNO might evacuate all its personnel from it. The P.A. is concerned that Gaza is filled with thugs, whose rampages will forfeit international aid (IMRA, 4/6). Thugs, not moderates. The P.A. doesn't work, it fights, and it fights dirty, then begs for international aid. S. KOREA INVESTING IN IRAN Tens of billions of dollars are involved (IMRA, 4/7). The West should be shutting up the Iranian economy, to bring down the regime without war. Instead, except for Bush's US, it is shoring up that economy. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@verizon.net To Go To Top

CELEBRATING 'YOM HATZMAUT' THREATENED BY ISRAELI ARAB MOB Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, April 25, 2007.

After you read the following you may conclude that the Jewish group was not accompanied by armed guards who, after a time, would simply have shot to defend their fellow Jews. Arabs understand only force and simply ignore pleas to behave peacefully. It will always be so. Therefore, the sooner Jews follow the ways of the Middle East, the sooner they will be respected by a predatory culture that is the way of Muslims. This was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz.

(IsraelNN.com) An Arab mob of several thousand -- including young men on horseback and others waving PLO flags -- surrounded and threatened about 150 Jews from Haifa who went "A few of the Jewish young men, with Israeli flags in hand, charged the gathering Arab mob." to a public forest to celebrate Israeli Independence Day. A Jewish young man was lightly injured in the ensuing clash. On Tuesday afternoon, shortly after the group of Haifa families made their way to the Megiddo Forest, in the north of the country, a group of Arab youths on horseback accosted the Jewish celebrants, jeered and threatened them. As the young Arab men continued their menacing behavior, they called more Arab youths to join them. Some of the new arrivals were waving flags of the PLO terrorist organization. "Within a short time, there were hundreds of Arabs surrounding us," one of the Jewish celebrants said. "We felt threatened. We are here with little children and they are threatening us. We called the police. They promised they would handle it and send a patrol car, but the car never arrived. We called the police again and again, but the help never arrived." At this stage of the incident, a few of the Jewish young men, with Israeli flags in hand, charged the gathering Arab mob. Within moments, a fight broke out, during which one of the Jewish youths suffered a light injury to the face. The Arabs, still threatening the Jewish families, called for more of their comrades to join them. Within forty minutes of the start of the incident, 6,000 Arabs waving PLO flags and making menacing threats had gathered around the group of Jews in Megiddo Forest. It was only at this point that a border guard patrol jeep showed up on the scene, with just six soldiers. Speaking from the forest at about 3:40 pm, one member of the Jewish group described "It is sad that this is the picture in the center of the country on Independence Day." the outcome of the day's events: "The border guards are handling [the group of Arabs] and trying to block them. They are a few dozen meters from us. We are folding up to go. They are staying here. We can't stay here when we have so many little children with us. ...It is sad that this is the picture in the center of the country on the Independence Day of the State of Israel." In response to an Arutz-7 query, the regional police department said that they were aware of the incident; however, "both sides promised they would press charges with the police, but neither side did. Therefore, the matter was not handled [by the police]." In August of 1999, Megiddo Forest, a planned fir forest located adjacent to Kibbutz Megiddo and the Arab-Israeli city of Umm El-Fahm, was the scene of a terrorist ambush and double murder. Two young hikers from Haifa, Yechiel Finfeter and Sharon Steinmetz, were murdered there by an Israeli Arab carrying out what was called "a nationalistic crime of opportunity." Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at winstonmedia@comcast.net To Go To Top

BIKINI-BRAND OR HOLY LAND? Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, April 25, 2007.

Many years ago I did my best to persuade the Chicago Consul General Ehud Avriel, z'l, that the nations of the world would respect and honor the Jewish State of Israel as the Holy Center of the Planet Earth. Avriel was a hero and the author of "Open the Gates" (a book about his work in evacuating the remnants of European Jewry.) He thought the idea had no merit. He was a practical man of action and lived the role well. What he missed, however, was that the world was immersed in religion and religious faith played a significant role in how people think, particularly about the Jewish State of Israel. Israel is (and always will be) the spiritual center of the religions of One G-d on this planet. It's not that Israel lacks tourist attractions but, clearly, this article speaks to those who would try to make Israel's image as that of all nations. But, the nations of the world have refused to accept the Jewish nations as like all other nations. Presently, they are gathering to support pagan Islamists against Israel. Regretfully, (except for Menachem Begin) most of Israel's Prime Ministers were so secular that speaking to the world of a "Jewish" nation is repulsive to them. Too bad. They don't know what they're missing. Moreover, even Mohamad in his time recognized the rightful position of Jews in the Land as gifted by G-d. Israel could have commanded respect beyond her ability to defend herself militarily had her leaders adopted their own religion as Israel's raison d'etre (reason for being). This was written by Yishai Fleisher and it apeared on the Aish website: www.aish.com/jewishissues/middleeast/Bikini-Brand_or_Holy_Land$.asp Yishai Fleisher is the founder of Kumah (www.kumah.org), a grassroots pro-Aliyah organization, and a broadcaster at Israel National Radio (www.israelnationalradio.com

LET US MARKET ISRAEL FOR WHAT SHE REALLY IS: THE SPIRITUAL CAPITAL OF THE WORLD! What does it mean to be independent? Certainly freedom from foreign rule. But in the case of Israel, independence should also mean the freedom to develop an independent self-image not based on borrowed culture. Not everyone sees it that way. In fact, Israel's Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, is about to embark on a massive PR campaign painting Israel as a sexy modern country with beautiful beaches and a successful high-tech industry to boot. Livni believes that by embarking on this "nation branding" campaign, she can move Israel's perception away from war-torn and fanatical, to an image of the great Israeli dream -- normalcy. No doubt Israel does have something to offer those looking for beaches, night life, and technology. But as the focus of a public relations campaign, this direction is doomed for failure. I heard a story, attributed to the Lubavicher Rebbe, that illustrates this point: After the Six-Day War, France, unhappy with Israel's grand victory over the Arabs, stopped their sales of the Mirage fighter jets to Israel. Israel, in need of fighter jets, turned to the United States with a request to buy American jets. The US sent a delegation to Israel. The Israelis wanted to impress the American group and promptly took them to what the Israeli's thought the American's would be most interested in. They took them to Tel Aviv, the playhouses, the bars, to all the modernity that Israel could muster up at the time. However, the delegation was nonplused. They returned to America, gave a lukewarm report to Congress, and the sale did not go through. A few months went by and again the Israelis requested the sale of fighter jets. Again a delegation was formed and was flown to Israel. This time, however, the Israelis took the delegation to the Western Wall, and to the great yeshivas of Mea Shearim where the Americans saw the old study benches that were brought over from Europe. When the Americans returned home and testified in front of Congress, they said: "We saw the Holy Land." The sale, of course, went through. The point is so obvious, yet Israel's image makers cannot seem to grasp it. Israel's image strength is not in its limping normalcy. Nor can Israel ever compare to the US's flesh-pots, Amsterdam's night life, or the beaches of South America. Israel's real image strength is in its unparalleled link to the Bible. Have you ever seen the ecstasy of someone who sees the Kotel for the first time? Is it a coincidence that both Jews and Gentiles cry when they arrive in Israel? Israel has emotional impact, not because of the beaches or the hi-tech, but rather because this place is the spiritual capital of the world. How can you beat the branding effect of the most widely read book in the world? The Bible is the globe's all-time bestseller and Israel should capitalize on it. But Israel's image makers distance Israel from this kind of image. Their world view is dissonant with Jewish history and religion, and therefore they do not see, nor want to see, the public relations benefit of Israel's Biblical/spiritual PR image. Yet it is precisely by embracing and not blunting our image as the real-life successors of the Biblical past that we will create a winning PR campaign. Examples: Imagine marketing the festival of Sukkot as the mega-season for spiritual tourism. Or presenting Hebron, the great burial place of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, as a must-see for anyone seeking to connect with the roots of monotheism. The Old City of Jerusalem is a natural-habitat, authentic Biblical experience, and we should market it as just that. The Biblical perspective also has hasbara advantages. In our continuing struggle with the war on terror, Israel would do well to paint its story in a Biblical context. Today's Israel and yesteryear's Israel are the same -- the same nation, the same land, and the same problems. By providing such historical perspective, we can help people reframe the conflict in the Middle East. Suddenly, Ahmadinejad's Iran is akin to Haman's Persia, and superpowers meddling in our affairs is a familiar phenomenon. Girded with Biblical perspective the world will root for Israel, just as they do when they read the Bible. Another important aspect of a Biblical Hasbara perspective is Tikvah, hope. The Bible is full of hope for the Jewish people and for Israel. In today's dreary climate we need to broadcast that message of positivity loud and clear. Yes, we can create a successful image of Israel abroad, but we need to start by creating the right self-image within. Israel must learn to see itself as a light unto the world, and not just as a bastion of normalcy. Israel's 'light' includes a unique blend of medicine and technology, law and spirituality. Where else in the world can you find a country that is a world leader in microchip development, in-vitro fertilization, farming innovation, Talmudic law and Kabbalah? For the last 3000 years the Holy Land has been the pre-eminent destination for all mankind -- travelers and conquerors all sought this piece of real-estate. Today, maybe more than ever before, Israel can quench the world's thirst for authenticity, spirituality, and purpose -- but it has to rise to the occasion. Let's be truly independent and not cheapen and degrade the image of Israel by bikini-branding it. Let us market it for what it is: the most special place on the Earth -- the Holy Land. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at winstonmedia@comcast.net To Go To Top

AN EXERCISE IN POLITICAL LOGIC: A CHALLENGE TO AMERICAN ZIONISTS Posted by Aleksandra Fliegler, April 25, 2007.

This was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg and it appeared April 11, 2007 on http://foundation1.org/wp-en/2007/04/11/ an-exercise-in-political-logic-a-challenge-to-american-zionists/ Professor Eidelberg is in the San Francisco Bay Area! Please join us for his lecture series: Sunday, April 29 in Oakland: http://bayjews.org/EVENT_DETAILS.aspx?ID=9192 Monday, May 7 in San Francisco: http://bayjews.org/EVENT_DETAILS.aspx?ID=9199

1. It is well known that Ehud Olmert, who is primarily responsible for Israel's defeat in the Second Lebanese War, is the most inept and least respected prime minister in Israel's history. 2. Therefore, in view of the emerging nuclear threat from Iran and the proximate threat of its proxies, Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, Mr. Olmert is a clear and present danger to Israel's survival. 3. Nevertheless, Mr. Olmert is safely ensconced in office. Although his Kadima Party won only 29 seats in the Knesset, Olmert has a solid Knesset majority, thanks to the seats of his coalition partners: Labor (19), Shas (12), Israel Beiteinu (11), and Gil Pensioners (7) -- in all, 78 out of 120. Hence, there is virtually no chance of his succumbing to a Knesset vote of no-confidence. Since such a thing has never happened to any Labor- or Likud-led government, and since impeachment is out of the question, Mr. Olmert will probably remain Israel's prime minister for another three years (Heaven help us!). 4. I say "Heaven help us" because there is almost no possibility of Israel being saved by its reputedly democratic system of government. Indeed, if political theorist Henry Mayo's criterion of democracy is correct, namely, that "A political system is democratic to the extent that the decision-makers are under effective popular control," then Israel's reputation as a democracy is undeserved, for it's quite obvious the people of Israel have no effective control over the Olmert government. Olmert himself has a public approval rating of only 3 percent! Clearly, something is very wrong -- dangerously wrong -- with Israel's political system. And it's hardly a consolation to say that Israel is democratic compared to its autocratic Arab neighbors. 5. It follows that the existential threat confronting Israel is magnified by its undemocratic political system, more precisely, by the simple fact that citizens are compelled to vote for party slates. To be still more precise, members of the Knesset -- from which the nation derives its prime minister and cabinet ministers -- are not individually elected by, or accountable to, the voters in constituency elections. Since Israel's cabinet ministers are party leaders, the Knesset is subservient to the government. In other words, the Knesset is not an independent body. It is almost impossible for the Knesset to topple the government and save Israel from its bungling prime minister. 6. Surely every Knesset member is aware of the decadent nature of this parliamentary system. Yet we look in vain for any concerted effort to change it -- perhaps because MKs hope to become cabinet ministers, the road to power and political longevity. If so, it would follow that what animates virtually all MKs is not the good of the nation but their own personal interests. 7. Now, inasmuch as Israel's political system undermines Israel's national security, then, to the extent that America's own security depends on Israel, it becomes the duty as well as the right of American Zionists to expose the flaws of Israel's political system. 8. That the security of the United States depends, to no small extent, on Israel can be gleaned from the following considerations. Gen. George Keegan, former head of U.S. Air Force Intelligence, said that Israeli intelligence is worth five CIA's. Hence Joseph Sisco, a former Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, could say to Israeli author Samuel Katz: "I want to assure you, Mr. Katz, that if we were not getting full value for our money, you would not get a cent from us." America needs a strong Israel, but Israel is often paralyzed by its dysfunctional system of government, which entrenches incompetents and worse in power. 9. Unfortunately, American Zionist organizations have, as a matter of policy, and not from ignorance, refrained from criticizing Israel's political system. Perhaps some are inhibited by the fear that such criticism may diminish their sources of income. Yet they freely indulge in criticizing the defeatist policies of Israeli governments -- as if the policies of a government, persisted in for decades, are utterly unrelated to the structure of the government itself! 10. Of course, these Zionists have been told, "If you want to change Israel's political system, make aliya." But the same remark could be made to Zionists who merely criticize Israeli policies. Besides, Israeli politicians are ever cozying up to American Zionist organizations for financial and other support. Time for such organizations to challenge these politicians: "You want our support? Change your rotten political system! Our safety as well as yours depends on it!" Contact Sasha F. at thelady@bayarea.net To Go To Top

CONFIRMATION Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 25, 2007.

It's the day after Yom Ha'atzmaut, and still my mind will not let go. My sadness is deeper this year -- that there is so much legitimate cause for cynicism and discontent with the Israeli government, and consequently so much cynicism and discontent in circles that I have considered staunchly Zionist. Yet pondering this has strengthened my own vision and my own certainty -- that the problems with the government call out for immediate and thorough repair (tikun, in Hebrew), but that the failings of the state in no way abrogate the incredible value of the state or our obligation to treasure her and see that she is strong. I think I have been clear about this, throughout my postings, but feel the need to state it upfront here: My laments about the current political and security conditions in the country constitute an attempt to improve the situation. My devotion to the State of Israel is solid and I am proud to call myself an Israeli. I go to the Beit Knesset (synagogue) on Yom Ha'atzmaut to sing Hallel precisely because I believe we have received a gift from Heaven and the Almighty is to be praised for this gift. I call on everyone, whether here in Israel or outside of Israel, who has considered him/herself to be part of the Zionist venture in any respect to hold fast now. We are forbidden to despair. And equally, I believe, are we forbidden to turn away, even in spirit. ~~~~~~~~~~ Two pieces have come to my attention that I would like to share. The first is by Michael Freund, who, in "A Broom and a Flag," tells the story of Rabbi Avraham Yaakov, who had been the Rebbe of Sadigora and later came to Israel, where it was noticed that this pious rabbi was particularly joyous on Yom Ha'atzmaut. When he was asked why, he explained thus: He was in Vienna when the Nazis entered, and to humiliate the Jewish community, they gave him -- a learned rebbe -- a broom and ordered him to sweet the streets. While working, he looked to Heaven and said, "Master of the Universe, may I yet merit to sweep the streets of the Land of Israel." Then the Nazis gave him a large flag and forced him to raise it over a building. This time he intoned, "Master of the Universe, may I yet merit to raise the flag of Israel over a high place in the Land of Israel." When he came to Israel after the war, he was determined to fulfill his vision. And so, on Yom Ha'atzmaut, he rose very early, and went out and swept the street, and then raised an Israeli flag over his building. Concludes Freund: "So the next time you find yourself down in the dumps, reading the newspapers and wondering about this country and its leadership -- think back to the Rebbe of Sadigora, with a broom in one hand, a flag in the other, and a heart full of gratitude to G-d for the miracle that is the modern State of Israel." To which I say, Amen. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Blog.aspx/2 ~~~~~~~~~~ Then there is an article, "On Spirit and Sacrifice," by JP Editorial Page Editor Saul Singer. Says Singer, "Contrary to popular belief, Zionism is not dead." He then proceeds to describe a situation that is best referred to here as "more good news about Israel." Saul's brother, Alex, made aliyah from the US after his college graduation, and subsequently was killed in Lebanon, 20 years ago. While in the army, he wrote to an American friend: "There are many things about this country which I truly hate. ... But because I see this place as my home, I don't pile the cons on one side and the pros on the other, and decide whether it is 'worth' staying here. Home is home and it will take more than irritations to force me to leave. I want to make this place better." Saul expresses a desire to be able to show Alex projects that are going on now: "They recall his spirit, are worthy of his sacrifice, and would make him still feel at home." www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=2&cid=1176152835333&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull ~~~~~~~~~~ And now back to my several descriptions of a situation that is less than lovely: The news of the hour is that State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss today informed the attorney-general that Olmert may be guilty of criminal behavior because of his part in certain financial dealings. The alleged criminal behavior involves conflict of interest during the time that he was minister of commerce and industry and Uriel Messer -- Olmert's close friend, former partner and personal lawyer -- represented a company seeking funds from the ministry's investment center. According to a report just released by Lindenstrauss, Olmert -- instead of disqualifying himself -- sat in on meetings and pushed for a decision that was preferential, involving the sum of $10 million. I'd like, for once, to see one of these charges -- this is hardly the first -- followed through with at least an indictment. MK Aryeh Eldad (NU) is calling for a criminal investigation; MK Zevulun Orlev (NRP) says there is no choice for Olmert except to suspend himself until this issue is resolved. The Knesset State Control Committee will be meeting to discuss the matter. ~~~~~~~~~~ A gag order has, until now, been in place regarding the court investigation of matters involving former (recently resigned) MK Azmi Bishara. That order has now been partially lifted and it seems that he is suspected of transferring information to Hezbollah during the war last summer. Well then, of course he would not choose to be in the country at this time. MKs are looking into ways of preventing him from receiving his Knesset pension; there are rumors that he hopes to settle in Syria. Said Bishara to al-Jazeera: "This is not a matter of my personal conduct. This is an attempt to make our opinions a security offense or treason, as they call it, or other Israeli terms that we do not recognize. We have clear political opinions, one of my opinions was postponing their (Israel's) aggression during the first week of the war, and clarifying the plot on Lebanon -- and this is a position that angered them. It joined other previous positions that made us a 'problem' for the Zionist establishment." He is, you see, a misunderstood man. Helping Israel's enemy during the war isn't treason, it's just a matter of his having a right to his own opinions. ~~~~~~~~~~ Of a piece with Bishara's statement is this from Maan, an official PA news agency: "The Palestinian Prime Minister's office has denied reports in the Israeli media of the existence of tunnels for smuggling sophisticated weapons to the Palestinian territories and the presence of Iranians in the Gaza Strip. "The office said in a statement that these claims are part of the Israeli policy of finding excuses to practice aggressive policies on the Palestinian people." Don't you love it? In Rome, where Abbas met with the Italian prime minister, he declared that the barrage of rockets that hit Israel yesterday was a "one-time violation of the truce." ~~~~~~~~~~ Right now the Palestinians are more than a bit afraid of "aggression" that may come their way in Gaza. The IDF plans to ask Olmert to approve a pinpoint operation inside of Gaza aimed at Hamas terrorist chiefs and infrastructure. According to some analysts, while he is waiting for release of the Winograd report on his conduct of the Lebanon war, Olmert feels constrained with regard to ordering a major attack in Gaza -- although I frankly see no evidence that he would be predisposed in any event. Head of the IDF Southern Command, Gen. Yoav Galant, states that he believes a major operation is inevitable because of Hamas's on-going attacks and military build-up. A man with forthright courage, in my opinion, he would rather see this sooner than later. According to a piece in today's Haaretz, preparation for an operation is going on right now on an extremely significant scale. Israel, however, is much more likely to act after a terrorist attack that has been successful. It provides justification, goes the political thinking; if an attempt is unsuccessful, it's as if nothing happened and we run the risk of looking like the aggressor. I have long mourned this mind-set, which, in essence, waits for some Jews to die before we take the action that will prevent more from dying. I pray for the day when we will have leaders with enough national self-esteem, enough sense of being in the right, that they are willing to take pre-emptive actions to save Jewish lives. ~~~~~~~~~~ Things are going along as smoothly as ever within the PA unity gov't. After only five weeks in office, PA Interior Minister Hani Kawassmeh attempted to resign yesterday; Haniyeh has now gotten him to agree to wait until next week. Kawassmeh's alleged complaint is that his security plan, which would restore law and order, was being thwarted by key members of Fatah, notably Abu Shabak and Muhammad Dahlan. Hamas officials said that Shabak had given instructions to the security forces to ignore Kawassmen's orders. But Fatah officials denied this, saying that Kawassmeh's resignation was in protest because he didn't think the PA security forces should be involved in stopping Kassam launchings. One official thought it a "ploy" to blame Fatah for the chaos. It's only a matter of time... Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info To Go To Top

PREPARING FOR A FRENCH REVOLUTION IN MIDEAST POLICY Posted by Stephanie Levy, April 225, 2007.

Middle East has been the most important and controversial international issue in the hard-fought French presidential election campaign. And depending on the results, the election may mark the first major change on that issue for over three decades. Both Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal, the candidates of the center-right and Socialists, respectively, have promised major shifts in France's stance on the Iranian, Lebanese, and Israeli-Palestinian issues if they win. They are reacting against the regime of outgoing President Jacques Chirac, who for 12 years--following in the footsteps of predecessors back to Charles de Gaulle--has allied with such Arab dictators as Yasir Arafat and Saddam Hussein. By making France the Arabs' favorite Western state, Chirac and other Gaullists have tried to create an alignment to counter the great--and in France, much-despised--primacy of the United States. Yet, many say this strategy has brought little benefit to France, either directly or in terms of making it a credible world power. There are many contradictions. For example, French policy seeks to protect Lebanon while refusing to regard Hizballah as a terrorist organization. Moreover, last January, Chirac stated that Iran's possession of nuclear bombs would "not be so dangerous," reversing previous official positions. The two main French newspapers, Le Figaro and Le Monde, have highlighted this debate in reviews of a new book entitled Chirac of Arabia: The Mirages of French Policy, by Eric Aeschimann and Christophe Boltanski, two journalists at the leftist French newspaper Liberation. The authors underline French errors in particular on the Palestinian issue, which was perceived by Chirac solely through Yasir Arafat's eyes. They also document the close personal relations between Chirac, then prime minister, and Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the mid-1970s, when Chirac received substantial funds from Baghdad for his political party in exchange for French support for the Iraqi nuclear program. Chirac stated then: "Saddam will be the De Gaulle of the Middle East." The same story goes for Chirac's ties to Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi in the 1980s. Ironically, though, when Libya recently wanted to break out of international isolation, it turned not to France, but to the United States and Great Britain. For Chirac's would-be successors on the left and right, and indeed among large sectors of the French political spectrum, the broad consensus on the country's historic Middle East policy is crumbling. Candidates have been anxious to dissociate themselves from Chirac's line on Syria, Iran, Israel, and the Palestinians. In the Socialist camp, Segolene Royal adopted a very hard stance regarding Iran's nuclear weapons program. She declared that Iran ought to be denied even control of nuclear power, because it could be a cover for weapons-making. According to her analysis, "The prospect of Iran equipped with nuclear power is not acceptable," since it would give "a government whose president threatens the existence of the State of Israel... access to such power." On the Israeli-Palestinian issue, Royal dissociated herself from the French pro-Palestinian stance. Expressing concerns about the security of Israel, she declared herself in favor of the construction of the safety fence so disparaged by French officials. Sarkozy, who is actually the Gaullist candidate, has adopted a strategic stance in total opposition to Chirac's Middle East vision. He prefers close cooperation with the United States over an alliance with the Arab world that, to some extent, is aimed against America. Regarding Israel, Sarkozy promised a more balanced French policy. Thus, last March, he asserted that French decision-makers must be able "to say a certain number of truths to our Arab friends, for example... the right for Israel to exist and to live safely is not negotiable, and that terrorism is their true enemy." He also declared himself ready to defend "the integrity of Lebanon," including the disarmament of Hizballah. As for the centrist candidate Francois Bayrou, the third main contestant, he stated that while remaining faithful to a Realist, power-oriented conception of international affairs, he also wishes "to establish a French foreign policy which would have as a main theme the right to democracy. No dictatorship is acceptable, even if, at short term, it appears in favor of the national interests" of France. It should be noted that there is no question of appealing to a "Jewish vote" in such statements. Muslim voters vastly outnumber Jewish ones. Rather, there is a genuine conclusion that France's policy has not worked and indeed has undercut both French interests and ambitions. This challenge to France's historic pro-Arab policy could lead to a new vision of the Middle East. In this alternative approach, France could play a major role in the defense of Lebanon's independence, containing the Iranian threat, combating terrorism, building strong relations with Israel, playing a truly central role in peacemaking efforts, and even cooperating with the United States. When it comes to Middle East policy, there is a chance of a real French revolution. Stephanie Levy is a research fellow at the Global Research in International Affairs Center at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya. She previously worked for the French Ministry of Defense. To Go To Top

ISLAMIST EXTREMIST THREAT IN BANGLADESH Posted by Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, April 25, 2007.

This is my article at http://www.countercurrents.org/choudhury250407.htm

Referring to the 8/17 bomb blasts in all the 63 districts in Bangladesh, Ambassador Howard Schaffer expressed the view that Bangladesh is probably being used by Islamic fundamentalists and insurgents as a safe haven to enable them to carry on with their activities in an unrestricted manner. Between August and December 2005, a series of attacks hit Bangladesh, collectively killing 12, wounding hundreds of others and involving the country's first suicide strikes. In the most audacious assault on August 17, 434 homemade bombs were set off in 63 districts over the course of just one hour. This unprecedented bout of violence has thrust the country to the forefront of regional and global terrorist attention, generating fears that a new jihadist beachhead is emerging in this predominantly Muslim nation of roughly 144 million people. "This is surely terrorism. It can't be anything else. What was astonishing about these bombings, which took place in late August, was that they were coordinated throughout the country. Only a couple of districts were not affected. Not too many people were killed, and that many people think is evidence that what these terrorist groups were seeking to do was to send a warning to the government and the country, becxause you can't have such a coordinated attack unless you have a very strong organization," he said. Schaffer said inability of the government to rule the country was a major contributor of growing extremism. "Bangladesh is badly governed. And under those circumstances, there is a tendency to turn to moderate Islamic countries, moderate Islamic parties, or more radical groups. It sets up an environment in which these radical groups can operate," he said. Two main militant organizations currently exist in Bangladesh: Jama'at ul-Mujahedeen Bangladesh (JMB, or the Bangladesh Assembly of Holy Warriors) and Harakat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh (HuJI-B, or Movement of Islamic Holy war-Bangladesh. It may be mentioned here that the masterminds of the notorious Islamist militancy group JMB, Shykh Abdur Rahman studied in Medina University, who later came back to Bangladesh and worked for Saudi Embassy for some years. During his student life, Shykh Rahman managed to establish relations with Al-Qaeda. Incidents of extremism and terrorism have witnessed a sharp increase in Bangladesh in recent years, with the number of attacks last year exceeding the total number of incidents in the preceding five years. Most of the attacks have been directed against religious minorities, secular intellectuals and journalists as well as against politicians belonging to secular parties and leftist activists. Islamist extremists have sought to impose an Islamic way of life on people in rural areas, often through the use of force. Women have been coerced into veiling themselves and men have been forced to grow beards and wear skull caps. According to terrorism experts and several analysts, Bangladesh is increasingly recognized as the locus of a significant and expanding threat emanating from radicalized Islamist extremist mobilization and its systematic transformation into political and terrorist violence. Notwithstanding vociferous official denials, it has, for some time now, been an established staging post for terrorism within the region, and is seen as a potential center of Islamist consolidation for the "global jihad" as well. Worse, these processes are rooted in an entrenched political dynamic that has progressively diminished the space for secular or moderate politics in the country. Given the polarization and extreme hostility between the two dominant political parties in Bangladesh, and the near complete split down the middle in voting patterns, the Islamist parties have become central to the processes of government formation in the country, and have gradually expanded their political presence as well. These trends have been compounded further by the combination of religious mobilization, intimidation and extremist violence that these radical parties and their armed allies engage in, as well as their very wide and expanding presence in the social sector, particularly education. Given these broad trends, the scope for any reversal of the Islamist extremist consolidation in Bangladesh has shrunk progressively. It is necessary to understand the dynamics of these processes, as well as to make an objective assessment of their real and potential threat, both in terms of internal stability and external security. Firstly, what are the real dimensions and magnitude of the threat of Islamist extremist mobilization in Bangladesh? The coastal area stretching from the port city of Chittagong south through Cox's Bazaar to the Myanmar border, notorious for piracy, smuggling and arms-running, is the principal area of activity of the Harkat-ul-Jehadi-e-Islami Bangladesh (Movement of Islamic Holy War, HuJI-BD), which is a signatory to Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front and a designated terrorist outfit in many countries, including the United States. Further, the Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB or Awakened Muslim Masses), a vigilante Islamist group, is reported to have created strong bases mostly in northwest Bangladesh, in the districts of Rajshahi, Satkhira, Naogaon, Bagerhat, Jessore, Chittagong, Joypurhat, Natore, Rangpur, Bogra, Chittagong, and Khulna. Elsewhere, the Jama'atul Mujahideen (Party of the Mujahideen) is training small groups of youths for jihad in the northern districts of Natore and Bogra, one in the southwestern district of Chuadanga and another in the mid-eastern border district of Chandpur. It also has a network in the Shaghata, Sundarganj and Sadullapur areas of Gaibandha district as also in Rajshahi district and parts of Khulna city. While both of them espouse the ideal of a "Italianized" Bangladesh, JMJB leaders have openly proclaimed links to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. There have also been reports that JMJB's training of recruits includes recorded speeches of bin Laden and video footage of warfare training at al-Qaeda's (now defunct) Farooque camp in Afghanistan. Professor Abu Sayeed, in his two books, Aghoshito Juddher Blueprint (Blueprint of an Undeclared War) and Brutal Crime Documents, claims that around 50,000 militants belonging to more than 40 groups are now controlling a vast area of the country. Sayeed also says over 50 camps are now in operation across Bangladesh, where Islamists are getting military training and that militant groups have their recruits in all sections of society, including mosques, seminaries, educational institutions, the judiciary, mass media and even the armed forces. The prevailing socio-political dynamics lend themselves to the consolidation of Islamist extremism in the country. For instance, the JMJB is believed to have exploited the countryside's abhorrence towards left-wing extremism to spread radical Wahhabism among the rural populace and in the process also emerged as a significant force to be reckoned with. The group's rapid spread has been primarily achieved through an assumption of the role of "protector" in areas of widespread mal-governance, support of local administration and perceived linkages and claims of contact with the al-Qaeda-Taliban combine. Taking recourse to a policy of appeasement, the Khaleda Zia regime had initially remained largely indifferent to the growing power and clout of such radical Islamist groups. Although, lately after the countrywide bomb explosion by JMB, the former ruling coalition was rather forced to go into a massive drive to arrest the main kingpins and put them on trial. A sharp polarization of the country's polity has led to a situation in which the just past-government sought to maintain an electoral balance, while the Islamic extremists seek to broaden their political and social base. This is crucial and is expected to continue, considering the past trajectory. In the October 2001 Parliamentary elections, BNP secured 40.97% of the votes, with its coalition right-wing parties, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh securing 4.28%, and the Islami Oikyo Jote (Islamic Unity Council, an alliance of seven radical Islamist groups) wining 0.68%. At the other end, the opposition AL received 40.13% of the vote. This extremely close competition between the two main parties gave the Islamists disproportionate leverage, considering their tiny electoral base. It is this battle for electoral balance among the BNP and AL that is being exploited by the Islamic extremists. While it is true that Bangladeshi Islamic extremists, with some exceptions, have not been linked to major international terrorist incidents, it would be perilous to consider the Islamist ensemble as purely internal developments. These movements are, to a certain extent, local variants of an international Islamist enterprise and a significant number of these groups and individuals maintain links with the "global jihad". To that end, it would be hazardous to focus only on the transient geographical location of Islamist terror. Anti-US rhetoric has continued. In December 2001, Maulana Ubaidul Haq, the khatib (grand cleric), of Bangladesh's national mosque, Baitul Mukarram, and a Jamaat associate, publicly condemned the US war on terror and urged followers to wage holy war against the USA. "President Bush and America is the most heinous terrorist in the world. Both America and Bush must be destroyed. The Americans will be washed away if Bangladesh's 120 million Muslims spit on them," the cleric told a gathering of hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi Muslims which included several high-ranking government officials. Much of the violence in the Chittagong-Cox's Bazar area has been blamed on the Rohingyas, a refugee community of Muslims from Myanmar's Arakan State. In 1991, over 250,000 Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh, claiming religious persecution in Myanmar. They were sheltered in more than 20 camps near the border south and east of Cox's Bazar. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) managed to repatriate most of them, but an estimated 20,000 destitute refugees remain in two camps between Cox's Bazar and the border, which is heavily mined in some areas on the Myanmar side to prevent smuggling and cross border guerrilla activities. There is also an undisclosed number of Rohingyas living in villages outside the UNHCR supervised camps. In one village, Gumdrum, located only a few hundred meters from the Myanmar border, virtually everyone is of Rohingya descent. Some are recent arrivals, while others have settled here over the past three or four decades. According to officials, new refugees arrive daily. In January 2001, Bangladesh clamped down on Rohingya activists and offices in Chittagong and Cox's Bazar. Hundreds were rounded up, and the local press was full of reports of their alleged involvement in gun- and drug-running. Local Rohingya leaders vehemently deny such accusations, and refute claims that they are connected with Islamic fundamentalist groups in and outside Bangladesh: "These are pure fabrications to discredit us," said Nurul Islam, president of the Arakan Rohingya National Organization, a moderate Rohingya group active in the border areas. Another Rohingya spokesman blamed local Bangladeshi gangs with high-level connections for the violence, smuggling and lawlessness in the area. The paramilitary Bangladesh Rifles have also been accused of involvement in smuggling activities around Cox's Bazar. There is little doubt that extremist groups have taken advantage of the disenfranchised Rohingyas, including recruiting them as cannon fodder for Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. In an interview with the Karachi-based newspaper, Ummat on 28 September 2001, Bin Laden said: "There are areas in all parts of the world where strong jihadi forces are present, from Indonesia to Algeria, from Kabul to Chechnya, from Bosnia to Sudan, and from Myanmar to Kashmir." He was most probably referring to a small group of Rohingyas on the Bangladesh-Myamnar border. Many of the recruits were given the most dangerous tasks in the battlefield, clearing mines and portering. According to Asian intelligence sources, recruits were paid Tk30,OOO ($525) on joining and then Tk10,OOO ($175) per month. The families of recruits killed in action were offered Tk100,000 ($1,750). Recruits were taken mostly via Nepal to Pakistan, where they were trained and sent on to military camps in Afghanistan. It is not known how many people from this part of Bangladesh -- Rohingyas and others -- fought in Afghanistan. According to Asian intelligence reports, many of HUJI's members may also have been recruited from Rohingya settlements in the southeastern corner of the country HUJI is headed by an extremist cleric from Chittagong, Maulana Sheikh Farid, who also maintains links with like-minded groups in Pakistan. Bangladesh is far from becoming another Pakistan, and the rise of extremism should be seen in the context of the country's turbulent politics since breaking away from Pakistan in 1971. Bangladesh was formed in opposition to the notion that all Muslim areas of former British India should unite in one country. Bangladesh is the only state in the subcontinent with one dominant language group and very few ethnic and religious minorities. The rise of fundamentalism in Bangladesh is not just a side effect of military politics. Enayetullah Khan, editor of the Bangladesh weekly Holiday, says that a Muslim element has always been present; otherwise, what was East Pakistan could have merged with the predominantly Hindu Indian state of West Bengal, where the same language is spoken. "We're having a bit of an identity crisis here," said Khan. "Are we Bengalis first and Muslims second, or Muslims first and Bengalis second? This is the problem. And when Muslim identity becomes an Islamic identity we're in real trouble." This is a dilemma that Bangladesh has to tackle very carefully. The urban middle class may resent the fundamentalists and dismiss them as irrelevant, and the government -- which is heavily dependent on foreign aid -- has to contain the extremists so as not to upset relations with its powerful donor countries, the West and Japan. However, extremist influence is growing, especially in the countryside. A foreign diplomat in Dhaka said: "In the 1960s and 1970s, it was the leftists who were seen as incorruptible purists. Today, the role model for many young men in rural areas is the dedicated Islamic cleric with his skull cap, flowing robes and beard." As Indonesia has shown, an economic collapse or political crisis can give rise to militants for whom religious fundamentalism equals national pride, and a way out of misrule, disorder and corrupt worldly politics. The writer is a journalist, columnist, author, amd editor of "Weekly Blitz". Email him at salahuddinshoaibchoudhury@yahoo.com To Go To Top

ESTHER POLLARD'S SPEECH AT MEVO CHORON AS JONATHAN HONORED AMONG ISRAEL'S CAPTIVES Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, April 25, 2007.

Jonathan Pollard was honored at a Yom HaZikaron/ Yom Ha'atzmaut ceremony and celebration at Mevo Choron this week (23 April 2007). The theme of the event at which Pollard was singled out for special honor was "V'Shavu Banim L'Gvulam" where tribute was paid to all of Israel's captives and MIAs. Mevo Choron is a large, pastoral community located between Jerusalem and Modi'in and is one of the oldest settlements in the Binyamin region. Jonathan's wife, Esther, was invited to be the guest of honor and keynote speaker at the event. Following a ceremony and torch-lighting event at Mevo Choron, the entire community proceeded to an adjacent windswept barren hilltop, Meirom Ayalon, for an outdoor banquet and ceremony. At Meirom Ayalon, (which is about to be settled and built by Mevo Choron) a short video about Jonathan Pollard was screened and then Esther Pollard spoke. Esther shared a view of the Pollard case and of the fate of Israel's MIAs and Captives that was both novel and startling. The English translation of Esther Pollard's speech which was originally delivered in Hebrew, and her remarks at a torch-lighting ceremony which preceded the main event follow below. Torch-Lighting Ceremony at Mevo Choron: Preceded by speeches honoring Jonathan Pollard and all of Israel's captives and MIAs, Esther Pollard was invited to light the memorial torch and make a brief statement. Here are her remarks: "The culture of betrayal and abandonment, perpetrated by successive governments of Israel, one after the other, severely impacts upon the fate of our captives and MIAs. "As we shall understand later tonight, the culture of betrayal and abandonment in Israel began in 1985 with the abandonment of my husband, Jonathan Pollard. Israel's leadership learned from their experience with Jonathan and went on to abandon soldiers, land, territories, collaborators, citizens, and countless others. "I light the memorial torch this evening with the hope and prayer that HaShem will have mercy on our captives and MIAs and speedily return them home, healthy and whole, at once -- and of course among them, my husband, Jonathan Pollard. " Esther Pollard's Speech at Meirom Ayalon (near Mevo Choron): Following an out-door dinner and a video presentation about Jonathan Pollard, Esther Pollard spoke. Her speech was presented in Hebrew. This is an English translation: Today is Remembrance Day. Today we are remembering. We are remembering the sons of our Nation, heros of the IDF who fell and gave their lives on behalf of the nation and the homeland. We are also remembering the sons of our nation who are still alive in captivity, our captives and MIAs. We are remembering Ron Arad, Tzvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz, Zarcharia Baumel, Guy Hever, Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev, and of course, my husband Jonathan Pollard. The question that needs to be asked is: why are we remembering our native sons who are alive in captivity, instead of rescuing them? Why do we persist in holding memorial ceremonies for them, as we do for our war dead, instead of bringing them home? If one were to ask this question of our prime minister he would not be pleased. No doubt he would reply something to the effect that the 'Government of Israel continues to work, night and day, to do everything in its power to bring all of Israel's captives home.' But is it true? Can we believe our leaders when they tell us that they are doing everything thing to bring our boys home? Is it even possible to investigate? We do not know what happened, and what is currently happening to most of our captives and MIAs. We do not know, for the most part, where they are, who is holding them, and what has ultimately been their fate. We do know however, what has happened to one of them, my husband, Jonathan Pollard. If we look into his case, and study the attitude and action (or shall we say lack of action) of the government of Israel over the last 22 years, we may be able to learn something about the fate all of our captives and MIAs. As you certainly know, Jonathan was an Israeli agent who passed vital security information to Israel about our enemies who were plotting to destroy us. Israel had a right to this information according to a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the two nations in 1983, but the United States was deliberately withholding this critical information in an illegal embargo. The median sentence for the offense that Jonathan committed -- passing classified information to an ally with no intent to harm the US -- is 2 to four years. Jonathan is now in his 22nd year of a life sentence with no end in sight. The Government of Israel claims that it is doing all that it can for Jonathan Pollard. If that is so, why we are forced to remember him tonight, instead of having him here with us? I would like to share with you some parts of the Pollard story that you did not see in the video tonight, and that you are not likely to have read anywhere else. This is information that is not very well known about Jonathan's case. I am sure that by the time I am through, you will be able to draw your own conclusions, not only about what has happened to Jonathan, but about all of our MIAs and captives. Let me begin by reminding you that almost all of the same officials who were holding high government office or were a key part of the Defense/Intelligence establishment in Israel when Jonathan was first captured and when the rest of our boys were taken captive, are the same people who are still in government service to this day. They may have changed hats or offices here and there, but by and large the same inept, corrupt, self-serving politicians and officials are still around to plague us some two decades later. This is an unusual phenomenon; one that simply does not occur in other countries. Going back to the beginning. When Jonathan was arrested in 1985, Israel used him to hold off the FBI while it evacuated all the rest of the team to Israel. Jonathan did as he was ordered, stalling his American interrogators until all the rest of the Israelis involved in his operation were whisked away to safety. Only Jonathan was left to face the wrath of the Americans. Although he did not know it at the time, there was never any intention of rescuing Jonathan. He had been designated by Israel, from the outset, to be the scapegoat that would take the blame for the whole operation. As you saw in the video tonight, Jonathan never had a trial. He gave up his right to a trial in a plea agreement, which Jonathan honored and the US violated, but which Jonathan's attorney never protested. You see, Israel paid for Jonathan's first lawyer, Richard Hibey, a Lebanese American. And, as you know, he who pays the piper calls the tune. Because of Hibey's treachery, instead of the usual 2 to 4 year sentence for the crime he committed, Jonathan received an unlimited life sentence. After the sentencing hearing, Hibey had 10 days to file a document to protect Jonathan's right to appeal his life sentence. He did not file the document. As a result, to this very day, Jonathan has never been allowed to appeal his life sentence. Ever since it found and paid for the lawyer who secured an unlimited life sentence for Jonathan, the Government of Israel has refused to pay a cent for the lawyers who are trying to help Jonathan! This is an important fact so I will repeat it: Israel bought and paid for the lawyer who secured an unlimited life sentence for Jonathan and who deprived him forever of his right to appeal that sentence; and ever since then, Israel has refused to pay a cent for lawyers who have been trying to get Jonathan out of prison! After his sentencing hearing, Jonathan spent a year in a prison facility for the criminally insane, where he was held in solitary confinement, naked and incommunicado, and in inhumane conditions. Acting on the advice of the Mossad, the Americans eventually transferred Jonathan to USP Marion in Illinois. USP Marion is the harshest prison in the American federal system. Having studied Jonathan's psychological profile, the Mossad advised the Americans that Pollard was unlikely to survive in solitary confinement. I should point out here that Jonathan did not work for the Mossad. He worked for a competitor of the Mossad, LAKAM. Jonathan's operation severely embarrassed the Mossad by providing the information to Israel that the Mossad should have been providing, but did not. To this very day, the Mossad has never forgiven Jonathan and continues to collaborate with his captors to keep him buried alive. Thus, right from the outset, it was through under-handed collaboration between Israel and the Americans that the dastardly plan was hatched to have Jonathan Pollard die in prison. He was either supposed to become so depressed in solitary confinement that he would choose to die by his own hand, or if that failed, arrangements would be made to have him killed by "accident" by one of the guards. If we had hours and hours, and were to remain here all night, I could tell you many anecdotes of attempts on Jonathan's life, but for now, suffice to say that there are numerous examples. Why did they want Jonathan to die, you ask? Very simple. For Israel, it would solve the problem. When Jonathan was arrested, Israel lied and said it knew nothing about the operation; and claimed that Jonathan was a "freelancer" who acted on his own. If he died in prison, Israel would never have to admit the truth. As for the US, they wanted Jonathan to die in prison so that their own lie, the Israeli spy Pollard was "the worst spy in the history of the United States", would similarly endure forever. But, G-d had other plans for Jonathan. In spite of Israel's betrayal, neglect, abandonment, and its endless lies; and in spite of the US perversion of justice and inhumane treatment, Jonathan survived nearly 7 years of harsh treatment in solitary confinement at USP Marion. While still in solitary confinement, he fought a difficult battle, on his own, without any assistance from Israel, to be transferred to an open population prison. In 1993 he won the battle, and he was transferred to FCI Butner, the same federal prison where he is housed to this day. Jonathan's transfer to Butner did not change Israel's plan for Jonathan. Within a couple of weeks of the time Jonathan was transferred to open population, the Government of Israel sent a Mossad agent to visit him. The agent came with an official suggestion for Jonathan: that he solve the problem for Israel by killing himself. The agent said that the Government of Israel would even assist him to kill himself, if he wished. When Jonathan declined this "solution", the Mossad agent mocked him, saying that if he were really a man, he would kill himself. That was in 1993. Up to and including that time, the Government of Israel was still denying that Jonathan worked for the State, and pretending that its only interest in him was purely humanitarian -- Jewish charity, so to speak. In attempt to get the Government of Israel to stop its lies and abandonment and to force it to protect Jonathan, he requested Israeli Citizenship. The government, of course, refused. So Jonathan took the government to court. He filed a petition with the Supreme Court of Israel, based on the law which states that all those who serve the security needs of the State have an automatic right to citizenship. Out of fear of what might come out in court if a hearing were to be held, the government backed down. In return for Jonathan for canceling his petition with the Supreme Court, the government granted Jonathan citizenship in 1995. This was a major event. It was the moment when everyone, including the US, expected that Israel would step up to the plate and begin an intensive push to bring Jonathan home. But that did not occur. On the contrary, Israel gave him citizenship and then quickly turned its back on him again. Israel did absolutely nothing to help him or to protect him. Neglected, abandoned, and ill, two more years went by without any improvement in his situation. Jonathan had to sue again to try to get Israel's attention. This time he sued to force the government of Israel to admit that he was an Israeli agent who had served the security interests of the country. Again Jonathan filed a petition in Supreme Court. -- By the way, contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court has never ruled in favor of Jonathan. The Supreme Court, as a matter of routine, always provides cover for the Government, and no relief for Jonathan. -- In this case, once again, the State feared that the Court might intervene and that there was a risk of the truth coming to light, so the State agreed to formally recognize Jonathan as its agent, provided that he dropped his lawsuit. Jonathan obliged and was formally recognized as an Israeli agent in 1998. As soon as Jonathan was recognized as an Israeli agent, the Government of Israel had only to do 2 things in order to precipitate critical changes in Jonathan's situation. First of all, it was supposed to include his name on the list of captives held by the Ministry of Defense. By adding his name to list, the Ministry would be able to immediately implement all of his rights as an agent in captivity, including taking steps to secure his immediate release. The second thing the State of Israel was supposed to do was to officially inform the United States Department of Justice, the Bureau of Prisons and the American State Department that Jonathan Pollard is an Israeli agent and that the Government of Israel intends to seek his release. Sounds simple doesn't it? Just put Jonathan Pollard's name on a list at the Ministry of Defense in Israel; and officially inform the Americans of his status as an agent in captivity. That is all that Israel had to do! But, even these simple, basic steps were never taken by Israel! To this very day, the Government of Israel has never officially informed the US that Jonathan is her agent. If that were done, the US would be forced to treat Jonathan as an agent in captivity, and not as a common criminal. The US would not have dared to afflict him or abuse him, if he were classified as an agent in captivity. But, to this day, the US still considers Jonathan to be nothing more than a common criminal, and continues to treat him as such. Moreover, because Israel never officially informed the US that Jonathan is her agent, Israel refused to put his name on the list of captives at the ministry of defense, for fear that the Americans might find out. What does it mean then, that Jonathan's name does not appear on the list at the Ministry of Defense? It means, among other things, that he is effectively deprived of all of his rights as an agent in captivity. For example, in 22 years, neither Jonathan nor I have ever received a cent from the Government of Israel --- even though Jonathan has a right to his salary and other benefits while in captivity. Jonathan and I receive no medical, legal or moral assistance from the Government of Israel and never have. I am a cancer survivor and have undergone surgery and treatment for this illness, without any assistance from the government of Israel. Indeed, during the worst of times of my illness, when my husband was worried sick about me and could not be at my side to comfort or assist me, not a single Israeli official ever picked up the telephone to even inquire about my health. Worst of all, the most serious implication of Jonathan's name being left off of the list of captives at the Ministry of Defense is that Jonathan's release has never been a priority on the official agenda of the Ministry of Defense, the Foreign Ministry, or of the Prime Minister's office, as it is with every other agent in captivity. Instead for the last 22 years, successive governments of Israel have maintained the charade, pretending that Jonathan is not an agent, and not in captivity. This is accomplished by studiously keeping his file out of the hands of the appropriate office at the Ministry of Defense, and instead always keeping it in the hands of some special official who has neither the interest, nor the authority, nor the mandate to do anything for Jonathan. The official who holds Jonathan's file has always been someone high up in the Mossad, or high up in the prime Minister's office. In the past the file was held by the likes of Danny Yatom -- the Mossad attaché to Peres and Rabin; or Moshe Kochanovsky, a special ops agent at the Ministry of Defense; and today it is held by Cabinet Secretary, Israel Maimon. What this means in practical terms, is that each of these 'guardians' of Jonathan's file are "the address". Anyone with questions about Pollard's treatment or his situation can turn to this special address. Anyone wanting to move his case forward can turn to them. But, of course, because they are a special address, there is no law which obliges them to respond! Get it? Anyone can ask about Pollard, but absolutely no one in charge of his file has to answer! To this day there is still no Israeli plan for Jonathan's release. There never was. To this day, the original plan for Jonathan Pollard remains in place; and the special official holding his file, maintains the plan with exception. According to Jonathan's file, he is still supposed to die in prison. And of course, since the special guardian of the Pollard file answers to no one, there is no oversight, no appeal, and no protest possible. What about Wye, you ask? Didn't Israel try to get Jonathan at Wye? Let's look at the facts: Jonathan was supposed to be the quid pro quo for the 750 murderers and terrorists that Israel released as part of the Wye Accords. Israel released the murderers and terrorists, but never collected Jonathan's freedom. This was the first time that Israel released murderers with blood on their hands, and they used Jonathan as the excuse. He was supposed to be the quid pro quo, not the excuse! In all of the time since then, Israel has conveniently "forgotten" that she has already bought Jonathan's freedom and paid the full price. Tell me, how does a country pay the price in blood, and then just "forget" to collect its part of the deal, our captive!? Ladies and Gentlemen: the fact that my husband Jonathan Pollard is still alive, the fact that he survives after 22 years, each and every single day that he survives, is an absolute and utter miracle! As for the Government of Israel, there is not enough time to go into details right now, but let me assure you again that their original plan for Jonathan has not changed one iota in 22 years. Mr. Olmert and his buddies, including Shimon Peres and Rafi Eitan, and a whole gang of Mossadniks are still waiting patiently for Jonathan to die in prison, G-d forbid! As we asked earlier, can we trust what our Prime Minister and other Government officials are telling us? I maintain that we can trust them. Not when they are speaking publicly or talking to the media, but when they are speaking behind closed doors. Here are a few examples of what Israeli officials, who are obliged to seek Jonathan's release, have had to say about the matter privately: ARIK SHARON: Former Prime Minister of Israel, scandalized the late Rechavam Ze'evi, when he told him point blank: "The only way I will ever agree to bring Pollard home is in a coffin." YITZHAK SHAMIR: another former Prime Minister of Israel, in separate meetings with Jonathan's attorney Larry Dub, and with his parents, told them: "A sovereign state has to know how to abandon those who serve the state, if the need arises." EZER WEIZMAN: the former President of Israel, acting on behalf of the Government of Israel, arranged a meeting with Jonathan's brother, Harvey and attempted to give him a message of condolences for Jonathan's parents on the loss of their son. Harvey was outraged and angrily responded, "My brother is still alive! How dare you refer to him as if he had already died?!" SHIMON PERES: Israel's deputy Prime Minister, speaking to 2 ministers who sought his assistance in advancing freedom for Pollard said, "Pollard is a lost cause. Nothing to do. Just forget him!" RAFI EITAN: Pollard's former handler and today a Government Minister told Esther Pollard and Larry Dub that his only regret about the Pollard case was that he had failed to put a bullet through Jonathan's head when he sought refuge at the Israeli Embassy in Washington. To this day, Eitan tells reporters that he feels no personal sense of responsibility for Pollard; that what happened to Pollard was "an operational failure, nothing personal." As for EHUD OLMERT,Israel's current Prime Minister, his only interest -- as expressed to behind-the-scenes contacts -- is in freeing the terrorist murderer, Marwan Barghouti, not Jonathan Pollard. He does not even feign interest in Pollard. Olmert envisions sharing the Nobel peace prize with Barghouti! Let me remind you, Jonathan was not a drug dealer or a scoundrel, who betrayed the State to Hizbullah for profit. Jonathan was and is a bona fide Israeli agent. From what I myself have heard from top level government officials, the information that Jonathan gave to Israel saved us from another holocaust. And this is how the Government of Israel treats a man who served the State and who saved the lives of countless Israeli citizens, and who has served 22 years in prison on behalf of the State of Israel??! If this is the way that the Government behaves towards a thoroughly visible captive like Jonathan, one who is able to speak for himself, one who can be visited, one who writes and phones and whose condition is known; then ask yourself, how is the Government really behaving towards those captives who are not so visible, who cannot speak for themselves, whom we cannot see, and whose condition we do not know. If you think about it, and you ask yourself some very simple questions, you will come to the same conclusions that Jonathan and I were forced to come to, by our own experience. Then you will surely understand the premise that we started out with tonight. Namely, that we have both a right and an obligation to remember those who have fallen in the service of the State. We must honor the memory of those who are no longer alive. But, as for the others: Ron Arad, Tzvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz, Zarcharia Baumel, Guy Hever, Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser, Eldad Regev, and my husband Jonathan Pollard, remembering them, while they are still alive and in captivity, instead of bring them home is a travesty! It is the height of hypocrisy! And it is a crime against humanity. There is no reason to memorialize those who still live. There is an absolute obligation to bring them home, without any further delay! And, I am not recommending that Israel free murderers and terrorists to bring them home. No other nation in the world --- only Israel ---opens the doors to its jails and frees murderers and terrorists to secure the release of its captives -- and even after doing so repeatedly, still does not secure the release of her captives. Recently, 15 British sailors were taken captive by Iran. Does any one know how many terrorists Britain released in order to secure their release? Not a single one! That is right! Not a single terrorist or murderer was released by Britain to secure the release of their hostages from Iran. They were freed the way normal nations free their captives -- intensive behind the scenes "negotiations", or threats or whatever, but no release of murderers and terrorists. Only Israel claims that it has to release murderers and terrorists! This is not the way to secure the release of captives, and this is not the way a nation with any self-respect behaves! Enough is enough! It is time to stop the lies and hypocrisy by the government of Israel! It is time to stop releasing murderers and terrorists! It is time to mourn our dead, not the living! It is time to stop holding memorial services for our captives and MIAs! It is time to rescue our boys in captivity, instead of memorializing them! I do not have to tell our government how to free a captive! Nor do they need me to teach them that negotiation does not mean capitulation to terror! Or that when negotiation fails there are other means! It is time for the Government of Israel to fulfill its obligation to those who have faithfully served the State, and have gone into captivity as a result. It is time to bring Jonathan Pollard and all of our captives and MIAs home, now, while they are still alive! No more charades; no more games; no more lies; and no more excuses! No other alternative is acceptable. If I may, I would like to make a personal request of everyone here tonight, to please pray and pray and pray and pray some more for Jonathan and for all of our captives and MIAs. I have brought prayer cards with me for distribution to the community. If possible try to pray in groups. The power of prayer is our most potent weapon, and the power of prayer in groups is exponentially astronomic! Before I end, let me thank you, the people of Mevo Choron for honoring Jonathan and all of our MIAs and captives tonight; and for inviting me to speak at this unforgettable event! I am deeply moved by the devotion to the land and people of Israel that I have seen demonstrated by the People of Mevo Choron tonight. Your devotion to developing the land at Meirom Ayalon is deeply commendable and touches our hearts! Jonathan and I wish you much blessing and success! Contact Justice for Jonathan Pollard at justice4jp@gmail.com To Go To Top

A SEDER WITH DEMOCRATS; INTERPRETING ARAB SUMMITS Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 25, 2007.

WHO DESTROYS MOSQUES? Islamists try to rally support against the US in Iraq by claiming that the US wants to destroy their mosques. Actually, the US tries to be respectful of other religions. Meanwhile, the Islamists of different sects blow up their rivals' mosques. They also use mosques as firing positions, thereby drawing damaging return-fire. A SEDER WITH DEMOCRATS One guest brought a gadget containing a countdown to the end of the Bush administration. I suggested she not hasten the day, for his successor is likely to get us conquered and the Democrats seem about to restore capital gains and dividend tax cuts that had boosted my net income. There was no comment. She complained that he got the whole Muslim world angry with us. The host observed as if wisely that Pres. Bush has made the US reviled among the nations and is a stupid person. I didn't have time to explain why it is the nations that should be reviled and Europe that is stupidly letting itself get taken over by the Muslims. Our Democrats are taking up European pacifism, long discredited. I did mention that the Muslims had been attacking us before he took office; even 9/11 was before he had settled in. The Islamic anger comes from the Muslims, indoctrinated by S. Arabia and Iran, regardless of what the US does. As for France and Russia, I said, their reviling the US is largely jealousy over commercial rivalry and to losing top diplomatic place to the US. To that, there was no comment. They made some more remarks against Bush. It is difficult to defend him, because it isn't a case of either he is right or his opponents are right. They all are largely wrong and he was only a little right. But I observed that Bush has been intimidated into relying upon the UN and negotiations, just as the Democrats demanded; doesn't that gain him some credit among the Democrats? I emphasized that, but nobody concurred or commented. If my remarks don't go their way, they ignore them. I think that Democrats repeat standard themes like a mantra, know little, and think less. Their hatred of him is childish. And they call him stupid? We were gathered to celebrate our ancestors' liberation, but nobody brought up the current threat to exterminate us descendants. In this, Bush is guilty of letting the State Dept. strip Israel of much of its defenses. That guilt my friends fail to perceive. They seem to have some perverse instinct that causes them to work against their own interests, legitimate as they may be. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP The Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem touted freedom of worship as a general principle. IMRA wonders whether he includes the right of Jews to pray on the Temple Mount and at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron (IMRA, 4/6). The declaration is vague. Sometimes, other faiths don't include Jews in such declarations. It also is too vague to comfort his Christians, who, in the P.A., are harassed when going to church and are oppressed when not in church A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT ARAB SUMMITS AND ARAB PEACE PLANS: "1. What is so important about Arab summits, if anything? 2. What is so important and new about the Saudi "peace plan"? 3. Why would the Sunni Saudis offer a plan that seems to help the positions of their Iranian and Syrian adversaries? 4. Why is America seemingly supporting Saudi ideas that fly in the face of the Bush Administration's anti-terror policy...? 5. Why are so many dovish Israelis in favor of the Saudi plans?" Arab summits usually end in a consensus that conceals their fears and differences. Although Arab summits are about power, survival, and rivalry, and although the Saudi king admitted their disunity, journalists dwell on the calls there for unity. The participants, however, strive to distract their people from their corruption and other failures. Part of the distraction is to make certain statements that happen to have been in past summits. This material includes anti-Israel positions that their populations will not criticize them for. It also was safe regionally for the king to criticize the US presence in Iraq that he actually wants to stay as a counter-balance against Iran. But the king and other Arab leaders make overtures towards Iran, as they see US determination weakening. Arab leaders are afraid to raise real issues [low Arab technological achievement, low literacy and health levels, high levels of corruption, and low national self-esteem] realistically, "that might inflame domestic populations." Arab politics often neglects clear analysis in favor of elegant use of language. Arabs often believe the opposite of what they say in public or even in private (Michael Widlanski in IMRA, 4/6). Mr. Widlanski did not explain explicitly why Westerners praise the Saudi plan. Did he imply that they don't know the cultural background for the plan? Dovish Israelis have been more ideological than logical, practical, or patriotic. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@verizon.net To Go To Top

ISRAEL ALLOWS MINARET OVER TEMPLE MOUNT Posted by Janet Lehr, April 25, 2007.

Articles on Jordan follow -- Jordan is a dangerous neighbor, not given sufficient coverage. For starters, who among Israel Lives readers has noticed that every picture in the media of jerusalem includes the golden dome of the rock? That gold is thanks to a gift to the tatty monument 10 years ago of gold to be used to brighten up their symbol of dominance -- like a dog marking their spot.

"Jordan's King Abdullah To U.S. Congress -- No Justice For Palestinians Is Cause Of Regional & World Problems" New York -- King Abdullah II of Jordan yesterday addressed a joint session of Congress in which he essentially blamed Israel for the absence of peace in the Middle East and failed to mention, let alone condemn, Arab anti-Semitism and terror and incitement against Israel. Prior to leaving for Washington, D.C., Abdullah blamed Israel even more starkly, stating that "The main responsibility (for achieving peace) lies with Israel, which must choose either to remain a prisoner of the mentality of 'Israel the fortress' or to live in peace and stability with its neighbors" (Washington Post, March 7). Statements by Abdullah in his speech to Congress: "The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine. This is the core issue. And this core issue is not only producing severe consequences for our region, it is producing severe consequences for our world." "Sixty years of Palestinian dispossession, 40 years under occupation, a stop-and-go peace process -- all this has left a bitter legacy of disappointment and despair on all sides." "Palestinians and Israelis are not the only victims. We saw the violence ricochet into destruction in Lebanon last summer. And people around the world have been the victims of terrorists and extremists who use the grievance of this conflict to legitimize and encourage acts of violence. We must work together to restore peace, hope and opportunity to the Palestinian people, and in so doing we will begin a process of bringing peace "to the region." "[Muslims] want to know how it is that ordinary Palestinians are still without rights and without a country. They ask whether the West really means what it says about equality and respect and universal justice." "Nothing can achieve that [legacy of justice] more effectively, nothing can assert America's moral vision more clearly, nothing can reach and teach the world's youth more directly, than your leadership in a peace process that delivers results not next year, not in five years, but this year." "The commitment we made in the [Saudi] Arab Peace Initiative is real." [This so-called peace initiative demands Israel's return to the indefensible pre-1967 borders, its acceptance of Palestinian Arab refugees and their millions of descendants and the relinquishing of half of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount and other Jewish holy places]. Some reactions to Abdullah's speech: House Majority leader, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD): "Disappointed" (New York Sun, March 8). Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA): "profoundly disappointing ... a missed opportunity" (New York Sun, March 8); [The speech was filed with] "platitudes. [it] is sort of unrealistic at a time when the dominant element in the Palestinian area does not recognize the existence of Israel" (New York Times, March 8). Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY): "I was troubled to hear the suggestion that the fact that Sunni and Shia are murdering each other is somehow the fault of the Israelis. This implication is a dangerous one and completely unacceptable" (New York Sun, March 8). New York Sun editorial: "If one were to distill 110% wrongheadedness and then distill it again a second, third, and fourth time, one couldn't come up with a speech as purely wrongheaded as the one that the Hashemite king, Abdullah II, delivered yesterday to a joint meeting of Congress. The king's aim amounted to blaming Israel for all the world's problems. Balderdash is the kindest way to describe [his speech]. It doesn't track with the actions of the violent terrorists, and it doesn't track with their statements. If the terrorists are upset about Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, why are they setting off bombs in Indonesia and Spain and Saudi Arabia and Iraq, which are hardly in the vanguard of support for Israel?" (New York Sun, March 8). ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "King Abdullah's speech to Congress, despite the use of some nice-sounding phrases about America and one reference to Israel having a place in the region was actually an exercise in playing to Arab and Muslim hostility against both Israel and the United States. Abdullah basically blamed the Israelis for all the ills of the Middle East by falsely claiming that the Israeli-Palestinian Arab conflict is the source of all regional and world problems. Really? What has this conflict got to do with Syria's desire to dominate Lebanon? What has this got to do with the Sunni and Shiite warfare in Iraq? What has this to do with Islamists murdering tens of thousands in Algeria over the last 15 years? What has this to do with the genocide committee by Arab Muslims against non-Muslims in Sudan? What did this have to do with the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war and the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? One doesn't need to read between the lines too carefully to see that he is blaming Israel for Palestinian Arab statelessness rather than decades of Arab/Muslim hostility to the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state. In fact, Palestinian Arab statelessness is the direct consequence of Palestinian Arabs rejecting statehood three times in the last century (1937, 1947, 2000) in favor of continuing to wage war on Israel and deny its legitimacy in an attempt to destroy it. "It is nonsense and dishonest for Abdullah to speak of 60 years of Palestinian dispossession and 40 years of statelessness. Palestinian Arabs fled to make way for Arab armies promising to erase the new state of Israel in 1948. Those who didn't flee became Israeli citizens with full rights. In contrast, Jews who lived in areas seized by Jordan and other Arab armies were completely driven out and their homes and communities were simply destroyed. In Jordan, it is illegal for Jews to reside there, yet Abdullah has the gall of speaking about the denial of justice by Israel. Additionally, why is Abdullah speaking of only 40 years of Palestinian Arab statelessness? Because his own kingdom seized most of the territories earmarked by the UN for a Palestinian state in 1947. From 1948 to 1967, Jordan controlled all of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. Did Jordan create a Palestinian Arab state? "He is also demanding greater US involvement in the Arab war against Israel as if the U.S. is not strongly involved already and as if American involvement is the issue rather than the fact that the Palestinian Authority (PA) refuses to end terrorism, jail and arrest terrorists and end the incitement to hatred and murder in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps that feeds terrorism. Clearly, Abdullah's interest in even greater U.S. involvement clearly means to him more pressure on Israel to make still more territorial concessions to Palestinian Arabs. "Once again, instead of honesty and taking responsibility for Arab attitudes and conduct, Abdullah seeks to deflect the responsibility for the absence of peace throughout the Middle East on Israel and the United States. Some American ally. Some Israeli peace partner. Some moderate. "King Abdullah has insulted the intelligence and knowledge of the U.S. Congress by preaching falsehoods and distortions about the causes and resolutions of the problems in the in the Middle East and the world. These problems can only be solved by facing the truth and reality of the increase of radical Islamic radical jihadist movements whose goals are the Islamization of the West and the destruction of Israel and the reality that the Palestinian Authority Has not fulfilled a single aspect of its agreements with Israel for 13 years. Unfortunately, the so-called moderate king ignored every truth and fed Congress lies. "We agree with the New York Sun whose editorial stated that the U.S. Congress "will not be gulled by a foreign potentate offering up Israel as a scapegoat for troubles that originate with the failings of the Arab and Islamic world and their nondemocratic leaders, Abdullah among them." "Jordan: Why did Abdullah II really come to congress?" Jordan is in trouble, That's why Abdullah II really came to Congress this past March. The desperate monarch faces a demographic revolution. The population of Jordan on July 2006 was estimated to be 5,906,760, the Iraqi war has brought 600,000 refugees into Jordan. Add to the 600,000 Iranian refugees a figure of 1,780,701 total palestinean refugees (283,183 being confined in 10 UNRWA camps), fully 40% of Jordan now are refugees. (2,380,701 people in a total population of 5,906,760) Population data http://www.un.org/unrwa/refugees/jordan.html [Parenthetically, 6,669 staff serve the UNRWA camp population, these elites have a major interest in continuing the camps.] "Officials Say Arab Kingdom Using Shell Firms To Buy Key Properties With Access To Holy Site" By Aaron Klein WorldNetDaily.com JERUSALEM -- Jordan has been quietly purchasing real estate surrounding the Temple Mount in Jerusalem in hopes of gaining more control over the area accessing the holy site, according to Palestinian and Israeli officials. The officials confirmed to WND the Jordanian Kingdom has been using shell companies during the past year to purchase several apartments and shops located at key peripheral sections of the Temple Mount. Temple Mount in Jerusalem The officials said Jordan also set up a commission to use the companies to petition mostly Arab landowners adjacent to eastern sections of the Temple Mount to sell their properties. They said profits from sales at any purchased shops would be reinvested to buy more real estate near the Mount and in eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods. The shell companies at times have presented themselves as acting on behalf of the Waqf, the Muslim custodians of the Temple Mount, WND has learned. Sheik Azzam Khateeb, who was installed last month as the new manager of the Waqf, is known to be close to the Jordanian monarchy. The previous Waqf manager, Sheik Adnon Husseini, was loyal to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party and had relations with Israel and some Jewish groups. "Khateeb answers directly to Jordan," a Fatah official told WND. The Israeli and Palestinian officials said Jordan recently placed a bid to purchase Jerusalem's Intercontinental Hotel, which is situated on an important road that leads to an ancient cemetery on the Mount of Olives, adjacent to the Temple Mount. Informed sources tell WND the hotel is owned by groups representing the Israeli government and is leased every 10 years to a new company. The last lease was signed in 1997 and expires later this year. It was not immediately clear whether Jordan's bid was accepted. The Mount of Olives is site of many biblical events and is considered important to Judaism and Christianity. Real estate ownership in Jerusalem's Old City is widely considered a sensitive matter. Previous Israeli-Palestinian peace proposals tentatively divided parts of the city based on Jewish or Arab residence. Jordan previously controlled eastern Jerusalem and the Temple Mount from 1948 until Israel liberated the territory in the 1967 Six Day War. During the period of Jordanian control, Jews were barred from the Western Wall and Temple Mount, Judaism's holiest sites, and hundreds of synagogues were destroyed. Jordan constructed a road to the Intercontinental Hotel that stretched across the Mount of Olives, bulldozing hundreds of Jewish gravestones. Jordan the past few months has boosted its public profile on the Temple Mount. The appointment of Khateeb as the new Waqf manager for the Temple Mount was widely seen as a nod to Jordan. In January, (www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54041) Israel granted Jordan permission to replace the main podium in the Al Aqsa Mosque from which Islamic preachers deliver their sermons. The podium is considered one of the most important stands in the Muslim world. Muslims believe it marks the "exact spot" their prophet Muhammad went up to heaven to receive revelations from Allah. The new stand bears the emblem of the Jordanian Kingdom. It replaces a 1,000-year-old podium believed to have been shipped to Jerusalem by the Islamic conqueror Saladin. That stand was destroyed in 1969, when an Australian tourist set fire to the Al Aqsa Mosque. Last month (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54056) WND first reported Prime Minister Ehud Olmert granted permission to Jordan to construct a large minaret at a site on the Temple Mount where Jewish groups here had petitioned to build a synagogue. A minaret is a tower usually attached to a mosque from which Muslims are called to the five Islamic daily prayers. There are four minarets on the Temple Mount. The new minaret will be the largest one yet. It will be the first built on the Temple Mount in more than 600 years and is slated to tower over the walls of Jerusalem's Old City. It will reside next to the Al-Marwani Mosque, located at the site of Solomon's Stables. A top leader of the Waqf told WND Olmert's granting of permission to build the minaret in the synagogue's place "confirms 100 percent the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount) belongs to Muslims.""This proves Jewish conspiracies for a synagogue will never succeed and solidifies our presence here. It will make Muslims worldwide more secure that the Jews will never take over the Haram al-Sharif," the Waqf official said. "Jordan to Join Mideast Nuclear-Power Club" The Media Line Staff Apr 02, 2007 Amman is the l