HOME Featured Stories April 2009 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

NOTE: Links to Videos are at the bottom of this page.

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, April 30, 2009.

Memorial to fallen IDF soldiers at Latrun

This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images, taken April 28, 2009.

Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT:

Today is Yom Hazikaron in Israel, Memorial Day for fallen soldiers and victims of terrorism. Each year, the list grows longer and now stands at 22,570 names. Across Israel, in every city, town, and kibbutz, at historic sites and countless schools and public buildings, memorials are a solemn reminder of the courage and sacrifice upon which Israel was built.

I took this shot at night at Latrun, a tank museum and memorial situated on the road linking Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, following an emotional ceremony in which 500 new Israel Defense Forces recruits marked the completion of their basic training. A lone wreath lay at the base of a wall inscribed with hundreds of names. The unusual color is the result of the camera's rendering of the artificial halogen spotlights illuminating the wall. I could have adjusted the color to something more familiar to the eye, but the warm tone enhances the somber feeling of the picture. I could also easily have moved closer to the wall to capture one or more of the names in sharp focus, but I prefer this interpretation, in which the vast number of names is evident, but no single name is identifiable. Those who gave their lives in defense of Israel are remembered painfully and proudly by those who knew them personally, not just today, but every day. All of us, whether we knew them or not, owe them a debt of gratitude for our national existence. May we go from strength to strength!

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com and visit his website:
http://www.goldenlightimages.com. Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, April 30, 2009.

PA ambassador: Our weapon is int'l law caught my attention because the Ambassidor proceeds on the basis that the Geneva Convention applies to Judea and Samaria and therefore, the occupation is illegal. Its worth reading what he has to say. But even if it does apply, the settlements are legal.

It reminded me of my destruction of his arguments in "The Real Tragedy in Israel" which I wrote two years ago.

Unfortunately, a Growing Majority of Americans Oppose Israel Building Settlements

A narrative has emerged that Israel's settlements in the West Bank are a "tragedy." The fatal flaw lies in the original sin of supposedly lawless occupation of land, in contravention of the Geneva Convention. It makes a strong emotional pitch to a sense of justice, a major influence on the thinking of many American Jews. But the narrative is built on a flawed foundation.

For example, Gershom Gorenberg in his Op-Ed in the New York Times, "Israel's Tragedy Foretold," on March 10, 2006, opines that Israelis and their leaders have finally seen the light, namely that Israel should abandon the settlements.

In so concluding, Mr. Gorenberg puts his faith in an opinion by Legal Counsel to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, one Theodor Merion who wrote in 1967

"My conclusion is that civilian settlement in the administered territories contravenes the explicit provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Mr Gorenberg laments that Israel, in disregard of this advice, started to build settlements with the "sadly mistaken confidence that the legal, ethical and diplomatic difficulties of settlement could somehow be avoided." The tragedy, according to Mr. Gorenberg, is that Israel now has to untangle the mess at great human and financial cost.

Mr. Meron's conclusion has been thoroughly discredited by legal scholars over the years and Mr. Gorenberg's thesis which rests upon it must suffer the same fate.

Professor Talia Einhorn, Adjunct Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University, in The Status of Palestine/Land of Israel and Its Settlement Under Public International Law published by NATIV Online in 1993, advises

In 1967, following the Six Day War, the territories of Yesha, which had been originally designated for the Jewish national home according to the Mandate document, returned to Israeli rule. Leading international law scholars opined that Israel was in lawful control of Yesha, that no other state could show better title than Israel to Yesha's territory, and that this territory was not "occupied" in the sense of the Geneva Convention, since those rules are designed to assure the reversion of the former legitimate sovereign which, in this case, does not exist. Israel was therefore entitled to declare that it has exercised its sovereign powers over Yesha.

In practice, however, for political and other reasons, Israel exercised its sovereign powers only with respect to East Jerusalem. Regarding the rest of Yesha, Israel's official position was that Israel was entitled to annex them, and that, since they had not been taken from a legitimate sovereign, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations 1899/1907 were inapplicable there. Nonetheless, Israel chose voluntarily to observe and abide by the humanitarian provisions included therein." [emphasis added]

One of the "leading international scholars" she refers to was the late Eugene W. Rostow, Dean of Yale Law School, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969. The New Republic, on April 23, 1990, published his article entitled, Historical Approach to the Issue of Legality of Jewish Settlement Activity, in which he argued

"...The Palestine Mandate, recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country," is dedicated to "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, ..."

"...The State Department has never denied that under the Mandate "the Jewish people" have the right to settle in the area. Instead, it said that Jewish settlements in the West Bank violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.....[which] provides that the occupying power "shall not deport or transfer part of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

"...But the Jewish settlers in the West Bank are volunteers. They have not been "deported" or "transferred" by the government of Israel, and their movement involves none of the atrocious purposes or harmful effects on the existing population the Geneva Convention was designed to prevent. Furthermore, the Convention applies only to acts by one signatory "carried out on the territory of another." The West Bank is not the territory of a signatory power, but an unallocated part of the British Mandate...

"...The controversy about Jewish settlements in the West Bank is not, therefore, about legal rights but about the political will to override legal rights.

In 1991, The New Republic published another article by Dean Rostow, entitled "Resolved: are the settlements legal?" Israeli West Bank policies in which he again argued,

It is common even for American journalists to write that Security Council Resolution 242 is "deliberately ambiguous," as though the parties are equally free to rely on their own reading of its key provisions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Resolution 242, which, as Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs between 1966 and 1969, I helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. [..]

Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242 means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from "all" the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel was not to be forced back to the "fragile" and "vulnerable" Armistice Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what Resolution 242 called "secure and recognized" boundaries, agreed to by the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their respective legal claims.

Resolution 242 built on the text of the Armistice Agreements of 1949, which provided.... "no provision" of the Armistice Agreements "Shall in any way prejudice the right, claims, and positions" of the parties "in the ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem." In making peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai, which had never been part of the British Mandate.

... As a result, more than 90 percent of the territories Israel occupied in 1967 are now under Arab sovereignty.

Now that Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, this percentage has increased.

Thus the "occupation" was and is legal, having been authorized by the Security Council and the settlements are legal pursuant to the trust created by the British Mandate. In accordance with Israel's rights, The Oslo Accords did not restrict further settlement. The Mitchell Report which recommended a freeze on settlement activity was incorporated into the Roadmap which Israel accepted. The Palestinian Authority is in fundamental breach of its obligations under the Roadmap. Therefore, Israel is not bound to maintain the freeze.

The fact remains that Israel has every right, according to international law, to defend its citizens, to remain in occupation, to build settlements and to refuse to acknowledge a "right of return".

The tragedy is that the Arabs refused to accept the existence of the State of Israel and have refused to negotiate peace based on the intent of Resolution 242. Anwar Sadat broke the mold in 1979 and was assassinated for his pains.

The tragedy is that the Arabs have refused to absorb the Arab refugees as Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees, preferring instead to doom them to live in squalor as a means of putting pressure on Israel. The late King Hussein of Jordan was the only exception. He too recognized the State of Israel.

The tragedy is that the PA created and empowered by the Oslo Accords choose to make war rather than peace thereby sacrificing the well being of the people it represented.

And the tragedy is that the world aided and abetted it in this endeavor never once demanding that it honor its obligations or else.


A compilation of dozens of legal articles on Israel's Legal Rights to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza can be found at http://www.geocities.com/israelwhitepaper

Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer. He hosts the IsraPundit website. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Ralph Peters, April 30, 2009.

This article was written by Ralph Peters, who is is Fox News' strategic analyst. It appeared yesterday in the New York Post
http://www.nypost.com/seven/04292009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/ the_obama_doctrine_166684.htm


AFTER a mere 100 days, the "Obama Doctrine" for our foreign and security poli cies has emerged. And it's terrifying.

The combination of dizzying naivete, dislike of our allies, disdain for our military, distrust of our intelligence services and distaste for our own country promises the worst foreign policy of our lifetimes.

That includes President Jimmy Carter's abysmal record of failure.

The core tenets of the Obama Doctrine to date would make a charter member of the Weather Underground cheer:

We're to blame. If there are problems anywhere, they're America's fault. This central conviction of leftist ideology appears to have soaked so thoroughly into our president's consciousness during his lengthy friendships with extremists that it's now second nature to him.

Problems can be negotiated away. From Somali pirates to Moscow's belligerency, Obama and his Cabinet see a good chat as the best response to a challenge. Our president got to the Oval Office by talking, not doing, and his faith in his powers of persuasion is unlimited.

An acquaintance who may have our government's best grasp of the Russians shakes his head at the tone in Washington. The current mantra: "We have to get over our Cold War thinking." Great — except that it's the Russians who've revived Cold War hostility.

The Taliban devours Pakistan, and we want to talk. President Hugo Chavez destroys Venezuela's democracy, and we want to talk. Iran pursues nuclear weapons with refreshed enthusiasm . . . and we want to talk.

Problems that can't be talked out can be bought off. Pakistan, a nuke-armed state of 170 million Muslims seething with anti-Americanism stirred up by our "friends," faces a crack-up as its once-monolithic military splinters. Obama's answer? Send billions of dollars that will disappear and weapons that may soon be used against our troops.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thinks the solution to piracy is a generous program to rebuild Somalia. (Been there, done that.) She'd also like to hand Hamas a billion bucks.

The "Las Vegas law" applies: You can buy sex but not enduring love. We can't defeat terror with welfare checks.

Islamist terrorism doesn't exist. The term's even been banned from government departments. As Muslim extremists slaughter innocent victims by the thousands, we're assured Islam's a "religion of peace" that contributed profoundly to our country's development. (Huh?)

It's as if 9/11 never happened. The "nonterrorists" drenching the greater Middle East in blood and threatening us as loudly as they can are just victims of our aggression. It's all our fault.

Terrorists do exist, though — among our returning veterans and amid those Americans who don't subscribe to MoveOn.org's revulsion at our country.

Israel's the obstacle to Middle East peace. Palestinians are all victims. Hamas consists of struggling community activists. The terrorists are in the Israeli military.

Our nukes threaten world peace and we need to get rid of them. Other states only maintain or seek nuclear arsenals because we worry them. If we can get down to zero nukes, peace will reign on earth.

Forget that only our nuclear weapons prevented World War III and that they still deter potential enemies. Just get rid of them, OK?

Our military is dangerous. Beyond Obama's cynically choreographed appearances with our troops, he and his coterie clearly disdain military advice and uniformed service. The administration views our troops as primitive creatures who must be collared and leashed, not as part of any solutions.

Our intelligence services are even more dangerous than our military. The administration's already begun to gut our intelligence capabilities. Carter at least pretended to study the problem. Obama's plunging straight in with the demoralization of our shadow warriors.

It's only torture if we do it.

Blame President George W. Bush. Should the Obama Doctrine lead to new terror attacks (sorry, Janet: I meant "man-caused disasters") or to foreign-policy humiliations, it won't be Obama's fault, but Bush's.

We're becoming a third-world country, succumbing to a sickening (in both senses of the word) culture of blame. And that culture is fostered by breathtaking ignorance.

We now have a president who doesn't know that Pakistan was founded as a democracy, a secretary of state who thinks we created the Taliban, a head of the Department of Homeland Security who doesn't believe Islamist terrorists exist and a vice president who claims FDR gave televised speeches during the Depression.

If Bush had made such gaffes, the media would've mocked him. But Obama and his entourage excite orgasmic forgiveness among journalists. Which brings us to the Obama Doctrine's final tenet:

Our media sluts will portray defeat as victory.

Contact LEL by email at lel817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, April 30, 2009.

This was written by Debbie Schlussel and it appeared yesterday on her website:

Today, the trial of the Muslim killers of Ilan Halimi began. Unfortunately, the trial is closed because two of the TWENTY-SEVEN barbarian Muslims (redundant) who murdered him are minors.

Three years ago, I told you the story of how Halimi, of blessed memory, was kidnapped by a Muslim gang of 27 in France, after luring him with an attractive woman. The Muslims, headed by Youssouf Fofana, held Halimi captive for 24 days, while they tortured him and called his parents who heard his screams in the background, while his torturers shouted anti-Semitic slurs. For 24 days, the Muslims burned Ilan Halimi with cigarettes and an iron, beat him, cut off his fingers, and otherwise brutally tortured him. His "crime": He was a Jew.

Ilan Halimi, Zichrono LiVrachah [Blessed Be His Memory]

Throughout, Muslim neighbors in the building heard his screams and cries from torture. And they did nothing. In the end, the Muslims dumped his mostly lifeless, cut-up, burned body (80% of it was covered in burns) on railroad tracks, and he died shortly thereafter. He was only 23.

From the coverage of today's first day of trial:

The leader of the "barbarians," Youssouf Fofana, smirked at Halimi's relatives and shouted "Allahu akbar!" ("God is Greatest!" in Arabic) [DS: Um, it actually means "allah is the greater" or "the greatest," meaning greater than your or my G-d] at them as he entered the courtroom.

Bearded and wearing a white tracksuit, Fofana gave his identity during formal questioning by the judge as "Arabs African revolt barbarian salafist army."

The 28-year-old said he was born on February 13, 2006, in Sainte-Genevieve-des-Bois, the date and place of Halimi's death.

During his time in detention, Fofana, a young French man of Ivorian origin, has bombarded the magistrates investigating the case with letters full of anti-Semitic insults. ...

After the murder, Fofana fled to Ivory Coast. From there he made death threats by telephone to Halimi's father and girlfriend. He was extradited to France on March 4, 2006.

From previous coverage of the Halimi murder:

The items found in the torture chamber included extremist Islamic literature and leaflets of a pro-Palestinian charity blacklisted by the United States and Israel. The charity, the Comite de Bienfaisance et de Soutien aux Palestiniens (CBSP), a Hamas-affiliated fund, is still active in France despite the exposure of its members and financial support tying it directly to terrorist activities in the Palestinian Authority. What happened to Ilan is not the first attempt of this kind. The gang tried to pull off similar crimes before with four of the six previous victims being Jewish. Similar stories are only now surfacing.

French daily newspaper Le Parisien reported that the gang's last victim was a fifty-year-old Jewish man, who had driven home a girl who attempted to seduce his twenty-year-old son.

As I noted back in 2006, Ilan Halimi looks like he could be an Arab. That's because his family of Sephardic Jews left Arab countries, so that they could live in peace and without harassment and persecution from Muslims. But they could not escape Islamic anti-Semitism and barbarism. The problem long ago exported itself from greater Islamic barbaria to France, where it has long been at home.

This is France, but it could easily happen here in the United States. If you think otherwise, you're a fool. If you watch the second video, below, the Jewish leader in the community is still burying his head in the sand, as do the American Jewish community establishment's self-appointed liberal leaders. He talks about how the Jews and Muslims all get along and still get along. That's a big lie. There is a reason for the mass Jewish emigration from France to Israel: violent Muslim attacks on France's Jews.

Also, note that French television (Muslim Arab reporter Karim Hakiki — he's not biased, right?) keeps saying the neighbors were unaware or didn't hear. A complete and obvious lie. They heard, but they did nothing, because the inhumane Islamic culture accepts wanton torture and murder, especially of non-Muslims, particularly Jews. Watch how this Arab Muslim a-hole "reporter," Hakiki excuses this gang and claims they were not anti-Semitic. Uh-huh. Liar. That French television holds a debate whether or not this was anti-Semitism, tells you everything you need to know about France. It's lost forever. More like Al-France de Mohammed.

The Nazis never left France. They just have a different religion. And an invasion at Omaha Beach of Normandy won't stop them this time. It's too late.

Contact LEL by email at lel817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 30, 2009.

With the state of world affairs, it would be difficult indeed to feel a sense of ease.

In an "exclusive" today the Jerusalem Post reported that PM Netanyahu, when he goes to the US on May 18, plans to tell President Obama that Israel will accept "some form" of the Arab peace plan.

While the first impulse is to fear that he's caved already — I intend to give Netanyahu the benefit of the doubt here. At least until I know more.

We must remember that this is not an official announcement. The Post got this from "sources" close to government planning.

And then, we need to know what "some form" of the plan means. The Arab (Saudi) plan is a recipe for Israel's destruction, calling as it does for our return to '67 lines and "return of refugees." Netanyahu is not about to sign off on either of these. Then, what?


Aaron Lerner, on his IMRA website today, asks if Netanyahu is doing some "fancy verbal footwork." And indeed that may be precisely the case.

It may be that Netanyahu wants to appear to have given Obama something, without actually giving him anything. Yes, he can intone, this and this part of the plan resonate with us. Then Obama can put out press releases about how he is already moving matters along. While Netanyahu, knowing full well that all the pieces are not going to fall into place, remains confident of the outcome: no "two state solution," no withdrawals from Judea and Samaria, no dividing Jerusalem.

But this high level game-playing is risky. It requires nerves of steel and the ability to know when to stop. Otherwise you're on your way down that slippery slope, and something truly is conceded.


But there is more. And it's most unsettling. According to the Post report, Israel "will compromise on the Palestinian issue to obtain more direct and aggressive US assistance on the Iranian front."

This linking of the two issues was verbalized last week by Secretary Clinton. What she suggested was that we won't get support from the Arab states for taking on Iran unless the Arabs see we are moving on Palestinian negotiations. This was both offensive and off base, for behind the bluster is the Arab desire to see us stand strong against Iran.

So, is Netanyahu caving in response to what she said, or is he trying to maneuver the situation to his advantage?

The next question to be asked, of course, is what the quid pro quo would be: Precisely what sort of US assistance on the Iranian front would be sufficient for Netanyahu to become more "flexible" with regard to the Palestinians? Additional sophisticated weaponry or equipment? Permission to fly over Iraq?

Here I make a speculation, coming from nothing but my own sense of the situation and my understanding of our prime minister. The issue of the danger of Iran has loomed large in Netanyahu's consciousness for some time. He's been speaking consistently and forcefully about the need to take action.

Could it be that he's doing an abbreviated sort of triage here? If — and it would be rightly so — he sees Iran as THE existential danger to us, he would conclude that it's the threat most important to counter. And, even as he still intends to hold the ground against a Palestinian state, he would see caving (or appearing to cave) on that issue, up to a point, wise if it allows us to more effectively take on Iran.

Only speculation. Only questions. For now.


It's actually easy to see why Netanyahu, along with a great many of us, is being driven to distraction by Obama's stance on Iran.

Yesterday, the White House rejected any suggestion of putting time limits on its negotiations with Iran and suggested that this process could take a long time.

White House National Security Council spokesman Mike Hammer told reporters that "it's not appropriate at this time to be trying to establish timetables, but rather seeing how the engagement can move forward...there are opportunities there for us to engage with the Iranian government."

But in terms of Iranian nuclear development we don't have a long time. This is precisely what the Israeli government has been imploring the US not to do.


To exacerbate the situation, there is this:

Mehdi Ghazanfari, head of the Iranian Trade Promotion Agency, has told an Iranian news agency that Germany, Switzerland, Italy, France and the United Kingdom have carried out some $15.4 billion in bilateral trade with Iran over the past year.

And people wonder why sanctions haven't worked. What these self-serving, short-sighted nations are doing is in defiance of UN Security Council sanctions imposed on Iran.


Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, went to a Yom Ha'atzmaut celebration at the Israeli Embassy in Washington yesterday, carrying a message from the president:

Obama, he said, would pursue peace, but not at all costs. His administration remains committed to the security and independence of Israel.

Not remotely do I believe this.

Summers explained that Obama would pursue, "Peace that defends innocent people, peace that guarantees freedom, peace that does not reward terror, peace that the Middle East deserves after such a long time."

What platitudinous and vacuous words.


Putting the lie more definitively to the conciliatory words above is a report from the World Tribune, citing Israeli intelligence sources. One source was quoted as saying:

"Obama wants to make friends with our worst enemies and [those who were] until now the worst enemies of the United States. Under this policy, we are more than irrelevant. We have become an obstacle."

The prediction being made is that Obama would continue to appease Syria, and Iran, believing that this would make it more possible to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Obama will want to show Iran, Syria and radical Muslims that the United States could pressure Israel on a strategic level. The pressure has already begun and will intensify throughout the next year or two."

The report further said that the Obama administration would ignore Israeli advice, and, indeed, that is precisely what we're seeing with regard to US refusal to put time limits on talks with Iran.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, April 30, 2009.

Islam is a threat to world peace. Presently there are Radical Muslims fighting in countries across the world, including, but not limited to: India, Thailand, the Philippines, Ethiopia, Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia and "Western" states such as the United States, Australia and Western Europe.

The Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam is not anti-Muslim. On the contrary! Radical Islam is a threat to Muslims even more than it is to non-Muslims. More Muslims have died due to Radical Islam than non-Muslims. The Taliban makes life a living hell for citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Women are honor killed and gays have been killed for the mere crime of being gay. It is with an eye towards protecting human rights around the world that this diverse group has formed.

WHY a Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam?

Radical Islam is a worldwide threat against human rights.1 Radical Islam is defined as an ideology that uses Islam as a justification for committing violence and terror, preaching hatred, and advocating for a fundamentalist theocracy governed by strict Sharia (Islamic) law. The Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam advocates on behalf of humanity across the world, including those Muslims who are themselves victims of Radical Islam. The Taliban makes life a living hell for citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Women have been "honor" killed for trivial and imagined "crimes" and gays have been killed for the mere "crime" of being gay.

Who are we and what are our goals?

1. We are a coalition of organizations and individuals representing a full cross-section of the American people. Americans of every race, color and creed are represented in this coalition of groups — all have been personally affected by the spread of Radical Islam. As such, individuals from continents across the world and religions from around the world have joined together to say "YES to human rights" and "NO to radical Islam." The religions and ideologies represented include Christians of numerous denominations, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Muslims and Secular Humanists.

Supporting coalition members include:

9/11 Families for a Secure America, ACT Manhattan, AFSI, Aish, Alliance of Interfaith Resistance, AMCHA, Americas for Peace and Tolerance, Arabs for Israel, Chinese Community Relations Council (CCRC), Clarion Fund, David Projec, Foundation Nepalese, Gathering of Eagles-NY, Hasbara Fellowships, Hindu Human Rights Watch, Indian-American Intellectual Forum, International Foundation of Bangladashi Hindus, Iraq Modei,Mothers Against Terrorism, Namdari Sikh Foundation, R.E.A.L. Courage, School of Law's National Security and Law Society Fordham University, Snapped Shot, Sikh Recognition Trust, Stand With Us, Sudan Freedom Walk, Women United, Code Red, ZOA (Committee in Formation)

2. Our mission is to educate the American people to the threat of Radical Islam and Sharia Law, and to challenge those enablers and apologists who would diminish our vigilance in opposing this virulent threat to humanistic values and values of tolerance. With education comes mobilization to action, as noted in mission statement #3, below.

3. Our strategy is to leverage the strengths of our coalition participants: 1) to conduct physical events such as marches, demonstrations, and leafleting; 2) to utilize the Internet to spread our message; 3) to promote media appearances by those who support our cause; 4) to utilize print and video to educate the public and the media to the threats we face; 5) to lobby locally and in Washington DC with letter writing campaigns; 6) to picket media and other outlets which promote the anti-human rights agenda of Radical Islam; 7) to expand our outreach to include educational seminars at local community centers, churches, synagogues and schools.

4. Our group seeks to promote a human rights agenda. The specific enemies of human rights we are struggling against are, in addition to ignorance and apathy, those groups and individuals in the United States and elsewhere who are part of, or supporters of, Radical Islam. These groups include, amongst others, Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lashkar-e-Toiba, Deobandi Islamists, the Iranian regime, and other supporters known as Wahhabists (fundamentalist Muslims and Islamists). Additional groups and ideologies that fight against human rights are the "enablers" of Radical Islam. These groups and ideologies include "political correctness," the mainstream media (which often blame terror attacks on 'South Asians' or 'militants', rather than simply naming the enemy, and which seeks to employ tactics of moral equivalence), university faculties (which often employ known members of terror groups, such as Sami Al-Arian, and Rashid Khalidi, who was a PLO spokesperson, and similarly teach "post-modern" moral equivalence), student groups such as the International Solidarity Movement (which acts as "human shields" and aids and abets Radical Islam); and "human rights" groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United Nations (which, through ignorance, misunderstanding, paternalism, willful blindness or guilt, fail to appreciate Radical Islam's threat to decency, tolerance and peace). These "human rights" groups have taken over the English language, claiming they believe in 'peace', when in fact they are often aiding and abeting Radical Islam.

5. This group will be tarred and feathered in the press as being 'Islamophobic', even as we seek to promote the human rights of Muslims. Our group will always show a tolerant and moderate message of human rights; however, it is a simple fact that those who seek to promote the truth about Radical Islam face the claim of being "Islamophobic." In order to avoid pitfalls others have fallen into, this group will never debate theology. The group's goal is not to present Islam as inherently one way or another, but rather to showcase the human rights atrocities going on across the world, in order to spur action. If necessary, a legal defense fund will be set up to ensure

Islam is a threat to world peace. Presently there are Radical Muslims fighting in countries across the world, including, but not limited to: India, Thailand, the Philippines, Ethiopia, Israel, Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, Russia and "Western" states such as the United States, Australia and Western Europe.

The Human Rights Coalition Against Radical Islam is not anti-Muslim. On the contrary! Radical Islam is a threat to Muslims even more than it is to non-Muslims. More Muslims have died due to Radical Islam than non-Muslims. The Taliban makes life a living hell for citizens of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Women are honor killed and gays have been killed for the mere crime of being gay. It is with an eye towards protecting human rights around the world that this diverse group has formed.

Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@israellives.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, April 30, 2009.

Congratulations, the conflict is over! Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't a radical, aggressive Islamist and Holocaust denier but a peacenik! Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is against war and terrorism!

How do we know this? They told us?

Well, no, they didn't actually tell us. What happened is that they told us they would go on being radical, aggressive, and terrorism-sponsoring. They just did it in a way that a lot of people engaged in wishful thinking-and who fervently believe that no one could actually be radical or luxuriate in political violence-heard something different.

Case Number 1: Iran Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave an interview to George Stephanopoulos of ABC.
(http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=7421719) He knew what he was saying but others want to insist on refusing to understand him.

First the relevant exchange:

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinian people negotiate an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian people vote and support that agreement, a two state solution, will Iran support it?

AHMADINEJAD: Nobody should interfere, allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide....

STEPHANOPOULOS: If they choose a two state solution with Israel, that's fine.

AHMADINEJAD: Well, what we are saying is that you and us should not determine the course of things beforehand. Allow the Palestinian people to make their own decisions.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they choose a two state solution, if they choose to recognize Israel's existence, Iran will as well?

AHMADINEJAD; Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?

STEPHANOPOULOS: I'll ask them. But I'm asking you if Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, would Iran support that?....

STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?

AHMADINEJAD: Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well.

And how did the Israeli online service of Yediot Aharnot newspaper, YNet News, play this? Here's the headline: ""Ahmadinejad 'fine' with two-state solution."

Well, not exactly. He refused to say that. All Ahmadinejad said was that he would support what the Palestinian people decided. What does that mean?

First, he personally believes that they would never accept a two-state solution so there's nothing to worry about in that respect.

Second, of course, he knows that Hamas would never agree to such a thing and Hamas already controls how people vote in the Gaza Strip. One might presume that if a referendum was held there, the vote would be "100 percent" against a two-state solution. In addition, Hamas and others opposing a two-state solution would get between 30 and 70 percent of votes in the West Bank. A lot of Fatah supporters would also vote against it. The exact numbers aren't important because whether the number is the higher or lower figure such a proposition would always be defeated.

Third, any two-state solution would only be made by Fatah. Iran supports Hamas. If Fatah and the Palestinian Authority were to make a deal with Israel, Tehran would still back Hamas in overthrowing that government, using the deal to portray its rival as treasonous. Once Hamas took over the state of Palestine, it would tear up all the agreements and invite in the Iranian military.

So in effect Ahmadinejad just said that he would never accept a two-state solution but why put that in clear words when the dumb Westerners can be left to interpret it as they wish.

But Ahmadinejad also put a little bomb in the interview which no one seems to notice. Let me repeat one of his answers:

AHMADINEJAD; "Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?"

What's he saying here? "All Palestinian lands" might sound like saying the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem to Western ears, but everyone in Iran and among the Palestinians knows this means: all of Israel plus all the territories it captured in 1967.

So here's what the Iranian president is saying: Suppose the Palestinians vote that they want all of Israel, would the United States accept that? The answer, of course, is "no" and so, Ahmadinejad is saying: I'm the one in favor of democracy and you're against it.

(According to him, of course, Israelis have no rights to a state so they don't get to vote.)

Ahmadinejad has built his own career on regarding the West as extremely stupid, cowardly, and easy to fool. Many or most of his colleagues in the Iranian regime agree with him.

I could write at this point that the one exception was when in the mid-1980s the United States was appearing ready to attack Iran unless it ended the Iran-Iraq war. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini did so but I think he was misreading American intentions (albeit to the credit of U.S. policymakers in pulling off that bluff).

Still, I'm tempted to say that up to now that the Iranian leaders' assumption has never proven to be wrong.

Unfortunately, as I predicted, Western newspapers like the Daily Telegraph are now reporting that Ahmadinejad is ready to accept a two-state solution.

Here are headlines in Canada for April 27:

Toronto Globe & Mail: "Iran prepared to back Palestinian deal with Israel, Ahmadinejad

National Post: "Iranian president appears to recognize Israel's right to exist for first time"

And Agence France Presse: "Iran 'Ready to Back Mideast Peace Deal'"

Come to think of it, Ahmadinejad refuses to accept two-state solution and is cheered as having done so; Israel's government repeatedly endorses two-state solution and is accused of not doing so!

Case Number 2: Syria

YNet reports that Syrian president Bashar al-Assad: "says Hamas and Hizbullah will never threaten Israel with his country's help" in an interview in al-Sharq al-Awsat newspaper.

Is that what the Syrian president said? For here is the precise quote "They both will never attack Israel through Syria under any circumstances."

Not exactly the same thing. Syria never let's terrorist groups attack from its soil — and that's been the policy more than 40 years — because Damascus knows that Israel will retaliate against Syria if that happens. So the simple alternative is: let them attack through Lebanon, which can't defend itself against either terrorists or Israel. If and when Israel retaliates against facilities on Lebanese soil, Syrian leaders don't lose much sleep.

And, of course, when Assad says that Hamas won't attack Israel through Syria, that's because it attacks Israel from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Syria supplies weapons to both Hizballah and Hamas which have been used to attack Israel.

So to say that Syria won't let anyone attack from its own territory is nothing new and is in no way saying it won't help them attack Israel. Syria gives terrorists safe haven, training, bases, equipment, guns, and money to do so, no matter where the terror squads depart from on the morning of their mission.

Now one needs just sit back and wait for the media around the world to report that Syria has promised not to sponsor terrorists attacking Israel and is now a truly peacenik government. Let me know when you see these reports.

As always, one can only quote Shakespeare, one of the world's greatest political analysts:

"Shall we their fond pageant see?
Lord, what fools these mortals be!"


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org. His blog, Rubin Reports is at http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Kenneth Price, Ph.D., April 29, 2009.

Part I:

To hell with demanding that the "Palestinian Authority" stop teaching its children that Jews are descended from apes and pigs, and the highest duty of a "Palestinian" child is to kill Jews and himself as a shahid. The policy of the U.S. of A., now, is to establish a terrorist army run by Fatah or Hamas (whichever kills the other — it doesn't matter who wins) that will serve as the "Palestinian" Arabs speznatz guerilla troops to attack Israeli civilians and infrastructure during the next Arab assault against Israel. And when American troops from Iraq join the Arab forces, as the British did in 1948, to help the Arabs crush the Jews, what do the Jews of America do?

"US General: Fatah Soldiers are 'Founders of Palestinian State'"
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print= print&type=0&item=131098
Iyar 5, 5769, 29 April 09 02:05

Palestinian Authority special forces were praised by an American general this week for becoming the founders of a new Arab country within Israel's current borders.

"As I look at you, I couldn't be more proud of the fact that you stepped up to be the founders of a Palestinian state," U.S. Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton told a battalion in his speech to the troops Monday in Tulkarm. Dayton is responsible for the military training of the PA special forces. The statement was reported by the Reuters news service.

The American government has spent tens of millions of dollars outfitting the PA troops, which it calls "special forces," possibly in order to avoid contradicting the Oslo Accords that limit military activities of the PA. Dayton has been overseeing their training, which takes place in Jordan and at a base built in Jericho with U.S. funds. Weapons for the "special forces" are provided by Arab countries, with Israeli approval.

The Olmert administration also approved a gift of armored personnel carriers from Russia with the stipulation that they be unarmed. In addition, Russia had wanted to hand over two helicopters to the PA as well.

Dayton told Reuters that the Obama administration plans to expand the training program for 1,500 more PA troops, creating three more battalions, in the next 12 months. Dayton already has supervised the training of 1,600 troops, most of whom are deployed in large PA-controlled Arab cities, including Jenin, Shechem and Hevron.

Despite their presence, the IDF continues to carry out the task of arresting terrorists, particularly at night when the PA forces do not operate.

"If it goes the way the administration has asked for, we will accelerate dramatically what we are doing here in terms of training and equipment, and filling in the gaps in between," Dayton said during his visit in Tulkarm, located almost adjacent to the Judea-Samaria separation barrier and only a few miles east of Netanya.

The additional training program requires approval from Congress for more funding that would allow the construction for more PA military bases in Judea and Samaria. Without defining the cost of the additional training and construction, Dayton stated it will entail "more financial support than we have ever had before."

Both the past Bush administration and the current Obama government declared the training helps the standing and security of PA Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas, who is seen as a moderate peace partner for Israel. Officials in the Obama administration have said that the budget for Dayton will grow from $75 million last year to $130 million in 2009.

Fatah and the rival PA faction, the Hamas terrorist organization, are trying to reach a unity agreement which would make Hamas a recipient of American aid. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has stated that American financing would be problematic if Hamas joins Fatah without recognizing Israel's right to exist, and disarming. Fatah also does not officially recognize Israel, and Abbas said on Tuesday he refuses to view the country as a "Jewish State."

Part II:

Gee, there used to be another State in that area, someplace, once upon a time. What was it called? Oh yeah, "Israel" or something like that. Barrack Hussein replaced it with a Hamas State that is now in the process of subverting Jordan and Egypt, and after Iran finishes accumulating enough nukes, will join with Iran to take over Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. The joke's on America. The people who put Barrack Hussein in the White House don't have Israel around to protect them anymore. Heil the new Caliphate.

This was written by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook
Palestinian Media Watch (PMW).
April 28, 2009

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.

Mahmoud Abbas: "I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will"

Palestinian Authority president and Fatah chairman Mahmoud Abbas stated unequivocally Monday that he does not accept the Jewish state.

"I say this clearly: I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will," he said at a preliminary conference of the Palestinian Youth Parliament in Ramallah.

At the end of the conference, Abbas was presented with a large framed map of "Palestine," covering the entire area of Israel.

The photo of the map being held aloft by a smiling Abbas was featured in a prominent front-page position in both PA daily newspapers. Note that the word "Palestine" appears on the map in English.

Contact Kenneth Price at consultingdoc@sbcglobal.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, April 29, 2009.

This was written by Gil Ronen and it appeared in Arutz-7 and is archived at


(IsraelNN.com) According to a classified intelligence assessment handed to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama and his senior advisors wish to "incrementally diminish U.S. strategic cooperation with Israel."

A report in World Tribune (Which is a reliable news source) quoted an Israeli source familiar with the intelligence assessment who said that "Obama wants to make friends with our worst enemies and [those who were] until now the worst enemies of the United States. Under this policy," the source added, "we are more than irrelevant. We have become an obstacle."

According to the report, which has not been corroborated by news sources other than World Tribune, Israeli sources said the U.S. Administration would reject Israel's intelligence opinions on Iran and Syria while advancing the Obama plan to reconcile with the two states, although both were listed as state sponsors of terrorism by the U.S. State Department.

The Israeli intelligence document reportedly predicted that Obama would maintain his policy of appeasing Iran and Syria through 2010. It determined that Obama is convinced that appeasing Iran and Syria would make a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan possible.

Pressure on Israel

"Obama will want to show Iran, Syria and radical Muslims that the United States could pressure Israel on a strategic level," the source said. "The pressure has already begun and will intensify throughout the next year or two."

At the same time, the intelligence officials estimated that Obama would restrict U.S. arms exports to Israel in an effort to deny it systems that it could use in a raid on Iran or Syria. The intelligence sources said this policy was begun during the last year of the Bush administration and predicted that it would intensify under Obama.

Carter: US and Syria Close to Full Relations

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said on Tuesday that the U.S. and Syria are close to restoring full diplomatic ties. "Syrian President Bashar Assad is very eager to restore full ties with Washington," Carter told Haaretz. "I wouldn't be surprised if it happens this year," he added, speaking on the phone from Quito, Ecuador, at the start of a four-nation South American trip.

Carter plans to meet Assad in Syria in early June.

Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad said Tuesday that Obama would face "a serious crisis in the Middle East" if he does not fix the mistakes made by his predecessor George W. Bush, within a year's time.

On a visit to Vienna after meeting Austrian leaders and intellectuals, Assad called on the U.S. to rapidly withdraw its troops from Iraq. This, he claimed, would resolve "50 per cent of the problem," Austrian news agency APA reported.

However, by appeasing Iran and Syria the U.S. is risking alienating Egypt.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak warned Egypt's rivals in the Middle East Wednesday that he would not tolerate what he called their "tampering with security and stability" in his country, a reference to Iran and the Hizbullah terror militia that it supports.

Mubarak's comments were his the most strongly worded ones since Egypt accused the Hizbullah of plotting attacks in the country. They were also meant to send a strong message to the group's backers in Iran.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, April 29, 2009.

This was written by Heather Robinson.


Serious defense of Israel shone alongside clever and zany protest at the United Nations Conference Against Racism in Geneva, Switzerland earlier this week.

For representatives of countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Cuba to sit on a Council that obsessively attacks Israel instead of focusing on widespread, egregious human rights abuses around the world — including abuses these governments themselves perpetrate routinely — would be funny if it were not nauseating. Similarly, for delegates to sit and lap up the racist tirade of Mahmoud "the-Holocaust-is-a-Myth" Ahmadinejad at a conference that purports to fight racism is comedy worthy of Mel Brooks, except it is not fiction.

But because alongside the viciousness of it, the absurdity is undeniable, it was somehow fitting that protestors included both Harvard law prof Alan Dershowitz, who made an eloquent defense of Israel, and a group of French Jewish students wearing rainbow wigs who shouted "racist!" and tossed a red nose at the would-be-Hitler-of-today to highlight what a farce the conference was.

Dersh pointed out that nations like Israel, which have internal mechanisms for investigating human rights abuses and are open societies where people can criticize their governments without fear are not in need of monitoring and lectures from countries like China, Egypt, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia, where people can't speak out without fear and where human rights abuses are widespread and horrific.

The French Jewish students' humorous and bold act took guts. The fact it could be funny reflects the reality that enough people of good will have said "Never again" to true, institutionalized racism and dehumanization, and to tyrants who seek world domination. Heaven help us all if the enemies of freedom and democracy — who, not surprisingly, are Israel's enemies — were ever to be in a position of greater power. These countries already abuse the powerless, and those within their borders who seek intellectual, sexual, or spiritual freedom. For those who suffer their fascism, and for those of us who are sincere defenders of human rights, there is nothing funny about that.

Contact the Ceders at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

A 'Magnificent' 'Deeply Personal Letter' to Jonathan Pollard
Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, April 29, 2009.

Jonathan Pollard described the letter below to his wife, Esther, as "magnificent" and "deeply personal." Pollard said he was "humbled by its sentiments" and "strengthened" by its message. It is reprinted below with the permission of the author who has requested that his identity not be revealed.


Jonathan Pollard
FCI Butner
POB Box 1000 / Clemson
Butner North Carolina

Dear Jonathan,

January 20th of this year* will be marked on the calendar of so many thousands of justice-loving Americans and Jews everywhere as a day of mourning. As the hours of the day wore on and no sign of a response to our desperate pleas for mercy surfaced, hope turned into despair. We sobbed in pain, but mostly in impotence. And yet, I admit, we did not do enough. Just as the dwellers of Jerusalem of old betrayed her, so too all those of us who consider ourselves just and compassionate betrayed you. We simply did not care enough. We thought it below our dignity to grovel, to plead. We calculated that too strong of a plea may upset the cozy relationship of our people with the political body of this great nation. We sinned because we cowardly engaged in political calculations, when, instead, we should have demanded justice, regardless.

You have become a symbol of courage. You have rejected cynical political overtures because you had the good of our People in mind, even as they could have bought your release. You have not only become a champion for those who love the Land but you have, in fact, become their Savior. You have been kind and you have spoken kindly of our People, despite unspeakable cruelty meted out to you for doing so.

On the verse (Judges 6:14): "The Lord turned to him [Gideon] and said 'Go in this strength of yours and deliver Israel from the Midianites. I herewith make you my messenger'", Rashi, in the name of the Midrash Tanhuma, comments "The words 'in this strength' mean on the strength of the merit of having spoken in defense of [i.e. having advocated for] my children." The Midrash Tanhuma explains in greater length that at the time of Gideon, the Israelites came under the cruel domination of the Midianites. G-d sought someone who could intercede for the Israelites but could not find such a person because the generation lacked piety and good works. No sooner did Gideon begin to advocate for them, however, G-d revealed himself to him and said 'Go in this strength of yours and deliver Israel from the Midianites", in this strength should be understood to mean on the strength of the merit of interceding for My children.

The Zohar carries this thought even further: "G-d sees with great favor those who speak well of His people. How do we know this? From the story of Gideon. Gideon was neither an upright man, nor the son of an upright man and yet, because he spoke well of Israel, G-d said to him, 'Go in this strength of yours and deliver Israel from the Midianites" To what strength, asks the Zohar, does the verse refer? To the good you have spoken about My Children."

May your continued advocacy of our interests save us from those who wish to see the destruction of our nation and may you see and participate very promptly in the full redemption promised to the children of Israel.

Your broken-hearted friend.

*J4JP NOTE: January 20, 2009 was President George Bush's last day in office — the last possible day to grant Jonathan Pollard's petition for clemency. Bush did not reject the petition, but neither did he grant it. He left it on in-coming President Obama's desk, where it may continue to be used by the State Department against Israel and the Jews.

Contact J4JP at justice4jp@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, April 29, 2009.

This appeared February 26, 2009 in the Telegraph (UK) and is archived at
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4837608/ Farmer-builds-model-of-Biblical-temple.html. Photos are by Geoff Robinson. Additional photos are available at


Alec Garrard, 78, has dedicated a massive 33,000 hours to constructing the ancient Herod's Temple, which measures a whopping 20ft by 12ft.

The pensioner has hand-baked and painted every clay brick and tile and even sculpted 4,000 tiny human figures to populate the courtyards.

Alec Gerrard constructed the amazing 1:100 scale model, which is now housed in a huge building in his back garden.

Historical experts believe the model is the best representation in the world of what the Jewish temple actually looked like and it has attracted thousands of visitors from all over the globe.

But Mr Garrard, who started the elaborate project in his 40's, says his masterpiece will not be finished in his lifetime.

"I've always loved making models and as I was getting older I started to think about making one big project which would see me through to the end of my life," he said. "I have an interest in buildings and religion so I thought maybe I could combine the two and I came up with the idea of doing the Temple.

"I'd seen one or two examples of it in Biblical exhibitions, but I thought they were rubbish and I knew I could do better.

"I have been working on it for decades but it will never be finished as I'm always finding something new to add."

Mr Garrard, from Norfolk, spent more than three years researching the Temple, which was destroyed by the Romans 2000 years ago and deemed to be one of the most remarkable buildings of ancient times.

He then started to construct the amazing 1:100 scale model, which is now housed in a huge building in his back garden.

Mr Garrard sculpted and painted 4,000 figures, measuring just half an inch and all wearing their correct costumes including 32 versions of Jesus.

Visitors come from all over the world to see the model and Mr Garrard provides binoculars so they can see all the details.

"Everything is made by hand. I cut plywood frames for the walls and buildings and all the clay bricks and tiles were baked in the oven then stuck together," he said.

Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, April 29, 2009.
This is from the Fresno Zionism website.

The administration is looking for a way to keep aid flowing if the Palestinians form a government that includes elements of Hamas, the militant anti-Israel group that controls Gaza.

Obama wants to alter language in the fiscal 2009 catchall spending law (PL 111-8) that makes the State Department worry about the possibility of a cutoff of aid to the Palestinian government should Hamas join the more moderate [sic] Fatah party in a power-sharing arrangement.

The administration said it is focused on ensuring that a Palestinian government meets internationally accepted conditions regarding Israel.

"This legislation is consistent with our policy," said Benjamin Chang, a spokesman for the National Security Council.

"It would prohibit assistance to a government that does not accept the Quartet principles but would preserve the president's flexibility to provide such assistance if that government were to accept and comply with the Quartet principles," he said, referring to requirements that a Palestinian government accept Israel's right to exist, renounce violence and abide by prior Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

In other words, Hamas can participate in a Palestinian government which receives US aid as long as the official policy of that government meets the "Quartet principles" — even though Hamas rejects them. Of course, it is not clear if Hamas would participate in a government which did agree to them, but you can bet that efforts will be made to find a magic formula to make the problem go away.

Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill) likened this to supporting a government that had "only a few Nazis in it".

The absurdity of the situation is remarkable:

There is no Palestinian state or economy; they are totally dependent on international aid (mostly originating in the US). This is because their leadership (Fatah and Hamas) and their allies in the Mideast have always chosen war over acceptance of Israel.

Many Palestinians living in Hamas-controlled Gaza allegedly 'work' for the Palestinian Authority [PA], so they get salaries from the PA, funded by the US and paid via Israel. Others have refugee status, so they receive aid from the UN.

Hamas also gets direct aid in the form of money and munitions from Iran. All its resources are used to make war on Israel.

When Israel struck back, the US agreed to pay to rebuild the damage in Gaza! But nobody can figure out how to do this without aiding Hamas.

Meanwhile, there's a world-wide clamor to legitimize Hamas — despite the fact that it's hard to find a more antisemitic and violent bunch anywhere.

Maybe the problem is that the Obama administration is looking at things from the wrong angle. Maybe the absolute top priority in the Mideast today should not be establishing a Palestinian state?

Maybe acting to stop the destabilizing activities of Iran — its sponsorship of Hezbollah in attacking Israel, destabilizing Lebanon and even Egypt, its support of Hamas, its attempt to control half the world's oil supply by nuclear blackmail — is more important than establishing yet another Arab state ruled by racist thugs like those of Hamas and Fatah?

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, April 29, 2009.

This was written by Yisrael Medad and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post


I hope you are not shocked if I tell you that a terrible secret-not-a-secret has been revealed. And that secret is that there most probably won't be a full peace between Jews and Arabs in the territory of the former Mandate of Palestine, no matter what borders are delineated.

We had the Chaim Weizmann borders of 1919 (from the Litani in the north to the Hejaz Railway in the east, see note 8), the Ze'ev Jabotinsky borders (all of TransJordan included), Peel Commission Borders or UN Resolution 181 and much more.

And why do I arrive at that conclusion?

From what the President of the Palestinian Authority said.

Mideast: Abbas refuses to recognise Israel as Jewish state:

Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas on Monday dismissed calls by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to recognise Israel as a Jewish state..."A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean?," said Abbas, quoted by Israeli media. "You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly."

Name yourself, it's not my business. Name yourself the Hebrew Socialist Republic. All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimetre more, not one centimetre less. Anything else, I do not accept.

Many observers believe the so called 'green line' — the pre-1967 Six-Day War ceasefire line between Israel and Jordan — should be the basis for an international border between Israel and the West Bank in the creation of a future Palestinian state..."

One Likud MK, Ofir Akunis, caught on quick: "This means that the Palestinians don't want two states for two people, but two states for one people: Even the Foreign Ministry was forced to adapt to the new boss and issued a declaration which stated: "The recognition of Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people is an essential and necessary step in the historic process of reconciliation between Israel and the Palestinians."

The moral of the incident?

The vast majority of Arabs who insist on referring to themselves as Palestinians — have you ever heard of a people who insist on calling themselves by a foreign language, Latin, rather than their own tongue? And there is an Arabic term Belad El-Sham but it's a bit embarrassing because:

Palestine constitutes the southwestern part of a huge geographical unity in the eastern part of the Arab world, which is Belad El-Sham. In addition to Palestine, Sham contains Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. It used to have common borders with these countries, in addition to Egypt."

You see, even Arabs know that Palestine is not a separate and distinct geo-political national entity. And we won't meander into the issue of Suriyya al-Janubiyya, Southern Syria.

Israel we need know is still perceived as an unacceptable presence in the "Arab/Muslim Middle East". A non-identifiable Israel — not Jewish — is perhaps possible, the old slogan of "secular democratic Palestine" comes to my mind from the mid-1960s.

We can't be us, the 3000 year-old Jewish people, with our religion, our culture, our consciousness, our beliefs, our philosophy and our history. No, that must disappear. No Jew can pray on the Temple Mount because, as the Arabs claim, the Temple wasn't there nor can an atheist archeologist dig there for it is too dangerous in that something Jewish might be discovered.

Well, Mr. Abbas, after managing to hide your past as a holocaust denier, this slips out. Now, you're a Jewish national homeland denier.

You cannot be a peace partner. Your moderation is false. Your willingness to compromise is false. The veil of the Green Line as a border is lifted. There is no Green Line because there is no Jewish state. The state of Israel possesses no historic imperative, no historic basis, no true legitimacy.

And those who sought you out recently, like former prime minister Olmert and former foreign minister Livni were false in their diplomacy for it was an unfaithful expression of Zionism.

And as goes Abbas, goes the peace.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, April 29, 2009.

(1.) Well, Obama, Hillary, the Left, and now suddenly even Bibi Netanyahu demand that Israel agree to a "two-state solution." They of course assume that some sort of arrangement involving two states actually could serve as a solution, as opposed to a plan for the annihilation of Israel in stages.

But hey, I am always up for a challenge. So here is my own proposal for a workable two-state solution!

The Jews keep their state, and the Arabs give up 21 of their 22 states, leaving them with one state, and then we would have a two-state SOLUTION!

 (2.) 61 things I like best about Israel — for Israel's 61st birthday

1. Israel is the only country in the world where people can read the Bible and understand it.

2. Israel is the only country in the world where, if someone calls you a "dirty Jew", it means you need a bath (old Efraim Kishon quip, but still good).

3. Israel is the only country in the world where formal dress means a new clean T-shirt, sandals and jeans.

4. Israel is the only country in the world where one need not check the ingredients on the products in the supermarket to avoid ending up with things containing pork.

5. Israel is a country where the same drivers who cuss you and flip you the bird will immediately pull over and offer you all forms of help if you look like you need it.

6. Israel is the only country in the world with Avihu Medina, Zohar Argov and Daklon (godfathers of "Oriental Music").

7. Israel is the only country in the world with bus drivers and taxi drivers who read Spinoza and Maimonides.

8. Israel is the only country in the world where you dare not gossip about other people on the bus in Mandarin, Russian, Hindi, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Polish or Romanian, lest others on the bus understand what you are saying.

9. Israel is the only country in the world with northern European standards of living and southern European weather. It is the only place on earth with an Israeli spring, the most glorious time of year on the planet.

10. Israel is the only country in the world where no one cares what rules say when an important goal can be achieved by bending them.

11. Israel is the only country in the world where a pisher like me can once in a while get invited to give a talk at the parliament, or can get in to speak to a cabinet minister.

12. Israel is the only country in the world where reservists are bossed around and commanded by officers, male and female, younger than their own children.

13. Israel is the only country in the world with Eli Yatzpan (comedian).

14. Israel is the only country in the world where "small talk" consists of loud, angry debate over politics and religion.

15. Israel is the only country in the world with Jerusalem, even if Israeli leftists would like to turn it over to the barbarians.

16. Israel is the only country in the world where the coffee is already so good that Starbucks went bankrupt trying to break into the local market.

17. Israel is the only country in the world where the mothers learn their mother tongue from their children (old Efraim Kishon quip, but still good).

18. Israel is the only country in the world where the people understand Israeli humor.

19. Israel is the only country in the world where the news is broadcast over the loudspeakers on buses, where people listen to news updates every half hour, or whose people are capable of locating Bosnia and Macedonia on a map of the world.

20. Israel is one of the few places in the world where the sun sets into the Mediterranean Sea.

21. Israel is the only country in the world where, when people say the "modern later era", they are referring to the time of Jesus.

22. Israel is the only country in the world whose soldiers eat three sets of salads a day, none of which contain any lettuce (which is not really a food), and where olives ARE a food and even a main course in a meal, rather than something one tosses into a martini.

23. Israel is the only country in the world where one is unlikely to be able to dig a cellar without hitting ancient archeological artifacts.

24. Israel is the only country in the world where the leading writers in the country take buses.

25. Israel is the only country in the world where the graffiti is in Hebrew.

26. Israel is the only country in the world where the "black folks" walking around all wear yarmulkes.

27. Israel is the only country in the world that has a National Book Week, during which almost everyone attends a book fair and buys books.

28. Israel is the only country in the world where the ultra-Orthodox Jews beat up the police and not the other way around.

29. Israel is the only country in the world where inviting someone "out for a drink" means drinking cola or coffee or tea.

30. Israel is the only country in the world where people who want to go up in an elevator push the down button because they think this makes the elevator come down to get them.

31. Israel is the only country in the world with white almond blossoms in January, purple "Judas Tree" blossoms in March, and crocus flowers in October.

32. Israel is the only country in the world where bank robbers kiss the mezuzah as they leave with their loot.

33. Israel is the only country in the world with "Eretz Yisrael music".

34. Israel is one of the few countries in the world that truly likes and admires the United States.

35. Israel is the only country in the world that introduces applications of high-tech gadgets and devices, such as printers in banks that print out your statement on demand, years ahead of the United States and decades ahead of Europe.

36. Israel is the only country in the world that has the weather and landscape of California without the earthquakes.

37. Israel is the only country in the world where everyone on a flight gets to know one another before the plane lands. In many cases, they also get to know the pilot and all about his health or marital problems.

38. Israel is the only country in the world where no one has a foreign accent because everyone has a foreign accent.

39. Israel is the only country in the world where people cuss using dirty words in Russian or Arabic because Hebrew has never developed them.

40. Israel is the only country in the world where patients visiting physicians end up giving the doctor advice.

41. Israel is the only country in the world where everyone strikes up conversations while waiting in lines.

42. Israel is the only country in the world where people choose which books to read and which plays to see based on what they plan to discuss with their friends in Friday evening "salon" get-togethers.

43. Israel is the only country in the world where hot water is an event and not a condition ("in" joke; you have to live in Israel to figure it out).

44. Krembos.

45. Israel is the only country in the world where people call an attache case a "James Bond" and the "@" sign is called a "strudel".

46. Kumquats.

47. The obsession with sunflower seeds.

48. The kumzitz on the beach.

49. The people who eat watermelon with salt or with salty cheese. The wagons with horses that still sell watermelons on the streets, screaming "watermelon on the knife", whatever that means.

50. Israel is the only country in the world where kids read Harry Potter in Hebrew.

51. Hyssop (za'atar).

52. Memorial Day in Israel is actually a day for remembering and not for buying pool furniture at the mall.

53. Really, really good bread!

54. Israel is the only country in the world where there is the most mysterious and mystical calm ambience in the streets on Yom Kippur, which cannot be explained unless you have experienced it.

55. In Israel, kids can really sleep in a succah because it will not rain on them.

56. Israel is the only country in the world where making a call to God is a local call (old quip, still good).

57. Where you here Hebrew songs set to bazouki and Ood music.

58. Zohar Argov (yes, I know I already mentioned him, but he deserves a second mention)

59. Sunsets in Jerusalem

60. Where people read English, write Hebrew, and joke in Yiddish

61. A Story:

A few years back, I took the kids to the Haifa beach promenade during Passover, where they had French fries. While sitting there, some Russian Jews who had not been in the country very long came and sat down. They ordered some salads, and asked the Arab waiter to bring it to them with Matzos because they did not want to eat Chometz during Passover. Then they asked the Arab to also bring them beers. The Arab stood and explained to them that it was not only bread that is Chometz but actually beer is also considered chometz and so is also prohibited for consumption by Jews during Passover. The Russians thanked him for explaining that to them. I was reminded about the section in Pirkei Avot where it says one must feel beholden and gratitutude to anyone who teaches one Torah or even a single Hebrew letter. These Russian Jews were beholden to their Arab waiter for teaching them Torah.

Only in Israel!

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. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, April 28, 2009.

His Majesty King Abdullah II King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

During the king's recent visit to the U.S. he touched on the following:

  • Israel will face war within 18 months if it does not come to terms with the Arab demands

  • The establishment of a new Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem

  • Threats from Iran and Al Qaeda will fade away once Jerusalem is divided

Hypocrisy Aside — Rebuttal

The Arabs never established nor recognized a Palestinian state during the two decades (1948-1967) prior to the Six-Day War when the West Bank was under Jordanian control, nor did the Palestinians clamor for autonomy or independence during those years under Jordanian rule. Jerusalem for that matter, has never served as an Arab capital for the simple reason that there has never been a Palestinian Arab state.

In 1968, the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) turned Jordan into a staging area for sending terrorists into the West Bank and Israel. In the course of three years, 141 Israelis were killed along Israel's border with Jordan. Only in September 1970 was the PLO ousted to Lebanon by Jordan's King Hussein after the PLO went one step too far: Skyjacking three civilian airliners to Jordan, then blowing up the empty planes on the tarmac. During the battle between Jordan's Arab Legion and Palestinian Arab forces (known later as 'Black September') the Jordanians massacred more than 3,000 of their Palestinian 'brethren' in just 10 days.

Culturally, Palestinians cannot distinguish their endeavors from other Arabs. The only innovations Palestinians can take credit for are using skyjackings — which they initiated in 1968 as a political instrument, and suicide bombers — refined since the advent of the Oslo Accords in 1993 as a political weapon that is turning Arab's own youth into suicide bombers that target other civilians.

Eli E. Hertz is president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at today@mythsandfacts.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 28, 2009.

April 28, 2009

We are a miracle. From the ashes of the Holocaust, in a mere 61 years, we have established a vibrant and very special state. A place of life, beauty, and extraordinary lovingkindness, along with whatever pain we endure.

In due course, I will return to the news. But at sundown tonight we begin Yom Ha'atzmaut, Israeli Independence Day. A celebration to be begun with prayers and thanksgiving, and to be followed by dancing in the streets, fireworks, and, tomorrow, "al ha aish" — barbecue.

Here I share a couple of YouTube videos about Israel.

"Cool Facts About Israel" (A year old, but no matter.)

"If I Forget Thee Oh! Jerusalem"

And from my website, pictures showing the stunning beauty of our land:

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, April 28, 2009

April 22, 2009

Why are German Jews and their descendants and people that call themselves "descendants of Holocaust survivors" so prominent in anti-Israel activity and in describing modern Jews as 'nazis'? They claim to be standing up for 'never again' and that the Holocaust forces them to be 'lone voices'. But they aren't alone. There is a disproportionate involvement by the descendants of Weimer and this must have other explanations. As a proviso it should be stated, not all Holocaust survivors and their descendants hate Israel, most do not, but a great majority of the most extreme anti-Jewish and anti-Israel Jewish voices are people who claim to be related to Holocaust survivors. A massively disproportionate number of them are descendants of German-Jews who make up a tiny sliver of the Jewish people.

One of the most disturbing trends that appeared in full force this Holocaust memorial day is the twisting of the traditional view of Jews as victims so that Jews are actually accused of crimes in the present because of their having been victims. As participants from all over the world took place in the annual March of the Living and as Alan Dershowitz was carted away by police in Geneva for wanting to protest Ahmadinjed's appearance at the Durban II conference on racism, people discussed the importance and role of the Holocaust in everyday life today.

One of the most interesting pieces of research to come out on this subject is research about the connection between the Holocaust and radical left-wing peace movements. Dr. Tova Benski, chair of the Behavioral Sciences Department at the College of Management in Rishon Lezion, has shown that around 80 percent of the female members of peace organizations, such as Women in Black, are middle-aged Ashkenazi women...second-generation Holocaust survivors." What is interesting is what motivates these women. They declared in the research that it was important to them "not to be like the Germans." They claim the Holocaust was a main "legitimizing factor for the establishment of the state [of Israel] "

But then these women make a radical claim. They assert that Jews 'unify the enemy', turning all of the world into an 'other' that is seen as always suppressing Jews. Jews claim to be the "eternal victim...we have always been the victims; we continue to be the victims." Benski, who sympathizes with these activist women, notes that "rather than subscribe to a unified idea of the historical 'enemy,' these women are putting a specific, particular face on the Palestinians... rather than adopt the usual idea of perpetual Jewish victimhood, these women are saying, 'We don't want to be the oppressors. We don't want to do to anyone what was done to us." These daughters of Holocaust survivors actually step over the line and claim that modern day Israel is akin to the Nazis and that they are the lone voices opposing this new Nazism and protecting the new Jews, the Palestinians.

Why did the Holocaust get twisted around like this? Why did the actual victims of the Holocaust, the Jews, get turned into something negative and pernicious for being victims. If a person is raped and she becomes wary of walking alone at night do we claim she is "unifying the enemy" and making all men her enemy simply because she was an actual victim and now fears repetition of what happened to her?

Consider Merav Michaeli's 'From Kasztner to Shalit' which also claims that the idea of Jews as victims is unacceptable. She claims that in Israel "only death is really sacred. Holocaust Remembrance Day is a good example of how in Israel the dead become heroes who get commemorated." Michaeli castigates that state for calling on people not to forget and for spending money on memorials; "after all, our leaders are interested in perpetuity, and death is eternal...the State of Israel accepts only the new Jew, the belligerent Israeli." Once again Jews are insulted for being victims and there is an insinuation that the victims are used or manipulated by modern day Jews who are only "belligerent."

Consider the account of Bernice Eisenstein, author of 'I was the Child of Holocaust Survivors', who describes the Holocaust as "a drug" and that she "dealt in the pain of the Holocaust...my parents were in Auschwitz, can you compete with that?" There is a subtle perversion to all of these observations, from Benski to Michaeli and Eisenstein. The tragedy of it all is the way the Holocaust is twisted around so that discussion of Jewish victims is negative, it is a 'drug', or that discussion of memorializing them is negative because it is somehow fake and that any vow that it will 'never happen again' represents a 'billigerent' attitude that is almost racist against the world because it 'unify's the enemy.'

Writing on April 23rd Larry Derner noted that "the trauma to the Jews during the Holocaust has, over the years, been twisted into the aggression of the Jews in today's Israel... Jewish victimhood has not been redemptive; that instead, it's fueled Israel's victimization of Palestinians" But Sephardim, Mizrahim, Ethiopians and most of Russian Jewry, who together form the majority of Israel's population, didn't have this "trauma". Their narrative of being Holocaust survivors. Furthermore its twisted to turn Holocaust survivors into people who are thus aggressors simply because of the Holocaust.

The truth is that the wealthy leftist Ashkenazi Holocaust survivors seek to colonize the Jewish people with their trauma. They want to turn the Jewish people into the 'new Nazis' so that they, the children of Holocaust survivors can do what their relatives didn't do, 'stand up to Nazis'. Now they can be the heroes of the Warsaw Ghetto, except in this case they are standing up to their own people. The reason they hate their own people goes back to their yearning to live in the Weimer Republic from whence many of their German-Jewish relatives fled or lived. The Weimer republic for these people is the greatest thing that ever existed. A republic of permissiveness and anything goes, a socialist extremist republic where prostitutes offered 'mother-daughter sex' on the street. This was the temple of these people, most of whome were assimilated Jews like Karl Marx who hated Judaism and hated their fellow Jews. Such was their hate of the Jews then that when Ostjuden began immigrating to Germany they refused to even see this 'dirt' as Jewish. The same is replicated today in the hatred of religious Jews by the secular leftist Ashkenazi elite in Israel which refers to them as 'bloodsuckers' and 'nazis' on a daily basis at the university.

These leftist descandants of Holocaust survivors claim that the living Holocaust survivors didn't get enough support from the government but it is they who are obsessed with comparing everything to the Holocaust. They claim Israel manipulates the Holocaust to its own ends but it is they who manipulate the Holocaust to their ends. And it is eminently clear the degree to which they do this. From Norman Finkelstein to Amira Hass and Avraham Burg, all those who hate Israel and accuse it of Nazism, all claim to be children of Holocaust survivors and all of them see a new Holocaust in Israel. All of the hate Israel and seek its destruction. All of them accuse Israel of 'using' the Holocaust. Consider how Michael Neumann, editor of the radical anti-semitic website Counterpunch and author of The Case Against Israel describes himself. "Born 1946, the son of German Jewish refugees." German and Jewish. Those are the twin keys in discerning who these people are. From Baruch Kimmerling to all the heads of Peace Now, HaMoked and Yesh Gvul the economic and historical details are the same: Wealthy, Leftist, Ashkenazi, German-Jewish. The German-Jews and their Holocaust survivor children and grand-children have set about destroying the Jewish people and Israel in order to take revenge for the Holocaust, for the destruction for their Weimer Republic and the fact that Israel's early leaders didn't allow for them to create a republic of self-hate, akin to Weimer, in Israel. They tried. Judah Magnes, head of the Hebrew University, tried to stem Jewish immigration so he and his could be a permanent minority in Israel. Leo Baeck, head of the German Jewish community during the Holocaust, collaborated with the Nazis at Thereisenstadt, hiding information about the Holocaust from fellow Jews.

Today Leo Baeck and Judah Magnes are hallowed names on the left and among intellectuals. There is no doubt of the link between German Jewry, its descendants and the hatred of Israel. Amos Elon is but one example. The author of Pity of It All has even moved back to Europe, to live in the Diaspora because he hates Israel. All of the leftist anti-Israel professors at Israeli universities are Ashkenazi, such as Neve Gordon or Ilan Pappe, the majority of them are also German-Jews such as Moshe Zimmerman, who compared Israeli to Nazis, to Moshe Zuckermann, a scholar of German at Tel Aviv University and Tanya Reinhardt author of books on the 'conflict' and a disciple of the late Dr. Kimmerling. German-Jews, all. We will never know why exactly they hate the Jewish people. But it is apparent they want to colonize the Jewish people. They want all Jews to be Holocaust survivors. Then they want to claim that the Holocaust forces the Jews to become the 'new nazis' because Jews are 'trapped in a cycle' and only these few lone voices will stand against the "Jew-Nazi" people. In order to defeat this heresy Jews must free themselves from the dominance of the German-Jewish leftist Ashkenazi elite. Only by embracing the true history of the Jews, outside of Germany, can Jews be free of this albatross.

When people read the Derfners and Eisensteins and the massively prolific intellectual descendants of Holocaust survivors and German Jewry they must remind themselves that this is not their narrative. This narrative of suffering Holocaust survivors who become Nazis is a myth. The Sabras of Israel of 1948 were all either born in Israel and were from Eastern Europe. Many of the right wing members of Begin's fighting organization were from religious families or Sephardi background. Ariel Sharon was born in Israel. They all were. The German-Jews never contributed to the war effort of 1948 or of 1967. Any claims that Dayan and Allon and the generals of 1967 styled themselves "Prussians" is incorrect. They imagined themselves as Prussian Generals, but they were not. The German-Jews, arriving in Israel and finding no place for themselves and living in cities and becoming wealthy and an elite decided that they could place their mantle of suffering onto Israel and then transform it into a new Germany and then castigate it as a 'nazi' state. We must not submit to the German heresy. We must fight it with every ounce of our blood. We are not holocaust survivors forced to commit the crimes of the Holocaust. We are simply burdened by the existence of German-Jewry's trauma and self hate about itself and its vanished civilization of the Weimer Republic. The next time someone tells you that "as a Holocaust survivor I know that the Jewish people use the Holocaust to become eternal victims and suppress the Palestinians" it would be best to say "but I'm not a Holocaust survivor and neither are the majority of those serving in the IDF. This trauma you speak of forcing me to harm Palestinians, I don't have this trauma. So now find a new explanation."

The German-Jews are the only people in the world that could suffer a Holocaust and then blame their own people for the Holocaust by turning them into people who play victim, pretending that all of their people suffered the Holocaust just to bash them for being victims destined to victimize. We will not be colonized by German-Jewry. The Larry Derfners live in their own Ashkenazi world where everyone is a leftist survivor and they all have this narrative of traum and suffering. But they live in a bubble.

Derfner says "the trauma to the Jews during the Holocaust has, over the years, been twisted into the aggression of the Jews in today's Israel." But it is just the trauma of the Derfners and Finkelsteins and Zimmermans and Reinhardts and Hasses. It is not the trauma of the Feredos and Barzanis and Valeros. Why can't the Jewish people be free of the intellectual slavery of the German-Jews? Why can't we fight a war of anti-colonialism against this heresy to throw it off. German-Jews are self-hating and have psychological problems that they have had since the 1920s when their republic began to vanish, but the Jews in all their diversity deserve better than to be saddled with German-Jewish psychological problems, a sort of Freudian German-Jewish complex of self hate and imagininations that they are the lone voices and the new Nazis at the same time. German-Jews need Nazis, they need to be the single voice fighting it, and they want it all to exist among Jews so that Judaism can be destroyed at their hands because they resent that most Jews survived while their civilization did not. But we cannot allow the Ethiopians and Sephardim to be sacrificed on the pyre of German Jewish intellectualism. We must save them. We must save Ashkenazim from the poison of "I am a Holocaust survivor, I have a unique voice to critique Israel which is starting to resemble Nazi Germany." I am not a Holocaust survivor. No one in my family has a connection to the Holocaust. I don't have this ridiculous 'trauma' of becoming a Nazi because I was a victim. Why must the Jews be punished for the Holocaust? Let the German Jews have their intellectual illness, but save us from it.

Why are the victims being blamed? Why is the Holocaust twisted around so that it alone 'legitimizes' the creation of Israel, as if the Haganah and Jewish Agency and JNF and Balfour declaration and Herzl all came after 1939 and not before? There is a very real importance in discussing the over-use of the Holocaust as pulp fiction in numerous new movies such as the Reader. There is a very real importance in discussing the way in which the Holocaust or accusations of "nazi" are unacceptable. But people shouldn't lose sight of reality. The victims were victims. Jews didn't ask to have this done to them and they don't manipulate the history of the Holocaust in order to be 'eternal victims'.

Contact Seth J. Frantzman at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com These essays appeared on his website.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gennadiy Baruch Faybyshenko, April 28, 2009.

We are in a special period of time going from Yom HaShoah to Yom Ha'Atzmaut, from Holocaust's Remembrance Day to Israel's Independence Day. A nation like no others mentioned in the second book of Samuel 7:24, the Jewish people defy the laws of nature that apply to other nations. For example, normally, before something can be destroyed, it must first be created; something that was destroyed does not get born.

Since the time when Jacob took the blessing from Esau, Esau's anger has manifested itself for all his generations to come. Many historians trying to understand the minds of anti-Semites conclude that hatred for Jews is a natural and inexplicable phenomenon. The Holy Scriptures tells us that Esau had a son Eliphaz who had a son named Amalek (Gen 36:12). Amalek inherited the hate from Esau for not being blessed as the first born because it could have been him and his descendants that would become a chosen nation; instead Esau's descendants became southern European nations. The Amalekites, seeking every way to destroy the Jewish people, are implacable because their hatred is eternal. We see Amalek in almost every generation, with Haman (the son of Hammedatha the Agagite which is the title of the Amalekite rulers Agag), the Crusaders who sought to destroy Jews because they believed that Jews contributed to the death of their god. During the Inquisition, the Spanish Amalek, when retaliating against the Muslims, who occupied Spain, also went against the Jews who were peaceful citizens. Various Amalekites have presented themselves throughout history, including the pogroms in Russia and other European states. And the horrible Amalek of the twentieth century, Adolf Hitler, y'mach sh'mo v'zichro (may his name and memory be obliterated). Those who believed that Hitler was the last Amalek have been proven wrong by today's incarnation, Persia's current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who hates Jews with all his might and dreams of wiping Jews off the face of the Earth.

I've met many people who have studied the minds of Nazis and failed to uncover some reason or source of the Jew-hatred. Yesterday the world openly spoke of destroying Jews, but in the current era of political correctness, the world finds it necessary to be more subtle. Since Israel represents world Jewry today, it is much easier to be anti-Zionist and advocate wiping Israel off the face of the earth — "euphemisms" for the rabid-sounding reality: anti-Semitism and wiping Jews off the face of the earth. However, at the end of the day, the anti-Semites go and destroy Jewish cemeteries, attack Jewish people, vandalize their property everywhere else in the world in addition to Israel. We are told by the sages that the Amalekites assimilated all over the world, yet it shocks us that the president of Switzerland invited the Iranian president to openly deny the Holocaust and shook his hand at the Geneva conference dedicated against racism in the world. We remember in 1948 when five large Arab armies mobilized to attack the newborn Jewish State while the whole world stood idly by. But when the Jews became victorious, all of a sudden the whole world, represented by the United Nations, demanded that Israel stop, and placed its troops on the temporary borders. And we remember when the Arab armies wanted to wipe out Israel in 1967, the UN peacekeeping troops simply walked away. We remember that the Soviet government was able to bomb crematoria and gas chambers and purposely delayed, resulting in tens of thousands of Jewish deaths.

And we especially remember the American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (y'mach sh'mo v'zicrho) who refused to bomb railroads that lead to Auschwitz while having all the military plans on hands, but year later bombed oil tankers that were right next to Auschwitz without freeing Jews because he was afraid that the "Jewish problem" would become an American problem. And we remember how he turned away the ship named Saint Louis that was filled with Jews seeking sanctuary from death in Germany. He did not have to send warplanes; all he had to do was to allow 936 Jews into the United States. We remember that England refused to allow Jews to escape the Nazis by emigrating to the Land then known as Palestine, instead turning the ships around, sending them back to their death in Germany. The world stood idly by the Holocaust. And if, G-d forbid, something similar would be on the current horizon, the world will stand idly by again.

The world loves us after every Holocaust. They get the pleasure of building us museums and monuments dedicated to the Holocaust Era. They love to accuse one another other of doing nothing to help us. They simply love to see dead Jews. As Hitler said once, he hates Jews because they bring "ethics and morality" and the nations love to live as barbarians. That is not up to the gentiles to change the course. It is G-d who runs the course of history, and He swore that He will keep Israel until the end of times. The answer to the Holocaust is Israel: the third Jewish commonwealth that is the beginning of the final redemption. Despite the world's hatred, Israel will survive, with G-d's help, and will emerge more powerful than ever. Our prophets said that in the final days, the nations will gather their armies around Jerusalem and then G-d will reveal Himself and crush the evil nations into oblivion and will send them straight to hell.

The world witnessed the miracle after the Jewish people were almost annihilated; the new State of Israel was miraculously reborn. A day before, the world thought that Jews would be history, but the next day they were on top. It is no coincidence that Yom HaShoah falls on 27th of Nissan and Yom Ha'Atzmaut on 5th of Iyar. There are eight days in between, just eight steps. The distance is almost infinite but yet reachable only if we believe that everything is in the hands of the Creator who created heaven and earth. It is according to His will alone that our fate rests. It is no coincidence that those dates fall on the counting of the Omer between holidays of Passover and Shavuot where each day for fifty days is like a step, and each day we take a step higher. Do not cower at the world's babbling about the Jews. Strong faith in G-d is the only Jewish way.

Gennadiy Baruch Faybyshenko is National Director of Bnai Elim. Contact him at Gennadiy1981@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gadi Eshel, April 28, 2009.

This was written by Itamar Marcus, and it appeared Apr. 25, 2009 in The Jerusalem Post. The writer is director of Palestinian Media Watch.

Ways of genocide:

One of them, you know, is to crown a ruler that would tilt his people to that end — albeit democratically and in with sophisticated savvy. For example, demonize a nation which refuses to do itself in and have its land Islamized, even though the euphemism used to promote it these days — "two-state-solution," is much much nicer than the notorious "final solution".

However, the more proven way, is to rely on the numbers. See "Muslim Demographics" at



Survivors of the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur spoke in Geneva this week at the parallel conference on human rights to counter the UN Durban II event. Listening to them describe how they were systematically demonized by the killers made it clear that genocide does not happen in a vacuum. The hate condition of a population willing and anxious to commit genocide needs nurturing. Genocide must be framed positively to get the necessary broad public support.

Common to the framing of all genocide is a very specific kind of demonization. In Rwanda, the Hutus taught that the Tutsis were cockroaches and snakes. Tutsi women were portrayed as cunning seductresses who used beauty and sexual power to conquer the Hutus. In Bosnia, a fictitious news report said Muslims were feeding Serb children to animals at the Sarajevo zoo. Radio Rwanda repeatedly broadcast a warning that Hutus were about to be attacked by Tutsis, to convince the Hutus that they needed to attack first to protect themselves.

This demonization included two specific components. First, the victims had to be perceived as a clear and present threat, so that the killers were convinced they were acting in self-defense. Second, the victims were dehumanized, so that the killers convinced themselves that they were not destroying real human beings.

A decent person will not join in a murder of innocents, but a decent person might join in the killing of a subhuman who is threatening his very existence. Framing genocide as self-defense can turn decent people into killers. Protection of children and family can turn a calm neighbor into a passionate murderer, because self-defense is always justified.

In Darfur and Rwanda, all that was necessary to turn a society of ordinary people into killers was to convince them that they were in danger, and that the people endangering them were less than human.

LOOKING BACK on Jewish history, it is clear that the method used to foment violence against Jews has always involved the same framing of "self-defense," with only the details changed.

So when Jews were falsely accused of poisoning wells in the Middle Ages, causing thousands of deaths, even decent people joined in the killings. They did not perceive themselves as murderers because they were defending themselves and their families.

When Jews were believed to be using blood of children for Passover matzot, even decent people felt comfortable massacring Jews, as they were defending their children from a horrific torture.

Even Hitler used this argument of self-defense in Mein Kampf: "In this case [given the Jews' threat to the German people] the only salvation remaining was war, war with all the weapons the human spirit, reason, and will could muster... If the Jew... is victorious over the peoples of this world, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity... Thus I believe today that I am acting according to the will of the almighty creator: When I defend myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Hitler, too, packaged his genocide as legitimate self-defense. The details may change in each society, but the framing is always the same.

EXAMINING PALESTINIAN hate promotion today, it is especially striking and disconcerting that these components of the past genocides against Jews are prominent elements of the hate promotion of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas against Jews and Israelis.

Two items on Hamas TV earlier this month clearly document this.

Hamas TV broadcast a skit featuring actors playing a Jewish father and son, in traditional hassidic garb, discussing the hatred of Muslims their Jewish religion mandated. The father even revives the age-old libel that Jews drink the blood of Muslims: "Shimon, look, my son, I want to teach you a few things. You have to hate the Muslims... we want to kill the Muslims, we Jews want to drink the blood of Muslims." He later criticizes his son for washing his hands in water before prayer: "We have to wash our hands with the blood of Muslims" (Al-Aksa TV, April 3). Ironically, the Hamas accusation that Jews drink Muslim blood came the week before Passover, the anniversary of many horrific blood libels.

That same day, a Hamas religious leader ended his sermon with the promise of eventual genocide of the Jews. But to frame it properly, he opened with a depiction of Jews as the enemies of humanity: The Jews are inherently evil, seek to rule the world and are a threat to Muslims and all of humanity.

This is how Ziad Abu Alhaj framed it: "Hatred for Muhammad and Islam is in their [Jews'] souls, they are naturally disposed to it... Israel is a cancer that wants to rule the world." He concluded that the Jews are destined to be annihilated: "The time will come, by Allah's will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth" (Al-Aksa TV, April 3).

THIS DEMONIZATION and dehumanization of Jews is not limited to Hamas. Although hesitant to call for explicit murdering of Jews while seeking Western money, the PA continues its unrelenting framing of genocide as self-defense and for the common good.

In the PA-Fatah media today, Jews and Israelis are demonized through malicious libels, including such lies as the assertion that Israel intentionally spreads AIDS and drugs among Palestinians, conducts Nazi-like medical experiments on Palestinian prisoners and is planning to destroy the Aksa Mosque.

Says the Palestinian chief religious justice, Tayseer al-Tamimi: "The AIDS issue needs to receive due attention... since we neighbor a society [Israel] where the disease is widespread and which acts to transmit [AIDS] to Palestinian society. The occupying authorities, especially in Jerusalem, are working to spread drugs and drug addiction, without a doubt" (PA radio, February 17, 2008).

And this from Dr. Mutawakil Tahalk, head of the Palestinian Writers' Union and former PA deputy minister: "We saw how they [Zionists] stab bellies of pregnant women, slaughter infants and eat life in cold blood. They targeted children and the wombs of women so this people won't reproduce" (PATV, March 4, 2008).

A July 2008 article in Al-Ayyam accused Israeli settlers of releasing rats in Jerusalem's Old City "to turn the [Arab] residents' life into a living hell, forcing then to leave..." (July 17, 2008). A PA TV video clip juxtaposes scenes of a real Israeli tank with fictitious scenes of a child actor being shot, creating the fiction that Israelis deliberately target and shoot Palestinian children (PATV, May 15, 2008).

Just as the Tutsis were described as cockroaches and snakes, both Hamas and the PA have described Jews as loathsome and dangerous animals, including cockroaches, spiders, scorpions and alligators.

While each libel is somewhat different, their essence is the same: The Israelis and the Jews are dangerous, they are not human, we need to defend ourselves from them and we are clearly justified in doing so.

It is tragic that this framing of genocide as necessary self-defense has been so chillingly successful.

A poll after last year's murders of eight teenage yeshiva students found that "84 percent of Palestinians support the terror attack killing eight young students in a Jerusalem yeshiva on March 6, 2008" (Poll by Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, The New York Times, March 19, 2008). How can an entire Palestinian society support the murder of children? Clearly, the framing of Jews and Israelis as mortally dangerous to Palestinians has been totally successful.

Israel now faces a society that is very possibly past the stage of genocide framing and at the point of seeing the killing of Israelis, even teens, as justified. All that would be necessary for the population to go along with the final script, detailed so many times by its leaders, would be the means.

Contact Gadi Eshel at gadi.eshel@ptk.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by American, April 28, 2009.

This was a comment sent by Cohen to Jonah Goldberg to the Corner at National Review
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q= YzY4ZjgzMDY3NmExNmE4ODM5NDRmODg3N2I5YTU4YWI=


...Israel as the result of the national liberation movement of the region's aboriginal Jews. Liberation of the aboriginal Jews (and anyone else lucky enough to find refuge within Israel's borders) from the twin fascisms of pan-Arabism and Islamism which have oppressed and even eliminated so many of the region's aboriginal ethnic groups. Israel's aboriginal Jews were not unique in accepting outside help (and even immigration) in their liberation struggle. Lebanon's Maronites, Egypt's Copts, Iraq and Turkey's Kurds, and Iran's Zoroastrians have all sought and received outside help in their liberation struggles, each group according to its own circumstances.

Richard Cohen's remark that Israel is a "mistake" because it was a mistake to found a European Jewish state inside the "Arab" region is not only ignorant of this history, but it is self-hating in the sense that he tacitly validates the aboriginal liberation struggle of many peoples but singly denies validity to the liberation struggle of the region's aboriginal Jews.

Contact American at American1627@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Saul Goldman, April 27, 2009.

Read Isi Leibler, "Diaspora Jews And The War" in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1232643745920

So, let us ALL immediately make some phone-calls and send some faxes in response to the following call by the brave and devoted National Council of Young Israel
(http://www.youngisrael.org/) who have dared to organize a campaign, called:


The NCYI is launching a campaign which encourages people to call and e-mail the Israeli Embassy in Washington D.C. and express four fundamental points:

1. I support the State of Israel.

2. I oppose the division of Jerusalem.

3. I oppose the creation of an independent Palestinian state within Israel's borders.

4. I urge Prime Minister Netanyahu to stay strong and I support his efforts to guarantee the security of the State of Israel.

(For more information: http://www.youngisrael.org


(SUMMARY) America's stated intent to pursue an independent Palestinian state is untenable and unfeasible. Contact American political leaders and urge them not to push Israel to create a Palestinian state. Telephone and fax are better than email if you can.

If you phone, ask for message to be read back to you so you make sure it's clear: NO PALESTINIAN STATE.

White House 202-456-1111,
202-456-1414 (phone)
202-456-2461 (fax)

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
202-647-5291 (phone)

Senator John Kerry (Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee)
202-224-2742 (phone)
202-224-8525 (fax)

Congressman Howard Berman
(Chairman, Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs)
202-225-4695 (phone)
202-225-3196 (fax)

Congressman Gary Ackerman (Chairman, Congressional Subcommittee, Middle East and South Asia)
202-225-2601 (phone)
202-225-1589 (fax)

American Jews in US and Israel, please sign the following petition AND send to all of your contacts. This urges the American Jewish organizations to follow Young Israel's great lead and insist that the American government STOP twisting Israel's arm to set up a Palestinian state a bike-ride away from Jerusalem, Tel-Aviv and Ben-Gurion airport! Go to

Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 27, 2009.

When the siren sounds tonight at 8:00 across the nation, we will begin Yom HaZikaron — the Day of Remembrance — and we will pay tribute to all those who have fallen for Israel. It is because of our soldiers that we stand as a nation, and their sacrifices are keenly felt. A national ceremony will be held at the Kotel (Western Wall).

Tomorrow at 10:00 AM another siren will sound, and people all over Israel will stop what they are doing and stand silently in honor of the fallen.


So far, so good. Very good indeed.

Now Minister of Strategic Affairs (and former chief of staff) Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon has given an interview to the Jerusalem Post. Among the points he made:

— President Obama must set a time frame and benchmarks for his negotiations with Iran, or else they will use the dialogue to stall for time as they move towards nuclear capacity.
"What is happening between the Western world and the Islamic jihadists of Iran is a process that is built on previous surrenders and concessions," he said. "What the West needs to do is stand up against this wave and confront it."

If the US wants to hold dialogue with Iran, it must do so while holding the "stick of military pressure."

As to whether Israel is capable of an effective strike against Iranian facilities on her own, Yaalon replied:

"We need to hope that the job will be done by someone else and at the same time, as the Talmudic sage Hillel said, 'If I am not for myself who will be?'"

— He dismissed Hillary Clinton's statement regarding Israel's loss of support from Arab nations for action against Iran if we don't negotiate with the Palestinians as "superficial."

"I believe that this whole idea is wrong at its core."

— As to the negotiations with the Palestinians, he stressed the PA's refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, so that even at Annapolis Abbas refused to include the phrase "two states for two peoples" in a joint declaration. (see below)

"That is why the prime minister says that we want them to recognize Israel's right to be a Jewish state," he said. "This right does not depend on them [important that he clarified this!] but if they don't recognize it then there is nothing to talk about."

He rejects the Saudi plan: "From our perspective, the pre-1967 borders are not defensible. To go onto this track is dangerous."

[Note: the idea that the 1967 armistice lines were "borders" is so thoroughly ingrained in the public discourse, per the constant prodding of Palestinian PR, that even Ya'alon, who rejects return to those lines, refers to "borders."]

What the government, which is close to completing its assessment, favors, Yaalon said, is a "bottoms up" approach. This means that before anything else happens the PA has to institute serious educational, political, security and economic reforms.

This is the only thing that remotely makes sense. But Obama — who wants to impose a Palestinian state by tomorrow, damn whether it can be a successful state — is not going to like it.


The enormous irony of the US desire for talks with Iran without preconditions is that Ahmadinejad is calling for "a clear cut framework" and a "clear agenda" in talks with the Americans. This means he wants control over what will be discussed. In fact, in an ABC "This Week" interview yesterday, he said that the nuclear program was a "special issue":

"We think that the nuclear issue needs to be resolved in the context of the agency and regulations. We are just utilizing our legal rights."

Sounds to me as if he's telling the Americans that he'll be happy to talk, but not about nuclear development. Rather puts the ball in Obama's court, I think.


Never let it be said that we don't have friends (at least in some contexts). Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini proudly expresses a sense of commitment to Israel, and says that the Italian boycott of Durban 2 was required.

"...We could not participate in an event where, once again, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was manipulated and Israel labeled a racist nation, as happened in 2001. The events of [last] Monday afternoon [Ahmadinejad's talk] confirmed that foresight."

Frattini says there were three key issues in the proposed document for the conference that were of concern to Italy: approval of the Durban 2001 document, which singled out Israel; insufficient treatment of the Holocaust; and motions aimed at limiting freedom of expression regarding criticism of religions and their followers.

"An international forum on a crucial issue such as racism cannot be exploited to attack Israel," he declared. "The EU displayed political weakness and lost an occasion for expressing unity."


In point of fact, the Durban 2 conference was not quite the disaster that had been anticipated — did not have the horrific tenor of the first conference, where virulently anti-Israel groups demonstrated and documents where produced that charged Israel with every evil under the sun.

Satisfactory? Productive for the sake of human rights? Of course not. But this time we were prepared, and the willingness of several states to pull out (in part as the result of intense Israeli diplomatic effort) undercut the legitimacy of the proceedings.

My own opinion is that the organizers overplayed their hand; to have Ahmadinejad as key note speaker at a human rights conference is nothing short of farcical. Who but states such as Libya and Cuba could find him acceptable?

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay added to the sense of farce when she concluded the conference on Friday by calling it "a celebration of tolerance and dignity for all."

So much for what we can expect from the UN. Frattini recalled a former American proposal (I believe it was by John Bolton) that Western democracies form a separate coalition.


Precisely what has gotten into King Abdullah of Jordan?

In the US, he met with President Obama and called for serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians based on the concept of two states. Then, on the "Meet the Press" television show yesterday, he referred to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the "core issue" of the Middle East. Not only is he advocating strenuously for a Palestinian state, he has suggested that one of the main reasons that Iran is working towards nuclear development is because Palestinians are suffering and there is the matter of Jerusalem [which is in Israeli hands].

Now, really... If you know the ideology of the Mullahs in Iran, and their goal of controlling the entire region in order to impose Shiite Islam, and you know that the US is referred to as the Big Satan, you know that a whole lot more than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict occupies them.

But see for yourself:
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30418412#30418412 (Thanks, Bob H.)

Until not long ago it was well known in intelligence circles that Abdullah preferred Israel at his border rather than a PA state. What he feared was a Hamas take-over that would cause instability in his nation. And now?

I'm not sure how to read him. Is he playing to Obama (very likely)? Afraid that Netanyahu might propose a federation of Palestinian areas with Jordan?


Pope Benedict XVI is coming to Israel on May 16, and the signals about what is likely to transpire when he's here are not positive. He is scheduled to visit Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem — as well as the nearby al-Aida UNRWA refugee camp, where he will preach.

Fouad Twal, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Holy Land, said yesterday that the camp "symbolizes the refugees' suffering and their right of return." Their right of return?

According to YNet, the stage hosting the Pope was supposed to be built in a school yard, but Palestinians violated an agreement regarding this with Israel (which controls the area) and built the stage instead near the security fence. A demolition order has been issued and the stage is supposed to be re-built.

Insisted Twal: "The fence will be seen from the location of the pope's seat."

In due course there will be more to say on this issue.


PA President Mahmoud Abbas gave an impassioned speech in Ramallah today:

"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean? You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly," he declared.

Accepting a "Jewish state" would mean relinquishing the "right of return" — which is, in fact, a device for ensuring an Arab majority inside Israel, and which has been promoted among the people as a sacred and inalienable right. The current Palestinian position is not "two states for two people," but ultimately "two states for one people."

"All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept."

The Palestinians would have not only Har Habayit — the Temple Mount — but also the Kotel, with no sharing.

He further said that there will be no negotiations unless Netanyahu puts a total freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, something Netanyahu has said he does not intend to do.

No negotiations? That's fine.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 26, 2009.

This article was written by Hal G. P. Colebatch and appeared April 21, 2009 in The Australian
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25361297- 7583,00.html?from=public_rss

Hal G. P. Colebatch's Blair's Britain was chosen as a book of the year by The Spectator in 1999.


BRITAIN appears to be evolving into the first modern soft totalitarian state. As a sometime teacher of political science and international law, I do not use the term totalitarian loosely.

There are no concentration camps or gulags but there are thought police with unprecedented powers to dictate ways of thinking and sniff out heresy, and there can be harsh punishments for dissent.

Nikolai Bukharin claimed one of the Bolshevik Revolution's principal tasks was "to alter people's actual psychology".

Britain is not Bolshevik, but a campaign to alter people's psychology and create a new Homo britannicus is under way without even a fig leaf of disguise.

The Government is pushing ahead with legislation that will criminalise politically incorrect jokes, with a maximum punishment of up to seven years' prison.

The House of Lords tried to insert a free-speech amendment, but Justice Secretary Jack Straw knocked it out. It was Straw who previously called for a redefinition of Englishness and suggested the "global baggage of empire" was linked to soccer violence by "racist and xenophobic white males".

He claimed the English "propensity for violence" was used to subjugate Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and that the English as a race were "potentially very aggressive".

In the past 10 years I have collected reports of many instances of draconian punishments, including the arrest and criminal prosecution of children, for thought-crimes and offences against political correctness.

Countryside Restoration Trust chairman and columnist Robin Page said at a rally against the Government's anti-hunting laws in Gloucestershire in 2002: "If you are a black vegetarian Muslim asylum-seeking one-legged lesbian lorry driver, I want the same rights as you." Page was arrested, and after four months he received a letter saying no charges would be pressed, but that: "If further evidence comes to our attention whereby your involvement is implicated, we will seek to initiate proceedings." It took him five years to clear his name.

Page was at least an adult. In September 2006, a 14-year-old schoolgirl, Codie Stott, asked a teacher if she could sit with another group to do a science project as all the girls with her spoke only Urdu. The teacher's first response, according to Stott, was to scream at her: "It's racist, you're going to get done by the police!" Upset and terrified, the schoolgirl went outside to calm down. The teacher called the police and a few days later, presumably after officialdom had thought the matter over, she was arrested and taken to a police station, where she was fingerprinted and photographed.

According to her mother, she was placed in a bare cell for 3 1/2 hours. She was questioned on suspicion of committing a racial public order offence and then released without charge. The school was said to be investigating what further action to take, not against the teacher, but against Stott. Headmaster Anthony Edkins reportedly said: "An allegation of a serious nature was made concerning a racially motivated remark. We aim to ensure a caring and tolerant attitude towards pupils of all ethnic backgrounds and will not stand for racism in any form."

A 10-year-old child was arrested and brought before a judge, for having allegedly called an 11-year-old boya "Paki" and "bin Laden" during a playground argument at a primary school (the other boy had called him a skunk and a Teletubby).

When it reached the court the case had cost taxpayers pound stg. 25,000. The accused was so distressed that he had stopped attending school.

The judge, Jonathan Finestein, said: "Have we really got to the stage where we are prosecuting 10-year-old boys because of political correctness? There are major crimes out there and the police don't bother to prosecute. This is nonsense."

Finestein was fiercely attacked by teaching union leaders, as in those witch-hunt trials where any who spoke in defence of an accused or pointed to defects in the prosecution were immediately targeted as witches and candidates for burning.

Hate-crime police investigated Basil Brush, a puppet fox on children's television, who had made a joke about Gypsies. The BBC confessed that Brush had behaved inappropriately and assured police that the episode would be banned.

A bishop was warned by the police for not having done enough to "celebrate diversity", the enforcing of which is now apparently a police function.

A Christian home for retired clergy and religious workers lost a grant because it would not reveal to official snoopers how many of the residents were homosexual. That they had never been asked was taken as evidence of homophobia.

Muslim parents who objected to young children being given books advocating same-sex marriage and adoption at one school last year had their wishes respected and the offending material withdrawn.

This year, Muslim and Christian parents at another school objecting to the same material have not only had their objections ignored but have been threatened with prosecution if they withdraw their children.

There have been innumerable cases in recent months of people in schools, hospitals and other institutions losing their jobs because of various religious scruples, often, as in the East Germany of yore, not shouted fanatically from the rooftops but betrayed in private conversations and reported to authorities.

The crime of one nurse was to offer to pray for a patient, who did not complain but merely mentioned the matter to another nurse. A primary school receptionist, Jennie Cain, whose five-year-old daughter was told off for talking about Jesus in class, faces the sack for seeking support from her church. A private email from her to other members of the church asking for prayers fell into the hands of school authorities.

Permissiveness as well as draconianism can be deployed to destroy socially accepted norms and values.

The Royal Navy, for instance, has installed a satanist chapel in a warship to accommodate the proclivities of a satanist crew member.

"What would Nelson have said?" is a British newspaper cliche about navy scandals, but in this case seems a legitimate question. Satanist paraphernalia is also supplied to prison inmates who need it.

This campaign seems to come from unelected or quasi-governmental bodies controlling various institutions, which are more or less unanswerable to electors, more than it does directly from the Government, although the Government helps drive it and condones it in a fudged and deniable manner.

Any one of these incidents might be dismissed as an aberration, but taken together — and I have only mentioned a tiny sample; more are reported almost every day — they add up to a pretty clear picture.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marcia Leal, April 26, 2009.

This was written by David Solway and appeared April 24, 2009 in Front Page Magazine
www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/authors.aspx?GUID= 7a24074e-e5a5-49be-9f5f-2c5c5ed1c17d

David Solway is the award-winning author of over twenty-five books of poetry, criticism, educational theory, and travel. He is a contributor to magazines as varied as the Atlantic, the Sewanee Review, Books in Canada, and the Partisan Review. His most recent book is The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity.


At the infamous Evian Conference that met on the shores of Lake Geneva in 1938, the Jewish victims of Nazi oppression were betrayed by Western leaders, who protested against the Nazi atrocities but steadfastly refused to help the growing number of Jewish refugees. Today, once again on the shores of Lake Geneva, another international conference has been convened, ostensibly against racism, discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance, but as everyone knows its principal purpose is to shield the real abusers of human rights from censure while vilifying and scapegoating the Jewish state. Same approximate venue, same approximate agenda.

Thus, when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered his defamatory anti-Israeli speech at the Palace of Nations on Monday of this week, the general reaction was to be expected. It was unanimously deplored by duly offended European leaders, but the underlying reality was very different. Many walked out but, when it came to the conference itself, most walked straight back in.

Though properly scandalized, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner downplayed Ahmadinejad's virulent remarks as "predictable" and opined that the conference was "not a failure at all but the beginning of a success" (Jerusalem Post, April 21, 2009). Neither was the European Union much disturbed beneath its veneer of practised indignation, releasing a statement to the effect that it had "no outstanding difficulty of substance" with the Durban II draft document. It then committed itself, with the exception of a sprinkling of member states, to participate fully in the proceedings.

This capitulation was both as shameful and as "predictable" as Ahmadinejad's malignant speech, and betokened, to adjust Kouchner's rhetoric, not the beginning of a success but a careening failure of will, nerve and intelligence, shared by the West as a whole. Our political leaders, the majority of our public intellectuals and the mainstream media have not realized, or myopically refuse to realize, what is at stake as the historical drama in which we are implicated unfolds — a drama in which Iran and Israel are the central actors.

Let us imagine a terrifying possibility. We know that Iran has vowed to unleash nuclear havoc upon Israel. Should Israel respond in kind, as it would have every right to do, the damage may not be confined to a localized area. Many people are callous enough to accept the nuclear probability of Tel Aviv and Tehran reduced to rubble and ash, so long as they can get on with their lives. What they do not realize is that they too are in the line of fire.

An atomic missile falling on Kharg Island, for example, Iran's major oil depot in the Persian Gulf, would ignite a radioactive oil fire that could probably not be extinguished and the skies would gradually darken over us all. Such a conflagration would more likely than not have to burn itself out, when it might well be too late to recover from its effect on climate and agriculture. Israel would undoubtedly do its utmost to avoid striking such installations, but Iran remains one vast inflammable oil well. An errant nuclear-tipped missile, launched from either side, may have planetary consequences.

Krakatoa would be as nothing in comparison. Saddam lighting up a number of oil wells in Kuwait would not even qualify as a harbinger of what would occur — we recall that it took several months for American engineers to control a relatively minor irritation in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. We are now living what may be the most precarious moment in the recorded history of the world as we continue to play the dangerous game of Iranian roulette — the game in which not one but five of the six chambers are loaded.

Antisemites would probably argue that Israel and not Iran is the danger and therefore it is Israel that should be dealt with before an imminent Iranian attack. Such an attitude gets its priorities backwards and is, of course, pure evasive nonsense to boot. The fact is that Israel can only be bullied so far and no farther. It will not go docilely nor should it be expected to forgive an "international community" that has abandoned the Jewish people yet once again to the spectre of extermination.

In the current play of innocuous strategies vis à vis Iran, of abject appeasement and feeble sanction, juicy carrot and twig-like stick, this is not a fifth act we should placidly discount. Former American ambassador to the UN John Bolton, one of our most reliable analysts, has warned that "there are no incentives that will dissuade Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons" (Newsmax, January 28, 2009). And so far, no disincentives either. If Ahmadinejad gets his way, the still-concealed Twelfth Imam, who is said to bring a new "world order" in fire and brimstone and raise the Caliphate upon its embers, may not remain in occultation for much longer.

* *

According to the Iranian newspaper Kargozaran for March 16, 2008, Cabinet Secretary Majid Doostali explained that "just as Imam Zaman's occultation had a prelude and a main period, his return too has a prelude and a main period," and that Ahmadinejad's administration "was the prelude to the return." The President of the Islamic Management Scientific Society at the Qom Seminary School, one Hojjatoleslam Sammameddin Ghavani, has even proposed the establishment of a "Ministry of Waiting" to facilitate the arrival of the Hidden Imam. Ahmadinejad has announced that the Imam Zaman would emerge from occultation within two years — the period of waiting (Rooz Online Iran, August 26, 2008).

Skeptical westerners who would pass this off as merely a quaint belief not to be taken seriously should reconsider. In Radical Islam: Medieval Theology and Modern Politics, historian Emmanuel Sivan warns of precisely this menace in his discussion of Shi'a belief and thought, its vision of an "ideal, legitimate state to be instituted by its leader, the Hidden Imam." Over the course of history, he writes, a "minority of Shi'ites, quite substantial and dangerous at times, would move from pessimistic idealism to an optimistic brand of the same approach — the imam's arrival is imminent, God's kingdom is bound to be brought upon earth by this messiah (mahdi), and one should help precipitate its descent by armed revolt" (emphasis added).

Ahmadinejad has made clear his intention to prompt the advent of the Mahdi by initiating an act of apocalyptic violence. It's not a bad plan from the Imamic perspective. Accelerate the Mahdi's arrival by bringing about a nuclear cataclysm and reap the reward of either of two outcomes. Israel is destroyed and Iran survives since, as Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani has informed us, Iran can absorb "thirty or forty million martyrs" in its march toward a global Caliphate. Alternatively, Iran is also consumed and very possibly the world along with it, a global conquest to be savored from a position of vantage in Jannah, the Garden of Eternal Delights. Either way, victory.

Fear-mongering? Think again. Those who would argue that such a scenario makes no sense and is in fact counter-productive have simply not grasped the metality in question. A nuclear weapon is only a bigger suicide bomb and there are prospective "martyrs" aplenty. You die the same whether you are wearing an explosive vest or, like Dr. Strangelove, riding a nuclear bomb to earth.

We are told by the pundits, secure in their upholstery, that the mullahs like the good life and Ahmadinejad relishes his junketing too much to jeopardize such advantages. Besides, the Iranians are busy signing trade deals with diverse European nations, which suggests they envisage a viable future. If that is the case, why then have they announced their morbid purpose in advance of carrying it out, putting Israel on alert and inviting a pre-emptive strike which would instantly deprive them of the perks they are said to enjoy and render their trade deals null and void? Why even take the chance?

The game is obviously not worth the radioactive candle — unless it is not a game at all. The aim is to ensure that Iran stays afloat while it prepares to accomplish its mission, predicated on the calculated risk that neither srael nor America will intervene in time to deflect its trajectory. It's a gamble, but one the Iranians are confident they can win. (And they certainly have nothing to worry about from a flaccid and propitiatory Europe.) We should make no mistake about this. Iran itself is the missile that is gradually being armed and fueled. True, there is madness in the method, but the method is nonetheless singularly effective, given the intention.

We should do well to keep in mind that we are not treating with a cadre of lucid and sensible actors who can be trusted to be reasonable — as we understand reasonableness. They are labile, invidious and locked in a mental universe that is utterly foreign to our own. When, after the signing of the Balfour Declaration, Israel's first President Chaim Weizmann said, "We hear the steps of the Messiah," he was speaking metaphorically. When Ahmadinejad and his gang talk of the coming of the Mahdi, they mean it quite literally, and therein lies the peril. In his pledge to "wipe Israel off the map," the second part of Ahmadinejad's statement was not reported by the mainstream press: "as the Imam said."

The original statement delivered in Farsi at the "World without Zionism" conference held in Tehran on October 26, 2005 translates literally as: Israel "must be erased from the page of time," a slogan draped across Shihab-3 missiles at military parades, which makes the intent rather obvious. "Wiped off the map" is the non-literal translation provided by the New York Times. The Iranian newscaster who reported the address phrased the purport of the statement as "erasing Israel, this disgraceful stain, from the world."

Many of Iran's enablers in Western intellectual and political circles, such as Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, Jonathan Steele of the Guardian, Stephen Walt of "Israel Lobby" fame, the despicable Jimmy Carter and American Congressmen Denis Kucinich and Ron Paul, have tried to soft-pedal Ahmadinejad's threat. The Economist's Middle East correspondent Max Rodendeck speaks dismissively of Iran's "nuclear gadgetry." This is like putting Jimmy Carter before the hearse. The downward appraisal by the American National Intelligence Estimate of Iran's nuclear program, which reduced the threat index and thereby mitigated the urgency of the situation, turns out to have been totally misguided. It was subsequently reversed by director Michael McConnell at a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on February 5, 2008.

Ahmadinejad, who plainly belongs to Sivan's "substantial and dangerous" minority, is in many quarters regarded as a "clown" whose invitations to speak at prestigious political and educational institutions and whose media-reported rants are therefore harmless, as, for example, his ludicrous claim at the United Nations food summit in Rome in June 2008 that Zionism is responsible for rising food prices throughout the world. People forget that Hitler in the early days of his rule was similarly regarded, before he started another world war and presided over a genocide.

Ahmadinejad looks and acts like a small-time crook, but he will soon have his finger on a big-time button. Nor should we be deceived by his apparent buffoonery. He means what he says and he needs to be taken at his word.

* *

Political madmen should not be indulged and coddled by presumably saner people since such madmen are usually far more ruthless and far shrewder — and far madder — than they are assumed to be. Political madmen need to be disarmed, neutralized or taken out, one way or another. The British government and the German industrialists who tolerated Hitler learned their lesson too late and were no less responsible than the German Chancellor himself for inflicting carnage upon the world. The Holocaust was their doing as well. For by their indifference to or secret sympathy with the Nazi project, they were equally complicit.

But the current situation is not strictly analogous. To begin with, we live in the nuclear age — there is no margin for error. Politically speaking, many of us appear to behave as if we were suffering from an advanced stage of retardation. We are still susceptible to a kind of Maginot-thought, always fighting the last war, or even the one before that. This leisurely approach to geopolitical reality is not only passé but potentially catastrophic.

Further, Jews now have their own nation and are no longer powerless to react or to exact vengeance. For if Israel finds itself in the throes of annihilation in a second Holocaust, left to smoulder in the world's guilty unconcern, no one can dictate to it what its response should be. And no one should consider himself exempt from the consequences.

It is time to rub the slumber from our eyes. Should Iran carry out its promise to destroy Israel, whether directly or by proxy, thus hastening the looming parousia of the long-awaited Mahdi, and Israel retaliate in nuclear reprisal, the region will be set ablaze. The fact that the world economy would crater far more severely than anything we are experiencing today is almost beside the point. Far worse, the effect on the global ecology might well be disastrous and possibly terminal, and we, too, like our foolish predecessors, will have learned too late that blindness and make-believe never work. The writing is not only on the wall; it is in the documents, the proclamations, the newspapers, the texts of speeches. All we need do is read.

Our attention has been distracted by other volatile nuclear powers, such as Pakistan and North Korea. Pakistan in particular, if the inchmeal approach of the Taliban toward the capital is not halted, will need to be robustly confronted. But in an oil-drenched region primed to go up in flames, in which one nation is acquiring offensive nuclear ordnance which it vows to use and another is ready to respond defensively, the immediate world-threat is Iran. It must be dealt with in short order, whether militarily or economically, and its nuclear designs effectively negated.

For if we do not wake up, the day may dawn when we do not wake up.

Contact Marcia Leal at marcia.leal.eejh@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David P. Steinman, April 26, 2009.

This was posted by Alaska Paul on the April 24, 2009 Civil, Well-Reasoned Discourse Rantburg website:
Comments are in italics and [square brackets].


WASHINGTON — A leading ally of President Barack Obama and critic of the Israel lobby in the United States has outlined a proposed U.S. campaign to pressure Israel that would suspend the intelligence dialogue between the two countries.

Because even though Hamas wants all the Juice dead, and Fatah wants them dead, and Islamic Jihad wants them dead, the Israelis have to endorse a two-state solution and bend on the right of return.

Israel's "special relationship" with the United States has been low-hanging fruit for the unrelenting and politically victorious critics of the Bush administration's War on Terror which targeted militants in Iraq, Iran and Syria in coordination with Israel's security agencies.

Stephen Walt, a U.S. professor of international affairs at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, who co-authored with John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago a controversial study on the Israeli lobby in the United States, has drafted recommendations for the Obama administration to pressure the new Israeli government of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank.

[Any guarantees of Israeli security? crickets]

Walt, regarded as influential in the U.S. diplomatic community, said the campaign should begin by administration criticism of Israel and support for United Nations resolutions that condemn the Jewish state.

"U.S. officials could even describe Israel's occupation [of the West Bank] as 'contrary to democracy,' 'unwise,' 'cruel,' or 'unjust,'" Walt wrote in the U.S. magazine Foreign Policy. "Altering the rhetoric would send a clear signal to the Israeli government and its citizens that their government's opposition to a two-state solution was jeopardizing the special relationship."

[What about Hamas and their opposition to a two-state solution?]

Netanyahu was scheduled to fly to Washington to meet Obama in May 2009. But on April 16, the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot reported that Netanyahu was expected to cancel his visit amid an assessment that Obama would refuse to meet the Israeli prime minister.

"Within four years there will be a permanent settlement between Israel and Palestinians," White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel was quoted by Yediot as saying. "We don't care who the prime minister is."

[A bit arrogant, doncha think?]

Walt's report, titled "Can the United States Put Pressure on Israel: A User's Guide." marked the latest recommendations to the Obama administration to revise U.S. policy toward Israel.

In March 2009, a report by a bipartisan panel of foreign policy analysts called on the White House to pressure Israel as part of an effort to resolve the U.S. conflict with the Arab world.

The book by Walt and Mearshimer, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, generated controversy but also served to validate a growing alternative foreign policy consensus for a new administration elected in large part on the basis of the repudiation of the 43rd U.S. president.

But the book was also repudiated by such ideologically opposed former foreign policy officials as former Secretary of State (1982-89) George Shultz and former N.Y. Times correspondent and former President of the Council on Foreign Relations Leslie Gelb.

"Anyone who thinks that Jewish groups constitute a homogeneous 'lobby' ought to spend some time dealing with them," Shultz wrote in the U.S. News and World Report. "For example, my decision to open a dialogue with Yasser Arafat after he met certain conditions evoked a wide spectrum of responses from the government of Israel, its political parties, and American Jewish groups who weighed in on one side or the other. ... The United States supports Israel not because of favoritism based on political pressure or influence but because the American people, and their leaders, say that supporting Israel is politically sound and morally just. ... So, on every level, those who blame Israel and its Jewish supporters for U.S. policies they do not support are wrong. They are wrong because, to begin with, support for Israel is in our best interests. They are also wrong because Israel and its supporters have the right to try to influence U.S. policy. And they are wrong because the U.S. government is responsible for the policies it adopts, not any other state or any of the myriad lobbies and groups that battle daily — sometimes with lies — to win America's support."

Leslie Gelb wrote in the New York Times Book Review that the scholarship was shoddy and that the authors were biased. "More troublingly, [Walt and Mearsheimer] dont seriously review the facts of the two most critical issues to Israel and the lobby — arms sales to Arab states and the question of a Palestinian state — matters on which the American position has consistently run counter to the so-called all-powerful Jewish lobby. For several decades, administration after administration has sold Saudi Arabia and other Arab states first-rate modern weapons, against the all-out opposition of Israel and the lobby. And make no mistake, these arms have represented genuine security risks to Israel... And on the policy issue that has counted most to Israel and the lobby — preventing the United States from accepting a Palestinian state prior to a negotiated deal between Israel and the Palestinians — its fair to say Washington has quietly sided with the Palestinians for a long time."

Walt warned against any immediate attempt by Obama to reduce the $3 billion in annual U.S. military aid to Israel. He said this would result in a battle with the Democratic-controlled Congress. "There's a lot of potential leverage here, but it's probably not the best stick to use, at least not at first," Walt said.

"Trying to trim or cut the aid package will trigger an open and undoubtedly ugly confrontation in Congress — where the influence of AIPAC and other hard-line groups in the Israel lobby is greatest. So that's not where I'd start."

But Walt urged Obama to reduce U.S. strategic cooperation with Israel. He said the administration could suspend the dialogue between the Israeli and U.S. intelligence communities as well as that of the Israeli military and the Defense Department. "Today, such a step would surely get the attention of Israel's security establishment," Walt said.

[And would get the attention of Iran and its proxies.

And deprive us of needed intel. Nice thinking, Walt ...]

Walt also recommended that the United States reduce its procurement of Israeli defense equipment, another step that would not require congressional approval. Israel has sold a range of armor, munitions and platforms deployed by the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Now we are talking about jeopardizing the lives of our troops. Our military picks equipment for its forces from Israel based upon performance.]

"Obama could instruct Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to slow or decrease these purchases, which would send an unmistakable signal that it was no longer business-as-usual," Walt said. "Given the battering Israel's economy has taken in the current global recession, this step would get noticed too. And most of these measures could be implemented by the Executive Branch alone, thereby outflanking die-hard defenders of the special relationship in Congress."

[That also means lessening the links of cooperation between the US Military and the IDF. We do share information and tactics for mutual survival against a common enemy. The ramifications of Obama's policies are far ranging and serious, if not deadly.]

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 26, 2009.

I would like to go back to the positions espoused by PM Netanyahu and FM Lieberman — which I referred to Friday with relief and satisfaction — in order to consider the possibilities and the ramifications in a bit more detail.

I've received comments from some readers regarding the fact that our government should "just say no": Should tell the international community that negotiating with the Palestinians is not in our best interest and that we will not do so.

There's no question about the fact that when our government finally works out its policy with regard to dealing with Palestinians — which will be done within the month, before Netanyahu goes to Washington to meet with Obama — there will be those who will see our prime minister as having softened and started down the road to something that he shouldn't be doing. For it's likely that he will be agreeing to some form of negotiations with the Palestinians under certain conditions.


But, as I see it, our government has an incredibly tough job to do.

I most certainly believe that we must speak up for ourselves and stand strong — I hope this is obvious. The world won't respect us unless we respect ourselves and defend our rights.

We've demeaned ourselves seriously over the last few years with an eagerness to make one-side concessions. This cannot and will not be undone in a day. There is a process. We cannot operate in a vacuum and cannot go back in time some 18 years (not all at once, certainly).

The painful reality is that we've had governments that lost their way. Governments that caved and appeased.


But there's more involved than simply appeasing. There has been a failure by these governments to tell our narrative — to promote our history and our legal rights. It was so bad that at certain times there were orders coming from our foreign ministry — mostly notably when Shimon Peres headed that ministry — blocking the release of negative information about the Palestinians. If the people knew the worst, you see, they wouldn't have supported the "peace process."

But while we were being "reticent" in the name of peace, the Palestinians were doing their utmost to promote their narrative and their spin on history. They have no respect for truth in this regard, play the "victim" to the hilt, and have been very effective.

So what we have today is a world that believes there is a "people" called the Palestinians, who were indigenous in this land, and have an absolute right to a state here. Many have been erroneously convinced that the '67 armistice lines represent our "true" borders, and, unquestionably, there is a good percentage of those in the international community that also perceives the "refugees" as having a "right of return."


There has been a breathtaking tendency within the Western world to cut the Palestinians slack, and an eagerness to fund them at unprecedented levels without demanding genuine accountability. For reasons that are not rational, the world is caught up in the notion that this group of Arabs is particularly deserving of support — while the Kurds (a genuine people seeking a state), the suffering people of Darfur, as well as many others, receive far less in the way of attention and assistance.

There are, additionally, self-righteous leftists who are actually willing to accept that terrorism committed by Palestinians isn't really terrorism, but rather, as the Palestinians explain, simply a response to the "occupation."

Perhaps the most terrible part of it all is that there is some part of the Israeli populace that has forgotten who it is and buys into at least some of the Palestinian narrative, as well. Tzipi Livni espoused a position that was self-demeaning drivel. But a lot of people, we must remember, voted for her.


With all of this is yet one other factor. Our various governments signed on/consented to agreements — starting with Oslo. We cannot pretend this didn't happen. Within a democracy there is a level at which each government must honor what came before. Our current government is examining the parameters here, which are complex. Verbal agreements — anything promised by Olmert, for example — are not binding. The Road Map may not be binding because it had a time frame that has elapsed.


So, here we have Netanyahu and his government, who must try to analyze what a proper stand is, minimize damage, and forthrightly protect Israeli interests.

We have stepped back from full control of Palestinian population areas in Judea and Samaria (while we still move in for security purposes). They control their local affairs such as schools and municipal governments, and have broader representation via the PA, which maintains radio and press. And we have permitted them to develop their security/army forces, which receive American assistance. We are not about to move back in militarily, throw out the PA, and assume complete control of these areas now.

So what do we do?


The first thing I'm seeing, which is what I applauded, is that our leaders are starting the process of changing the paradigm of thinking on this issue. "This isn't about settlers," said Lieberman. "The West Bank is disputed territory," declared Netanyahu. They're both absolutely right. These things and a thousand others must be said again and again, until perceptions begin to shift.

Oslo didn't call for a full Palestinian state. (Surprised?) UN Resolution 242, after the Six Day war, didn't even mention Palestinians. There is a requirement in various agreements that the Palestinians cease incitement, but their textbooks still promote Jihad. An on, and on, and on.


I certainly cannot speak for particulars — not only am I not on the inside, they haven't been defined yet. But the broad sense of what I'm seeing is that Netanyahu envisions some sort of autonomy for the Palestinians that is short of full sovereignty. He wants to retain control in a variety of dimensions — their borders, their airspace, etc. — and insists on demilitarization. His position is that a full sovereignty would threaten our security — as indeed it would.

This, at some point, theoretically would require negotiations with the Palestinians.

But what Netanyahu is talking about is reciprocity. I would be very shocked and disappointed if he went the route of "showing good faith" and conceding something to the Palestinians. There's reason to believe that he intends to demand that they get their act together and do the things they're supposed to do (and we might easily start with those textbooks). In addition, I would hope, there would be an insistence that the Palestinians show willingness to compromise — that's one part of reciprocity.

It has been made clear that Jerusalem will not be on the table, nor will the relinquishment of areas necessary for security. No return to '67 lines, certainly, or dismantlement of major settlements. And no deal of any kind until the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Thus do I say that a proposed autonomy would "theoretically" require negotiations. Because no PA negotiating team would sit down with an Israeli government that won't at least consider meeting their stipulations — which are maximalist in the extreme. To put it simply, if they did they would be endangering their lives.


Is it within the realm of possibility that as the Palestinians scream and yell that Israel is not sincere about wanting peace (something Abbas is already doing) they will successfully prevail on the international community to heavily pressure Israel — and that Netanyahu will then cave?

Yes, it is. We remain deeply hopeful, but not at ease. Vigilance is the order of the day.

(King Abdullah of Jordan told the Post that Netanyahu is "saying the right words" with regard to peace with the Palestinians —
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710783445&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull.)

The possibilities are absolutely nil that Netanyahu would cave to a degree that would actually satisfy the Palestinians. Certainly he wouldn't sign off on return to '67 lines, division of Jerusalem, etc. etc. Thus I don't see any danger of a Palestinian state actually being formed.

What I do fear, however, is the possibility of erosion of that newly emerging strong stand on behalf of Israel. We cannot re-educate our own people and shift the paradigm of thinking internationally unless we are consistent in demanding our rights and expressing our national dignity.


I will add here — as a point of information — that there have been other proposals for dealing with the Palestinians beyond giving them a state, the most notable being (former MK and Rabbi) Benny Elon's "Right Road to Peace," which envisions an autonomous area, with local self rule and ultimately enfranchisement via Jordan. This is a plan that I thoroughly endorse.

In this plan, Israel retains sovereignty over all the land to the Jordan River. The Palestinians would be treated as a group living inside of Israel that is entitled to local autonomy and has citizenship elsewhere. This is more desirable than the Netanyahu plan, which, as I understand it, would grant land areas to the Palestinians for their autonomy.

Elon's plan also calls for the complete dismantlement of UNRWA and resettlement of the "refugees" in other places. The necessity of doing away with UNRWA is frequently overlooked, but it is one I will return to. It is years ago that I first wrote, in a major report on UNRWA, that there can be no peace here until the refugee issue is resolved — UNRWA promotes and sustains that refugee status.


Additionally, there have been proposals that Jordan federate with/annex Judea and Samaria — or, more accurately, the parts of it that would be Palestinian areas, and that Egypt do the same with respect to Gaza. There is some solid rationale for this, as these countries controlled these respective areas from 1949-67, and the cultural linkages are strong. Terrorism would then be dealt with by the forces of the respective states involved. And the Palestinians would not have to develop an independent economy.

The stumbling block, of course, is a reluctance on the part of Jordan and Egypt. As well, there is a serious issue of having an extended Egyptian border adjacent to us: Gaza has always been seen as a roadblock to Egyptian infiltration into Israel in time of war.


I turn now, as promised, to a look at what Sec. of State Clinton is saying.

Last week she met with the House Foreign Appropriations Middle East Subcommittee, with regard to the Obama administration's allocation of $840 million for the Palestinians. The policy she enunciated was this:

Were a unity government of Hamas and Fatah to be established, the US would work with that government only if it agreed to abide by Quartet stipulations, and all the ministers appointed to that government were on board with these stipulations.

However, there would be no requirement that Hamas itself, as a party to the unity government, also declare itself in conformity with those stipulations.

Can you believe it? Believe it.

This is exactly what Fatah leader Mohammad Dahlan told Hamas not long ago: Join us in a unity government. We won't ask you to recognize Israel or past agreements. Only the unity government will have to do this.

I mocked this convoluted approach when Dahlan said it, and I mock it now. It's game playing.

Some of the Congresspersons meeting with Clinton were less than enamored with her suggestion.

Mark Kirk (D-IL) wanted to consider an amendment to the allocations that would prevent this "flexibility." He said he had just spoken with King Abdullah of Jordan, who had told him that Hamas ministers follow orders from Teheran.

Adam Schiff (D-CA) said to Clinton, "it seems to me unworkable to have Hamas organizing terrorist attacks against Israel at the same time it has the power to appoint ministers to a coalition. "

Nita Lowey (D-NY) expressed similar concerns.


Clinton suggested that Obama wanted to pursue this policy not just in the matter of allocations, but also with regard to "peace negotiations."

Obama is really eager to push those "peace negations" along. And so, if a unity government were to be established, we would be asked to negotiate with it even though one of its constituent parties still embraced terrorism.

Demonstrates a deep and enduring commitment to our security, does it not? Mitchell, when he was here, assured us this would be the case. Right?


Fatah and Hamas are actually coming together in Cairo again today for one last effort at establishing that unity government. According to Khaled Abu Toameh, chances of success are considered slim, as neither side is prepared to adjust its stance and wide gaps remain.

A key source of disagreement is the eagerness by Fatah to demonstrate acceptance of previous agreements with Israel. While Hamas, for its part, accuses Fatah of being a pawn of Israel and the US, with Fatah coordinating with the US in the training of security forces.

Both Hamas and Fatah are accusing the other of arresting members of their party.


And one last word about Hillary, who also said:

"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts...they go hand-in-hand.

"If there is such an approach, then a lot of the Arab countries are saying to us there will be a sequencing of support that will strengthen the region's response to Iran."

This is the sort of blackmail that we can expect from the Obama government. On the face of it, it's nonsense. The Arab countries aren't doing Israel a favor by supporting efforts against Iran. They're doing themselves a favor — they're plenty frightened. In fact, while they would be loathe to say so publicly, there are Gulf states that would be glad to see Israel take on Iran.

Israel's readiness to establish a Palestinian state would be irrelevant to the Arab states in this context. Especially is this so as most of the Arab states don't really care a wit about the Palestinians. Their pressure for a Palestinian state is simply a technique for weakening Israel.

Apparently State Department spokesman Robert Wood reflected an understanding of what nonsense Hillary had spoken, when he said on Friday that "these are two separate issues, and we believe they can be dealt with simultaneously...we must and can deal with these issues, these separate issues, very seriously."

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, April 26, 2009.
It seems that the old, weak, spurned Bibi of Wye and Hebron is here again. Prime Minister Netanyahu is being pressured to appoint Professor Michael Oren as Ambassador to the U.S. Oren espouses his theory that the Palestinians, Syrians, Iranians and all Muslims will accept a Jewish State if Israel abandons Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights, all the settlements and a divided Jerusalem.

This surrender would cause the expulsion of between 300,000 and 500,000 Jewish men, women and children from their Land, homes, farms, businesses, schools, universities, holy sites, synagogues and all other Jewish-built infrastructure. The loss of their ways of life — the cost of the lost infrastructure — the future costs of re-settling half a million Jews are all incalculable — so far. Whatever numbers you could possibly imagine would probably be a vast under-estimate of the real costs in human life and real money.

Are these merely the fantasies of a naive, unworldly Professor? Many in the academic world (not all) cannot deal with reality and opt for 'visions' instead. Moreover, if Bibi does actually appoint Oren, it would be a clear statement that Prime Minister Netanyahu not only agrees with Professor Oren's theories (visions), but that he (Bibi) intends to implement them according to the 'dictats' of the Wahhabi Muslim Saudi King's plans. These are also the 'diktats' of President Obama and his advisory team of Jew-hating Arabists. If you thought only Left-leaning politicians have a franchise on stupidity, think again.

We just went through the treachery of Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and Tzipi Livni — only to discover the syndrome of surrendering Land to a vicious culture of Islam is still with us through the warped thinking of the new Prime Minister who thought it appropriate to retain Ehud Barak who (when he was Prime Minister) desperately tried to gift 97% of the territories to Yassir Arafat.

Surely, there must be mind-altering drinking water in Jerusalem to create a contingent of such psychopathic leaders who seem determined to commit national suicide in the name of the Israeli people. It's time for an overdue garbage pick-up of addled politicians to be dumped on the ash heap of history.

A politician once bought is easily purchased again and again. It's just a matter of negotiating the price. It might be appropriate to send Netanyahu a card with a spine — (taken from any medical photo) reminding him that he once had a stiff spine — like his brother, Yoni's. But, over the years his has become like rubber whenever he meets America diplomatic Arabists.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will soon go to Washington where Hillary Clinton will give him marching orders from the mouth of the Arabist Barack Hussein Obama. He could use a newly stiffened spine to resist the threats from a U.S. Government who seems to be carrying water for the Saudis, the Iranians and the Palestinians.

Michael Oren served as a proud soldier during the expulsions four years ago and has promoted the expulsion policy ever since Summer 2005.

Apparently, a PR firm is pushing this expulsions advocate as the next ambassador to the USA, as are some people connected to Bibi.

Not all of of Bibi's advisors favor appointing an expulsion advocate into such a key policy position.


Today is the day for letters to Bibi, with copies to friend in the USA, asking Bibi NOT to appoint an expulsion advocate.

Tel of PM office switchboard remains: 972-2-6705555

Best fax: 972-2 563 2580

This below is an April 24, 2009 Haaretz article by Barak Ravid called "Candidate for U.S. envoy: Israel must unilaterally quit West Bank."


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's candidate for Israeli ambassador to Washington, Dr. Michael Oren, supports a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and an evacuation of most of the settlements.

Oren, a visiting Georgetown University professor, said in a lecture there last month, "The only alternative for Israel to save itself as a Jewish state is by unilaterally withdrawing from the West Bank and evacuating most of the settlements."

Oren, a Middle East expert and senior researcher at Jerusalem's Shalem Center, gave a 90-minute lecture entitled "The Gaza Crisis from an Historical and Personal Perspective on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Answering questions from attendees, Oren voiced his opinions about possible solutions to the conflict and the policy Israel should take. He emphasized that he does not represent the majority of Israelis.

"I may be the last of the standing unilateralists," he said. "The only thing that can save Israel as a Jewish state is by unilaterally withdrawing our settlements from the West Bank," and waiting for a new Palestinian leadership.

Oren said he does not believe that a solution to the conflict could be achieved at this stage. Instead we should find ways to "better manage the conflict, to relieve tensions and ameliorate the conditions under which people live to ensure against future flare ups."

"Peace as a solution is not a question of next week but a generational issue," he said. "One of the lessons that the failed Oslo process has taught us is that peace must be built from the bottom up. We cannot impose peace from the top down, it doesn't percolate from the top down."

Establishing a Palestinian state would require the evacuation of tens of thousands of Jewish settlers from the West Bank and from holy cities like Hebron, Oren said.

To take such a traumatic step most Israelis must be convinced that they would be getting "absolute peace" and the "end of the conflict," he said.

Oren said he supported the disengagement from the Gaza Strip. After they started firing Qassam rockets from Gaza, he said Natan Sharansky asked him if the disengagement wasn't a mistake. Oren said he replied that it had not been. The mistake was Israel's failure to react to the Qassam fire, which sent a message of weakness to the entire Middle East.

Oren also spoke about his personal experience regarding the Gaza Strip and said he had "traumatic relations" with the Gaza Strip and Hamas leadership.

He said he could only regret the killing of civilians in Gaza in the course of Operation Cast Lead and especially the daughters of Dr.Az A-Din Abu Ayash.

But as an Israeli, he also cannot forget that his sister-in-law was killed by a suicide bomber from Gaza and that 70,000 Palestinians cheered the attack in the Gaza stadium, he said.

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 gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

Posted by MS Kramer, April 26, 2009.

We recently enjoyed listening to Dr. Asher Susser, from the Dayan Center at Tel Aviv University. This Middle East specialist taught last year at Brandeis University during his sabbatical. A native of South Africa, Susser was addressing an organization of South African Israelis in the nearby town of Kfar Saba.

Dr. Susser's talk was on the importance of the recent Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, the real meaning of which was Israel's long-term survivability in the region. According to Susser, Israel will face violence from every side, until we impress upon our neighbors Israel's potency and the prohibitive price they will pay for aggression against us.

The war Israel fought in Gaza wasn't really against Hamas; it was Israel versus Iran. Susser explained that Iran has "regional hegemonic designs" in the Middle East. (Translation: Iran wants to be the superpower of the region.) In the "new" Middle East, as Susser sees it, Israel must constantly prove its military prowess, because our country is surrounded by 300+ million Arabs in their 22 states, plus Iran and other antagonistic Muslim countries.

More than half of the Arab population is under 20 years of age, with few opportunities for employment. The ongoing emigration of young Arabs to Europe and North America will accelerate, with upwards of 100 million leaving for greener pastures in the next generation. Still, Susser predicted that in 20 years the Arabs in the Middle East will total 450 million.

Although Arab population growth is on the rise, Susser says Arab political power is declining. During the mid-1960s, Israel's newspapers were full of stories on Egypt and Nasser, and the news items were dissected weekly on Israel radio. But today, Egypt might not even be mentioned in a 3-hour lecture on the Middle East, despite being the most populous Arab country with the largest armed forces. Susser named the Muslim, non-Arab countries of Iran and Turkey, as well as Israel, as the region's big players.

Among Egypt's current problems, Susser mentioned its porous borders and its corrupt army and police. Sudan, claimed in the 1950s by Egypt, has been totally independent for years, and is now an Arab embarrassment. Summing up the other major Arab countries, Susser noted that Syria plays second fiddle to Iran, even in Lebanon which it once controlled; Iraq is still a mess and in danger of falling apart; and Saudi Arabia's per capita income is falling.

Meanwhile, Iran is already a great regional power. It benefited from the fall of Saddam Hussein, whom Susser called the Arabs' former eastern gatekeeper. Iraq's minority Sunni population, kept at the top of the economic heap by Saddam, has been replaced by the Shiites, the largest group in Iraq. This is very advantageous for the Iranians, who are also Shiites. Hizbollah, Iran's Shiite proxy in Lebanon, is poised to take over the government there. Hamas, while not Shiite, is Iran's proxy in Gaza and may soon displace Fatah in the West Bank. Not to mention Iran's nuclear weapons capability, which is rapidly reaching maturity.

According to Susser, Israel's deterrent power has worked in Lebanon since the recent Second Lebanon War, because Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, is afraid to appear in public and Israel's northern region remains relatively quiet. Tellingly, Hezbollah didn't lift a finger to help Hamas during Operation Cast Lead. In Gaza, Hamas has no real appetite to fight now. They are shooting rockets sporadically into Israel only to win negotiating points and to appease the Gazan public. So, Israel's deterrence has knocked Iran back twice. Additionally, Egypt has cooperated with Israel against Iran, especially on the high seas in an attempt to improve its tattered status. Saudi Arabia and Jordan also are relying on Israel's strength, but they have even less power than Egypt. Susser declared that "Israel is the backbone of the Arab moderates."

Turkey is the other powerful state in the region that could help counter Iran, which borders Turkey on the east. Compared to the deep-seated enmity that Arab states have towards Israel, Turkey is relatively friendly. Historically, the Ottoman Turks opened their lands to Jews in 1492 and treated Jews better than the Europeans or Arabs. After WWI, Ataturk, the legendary revolutionary leader who championed Turkish secular nationalism, was an admirer of the early Zionist leaders and copied some of their methods. Like Israel, Turkey has one foot in Europe and one in the Middle East. Lately however, secularism has been retreating before Islamism, bringing the Turkish government closer to Arab ones. Nevertheless, Susser says that there is an enduring military relationship between Turkey and Israel, one which won't be discarded lightly, though it's unlikely that it will regain the strength that it had in the 1990s.

As to military options with the Palestinians, Susser pointed out that Israel sent only one division of troops into Gaza during Operation Cast Lead, which is less than 10% of its fighting force. Hamas and Hezbollah have certainly taken note of Israel's relative restrained war effort, which nevertheless resulted in huge destruction in Gaza. So, while Israel doesn't have the military power to reshape the Middle East, as America has done in Iraq, it is capable of reducing the Palestinian cities to rubble if provoked too often or too much.

The Palestinians themselves have a fragmented political society, with no viable leadership with whom Israel can negotiate. Susser thinks that the chance of negotiating an end of conflict is close to zero, because Hamas won't consider it and Fatah lead Mahmoud Abbas couldn't accomplish it, even if he wanted to. The Palestinians are unlikely to compromise on their core issue of the right of return for refugees, because they are locked into their vision of the 1948 Nakba (catastrophe) suffered at the hands of the Jews (according to the Arab narrative). Susser does believe that some matters can be settled at least temporarily, which is a continuation of the status quo: Israel concedes a little, then is forced to retrench when Palestinian violence erupts rather than quiet.

Susser identifies two mistakes of the early Zionists. The first was that the Jews would become the majority in Palestine after the 1917 Balfour Declaration, but this didn't occur until the 1950s. The second, very naïve mistake was that the Arabs would eventually acquiesce to Zionism because it had already brought modern methods and economic benefits to the region. Susser agrees with former Prime Minister Sharon's tactic of withdrawal to keep Israel "Jewish". Thus he thinks that Israel must withdraw from parts of the West Bank, like it did in all of Gaza. Regarding Iran's nuclear threat, Susser believes that an Israeli air attack wouldn't be able to produce a permanent halt to Iran's progress, but that Israel can't acquiesce to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

In conclusion, Susser emphasized that though we might be the strongest power in the region, time is working against us, as our international legitimacy is undermined and the possibility of Israel being replaced by a one-state solution (an Arab/Jewish secular state which eventually becomes yet another Arab state) gains popularity. Though he negated the possibility of reaching a two-state solution with the PLO and Hamas in the foreseeable future, Susser hopes for some sort of interim arrangement which is not a unilateral Israeli action, as was Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. He stressed that we Israelis have to act proactively and must not allow Hamas to set the agenda. He supports the use of overwhelming force to make the price unbearable for Hamas (or Hezbollah) to continue belligerent tactics.

Dr. Susser's remarks were very well received by the audience, which knew the professor well from previous talks. He answered every question and remained after the event ended to take a few more. While I don't agree with all of his conclusions, I think that Asher Susser exhibits some of the erudition and personality traits that have made Bernard Lewis the dean of the older generation of Middle East specialists.

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me."

To Go To Top

Posted by Carl from Jerusalem, April 26, 2009.

Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.

Now that he's no longer running for President (or is he?) Mike Huckabee seems to get it (Hat Tip: Hot Air).

Mike Huckabee stakes out a position well to the right of both parties in an interview with an evangelical magazine:

WORLD: What about Israel and the Palestinians? Any hope there?

HUCKABEE: I've been to Israel 10 times; I've also been to virtually every other country in the area. This may put me in such a small minority, but I think this two-state solution is nonsense. If we're trying to get these two warring factions to occupy the same piece of real estate with two political entities layering over each other, that's absurd. We wouldn't tolerate it and they're not going to tolerate it. We shouldn't try to prolong the sense of that happening. [Israelis] not only have a right to existence, which is a fundamental agreement dating back to the early 1900s in the Balfour Declaration, but a right to a secure homeland. The tiny sliver of real estate they occupy, surrounded by people who are hostile to them, is really a very vulnerable place for them. Hoping for this two-state solution is simply not practical.

Hmmm. Well, you all know that I agree with him.

This actually is not the first time Huckabee has made a statement like this. This is from August 2008

"It is a historic reality that Jerusalem, and the entire land, was originally intended to be a homeland for the Jewish people," he said. "The Palestinians should in fact have a place and opportunity to settle but it doesn't have to be in Jerusalem."

Palestinians demand all of east Jerusalem including the city's holy sites as capital of their future state.

Huckabee said that US support of Israeli territorial compromise was misguided. "Sometimes politicians get wrapped up in what we can achieve rather than what we should achieve," he said.

At an overlook of the Old City and east Jerusalem, the former presidential candidate also said that Israel needs to distance its enemies as much as possible. "If someone has a bomb or a missile or a gun pointed within a few feet of me I would want them to be as far away as possible," he said. "You don't have to be a military genius or strategist to know this."

Here's what he said (and what I said about it) in December 2007 when he was still running for President)

I felt better about Huckabee when I started to look for his position on a 'Palestinian' state reichlet (recall that I said in August that it wasn't mentioned) when I found this in a report of a campaign appearance in New Hampshire in October:
In response to a question about the Middle East from Rabbi Moshe Bleich of the Wellesley-Weston Chabad Center, Gov. Huckabee expressed frustration with Israeli politicians who wanted to give away the Golan Heights and firmly opposed dividing Jerusalem.

When asked about a Palestinian state, Gov. Huckabee stated that he supports creating a Palestinian state, but believes that it should be formed outside of Israel. He named Egypt and Saudi Arabia as possible alternatives, noting that the Arabs have far more land than the Israelis and that it would only be fair for other Arab nations to give the Palestinians land for a state, rather than carving it out of the tiny Israeli state.

Gov. Huckabee, who has visited Israel nine times, also expressed support for moving the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and stressed the importance of making America energy independent in ten years for both environmental and national security reasons. "We just can't continue to be dependent on Saudi oil," explained Huckabee, "I want to be able to tell the Saudis that we need their oil about as much as we need their sand."

I think the Saudi desert will freeze over before Saudi Arabia or Egypt gives a grain of sand to the 'Palestinians' for their reichlet.

It actually sounds like his position has been pretty consistent, doesn't it? Is he ready to stand up to the Arab countries and tell them to deal with their own problem? If he is, he could have my vote. And that may matter more than you think, because right now the toughest matchup for Barack Obama in 2012 isn't Sarah Palin... it's Mike Huckabee.

Carl from Jerusalem lives in Jerusalem and runs the IsraelMatzav website. This essay is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, April 25, 2009.

It's very interesting that the Obama Administration, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is all excited and agitated about the Muslim Taliban radical Terrorists moving closer to Pakistan's capital. The excitement stems from the fact that Pakistan has know operational nuclear weapons which would be considered a catastrophe if they fell into the hands of Islamic Terrorists like the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Compare that with the Obama Administration telling Israel that they cannot take out Iran's Islamic Nuclear facilities. The Iranians through their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, have repeatedly pledged to wipe Israel off the fact of the planet. What is the difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda getting control of the Islamic Nuclear Bombs and Missiles when Iran completes their well-known plans to acquire operations Nuclear Bombs and Missiles? U.S. Intel knows very well that the infamous Dr. Omar Abdul Khan, father of Pakistani nuclear weapons also transferred technology to Iran and several other Middle Eastern nations.

Why have two American Presidents thwarted Israel plans of survival by taking out Iran's Nuclear capabilities which are an existential threat to that small nation? Israel bombed Saddam Hussein's Nuclear Plant at Osirak in 1981 and, although the world nations first condemned that act, they were very grateful when they had to enter the First Gulf War, Desert Storm, and could feel safer without Saddam's Nukes.

President George W. Bush implied during his term that he would order the strike by using the superior U.S. Forces against Iran's Nuclear facilities, which are scattered at many different sites. (See the excellent map of National Geographic August 2008 which shows by site and name of all the various installations.)

Then he was ambushed by the false report by the CIA-NIC-FBI to effect that Iran had ceased its Nuclear Development and, therefore, therefore was no need to strike Iran. The facts later emerged in that same NIE (National Intelligence Estimate) of December 3, 2007 that, actually, this was a false report initiated by the State Department in order to "protect" Iran.

Bush, at the end of his term, refused assistance to Israel by not allowing Israel to fly over Iraq on their way to Iran. Now, under Obama, and through a warning by VP Joe Biden, Israel was not to undertake any mission to destroy Iran's Nuclear capability. Obama was, instead, to use 'diplomacy' and talk Iran out of further development of enriching Uranium or developing longer range missiles.

Israel was offered the opportunity to suffer a nuclear strike by Iran so Obama could chance a successful negotiation so Iran would continue selling us oil and not block the shipping lanes in the Gulf of Hormuz.

Few believe Iran's Mullahs, Ayatollahs and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can be talked down from what he considers their Islamic destiny and, of course, the returning "Mahdi" (a Messiah of sorts who died as a child when he fell into a well and disappeared — or so the myth goes). Note how "Mahdi" fits right into the center of Ahmadinejad's name.

Iran has been steadily developing Nuclear Capability for more than 30 years to include purchasing four to six tactical Nuclear artillery shells from East Germany when the Soviet Union collapsed and their soldiers were selling off their uniforms and equipment just to get money for food.

I have opined in previous articles that the plan of Obama's team of Washington Arabists intends to force Israel into striking Iran as a matter of survival and having no choice (Ein Breira). If Israel could be forced to defend her very existence which would theoretically shield the U.S. from a Muslim-Islamic backlash. Then Obama's Arabists and the Left-leaning Media could violently condemn Israel moving toward the State Department goal of cutting off arms, technology, intelligence and finally severing relations with the only democracy in the Middle East.

Some will recall that, after Israel bombed Saddam Hussein's Osirak Nuclear Plant, the Arabs and most other nations were secretly delighted. But, in public they bashed Israel and the U.S. cut-off delivery of a wing of F-16s to be delivered to Israel. Israel is said to be capable of destroying Iran's Nukes and, more importantly, Nuclear development sites. This despite U.S. virtually embargo of assistance.

I refer you to a Debka Report of April 15, 2009 and to National Geographic of August, 2008 with a fairly complete map of all Iran's nuclear sites. I wonder if the Obama Administration will be held accountable if a Nuclear Bomb transferred from Iran to "sleeper cells" in America blows up an American city and contaminates 3 to 7 States with drifting Nuclear debris. Since Obama and Democrats now wish to bring Bush era authorities who approved enhanced interrogation to head off another 9/11, I suppose that would apply to his Administration and appointed Arabists should the U.S. be struck due to their appeasement and lack of security intelligence.

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 gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 25, 2009.

This comes from the Sultan Knish website.


ABC News aired a tape showing the brother of the crown prince of the UAE and the Emir of Dubai brutally torturing a farmer in a way that was supposed to be unique to Saddam and his progeny.

A video tape smuggled out of the United Arab Emirates shows a member of the country's royal family mercilessly torturing a man with whips, electric cattle prods and wooden planks with protruding nails.


A man in a UAE police uniform is seen on the tape tying the victim's arms and legs, and later holding him down as the Sheikh pours salt on the man's wounds and then drives over him with his Mercedes SUV.

"The incidents depicted in the video tapes were not part of a pattern of behavior," the Interior Ministry's statement declared.

The Minister of the Interior is also one of Sheikh Issa's brother.

The government statement said its review found "all rules, policies and procedures were followed correctly by the Police Department."  

Naturally. The UAE is a dictatorship. The only differences between the UAE or Saddam's Iraq lies in military strength and the image they choose to present to the world.

Meanwhile much of the same media and Hollywood celebrities who wax indignant about the US waterboarding of Al Queda terrorists, bought into the whole Dubai mirage, investing huge money in property, including the "world islands" that are now speedily turning worthless.

There is no such thing as a moderate Arab Muslim state. There are only those who put on a moderate appearance because of their weakness. When you get down to the ruling family, there is no real difference. The UAE and their Dubai wonderland is ruled by the same bunch of jumped up desert thugs turned billionaires as Saudi Arabia or Jordan or the former Iraq.

Pull back the curtain and you can see the torture chambers. The real ones, not the kid gloves that the US handles Osama Bin Laden's terrorists with. Terrorists partly funded by the UAE and their royal family.

To those who say criminal prosecution of terrorists is the answer, witness how criminal prosecution in the UK utterly failed to hold the Easter Bombing terrorists, who are now free and wending their way through England's court system for possible deportation.

This while Obama is preparing to move Gitmo terrorists into your neighborhood.

The Obama administration is preparing to admit into the United States as many as seven Chinese Muslims who have been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay in the first release of any of the detainees into this country, according to current and former U.S. officials.

Their release is seen as a crucial step to plans, announced by President Obama during his first week in office, to close the prison and relocate the detainees. Administration officials also believe that settling some of them in American communities will set an example, helping to persuade other nations to accept Guantanamo detainees too.

But the decision to release the Chinese Muslims, known as Uighurs, is not final and faces challenges from within the government, as well as likely public opposition. Among government agencies, the Homeland Security Department has registered concerns about the plan.

There are 17 Uighurs (pronounced WEE-gers) at Guantanamo. A U.S. official familiar with the discussions over their release said that as many as seven could be resettled in the U.S., possibly in two or more small groups.

Officials have not said where in the United States they might live. But many Uighur immigrants from China live in Washington's Virginia suburbs, and advocates have urged that the detainees be resettled near people who speak their language and are familiar with their customs...

Yes including their peculiar custom of strapping on bomb vests and exploding themselves in public areas, such as say in the Washington area. Better be sure you pronounce Wee-gurs right.

Speaking of scary things in the Washington area, Boker Tov Boulder has more on Obama's corps of the living brainwashed volunteers

Not only will this 'army' of community organizers eventually involve as many as 8 — 9 million people, it will be MANDATORY for anyone who gets federal student loans.  

Welcome to the Obama Youth. Check your mind and conscience at the door.

Meanwhile Debbie Schlussel takes a closer look at Obama\Pelosi targeting Harman\AIPAC just in time for Obama's own gathering showdown with Israel.

While the NSA wanted to wiretap the Congressman who had contacts with a terrorist while in the Middle East, they nixed it because they thought it wouldn't go over to wiretap a U.S. Congressman.

Yes, the NSA had court approval to wiretap Harman ... because the NSA sought it. Why didn't the NSA seek court approval on the pan-Islamist Member of Congress? Why the double standard?

And the targets of the Harman transcript release are interesting, too. The target isn't just Harman. Keith Weissman and Steve Rosen — the two men under indictment, former employees of pro-Israel lobby AIPAC — were entrapped at the direction of David W. Szady, head of counterintelligence for the FBI from 2001 to 2006. Szady, well known as an Islamo-sympathizing, anti-Semitic FBI agent, was intent on exposing Israel in a negative light. He dreamed up the whole scheme, using Weissman and Rosen, to show "balance" to his Islamic world buddies — to show that America was not just going after them (as if America has gone after much of them at all). The FBI honcho also had a vendetta to settle because he was upset that Israel was cooperating with the NYPD in counterterrorism investigations that led to NYPD arrests of terrorist in New York — arrests that showed up the incompetent FBI and its floundering counterterrorism efforts.

The Pentagon employee, Lawrence Franklin, was also entrapped because he was one of the few in the Pentagon who actually got it on jihad and the Iranian threat, one of the few who was known to be pro-Israel. This was a "kill three birds with one stone" operation. A brilliant man with several graduate degrees and expertise on the Middle East, Franklin has been reduced to serving as a car parking valet at night.

And though the alleged transcript — which reports claim shows Harman promising to ask the Justice department for leniency for Rosen and Weissman — has yet to surface, reporters and bloggers are slobbering over the allegations, repeating them as fact.

In fact, Rosen and Weissman didn't need Harman's calls for "leniency." They never committed espionage and even the federal judge on the case sees it as a frame-up job. The judge has asked the Justice Department why the case should continue, and there is every indication the Department will soon drop this witch-hunt. The release of this transcript from two years ago was done deliberately to hurt Rosen and Weissman and their chance at a chance at real justice after two years of persecution. There is no evidence that Harman ever followed through on helping their case or ever contacted the Justice Department on their behalf. But the release of the transcript was designed to put them (and Israel) forever under suspicion that the charges in their case were not dropped because they are baseless but because of bribery of a U.S. Congresswoman.

That's not to mention the fact that Jane Harman was far more hawkish than most Democrats, a reason Nancy Pelosi didn't pick her for Intelligence Committee Chairman. Harman supported the NSA wiretaps. She was hawkish against Islamofascism. And she strongly supported Israel. But why should conservative bloggers who claim to support these things care, when they can easily savage this Democrat and Israel a spying, bribing enemy in one fell swoop?  

Meanwhile in Israel, the Religion of Peace, which of course respects the Jewish forefathers, whom they claim as their own, and is no way Nazific, scrawled Swastikas on Joseph's Tomb.

This comes after Palestinian Arabs brutally seized the tomb in an extended firefight, with the Israeli government backing down to international pressure and abandoning its own soldiers under fire. It has been the heroic efforts of individual Jewish pilgrims who risked their lives to maintain access to the tomb.

In 2001, within less than an hour of the original Israeli retreat, Palestinian rioters overtook Joseph's Tomb and reportedly ransacked and then partially destroyed the structure.

The tomb is located just outside the modern city of Nablus, or biblical Shechem, in the northern West Bank. Under the 1993 Oslo Accords, which granted nearby strategic territory to the Palestinians, Joseph's Tomb was supposed to be accessible to Jews and Christians. But following repeated attacks against Jewish worshippers at the holy site by gunmen associated with then-Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat's militias, then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak in October 2000 ordered an Israeli unilateral retreat from the area.

Immediately following the Israeli retreat, Palestinian rioters overtook Joseph's Tomb and reportedly began to ransack the site. Palestinian mobs reportedly tore apart books, destroying prayer stands and grinding out stone carvings in the Tomb's interior. Palestinians hoisted a Muslim flag over the tomb. Amin Maqbul, an official from Arafat's office, visited the tomb to deliver a speech declaring, "Today was the first step to liberate (Jerusalem)."

One BBC reporter described the scene: "The site was reduced to smoldering rubble — festooned with Palestinian and Islamic flags — cheering Arab crowd."

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 24, 2009.

Before Shabbat I would like to focus on sources of hope.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has given an interview to The Jerusalem Post — his first such interview since taking office.

If the international community wants to help bring stability to the area, he said, they should "stop speaking in slogans." His counterparts tend to speak as if they are in a campaign, using words like "occupation," "settlements," and "settlers." The slogans they rely upon — such as "land for peace" and "two-state solution" are overly simplistic and ignore the root of the ongoing conflict.

"It's impossible to artificially impose any political solution. It will fail, for sure. You cannot start a peace process from nothing." The issues to deal with are "economy, security, stability."

Lieberman was emphatic in stating that there could be no negotiations that entertained the possibility of "right of return." "It cannot be on the table, I'm not willing to discuss the 'right of return' of even one refugee."

At the same time, he indicated that "somebody who really wants a solution, someone who desires a real peace and a real agreement, must realize that this would be impossible without recognizing Israel as a Jewish state...

"[The real reason for the deadlock with the Palestinians] is not occupation, not settlements and not settlers. This conflict is really a very deep conflict..."

What is more, it would be "impossible to resolve any problems in our region without resolving the Iranian problem [which is related to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and Hamas in Gaza]. He believes the prime responsibility for Iran rests with the international community.


Meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to EU threats to suspend an upgrade in its relationship with Israel.

"Don't set conditions for us," Netanyahu told Czech Premier Mirek Topolanek during his visit here.

When Topolanek brought up the issue of settlements, Netanyahu responded, "If Israelis can't build homes in the West Bank then Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to either. I have no plans to build new settlements, but if someone wants to build a new home [in an existing one], I don't think there's a problem." The West Bank, he said, was "disputed territory" over which negotiations must be held. This cedes nothing.


Understand that a very short time ago we had a foreign minister and a prime minister who couldn't wait to give away parts of Israel, divide Jerusalem and push our people back to the '67 lines, all in the name of what we "had to do" for peace.

So, Baruch Hashem for what we have now: Leaders who won't be threatened and stand for Israeli rights. May their strength increase.

There will be more to say on this.


I'll look at Hillary's latest statement (a stupid threat) after Shabbat.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, April 24, 2009.

This article was written by Matthew Hausman It appeared on IsraPundit

Matthew M. Hausman is a trial attorney and writer who lives and works in Connecticut. A former journalist, Mr. Hausman continues to write on a variety of topics, including science, health and medicine, Jewish issues and foreign affairs, and has been a legal affairs columnist for a number of publications. He is active in Jewish communal affairs, and has served on the boards of several nonprofit organizations and associations.


President Obama has gotten significant public relations mileage by appointing nearly a minyan of Jews to his Cabinet, by holding a Seder in the White House, and by his association with his wife's cousin, Capers Funnye, an African-American rabbi in Chicago. But these items, achievements and relationships are superficial only and fail to reflect that the Administration truly has any affinity for real Jewish values or concern for Israel. Rather, they are used to distract attention from the Administration's already troubling miscues with respect to Israel and Middle East peace.

The Administration's direction can be gauged more accurately by its tangible statements, acts and policy pronouncements. For example, the Congressional Quarterly last week reported that the President is requesting Congress to amend the law that presently requires a cessation of U.S. financial aid to the Palestinian Authority in the event of a power sharing arrangement between Hamas and Fatah. (This request was close in time to his signing of an office waiver and $800 million supplemental appropriations bill in favor of the PLO on the eve of Passover.) Under the law in its current form, American aid would cease if Hamas, which is still recognized as a terrorist organization under U.S. law, joins Fatah in the PA government. If Mr. Obama obtains his amendment, American funding will continue to flow to the PA even if Hamas joins it in a governing coalition without renouncing terror or recognizing Israel's right to exist. That is, American aid will flow to a terror group sworn to the destruction of an ally (although one could reasonably argue that the PLO still constitutes such a terror group).

Of perhaps greater concern is Mr. Obama's attempted rapprochement with the Islamist regime in Tehran. As recently reported by the DEBKAfile, the President continues to court Iran in a way that effectively reverses prior U.S. policy and contravenes the imposition or continuation of sanctions. Reports predict that this about face will enable the Islamic Republic to continue developing its nuclear capabilities and its arms program. That the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel will become a practical reality in the near future does not seem to bother the Administration, and is all the more alarming given recent reports that it has warned Israel to refrain from engaging in military action necessary to protect herself from Iran. One is left to wonder how much of this Iranian policy is influenced by the Administration's open courting of Islamists or those with Islamist sympathies and its solicitation of their input in matters of foreign policy.

Perhaps the greatest concern for Israel at this stage is the Administration's statements concerning its plans to enforce a final two-state solution within the next four years, a goal that was confirmed in press accounts by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The strategy to impose the President's ill-conceived vision on Israel in spite of the disastrous aftermath of the disengagement from Gaza, the Arab world's refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist before she is forced to capitulate without negotiation, and the Arabs' continuing and adamant refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is alarming. Moreover, this scenario does not bode well for the continued existence of Israel as a Jewish state, which according to some reported intelligence analyses might well not survive another 20 years in such an environment.

The Administration's attempts to cozy up to the Arab-Muslim world are consistent with the President's embrace of the so-called Saudi Peace Initiative, upon which the foregoing prescription for "peace" seems to be based, and his continued courting of the abusive regimes that will figure prominently in Second Durban Conference. These attempts to curry favor from bad actors are epitomized by his swooning embrace of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is setting an anti-Israel and antisemitic agenda for Durban II despite his pledge to intervene in the agenda process and prevent another moral travesty.

These hard facts are lost in the self-congratulatory euphoria of Mr. Obama's Jewish supporters, who focus on his Passover ploy and family connections as evidence of his affinity for the Jewish People and his concern for Israel. These politicos express no qualms with his troubling statements to the Arab press or even his refusal to apply the word "terrorism" to the Arab and Muslim groups that engage in it. Such concrete acts and omissions reflect the Administration's intentions concerning Israel more clearly than its ridiculous cursory embrace of Jewish rituals or its affirmation of supposed Jewish family ties. Unfortunately, its disturbing record is being ignored by those who prefer to spout warm and fuzzy stories about the White House's patronizing affinity for the Jewish People.

It doesn't matter whether the President truly has any Jewish relatives, hosts a Seder, or co-opts any other Jewish ritual or cultural experience in attempting to camouflage the likely harm to Israel of an ominous Mideast policy. What does matter is that the undeniable fracturing of the United States' relationship with Israel cannot be ignored away by the Administration's lip service to Jewish symbols or its revisionist regard for Jewish history. Those who claim to support Israel must be roused from their political slumber and forced to distinguish between superficial expressions and substantive acts, to criticize the Administration openly and vocally when it takes actions that compromise the safety and security of Israel, and to object to any transparent attempts to patronize them for political gain. The failure to do so has serious implications for Israel's survival as a Jewish State.

Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Horovitz and Amir Mizroch, April 24, 2009.

The international community has to "stop speaking in slogans" if it really wants to help the new Israeli government work toward a solution to the Palestinian conflict and help bring stability to the Middle East, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday, in his first interview with an Israeli newspaper since taking the job.

"Over the last two weeks I've had many conversations with my colleagues around the world," he said. "Just today, I saw the political adviser to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the Chinese foreign minister and the Czech prime minister.

And everybody, you know, speaks with you like you're in a campaign: Occupation, settlements, settlers..."

Slogans like these, and others Lieberman cited, such as "land for peace" and "two-state solution," were both overly simplistic and ignored the root causes of the ongoing conflict, he said.

The fact was, said the Israel Beiteinu leader, that the Palestinian issue was "deadlocked" despite the best efforts of a series of dovish Israeli governments. "Israel has proved its good intentions, our desire for peace," he said.

The path forward, he said, lay in ensuring security for Israel, an improved economy for the Palestinians, and stability for both.

"Economy, security, stability," he repeated. "It's impossible to artificially impose any political solution. It will fail, for sure. You cannot start any peace process from nothing. You must create the right situation, the right focus, the right conditions."

He said the government would be completing its thorough foreign policy review in the next two weeks, and that it would be made public for the first time at the scheduled May 18 White House talks between US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

The foreign minister spoke as US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel on Thursday that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

Clinton said Arab nations had conditioned helping Israel counter Iran on Jerusalem's commitment to the peace process.

In the course of his wide-ranging interview, which will appear in full in Tuesday's Jerusalem Post Independence Day supplement, Lieberman insistently refused to rule in, or rule out, Palestinian statehood alongside Israel as the essence of a permanent accord, but emphatically endorsed Netanyahu's declared desire not to rule over a single Palestinian.

Equally emphatically, he said no peace proposal that so much as entertained the notion of a "right of return" to Israel for Palestinian refugees could serve as a basis for negotiation.

"It cannot be on the table. I'm not ready to even discuss the 'right of return' of even one refugee," he said.

But he also made clear that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state was not a precondition for progress.

"You know, we don't want to torpedo the process," he said. "But somebody who really wants a solution, somebody who really desires a real peace and a real agreement, must realize that this would be impossible to achieve without recognizing Israel as a Jewish state."

Lieberman said the new government would have no dealings with Hamas, which needed to be "suffocated," and that the international community also had to maintain the long-standing Quartet preconditions for dealing with the Islamist group.

The real reason for the deadlock with the Palestinians, said Lieberman, "is not occupation, not settlements and not settlers. This conflict is really a very deep conflict. It started like other national conflicts. [But] today it's a more religious conflict. Today you have the influence of some nonrational players, like al-Qaida."

And the biggest obstacle to any comprehensive solution, he said, "is not Israel. It is not the Palestinians. It's the Iranians."

Lieberman said the prime responsibility for thwarting Iran's march to a nuclear capability lay with the international community, not Israel, and especially the five permanent members of the Security Council. He was confident that stringent economic sanctions could yet achieve the desired result, and said he did not even "want to think about the consequences of a crazy nuclear arms race in the region."

He said it would be "impossible to resolve any problem in our region without resolving the Iranian problem." This, he said, related to Lebanon, Syria and problems with Islamic extremist terror in Egypt, the Gaza Strip and Iraq.

Nonetheless, Lieberman stressed that Israel did not regard stopping Iran as a precondition for Israeli efforts to make progress with the Palestinians. Quite the reverse, he said. "No, we must start with the Palestinian issues because it's our interest to resolve this problem. But there should be no illusions. To achieve an agreement, to achieve an end of conflict, with no more bloodshed, no more terror, no more claims — that's impossible until Iran [is addressed]."

Noting what he called Syria's deepening ties with Iran, Lieberman said he saw no point whatsoever in resuming the indirect talks with Damascus conducted by the last government.

"We don't see any good will from the Syrian side," he said. "Only the threats, like 'If you're not ready to talk, we'll retake the Golan by military action...'"

Asked whether it troubled him to be perceived as an extremist in some circles, including overseas, Lieberman laughed and said, "So it's easy for me to surprise them."

He said he believed his international colleagues "respect me, and that they understand that I say what I mean, and I mean every word that I say."

As to whether his legal problems — he is under police investigation for alleged corruption — or other factors might lead to his ouster from the job, he said he believed this coalition would serve its full term, and that he would serve the full term as foreign minister. —

This article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1239710776127&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, April 23, 2009.

Dear friends,

A nervous King Addullah of Jordan visited President Obama in the White House yesterday.

Why nervous? Because it is becoming clearer every day that his preferred Two States "solution" is quickly slipping away. After all, Jordan is already a Palestinian state, something the king tries to ignore or avoid, as he desperately tries to have Israel bail him out of reality.

On NPR's Morning Edition, Wednesday, April 22, 2009, Michele Kelerman had the opportunity to ask the King some serious questions.
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103354609) but instead, she engaged him in a typically small chit-chat ending with his motorbike drive around Washington DC....

Is Michele Kelerman an Arab sympathiser, or an ignoramus who knows little or nothing about the history and geography of Israel and Jordan, or in owe of interviewing a King, or all of the above? Why is NPR pretending to be a serious news organization?

Here are the questions Kelerman should have asked King Abdullah and did not:

1) In view of what happened in Gaza (Hamas rule and violence) how can Israel feel secure with a Palestinian state in Judea & Samaria (West Bank) 8km from Tel Aviv?

2) You father, King Hussein, never allowed a Palestinian state in the West Bank when Jordan controlled it from 1948 to 1967. He went on to sign peace with Israel, thus washing his hands from the entire issue. Do you think he did the right thing?

3) A Palestinian state between Jordan and Israel is a major threat not only to Israel but also to Jordan. Are you not worried?

4) Is your country, Jordan, located in parts of historical Palestine, with 78% Palestinian population, not actually the legitimate Palestinian state?

Following is the piece from NPR. Judge it for yourself.

Your Truth Provider,
Middle East

It is called "King Abdullah: Core Middle East Problem Must Be Resolved" and was written by Michele Kelemen
http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action= 1&t=1&islist=false&id=103354609&m=103354593

Morning Edition, April 22, 2009: President Obama says he wants to see Israel and the Palestinians step back from the abyss and revive stalled peace talks, and he is inviting Israeli, Palestinian and Egyptian leaders to the White House for separate talks in the coming weeks.

Jordan's King Abdullah, the first Arab leader to meet Obama in the White House, says he came away convinced that the U.S. is preparing for a regional approach, trying to promote Arab Israeli peace on several different tracks.

In an interview with NPR, King Abdullah said he thinks the new approach will be to try to restart Israeli-Palestinian talks and, simultaneously, to work on the Israeli-Lebanese and Israeli-Syrian tracks.

The ultimate "prize" for the Israelis, King Abdullah said, is recognition by the 57 Arab and Muslim nations that don't have relations with the Jewish state. He says Israel is at a critical juncture now and has to decide whether it wants to be "integrated into the neighborhood" or continue to be "fortress Israel."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has raised the idea of an "economic peace" with the Palestinians.

King Abdullah argues that "if economic outreach to the Palestinians is going to be a substitute for a two-state solution, it is never going to work." There are "certain baby steps" that both Israelis and Palestinians can take to create a better atmosphere for negotiations, "hopefully under an American umbrella," he said.

Obama also spoke about the need for both sides to make some "gestures of good faith" in the coming months and "step back from the abyss."

The trip to Washington wasn't only business for the Jordanian king. He took advantage of some downtime to ride his motorcycle to Harpers Ferry, W.Va., and Gettysburg, Pa., to "decompress" and take in a bit of American history.

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, April 23, 2009.

This article was written by Dr. Eran Lerman, who is the Director of the American Jewish Committee's Israel/Middle East Office. It appeared on the Aish website


Roger Cohen should have a conversation with my daughter.

There are moments when I try to imagine what a conversation would be like between Roger Cohen, the well-traveled and sophisticated New York Times columnist who has made it his personal project, in recent weeks, to undermine Israel's case on the Iranian nuclear threat, and my youngest daughter. True, she is not an intelligence officer (I am, or rather was, once upon a time); nor is she a "bellicose" (Cohen's choice of words) Israeli general or politician. She is just a vulnerable 17-year-old with a tendency to take very seriously being told she is marked for destruction. She has often demanded to know what I have done, and what Israeli and American leaders have done recently, to make sure that she gets to be 25 — given that she sees, in the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the embodiment of a design to have her dead.

I wish I could tell her that Mr. Cohen, a knowledgeable man, has recently been to Iran and is now in possession of a mature understanding — which all of us here, hysterical children that we are, sorely lack — of the mullahs' real (and relatively benign) intentions. Even better, I would have loved to let him come over for dinner and have a go at soothing her fears, which are deep and real, and shared by many in Israel, young and old alike, who are not playing strategic games; they are simply frightened. But somehow, reading his recent spate of essays, I am not sure he is up to the task. Neither am I.

Cohen's case, favoring a firm American rejection of what he describes, in effect, as Israeli manipulative tactics, rests on several foundations. They need to be taken seriously — and addressed, one by one: that Israel is "crying wolf"; that Iran was never all that dynamically engaged in pursuit of the bomb; that the problem is Israeli hegemony, not the Iranian threat; that the Arab leaders are not really worried; that the mullahs are, in fact, rational; and that they are nice to their Jews (they were apparently nice to Mr. Cohen, in any case).

And then, if this all turns out to be wrong — a delusional gamble with our lives and the stability of the region at stake, not to mention the future of the nonproliferation regime — Cohen's argument is that we still have time, plenty of time, to make amends.

Not so:

  • The familiar phrase "crying wolf" may be more appropriate here than Cohen intended. After all, the wolf of the parable was real enough, and while the hapless shepherd may have been discredited, the disaster he warned against, albeit prematurely, did come about in the sad end. In our case, it is true that Israeli leaders and intelligence services have, in some cases, used worst-case scenarios when trying to predict — always a thankless task — at what point the Iranians will come within reach of a military nuclear capacity. (And from a professional point of view, I would readily admit that there is a lesson therein, that this tendency to err on the side of caution is not a cost-free exercise.) But we were right all along-as most objective observers now concede — in warning against the danger itself, even when many in the West were simply uninterested in listening to such dire predictions: The Iranian nuclear effort was, all along, a military project, with little to justify it in civilian terms, and it is difficult nowadays to find public officials in Europe (let alone the U.S. or Israel) who think otherwise. Are the French (and Germans), too, seized by a bellicose convulsion? Why does Cohen conveniently ignore their tough stance on Iran?

  • As it happens, some of the avenues Iran pursued turned out to be dead ends, and early fears raised in the 1990s turned out to be overstated. This proves nothing as regards present realities. Later estimates were much closer — although in 2003, when the Iranians were, in fact, approaching their goal, the easy manner in which U.S. forces overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq frightened them enough to cause, in effect, a temporary suspension of activities. Again, they lost time, but they slowly recovered and resumed activities. It is, in any case, fair to assume that it was the pressure already applied and the fear of punitive or even military measures that then led them to adopt a more sophisticated and incremental approach to the International Atomic Energy Agency requirements (while rejecting out of hand the UN Security Council demands), and in the process, accept longer timetables than those Israel originally predicted. This only goes to prove that a tough stance, not a credulous one, is likely to have the right impact.

  • Whereas Cohen, seduced by simplistic equations (Israeli "Goliath" vs. Palestinian "David") speaks of "Israeli hegemony" — as if the Zionist project encompasses some secret wish to dominate the region, for territorial or other material gain, rather than simply the challenge of staying alive in a hostile environment — it would make much more sense to simply posit the term "survival." After all, to argue that Israel can do with a much narrower margin of error, citing that we are safer now than in the precarious early years after 1948, is like suggesting that if a diabetic is still alive (and indulges now and then), this is reason enough to put him off insulin. To use the language of survival, however, would counter Cohen's claim — put forward more fervently than the evidence allows — that the exterminatory rhetoric of Iran, and of some of our other neighbors, is not reflective of their real intentions, but rather a "figure of speech" by essentially pragmatic players. Step by step, Cohen's need to argue away an unpleasant reality thus gives rise to systematic denial; and in this respect, he seems closer in intellectual practice to elements within the administration of the "decider" he so obviously despises.

  • It is ironic, in this respect, that his series of apologia for Iran has come out at the very moment when Arab fears about Iranian ambitions and active subversion have been spelled out in vivid detail, in stark contradiction to his claim that it is Israel, not Iran, that frightens them. He is confusing loathing with fear, not a good thing to do — even in Las Vegas, let alone the Middle East. True, the Arab "street" harbors a fierce dislike, even hatred, of Israel (and of Jews as such); but equally true, the Arab governments know that Israel is not actively pursuing a policy of "regime change" that could easily turn into a bloodbath, as indeed happened in Algeria after 1992. Iran does. (Ask the Algerians — or their local rivals, but equally the target of Iranian subversion, the Moroccans, who broke off relations with Tehran just the week before.) First came Ali Akbar Nateq Nuri's heavy hints about Bahrain as a former Iranian province — language so loaded with echoes of Saddam in Kuwait that no sane man would have used it "unintentionally," as Iran's foreign minister later averred. Then we were told, a few weeks after the arrests took place, about Hezbollah's blatant breach of Egyptian sovereignty — and Hassan Nasrallah, it should be recalled, is not only the leader of a local movement, but the official representative of Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamene'i, in long-suffering Lebanon. What was inflicted upon that small country in pursuit of Iranian ideology (and Syrian strategy) should have been enough to give Cohen pause. The same applies to Mahmoud Abbas's urgent plea for Iran to stop meddling in Palestinian internal affairs. The level of fear in much of the Arab world, and in particular among the smaller Gulf states (except perhaps for Qatar, which may have bought a temporary truce by dancing to Iran's tune) is acute, not least because they suspect that Cohen's line of argument may reflect Barack Obama's intention to "sell" them to their enemy. Personally, I believe that they are wrong, and that the U.S. still has some principled sinews within the extended velvet-gloved hand: but neither the Arab monarchs, nor my daughter, would know this from Cohen's articles.

    As for the mullahs' pragmatism, Cohen's case deserves careful scrutiny. We do ourselves no favor by being swept into descriptions of Iran — with all its political complexity and layered social reality — as a monolithic Bedlam (and, in fact, when we plead their insanity, we reduce the validity of our own case in favor of sanctons that would alter their cost-benefit analysis). True, anxious warnings — about the intrusion into the mainstream of Iranian politics of apocalyptic interpretations of history; and about the impact of Mahdist or "messianic" ideas, regarding the imminent appearance of the Hidden Imam, on Ahmadinejad's thinking and conduct — have come, not from manipulative Israeli propagandists, but from well within the Iranian governing elite. Equally true, the practice of crass Holocaust denial — or, for that matter, the declaration that homosexuality does not exist (in Iran) — cannot easily be squared with the common usage of the term "rational." And yet we should also admit that real power over Iran's strategy is not in the Iranian president's hand, and that over the years, the regime did respond soberly to various challenges. What we need to address — and what Cohen's argument fails to cover — is not the crazy scenario of Iran, "out of the blue," launching a nuclear attack on Israel or another neighbor; rather, it is the very real possibility that the irrational pride that the present leadership takes in its rejection of Israel's right to exist, when combined with a manifest nuclear capability, could shape the trajectory of escalation in a crisis situation (say, another messy war in Lebanon or Gaza, triggered by the abundant supply of missiles and the assumption of the local clients that they now have an Iranian nuclear umbrella). The likelihood is much higher, and the consequences could easily be the same as those of a sudden lurch in the dark. After all, the more we read about the history of the Cold War (in Richard Rhodes's The Arsenals of Folly or in Gordon Barrass's The Great Cold War), the less reassuring it is to attribute our planet's survival to the "rationality" of the game as it was played then; to expect the mullahs, and others in the region who would soon follow suit, to do even better than the U.S. or the Soviets is truly stretching it.

  • They don't really hate Jews, do they? Cohen left Tehran with a positive impression about the lives of Jews under the present Iranian regime. (Luckily for the mullahs, he did not ask too many questions about Baha'is, gays, or women's rights activists.) To write as he did about the perspectives of those among Iran's Jews who chose to stay when the majority left is in itself a hidden problem, and apparently he was confronted on this issue by the strong community of formerly Iranian Jews now in the Los Angeles. area. But beyond that, it should have been obvious to him that, as a Jew, he was being used to promote Iran's alleged distinction between "good" Jews (anti-Zionists) and the bad or even false Jews of the "unnatural regime occupying Palestine." This is not a new trick. Arab states used it in the 1940s, coercing local Jews to march with anti-Zionist banners. Observing this practice, our great poet of that period, Natan Alterman, wryly commented — in rhyme that I cannot hope to reproduce — that nothing proves the absolute necessity of Jewish freedom, in a sovereign state, more than these forced displays of servility.

    It is at this point that we come to the most specific and policy-oriented question: What is our margin of error when it comes to making decisions? Is it true that we still have time, anyway — perhaps two years, perhaps more? What if we do not? The occult knowledge that, in his mind, authorizes Cohen to make such judgments is — quite frankly — beyond me. Huge efforts by formidable analytical agencies have bred little by way of conclusions on the matters upon which he declaims with an air of certainty.

    The real question, in any case, is not how long we have before Iran has the bomb, but rather, at what point do we have to decide whether to negotiate — with, or without, real leverage. Given that he is an ardent supporter of "engagement" with Iran, Cohen may be surprised to learn that people close to Binyamin Netanyahu are equally willing to welcome Obama's first steps in this direction. Cohen should be an avid supporter of measures that would enable the effort to succeed, rather than end in a limbo like Javier Solana's talks. To go into the engagement with Iran without proper leverage, armed only with the kind of wishful thinking Roger Cohen offers us, would be the sort of intellectually embellished folly for which nations have often paid dearly.

    Contact GWY by email at gwy123@aol.com

    To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, April 23, 2009.

This was written by Rafael Medoff and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710762142&pagename=

Rafael Medoff is director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and author of Blowing the Whistle on Genocide: Josiah E. DuBois, Jr. and the Struggle for a US Response to the Holocaust.


Three rare paintings once owned by media magnate William Randolph Hearst were last week returned to the family of the German Jews who were forced by the Nazis to sell them for a pittance. The return of the artwork was an act of justice made all the more fitting by the little-known fact that Hearst played an important role in promoting the rescue of Jews from the Holocaust.

The 16-century Italian Renaissance paintings originally belonged to German Jewish gallery owners Jacob and Rosa Oppenheimer, but when the Oppenheimers fled Hitler in 1933, the Nazis auctioned off their confiscated assets for a fraction of their value. Hearst, an avid art collector, purchased the paintings from a different gallery two years later and was evidently unaware of their origin. "If he had found out, even after he purchased them, Mr. Hearst in all indications would have returned them," said Hearst Museum director Hoyt Fields.

Admittedly, Hearst was an unlikely ally for the Jews. His sensationalist style of journalism, strong attacks on president Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal and pre-World War II isolationism made him anathema to much of the American Jewish community. Hearst's meeting with Hitler in 1934, his sympathetic remarks about some of Nazi Germany's policies in the early and mid 1930s and his publication of articles by both Hitler and Mussolini, reinforced his image among American Jews as a reactionary, and possibly even a closet anti-Semite.

Kristallnacht appears to have been the turning point for Hearst. The nationwide Nazi pogrom in which nearly a hundred Jews were murdered, 200 synagogues were burned down and thousands of Jewish homes and businesses were ransacked convinced him that Hitler was "making the flag of National Socialism a symbol of national savagery." After Kristallnacht, Hearst began advocating creation of "a homeland for dispossessed or persecuted Jews."

When news of the mass murder of Europe's Jews began reaching the United States in 1941-1942, the Hearst newspaper chain gave it prominent coverage — by contrast with newspapers such as The New York Times, which routinely confined it to the back pages (as Prof. Laurel Leff documented in her definitive study, Buried by 'The Times').

In 1943, Hearst served as an honorary chairman of the Emergency Conference to Save the Jewish People of Europe, which was organized by the activist Bergson Group to demonstrate that rescue was possible — in contrast to the Roosevelt administration's claim that the only way to rescue the Jews was to win the war.

When the Bergson group in late 1943 initiated a congressional resolution urging FDR to create a government agency to rescue Jewish refugees, Hearst directed his newspaper chain to promote the resolution and he personally authored signed editorials endorsing it. One declared: "Remember, Americans, this is not a Jewish problem. It is a human problem."

"Hearst was the only newspaper owner who supported us without any qualifications or reservations," Samuel Merlin, a leader of the Bergson Group, recalled in a postwar interview. "All his papers. He gave us pages after pages free. He gave us the whole editorial page — Hearst himself. He gave orders to print our material."

The group's leader, Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook), noted that he and his colleagues endured some criticism because of their relationship with Hearst. "We were even attacked as 'fascists' because we approached William Randolph Hearst several times," he recalled. But the Bergsonites were not dissuaded. "What right did we have to decide who should save the Jews?" Bergson asked rhetorically. "For God's sake, we would go to anybody. I mean, would we need a rabbi to say 'Save the Jews'? We were delighted that we got Hearst to say 'Save the Jews.'"

The support of Hearst's 34 newspapers gave the congressional resolution an important boost, helped keep the refugee issue in the public eye, and focused negative attention on the Roosevelt administration's opposition to rescue action. By early 1944, the combined pressure from Congress, the Bergson Group and the Treasury Department convinced FDR to establish the War Refugee Board, a government agency devoted to rescuing Jews from Hitler. During the last 15 months of the war, the board played a major role in the rescue of an estimated 200,000 Jews.

In the minds of many Americans, William Randolph Hearst will be forever associated with the greedy and dishonest main character in the 1941 film, Citizen Kane. But whatever his unflattering traits, the real life Hearst had other qualities as well, including genuine compassion for the persecuted Jews of Europe and a determination to help rescue them from the Holocaust.

Contact the Ceders at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, April 23, 2009.

(IsraelNN.com) As a Palestinian Authority Arab faces the death sentence for selling land to Jews, a civil rights group asks Prime Minister Netanyahu to demand that PA rescind death penalty for the "crime."

The Yesha (Judea and Samaria) Civil Rights Organization has written an urgent letter to Binyamin Netanyahu and ministers in his government in light of the opening of the trial this week. According to PA law, the defendant faces the death penalty if convicted.

The letter, addressed to Netanyahu and the Ministers of Justice, Defense, and Public Security, states, "The Land of Israel is now the only place in the world where the law officially bans the sale of land to Jews because they are Jews. Even worse, the punishment for violators is actually death."

The organization says that Netanyahu's government must set an ultimatum: "No negotiations with the Palestinian Authority until this anti-Semitic law is rescinded. This demand takes precedence even over the insistence that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state."

The trial of the Hevron resident in a special PA court began on Tuesday, with the defendant accused of having sold land in the Hevron area to Jews. The Yesha group asks Netanyahu and the ministers to step in to save the man, who is being charged with treason.

Israel's intervention in the past has caused the PA to release others who had been jailed on suspicion of selling land to Jews. These include Arab-Israelis living in eastern Jerusalem.

Strook: "Such a Law is a Red Light for Diplomatic Relations"

Orit Strook of the Jewish Community of Hevron, the director of the Yesha Civil Rights group, says, "Israel would never have diplomatic relations with any country that has on its books a law forbidding the sale of land to Jews."

Her organization's letter states that the confiscation of Beit HaShalom (Peace House) from its rightful Jewish owners in Hevron several months ago is directly related to the fact that Arabs must fear for their lives when selling to Jews: "The Israeli authorities act as if the Arab sellers are free people, when in fact a gun is pointed at their heads and they must do everything they can to hide their actions — and this is why they claimed after the sale of Beit HaShalom [to Jews] that they never sold it."

"So long as the 'Palestinian rule of law' is not uprooted from its source," the letter concludes, "all the talk about Israeli rule of law in Judea and Samaria has no foothold in reality."

Hillel Fendel is senior news editor at Arutz Sheva

This article appeared in Arutz-7

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, April 23, 2009.

This was written by Tovah Lazaroff, jerusalem post correspondent, The Jerusalem Post.
www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710763443&pagename=


Shouting "I'm a Zionist" in English and French, several thousand pro-Israel activists rallied Wednesday in Geneva against the United Nations' week-long anti-racism conference, which opened with a call from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to eradicate Zionism.

Standing on a makeshift podium, in the concrete square just outside the UN building where Ahmadinejad had stated that Zionism was "the paragon of racism," historian Gil Troy of McGill University told the crowd he was proud that Israel was a country where Pessah Seders were held with Darfur refugees who had found a home there.

To his left, a number of protesters held a large sign that stated: "Zionism is our response to racism."

It was one of a host of activities held by Jewish groups from all over the world, who this week headed to Geneva determined to combat the kind of anti-Semitism that dominated the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which was held in Durban, South Africa.

The Geneva Jewish community, with the help of Chabad, opened a visitors' center a short distance from the conference venue, where they handed out coffee, sandwiches and provided meeting rooms as well as computers.

Fearful that people might be traumatized by what they saw and heard at the conference, the community even had a psychologist on call.

But although Durban II was preceded by a two day anti-Israel conference by non-governmental groups and a number of small anti-Israel rallies were held — including one that compared Israel's actions in Gaza with those of the Warsaw ghetto — the atmosphere around the conference did not replicate Durban I.

A federation of 20 Jewish groups headed by the World Jewish Congress and B'nai B'rith International lobbied diplomatically behind the scenes to influence the conference proceedings.

To counter the anti-Israel rhetoric, the non-governmental group UN Watch gathered together victims of racism and genocide from places such as Rwanda and Darfur.

To focus attention on the many human rights abuses occurring in those countries and around the world, UN Watch held two side conferences of its own this week and organized a side panel in the UN building with victims of racism and genocide.

Well-known human rights advocates such as Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, Prof. Alan Dershowitz of Harvard University, former Canadian justice minister Irwin Cotler and former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky came to Geneva to oppose the conference.

As he sat at the pro-Israel rally on Wednesday evening, former US Ambassador Alfred H. Moses, who heads UN Watch, told The Jerusalem Post that he felt a victory had been achieved in Geneva.

"We changed what could have been a tragic travesty into a triumph," said Moses. Instead of hearing only Israeli wrongs, he said, emphasis has been placed back where it should be — on worldwide human rights abuses.

Speaking at a UN Watch event earlier in the day, French philosopher and author Bernard-Henri Levy said that the 2009 UN's anti-racism document was only barely acceptable. The Durban conferences, he said, should be replaced by a Geneva III, which speaks on behalf of worldwide victims.

Gibreil Hamid of Darfur said at the UN Watch Forum Wednesday morning that he is "one of the lucky ones" who survived the massacres there.

The United Nations now has become a "awful word" for him as a result of its failure to deal with the mass killings in his country.

But even as Jewish groups on Wednesday took stock of their success in providing alternative forums for human rights issues and in keeping new anti-Israel language out of the 2009 summary document, they also noted with concern that the text refers to Israel in a document that speaks about racism.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict was political, not racial, and as such it had no place in a text about racism, said Betty Ehrenberg of the World Jewish Congress.

Reframing the conflict as a racial one opened the door to criminalizing Israel's actions and ultimately delegitimizing it, she said.

Richard Heideman, who headed the B'nai B'rith delegation to Geneva and who was also at the first Durban conference in South Africa, said that holding the event in Geneva where there is a UN infrastructure helped, as did the elimination of the NGO forum that existed in the first conference.

At that event, he said, there were signs "of death to the murdering Jews" and "offensive slurs against Israel, Zionists and the Jewish people."

On the other hand, unlike Durban I, that kind of attack was brought into the plenum itself by Ahmadinejad's speech, he said.

Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 22, 2009.

"Mazel Tov"

Congratulations, that is.

The National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) — the umbrella organization of the Young Israel movement Orthodox synagogues in N. America — has released a statement saying that the "two state solution" being promoted by the US government is "untenable and unfeasible."

This position is most welcome and long overdue.

The Jewish establishment in the U.S. has been, to a very large extent, toeing the line of the US government with regard to "two states" as the key to peace in the region. Now NCYI President Shlomo Z. Mostofsky, addressing the refusal of the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, says, "It is unconscionable for the United States to attempt to jump-start peace talks prior to recognizing a basic premise that must be accepted by all parties..."

NCYI is now mounting a campaign to encourage people to contact appropriate US leaders and urge them to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state.

At the bottom of this posting I will supply contact information for the individuals they recommend being in touch with, as well as key arguments to use.


The NCYI declaration is a response to President Obama's push for that "two state solution." Yesterday he made a statement indicating that he expects to see "concrete steps toward peace" made by both sides, because "we can't talk forever." Guess no one has told him that we're not even talking right now, because after a year of Annapolis conversations nothing happened.

We know what he's going to demand of us: some permutation of a freeze on settlements and a removal of checkpoints. May our government be strong enough to refuse. (The weak link, of course is FM Barak.)

But what of the PA? The equation has been so one-sided that very little is demanded of the Palestinians. What we see is US-sponsored training of security forces, who will, in theory, combat terrorism. But this is highly problematic as there's a very real question of which authority these forces will answer to. I'd like to see, at a minimum, a demand that all incitement be removed from PA textbooks.

The possibility for a "two state solution" are nil, but that won't stop an arrogant Obama from trying to push it through.


I provide here major sections of a report on Day Two of Durban 2, by Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN:

"On Tuesday, the UN's racist anti-racism conference 'Durban II' rammed through a final declaration three days before its scheduled conclusion. On Monday Iranian President Ahamadinejad had opened the substantive program by denying the Holocaust and spewing Anti-Semitism. A day later UN members rewarded Iran by electing it one of three Vice-Chairs of the committee which adopted the final declaration.

"The committee meeting was chaired by Libya and lasted fifteen minutes. No discussion of the merits of the Durban II declaration was tolerated.

"The document reaffirms the 2001 Durban Declaration which alleges Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism and mentions only Israel among all 192 UN member states. It also multiplies the anti-Israel provisions, using the usual UN code, by adding yet another rant about racist foreign occupation.

"Not surprisingly, such a manifesto encouraged the racists and Anti-Semites that had pressed for its adoption. Speaking on Tuesday the Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Faysal Mekdad, alleged 'the right of return' of Jews to Israel — Jewish self-determination — was 'a form of racial discrimination.' He also objected to the 'Judaization of Israel' and to the 'ethnic cleansing of 1948.'

"Palestinian Riyad Al-Maliki claimed that 'for over 60 years the Palestinian people has been suffering under the ugliest face of racism and racial discrimination' and said an Israeli government 'declaration regarding the Jewish nature of the state is a form of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.' Al-Maliki was delighted with the result of the conference and gloated by reading excerpts from the 2001 Durban Declaration that he was pleased to see had been reaffirmed.

"The remnants of the European Union which remained inside the conference — in particular France and the United Kingdom — entirely ignored their many promises not to accept anything which singled out the Jewish state. Though these Europeans undoubtedly enabled the hatemongering, their excuses in the coming days are predictable..."
www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/04/22/ 2009-04-22_durban_diary_day_two_the_outrage_continues.html


We shouldn't expect much of Britain, for certain. Right now, in light of Israel's recent activities in Gaza, it is reviewing all arms exports to Israel. This is not a crisis, as all British arms exports to us constitute less than 1% of what we import. It's a question of attitude.

What is more, in line with that same attitude, Britain is about to permit Hamas politburo leader Khaled Mashaal to address a meeting of MPs and peers in the British parliament via video link from Damascus.

The invitation to the event reads: "Most serious commentators now believe that there can be no peace in the Middle East without talking to Hamas. In addition, we may be facing the last chance for a two-state solution."

I would love to ask the organizers of this event how a "two-state solution" can be achieved when Fatah and Hamas function separately, and Hamas is adamant about not recognizing Israel and not renouncing terror. It wouldn't pay me, however. I've spoken to British officials, and find they are never at a loss for answers, convoluted though they may be.


We had heard during our Gaza operation that Hamas officials hid in Shifa Hospital in Gaza City. Now the IDF has revealed that Hamas PM Ismail Haniyeh set up a command center in that hospital. Hamas field commanders took advantage of the daily self-imposed IDF cessation of military activity, intended to permit humanitarian supplies to get into Gaza, to enter the hospital and receive instructions.


When Avigdor Lieberman assumed the post of Foreign Minister, the Egyptians were none too happy about it. In fact, they said they would have nothing to do with him unless he apologized because he had severely criticized Mubarak for never visiting Israel, except for Rabin's funeral.

Well, Egyptian Intelligence Chief Omar Suleiman is in Israel now, and apparently the Egyptians have had a change of heart, or of policy, anyway. Suleiman met during the day today with PM Netanyahu, and with Defense Minister Ehud Barak. And tonight he met with Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.


Remember the cartoons about Mohammad published in Denmark in 2005 that set off world-wide Muslim riots? The editor who originally commissioned and published them, Flemming Rose, is currently here in Israel, the guest of the Shasha Center for Strategic Studies of Hebrew University.

In a lecture at the Center, Rose said that the Organization of Islamic States is pushing at Durban 2 for "a new world order" that would impose "nondemocratic and illiberal values on the West." The attempt is to re-write the rules of human rights and international law in a manner that undermines Western values of liberty: "We're seeing an erosion of support in the West for freedom of expression in the guise of preventing incitement against Islam."

The alarm that Rose is sounding should be heeded with utmost seriousness.


Those to contact regarding a "two state solution":

President Barack Obama
Phone: 202-456-1111
Fax: 202-456-2461
e-mail form via: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton
Phone: 202-647-6575
Fax: 202-647-2283

Senator John Kerry (Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee)
Phone: (202) 224-2742
Fax: (202) 224-8525
e-mail form via: http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Congressman Howard Berman (Chairman of the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs)
Phone: (202) 225-4695
Fax: (202) 225-3196
CA district alternate fax: (818) 994-1050
Only receives e-mail from constituents at

Congressman Gary Ackerman (Chairman of the Congress. Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia)
Phone: (202) 225-2601
Fax: (202) 225-1589
e-mail form via http://www.house.gov/ackerman/pages/contact.html


Reasons why the US should not be promoting a "two-state solution" follow. It's sufficient to select just a few and appropriate to keep communication relatively brief.

Remember, arguments should be couched in terms that interest elected US officials — not in terms of what is good for Israel or what religious Jews believe about rights in Israel. You want to be heard; talk truthfully, but in their terms.

— If the US attempts this again, and fails, the administration loses international prestige.

— There is no reason to assume that the Palestinians are capable of establishing a stable nation. They do not have civil infrastructure in place and have relied upon international assistance rather than establishing a solid economic base

— There is no political stability. No one address for all Palestinians. This makes it complicated. There could actually end up being two Palestinian states between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. First this has to be worked out.

— Establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank under the auspices of Fatah will increase the risk of terrorism in the Middle East. Hamas is waiting to take advantage of the situation. Hamas in the West Bank will threaten the moderate state of Jordan.

— Fatah itself has not shown genuine desire for peace, as the PA still incites, and its textbooks teach Jihad. Peace cannot be imposed from the top — the people must accept it. And the Palestinian people have not been educated to this.

— If Hamas joins Fatah in a unity government, it says it will not renounce terrorism.

— Jerusalem is very stable as it is. Dividing it to be two capitals may sound like a good idea, but this is absolutely not tenable, as Jewish and Arab neighborhoods are intertwined.

— Israel has a sterling reputation for protecting holy sites of all religions. The PA has an abominable record on this. Turning religious areas over to the Palestinians is asking for trouble at an international level.

— The Palestinians are insisting Israel must retreat to the '67 lines, even though these were only armistice lines and not borders. To push Israel back that way is to give it final borders that are not defensible.

— It is in the best interests of the US to keep Israel strong, as this nation serves as a democratic beacon in the area and a defense against terrorism.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Jan Willem van der Hoeven, April 22, 2009.
The following clearly written and expressed article by a fellow dutchman of mine, Johan Rhodius, is refreshing in its clarity.

Johan Rhodius has worked for almost 28 years as an attorney in private practice in the Netherlands and for two years with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Africa.

May it bring sense to many especially during these days for renewed threats against Israel.


It was my privilege to attend the Jerusalem premiere of this film and the ensuing discussion with many of the people who feature in this film, like Sharansky, Caroline Glick and Dore Gold.

The film promotes the two state solution. The first question to the panel was why the film promoted the two state solution as this concept is passé. One member of the panel answered that the two state solution had validity as otherwise Israel would be confronted with the one state solution. As the discussion developed I realized — with all respect to those who took part in it — that is was not only a waste of time, but counterproductive: As if Israel is the problem of the Arab — Israel conflict and the one who has to provide the solution.

I felt increasingly uncomfortable with the word solution. Firstly it implies that there is a problem. And there ís a problem. The problem is that most Arab states and groups like Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah and Al Qaida and others want to annihilate Israel. That is in breach with international law; sometimes it is useful to mention the obvious. I will refer to those who want to annihilate Israel as the Arabs or the Muslims, although I am fully aware that not every Arab or Muslim wants to annihilate Israel. And even if the large majority of the Arabs and Muslims want to really live in peace with Israel, one never or hardly hears from that silent majority; so they are irrelevant in that respect.

Israel is not the problem. Israel is — like about 140 other states — a sovereign state. Period. "Next question please ". The problem has to be solved by the one who has the problem: The Muslims. The problem is not be solved by the one who does not have the problem, Israel. Even stronger: the one who does not have the problem, can for that very reason not solve the problem.

Legal procedures are often decided by the question which party has the onus of proof, the obligation to proof something. If you cannot prove your point, you lose the case. In this case the party who has to solve the problem. For that reason it is very important in legal procedures to put forward your view and only your view and only react to the view of your opponent where necessary to clarify your own position or refute the view of your opponent if it is incorrect. So not to appropriate the view of your opponent as your own and deal with that.

The two-state solution, the one-state solution or whatever solution is not — at least not originally — the view of Israel (Israel just wanted a state of her own), but of Israel's enemies. It is therefore very unwise to take whatever solution as starting point for a discussion. In doing so — and that is what Israel and Dershowitz do — they appropriate the problem, draw the problem to themselves. That is very dangerous. It makes Israel the problem and Israel the one who has to solve the problem. And if the problem is not solved, the consequences of the problem are for Israel. That is the corner in which the Muslims have maneuvered Israel. And the US, Europe and the rest of the non-Muslim world, represented by the Quartet, have taken over this Muslim view. By the way very much to the detriment of that non-Muslim world.

The fact that the Muslims cannot solve their problem — the annihilation of Israel — means that they lose the "procedure". Period. Moreover the fact that the Muslims cannot solve their problem, does not therefore mean that it is up to Israel to solve this problem. Because then again Israel would fall into the trap of appropriating the problem of the Muslims. Moreover Israel cannot solve this problem as it would have to annihilate itself, commit suicide.

The second reason why I do not like the word solution — in that respect I hate it — that in German solution is Lösung. Hitler had a Lösung, the Endlösung. The Muslims were in agreement with that Endlösung. See the contacts of Arabs with Eichmann in 1936 and the contacts between Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Muslim view has not changed. They see as the solution of the problem the dissolution of Israel and of the Jews.

The conclusion is that the problem that Muslims want to annihilate Israel, the Jews, cannot be solved. The sooner Israel and the rest of the non-Muslim world come to that realization, the better. In the interest of the whole world. Also in the interest of the Muslim world, of that vast majority of Muslims that want really to live in peace with Israel, like almost all other people live peacefully next to their neighbors, this is yours and that is mine. Then the Muslim world would eventually use their energy for what it is meant to be used for: to build and not to destroy, to live and not to kill.

I speak about Muslims and not about Arabs. On purpose. The conflict Muslims have with Israel and with the rest of the non-Muslim world is not a matter of territory or something else, but of religion. Islam wants to dominate the whole world. The Muslims are very consistent: They say what they do and do what they say. And so should the non-Muslim world be: if we do not agree with the Muslim view, we should say so. And do so. That is the solution of the problem. Then we have the maximum possible peace in our world.

Jan Willem van der Hoeven is Director International Christian Zionist Center. Contact him by email at iczc@iczc.org.il and visit the web-site: www.israelmybeloved.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ramy Dishy, April 22, 2009.

This was written by Yehudah Lev Kay and it appeared in Arutz Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).


(IsraelNN.com) An editorial in the latest issue of the prestigious Atlantic Monthly posits that the Palestinian Authority may never have a state because it does not want one. Writer Robert Kaplan claims that statelessness has more appeal to the PA than statehood.

Kaplan's ideas are based on a recent study by John Hopkins professor Jakub Grygiel in which he claims that in the modern era, technologies have given minority groups more power to communicate and commit violent acts without the need for a formal state. He claims that the lack of a state, rather than being a detriment, enables the group to maintain its extremist views while avoiding the complicated task of governing.

Grygiel cites as a case in point the Hizbullah terrorist group. "Though probably capable of taking over the weak central government of Lebanon, Hizbullah has preferred to maintain its sub-state role, thereby limiting its responsibility and hence its vulnerability to attacks," he writes. "Having a state would most likely weaken the ability of Hizbullah to attack Israel, whose military forces could find easy targets."

"Statelessness provides impunity from the retaliatory actions of a powerful state," Grygiel points out, in one of the main thrusts of his study.

Hamas, once it gained independence from Israel, faced exactly the problem Hizbullah chooses to avoid, according to Kaplan. "It was the very quasi-statehood achieved by Hamas in...Gaza...that made it easier for Israel to bomb it," he explains.

The implications for the Palestinian Authority are just as clear. "Statehood would mean openly compromising with Israel," he writes. "Better the glory of victimhood ... As a stateless people, Palestinians can lob rockets into Israel, but not be wholly blamed in the eyes of the international community. Statehood would, perforce, put an end to such license."

As proof that the Palestinian Authority prefers to remain stateless, Kaplan points out that although former Prime Minister Ehud Barak made vast concessions to late PA Chairman Yasir Arafat at Camp David in 2000, the PA leader chose not to compromise. As Kaplan explains, Arafat "may have seen that as a more morally and emotionally satisfying conclusion to a life of statelessness than that of making the unenchanting concessions association with achieving statehood."

Contact Ramy Dishy at clement32@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 22, 2009.


Aaron Troodler
(888) 897-7450


Launches Grass Roots Effort Aimed At Shifting U.S. Approach Towards Israel And The Palestinians

The National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) today urged American political leaders to reconsider its "two-state solution" policy with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. The NCYI also announced that they are initiating a grass roots effort intended to enlighten U.S. leaders as to the dangers of advocating for an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel. The National Council of Young Israel's actions come in the wake of recent statements by U.S. diplomatic leaders which signal that the United States intends to aggressively pursue a "two-state solution" as a prerequisite to peace in the region.

NCYI President Shlomo Z. Mostofsky, Esq. questioned the logic of putting forth a proposal that is virtually certain to fail. He cited a number of outstanding issues that essentially preclude the furtherance of any peace talks prior to them being addressed and resolved.

For example, Mostofsky pointed to the fact that the Palestinian Authority's Chief Justice recently reminded Palestinians that selling land to Jews is considered "high treason," a crime that carries with it a death sentence. In fact, numerous Palestinians have been put to death over the years for allegedly selling property to Jews. "It is unfathomable to engage in any serious discussion about peace while the Palestinians' longstanding racist policy of equating selling land to a Jew with a death sentence remains in effect," said Mostofsky. "We question how the United States could decide to engage in direct interaction with a regime that advocates a housing policy which undermines all of the protections that America's fair housing policies expressly seek to preserve for its own citizenry."

Mostofsky also cited the ongoing saga involving Israeli MIA Gilad Shalit as a barrier to any peace agreement.

"So long as the Palestinians continue to use this young man's life as a bargaining chip, their assertion that they are interested in peace is absolutely meaningless," said Mostofsky.

"Until Gilad Shalit is unconditionally released and reunited with his family, the prospect of peace is a mere fantasy."

During his recent visit to Israel, President Obama's Special Envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell, said that "a two-state solution is the only solution."

During a meeting with Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, he said: "U.S. policy favors, in respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a two-state solution which will have a Palestinian state living in peace alongside the Jewish state of Israel." Just several days ago, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of State described the United States' policy with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the "pursuit of a two-state solution with the two countries living side-by-side in peace."

"Recent statements by American governmental leaders signify a disturbing trend with regard to the United States' approach towards Israel," said Mostofsky. "Many American policymakers erroneously consider the creation of an independent Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel to be paramount to achieving a peaceful resolution of the situation in the Middle East. The National Council of Young Israel firmly believes that an independent Palestinian state would compound the complex problems that currently exist and open the door to a new wave of acts of terror directed at innocent Israeli civilians. America's stated intent to pursue an independent Palestinian state is untenable and unfeasible in light of the Palestinians' well-documented hatred of the Jewish people and resentment of the Jewish state."

Mostofsky also noted that the United States has rejected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state before renewing peace talks. Several days ago, Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed his cabinet about Israel's position on this point. "We insist that the Palestinians — in any diplomatic settlement with us — will recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people," said the Prime Minister. "[t]here is no doubt that we are being asked to recognize the Palestinian state as the national state for the Palestinian people, but...the Palestinians have no intention of recognizing the national state of the Jewish people. [t]here is no doubt that we insist that they recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people."

"It is unconscionable for the United States to attempt to jump-start peace talks prior to recognizing a basic premise that must be accepted by all parties before a fruitful conversation could be had," said Mostofsky.

"In the absence of the recognition that Israel is a Jewish state, any dialogue between the parties will in essence be futile."

In addition, Mostofsky noted that Prime Minister Netanyahu's concerns that ceding control of Israeli land to the Palestinians would exacerbate the situation need to be taken seriously by the United States. The Gaza experience proves that the land for peace concept does not work.

Mostofsky also reiterated the National Council of Young Israel's staunch opposition to any division of Jerusalem as part of any potential peace discussions.

"You cannot divide the indivisible," said Mostofsky. "We strongly oppose any proposal to split the eternal capital of the Jewish people. The division of Jerusalem would create an irreparable void in the soul and spirit of the Jewish nation, and we urge the United States not to make this a condition precedent to any potential peace agreement."

In addition, Mostofsky openly questioned how anyone could possible suggest that control of Jewish holy sites, and for that matter, the Christian holy sites, be relinquished to the Palestinians.

"One need not look any further than Joseph's Tomb to understand the ramifications of entrusting the Palestinians with caring for a holy site," said Mostofsky.

"If past performance is any indication, the Palestinians are in no way equipped to assume such an awesome responsibility and should not be permitted to do so."

Mostofsky also urged the United States to consider what would happen in the event that the two-state solution, which it is advocating, eventually fails.

"With a reluctance to deploy additional U.S. troops to overseas destinations, we question how the United States will be in a position to step in and manage control of the situation if the experiment regarding the creation of an independent Palestinian state ultimately fails," said Mostofsky. "What steps will be taken to ensure the safety and security of the Israeli people if their newly empowered Palestinian neighbors unleash a fresh barrage of terrorist acts at them from their own backyards? What role is the United States prepared to play in that event to restore a sense of stability to the region?"

Mostofsky said that the National Council of Young Israel is encouraging its 25,000 member families, its over 200 branch synagogues throughout the United States, and American citizens throughout the world, to contact American political leaders and urge them to oppose any call for the creation of a Palestinian state.

According to Mostofsky, the NCYI is urging people to call, email, and fax the White House, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Senator John Kerry (Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), Congressman Howard Berman (Chairman of the Congressional Committee on Foreign Affairs), and Congressman Gary Ackerman (Chairman of the Congressional Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia).

Additional information can be found by visiting the National Council of Young Israel's website at www.youngisrael.org.

* * * * *

N. Aaron Troodler
Communications Director and Public Relations Coordinator
National Council of Young Israel
(888) 897-7450 (phone & fax)

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 21, 2009.

[I apologize if you receive this twice — there seems to be a computer glitch.]

Never before have I attached a PowerPoint presentation to my posting. But today is Holocaust Memorial Day, and the presentation — of a memorial in Miami Beach FL — is so movingly evocative that I decided to make the exception.

Thank you, Gittel N.


On Sunday, a group of former Partisans (essentially, guerilla fighters against the Nazis) visited an Israeli Air Force Base, where they met with pilots and saw a pair of jets take off in a drill.

One woman, with numbers tattooed on her arm, asked an officer if his pilots could reach Iran.

"They can reach anywhere," he told her.

Another woman, in a wheel chair, said, "What I ask of you is to make sure there will not be another Holocaust."


I now have a list of the nations who walked out on Ahmadinejad's speech yesterday in Geneva — 23 EU nations and two others. They are listed at the bottom of this posting

I had indicated yesterday that they returned to continue participation. And, indeed, in the main they did, the French envoy, for example, claiming that dialogue is in and of itself valuable.

But the Czech Republic — bravo! — has left for good.


Much is being made of the fact that Ahmadinejad made an adjustment in his talk in Farsi yesterday, cutting out a denial of the Holocaust that had been in the print version distributed by the Iranian government.

Are we supposed to be satisfied that instead he "just" said that we used the Holocaust as a "pretext" for aggression again Palestinians and that ours was the "most cruel and racist regime," which must be "eradicated"?

Representatives of the Vatican are saying they were able to remain through the talk, since there was no Holocaust denial, this apparently being their only red line. (Our relationship with the Vatican leaves a good deal to be desired right now.)


Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and Secretary General of Durban 2, while labeling Ahmadinejad's remarks "totally objectionable," defended his right to make them. "...everybody has a right to speak, and more especially a head of state. And that was his right."

I find this fascinating. For one of the issues of contention within the preparatory meetings of the conference was that of free speech. The Arab/Muslim states are attempting to muzzle criticism of radical Islam, calling such criticism unacceptable Islamophobia. Their position, essentially, is that it is wrong to make any connection between Jihad/terrorism and dedication of the Jihadists/terrorists to Islam, in whose name they act.


As some of you reading this know, in response to the comment of one reader who told me things are even worse than what I described the other day with regard to Obama, I've been engaged in dialogue with a handful of people, seeking a broad and thoughtful picture of the situation.

Here, briefly, I summarize, acknowledging that the situation (or my perception of it) may well shift:

The biggest worry with regard to Obama is not what he'll do to Israel directly, but what he's doing to the US and generating in world dynamics. We here in Israel must learn to stand on our own feet and know when and how to say 'no.'

As would be expected, there is some difference of opinion regarding how effective Congress can and will be in blocking Obama, and there are different perspectives on the development of a grass roots protest movement — a backlash, with the tea parties possibly the beginning.

At least one savvy and well-connected individual I communicated with believes that saner and wiser heads in the Democrat party rein in Obama from time to time — convincing him, for example, not to attend Durban 2.

Another experienced activist made what I thought an astute observation: that "he is still so impressed with the way so much of the American public views him with adulation that he has the naive impression that he can win over our enemies, too, by the force of his personality!"

Obama's approval ratings are slowly dropping but, indeed, the majority of Americans are still for him, and seem to have no clue. They are not focused on the Middle East and are shockingly oblivious to the dangers of Iran.

Mainstream media are not telling the story. The major critique of Obama is coming from right-wing radio talk shows and Fox news (and right wing Internet sites and blogs) — and what I wonder is if they are preaching to the choir.

One thing I had not mentioned before, and should, is the attempt by US Homefront Security to label right wing protesters as a dangerous threat to the country. This is a serious and worrisome business, suggesting a diminution of civil liberties.


Part of what is troubling about Obama is not what he's already done (although there's plenty of that) but rather an intuitive feeling he generates in his critics regarding where he's coming from and what he's about. There is a recognition that traditional American values are being abandoned wholesale and that the nation is being led who-knows-where.

This is a function of a number of things, including whom Obama appoints, who his mentors and financial supporters have been, as well as his eagerness to go an "international" route and his aforementioned courting of the Muslim world. There is an unsettling arrogance about him that rings bells, and an authoritarian approach that is anti-democratic.


Analyst Barry Rubin, in a recent piece, shared thought on some of these issues. While he is more sanguine than I, he makes some interesting points.

Obama's position on Iran presents dangers to Israel, says Rubin, as does an approach that "emboldens radical, terrorist, Islamist forces and demoralizes relatively moderate Arab regimes." But his position on Israel and the "two state solution" actually is not that different from that of his predecessors. Bush pushed Annapolis and Condoleezza was constantly pressuring us for concessions.

Obama, Rubin tells us, is inherently anti-Israel, but has learned that "he could insult large sections of the American people and abandon the most basic assumptions of American patriotism and get away with it. In contrast, he learned that it is politically costly to attack Israel."

Most significantly, according to Rubin — and I've addressed this numerous times — the Palestinians are not ready to make even the smallest concession or compromise in the interests of achieving that "two state solution." This makes Obama considerably less dangerous than he would be if the Palestinians cooperated. No matter what he wishes, he cannot achieve the impossible.


There has been much said regarding PM Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize us as a Jewish state, and whether he's back-tracked on this. (I don't think he has.)

He made a statement about this at the Cabinet meeting yesterday:

We don't know yet what the nature of a settlement we might offer to the Palestinians will be, as this is currently being formulated. We want them to rule over themselves except for powers that threaten our security and existence. [Note: He does not say we will give them a state.] However, one thing is clear:

"We insist that the Palestinians — in any diplomatic settlement with us — will recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people.

"...The entire international community demands that we recognize the principle of two states for two peoples and we are discovering that this is two states but not for two peoples but two states for one people, or two states for a people-and-a-half. That is to say there is no doubt that we are being asked to recognize the Palestinian state as the national state for the Palestinian people but...it is clear...that the Palestinians have no intention of recognizing the national state of the Jewish People. Of course, this is completely unacceptable.

"...we insist that they recognize the State of Israel as the national state of the Jewish People. (Emphasis added)

"...We have never conditioned the start and existence of talks on advance agreement about this but neither can we see progress on a future settlement without their agreement to this condition. Therefore, not only have we not backtracked from it, we stand behind it strongly and I think that in this regard, we reflect a very broad consensus, not only around this table but among the entire nation, a great part of the nation, and rightly so."


Those who walked out on Ahmadinejad's talk:

Austria, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden — all EU nations, plus Morocco, and St. Kitts and Nevis (a federated two-island nation in the Caribbean).

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, April 22, 2009.


The road to peace goes through Arab capitals.

The Palestinian issue was a deal-breaker during Israel-Egypt peace negotiation. In defiance of Jimmy Carter and Zbigniew Brzezinski — the "Palestine Firsters" — and in spite of Palestinian terrorist threats, Menachem Begin and Jordan's top military command impressed upon their Israeli colleagues the need to oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Anwar Sadat introduced a Palestinian-bypass, thus concluding a peace accord. Their determination to overcome White House and Foggy Bottom preoccupation with the Palestinian issue as, supposedly, the root core of the Arab-Israeli conflict and Middle East violence produced a peace treaty. It has lowered the prospect of an Arab-Israeli war, has decreased regional tension and has advanced US interests.

The Israel-Egypt precedent documents that the road to peace goes through Arab capitals and not through Ramallah or Gaza; that the Palestinian issue does not constitute the crown jewel of Arab politics; that the Palestinians do not possess veto power over Arab policy-making; that the Palestinian issue has not been the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict; and that the Palestinian issue has been employed by Middle Eastern radicals as fuel — and not as water — for the regional fire.

During the October 1998 Israel-Jordan peace ceremony, Jordan's top military command impressed upon their Israeli colleagues the need to oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River, since "it would constitute a death-sentence for the Hashemite regime." They expressed their disillusionment with Palestinian commitments, "which are signed in the morning and violated in the evening."

The Israel-Jordan and Israel-Egypt peace treaties have withstood Palestinian opposition and have prevailed, despite an ongoing Israeli war against Palestinian PLO and Hamas terrorism.

A dramatic departure from the roadmap of the Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan peace treaties was taken in the 1993 Oslo Accords and their derivatives: the Hebron and Wye Accords; the Camp David II and Sharm El-Sheikh conferences; the "Disengagement"; the Zinni and Mitchell Plans; and the Quartet's Road Map toward a two-state solution. Never has a "peace process" yielded so much failure, hate education, terrorism and bloodshed and no success.

Oslo and its byproducts have subordinated Israel-Arab peace, Israel's national security and US vital interests to the resolution of the Palestinian issue. Switching focus from the Israel-Arab track to the Israel-Palestinian track, and irrespective of Western and Israeli good intentions, the Oslo Accords and their offspring have played into the hands of Middle Eastern rogue regimes and terrorists.

The "Palestine First" approach has produced dozens of initiatives, conferences, summits, agreements and ceasefire episodes, which have yielded a series of short-lived illusions of peace and a false sense of security. The

There has not been inter-Arab compliance with most inter-Arab agreements during the last 1,400 years. agreements have been promptly and systematically violated and crashed — since 1993 — by an unprecedented wave of Palestinian hate education, which is the manufacturing line of generic terrorism and homicide bombing.

The "two-state solution" is based on a series of erroneous assumptions, ignoring documented precedents, and therefore constitutes an erroneous policy. "Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace" — while the PLO and Hamas have been engaged in a horrific civil war, while there has not been inter-Arab peace during the last 1,400 years, while there has not been inter-Arab compliance with most inter-Arab agreements during the last 1,400 years, while there has not been a single Arab democracy during the last 1,400 years? The "two-state solution" has exacerbated regional turbulence, has fueled terrorism, has promoted war and has reduced the prospects for peace, thus undermining the national security of both the US and Israel.

Finally, drafting demography to the cause of the two-state solution constitutes either a dramatic mistake or an outrageous act of misleading the public (please see my discussion of the demographic issue here).  

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 Previous documents are posted at The Ettinger Report: http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il.

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, April 21, 2009.

Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors insists that the moral imperative derived from the last Holocaust commits all people of good will to prevent the next one.

"In those days before the war," Chaim Weizmann said in recalling international vexation with the Jews, "our protests were regarded as provocations. Our very refusal to subscribe to our own death sentence became a public nuisance."

"The fire from the synagogues may easily spread to Westminster Abbey... If a government is allowed to destroy a whole community which has committed no crime... it means the beginning of anarchy and the destruction of the basis of civilization. The powers which stand looking on, without taking measures to prevent the crime, will one day be themselves visited by severe punishment." This article below was written by Sarah Honig and it appeared Apr. 16, 2009 in the Jerusalem Post. The article is called "Never since the 1930s."


Minimal intellectual honesty compels us Jews to admit that we live in dangerous times — so dangerous that they cannot but remind us of the noxious atmosphere that led to the incomparable tragedy we will solemnly commemorate this Tuesday.

Never in its annals was the phoenix-like Jewish state — literally arisen from the ashes of incinerated Jewish multitudes — so defamed, so unaccepted by the so-called family of nations and so tossed in a howling tempest of ill will. Never since the 1930s have we experienced isolation so suffocating and so ubiquitous. Never since the 1930s did our collective pariah-status breed among us a resignation so deep-seated that it appears to border on apathy.

What makes our times so chillingly similar to the era that conceived and tolerated the Holocaust is the broad social respectability accorded Jew-bashing. It matters little if the pretext is the fake ogre the Nazis called "International Judaism," or the state that the Jews established so they would never be defenseless again. What matters is that Jewish self-defense in the framework of the Jewish state is as assiduously demonized as was the nonexistent cabal of the Elders of Zion.

JEWISH SELF-preservation today is as illegitimate as it was then, and assailing it is as bon ton as in those dark days before the great cataclysm.

The vulgar bigotry of thugs — whether brown-shirted and in hobnailed boots or skin-headed or keffiyeh-wrapped — was and is facilitated by the ideologically-honed vitriol of an ostensibly exemplary, honorable sort. They rationalize their abhorrence as decent and de rigueur. They were the ones who once made it possible for the storm troopers to terrorize and who now vindicate jihadist terror. Once more the self-professed spokespersons of enlightenment and free speech horrifyingly shout down and shut up the objects of their scorn.

Reviling the Jewish state is today just as proper and urbane as turning sophisticated noses up at Jews was for the prewar smart-set. Verses like T.S. Eliot's "The rats are underneath the piles/The Jew is underneath the lot" were received with knowing winks and smug nods of approval by his literary milieu. Jews were judged as deserving repugnance, and the then-guardians of virtue perceived nothing untoward in the diabolical portraiture.

To be sure, Eliot-style spitefulness is crude by today's slyer standards, but the bottom-line is unchanged. No need to badmouth Jews indelicately when Judeophobic ends can be more effectively achieved via compassion for the Jews' would-be annihilators.

When the latter are painted as oppressed victims, Jews per force emerge as ruthless oppressors. When Jews, moreover, are called Israelis, their maligners can fend off accusations of anti-Semitism. Such accusations are anyhow brandished as proof of manipulative intent to silence all criticism of the Jewish state. Calculated, circuitous reasoning eventually turns Jew-haters into righteous, persecuted underdogs, while Israelis are cast as ferocious hounds. It's thus possible to seethe with anti-Semitism without admitting it. This in turn enables self-loathing Jews to join the denunciation-fest, present themselves as morally superior to benighted "other" Jews and thereby strive for their own personal exoneration from Jewish guilt.

Hate-mongers need only claim that they just cannot abide the suffering inflicted by Nazi-clone Jews/Israelis on pitiable Palestinians. By equating Jewish/Israeli "crimes" with the Holocaust, the ploy becomes altogether irresistible. It no longer matters that Israel's army is humane to its own detriment, or that the Palestinians are merely the vanguard of the pan-Arab/Muslim drive to ethnically cleanse this region of any negligible Jewish vestige.

It doesn't even matter that Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular were avid cheerleaders and collaborators in the original Holocaust. Pop-culture banality nearly casts Jews/Israelis as the bad guys of the Holocaust saga.

In the topsy-turvy reality of shallow pop-conscience, descendents of history's worst mass murderers and most indifferent onlookers now decontaminate their heritage by arrogantly portraying descendents of the most downtrodden as flagrantly evil. Exploiting the Holocaust to condemn the children of Holocaust survivors for seeking to preempt a Holocaust sequel must be the epitome of cynicism. But this cynicism is the basic prerequisite for progressive credentials.

THAT'S WHY The New York Times published Pat Oliphant's cartoon featuring a gigantic, headless, sword-wielding, goose-stepping, uniformed fiend wheeling a razor-fanged Star of David that threatens to run down a tiny, defenseless Gazan woman and baby. Every last demonizing stereotype is there, yet the guise is of an indignant liberal commentary rather than the Der Sturmer calumny it replicates.

The Australian-born Oliphant, moreover, is no gutter-agitator. He's the world's most widely syndicated political cartoonist, the winner of numerous awards, including the Pulitzer, and his works have been exhibited in no less than Washington's National Portrait Gallery. Even more disheartening is the fact that Oliphant's distortive cliche is so commonplace.

In bastions of professed broadmindedness, deploring "Israeli excesses" is the barest minimum expected of upstanding persons of goodwill and forward-thinking inclinations. It's an indispensable accessory for the liberal image. Any young quasi-cultured person one might encounter overseas is likely not to like us. That has nothing to do with malice and everything to do with the trendy indoctrination of the do-gooders in crowd.

Said do-gooders orchestrate sinister demonstrations outside Israeli embassies. They throng at college campuses to heckle and abuse any speaker suspected of pro-Israeli sentiments (or of not being sufficiently anti-Israel). They clamor for boycotts of all Israeli products. In freedom's name they initiate inherently incongruous academic boycotts of Israeli universities (which are renowned for unconstrained nonconformity and pluralism). They disrupt sporting events in which Israelis compete. Some even purport to champion opposition to genocide by abiding chants like "Hamas! Hamas! All Jews to the gas!"

They so detest bloodshed and injustice that they vehemently deprecate any remotely feasible plan to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear warheads. The politically correct thing to do is not impede tyrants who broadcast their bloodcurdling intentions before every available microphone.

World peace will supposedly be secured by restraining Israel. Submissive Jews/Israelis are presumably assured the affections of do-gooder non-anti-Semites. Which brings us right back to the 1930s, when Jews couldn't have been more powerless or compliant. Nonetheless, their helplessness won them no kind consideration.

"In those days before the war," Chaim Weizmann said in recalling international vexation with the Jews, "our protests were regarded as provocations. Our very refusal to subscribe to our own death sentence became a public nuisance."

Words that could be spoken today.

This also goes for Weizmann's warning to Anthony Eden: "The fire from the synagogues may easily spread to Westminster Abbey... If a government is allowed to destroy a whole community which has committed no crime... it means the beginning of anarchy and the destruction of the basis of civilization. The powers which stand looking on, without taking measures to prevent the crime, will one day be themselves visited by severe punishment."

Children Of Jewish Holocaust Survivors (CJHSLA) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to the protection of freedom and actively promotes the right of the State of Israel to not only exist, but to flourish, as a Jewish state. CJHS insists that the moral imperative derived from the last Holocaust commits all people of good will to prevent the next one.

A safe and secure Israel is vital to world interest.
A safe and secure Israel is a prerequisite to genuine peace in the world.
Visit us at www.cjhsla.org

This article appeared in
http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710707808&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, April 21, 2009.

A startling new study reveals that had it not been for the Holocaust, there would be some 32 million Jews in the world today, rather than just 13 million. Just imagine a world in which a vibrant and ample Jewish people, more than double its present size, was not beset by the constant threat of demographic diminution and assimilatory attenuation.

As I argue in the column below from the Jerusalem, the study's findings raise a related yet no less important question: To what extent does it matter how many Jews there are in the world?

While many Jews tend to discount or minimize the importance of our numbers, I believe the time has come to shift our focus, and to start emphasizing not only quality, but quantity as well. Whether in basketball, business or international diplomacy, size truly does matter.

This appeared today in Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710752598&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly.

Michael Freund


Earlier this week, just in time for Holocaust Remembrance Day, a news item appeared in the media that sent a shiver up my spine.

According to the report, distinguished demographer Sergio Della Pergola of the Hebrew University has concluded that had it not been for the Holocaust, there would be 32 million Jews in the world today, rather than just 13 million.

The Holocaust, he noted, had "struck a mortal blow particularly at the Jews of Eastern Europe because of their especially young age structure." This, he said, had caused "significant long-term demographic damage" with ramifications "far beyond what we think."

Indeed, as Della Pergola points out, the percentage of Jews in the world today is steadily declining. Whereas prior to World War II, there were eight Jews per thousand people in the world, the figure now stands at just two per every thousand, and it is heading southward.

These findings are a timely and chilling reminder of the unfathomable destruction which the Holocaust wrought. Not only did it claim the six million who were murdered by the Germans and their collaborators, but it also took away their children, grandchildren and all of their descendants, forever depriving the Jewish people of untold millions of precious souls.

In other words, the scope of the killing, magnified over time, becomes ever more extensive and incomprehensible.

Just imagine a world in which a vibrant and ample Jewish people, more than double its present size, was not beset by the constant threat of demographic diminution and assimilatory attenuation.

Consider for a moment the cultural and spiritual riches that we would be producing, the mighty intellectual and cerebral contributions to mankind that we could be making, and you begin to realize the extent of what has been lost.

BUT IN ADDITION to all the "what ifs," Della Pergola's research inevitably raises a related question, albeit one far more philosophical and theological in nature: To what extent does it matter how many Jews there are?

Traditionally, of course, we have never placed a great deal of emphasis on the size or dimensions of the Jewish people. For the past 2000 years, living at the mercy of others, we tended to focus more on quality rather than quantity.

That, perhaps, is why many Jews tend to discount or minimize the importance of our numbers, arguing that what really matters is whether we are working effectively to fulfill our national destiny.

But this mode of thinking, I believe, is a product of exile, a function of the fact that we were more concerned with surviving, rather than thriving. In the process, we tended to lose sight of the important role that numbers can and do play in the life of a nation.

Go back to the Bible, for example, where demographic prowess is repeatedly emphasized. In Genesis 13, God assures Abraham that his descendants shall be as numerous as the dust of the earth. The medieval commentator Rashi explains the promise as follows: "Just as the dust can not be counted, so too shall your seed be beyond counting."

Similar pledges were made to the patriarchs Isaac and Jacob, and when Moses addressed Israel before his death, he too prophesied that God would multiply them "a thousand times over" (Deuteronomy 1:10-11). This, says the Ha'emek Davar commentary, is a promise that relates both to the quality and the quantity of the Jewish people.

SOMEHOW, WHILE we were getting collectively beaten up in the Diaspora over the centuries, we seem to have moved away from this approach. But now might be just the time to start rethinking it. After all, size does matter, whether in basketball, business or international diplomacy. And to make a difference in the world and live up to our national mission as Jews, we need a much larger and more diverse "team" at our disposal.

This means that we not only need to work harder at keeping Jews Jewish, but we also must expand our horizons and look for other ways to boost our numbers.

A good place to start would be with descendants of Jews, with communities that have a historical connection with the Jewish people and are now interested in returning. These include the Bnei Menashe of northeastern India, who are descended from a lost tribe of Israel, the Bnei Anousim of Spain, Portugal and South America (whom historians refer to by the derogatory term "Marranos"), the "Hidden Jews" of Poland from the Holocaust-era, as well as others.

Through no fault of their own, these people's ancestors were taken by force from the Jewish people, and we owe it to them and their descendants to embrace them and welcome them back home. Doing so will not only right a historical wrong, but it will strengthen us numerically and spiritually as well.

If you are still not convinced of the importance of numbers, consider the following. In his A History of the Jews, Paul Johnson notes that during the Herodian era there were eight million Jews in the world, "constituting about 10 percent of the Roman empire." At around the same time, a census in China conducted by the Han dynasty found that there were 57.5 million Chinese, or seven Chinese for every Jew.

Jump ahead 2000 years to the present, and the numbers are of course quite different, with China seeking ways to limit its growth beyond 1.1 billion people, even as Jewry desperately searches for ways to maintain its 13 million members.

We might never be able to match China's demographics, but we can and should look for new opportunities for growth. Our precarious state as a people, and the threats we face at home and abroad, demand as much.

The writer serves as chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), a Jerusalem-based group that assists 'lost Jews' seeking to return to the Jewish people. This article appeared today in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710752598&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, April 21, 2009.

Hatachana Falls in Nachal Ayun

This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images.

Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT:

Standing at the base of a thundering double waterfall, spray misting in my hair and eyes, it's hard to imagine Israel has a water shortage. But return to this spot at the start of summer and you'll be lucky to see even a trickle of water dribbling over the 15-meter cliff. The Ayun Stream flows through Metulla, at the northernmost point of the Galilee panhandle. The park's canyon and highlands offer a family-friendly, two-hour hike that bypasses four waterfalls, of which Hatachana Falls, pictured here, is the most spectacular.

For the photographer, this waterfall is also easily — and safely — accessible from a variety of angles. I photographed at the base of the waterfall, where I had to continually cover my camera with a handy bandana as I composed to prevent the lens from gathering moisture. I like this shot, taken right on the trail from above, because it best conveys the overall grandeur of the site. Moving water lends itself to two possible interpretations. A very fast shutter speed will capture the flying molecules in total sharpness. Alternatively, in this photo, I slowed the shutter speed to 1/6 of a second to smooth out the cascading water for a more romantic rendering. Either way, the camera captures a view of nature that remains hidden to the human eye.

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com and visit his website:
http://www.goldenlightimages.com. Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 20, 2009.

Today a racist conference began in Geneva. Tonight began Yom HaShoah — Holocaust Memorial Day. Not only has the juxtaposition of these two events not gone unnoted, it carries a particular bitterness.

The number of nations that decided not to attend Durban 2 is respectable. The more absent themselves, the less legitimacy the proceedings have. Germany, New Zealand, and Poland joined the line-up of those staying away.

Biggest disappointments are Great Britain and France, which are in attendance. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner declared that the French representative would walk out "immediately" if the proceedings were racist or anti-Israel; and today he had his chance to prove it. Representatives of the EU, we were told, would be there as "observer" to make sure no "red lines" were crossed — and would "respond appropriately" to any "unacceptable" statement.

And, it should be noted, the Vatican opted to participate.


Biggest surprise, at least for me, was the statement by President Obama, declaring that the US could not attend the conference because of "hypocritical antagonism" towards Israel.

"Our participation would have involved putting our imprimatur on something we just didn't believe in."

Many had thought at the last moment he would decide to attend. There is only speculation as to why he didn't.


Yesterday, Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz met Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a meeting over dinner. All very "civilized." Today, Foreign Minister Lieberman — with Netanyahu's approval — called Israel's Ambassador in Switzerland, Ilan Elgar, back to Jerusalem for consultations as a sign of protest. Later, the Foreign Ministry summoned Monika Schmutz-Kirgoz, the head of Switzerland's diplomatic mission to Israel, for an "urgent discussion" to convey Israel's serious displeasure with the Ahmadinejad meeting.

Said a Foreign Ministry spokesman:

"A meeting with Ahmadinejad badly damages the international moral coalition against Iran and serves as a dishonorable move which should never take place. A head of state who has some respect for himself should not shake the hand of the Holocaust denier from Tehran."

What matters most to me is that our Israeli representatives demonstrated enormous respect for our state by protesting this way. No shrinking violets here, but rather proud Israelis taking a forceful position.

President Merz, who was not pleased, indicated that he had a right to do this as Switzerland is a neutral country. The Swiss were "neutral" during the Holocaust too, and gave quiet assistance to the Nazis. In a struggle against evil declared neutrality is itself immoral.


So what happened at the opening day of the conference?

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave the key note address and called for the elimination of Israel. Israel, he said, was founded on the "pretext of suffering" after WWII. [ON Holocaust Remembrance Day, he speaks about a pretext!!] But Israel founded a "cruel and repressive racist regime." "Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights at eradicating this barbaric racism. Efforts must be made to put an end to Zionism."

In the course of his statements, dozens of delegates walked out. At this time I do not have exact information on which nations they represented; most were EU connected.

But they didn't stay out. They returned to participate, in the face of the evidence of how the conference was hijacked, with the argument that they couldn't leave the conference to the racists. But they delude themselves, for the majority of those present didn't walk out and applauded the Iranian president.


Present during the proceedings were some Jewish students, some from Israel and some — who donned clown wigs when Ahmadinejad began to speak, to show that the proceedings were a circus — from France. They came to heckle him, and were escorted from the auditorium. But they received a round of applause.


UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon did not walk out but later deplored Ahmadinejad's remarks.


From the Israeli Foreign Ministry came this statement: "The offensive and inflammatory incitement and humiliating and intolerable appeal to racist hate by the Iranian President, which were expressed during the first hours of the conference, constitute clear proof, for those who still require it, that the conference's agenda has been taken hostage and been diverted from real and necessary racism-related deliberations — to a brazen attack on Israel."


The Holocaust Memorial Ceremony at Yad VaShem tonight was dedicated to Children of the Holocaust. Every year survivors light six torches in memory of the six million. Those who did this year were all young children at the start of the Holocaust. But there were seven, not six, because one set of identical twins was included: Iudit Barnea and Lia Huber (nées Tchengar). They were among the twins who endured the infamous twin experiments of Mengele.


Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, one of the speakers at the Ceremony, said:

"We will not let the Holocaust deniers perpetrate another holocaust on the Jewish people,. This is the highest responsibility of the State of Israel and of myself as prime minister.

"Israel is the shield and the hope of the Jewish People. Here we create for the glory of our people and all of mankind. The country's achievements in every field — culture and science, medicine and security — are groundbreaking. We are a nation small in number but of great fortitude,"


Yet another speaker was IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-General Gabi Ashkenazi:

"Even today we still face elements that seek to destroy us, those who hate us, Holocaust deniers and various leaders who openly call for our extermination.

"[The IDF is] "capable of striking the farthest enemy.

"...we insist on preserving the morals unique to the Jewish people since its inception through the way we fight and conduct ourselves. Those who spoke of the 'supreme race,' and sought to rob us of our humanity, should know that the Israeli people is alive, determined to face any challenge, ready to face even the most complex threats and defeat them.

"It's difficult to explain the moral strength required of those warriors, who survived the Nazi hell and gathered their strength to come to Israel, to fight for it, and to rebuild their homes and lives here.

"The sense of purpose of the Holocaust survivors who fought in 1948, their devotion, courage and determination — were the central foundations of the 'silver platter' we were given the Jewish state on."

Stand tall, Israel!


With all of the obscenity I've described here, I'm tempted to call this obscene as well. Or else just mind-numbingly stupid.

The US tonight let it be known that even though Ahmadinejad gave a nasty speech today, it was still interested in direct negotiations with him. This was part of President Obama's policy of engagement.

In a statement of particular profundity, State Department spokesman Robert Wood, speaking to reporters in Washington, said, "The comments that he made ... frankly feed racial hatred. If Iran ... wants a different relationship with the international community, it's got to change its behavior and stop this horrible rhetoric."


So much more to write, but tomorrow awaits. I close here with a link to my piece on YNet that went up today, "PA's Fallacious Premises":

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, April 20, 2009.

This was written by Rafael Medoff and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post..
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1239710740325&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull

Rafael Medoff is director of the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies. The address of the website is www.WymanInstitute.org


This month marks the 65th anniversary of a daring escape from Auschwitz, by a teenager who then revealed the truth about the death camp — only to be ignored by the Allied leadership.

In March 1944, the Germans occupied Hungary and began preparing to deport that country's Jews — numbering approximately 750,0000 — to Auschwitz. A 19-year-old prisoner named Rudolf Vrba, together with fellow-inmate Alfred Wetzler, decided to do something that almost nobody had ever done before: escape from Auschwitz. They were determined to alert the world about the doom that Hungarian Jews would soon face.

On April 7, Vrba and Wetzler slipped away from their slave labor battalion and hid in a hollowed-out woodpile near the edge of the camp. On the advice of Soviet prisoners of war, the fugitives sprinkled the area with tobacco and gasoline, which confused the German dogs that were used to search for them.

On their second day in the woodpile, Vrba and Wetzler heard Allied warplanes overhead. "They came closer and closer — then bombs began to crunch not far away," Vrba later recalled in his searing memoir I Cannot Forgive. "Our pulses quickened. Were they going to bomb the camp? Was the secret out?... Was this the end of Auschwitz?"

THE ALLIED PLANES were actually bombing German oil factories in and around the Auschwitz complex. The idea of bombing the death camp had not yet been proposed to the Allied leadership, and details such as the location of the gas chambers and crematoria were not yet known to the Allied war command. But that was about to change.

On April 10, in the dead of night, Vrba and Wetzler emerged from the woodpile and began an 11-day, 80-mile trek to Slovakia. There they met with Jewish leaders and dictated a 30-page report that came to be known as the "Auschwitz Protocols." It included details of the mass-murder process, maps pinpointing the gas chambers and crematoria and warnings of the impending slaughter of Hungary's Jews.

"One million Hungarian [Jews] are going to die," Vrba told them. "Auschwitz is ready for them. But if you tell them now, they will rebel. They will never go to the ovens."

A COPY of the report was given to Rudolf Kastner, a Budapest Jewish leader. Instead of publicizing the information, Kastner negotiated a deal that involved bribing the Germans to permit a train with 1,684 of his relatives, friends and Hungarian Jewish leaders to leave the country. Kastner's action became the centerpiece of a controversial trial in Israel after the war.

Another copy of Vrba's Auschwitz Protocols was given to Rabbi Michoel Dov Weissmandl, a rescue activist in Bratislava, who then wrote the first known appeal for the use of Allied air power to disrupt the mass murder. Weissmandl's plea to the Allies to bomb the railroad lines between Hungary and Auschwitz reached the Roosevelt administration in June.

Assistant secretary of war John McCloy responded that the request was "impracticable" because it would require "diversion of considerable air support essential to the success of our forces now engaged in decisive operations." He also claimed the War Department's position was based on "a study" of the issue. But no evidence of such a study has ever been found by researchers. In reality, McCloy's position was based on the War Department's standing policy that no military resources should be allocated for "rescuing victims of enemy oppression."

VRBA'S REPORT convinced the Jewish Agency leadership in Palestine to change its position on bombing. Agency leaders initially opposed bombing Auschwitz because they believed it was a labor camp, not a death camp. But after receiving the Auschwitz Protocols in June, agency officials lobbied British, American and Soviet officials to bomb the camp or the railways leading to it. Their requests were rebuffed.

Most important, a condensed version of the Auschwitz Protocols reached the US government's War Refugee Board in June. It helped galvanize the board to mobilize international pressure on Hungary to halt the deportations to Auschwitz. Although that effort came too late for the more than 400,000 Hungarian Jews who had been shipped to their doom, it did spare the 200,000-plus who were still alive in Budapest.

The full version of the Vrba report was actually held up in Switzerland for three months by US diplomats who regarded it as low priority. And when the report finally reached Washington in October, the Office of War Information opposed distributing it; OWI director Elmer Davis claimed the report was actually part of a Nazi conspiracy to "create contempt for the [Jewish] inmates" by showing that the Jews were not resisting their killers.

Fortunately, Davis and his cockamamie theories were too late to blunt the impact of the Auschwitz Protocols. The Hungarian deportations had been stopped, and Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler had played a significant role in bringing that about.

Contact the Ceders at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Gadi Eshel, April 20, 2009.

Tonight, is the Holocaust Memorial Day (Yom HaSho'ah) in Israel. It has been set so as to mark the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, and it is hence named Sho'ah and G'vurah ("Holocaust and Fortitude"). See below recent findings, that tie it to current-day threats.


Contact Dr. Eshel at gadi.eshel@ptk.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Golem, April 19, 2009.

My light-hearted attack on the looney left.



April 15th, 2009,
(Hebrew calendar: 21st of Nisan, 5769)

Dear peace activist community,

I would like to congratulate all of you on the success of the recent Israel Apartheid Week that occurred simultaneously in more than 25 cities and numerous college campuses and liberal churches around the world.

You should be very proud of how many people you have convinced that Israel is an evil country, with an evil government based on an evil political system, surrounded by people who desperately want peace. And you have successfully portrayed the Israel Defense Forces as a roving band of homicidal maniacs who go around killing people as a form of light entertainment.

Ever since the mid 1970's I have been hearing statements like, "It's only a "small minority" of Jews who are ruining the world".

Or "I have nothing against Jews as long as they live in Alaska and vote for Ralph Nader".

Or, "Americans don't like people crashing planes into their buildings because the Zionist controlled media tells them to feel that way".

To be honest, I am tired of arguing and I am too busy with a husband, children, aging parents and a stressful job to deal with such stupidity.

I used to worry about the "Anti-Zionist" movement a lot. But I don't anymore. Today, when any of them go on a tirade about, "Racist, fascist, imperialist, colonialist, apartheid", I just smile and walk away.

Like every other cult, they always think they're winning and they always think that time is on their side. I will tell you why they are wrong.

Last November, we elected Barack Obama as the forty-fourth president of the United States. Initially, many in the Arab and Muslim world thought we were getting a Muslim Socialist who was going to bomb Israel for them. Fortunately, this is not the case.

President Obama has pledged to withdraw all American combat forces from Iraq by May 20, 2010. That is about one year from the date of this article. To be honest, I am really looking forward to the day when the good people of Iraq will get to enjoy each other's company, without any "Imperialist interference".

We will then find out how peaceful Islam really is. In fact, I recently bought a very large flat-screen television just to enjoy the festivities.

In the next few years, I expect millions of Iraqis are going to kill each other. And I don't think there is anything anyone can do to stop them. In addition, I believe a lot of young men from Iran will come in from the east. Then a lot of other young men will run in from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Gaza etc. Kind of like the Spanish civil war of the late 1930's. The Americans certainly won't turn around and go back. And the Europeans won't send the children they don't have to get involved in this hopeless bloodbath.

Of course, "Peace activists" and "Progressives" will write thousands of blogs, blaming the whole thing on Dick Cheney and Jewish Republicans. Jimmy Carter will blame Israel. The President of Iran may win the Nobel Peace Prize. And the Quakers and Unitarians will travel to Iraq and teach non-violence. A few will get kidnapped and have their heads chopped off in grainy videos that can be enjoyed on YouTube.

But none of this will matter. The dead will still be dead. And the survivors will die a slow death, from starvation and cholera. But not too worry. They will spend eternity in paradise, with the virgins.

Good luck with next year's Israel Apartheid Week.

Peace, Rachel Golem
Jerusalem, Zionist Empire

Your comments are always welcome at:

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, April 19, 2009.
This appeared April 13, 2009 in the New York Daily News.

There is a deeply disturbing report that Columbia University has granted tenure to a teacher who used his classroom as a platform for propagating offensive teachings about Jews — and bullied his students to boot.

Joseph Massad should have no place on the faculty of a world-class institution of higher learning, let alone a university located in New York. He showed himself to lack the quality of mind and temperament necessary to serve among the Columbia professoriate.

Massad is a Jordanian-born Palestinian who teaches in the department of Middle East and Asian languages and cultures. That he does not belong in Morningside Heights became clear in 2005, when a university investigation concluded he "exceeded commonly accepted bounds" of teaching.

How? By threatening to banish a student who had asked a question that challenged Massad's Israel-is-evil point of view. "If you're going to deny the atrocities being committed against Palestinians, then you can get out of my classroom," he said.

On another occasion, Massad demanded that a student, a former Israeli soldier, tell him how many Palestinians he had killed.

Said to be a scholar of contemporary Arab politics and culture, Massad crosses into lunacy regarding Jews. In one article, he proclaimed that Jews are infected by a mass psychosis that drives them to persecute Palestinians, put Israel's record on a par with Nazi mass murders and said Palestinians are the "real Jews" while Jews are the real anti-Semites.

Although Massad had grossly violated a student's academic freedom, Columbia chose to consider his fitness in its process for granting tenure, or lifetime appointment. Generally, professors leave if they don't get tenure.

In October, there was hope Columbia would dump Massad after Provost Alan Brinkley moved to block his tenure. But now, a crackpot California professor writes on a blog that the university gave Massad its blessings.

In a message addressed "to all the Zionist hoodlums out there," As'ad AbuKhalil wrote that "dear Joseph Massad deservedly received his tenure." This happened, he went on, despite "dirty tricks" and "sinister propaganda" by said Zionist hoodlums.

Columbia would not confirm or deny AbuKhalil's report. If it is correct, President Lee Bollinger and board of trustees Chairman William Campbell have let the university down and owe an apology to New York, most especially its Jewish community.
//www.nydailyn ews.com/opinions /2009/04/ 13/2009-04-13_bullying_ professor_ does_not_ deserve_tenure. html

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 19, 2009.

America has lost her way, and I sit here in Israel aghast at what I'm seeing. From the beginning of his candidacy it was clear that Obama was going to be bad news. But I confess that I never imagined quite how bad it would be. I never imagined that a turn-around — from what America had been to what it now is — was possible so quickly.

The president of the United States grovels before tyrants and makes it possible for enemies of the free world to garner strength. He speaks without dignity as an American and courts Muslims who wish the Western world ill.

Incrementally, I've been writing about this — about the demeaning bow to the king of Saudi Arabia, for example; the diminishing of requirements placed on Iran if there are to be face-to-face negotiations, so that the US is now to the left (!) of Europe; the patent foolishness of speaking of "moderate" Taliban with whom the US soldiers might connect. It goes on and on.

Not only would Obama diminish US stature in the world, he would reduce America's defensive capability, as he is in favor of cutting the US nuclear arsenal and reducing the American missile defense system. Could it possibly be that he imagines that US enemies, facing a kinder, gentler America, would opt to follow suit?

Can it possibly be that the US electorate will continue to sit still for this? According to commentator Caroline Glick, ultimately there will be a turn-around and the issue is one of preventing damage until that happens.


From the perspective here, there are serious concerns about US positions that are not in Israel's best interest. That goes for pressure for a "two-state solution" and efforts to discourage or block Israel from attacking Iranian nuclear facilities. (There are many analysts who link the two issues.)

The ability of the Netanyahu government to stand strong right now — and to make the best possible decisions for Israel — is incredibly important.


Today PM Netanyahu held the first of what will be a series of policy review forums on Israeli-Palestinian issues, in order to formulate policy before he meets with President Obama in a month. In attendance were Defense Minister Barak, Foreign Minister Lieberman, Uzi Arad — head of the National Security Council and the prime minister's national security advisor, and Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's Security-Diplomatic Bureau.

What made news from that meeting was that Barak was pushing for an development of an Israeli peace plan based on the Arab "Peace Initiative" that would lead to a Palestinian state, but that would meet all Israeli demands for security and recognition as a Jewish state.

To put matters baldly, I don't know what the hell this man is talking about. For it is an impossibility to fashion a "peace plan" that meets legitimate Israeli demands and is also based on the Arab initiative — which is a plan for Israeli destruction.

But — even though I don't know what Netanyahu and the others said in response to this suggestion, and I am mindful that this is the press take on matters — I begin to feel unease in the pit of my stomach.


In response to a Netanyahu demand that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state, has come a resounding — and not unexpected — refusal to do so. Azzam al-Ahmed, a confidant of Abbas and senior Fatah official, declared yesterday that "We reject Netanyahu's demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. This demand illustrates the racist nature of its government..."

The Palestinians come out swinging every time, and expect the world to swallow their statements. But it behooves me to point out that the sanctimonious charges made here are from a representative of a political entity that wants to establish a state, based on Islam, that is totally Judenrein. Exactly who is racist?


Netanyahu has clarified his position on the matter. Despite press claims to the contrary, he says, he never refused to talk to the Palestinians before they recognize us as a Jewish state, rather, what he says is that any progress in talks will be dependent upon this. This felt to me like a back-tracking, but I checked it and indeed he seems to be telling it straight.

The simple fact of the matter is that our prime minister is enduring incredible pressures. He is trying to walk a path that is in Israel's best interest without being so "in your face" that he incurs unnecessary international hostility.

What I implore Israelis reading this to do, then, is to contact Netanyahu, praise him for his positions, and let him know that the nation is behind him Please, also encourage others in Israel to do the same.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu:
Telephone: 02-640-8456 Fax: 02-649-6659 E-mail: bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il


And I urge all US citizens reading this to contact elected representatives there.

Those who should be contacted:

Howard Berman (D-CA 28th), Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee
Phone: (202) 225-4695 Fax: (202) 225-3196
E-mail restricted to constituents at http://www.house.gov/berman/contact/

Congressman Berman is a straight-talking man.

Ileana Ros-Lehtenin (FL 18th), Ranking Republican on House Foreign Affairs Committee
Phone: 202-225-3931 Fax: 202-225-5620
Unfortunately, her website is down as I write this and I cannot access e-mail contact information. You might try to secure this at: http://ros-lehtinen.house.gov/

Ileana is one of the best friends we have in the House. She gets it and should hear that we appreciate her.

John Kerry (D-MA), Chair, Foreign Relations Committee
Phone: (202) 224-2742 Fax: (202) 224-8525
E-mail: http://kerry.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Let us say that Senator Kerry is not one of Israel's better friends.

Richard Lugar (IN), Ranking Republican on Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Phone: (202) 224-4814 Fax: (202) 228-0360
E-mail: http://lugar.senate.gov/contact/

Neither is Senator Lugar where we might hope he would be.
Your own Congressperson, found at:
Your own Senator, found at:

The message is simple (please, stated in your own words as possible). Do not allow pressure to be placed on Israel with regard to a two-state solution. Such a solution is not even viable as there is no one partner with which Israel can negotiate, and the current situation represents a threat to Israeli security. What is more, Israel must be supported in her right to self-defense with regard to Iran.


One of the priorities listed by Likud as the new government was being formed was education. And we now have the first good news on that front. Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar has appointed Dr. Shimshon Shoshani to be Director-General of the Ministry. Shoshani has just announced a new program that will require all elementary and high school students in the country to visit Jerusalem and learn about the capital.


The Durban 2 Forum begins in Geneva tomorrow. Along with Israel, Canada, the US, Italy, and now Australia and Holland, have decided not to participate. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, saying that this is a "hypocrisy forum," has called on more states to refuse to attend. "The fact that a racist like Ahmadinejad is the main speaker proves the true aim and nature of the conference."

According to YNet, it appears Germany may not attend, and other EU nations may stay away as well.

Over the last two days NGOs have been gearing up with anti-Israel activities preliminary to the main Forum. Yesterday, the Israel Review Conference, a coalition of anti-Israel NGOs, met. Today the global Campaign for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel held workshops.

Included was discussion of a European resistance movement, based on the concept "We are all Hezbollah, we are all Hamas. The world stopped Nazism, the world stopped Apartheid, we will stop Zionism."

This gives you an idea of precisely how obscene and hateful — and terrorist-embracing — this gathering is. Maybe some nations still considering their options will get the message.


Call the handful of people who will be receiving this my own personal kitchen cabinet, or whatever. I am picking brains and eager to hear from thoughtful, aware people in the US (or with strong US connections).

I had someone on my list write and say that sometimes she thinks things are even worse than what I've described [in today's posting.]. Well, sometimes I think so too, but am trying to stay logical and analytical and not go into panic mode. I've just been in touch with a dear friend here in Israel who IS in panic mode about what's happening in the US and how it will affect us.

My question, quite simply, is how are you seeing it? Is there reasonable chance of grassroots backlash — not just with regard to fiscal policies of Obama but his putting the nation at risk? Will responsible elected officials in Congress work to block the worst of what he hopes to do? And perhaps at the Pentagon? Are there any bright spots at all? Do genuine US friends of Israel have any leverage today?

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, April 19, 2009.

Rashid Khalidi, the former PLO spokesman-turned Columbia University professor, is convinced that Israel has constructed a "matrix of control" in the Middle East. Khalidi once cited books and articles to back up his skewed views of Middle East history. Now he cites obscure Internet claims of an "occupation settlement industrial complex."

On April 1, Khalidi gave a one-hour phone briefing to Brit Tzedek v'Shalom (The Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace) — a leftist organization based in Chicago. While occasionally sounding balanced and insightful, he launched into short rants throughout the call.

Notably, about eight minutes in, he began to froth about a "network of interests which is bound up with the maintenance of this matrix of control. The occupation settlement industrial complex — a network of companies that an Israeli Web site called 'whoprofits' put together." Based on this site, which published a disclaimer about the "accuracy, completeness, usefulness of any information and/or documents disclosed," along with input from radical leftists like Jeff Halper and Palestinian apologists like Amira Haas, Khalidi claimed there are "hundreds of companies, hi-tech companies, that keep the databases on which Israel manages... the four million Palestinians... The telephone databases to the security companies that manage the checkpoints to the companies that build the roads... the settler-only roads." And so on and so forth.

This assertion is outrageous on several levels. The Palestinians constitute a never-ending financial and political burden for the Jewish state. From within the Palestinian population also comes a constant terrorist threat which requires millions of dollars in training and resources each year to counter. To imply that Israel prospers from this albatross is preposterous.

Khalidi must also be called out for attempting to further the canard of "settler-only roads." Media analyst Tamar Sternthal pointed out in 2003 that such roads do not exist. "There are no roads in the West Bank or Gaza which are open only to settler traffic." Khalidi, who claims to be an expert on the Palestinians, should know better.

He should also know better than to assert, as he did, that the United States is responsible for the Palestinian civil war between Hamas and Fatah. Khalidi called the internecine conflict "a function of external powers like the United States... doing all they can to split the Palestinians in service of their own narrow objectives."

To his credit, Khalidi also includes Iran among those "external powers." But his swipe at Washington is far off the mark. The Obama administration desperately seeks to reconcile these two factions in its effort to establish an interlocutor for future Palestinian-Israeli negotiations.

KHALIDI THEN launched into a harangue about the influence of a right-wing Jewish lobby, echoing the dangerous sentiments of the discredited book The Israel Lobby by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer: "If you look at where AIPAC, say, stands, or at where the Conference of Presidents stands, or at where the American Jewish Committee stands, or at where the ADL stands, I mean, they're sort of to the right of Genghis Khan. They're somewhere between Likud and... I don't know... Avigdor Lieberman."

Khalidi again misses by a wide margin. These organizations are almost monolithically liberal and Democratic in outlook, and warmly embrace the notion of a negotiated two-state solution. Yet, Khalidi asserted, based on nothing he could possibly cite as proof, that "most of the people who head these organizations voted for [Arizona Sen. John] McCain." He concluded his thoughts about the Jewish lobby in this way: "The leadership — which is to the right of McCain — represent, you know, a bunch of people who are in another universe."

In his smear of these groups, Khalidi was preaching to the choir. Brit Tzedek stands at the fringe of the Jewish political spectrum, and ultimately yearns to gain influence through the demise of AIPAC and its other competitors.

Khalidi also preached to his obsequious audience that the Palestinian violence against Israel is not anti-Semitic. Rather, he asserts that the fears of Palestinian anti-Semitic violence held by Israelis and world Jewry stem from a persecution complex.

The former spokesman for the PLO, an organization responsible for killing hundreds of Jews, claims that the Jews of Israel "read into their present everything that they've experienced in their past, so that the Palestinians and the Arabs are just the latest version of the Cossacks, the Nazis, the Inquisition, the this, the that.... one has nothing to do with the other."

"Palestinian resistance to Israel has nothing to do with European anti-Semitism," he insisted.

Yet it is widely known that the mainstream Palestinian press engages in Holocaust denial and blood libel. For years, Palestinian school textbooks have been teaching children anti-Semitic ideas. And if that weren't enough, Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf is consistently a best-selling book in the West Bank and Gaza.

Khalidi even contradicted himself on this topic, admitting earlier in the call that Hamas was vehemently anti-Semitic. Indeed, the Hamas charter states that, "Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Muslim people."

The conference call, in the end, confirmed that Khalidi's scholarship continues to slip from research into naked advocacy. In this case, advocacy has slipped further into paranoia.

The appeal of Khalidi's radical scholarship, particularly among Jews, is inexplicable. Yet he continues his disinformation campaign among students and activists alike, demonstrating the continued need for reform in Middle Eastern studies today.

The writer, a former US Treasury intelligence analyst, is deputy executive director of the Jewish Policy Center and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine (Palgrave Macmillan 2008). JPC intern Samara Greenberg contributed to this article.

This article appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1239710720479 It is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Anne Bayefsky, April 17, 2009.

United Nations, Palais des Nations, GENEVA, Switzerland

The eyes of millions of victims of racism, xenophobia and intolerance are upon YOU, the representatives of states and the United Nations. And instead of hope you have given them despair. Instead of truth you have handed them diplomatic double-talk. Instead of combating antisemitism you have handed them a reason for Jews to fear UN-driven hatemongering on a global scale.

The Durban conference — allegedly dedicated to combating racism, antisemitism and other forms of intolerance — will open April 20th on the anniversary of the birth of Adolf Hitler without agreement on even so much as remembering the Holocaust and the war against the Jews. Your draft words on the Holocaust — the very foundation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — have been narrowed to the barest mention from previous versions. And if the minor reference survives at all — it will be a testament to your interest in Jews that died 60 years ago, while tolerating and encouraging the murder of Jews in the here and now.

Furthermore, the draft before you demonizes the Jewish state of Israel and then has the audacity to pretend to care about antisemitism in a single word buried among 17 pages. Antisemitism means discrimination against the Jewish people. Since it is evident that almost none of you have the courage to say it, the face of modern antisemitism IS the UN — your — discrimination against Israel, the embodiment of the Jewish people's right to self-determination.

Over and over again we have heard a massive misinformation campaign about the content of these proceedings and the draft before you. We have heard the tale that this draft does not single out Israel, that the hate has been removed, that the fault of the antisemitism at Durban I was that of NGOs while states and the UN were blameless.

Perhaps you think that journalists and victims will not bother to read for themselves the Durban Declaration adopted by some governments. There is only one state mentioned in it — Israel. There is only one state associated with racist practices in it — Israel. And yet the very first thing that this draft before you does is to reaffirm that abomination, abomination for Jews and Arabs living in Israel's free and democratic society, and for all the victims of racism ignored therein. Lawyers call it incorporation by reference when they hope nobody reads the small print. The propaganda stops here. We have read it. We understand the game. And we decry the ugly effort to repeat the Durban agenda to isolate and defeat Israel politically, as every effort to do so militarily for decades has failed.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Chair of this Preparatory Committee also told us this week that the Durban Declaration in all its aspects is a consensus text. Perhaps they are unfamiliar with the Canadian reservations made in Durban in 2001 which state categorically that the Middle East language was outside the conference's jurisdiction and not agreed. Perhaps they failed to notice that one of the world's greatest democracies, the United States, voted with its feet and walked out of the Durban I hatefest? The Durban Declaration has never represented a global consensus among free and democratic nations. When the head of the Islamic conference treats Durban as a bible, in their words, it is more accurately a defamation of religions.

This week you decided which states ought to serve in a leadership role at next week's conference. Among them are some of the world's leading practitioners of racism, not those interested in ending it. You have also decided to hand a global megaphone to the President of a state which advocates genocide and denies the Holocaust.

So in a state of shock and dismay we address ourselves not to the human rights abusers that glorify the Durban Declaration or its next incarnation, but to democracies — and we ask: Will Germany sit on Hitler's birthday and listen to the speech of an advocate of genocide against the Jewish people and grant legitimacy to the forum which tolerates his presence? What about the United Kingdom, the birthplace of the Magna Carta? Or France that helped to ship last generation's Jews to crematoriums?

You could have fought racism. You chose instead to fight Jews. You could have promoted the universal standards against racism already in existence. You chose instead to diminish their importance in the name of alleged cultural preferences. You could have protected freedom of expression. You chose instead to undermine it by twisted concepts of incitement. You could have brought victims of racism together in a common cause. You chose instead to pit victims against each other in an ugly struggle for meagre recognition. For those democracies that remain under these circumstances you are ultimately responsible for what can only be called an appalling disservice to real victims of racism, xenophobia and related intolerance around the world.

Contact Anne Bayefsky at anne.bayefsky@touro.edu

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, April 16, 2009.

It's a development of tremendous importance and you probably won't be hearing about it from anywhere but here.

Mahdi Akef, supreme guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, has defied his own country's government to ally himself with Hizballah. What makes this such a remarkable and high-risk step?

— The Muslim Brotherhood is Sunni Muslim; the Lebanese Hizballah group is Shia. Brotherhood leaders do not view Shia Islamists as brothers and in the past have been alarmed at the rising power of Shia forces in Lebanon and Iraq.

— Hizballah is a client of Iran's regime. As a Shia and non-Arab power, Iran is not on the Brotherhood's Ramadan greeting card list.

— Egypt's government has just announced a major Hizballah effort to destabilize the country by staging terrorist attacks there. Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah has openly called for the overthrow of Egypt's regime. He has now acknowledged connections with the arrested terrorists, though he claims their mission was to help Hamas and attack Israel. The Egyptian government has rejected this justification. As a result, siding with Hizballah risks a government-sponsored wave of suppression against the Brotherhood.

— This step also makes the Brotherhood look unpatriotic in Arab and Sunni terms to millions of Egyptians by siding with Persian Iranians and Shia Muslims.

— Akef's statement tears the chador off the pretension that the Brotherhood has become moderate. Of course, while not engaging in political violence within Egypt, it has long supported terrorism against Israel and the United States (in Iraq). Now, to this is added backing an Iran-Syria takeover of Lebanon and at least the image of accepting armed struggle against the Egyptian government by others.

— And most importantly of all, Akef has endorsed the strategic line of the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas axis in open defiance of not only Egypt's government but of the country's national interests as well.

What did Akef and his colleagues say that was so significant? The story is told in the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, April 15. Put into a seemingly innocuous framework of supporting the Palestinians, the Brotherhood's new line ends up in some shocking conclusions.

Akef said that Hamas should be supported, "By any means necessary." The implication is, since the Brotherhood has always favored abrogation of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty that Egypt should go to war with Israel on behalf of the Palestinians. A Brotherhood government would probably do just that.

Hussein Ibrahim, deputy leader of the Brotherhood's parliamentary bloc, which includes about 20 percent of the legislators, in calling for full Egyptian support of Hamas, stated, "Our enemy and Hizballah's enemy are the same." That enemy would seem to be Israel. But is Israel the only such enemy?

Akef took Hizballah's side against Egypt's rulers. Since Hizballah leader Nasrallah had denied he was doing anything against Egypt, everyone should take his word for it rather than that of Egyptian President Husni Mubarak.

In a statement to Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Akef said there were two competing camps in the region, respectively waving the banners of "cooperative resistance" and of the "protection of the state's sovereignty." Countries like Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia are rejecting Iranian influence and Islamist takeovers in the name of their own continued sovereignty.

Yet "resistance" is the basic slogan of the Iranian-led coalition. Akef insisted that he didn't seek to compromise Egypt's sovereignty. But asked how he could reconcile these two "axes" and why Egypt should help Hizballah he responded:

"There are two agendas [in the region]...an agenda working to protect and support the resistance against the Zionist enemy, and an agenda that only cares about satisfying the Americans and the Zionists."

Any Arab listener must take this to mean that there are the properly struggling forces — Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hizballah — and the vile traitors — Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the Iraqi government.

In addition, it is obvious that if there was a large-scale Hizballah attack on Israel from Egypt — with multiple suicide bombers coming from Egyptian territory to try to commit a September 11-type attack in Israel — Cairo would be dragged into a major crisis with Israel. War could result.

This is, after all, what has happened in the past. What the Brotherhood wants from Egypt — as the PLO did in the 1960s and 1970s in Jordan and later in Lebanon — is to give up its sovereignty and act as a military base from which Hamas can do anything it wants. Such behavior not only led to repeated military clashes as Israel retaliated against Jordan and Lebanon but also to serious destabilization within those two countries.

Ibrahim made another telling statement in saying that the Muslim Brotherhood "do not see any contradiction in supporting the resistance and protecting the state's sovereignty. We are in support of the resistance, in Gaza, and Palestine, and Lebanon...."

Why, however, did he include Lebanon? After all, the overwhelming majority of Lebanese Sunnis oppose Hizballah, viewing it as an arm of Syrian-Iranian power. The apparent answer is that Hizballah is fighting Israel and that the Palestinian issue overrides every other consideration.

Yet the Brotherhood is making choices. It certainly doesn't support the Palestinian Authority, controlled by nationalist forces, but only the Islamist Hamas. And it opposes having an independent Palestinian state created through a peace process with Israel.

Moreover, so what if both Hizballah and the Brotherhood support Hamas? One would expect that the Brotherhood would feel itself engaged in a battle of influence with Hizballah as to who would be Hamas's patron, and that of a supposed future Islamist Palestine. Could Brotherhood leaders not have noticed that in Lebanon there is no Hamas among Palestinians there because Iran and Hizballah seek to control them directly?

Under cover of supporting "the Palestinians," then, the Brotherhood's priority is on backing Islamist revolution in Iraq, Lebanon, among the Palestinians, Egypt, and elsewhere. The Brotherhood doesn't engage in violence not out of principle but because the Egyptian government is too strong, the Brotherhood is too weak, and it hopes to make gains through elections aided by "useful idiots" in the West.

If it feels the power balance shift in the future, it would have no compunction about launching a revolution. And as it gains in power, the extremism of its program will be more openly exposed.

When Ibrahim says, "Our enemy and Hizballah's enemy are the same," it sends two messages to the Egyptian government and those who oppose an Islamist Egypt. First, that enemy includes the Egyptian regime itself. Second, the Brotherhood's friends and Hizballah's friends are also the same.

In this analysis, the conclusion as to who the Brotherhood wants Egyptian Muslims to support is inevitable: who is fighting the hardest and being the most intransigent? The "resistance" led by Iran, which may have nuclear weapons in a year or so.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by M. Zuhdi Jasser, April 16, 2009.

As we try to understand where the Obama administration will fall with regards to the global threat of political Islam, the first few months have provided a number of hints, not least of which was the tenor of the recent visit to Turkey. It was painfully obvious after witnessing the length to which the Obama team went to avoid any substantive discussion on political Islam and the threat it poses to human rights abroad and domestically. Domestically, in the weeks preceding his trip, Islamists inside the Beltway began to more openly play their cards to what they obviously perceive to be a friendly administration. Groups like the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association (CMSA) are trying to establish themselves in a position of influence inside the White House, the House, and the Senate.

It's the Ideology!

First just review some of the activities and commentary of Beltway Islamists since the transition and the Inauguration. On January 8th, the Congressional Muslim Staffers Association sent out an email announcing that they would be hosting an inaugural gala titled, "Muslim Inauguration Gala". Guests included Congressman Keith Ellison, (D-MN), Cong. Andre Carson (D-IN), "Representatives of the Obama Administration", Rev. Walter Fauntroy (DC-Delegate), Zaid Shakir and Hamza Yusef (of the Zaytuna Institute), Fmr. Capt. James Yee, Senegalese President Abduolaye Wade, CAIR Michigan Director, Dawud Walid, and Johari Abdul-Malik of the Muslim Alliance of North America. This list reads like a Who's Who of leading Islamists in the United States, all of whom share the ideological framework of political Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood. One need not look far to see the types of ideas shared by these Muslims. For example, Mr. Johari Abdul-Malik spoke just last year at a July 2008 London conference of the "Radical Middle Way". This Radical Middle Way, sadly British government supported, is an ideological outgrowth of the ideas of Sheikh Yusef Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Abdul-Malik stated the following about the Obama campaign and Islamist activism in a speech entitled "Can Muslims Trust Obama?"

Now Barak Obama has been able to identify himself as both black and white. When he's in Chicago he's black, when he's in Kansas he's white, and when he's in Hawaii he's Hawaiian [audience laugh]. He actually is Hawaiian because he was born there..."

"In the place that we live now the strategy for Muslim Americans now, is to place the priority of regime change in Washington. Because the White House was putting out this message that we need regime change in Iraq, we need democracy and freedom in Iran. Malcolm said `when they told me to go out and find the enemy I don't have to go as far as Vietnam to find that enemy, I can find the enemy right here. So if we're willing to fight for freedom there, then we ought to be able to fight for freedom here.' So in America, we're looking for regime change in Washington. And the only regime change that we can look forward to in the near future is to get the Democrats in the White House and put the Republicans, as Malcolm would say, `in the dog house'...."

After his speech, Mr. Abdul-Malik was asked whether it was permitted to vote in American elections according to Islam. In response he stated, "I could take the examples and say subhān Allah, how can you do that, it's a Christian system and it's unlawful. The Nagashi of Ethiopia, he was secretly a Muslim and head of State — that's permissible."

Mr. Abdul-Malik is actually very proud of the political tarring and feathering he does as an imam at a mosque (classical Islamism) in Northern Virginia and in fact predicts the utility of soon a Muslim candidate for a `full-fledged candidate for President":

"I told some Muslims, you know, we should invite some of our political enemies to our rallies and meetings so that they can be taught and so we can say we love them, and let them say `no no no.' And by the way, this really did happen. One candidate in northern Virginia came to the mosque and he was attacked by some conservatives, saying `why did you go to the mosque?' and he said `no, I'm not with them at all-believe me-I'm not.' It was political suicide for her, but we helped him. We put the tar on him, opened up a pillow case and waited for a wind to start blowing and feathered him right there. So I think the question of political accountability will be there for whoever wins.... our thought would be to run a full-fledged Muslim candidate for President. In which all the questions would not be about the economy, not about jobs, healthcare — it would be about Islam."

Abdul-Malik also makes no bones about discussing how the election of President Obama is a step forward in the project of Islamization and the long term goal of Islamist domination which falls right in lock-step with that of the Muslim Brotherhood as revealed in their manifesto. He said:

"This is our challenge; to say `ok, I'm not a Muslim but I'm fascinated by the nation of Muslims and Islam and so on and so on... People of da'wa think that the outcome is to turn everyone into a Muslim and that will turn the tide. That was not the case in Yathrib, at the time of the Prophet (saw), it was not the case in Andalusia, it was not the case in so many civilisations that Islam had impacted upon. It took hundreds of years in some societies for Muslims to become 50% of the population but they had those four sections of the population to say `we will not have racists and bigots and sexists to have dominance over people who are fair minded, reasonable and rational... "

Abdul-Malik finally makes a very revealing statement about his prediction about the collapse of the United States government:

"For me, again, I'm not putting my faith in the Government. My faith is in Allah, I don't believe in the Government. If I believed in the Government, then we would have been involved in the civil rights movement. Slavery — my people were slaves, I don't know if you know that, we did not rely on the good will of the Government to get us out of slavery. We organised internally and externally to end slavery. Now what your idea would have been would be to get out of the abolitionist movement. Eventually the United States Government will fall under its own weight and you'll be free"

Notice Abdul Malik's reference to "Muslim nation". Notice his reference to "regime change." Notice the magic number of `50% Muslim' where Abdul Malik's Muslim political party (aka Muslim Brotherhood) can then control the electorate and enact their interpretation of "shar'ia' law" as a majority in their mobocracy. This was just a peek into Abdul Malik's beliefs. He is no small fish in the American Islamist community. He is a protégé of Siraj Wahhaj, the well known Islamist and unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 WTC bombing. He is President of the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO) and the outreach director for Dar-Al Hijra mosque in Northern Virginia. The CCMO represents more than 50 Muslim organizations and mosques in the D.C. area. This same group, true to Islamist separatist ideology recently signed a statement from the "grand pooba of Islamist organizations in the United States" (the American Muslim Task Force) suspending their relationship with the FBI. Hardly the action of a "mainstream Muslim group."

Each of the invitees to the Muslim Inaugural shindig has a plethora of speeches and writings in the public space which documents their own transnational agenda of political Islam. Abdul-Malik told his colleagues long before how,

"...even under the pressures that you and I know about, the deen of Islam is growing because people see even within all of this struggle it is better to be a Muslim under these conditions than to be a kaffir under any conditions... before Allah closes our eyes for the last time you will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America — that's where we are now — to being the first religion in America."

Look into the comments and ideologies of others at this so-called `Muslim' gala. These Islamist headliners have long been spreading their collectivist, socialist and oppressive ideologies of political Islam across the world.

It seems that no one is paying much attention to ideology anymore. Roll Call ran a piece discussing the gala quoting Kucinich and Ellison. They included this comment from CMSA coordinator and staff of Cong. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ), Assad Akhter, "People really want to believe in this president...it has a lot to do with who he is and the campaign he ran. He involved different groups, and they feel they had a part in this." Revealingly, it did not seem to be very important to Casey Hynes of Roll Call to query any Muslim organizations who chose not to attend this gala.

Stacking the Deck

With that platform laid out, the CMSA also began a push during the transition to distribute a "Resume Book" of Muslims to offices on the Hill including the House, Senate, and the White House. The email from Mr. Saleh on November 20, 2008 stated,

"This is an important initiative that CMSA feels is greatly needed to promote the hiring of talented Muslim American staffers in the 111th Congress. It is CMSA's desire to provide Congressional Leadership, new Member Offices, and Committee Chairs with Resume Books that represents the diverse, highly educated, and young professional Muslim American community. This can only happen if a broad cross-section of the Muslim American community receives the "Request for Resumes."

In a subsequent email, Mr. Williams lists some of the positions sought to be filled including Chief of Staff, Professional Staff, Legislative Director, Legislative Assistant, Press, and Scheduling. A Chicago Tribune report of March 29, 2009 soft-peddled the move as "driven by community leaders...and bumped up two weeks ahead of schedule because White House officials heard about the venture" quoting J. Saleh Williams of the CMSA who put together the `book' of around 49 names from a list of greater than 300 Muslims. This is an oddly soft piece from the Tribune considering many of the leadership of CMSA have worked closely with leaders of the Muslim American Society in D.C. and other Islamist groups which the same Tribune reporter exhaustively connected to the international movement of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in her November 19 2004 in her exposé on the MB in the United States.

Williams further told the Tribune that, "it was mostly under the radar...we thought it would put President Obama in a precarious position. We didn't know how closely he wanted to appear to be working with the Muslim American community." This group of Islamists is, here, openly telling reporters that they are advocating for placement in positions of influence "under the radar." They do this with the appearance and false assumption that somehow all Muslims in the U.S. would be overjoyed by their activities and ideology. The report by Abdul-Ullah went on to also link other global Islamist ideologies for outreach to their resume book initiative including outreach to the Syrian and Iranian governments and Islamist complaints about the FBI's counterterrorism efforts inside a few mosques.

Abdul Malik Mujahid of the Muslim Democrats also pointed to the example of Zalmay Khalilzad who was appointed as Ambassador to Iraq and then to the U.N. under the Bush administration as an example of someone they emulate. I have a sneaking suspicion Mr. Khalilzad would never have even entertained allowing his resume to be placed in a booklet which offers no other unifying ideas except being Muslim and advocates of political Islam.

Some could try to say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with an effort by any `faith group' to place its `best and brightest' in positions of influence in government. The point here is not to disagree with that sentiment at all. But this is not an effort by all "Muslims" but rather by Islamists. As anti-Islamist Muslims, the mission of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD), is to point out that this group and other Islamists hardly represent a `diverse' group of Muslim Americans and in fact this type of collectivization of Muslims only caters to the Islamist agenda. Most anti-Islamist and non-Islamist Muslims would likely be less than pleased to have Muslims who all arise from the Islamist ideological movement claim to represent "Muslim interests" or the "Muslim community" in the United States. One would be hard pressed to find any statements made by members and leaders of the CMSA against the Islamic state or the global movement and ideas of political Islam (i.e. the Muslim Brotherhood).

Affirmative action for Muslims

As made abundantly clear here at the outset, Mr. Abdul Malik and his colleagues at the Coordinating Council of Muslim Organizations (CCMO) of D.C and the CMSA have a long history of supporting Islamism and the advocacy of shar'ia law in society. Their statements are all part of the public record and easily discoverable. Forwarding a group of resumes under the heading of "Muslim" to House offices or the White House, I actually find rather offensive as a Muslim. Those who actually seek the integration and success of Muslims in the United States should do so not as a result of filling slots simply filled into quotas saved for "Muslims" but rather because they have achieved their success because of the merits of their work. I would hope that my children achieve their successes because of merit not because of their chosen faith and their minority identity.

At AIFD we have a mantra, which is that "we are Americans who happen to be Muslim rather than Muslims who demand to be American". My parents came to the United States in the 1960s because they understood our nation to be a meritocracy and not one plagued with the inequities of political correctness which are more concerned with immutable characteristics of individuals such as race or religion than with real equality and merit. Islamists thrive on identity politics and the deceptive collectivization of Muslims into one "bloc". This resume book and the Islamist interests of the CMSA feed into that mentality where the faith identity of Muslims is not a private matter of concern only in the mosque and at home. Their resume book is all about influence for Islamists under the banner of `being Muslim."

The CMSA campaign feeds on the guilt of Americans who are concerned about discrimination and want to make sure that the tribal leaders of Islamist organizations have no means by which to point to any `paucity' of Muslim representation in their administration or beltway leadership. It also feeds on the disenfranchisement of Muslims while telling them that such campaigns will correct that disenfranchisement. Under the banner of religion, these groups feign democracy and politics but actually put into place primarily the interests of political Islam.

Will the post-racial candidate be a post-racial President?

If the Obama administration or any group in leadership uses the fruit of this effort to fill their staff rolls they will be simply grabbing the lowest hanging fruit which showed up in a booklet on their desk quite by design. This, in fact, seems un-American from an administration which prides itself on being a "post-racial" candidacy which spent little time on identity politics and purported to want to focus on ideas. While being Muslim is not a race but rather a belief, the Islamist mindset of collectivizing all Muslims feeds into that same mentality of minority victimization which candidate Obama avoided.

My hope and prayer as an American and as a Muslim is that this administration, our President, seek candidates first on merit and then if some happen to be Muslim so be it. I may not agree with the ideology of the Obama administration, but from both sides of the aisle, we should be able to assume that no political leaders be advocates of Islamism since shar'ia law is incompatible with our Constitution. But to first choose from a booklet of resumes which are fed to them from Islamists is wrong any way you look at it.

After missing so many opportunities from the inauguration to Obama's speech in Ankara, it is time for the Obama administration to make it clear that advocates of political Islam will not find a welcome home in their administration. Rather their administration should make it a domestic and foreign policy litmus test that the ideology of all its staff, whether Muslim or not, be anti-Islamist — that is advocates of liberty and freedom over the establishment of political Islam.

M. Zuhdi Jasser is the founder and Chairman of theAmerican Islamic Forum for Democracybased in Phoenix Arizona. He is a former U.S. Navy Lieutenant Commander, a physician in private practice, and a community activist. He can be reached atZuhdi@aifdemocracy.org.

This article appeared in FSM

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, April 16, 2009.

This was written by Julia Gorin.

It was posted on April 10th, 2009 in Political Mavens.


I've been compiling notes for some time for an article that I may or may not find the time to write. It concerns the closer kinship and loyalty that American blacks feel toward Muslims than they do toward Jews, despite the deeper historical roots that Jews and blacks have in this country than do blacks and Muslims or Arabs. In fact, Martin Luther King Jr.'s lawyer Clarence B. Jones last year penned an article trying to somewhat shame black people for their antagonism toward Jews and less directly their antagonism and/or indifference to Israel's plight, on which the security of world Jewry (and more) hinges. No doubt it's not lost on him that black people have been more inclined to sympathize with the "darker," Palestinian side in the Middle East conflict — the supposed "underdog" — than with the Jews of Israel.

While Jews have toiled for blacks in their hours of need — and even given their lives in the pursuit — blacks are more inclined to toil for Muslims/Arabs. Part of that toil, of course, will eventually require that blacks side against and even ostracize the Jews. (Not just blacks, of course, but Western society at large — and this is well underway; while Jews believe the planet is big enough for both them and Muslims, the latter don't see it that way and are the ones making the world choose.)

One of my quips touching on the issue goes as follows:

For some reason, Jews think they have more in common with black people than white people. Unfortunately for them, black people think they have more in common with Muslims.

So while black people (and far more non-black people, but I'm trying to make a point) stand with Muslims, and while hip hop culture and now mainstream fashion sport the traditional Arabic scarf — something that began as a show of solidarity with our hijackers ala Stockholm Syndrome — and while they all stand by as the hijackers kill fellow hostages (the Jews), let me point out that the plot revealed this week to assassinate America's first black president is brought to you by the Arab/Muslim world:

US authorities confirmed that Turkish police have arrested a man who claims to have plotted to kill US President Barack Obama when he visited Turkey...On Monday, the Saudi daily Al Watan reported that Turkish security services has arrested a man of Syrian descent who was planning to assassinate Obama during his trip to Turkey.

According to the report, the man, who was arrested on Friday, was carrying a press card identifying him as an employee of Al Jazeera. He reportedly confessed to his intention to stab Obama with a knife and said that he was aided by three accomplices.

The report stated that Turkish authorities were still unsure as to whether the press card was a fake or whether it had actually been issued the man by the Qatari news network.

I'll close with another relevant joke of mine:

I don't buy this business about Muslims being "the new black man." If that's the case, why are so many black men converting to Islam? What — they didn't feel black enough? Oh I know why: they must want a piece of that lucrative Muslim-run African slave trade.

As for that ubiquitous Arabic scarf that young people and older ignoramuses are donning, let me just say that if the popular saying is "Once you go black, you don't go back," see what happens once you go Muslim and try to go back. There ain't no going back. There also ain't no music allowed in Islam.

Sure, it's all fun and diversity...until you can't shake your ass to hip hop anymore.

Contact the Ceders at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 16, 2009.

Pesach ended last night here in Israel, and ends after dark tonight elsewhere in the world. But before returning to what passes as mundane reality, it seems to me that a bit of sharing from Pesach is in order:

Yesterday in shul the Torah reading was from the section in Exodus (Shemot) that includes Shirat HaYam — the song of gratitude to Hashem sung by the children of Israel after coming through the divided Sea. This was a culmination of the miracle of the rescue — the redeeming — of the people from slavery in Egypt. All of the people were witness to — beneficiaries of — the miracle of the parting of the Sea.


What occurs to me this year, more powerfully perhaps than ever, is that we are very much witness to — and beneficiaries of — a modern miracle: The creation of the modern State of Israel and the return of the people to the Land. It is all of a piece, of course, and yet we often fail to see it with clarity.


And I'll carry this one step further: There is a Midrash — a traditional story beyond the Torah that is instructive — about Nachshon Ben Aminadav, head of the tribe of Judah. Moses stood at the Sea of Reeds, with the Egyptians pursuing the Israelites, and he prayed for the people to be saved, the Midrash tell us, but the Sea hadn't split. Then Nachshon, having faith that it would, walked into the water up to his chest. And because he had faith and was willing to act on it, the water split, and the people followed.

The early pioneers who came here to build a state were like Nachshon. And the implications for us here today are enormously important.


This said, let us begin to look at what's happening:

US Envoy George Mitchell is here, promoting as ever his dedication to a "two-state solution" that will, he says, bring peace and security to the region. He is looking for "understandings" with Israel on the issues.

Yesterday he met with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, during the day, today, with President Shimon Peres and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. And this evening with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had met with Lieberman and Barak on Monday to prepare for these meetings.

Lieberman, following his meeting with Mitchell, indicated that he anticipated further meetings and opportunities for "deep dialogue."

According to a release from the Foreign Minister's office, Lieberman told Mitchell that "thus far, the traditional approach has not brought any results or solutions." He then proceeded to point out the "far reaching concessions" that have been made and what we've seen in response — diplomatic process at a stand-still, acts of aggression against us, etc. etc.

Lieberman said he expected the international community to support Israel not only in her need for security, but also to affirm a commitment to Israel's Jewish character.


Let this man's strength continue! He speaks with pride and a strong sense of entitlement as an Israeli. This continues to be encouraging and so very welcome.

And other ministers are delivering similar messages.

Speaking on Army Radio today, Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) said:

"The preferable course of diplomatic action at this time is two economies for two peoples and not two states for two peoples. The American emissary also knows that forcing the region into virtual diplomatic discourse will only breed the opposite results."

While Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz (Likud), in an interview on Israel Radio, said:

"The Annapolis outline has failed and is no longer binding. [Netanyahu will] formulate a diplomatic approach that takes into account all of the different elements, and first and foremost Israel's security."


Prime Minister Netanyahu, meeting tonight with Mitchell, was most certainly on the same track. He advised the US envoy that Israel would not risk another Hamas-controlled state (Hamastan) at her border. By this is meant our eastern border, with Judea and Samaria becoming an independent Palestinian state that is terrorist.

What is more, Netanyahu said the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state before there can be negotiations.

And to this I say, simply, oh joy! How long I've waited to hear this simple, basic demand. Our RIGHT to be so recognized has to be out there, boldly. They don't, they won't recognize us as a Jewish state. This fact has to be center-front and broadly exposed.


But then, sigh, we have Shimon Peres, who should have retired a long time ago. He advised Mitchell not to be discouraged by "negative voices":

"There is an opening point for promoting the political process. No door to peace has been closed and I believe that this year is a decisive year in the Middle East. We do not have time to waste."

But wait! Didn't Livni and Olmert say that last year was the "decisive year"? Remember the "small window of opportunity"? I think someone needs to tell Peres that the window closed. And Peres ought to be informed at the same time that as president he is supposed to remain non-political.


Egypt and Saudi Arabia have put forth a proposal for a coordinating committee of some sort to serve as an umbrella over the Hamas government in Gaza and the PA (Fatah) government in Judea and Samaria. I'm picking up various versions of what's intended — merely a bridge to a unity government or something more permanent — but what's clear is that this has been proposed because there has been no way to solidify a genuine unity government.

A primary reason there is an eagerness to do this is because there is supposed to be one address for receiving funds and coordinating the reconstruction of Gaza.

The PA is not receptive because such a committee would have the effect of providing de facto legitimacy for Hamas in Gaza. While Hamas is eager to receive assurance that it would not have to abide by PA policies if it accepted the committee — that it would retain a sort of autonomy.


Mitchell will be meeting with PA officials in Ramallah, and I'd love to be a fly on the wall at those discussions.

MEMRI has up a video clip of Saeb Erekat, chief PA negotiator, in which he says that in November 2008, Olmert offered Abbas the '67 lines as borders, with some adjustments (a land trade of 6.5%) and some joint control of what is called the "Holy Basin" — the area including the Temple Mount, Kotel, etc. But, says Erekat, Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) responded that:

"I am not in a marketplace or a bazaar. I came to demarcate the borders of Palestine — the June 4, 1967 borders (sic) — without detracting a single inch, and without detracting a single stone from Jerusalem."

(Note: the June 4, 1967 lines were armistice lines, not borders at all and not intended to be permanent.)

Instructive to see the clip, which has translation, and to share it with others — especially those who actually still imagine we have a "partner for peace."


The time for Durban 2 approaches and the issues remain hot, and deeply troubling. It begins on April 20 — the anniversary of Hitler's birth.

Those controlling the document for the conference are touting a new "improved" version. But this is nonsense. What has happened is that offensive language directed at Israel was excised, but the very first clause reaffirms in toto the declaration from the first conference in 2001, which is where all of the offensive language directed at Israel now resides.

What is more, Israeli Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Roni Leshno Yaar, told the Jerusalem Post that:

"If anything it is worse than the previous text because it includes a reference to foreign occupation which in the diplomatic world is code for Israel... We are worse off than we were yesterday."


If anyone still has doubts as to how outrageous this all is, there is the decision by the planning committee:

Libya will serve as the Chair of the "Main Committee" running the conference; Iran will to preside as Vice-Chair, and Cuba will be the Rapporteur. On the afternoon of the first day, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Holocaust denier, will address those assembled.

This might be considered just an exceedingly sick joke, if the implications weren't so very serious.

There have been hints that the US might attend after all, but I've seen nothing substantive to indicate that this is so (at least yet). Given this line-up and the ludicrousness of having the above nations running the show, I am aghast that any Western democracy would participate, and yet it looks as if many, if not most, will. This means they will provide legitimacy to the proceedings while being outvoted.

At present, aside from the US, only Israel, Canada and Italy have declared they will not attend


Last time around the most virulent statements against Israel came out of an NGO gathering that ran parallel to the actual conference. And, wouldn't you know it, an anti-Israel NGO gathering is scheduled for April 18 and 19th, with an anti-Israel rally on the 18th.


The Human Rights Council, an exceedingly anti-Israel group, will be doing an "investigation" of possible war crimes in Gaza, led by South African judge Richard Goldstone. The original mandate offered to him was to investigate only Israel (which gives us a clue as to the Council's predisposition), but he demanded that investigation of Hamas actions be included.

But this not withstanding, Israel has decided not to cooperate with the investigation, because it is considered to be inherently biased — essentially a set-up. In three years, the council has passed 32 resolutions, and 26 have been against Israel.


According to a New York Times report, the US will not demand that Iran halt uranium enrichment as a pre-condition for talks.

On Monday, State Department acting spokesman Robert Wood said:

"It's important to remind everyone that we are willing to engage Iran without preconditions. And we'll just see whether Iran is willing to take up that offer."

What is more, Israel is deeply concerned about a refusal on the part of the US to put a deadline on talks with Iran, as Israeli officials have strongly urged. One State Department official cited this week simply said, "We are focused on the engagement track for now."


Most likely the US will sit down with Iran in conjunction with the other permanent members of the Security Council — China, Russia, Britain, and France — plus Germany (called P5 + 1). When and where this may happen is not known, but it would be the first time the US sat down with Iran in 30 years.

The demand of the international community, at least until now, has been for cessation of nuclear activity first. It is Obama who is weakening this.


The Jerusalem Post has reported that because of the growing threat from Iran, later this year Israel and the United States will hold a massive exercise to jointly test three different ballistic missile defense systems. This exercise, to be held in Israel and called Juniper Cobra, is unprecedented.

It will include the newly developed Arrow 2, as well as America's THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and the ship-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.


According to UPI, the Gulf states are preparing for an Iranian response to an Israeli attack, which is assumed to be coming soon. They are setting up Patriot missiles defense systems, and taking other precautions.


Just days ago, a Hezbollah terror cell of some 50 people was uncovered in the Sinai and arrested; Egypt had received intelligence on this from the CIA, the Mossad, and other intelligence services.

Reports were that the cell was targeting Israeli tourists in Egypt and facilitating smuggling of weapons into Gaza, but the Hezbollah activity in fact was intended to be broader than this. There are sources suggesting that one possible target was ships in the Suez canal.

Even beyond this, there is reason to believe that this was a threat to the Egyptian government more directly. The centuries-old hostility between Sunni Egypt and Shiite Iran should not be minimized, and it is Iran that is directly behind the Hezbollah activity.


On Monday, a Hamas bomb factory was found in a mosque near Kfar Saba in Samaria.

On Tuesday, an unmanned Palestinian fishing boat was remotely detonated as it approach an Israeli navy ship off the coast of Gaza. The boat, which was in an area that is off-limits to Palestinian fishermen, was carrying hundreds of kilograms of explosives.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Molly, April 16, 2009.

So, Mr. Mitchell insists on a state for the nouveau-"people" created by Jimmy Carter and his two dearest friends: Shimon — the weeper — Peres and his bloody friend, the Egyptian assassin Yasser? Well, swell.

Just be sure to tell Mitchell there's no objection from Israel just so long as this new PA state is planted in Saudi Arabia.

Mitchell and Baker and the Clintons can first bow to their benefactors and then call in their chips by insisting — in light of the gifts bestowed on the Saudi royals by the American Taxpayer and the sacrifices of the Americans who died defending the Saudis — that the Saudis cooperate by donating land for Carter's nouveau people ... or else the American People will insist that Citigroup file bankruptcy, which will wipe out Citi's Saudi shareholders.

BTW — if Israeli bureaucrats and their idiot-Supremes are too feeble to recall that the original Palestinians were and still are Jewish, then the people of Israel must rise up and remind them by showing everyone the way to peace ... by creating a new and separate state for Palestinian Jews!

OK to use the same methods taught by Yasser and approved by Korrupt Kofi Annan who is famous for saying that "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter." Yep. It's a two-way street. It's just another case of what's "Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,"

Another thought: if the new US policy is that hordes of an identifiable ethnic group can swarm into any democratic state and make demands for their own state to be carved from the lands of their hosts, then there's nothing to protect the Bush Family from being forced to return their ranch and the rest of Texas to the Mexicans who want a "new" state of "Aztlan". And the Church of England can indeed be razed and replaced with a nice gold-domed mosque governed by Sharia. Yep, let's see how the UK will enjoy watching their own blood flow in their own streets for a welcome change.

Better still, tell Mitchell to calm down. Israel has a right and the power to restore to itself all the lands stolen from it over the years by the US State Department and the fascist relics in the Brit Foreign Office. If the BFO and the US State Department refuse to see the light they are creating at the end of the terrorist's tunnel ... then the Brits can kiss the Falkland Islands goodbye! And Jordan can kiss its a$$ goodbye. And Israel shall retake all lands from the ocean to the sea ... and then some.

And the same for Spain: they can sat adios to Perequil Island!

Viva to the Patriots of Israel!

We are the NON-evangelical — that is, secular — Christians for Zion:

Contact Molly at pelago2000@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerry Gordon, April 15, 2009.

Bret Stephens had a column in the Wall Street Journal, "Hiroshima 2.0". The upshot of the piece was about the threat of Cyber warfare by Russia and China to our infrastructure, in particular our electrical grid. Stephens noted how devastating this could be:

A senior intelligence official told the Journal that, "If we go to war with them, they will try to turn them on."

To get a better sense of what all this is about, type the words "Cyber attack" and "generator" into YouTube. The first result should be a short clip from the Department of Homeland Security, leaked to CNN — see here — a couple of years ago, showing an electric generator under a simulated cyber attack at the Idaho National Laboratory. Within seconds the generator begins to shake violently. Within a minute, it's up in smoke.

Now imagine the attack being conducted against 60 large generators, simultaneously. Imagine, too, similar attacks against chemical plants, causing Bhopal-style toxic leaks. Imagine malicious software codes planted in U.S. weapons systems, which could lie undetected until triggered by a set of conditions similar to mobilization.

"It's as though we've entered something like the nuclear era without a Hiroshima," says Scott Borg, director and chief economist of the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization that consults with government and industry about potential cyber attacks. "People aren't aware that everything has changed."

Two years ago, while attending the Intelligence Summit in St. Petersburg, Florida, where I was presenting on the Translator Scandal, I chanced to attend a session by Dr. William A. Radasky, a member of the 2004 Congressional Study Commission on the Electro-Magnetic Pulse threat. A defense scientist in the audience and I struck up a conversation during a break about whether there was an alternative to using an EMP attack on Iran to disable their infrastructure and the power feeding those whirling centrifuges enriching uranium in the cascade halls at the Natan facility. He smiled and suggested I investigate RF warfare techniques that might be used to spin the centrifuges to very high rpm levels causing them to crash out of control. I tucked that thought away for further reference until this Stephens piece prompted me to revisit the Iranian nuclear problem.

The reverse logic of what occurred in the video of the cyber attack at the DHS Idaho National Labs was why our government couldn't launch a cyber attack on Iran's power infrastructure? My guess is that our government might be wary of such a possibility for fear of counter-attack by Iranian sponsored Cyber Jihadis. For that matter, why couldn't Israel with a very talented computer security software pool of military talent do that? After all the IDF has a program to search out talented high school students for its electronic warfare and SIGINT functions with the eventual thought of sending them into the IDF for duty assignments using their talents, in effect, an incubator. These IDF computer wizards have become the world's premier information security cyber-entrepreneurs.

Note this observation about Israel's prowess in the computer field and the IDF's role in fostering it from an article in SC Magazine U.K., "Briefing Israel-Focus on the Future."

In the past 15 to 20 years, as global networks expanded, the army has engaged in protecting Israel's networks and has trained individuals to protect their country electronically, as well as physically and even develop security technology. But personnel leave the army, and the country found itself with a cornucopia of talented, well-trained and ambitious computing experts.

"Israel is indeed in a unique security situation," says Efrat Schneider, marketing manager at Trustware. "The threat is not just physical, it is computerized as well. That's why there is mandatory military service for all citizens." Trustware is a good example of how military personnel have formed the basis of Israel's infosec industry. The company's chief executive, Israel Baharav, served in the air force and held top-level executive and operational roles in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including head of air force intelligence and head of IDF strategic planning.

I suspect that Israel must be pursuing this pre-emptive Cyber attack scenario on Iran's infrastructure. If launched, it would be a devastating threat to the life-blood of the tottering Iranian economy. Further it could force the shutdown of the nuclear enrichment and weapons development project so avidly pursued by the Supreme Ruler of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khamenei and his Shia Mahdist puppet, President Ahmadinejad. Moreover, it would be disruptive of the command and control net of the Revolutionary Guards. A prelude to an internal uprising and regime change could be a distiunct possibility.

Think of it as a pre-emptive attack against Iran's infrastructure supporting the nuclear project without losing one aircraft or firing one missile. Of course if that occurred, the Mullahs in charge in Tehran would doubtless let loose their reprisals by their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. However, these cyber attacks against their infrastructure can be cloaked or `spoofed' as to origin. How are the Iranians to know whether Israel, the US or another country launched these potentially devastating cyber attacks and against whom to take reprisals?

The Bret Stephens Wall Street Journal article triggered the counter intuitive thought. The cyber attack would be the equivalent of "the Assassins Mace or Killer Ap" against Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. The questions is has this been thought of and become a priority of ours or the Israel's Information Warfare development programs?

If it has, then those technical back room boffins, as the Brits call them, may have developed a powerful weapon to deal with terror sponsoring rogue states. This is worth a try. It beats the alternative of throwing blood and treasure at a suicide mission to take out the nuclear nightmare conjured up by the Mullahs at every opportunity.

This appeared in Red County online
http://www.redcounty.com/how-derail-iran's-nuclear-program- without-sending-a-single-plane-or-missile

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, April 15, 2009.

Below are three recent commentaries on Obama's recent activities.

1. Caroline Glick (correctly, in my opinion) castigates Obama for a catastrophic world tour which signals our allies that he is not with them, and signals our enemies that he is not a threat to them. He has forgotten that old adage from Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus (a few centuries after Cicero): vis pacem, para bellam (if you want peace, you'd better prepare for war). And he has pretty much thrown Israel under the proverbial bus.

2. Raymond Ibrahim's commentary on Obama's instinctive, and therefore deeply humiliating, bow (bended knee and bending forward from the waist = a real bow) to the Saudi king (it is obviously humiliating, because otherwise the State department would not be denying it). Note that he did not bow to the Queen of England. What could have prompted him to bow to the world's most notorious violator of human rights and the funder of much of the Islamo-fascist terrorism that has killed thousands of Americans?

3.) Steve Plaut's tongue-in-cheek letter from Shimon Peres....making some obvious points about the hypocrisy of using force against the Somali pirates while demanding that Israel restrain its use of force in its war agianst Arab terrorists.

It is hard to know what is really going on. As I see it, there are three possibilities.

a.) Obama is a complete naif and displays disastrous naivete in his diplomatic interactions....interactions which will get us in to deep doodoo when Iran goes nuclear.


b.) He is the manchurian candidate, and is setting up the USA and western civilization for an Islamo-fascist take-over.


c.) He is sly beyond belief, and crafty beyond the singing of it, and by all of this pro-Arab and pro-Muslim and pro-terrorist and pro-Iranian and anti-Israel behavior he is actually giving our enemies a warm and heart-felt welcome and an invitation to dialogue, so that when they torch his olive branches, he can claim the moral high ground and declare that since he made the offers of peace and cooperation, the ball is in their court and if they resort to violence, then the USA's violent responses to violence will be fully justified....as will Israel's.

I hope it is #c.

David ML


1.) Glick on Obama's catastrophic world tour
Column One: Surviving in a post-American world
by Caroline Glick
The Jerusalem Post
jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562949505&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull
Apr. 9, 2009

Like it or not, the United States of America is no longer the world's policeman. This was the message of Barack Obama's presidential journey to Britain, France, the Czech Republic, Turkey and Iraq this past week. Somewhere between apologizing for American history — both distant and recent; genuflecting before the unelected, bigoted king of Saudi Arabia; announcing that he will slash the US's nuclear arsenal, scrap much of America's missile defense programs and emasculate the US Navy; leaving Japan to face North Korea and China alone; telling the Czechs, Poles and their fellow former Soviet colonies, "Don't worry, be happy," as he leaves them to Moscow's tender mercies; humiliating Iraq's leaders while kowtowing to Iran; preparing for an open confrontation with Israel; and thanking Islam for its great contribution to American history, President Obama made clear to the world's aggressors that America will not be confronting them for the foreseeable future. Whether they are aggressors like Russia, proliferators like North Korea, terror exporters like nuclear-armed Pakistan or would-be genocidal-terror-supporting nuclear states like Iran, today, under the new administration, none of them has any reason to fear Washington. This news is music to the ears of the American Left and their friends in Europe. Obama's supporters like billionaire George Soros couldn't be more excited at the self-induced demise of the American superpower. CNN's former (anti-)Israel bureau chief Walter Rodgers wrote ecstatically in the Christian Science Monitor on Wednesday, "America's... superpower status, is being downgraded as rapidly as its economy."

The pro-Obama US and European media are so pleased with America's abdication of power that they took the rare step of applauding Obama at his press conference in London. Indeed, the media's enthusiasm for Obama appeared to grow with each presidential statement of contrition for America's past uses of force, each savage attack he leveled against his predecessor George W. Bush, each swipe he took at Israel, and each statement of gratitude for the blessings of Islam he uttered.

But while the media couldn't get enough of the new US leader, America's most stable allies worldwide began a desperate search for a reset button that would cause the administration to take back its abandonment of America's role as the protector of the free world.

Tokyo was distraught by the administration's reaction to North Korea's three-stage ballistic missile test. Japan recognized the betrayal inherent in Defense Secretary Robert Gates's announcement ahead of Pyongyang's newest provocation that the US would only shoot the missile down if it targeted US territory. In one sentence, uttered not in secret consultations, but declared to the world on CNN, Gates abrogated America's strategic commitment to Japan's defense.

India, for its part, is concerned by Obama's repeated assertions that its refusal to transfer control over the disputed Jammu and Kashmir provinces to Pakistan inspires Pakistani terror against India. It is equally distressed at the Obama administration's refusal to make ending Pakistan's support for jihadist terror groups attacking India a central component of its strategy for contending with Pakistan and Afghanistan. In general, Indian officials have expressed deep concern over the Obama administration's apparent lack of regard for India as an ally and a significant strategic counterweight to China.

Then there is Iraq. During his brief visit to Baghdad on Tuesday afternoon, Obama didn't even pretend that he would ensure that Iraqi democracy and freedom are secured before US forces are withdrawn next year. The most supportive statement he could muster came during his conversation with Turkish students in Istanbul earlier in the day. There he said, "I have a responsibility to make sure that as we bring troops out, that we do so in a careful enough way that we don't see a complete collapse into violence." Hearing Obama's statements, and watching him and his advisers make daily declarations of friendship to Iran's mullahs, Iraqi leaders are considering their options for surviving the rapidly approaching storm.

Then there is Europe. Although Obama received enthusiastic applause from his audience in Prague when he announced his intention to destroy the US's nuclear arsenal, drastically scale back its missile defense programs and forge a new alliance with Russia, his words were anything but music to the ears of the leaders of former Soviet satellites threatened by Russia. The Czech, Polish, Georgian and Ukrainian governments were quick to recognize that Obama's strong desire to curry favor with the Kremlin and weaken his own country will imperil their ability to withstand Russian aggression.

It is not a coincidence, for instance, that the day Obama returned to Washington, Georgia's Moscow-sponsored opposition announced its plan to launch massive protests in Tblisi to force the ouster of pro-Western, anti-Russian Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.

And as for Russia, like Iran, which responded to Obama's latest ode to the mullahs by opening a nuclear fuel plant and announcing it has 7,000 advanced centrifuges in operation, so Moscow reacted to Obama's fig leaf with a machine gun, announcing its refusal to support sanctions against North Korea and repeating its false claim that Iran's nuclear program is nonaggressive. Finally there is Israel. If Obama's assertions that Israel must support the immediate establishment of a Palestinian state, his declarations of support for the so-called Saudi "peace plan," which requires Israel to commit national suicide in exchange for "peace" with the Arab world, and his continuous and increasingly frantic appeals for Iran to "engage" his administration weren't enough to show Israel that Obama is sacrificing the US's alliance with the Jewish state in a bid to appease the Arabs and Iran, on Tuesday Vice President Joseph Biden made this policy explicit. When Biden told CNN that Israel would be "ill-advised" to attack Iran's nuclear installations, he made clear that from the administration's perspective, an Israeli strike that prevents Iran from becoming a nuclear power is less acceptable than a nuclear-armed Iran. That is, the Obama administration prefers to see Iran become a nuclear power than to see Israel secure its very existence.

AMERICA'S BETRAYAL of its democratic allies makes each of them more vulnerable to aggression at the hands of their enemies — enemies the Obama administration is now actively attempting to appease. And as the US strengthens their adversaries at their expense, these spurned democracies must consider their options for surviving as free societies in this new, threatening, post-American environment.

For the most part, America's scorned allies lack the ability to defeat their enemies on their own. India cannot easily defeat nuclear-armed Pakistan, which itself is fragmenting into disparate anti-Indian nuclear-wielding Islamist and Islamist-supporting factions.

Japan today cannot face North Korea — which acts as a Chinese proxy — on its own without risking a confrontation with China. Russia's invasion of Georgia last August showed clearly that its former republics and satellites have no way of escaping Moscow's grip alone. This week's Arab League conference at Doha demonstrated to Iraq's leaders that their Arab brethren are incapable and unwilling to confront Iran. And the Obama administration's intense efforts to woo Iran coupled with its plan to slash the US's missile defense programs — including those in which Israel participates — and reportedly pressure Israel to dismantle its own purported nuclear arsenal — make clear that Israel today stands alone against Iran.

THE RISKS that the newly inaugurated post-American world pose for America's threatened friends are clear. But viable opportunities for survival do exist, and Israel can and must play a central role in developing them. Specifically, Israel must move swiftly to develop active strategic alliances with Japan, Iraq, Poland, and the Czech Republic and it must expand its alliance with India.

With Israel's technological capabilities, its intelligence and military expertise, it can play a vital role in shoring up these countries' capacities to contain the rogue states that threaten them. And by containing the likes of Russia, North Korea and Pakistan, they will make it easier for Israel to contain Iran even in the face of US support for the mullahs. The possibilities for strategic cooperation between and among all of these states and Israel run the gamut from intelligence sharing to military training, to missile defense, naval development, satellite collaboration, to nuclear cooperation. In addition, of course, expanded economic ties between and among these states can aid each of them in the struggle to stay afloat during the current global economic crisis.

Although far from risk free, these opportunities are realistic because they are founded on stable, shared interests. This is the case despite the fact that none of these potential alliances will likely amount to increased support for Israel in international forums. Dependent as they are on Arab oil, these potential allies cannot be expected to vote with Israel in the UN General Assembly. But this should not concern Jerusalem. The only thing that should concern Jerusalem today is how to weaken Iran both directly by attacking its nuclear installations, and indirectly by weakening its international partners in Moscow, Pyongyang, Islamabad and beyond in the absence of US support. If Japan is able to contain North Korea and so limit Pyongyang's freedom to proliferate its nuclear weapons and missiles to Iran and Syria and beyond, Israel is better off. So, too, Israel is better off if Russia is contained by democratic governments in Eastern and Central Europe. These nations in turn are better off if Iran is contained and prevented from threatening them both directly and indirectly through its strategic partners in North Korea, Syria and Russia, and its terror affiliates in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.

For the past 16 years, successive Israeli governments have wrongly believed that politics trump strategic interests. The notion that informed Israel's decision-makers — not unlike the notion that now informs the Obama administration — was that Israel's strategic interests would be secured as a consequence of its efforts to appease its enemies by weakening itself. Appreciative of Israel's sacrifices for peace, the nations of the world — and particularly the US, the Arabs and Europe — would come to Israel's defense in its hour of need. Now that the hour of need has arrived, Israel's political strategy for securing itself has been exposed as a complete fiasco. The good news is that no doubt sooner rather than later, Obama's similarly disastrous bid to denude the US of its military power under the naive assumption that it will be able to use its new stature as a morally pure strategic weakling to win its enemies over to its side will fail spectacularly and America's foreign policy will revert to strategic rationality. But to survive the current period of American strategic madness, Israel and the US's other unwanted allies must build alliances with one another — covertly if need be — to contain their adversaries in the absence of America. If they do so successfully, then the damage to global security induced by Obama's emasculation of his country will be limited. If on the other hand, they fail, then America's eventual return to its senses will likely come too late for its allies — if not for America itself.

2.) Raymond Ibrahim on Obama's bow and other aspects of foreign policy

Obama's Abominable Obeisance: Cultural Perspectives
by Raymond Ibrahim
Middle East Forum,
http://www.meforum.org/2116/ obamas-abominable-obeisance-cultural-perspectives
April 11, 2009

Is Obama's deep bow (with slightly bent knee) to the Saudi king as bad as it seems? The White House, apparently forgetful that we live in the Internet age, where everything is swiftly documented and disseminated — or else thinking it leads a blind nation — insists the president did not bow. He supposedly always bends in half when shaking hands with shorter people, though he certainly seemed quite erect when saluting the British queen, who is much shorter than the Saudi king.

Obama bowed; this much is certainly not open to debate. All that is left now is to place his odious obeisance in context. As such, history has much to say about the seemingly innocuous bow.

Millennia before the current war between the West and Islam — the war Obama insists does not exist in the first place — the ancient Greeks (forebears of Western civilization) warred with the Persians (forebears of the soon-to-be-nuclear Islamic theocracy, Iran).

Writing in the 5th century B.C., the Greek historian Herodotus explained: "When the Persians meet one another in the roads, you can see whether those who meet are of equal rank. For instead of greeting by words, they kiss each other on the mouth; but if one of them is inferior to the other, they kiss one another on the cheeks."

This explanation reminds one of Bush's hand-holding/kissing sessions with the same Saudi monarch, which some insist exonerate Obama's bow. Not so; as the Greek historian explains above, such behavior is representative of equal rank in Eastern cultures.

As for Obama's conduct, Herodotus continues, "yet if one is of much less noble rank than the other, he falls down before him and worships him."

"Much less noble rank"? Could Obama, like his wife Michelle, who only recently became proud of America, be operating under the conviction that being American is not all that noble?

As for "falls down before him and worships," this phrase is a translation of the Greek word proskunesis, which means "to make obeisance," to "worship, adore," as one would a god, or king, or god-king. Basically, to fall on one's face in prostration to another. Connotatively, it implies "to make like a dog" — base, servile, and submissive.

While common to the caste-like system of Persia, prostration was something the freedom-loving Greeks scorned. Indeed, wars were waged simply because the Greeks refused to submit — literally and figuratively — to Persian tyranny.

According to Arrian's chronicle, at the height of Alexander the Great's power — when his hubris against the gods and megalomania against man were most burgeoning — he decided to implement the proskunesis in his court, provoking controversy among the Macedonians, until one of their numbers, Callisthenes, rebuked him by saying, "Will you actually compel the Greeks as well, the freest of mankind, to do you obeisance?" Another close companion to Alexander, Clitus, vexed at the former's increasing pomposity and the lack of manly dignity at his court, told Alexander, in the words of the historian Plutarch, that "he [Alexander] had better live and converse with barbarians and slaves who would not scruple to bow the knee to his Persian girdle." His words cost him his life.

It was one decade ago, when I studied ancient history with Victor Davis Hanson, that I last examined the proskunesis (never thinking the day was nigh when it would have modern applicability — and thanks to a U.S. president!). Recently corresponding with VDH about this whole sordid affair, he confirmed that "the Macedonians seemed to really have felt proskunesis was about the worst thing someone could do."

In light of the West's ancestors' utter contempt for proskunesis, let us now examine Obama's prostration in context:

First, it must be affirmed that, as with ancient Greeks, Americans find bows, prostrations, and other servile gestures distasteful. Interestingly, the Muslim world shares this same view, particularly so-called "radicals," who are constantly condemning "manmade" governments, such as democracies, as systems of "human-worship" to be eschewed at all cost. Writes Ayman al-Zawahiri: "Know that democracy, that is, 'rule of the people,' is a new religion that deifies the masses by giving them the right to legislate without being shackled down to any other authority" (The Al Qaeda Reader, p. 130).

This, by the way, is why the Saudi monarch does not tamper with Sharia: doing so would be tantamount to self-apotheosis. Expecting prostrations from others would be viewed little better by the theocrats surrounding him. (Watch the video and note that, while the king proceeded with an extended right arm, Obama dived in with a bow, almost taking the former aback.)

In short, both Muslims and Americans (at least until very recently for the latter) find bowing to be an odious enterprise and therefore do not offer it to, nor expect it from, others.

Conversely, some Far Eastern cultures incorporate the bow. Had Obama been in Japan and bowed (and received a reciprocal bow signifying equality), his actions would have been culturally appropriate (not to mention expected). Yet, Obama had as much reason to bow to a Muslim as he would have to a Christian or Jew.

Yet surely he didn't bow to Abdullah due to the latter's exalted status in the Muslim world ("Guardian of the Two Sanctities"), a status that schoolboy Obama in Muslim Indonesia must have viewed with awe, but rather out of politeness, because Abdullah is a king, royalty. Not so. Were this true, upon meeting the British queen — equal "royalty" — Obama would have stooped to her as well. (Nor can his iPod gift be considered surrogate.)

Whatever prompted that rather instinctive bow — Obama may be used to bending the knee to Saudi royalty, considering that Saudis may have paid his college tuition — and regardless of antiquated notions of "honor" and "dignity," merely diplomatically, it was a bad move.

Not only is the Wahhabi king symbolic of the most "radical" form of Islam — it's not for nothing that 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, not to mention bin Laden, were Saudis — but his Sharia-enforcing kingdom is cited as one of the worst human rights violators in the world. Bowing to this man was therefore symbolically a bow of submission to radical Islam and all its attendant human rights violations.

This is compounded by the fact that, immediately preceding this ignoble bow, Obama was busy profusely apologizing to the Islamic world, insisting that the U.S. is not at war with Islam — and "never will be." Jihadis the world over must have been relieved to know that not only does the leader of the most powerful Western nation have no intention of naming them or placing them in context — so much for that first strategy of warfare, "know your enemy" — but that nothing they do in the future will ever cause the sleeping infidel giant's leader to arouse it.

Similarly, Obama's obeisance should give nuke-seeking Iran even more hope in its endeavors. After all, if the leader of the free West so readily bends the knee to Wahhabi despotism, how long before he bows to Iran, the true heir of proskunesis-Persia? And if he does not fully bow willingly, that is only more incentive for Iran to hasten and acquire nukes, so he can be made to bow unwillingly.

Finally, any would-be "moderates" or assertive governments who may have been serious about combating radical Islam and its attendant humanitarian abuses via Sharia have, through Obama's bow to the personification of radical Islam, just received a clear message: aside from occasional, perfunctory lip service, you're really on your own.

As for all those who would defend Obama's bow by saying he was being "diplomatic," because, you know, we "need" Saudi oil, how does that justify bowing, unprecedented from an American president, unexpected from the Saudi king?

When Alexander the Great, drunk with hubris, took on despotic ways, demanding that others prostrate themselves before him, the Macedonians revolted; some were put to death. What a long way Western civilization has come when today the leader of the free world and heir to democratic ancient Greece, far from despotically demanding that others offer him obeisance, voluntarily opts to prostrate himself — and in essence, all of America — before another. And what another.

Originally published at:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ obamas-abominable-obeisance-cultural-perspectives/

Raymond Ibrahim is the associate director of the Middle East Forum and the author of The Al Qaeda Reader, translations of religious texts and propaganda.

3.) Prof. Steven Plaut's sarcastic letter from Shimon Peres.

An Open Letter from President Shimon Peres to President Barack Obama
Relayed to the world by Steven Plaut

Dear Mr. President,

I am shocked, Mister President, truly shocked. After all the hope you have inspired for a new America, after your denunciation of American arrogance, after your pledge to solve problems with the world's terrorists through talking, here you go and order the American Navy SEALS to violate the human rights of the Somalian pirates without so much as reading them their Miranda rights!

Have you lost your senses? Why could you not have learned from the lessons offered to you by Israel in its successful strategy to get Gilad Shavit released from captivity! After all, we have worked quietly and peacefully for more than three years to obtain Shavit's freedom. Why could you not have been content to do the same with Captain Phillips?

What happened to your promise to deal with all forms of activism in the world being perpetrated by misunderstood militants through civilized talking?

Mister President Minister, I have a great amount of experience in dealing successfully with terrorism and violence, and this is why I wish to explain to you why your actions were unjustified and simply unforgivable.

The first thing you must realize is that one can only make peace with one's enemies. With one's friends there is no need to make peace. There is no military solution to the problems of terrorism, and this is why you should have sought a diplomatic solution to the holding of Captain Richard Phillips. "No Justice, No Peace," as they say. You must now invite the leaders of this Somalian protest organization responsible for the hijacking of the ship and the holding of Captain Phillips to the White House. You must learn to feel their pain and understand their needs.

But most importantly, you must end the illegal occupation of territory that does not belong to you! First, you must withdraw from Guam and Hawaii and remove all the illegal Anglo-Saxon settlers there. But that is just a beginning. Large sections of the United States, including the Southwest, are illegally occupied territories. Some even have a Hispanic majority.

The solution is to create two states for two peoples inside Illinois itself. One will be for the Americans and the other for the Somali pirates.

Then there is the matter of the status of Washington, DC. It has a sizeable Somali minority, many of whom drive taxis. Your selfish insistence that the District of Columbia remain American is racist and insensitive. You must end the apartheid regime inside America and turn Washington into the shared capital of two states.

Then you must pay compensation to the families of the Somali pirates mercilessly killed in cold blood by your Navy SEALS. You must grant them survivor benefits from the American social security administration and lands inside Yellowstone Park. This is not even the first time that you Americans violated the civil rights of pirates. Your crimes go all the way back to Thomas Jefferson and his imperialist attacks on the Barbary coast pirates. The aggressors were led by that racist warmonger Lieutenant Stephen Decatur, Jr., who attacked pirate ships in Tripoli for no better reason than that they had hijacked the USS Philadelphia. Did you not learn anything from that early bout of American imperialist insensitivity?

You must offer the pirates Internet web services and five-star tourist hotels in exchange for their promising to abandon violence. After all, that is how we turned Yasser Arafat into a peace partner. You see, military force serves no role any more in the post-modern universe. It is passe. It is archaic. Today, consumer interests dominate the world, and the Somali activists of the earth will surely wish to make peace in exchange for some profits from participating in global trade.

The attacks on the American ship by the Somali pirates came because you have been insufficiently sensitive to the needs of the Other. You should have negotiated with them even while the ship was under attack. Conditioning negotiations on an end to violence is a no-win situation. It will simply prolong the bloodshed! You must put your own house in order, eliminate inequality and injustice inside Chicago, and then the militants will no longer target you.

The key is to build a New Middle Africa, one in which everyone is so busy with the important matters of developing tourism, infrastructure investments and high-technology that they will have no time to pursue violence.

Begin by declaring a unilateral ceasefire! Mister President, blessed is the peacemaker. Remember Martin Luther King! Go meet with the legitimate representatives of the Somali pirates. The entire world will support you and congratulate you if you respond to the attack on the American ship by disarming the United States and opening serious dialogue with the pirate activists.

All we are saying is give peace a chance. Yitzhak Rabin would have approved. Yes, chaver, what you need is shalom, salaam, peace. You will be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in recognition. Do not allow yourself to be drawn down into the gutter of retaliation. Violence never achieves anything. History has no lessons. History is the dead past.

Follow my example! Provide the Somali pirate organization with anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles so that they can battle against the true radicals and extremists. And they will do so with no ACLU or Supreme Court to restrain them!

Demonstrate your humanity by paying pensions to any widows and orphans of the militants killed by the Navy SEALS.

Mister President, my own peace policies have eliminated war, bloodshed and terror from the Middle East. We now have only peace partners. If you follow in my footsteps, you can achieve the same lofty goals.

Peacefully yours,
Shimon Peres, Peacemaker-at-Large

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

Posted by Morris J. Amitay, April 14, 2009.

With so much happening both in and around the Middle East nowadays, how can Israel's real friends make sense of it all? The solution might be to follow a set of commonsense rules that have served me well during my years here in Washington.

The first rule is: WHENEVER THINGS LOOK BAD, THEY CAN ALWAYS GET WORSE — AND USUALLY DO. For instance, if you were troubled that our new president's first phone call to a foreign leader was to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, it got even worse when he sent his "why can't we all be friends" video to Iran. And then came the president's deep bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, a new low. A follow on rule to the first: ANYONE IN THE MEDIA, CONGRESS OR THE WHITE HOUSE WHO DENIGRATES OR APOLOGIZES FOR THE UNITED STATES INVARIABLY IS NOT A FRIEND OF ISRAEL. The two countries share so many values, interests and goals, that this self-abnegation is invariably perceived as weakness and exploited by the enemies of both.

Another general rule to follow is: EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE AND SHOULD BE COMPARED TO SOMETHING OR SOMEONE ELSE. For instance, compared to Arafat, Abbas doesn't look so bad — literally and figuratively. And compared to Chas Freeman, Zbigniew Brzezinski could almost pass for a Zionist. But aside from comparison of personalities, compared to the Saudi "peace plan", the Road Map almost looks terrific.

A rule which often can predict the competence of Washington policymakers is: IT'S NOT WHAT YOU KNOW, OR WHO YOU KNOW, BUT WHERE YOU'VE BEEN. Applying this to a first term senator's quest for the presidency, it should have resulted in a "slam dunk" victory for John McCain. However, another political rule seems to have trumped the first: YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME, BUT NOT ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL OF THE TIME. Only time will tell if the second half of this rule applies to the current occupant of the White House.

Another useful rule to apply: DO NOT TRUST THE STATE DEPARTMENT TO DEFEND AMERICAN INTERESTS. The operating philosophy of our State Department (or as President Kennedy referred to it, the "fudge factory") is when in doubt — obfuscate. Should this fail — appease. And finally — concede. The latest obfuscation has our country no longer fighting a "Global War on Terrorism," but involved instead in "overseas contingency operations". Taking a page from State, our Department of Homeland Security is no longer concerned about terrorist attacks, just "man-caused disasters" (both Bernie Madoff and Osama bin Laden come to mind here).

An easy rule to follow: DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU READ OR HEAR ABOUT ISRAEL IN THE NEW YORK TIMES OR NPR. This rule not only applies to editorial commentary, but to the uncritical reporting of Arab "eyewitness accounts" as facts, when experience shows these statements have to be taken with a whole pound of salt. Unwarranted and erroneous criticism of Israel also unfortunately emanates from a misguided (at best) minority of Jewish Americans who always blame Israel first. From the "Breira" movement of forty years ago to the J St. "it's all our fault" supporters of today, there continues to be fringe groups blinded by their own self-righteousness.

Santayana's famous quote, "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it", underscores yet another one of my rules: NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE SELF-DELUSION AND THE IGNORANCE OF HISTORY OF OUR MIDDLE EAST POLICYMAKERS. From the "Rogers Plan" of 1969 (the beginning of my own hands on experience), to the Mitchell mission of today — and a long list of failed peace initiatives in between, reality has consistently taken a back seat to wishful thinking. While Israeli leadership may be more reluctant to speak truth to American peace processors, Israel's adversaries have fewer compunctions. It is not only Hamas and Iran that demonstrate by word and deed that under no circumstance will they ever recognize the "Zionist entity". We recently have heard a favorite (and reportedly well paid) "moderate", Muhammad Dahlan, declare on PA television, "I want to say in my own name and in the name of all my fellow members of the Fatah movement, we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Rather, we are asking Hamas not to do so because Fatah never recognized Israel's right to exist." So while the Obama administration parrots the mantra of two democratic states living side by side in peace, who are they really kidding? It seems obvious that you won't find Santayana's admonition included in the president's current Middle East briefing book.

A final rule to keep in mind looking at the Middle East is: ALWAYS LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE. Simply put, it is that the Israelis are the good guys, while their Arab enemies are not. Keep this is mind and you should be on the right track at least 95% of the time! And a final comforting thought — WHY WORRY? In the end (depending, of course, on one's age and health), we will all meet the same fate. So in the absence of divine intervention during our lifetimes, we will have to leave real peace in the Middle East to future generations. Hopefully, they will be guided by at least some of my rules.

Morrie Amitay is a former Executive Director of AIPAC and founder of the pro-Israel Washington PAC (www.washingtonpac.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, April 14, 2009.

This was written by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared today in Jewish World Review.

Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.


Egypt's recent actions against Hizbullah operatives are a watershed event for understanding the nature of the threat that Iran constitutes for both regional and global security. For many Israelis, Egypt's actions came as a surprise. For years this country has been appealing to Egypt to take action against Hizbullah operatives in its territory. With minor exceptions, it has refused. Believing that its operatives threatened only us, the Mubarak regime preferred to turn a blind eye.

Then too, now seems a strange time for Egypt to be proving Israel correct. Senior ministers in the new Netanyahu government have for years been outspoken critics of Egypt for its refusal to act against Hizbullah and for its support for the Hizbullah/Iran-sponsored Hamas terror group. By going after Hizbullah now, Egypt is legitimizing both their criticism and the Netanyahu government itself. This in turn seems to go against Egypt's basic interest of weakening Israel politically in general, and weakening rightist Israeli governments in particular.

But none of this seemed to interest Egyptian officials last week when they announced the arrest of 49 Hizbullah operatives and pointed a finger at Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah and his bosses in Teheran, openly accusing them of seeking to undermine Egypt's national security.

The question is what caused Egypt to suddenly act? It appears that two things are motivating the Mubarak regime. First, there is the nature of the Hizbullah network it uncovered. According to the Egyptian Justice Ministry's statements, the arrested operatives were not confining their operations to weapons smuggling to Gaza. They were also targeting Egypt.

The Egyptian state prosecution alleges that while operating as Iranian agents, they were scouting targets along the Suez Canal. That is, they were planning strategic strikes against Egypt's economic lifeline.

The second aspect of the network that clearly concerned Egyptian authorities was what it showed about the breadth of cooperation between the regime's primary opponent — the Muslim Brotherhood — and the Iranian regime. Forty-one of the suspects arrested are Egyptian citizens, apparently aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. This alignment is signaled by two things. First, many of them have hired Muslim Brotherhood activist Muntaser al-Zayat as their defense attorney. And second, Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen have decried the arrests.

For instance, in an interview with Gulf News last Thursday, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Issam el-Erian defended Hizbullah (and Iran) against his own government, claiming that Nasrallah and the Iranian ayatollahs are right to accuse President Hosni Mubarak of being little more than an Israeli stooge.

In his words, "The Egyptian government must redraw its national security policies to include Israeli threats against Arab counties like Syria and Lebanon and to consider threats against Palestinians by Israelis as a threat against its national security."

In a nutshell then, both the Hizbullah network's targets and its relationship to Egypt's Sunni Islamist opposition expose clearly the danger the Iranian regime constitutes to Egypt. Iran seeks to undermine and defeat opponents throughout the world through both direct military/terrorist/sabotage operations and through ideological subversion. It is the confluence of both of these aspects of Iran's revolutionary ambitions that forced Egypt to act now, regardless of the impact of its actions on the political fortunes of the Netanyahu government. And it is not a bit surprising that Egypt was forced to act at such a politically inopportune time.

THROUGHOUT the region and indeed throughout much of the world, Iran's star is on the rise. Its burgeoning nuclear program acts as a second arm of a pincer-like campaign against its opponents. The asymmetric and ideological warfare it wages through its terror and state proxies are the campaign's first arm. Together, these two strategic arms are raising the stakes of Iran's challenge to its neighbors and to the West to unprecedented and unacceptable heights. Morocco is so concerned about Iranian subversion of its Sunni population that last month it cut off diplomatic ties with Teheran.

Iran's great leap forward has been exposed by recent events. Last month's Arab League summit in Doha exemplified how Iran has successfully split the Arab world between its proxies and its opponents. For the past three years, and particularly since the 2006 war between Israel and Iran's Hizbullah in Lebanon, Arab League states have been increasingly polarized around the issue of Iran. The country has used its satellite states of Syria, Sudan and Qatar, as well as its burgeoning alliances with Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere, to legitimize its rapidly escalating assaults on Sunni regimes throughout the region.

Although Egypt and Saudi Arabia successfully blocked Qatar from inviting Iran and Hamas to the summit, by using the good offices of Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Thani and Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Iranians were able to get their anti-Saudi/Egyptian platform passed. As the Middle East Media Research Institute chronicled in a report on the proceedings, Assad successfully abrogated the so-called Saudi peace plan that the Arab League adopted in 2002. According to a new Syrian-backed resolution, any Arab rapprochement with Israel would be contingent on Israel first destroying itself by withdrawing into indefensible borders and being overwhelmed by millions of hostile foreign Arab immigrants.

Sensing what awaited him at the summit, Mubarak chose to stay home and send a junior emissary in his place. Saudi King Abdullah said nothing throughout the two-day Arab love-fest with Iran. Both leaders emerged weakened and humiliated.

In recent years, Iran has expanded its sphere of influence to strategic points around the region. Two recent additions to Iran's axis are Eritrea and Somalia. Iran and Eritrea signed a strategic alliance last year that grants Iranian Revolutionary Guard units basing rights in the strategically vital Bab al-Mandab strait that controls the chokepoint connecting the Indian Ocean with the Red Sea. As for Somalia — whose position along the Gulf of Aden provides it a similarly critical maritime posture — Iran has been exploiting its condition as a failed state for several years.

In 2006, the UN reported that some 720 Somali jihadists aligned with al-Qaida fought with Hizbullah in Lebanon during its war against Israel. According to an analysis of Iran's coopting of Somali jihadists published in November 2006 by the on-line Long War Journal, in exchange for the Somali operatives' assistance, Iran and Syria provided advanced military training to the Somalis who had just established the al-Qaida-affiliated Islamic Courts Union regime in the country. Teheran equipped the ICU with anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers, machine guns, ammunition, medicine, uniforms and other supplies both before and after it took control of Somalia.

The UN report also linked the ICU to Iran's nuclear program. Its alleged that Iranian agents were operating in ICU chief Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys's hometown of Dusa Mareb, where they sought to buy uranium.

Beyond the Horn of Africa, of course, Iran has been consistently expanding its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both countries the mullahs simultaneously sponsor the insurgencies and offer themselves as the US's indispensible partner for stabilizing the countries they are destabilizing.

What is perhaps most jarring about Iran's ever-expanding influence is the disparate responses it elicits from Israel and Sunni regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and the West on the other. Whereas Israel and the Sunni Arab states warn about Iran daily, far from acknowledging or confronting this ever-expanding Iranian menace, the US and the Europeans have been alternatively ignoring it and appeasing it. If the US were taking the Iranian threat seriously, the Obama administration would not be begging Iran to negotiate with it after Teheran demonstrated that it has complete control over the nuclear fuel cycle.

If the US were interested in contending with the danger Iran constitutes to global security, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not be absurdly arguing that the US cannot verify whether Iran's announcement that it is now operating 7,000 centrifuges and its opening of another nuclear site signify an increase in its nuclear capacity.

Were the US taking Iran seriously, it would not be asking Iran to help out in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would not be treating Somali piracy as a strategically insignificant nuisance. It would not be ignoring Eritrea's newfound subservience to Iran. It would not be maintaining the Central Command's headquarters in Qatar. And, of course, it would not be permitting Iran to move forward with its nuclear weapons program.

THEN THERE is Britain. Last week Michael Ledeen from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies reported that Britain's decision to recognize Hizbullah is part of a deal it struck with Iran and Hizbullah in exchange for five Britons who have been held hostage in Iraq by Hizbullah/Iran-affiliated terrorists for two years. According to the deal, in exchange for the British hostages, London agreed to recognize Hizbullah and the US agreed to release a number of Shi'ite terrorists its forces in Iraq have captured.

As Tariq Alhomayed, the editor of Asharq al-Awsat, noted in response to the news, the deal puts paid Nasrallah's contention that Hizbullah does not operate outside Lebanon except to wage war against Israel. But it also points to a severe problem with the West.

If Britain was willing to acknowledge and contend with the grave threat Iran constitutes for global security, it would not accept the authority of Hizbullah or Iran to negotiate the release of British hostages in Iraq. Instead it would place responsibility for achieving the release of the British hostages on the sovereign Iraqi government and use all the means at its disposal to strengthen that government against agents of Iranian influence in the country.

So, too, rather than participate in the deal, the US would seek to destroy the Iranian-controlled operatives holding the hostages and discredit and defeat the Iraqi political forces operating under Iranian control. Certainly if the US were taking the Iranian threat seriously, it would announce that any withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq will be linked to the complete defeat of agents of Iranian influence in Iraq.

The West's refusal to contend with the burgeoning Iranian menace no doubt has something to do with the West's physical distance from Iran. Whereas Middle Eastern countries have no choice but to deal with Iran, the US and its European allies apparently believe that they can still pretend away the danger. But of course they cannot.

From the Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden to Hizbullah cells from Iraq to Canada; from Iranian agents in British universities to Hizbullah and Iranian military advisers in South and Central America, the West, like the Middle East, is being infiltrated and surrounded.

Egypt's open assault on Hizbullah is yet another warning that concerted action must be taken against the mullocracy. Unfortunately, the absence of Western resolve signals that this warning, too, will go unheeded.

Contact the Ceders at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berchuck, April 14, 2009.

In Israel, the Government is still harassing religious Jews in Hebron and Jews holding down the fort in Samaria and Judea. Jewish farmers are harassed, while the European Union builds huge houses on the hilltops for the Arab terrorists. If a Jew and an Arab fight in court, put your money on the Arab to win. It's hard to believe this is happening in a Jewish State, isn't it?

In America, we're starting to behave the same way. The FBI gives courses in Sharia Law! They aren't gunning after the Shariasts who want to substitute Islamic Law for the Constitution. They are training people in how to apply it! And who has Homeland Security decided is the enemy? Not the practitioners of the Religion of Peace. Hey we can't even call them terrorists anymore. They are practioners of man-made disasters. No, the real enemy is the 'right-wing extremist.'

You all know right-wing extremists. You might even be one. That's a person that thinks the Government shouldn't take our hard-earned money to 'share' with everyone who doesn't want to bother working. A right-wing extremist doesn't want to builld up a huge cadre of petty government bureaucrats whose only loyalty is to the Democratic party and who will have the power to tell us what medical treatment we should have and what books our children should read. We'd better start electing some people who believe in the Constitution before we have some form of National Socialism here in the United States of America. Yes, Virginia, it can happen here.

This is from World Net Daily.


WASHINGTON — A newly unclassified Department of Homeland Security report warns against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singles out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, states that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, goes on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

Are you ready for a second Declaration of Independence? Sign the petition promoting true freedom once again!

The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defines right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

"[T]he consequences of a prolonged economic downturn — including real estate foreclosures, unemployment and an inability to obtain credit — could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past," the report says.

It adds that "growth in these groups subsided in reaction to increased government scrutiny as a result of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing and disrupted plots, improvements in the economy and the continued U.S. standing as the pre-eminent world power."

"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans likely would attract new members into the ranks of right-wing extremist groups as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for violence against the government," the report continues. "The high volume of purchases and stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by right-wing extremists in anticipation of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary concern to law enforcement."

Most notable is the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it says. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

The report cites the April 4 shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh as an example of what may be coming, claiming the alleged gunman holds a racist ideology and believes in anti-government conspiracy theories about gun confiscations, citizen detention camps and "a Jewish-controlled 'one-world government.'"

It also suggests the election of an African-American president and the prospect of his policy changes "are proving to be a driving force for right-wing extremist recruitment and radicalization."

The report also mentions "'end times' prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as the violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement."

"DHS/I&A assesses that right-wing extremist groups' frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence," the report continues.

The report states the DHS will be working with state and local partners over the next several months to determine the levels of right-wing extremist activity in the U.S.

Last month, the chief of the Missouri highway patrol blasted a report issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center that linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism, assuring that such reports no longer will be issued. The report had been compiled with the assistance of DHS.

The report warned law enforcement agencies to watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers for third-party political candidates such as Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Chuck Baldwin.

It further warned law enforcement to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol issued a statement that the release of the report, which outraged conservatives nationwide, prompted him to "take a hard look" at the procedures through which the report was released by the MIAC.

"My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement," he wrote. "Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety."

"For that reason, I have ordered the MIAC to permanently cease distribution of the militia report," he said. "Further, I am creating a new process for oversight of reports drafted by the MIAC that will require leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and the Department of Public Safety to review the content of these reports before they are shared with law enforcement. My office will also undertake a review of the origin of the report by MIAC."


Hamas Covenant, schools, mosques, and media teach its society, "Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him...", etc.. So does the Palestinian Authority. Both factions' militias there attack Jews, as taught, and the populations there celebrate successful murders of Jews.

Britain denies that reality. Its media claim that Israel dehumanizes those Arabs and delights in murdering them. Actually, every major Israeli organization condemns hatred of Arabs, while every major Arab organization exhorts hatred of Jews. The British media ignores Arab murder of Jews, but waxes indignant when Israeli self-defense kills Arabs. That is how Britain portrayed Israel's 2002 raid into Jenin against terrorists who had slain 133 Israelis. The Israeli raid killed 52 Arabs who fought against them or were used as human shields, losing 23 of its own troops doing so. Britain's media called that a massacre of Arabs, attempted genocide, as bad as 9/11. That journalism is perverse.

Britain has a long history of antisemitism. This has been aggravated by the infiltration of the Labor Party and unions by hard-bitten Trotskyites, internecine rivals of the Communists (Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/30).


"Following are excerpts from a drama show presented at the Gaza Islamic University, during a festival commemorating Hamas founder Ahmad Yassin. The show aired on Al-Aqsa TV on April 4, 2009.

To view this clip, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/2073.htm. To view more clips on Al-Aqsa TV, visit

'You Must Drink From the Blood of Muslims. But Mix It With Soda Water' Jewish father: 'We Jews hate the Muslims. We love killing Muslims. We Jews love drinking the blood of Muslims and the blood of Arabs. Are you Arabs? Are you Muslims? I hate you. Yes, I hate you. I hate you in order to please God. In order to please God. In order to please God.'

Shimon, his son: 'Dad, I don't know how God could possibly be pleased with you when you stink so much. You haven't taken a shower for two years, yet you talk about pleasing God.' Father: 'In order to please God. Shimon, my son, I'd like to teach you

something. You must hate the Muslims.'" (www.imra.org.il, 4/7.)

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 14, 2009.


Moktada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric in Iraq, has prayer services denouncing homosexuality. Iraq's most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali-al-Sistani, said that Gays and lesbians should be "punished, in fact, killed."

Such executions are taking place in Iraq. Most of them are "honor killings" by family members. Others are by death squads. This reaction is not consonant with the increased tolerance of Iraqi women to dress more in Western style (Timothy Williams & Tareq Maher, NY Times, 4/8, A1).

Months ago, I came across reports of oppression of gays in the Palestinian Authority. Gays there flee to Israel, for sanctuary. Oddly, one hears of organized gays in the US taking an anti-Israel line.


For the second time in a month, the European Union (E.U.) has issued vague threats against Israel. This time it threatened not to upgrade its trade with Israel, unless the new Israeli government commits to E.U. policy on the Arab-Israel conflict. That policy is statehood for the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/, Arutz-7, 3/30).

Does the E.U. know better than Israel's elected government what is good for Israel. What arrogance! Wasn't the E.U. a major critic of the US for allegedly imposing its policies upon other countries? Now the E.U. is doing it. Hypocrisy!

The E.U. insist that the P.A. get sovereignty, without justifying it. The E.U. could not justify it. The P.A. has violated all its agreements, include the prerequisite for peace — eradicating terrorism and the indoctrination in religious warfare.


British police think that they can study Muslim school children and identify those who are vulnerable to recruitment by terrorists. One police method was cited. Police would examine students compositions for sympathy for al-Qaida (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/, Arutz-7, 3/30).


An Arab party's first female MK in Israel welcomes Iran's development of nuclear weapons and its influence on the Palestinian Authority. She explains that Iran would counter Israel, which is dangerous (http://www.imra.org.il/, 3/31). Iran's influence is by supporting Hamas terrorism. Iran threatens to use a-bombs. OBAMA'S NOTION OF PALESTINIAN ARAB MOTHERS

At a Turkish student roundtable, Pres. Obama said he would oppose al-Qaeda both militarily and ideologically. He would support education systems that do not indoctrinate in terrorism. [He's proposed financing decent schools in Pakistan.]

In proposing statehood for Palestinian Arabs in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, he said, "I have to believe that the mothers of Palestinians and the mothers of Israelis hope the same thing for their children. They want them not to be vulnerable to violence. They don't want, when their child gets on a bus, to worry that that bus might explode. They don't want their child to have to suffer indignities because of who they are." He wishes the mothers were in charge. He urges Israelis to understand the viewpoint of the Arabs (www.imra.org.il, 4/8).

Yes, the civilized world must oppose Radical Islam as an ideology as well as a military force, to save itself. Let's see whether the President works out how.

No, what he says he believes about mothers not only is mistake but pernicious. It equates the two peoples as causes of violence. The problem is not Israel. Israelis do not hate Arab Muslims "because of who they are." If more Israelis understood the viewpoint of the Palestinian Arabs, they would stop offering them territory in exchange for hoped-for-peace. The reason is that Islamist ideology largely consists of hatred of the Jewish people and a desire to conquer them.

One doesn't need mothers to be in charge of Israel, because Israel does not commit terrorism and doesn't want war. Arabs in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) don't have to worry about their buses being blown up, because Israelis do not blow up buses.

It's different with the Muslim Arabs. Pres. Obama does not seem to have studied what P.A. mothers want. Nor does it matter what they want — P.A. mothers are not in charge. Both halves of the P.A. are male, Radical Muslim dictatorships. P.A. society indoctrinates in the virtue of suicide bombing. It honors and subsidizes families of suicide bombers. Mothers there have been filmed encouraging children to murder.

I've seen numerous polls showing that most of the P.A. population wants to conquer Israel. Almost half of them approve of suicide bombing. Disapproval of suicide bombing rarely is on ethical grounds but in terms of whether it pays.

Turning back to the President's pledge to oppose education systems that indoctrinate in terrorism, he doesn't oppose the P.A. education system, though it does indoctrinate in terrorism. The US subsidizes the P.A., and Obama has added to that subsidy. The US even arms the P.A. in Judea-Samaria. Obama is continuing the mixed up policy of his predecessor, in which he engages against some terrorists and "engages" with others.

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@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, April 14, 2009.

This is by Howard Jacobson and it appeared today in the New Repurblic.

Howard Jacobson is the author, most recently, of The Act of Love.


'England's made a Jew of me in only eight weeks," says Nathan Zuckerman on the last page of Philip Roth's The Counterlife. It is not meant to be a compliment. What makes a Jew of Zuckerman is the "strong sense of difference" the English induce in him, a "latent and pervasive" anti-Semitism, rarely rampantly expressed except for a "peculiarly immoderate, un-English-like Israel-loathing."

At the time — The Counterlife was published in England in 1987 — Zuckerman's account of Anglo-Jewish relations struck an English-born Jew like me as a mite thin-skinned. It was possible that an American Jew detected what we did not, but more likely that he detected what was not there. Whatever the truth of it, a comfortable existence was better served by assuming the latter. We all had our own tales of anti-Semitism to tell — my grandmother's headstone, for example, had just been defaced with a swastika in a skinhead raid on a Jewish cemetery in Manchester — but mainly they were isolated, low-level acts of idle vandalism or reflexes of minor intolerance, more comic than alarming, and not personal, however you viewed them. Apart, that is, from the Israel-loathing, but then that wasn't — was it? — to be confused with anti-Semitism.

Twenty years on, it is difficult to imagine Nathan Zuckerman lasting eight days in England, let alone eight weeks. There is something in the air here, something you can smell, but also, in a number of cases, something more immediately affronting to Jews. It is important not to exaggerate. Most English Jews walk safely through their streets, express themselves freely, enjoy the friendship of non-Jews, and feel no less confidently a part of English life than they ever have. Organizations monitoring anti-Jewish incidents in England have reported a dramatic increase after Gaza: the daubing of slogans such as "kill the jews" on walls and bus shelters in Jewish neighborhoods, abuse of Jewish children on school playgrounds, arson attacks on synagogues, physical assaults on Jews conspicuous by their yarmulkes or shtreimels. But, while these incidents ought not to be treated blithely, they are still exceptional occurrences.

And yet, in the tone of the debate, in the spirit of the national conversation about Israel, in the slow seepage of familiar anti-Semitic calumnies into the conversation — there, it seems to me, one can find growing reason for English Jews to be concerned. Mindless acts of vandalism come and go; but what takes root in the intellectual life of a nation is harder to identify and remove. Was it anti-Semitic of the Labour politician Tam Dalyell to talk of Jewish advisers excessively influencing Tony Blair's foreign policy? Was it anti-Semitic of the Liberal Democrat Baroness Tonge to refer to the "financial grips" that the pro-Israel lobby exerts on the world? Such allusions to a pro-Israel conspiracy of influence and wealth, usually accompanied by protestations of innocence in regard to Jews themselves — "I am sick of being accused of anti-Semitism," Baroness Tonge has said, "when what I am doing is criticizing Israel" — have become the commonplaces of anti-Israel discourse in the years since Philip Roth wrote The Counterlife. And, whatever their intention, their gradual effect has been to normalize, under cover of criticism of Israel, assumptions that 50 years ago would have been exclusively the property of overt Jew-haters. The peculiarly immoderate Israel-loathing that Roth remarked upon in 1987 is now a deranged revulsion, intemperate and unconcealed, which nothing Israel itself has done could justify or explain were it ten times the barbaric apartheid state it figures as in the English imagination.

Demonstrators against Israel's operation in Gaza carried placards demanding an end to the "massacre" and the "slaughter." There was no contesting this rhetoric of wanton destruction versus helpless innocence. Hamas rockets counted for nothing, Hamas's record of endangering its own civilian population counted for nothing, Amnesty reports were cited when they incriminated Israel but ignored when they incriminated others. Whatever was not massacre was not news, nor was it germane. The distinguished British film director Ken Loach dismissed a report on the rise of anti-Semitism across Europe as designed merely to "distract attention" from Israel's military crimes. An increase in anti-Semitism is "perfectly understandable," Loach said, "because Israel feeds feelings of anti-Semitism." Scrupulously refusing the Holocaust-Gaza analogy, Robert Fisk, writing in The Independent a few weeks ago, nonetheless argued that "a Palestinian woman and her child are as worthy of life as a Jewish woman and her child on the back of a lorry in Auschwitz" — at a stroke reinstating the analogy while implying that Jews need to be reminded that not only Jewish lives are precious. And a columnist for the populist newspaper The Daily Mirror has taken this imputation of callousness a stage further, writing of the "1,314 dead Palestinians temporarily sat[ing] Tel Aviv's bloodlust."

Coincidentally, or not, a ten-minute play by Caryl Churchill — accusing Jews of the same addiction to blood-spilling — has recently enjoyed a two-week run at the Royal Court Theatre in London and three performances at Dublin's Abbey Theatre. Seven Jewish Children declares itself to be a fund-raiser for Gazans. Anyone can produce it without paying its author a fee, so long as the seats are free and there is a collection for the beleaguered population of Gaza after the performance.

Think of it as 1960s agitprop — the buckets await you in the foyer and you make your contribution or you don't — and it is no more than the persuaded speaking to the persuaded. But propaganda turns sinister when it pretends to be art. Offering insight into how Jews have got to this murderous pass — the answer is the Holocaust: we do to others what others did to us — Seven Jewish Children finishes almost before it begins in a grotesque tableau of blood-soaked triumphalism: Jews reveling in the deaths of Palestinians, laughing at dying Palestinian policemen, rejoicing in the slaughter of Palestinian babies.

Churchill has expressed surprise that anyone should accuse her of invoking the blood libel, but, even if one takes her surprise at face value, it only demonstrates how unquestioningly integral to English leftist thinking the bloodlust of the Israeli has become. Add to this Churchill's decision to have her murder-mad Israelis justify their actions in the name of "the chosen people" — as though any Jew ever yet interpreted the burden of "chosenness" as an injunction to kill — and we are back on old and terrifying territory. And this not in the brute hinterland of English life, where swastikas are drawn the wrong way round and "Jew" is not always spelled correctly, but at the highest level of English culture.

Again it is important not to exaggerate. Seven Jewish Children has not by any means received universal acclaim. Parodies of it seem to turn up on the Internet almost every day. But there is no postulate so far-fetched that it can't smuggle itself into even the best newspapers as truth. The eminent Guardian theater critic Michael Billington, for example, took Churchill's words in the spirit in which they were uttered, believing that she "shows us how Jewish children are bred to believe in the 'otherness' of Palestinians." Jewish children, note. But then it's Jewish children whom Caryl Churchill paints as brainwashed into barbarity. Without, I believe, any intention to speak ill of Jews, and innocently deaf to the odiousness of the word "bred" in this context, Billington demonstrates how easily language can sleepwalk us into bigotry.

The premise of Seven Jewish Children is a fine piece of fashionable psychobabble that understands Zionism as the collective nervous breakdown of the Jewish people; instead of learning the humanizing lesson of the Holocaust — whatever that might be, and whatever the even greater obligation on non-Jews to learn it too — Jews vent their instability on the Palestinians in imitation of what the Nazis vented on them. This is a theory that assumes what it offers to prove, namely how like Nazis Israelis have become. Furthermore, it dispossesses Jews of their own history, turning the Holocaust into a sort of retrospective retribution, Jews being made to pay the price then for what Israelis are doing now. Clearly, this exists at a more extreme end of the continuum of willed forgetting than Holocaust denial itself, its ultimate object being to break the Jew-Holocaust nexus altogether. Let us no longer deny the Holocaust, let us rather redistribute the pity. If there is a victim of the Holocaust today, it is the people of Gaza.

Given how hard it is to distinguish Jew from Israeli in all this, the mantra "It is not anti-Semitic to be critical of Israel" looks increasingly disingenuous. But there is no challenging it, not even with such eminently reasonable responses as, "That surely depends on the criticism," or "Calling into question an entire nation's right to exist is not exactly 'criticism.'" Nor is the distinction between Israeli and Jew much respected where the graffitists and the baby bullies of the schoolyard do their work. But, in the end, it is frankly immaterial how much of this is Jewhating or not. The inordinacy of English Israel-loathing — ascribing to a country the same disproportionate responsibility for the world's ills that was once ascribed to a people — is toxic enough in itself. The language of extremism has a malarious dynamic of its own, passing effortlessly from the mischievous to the unwary, and from there into the bloodstream of society. And that's what one can smell here. Infection.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrack, April 13, 2009.

I realised a long time ago that people's political views are based predominantly on their emotional attachments to their personal upbringing and life experiences and have almost nothing to do with the facts of history, be it ancient or modern, and legality of the issues. Nevertheless, I decided to take a risk and so compiled the following legal information about the most 'famous' resolutions related to the Arab-Israel conflict. The fact that that most of the resolutions have expired or are not legally binding do not bother most of the members of the international anti-Semitic chorus. Strangely, most of Israel's previous governments bow to international pressure even though they are fully aware of its unfairness and anti-Israel bias!

This information is for people who are interested in forming their opinion based on facts or for those who are still open-minded and capable of changing their political view about the right of state of Israel and Jewish people to live in peace on the land of our ancestors in its entirety.

1) In July 1922, the League of Nations entrusted Great Britain with the Palestine Mandate, recognizing "the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" (Jews were commonly called Palestinians at the time). Article 5 of the resolution stated: "The Mandatory (Great Britain) shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power..."

Three months later, in violation of the Mandate, in order to obtain full control over the Suez canal, Great Britain and France made a deal with the Hashemite Kingdom and Egypt and ceded the trans-Jordan (77%) and Golan Heights (5%) from the Palestine Mandate. The League of Nations just rubber-stamped this deal, made by major political powers at the time in violation of the League of Nations' resolution!

2) UN Resolution 181 ("Partition Plan" of 1947): Julius Stone, the eminent professor of international law, completely refutes that UN Resolution 181 is still legally binding on Israel. He argues that that resolution never came into legal force at all: "The Arab states (including Jordan) not only rejected it, but committed armed aggression against it and against Israel, and thus wholly aborted it. They deliberately destroyed it, as it were in utero, before it entered the world, of legal effectiveness..."

3) Security Council resolution 242 (Nov. 22, 1967) was not carried out and became obsolete because the Arab states refused to give "respect for, and acknowledgment of, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of" Israel. Therefore, Israel had retaliated by refusing to withdraw.

4) Roadmap: was a "performance-based and goal-driven" agreement. Its deadline expired in 2005. The Palestinian Authority has never stopped terror attacks against Israel, which is the first and most important prerequisite of the Roadmap agreement prior to further negotiations. Therefore, the agreement has no validity any more.

5) The Annapolis Accord was an attempt to push Israel toward acceptance of a two-state solution. It completely ignored the continuation of the PA's terrorist activities against Israel and disregarded the spirit of the Roadmap agreement. Taking into account that the Accord has not been ratified by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, just the same as many other international agreements, it is not legally binding! The Annapolis accord was seen as a last-ditch attempt by President George W Bush to make his 'mark' on history!

The legal rule that action has consequences seems to have completely escaped the attention of recent Israeli leaders and the international anti-Semitic community of states and organizations (UN, EU, the Quartet, Russia and the US) since the beginning of the Oslo process and long before it!



Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 13, 2009.

This was posted by Pamela Geller on Monday, April 13, 2009 as "Jihadi Piracy, President Hussein" on Atlas Shrugs2000 website.


The revisionist media and rabid left blogs are giggly with excitement, creaming themselves over O's courage. And before Zero goes on all the networks to preen and strut, let's get the facts straight.

Last week, when Captain Phillips made his first escape and was forced back on the boat, I asked here,

And can someone explain to me why the US Navy did not jam the pirates' satellite capabilities? Why were they allowed to call in their jihad reinforcements? Why were they chatting with CNN?

Why wasn't the lifeboat with the Captain on it under 24 hour surveillance, so that when the Captain made his dramatic escape he had cover? That lifeboat should have been blown out of the water as soon as the Captain took flight and began swimming for his life.

Because Obambi wouldn't give the order ..................

Blackfive has the true story here: How the Rescue Happened. Bottom line, Obambi did not give the order.

It is unknown at this point whether the shooters were SEALs or Marine Scout Snipers as both would have been available.

This was not a rescue attempt ordered by National Command Authority i.e. the President. It was a reaction by the on scene commander under standard authority to safeguard the life of a hostage.

The AP is reporting that President Obama gave the order to use military force to rescue the hostage, that is misleading.

And China Confidential posits:

Unanswered Questions

Amid feelings of relief and gratitude, there are important unanswered questions concerning the rescue of the courageous American cargo ship captain from Islamist-linked, Somali Muslim pirates — specifically, with regard to President Barack Obama's authorization of deadly force if the captain's life was in "imminent danger."

1. Why did the President have to twice OK use of force?

2. Why was his authorization limited to a determination of "imminent danger?"

3. Why weren't the snipers ordered or authorized to shoot the pirates simply if the snipers believed that they could kill the pirates without endangering the life of the captain?

4. Was the hostage crisis, in which the captain was kept in a lifeboat for five days, needlessly prolonged by the imminent danger rule of engagement — which seems to indicate a legalistic concern for the lives of the pirates?

5. Would the lifeboat have been allowed to drift to shore had one or more of the pirates not made the fatal mistake of making menacing moves toward the captain?

The President has vowed to work with other nations to interdict Somali pirates at sea and bring them to justice. Maritime security experts dismiss the pledge as empty propaganda. Swift, decisive attacks on the pirate bases and their Islamist protectors, including the Al Qaeda-associated Al Shabab, which shares in the profits of piracy, are needed, along with a naval blockade, possibly, of the key ports. There is no need to coordinate with other nations or ask their permission.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, April 13, 2009.

UN Security Council Resolution 242, adopted on November 22, 1967, is the cornerstone for what it calls "a just and lasting peace" that recognizes Israel's need for "secure and recognized boundaries." The resolution became the foundation for future peace negotiations.

No other nation in the world, acting rationally, has relinquished territories acquired from an aggressor in an act of self-defense.

Eli E. Hertz is president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at today@mythsandfacts.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul Ceder, April 13, 2009.

This was written by Wesley Pruden and it appeared April 7, 2009 in Jewish World Review.


Barack Obama may not be the Big Thinker his fans think he is, but his big-time groveling is impressive. We've never seen a presidential performance quite like his Groveling, Toadying and Apple-Polishing Tour of the Olde Countries. If this is Monday, this must be a mosque. The president is understandably eager to see whether his honeyed tongue can tease and tickle the Europeans the way it teases the libido and scratches the itch of the hoi polloi at home, but the early returns show that he gave away a lot more than he got in return, which was nothing. The European masses shouted the expected hosannas — this is Easter week, after all — but so far that's all the messiah from the south side of Chicago has to show for his groveling. Michelle showed off her upper arms to louder applause. Michelle hot, Barack merely cool.

He bowed deeply to the Saudi king in London, so deep that he risked banging his head on the floor, a real presidential first. Bowing is a revered custom in parts of the world where tugging at a forelock comes naturally, but someone in the protocol office should have told him that Americans bow only to G-d. A firm handshake, with both hands if absolutely necessary, is enough. Hugging and kissing is optional, best left to the ladies. John F. Kennedy famously warned Jackie on the eve of their first trip to Britain. No bowing, not even to that nice queen.

Then it was on to France to tell a "town meeting" that American arrogance is probably the cause of all the devilment in the world. He even, for the first time in public, used his middle name, Hussein. He threw a little red meat to the crowd: He would be a better president than that awful man George W. Bush. The protocol office failed him again: There's a long-established precedent that presidents don't criticize their predecessors, not even Jimmy Carter, when they travel abroad. Tacky is not a trait generally admired in presidents, not even by the terminally tacky.

When he got to Ankara on Monday, he stopped just short of converting to Islam, probably raising the hopes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who told Americans last month that if only they would adopt Islam, they wouldn't any longer have to fear beheading knives raised in the name of Allah and peace. Until Mr. Obama arrived in Ankara, enthusiasm for mass American conversion seemed slight. America will "never" be at war with Islam, the president said, "and we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better, including my own country."

George W. tried similar butter and jam like this, speaking when the embers of September 11 had not yet cooled, telling Americans that "Islam is a nation of peace." Maybe it is, but a lot of Muslims armed with knives, guns and rockets and a fierce hatred of the Great Satan and all its infidels have yet to get the message. The president's assertion that the United States "is not and will never be at war with Islam" is right on, but Turkey would be the place to remind Muslims that respect is earned by deeds.

Turkey, once a hotbed of Islamic cool in the Middle East, has slipped to an easy acceptance of the benighted men at the top. Recent public-opinion polling finds that 44 percent of the Turks regard America as the outstanding threat to Turkey; 76 percent of the Turks would resist living as a neighbor to Jews, up from 49 percent five years ago. The Turkish government has plastered signs in its subway stations depicting the Israelis as bloodthirsty goons, and schoolteachers in one Turkish town celebrated "Hitler's blessed memory" by distributing sweets to the children. Shopkeepers put signs in their shop windows warning that "Americans and Israelis may not enter."

"The surge of these sentiments since 2002 demonstrates that when in power Islamists can corrupt even the most liberal of the Muslim societies," writes Soner Cagaptay, a Turkish researcher at the Washington Institute. "The singular example of a Muslim society that is friendly towards Jews and Americans risks disappearing in front of our eyes if we do not point out the political nature of Turkey's current transformation."

Such a friendly pointer to his hosts by President Obama would have done American interests — which should be the president's primary concern — a lot more good than his pandering reminder that America supports Turkey's entrance into the European Union. But that's not an applause line, and getting applause is what this president is about.

Contact the ceders at ceder@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 12, 2009.


The focus turned on S. Arabia, when its citizens comprised most of the 9/11 terrorists. In reaction, S. Arabia dusted off its Israeli surrender initiative, euphemistically called peace plan. That turned the focus on S. Arabia as a peacemaker. Israel should devise its own plan (www.imra.org.il, 3/24). My plan: let the Arabs drop territorial and population demands, and simply make peace!


Long subjected to unwarranted and criminal attack from Gaza, Israelis greatly approved the combat against Gaza terrorists. Since the leftist Olmert regime, the leftist media war had to support the combat, too. The Left did not want to admit that the same regime made the war necessary, by evacuating from Gaza. The media had derided right-wing warnings that doing so would lead to bombardment of Israel from Gaza. Neither did the Left want to admit the leftist regime's criminal negligence in withdrawing before having destroyed Hamas forces and toppling it from power. Hamas' survival made it seem victorious and legitimate.

Combat over for now, a supposedly right-wing government is coming in. Now the Left no longer supports the war. It slanders IDF officers the same as do the usual foreign anti-Zionists. This slander provides grist for the enemy's mill. Thus the Left has made it more likely that when IDF officers travel abroad, Muslims and leftists there will bring them to court on charges of war crimes Israel did not commit. Who expects justice abroad? Hamas did commit war crimes, but who expects them to be brought to justice abroad? (Caroline Glick in www.imra.org.il, 3/23.)

Israel should have captured top Hamas leaders and put them on trial for war crimes. That would have made their criminality apparent. Israel could have drawn distinctions between Hamas' criminal methods and the IDF's legal ones.


"The Egyptians continue to try and halt the smuggling via the Philadelphi Corridor [tunnels]. With this, in recent weeks Hamas has succeeded in smuggling into Gaza raw material used for producing explosives for rockets and materials for their weapons industry."

"Likewise, Hamas has also succeeded in smuggling heavy machine guns, scores of rockets, tons of explosives and anti-aircraft missiles. Alex Fishman — page 3 Yediot Ahronot 5 April 2009." (www.imra.org.il, 4/5.)


B.R. Myers' Op.-Ed makes a shrewd point. He suggests judging a dictator's promise to reconcile with us by whether he retracts his propaganda against us. More important than weapons control, "This means demanding changes where they matter most, and can be immediately verified — on the propaganda front — before putting our faith in some grandiose timetable of disarmament." Otherwise, the dictator is negotiating in bad faith (NY Times, 4/2/09).

How would this apply to the Mideast? For example, Iran should stop calling the US and Israel "Satan." Likewise, the Palestinian Authority should stop claiming that all of Israel belongs to it, and should stop glorifying suicide bombers.

Makes sense. If the dictators there continue to agitate for war, then their statements about making or recognizing peace agreements are insincere. Nor are they likely to be honored by their incited populace.


Before the combat in Gaza, Human Rights watch (HRW) issued 18 statements about Gaza, accusing Israel of "collective punishment," "continued occupation," and fostering a "humanitarian crisis," without evidence and inconsistent with international law.

During the second Lebanon War, HRW promoted a myth that Israel committed a massacre in Qana, inflating to 54 the death toll that the Red Cross pegged at 28. HRW had to retract its figure. HRW also denied that Hizbullah had used civilian areas despite documentary and video proof of extensive Hizbullah fortification of villages. HRW later retracted 9 out of 21 cases cited in its report, "Fatal Strikes."

In a report on the use of white phosphorus, HRW omitted the context of Hamas' use of civilian areas for launching attacks on Israeli cities. It denied that Hamas operated near a hospital in Gaza, but a Gazan taxi driver reported Hamas attempts to hijack the hospital's ambulances [to illegally disguise ferrying of troops or arms]. Despite photographic evidence of fortifications, HRW denies that Hamas operated in Beit Lahiya. HRW relies upon testimony of Arabs whose independence of view and reliability are unknown. HRW accuses Israel of war crimes, i.e., of intending to harm civilians. Evidence? None presented. The report's authors are notorious Arab propagandists (IMRA, 3/25 from NGO Monitor).

One would think that its record of constant error would prompt HRW to be careful about its claims. Accusing Israel of intending to harm civilians, without evidence, is a new low.


"Lawfare" is the term coined to indicate warfare by judicial system. Originally it referred to harassment by lawsuits for libel. I think the term should be expanded to include the use of phony suits against Israelis and Americans for non-existent war crimes. Some of the people bringing those indictments are allied with real war criminals, known as jihadists. Hypocrisy is their secret, since the major media rarely expose this method.

There are other abuses of the judicial system to stifle free speech or punish those with insufficient funds to defend themselves in courts. Israel and the US need to study and devise reforms that prevent such abuses in their own countries and that might shame some other countries to adopt them. At least a standard would be set for criticizing countries that abuse the legal system.

I foresee a rash of accusations that Israel committed war crimes, based on the usual false testimony by Arab "eyewitnesses" and misrepresentation of international law by biased humanitarian organizations. How ironical that Israel tries harder than other countries to minimize civilian casualties! But the accusers' motive is not truth, it is propaganda.


Courts in the US and in Israel have been approving of damage suits against terrorists and their organizations. Large fines are assessed. Assets may be frozen. What we don't hear of are collections. The State Dept. appeals against fines levied by Americans in US courts, and courts are inclined to defer to it.


Turkey is one of the latest countries to offer to mediate the Arab-Israel conflict. People assume that mediators are sincere and practical.

Offering to mediate brings prestige, actually mediating brings more, and success brings the most. Governments have an incentive to offer, despite poor chances of success, and to press the weaker side to yield, in order to get credit for having brokered an agreement. Broker may fall into the rut of demanding more of Israel, to the sound of global applause. Conflict of interest may overcome sincerity.

Should you assume that brokers always have integrity? No. Turkey's government is Islamist. It has trade relations with Israel, but its policy favors the Arabs over Israel. So does the State Dept., which keeps making demands only of Israel, demands that get Israelis killed or would get it conquered. Example: demands to remove anti-terrorist checkpoints or to cede secure borders.

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@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Brother Shane, April 12, 2009.

The Philistinians already have a state in Israel.

It's called, JORDON!

Tell those National Socialist moonbats to go jump in a lake...of fire!

This below was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared April 10, 2009 in World Net Daily.


Rallying Congress for fear Israeli PM will bypass White House

JERUSALEM — In anticipation of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington next month, the Obama administration has been briefing Congress on its position regarding establishing a Palestinian state, according to informed Israeli diplomatic sources.

The sources said Obama's team fears Netanyahu may try to rally support in Congress against the president's policies, prompting the White House to act first by detailing for members of Congress Obama's positions regarding a Palestinian state and freezing Jewish construction in the West Bank. The White House is stressing that it holds Israel's security paramount but that Obama believes establishing a Palestinian state is crucial for Middle East peace.

The diplomatic sources, who also spoke with a reporter from Israel's Haaretz newspaper, said Obama anticipates a possible clash with Netanyahu on several issues, particularly the freezing of Jewish construction in both the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem.

The West Bank borders Jerusalem and is within rocket range of Tel Aviv and Israel's international airport. The Palestinians hope to establish a state in Gaza, the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City and Temple Mount.

Earlier this week, WND reported that under intense American pressure and following a nearly unprecedented behind-the-scenes U.S. campaign, the Netanyahu government decided not to bulldoze Palestinians homes built illegally on Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem.

The issue is critical since the 80 homes are located in Silwan, an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood close to the Temple Mount and Jerusalem's Old City that the Palestinians claim as a future capital. Jewish groups have been working to fortify the community's Jewish presence. Silwan is adjacent to the City of David, a massive archeological dig just outside the Temple Mount that is constantly turning up Temple artifacts.

Like tens of thousands of other Arab housing projects throughout eastern Jerusalem, the Palestinian homes in Silwan were illegally constructed on property long ago purchased by Jews. The Israeli government ordered the structures' legal demolition.

But during a visit here in early March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly protested the planned bulldozing.

"Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the Road Map," she said. "It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem."

The Road Map calls for Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank but does not bar Israel from dismantling illegally constructed Palestinian homes in Jerusalem.

WND has learned that in the weeks since Clinton's visit here, the U.S. has mounted an intensive campaign lobbying the Israeli government against tearing down the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan. The campaign included letters from the Middle East section of the State Department addressed to various Jerusalem municipalities, with copies of the letters sent to the offices of Israel's prime minister and foreign minister. The letters called on Israel to allow the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan to remain and stated any demolitions would not foster an atmosphere of peace.

Also, in a follow-up visit here, State Department officials made it clear to their Israeli counterparts the U.S. opposes the Silwan bulldozing.

According to sources in the Israeli government, including in Netanyahu's administration, a decision has been made not to bulldoze the illegal Palestinian homes. The sources said the issue of the homes may be raised again in the future, but for the time being the houses will remain in tact.

The sources attributed the decision against the bulldozing — which has not yet been announced — to the intense American campaign against the house demolitions.

Said one source in Netanyahu's administration, "This was very frustrating to us. Can you imagine if a foreign government came in and told a city office in the U.S. not to tear down a house that was illegally constructed on someone else's property?"

While Clinton opposed the Palestinian house demolitions, informed Israeli officials said the Obama administration is carefully monitoring Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and has already protested to the highest levels of Israeli government about evidence of housing expansion in those areas.

The officials, who spoke on condition that their names be withheld, said that last month Obama's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, oversaw the establishment of an apparatus based in the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem that closely monitors eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods, incorporating regular tours on a daily basis.

The officials said that in recent meetings Mitchell strongly protested Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem. Mitchell also condemned the work of nationalist Jewish groups to purchase property in Jerusalem's Old City, including in areas intimately tied to Judaism.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem during the 1967 Six-Day War. The Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.

Contact Brother Shane at wisevirgin_777@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, April 11, 2009.

This below is by Jack Englehard, who is a great writer and speaker. I doubt if we'll ever hear him here as he's not PC and could offend Brit Tzedek et al, and other peacenicks in our Jewish community.


Israel is a Jewish State. Is that your problem?

Frankly, given a choice, I prefer the skinheads and other brutes who express their anti-Semitism openly. In such places, we know the enemy.

But please spare me the pieties and the righteous indignation of those "good people" protesting throughout Europe against Israel's defensive operation in Gaza. True, thousands have taken up banners in support of Israel. At the same time, however, the streets of Europe (and even some in America) are in an uproar. These are the "humanitarians" — the good, the noble, the refined, who chant "peace."

Now you're up and about? Now you speak? Where were you when, throughout the years, thousands of jihadist bombs fell on Israel? The streets of Europe were empty. There were no pictures in the newspapers of grieving Jewish mothers and fathers. You called it "peace" as long as the Arabs were doing the killing and the Jews were doing the dying. All was well with the world.

Suddenly, as Israel answered back, you found your Cause; and how self-righteous you are in your Cause.

You are the best and the brightest of Europe. You are educated. You attended the finest schools. You care for the birds, the bees, the bears, the trees. You favor free speech and freedom of religion. Strange it is that the one and only place in the Middle East that shares your world-view is Israel, and it is Israel that you slander.

Israel is a Jewish State. Is that your problem? At the first hint of Jewish self-defense, how quickly you show your true colors.

I've seen the photos of your candlelight vigils along the streets and boulevards of Europe, all of it; all these tears in the service of those terrorists whom you call your brothers. Indeed you are related to Hamas (and Fatah) as once before, a mere generation ago, you were related to Hitler's stormtroopers. Your angelic faces are touching — and disgusting. Your hypocrisy is transparent and nauseating.

You speak of disproportion. You want proportion? Give Israel a population of 300 million residing in 22 countries, similar to the Arab Muslims who surround and ambush Israel — instead of five and a half million Jews in one single country. There's plenty of "proportion" coming from your BBC, which delights in presenting one side of the story and picks up where Der Sturmer left off. Now, with this type of "news", we know how Europe was conditioned for a Holocaust.

Already we see Nights of Broken Glass. Thank you, Europe, for reminding us why America was discovered just in time (and why Israel was redeemed many generations too late). You dare judge Israel? In your deportations, your expulsions, your forced conversions, your inquisitions, your pogroms, you have no moral authority over Israel or even within your own borders. You gave all that up from 1492 to 1942.

To those on the Left who sought peace, well, dear peace-lovers, peace brought this on. "Land for Peace" made this happen, as Land for Peace became Land for Jihad. "Painful Concessions" caused this war.

"Goodwill Gestures" backfired. Want more "peace"? Give up the Golan Heights. Give up the entire West Bank. Give up Jerusalem. Imagine the "peace." As for those "innocent civilians" in Gaza, they were given a choice and they chose Hamas. They chose this pestilence.

As for those "refugee camps" — why are they "refugee camps" when Israel handed over all that territory for a nation to be built in peace and security alongside Israel? Why are all Palestinians automatically refugees even after they've been given a home? The only true refugees are the thousands of Israelis who were driven from Gaza and still live in trailer parks. No tears for them in this world that still dreams of Auschwitz.

On this day, in response to a column I wrote about Theresienstadt, someone responded that I was incorrect; that Theresienstadt was not a prelude to Auschwitz, but rather "a vacation resort." I wrote back wishing this person a lifetime in such vacation resorts. I wish the same lifetime vacation resorts to all those parading throughout the streets of Europe with banners crying, "Death to Israel." God bless the IDF! Go Israel!

Jack Engelhard is the author of "The Bathsheba Deadline" and "Indecent Proposal", as well as the award-winning memoir of his experiences as a Jewish refugee from Europe, "Escape From Mount Moriah".

Contact GWY by email at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by MSGME, April 11, 2009.

This was written by Huma Yusaf of Dawn.com

Dawn.com is the internet edition of the English-language newspaper from Pakistan covering national and international news. There are embedded links in the original article.)

NOTE: Google found this an unreliable website in May 09.


The United States' much-lauded new plan for Afghanistan and Pakistan has called for identifying and engaging with 'moderate' Taliban. Speaking with Dawn, the US National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones described moderate Taliban as those militants who are willing to participate in the political process 'without violence and without terror and without causing breaches in the security of either [Pakistan or Afghanistan].'

Acknowledging that Pakistanis are better positioned to identify militants with 'moderate' views, Gen. Jones last week made an appeal to our government to help distinguish between moderate and hard-core militants. Since Islamabad has not come forth with shining archetypes of militant moderation, I've decided to take a stab — pardon the pun — at defining The Moderate Militant.

Considering recent events, I would first argue that militant categorisation cannot be confined by the restrictive binary of 'moderation' and 'extremism'. Militants are, after all, an imaginative and innovative breed, coining previously unimaginable means by which to terrorise populations and pervert the spirit of Islam. Labelling them with only two categories is nothing short of offensive. Therefore, I propose instead that the US embrace a wider spectrum of militancy, which can henceforth be known as The Slippery Slope of Moderate Militancy (or TSSMM — not to be confused with TNSM, which in itself is a mighty institution of moderate militancy).

Following is a draft of what TSSMM might look like:

The Limited Militant

This breed of militant confiscates women's computerized national identity cards so as to prevent them from receiving financial assistance under the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP), which they claim is un-Islamic. Limited militants object to the fact that men and women can mingle at the National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra) office. In essence, then, these militants want women to cease to exist as far as the public record goes.

The Cautious Militant

Cautious militants are happy to participate in the political process — when they come across politicians whose activities contradict their wishes and ideology, they simply take them hostage in private jails scattered across FATA. In particular, those secular politicians who seem to be advocating women's uplift — for example, by distributing cheques as part of the BISP — stoke the cautious militants' ire. You can count on cautious Taliban militants to defend their 'centuries-old tribal culture and tradition' against new-fangled democratic ideas. But hey, at least they acknowledge that politicians exist.

The Middle-of-the-Road Militant

This type of militant is against violence — instead, he creates a medical emergency by denying children essential vaccinations, particularly for polio. Media-savvy and well-networked, the middle-of-the-road militant uses illegal radio stations and mosque loudspeakers to spread the notion that polio vaccinations cause infertility, are un-Islamic, and are part of a US-sponsored anti-Muslim plot. Since this type of militant does not cause a 'breach in the security' of either Afghanistan or Pakistan, he is probably a shoo-in to be declared America's Next Top Moderate Militant (not to be confused with America's Next Top Model).

The Opinionated Militant

This militant is modern, outspoken, big with the ladies, and even more media-savvy than his counterpart, the middle-of-the-road militant: he is the host of an illegal FM radio show. Opinionated Militants take to the airwaves to preach their interpretation of Islam, rail against the West and perpetuate anti-Pakistan government propaganda. Without this type of militant, Swat Valley would probably still be Pakistan's top honeymoon destination. For their ability to bounce back even after their illegal radio stations have been shut down by the Pakistan government, these militants can also be known as the Rebound Militant or the Boomerang Militant.

The Low-Key Militant

This breed of militants enjoys blowing up CD and DVD shops because they spread Western propaganda and un-Islamic ideas. Since low-key militants often blow up shops at night, thereby reducing the number of fatalities, they are also contenders for America's Next Top Moderate Militant.

The Measured Militant

This type of militant doles out justice without a trial. Measured militants nabbed the spotlight recently when a (now contentious) video shot with a mobile phone showed a teenaged girl being flogged by Taliban militants. The militants claimed that they were punishing her for being seen outdoors with a man who is not her husband, an inherently un-Islamic act in their opinion. These militants can be described as 'measured' because, as the Swat-based Taliban spokesman put it, the young girl should have been stoned to death for her actions, but was saved this fate because the qazi courts in the valley are not yet functional so as to hand down a sentence.

The Midway Militant

Midway militants can be counted on to blow up anything that challenges their ideological position. In recent months, midway militants have blown up the homes of politicians, trucks carrying Nato supplies, Sufi shrines where men and women can mingle freely, and girls' schools, where the education of women, in their opinion, leads to 'vulgarity in society'. These militants can not be written off immediately as 'extreme' militants because at least there is some method to their madness.

Of course, a variety of other militants are currently stalking the tribal and northern areas of Pakistan. These militants behead innocents, order the public hanging of pirs, recruit young men — in some cases, boys — to train as gunmen and suicide bombers, and, of course, carry out suicide attacks against both local and foreign targets. These militants can hardly be described as moderate, and to consider them 'reconcilable' would be foolhardy and irresponsible. About these kinds of militants, the less said the better.

To Go To Top

Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, April 11, 2009.

It has been over sixty years since the Jewish State of Israel was born, yet India-Israel relations at the official level is a decade or so old, diplomatic relations having been established only in 1992, when the first Israeli Ambassador to India, HE Mr. Ephraim Dowek presented his credentials at the Rashtrapati Bhawan (Presidential Residence) thereby beginning a new chapter in the history of India-Israel relations.

This relationship, however recent, is not new-found, given the fact that India and Israel have always been in touch somehow or the other in different circumstances. This was both at the official and unofficial level buttressed by the sense of national interest and mutual admiration arising from shared civilizational values and intellectual prowess. Indian leaders of the stature of Jawaharlal Nehru, Acharya Kripalni, Acharya Narendradev, C. Rajagopalachari, Dr. Rammanohar Lohia, Ashok Mehta and Dr. Prafulla Ghosh always favoured that India grant diplomatic recognition to Israel.[1] Bengal's veteran CPI (M) leader and the erstwhile Chief Minister, Mr. Jyoti Basu, had visited Israel as a state guest at the invitation of the Israeli government.[2] During his visit, he had profusely praised Israel's achievements in various fields and harped on the theme of greater Indo-Israel cooperation in key sectors of the economy.[3] This coming-together under varying circumstances came into fruition with the establishment of diplomatic ties and of late has assumed significant proportions.

Trade, Science and technology, Defense, Counter-terrorism, MOUs in joint ventures are the different indicators of this ever increasing sphere of cooperation. In 2004, India-Israel defense trade was to the tune of $1.5 billion (under the then NDA Government), and the present UPA Government has persisted with this policy of increasing and strengthening the defense ties with Israel (despite Left opposition) with the result that Israel has surpassed Russia, India's long time provider of weaponry, as the single largest supplier of military hardware. Indian military personnel are also being trained in Israel in counter-terrorism. The recent Mumbai attacks have further buttressed this relationship when Israel came up with offers of help in all possible manner, though spurned by the Indian Government for obvious political reasons. This did not however act as a spoiler, for Israel understands India's domestic and international compulsions. When the US is willing to ditch Israel as a friend in keeping with changing trends in the international and national scenario, India is being increasingly looked upon by Israel as a reliable partner to do business with. Indeed, Israeli Major General Udi Shani, director of the Defense Ministry's Sibat export agency, was quoted as saying recently, that "We have a very special defense relationship with India." (Courtesy: Ted Belman)

But trade or economics alone can't account for any long-standing viable relationship, given the fact that both Israel and India have substantial Muslim population who have not taken kindly to this mutual recognition, and, neither did the Arab League which looked with increasing concern upon the growing cooperation between the two countries. In its 7th August issue, the Jane's Defence Weekly stated that the Arab world was concerned at the growth of strategic ties between India and Israel, at a time when Arab countries were stepping up efforts to isolate Israel internationally.[4] The report detailed how India had changed its Israel policy.[5] Dr. Nassr Al-Kidwa, the PA's representative at the UN had expressed his apprehensions during a visit to India, and Samir Numed, spokesman for Marwan Barghuti, the imprisoned Palestinian leader reacted accordingly saying, "We feel very bad about this (India-Israel relationship). We thought India was a friend of the Arabs and Palestinians. It was once the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, now they care more about the United States and Israel."[6]

Pakistan, India's inveterate foe, was not forgiving either. India and Israel's growing cooperation in the fields of counter-insurgency and defense collaboration was looked upon with increasing apprehension by Islamabad, which accused India of "triggering an arms race"[7], for the purchase of the Phalcon radar system. And, the erstwhile Pakistani President, Pervez Musharraf described as "extremely threatening the emerging friendship between India and Israel."[8]In a thinly veiled threat, Pakistan virtually asked Israel to maintain a hands-off policy with regard to South Asia. The Hebrew Daily Maariv quoted Pakistani officials as saying "Don't become involved in our region so that we are not dragged into doing something similar in your region."[9] This is hardly surprising, given Pakistan's long record of fostering terrorism taking advantage of the Afghan imbroglio, and the US's pussy-footing on the subject despite evidences provided by India, and, the tendency of putting India and Pakistan at par when it comes to the question of dealing with terror groups operating freely in the Af-Pak region.

Notwithstanding these hurdles, India-Israel relations have thrived and have come of age. Public opinion in India too has had considerable shift from pro-Arab sentiments to one displaying increasing solidarity with the Jewish people in general and the State of Israel in particular. This sentiment is demonstrated in the recent report of a leading English daily which is quoted as follows:

"Amid burgeoning defence and trade treaties, sympathy for Israel has also seen an unprecedented growth in India, where the Jewish state enjoys the highest level of support, pushing the USA to the second position........58 percent of Indians are sympathetic towards Israel, compared to 56 percent in the USA...[10]"

It would appear from the report that Israel has succeeded in not only becoming India's biggest supplier of defence equipment and related technologies outstripping all contenders, but has also succeeded to a great extent in winning the hearts and minds of educated Indians despite hostile propaganda. More than fifty years ago, Taraknath Das, Indian revolutionary in exile and scholar besides a close friend of Stephen S.Wise(leader and President of the ZOA), had pleaded with Rabindranath Tagore and Ramananda Chatterji to publicly announce their sympathy for the persecuted Jews of Europe who had to endure the most cruel pogrom of the times, and urged for their shelter in India, for the sake of humanity. He had also insisted upon close cooperation between the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Viswabharathi, Tagore's university at Santiniketan.[11] Had he been alive, Taraknath would have taken heart by the course of events that gave meaning to his aspiration for an India-Israel rapproachment. Therein lies its significance.


[1] Basu visited Israel as a state guest, Sukharanjan Sengupta, Letters to the Editor, The Statesman (Kolkata), 15.9.2003

[2]  Ibid

[3]  Ibid

[4] India fights J&K militants with Israel help: Jane's, The Statesman (Kolkata), 19.8.2001

[5]  Ibid

[6] Sejal Mandalia, History vs. the Future, OUTLOOK, December 30.2002, p.62

[7] India fuelling arms race: Pak, The Statesman(Kolkata), 12.10.2003

[8]  India-Israel ties a threat: Musharraf, The Statesman (Kolkata), 13.9.2003

[9] Pak warns Israel to keep off S Asia, The Statesman (Kolkata), 15.2.2002

[10]  Israel deal, The Statesman (Kolkata), 5.4.09

[11] Tapan K. Mukherjee, Taraknath Das, Life and Letters of a Revolutionary in Exile, National Council of Education, Jadavpur University, Janury 1998, p. 205

Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti at kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, April 10, 2009.

(IsraelNN.com) While Syria continues to condition indirect talks with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government on Israel's consent to quit the entire Golan Heights, a new report by a respected IDF general shows that Israel cannot afford to do so.

The 30-page report was written by Maj.-Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. Eiland chaired Israel's National Security Council from 2004 to 2006, and served as head of the IDF's Operations Branch and its Planning Directorate, where he was responsible for designing and implementing the IDF's operational and strategic policies.

Eiland explains that ever since 1967 — when Israel captured the Golan after years of Syrian attacks from the Golan plateau upon Israeli towns below — it has been a matter of consensus that the Golan provides strategic depth and other advantages that would effectively forestall a Syrian attack on Israel.

Solution in 2000 is Even More Dangerous Now

In the year 2000, however, Israeli and Syrian negotiators reached a near-total agreement for a total Israeli withdrawal, based on the assumption of a military solution that would compensate Israel for the loss of the Golan. Eiland writes that such a solution was not only "implausible at the time, but changing circumstances, both strategic and operative, have rendered Israel's forfeiture of the Golan today an even more reckless act."

The Proposal: Demilitarization and Early-Warning

Eiland explains that in order to defend itself from a sudden Syrian attack, Israel knows it cannot begin from the Hula Valley, below the Golan, but rather at the line where it is presently stationed — in the Golan Heights. However, a proposal was detailed for an Israeli withdrawal that would include "creating a situation that would guarantee that in case of war, IDF forces could return to the place where they are currently stationed." The proposal stipulated a totally demilitarized Golan, with Syrian divisions moved back into Syria, and Israel's retention of an early warning intelligence base on Mt. Hermon, which towers over the entire region.

"On the basis of this security concept," Eiland writes, "as soon as the IDF would comprehend that Syria intended to go to war, or the moment that the movement of Syrian forces westward was identified, IDF forces could move rapidly eastward onto the demilitarized Golan Heights. Since IDF forces would be stationed in the Hula Valley (and south of the Sea of Galilee), about 20 km. from the current border, whereas the Syrian forces would be at a distance of 60-80 km. from that line, the IDF was expected to reach its optimal defensive line before the Syrians arrived. In such a manner, the encounter between IDF forces and Syrian forces would take place in the region of the present border."

Five Dangerous Assumptions

Gen. Eiland outlines five dangerous assumptions on which the solution is based, in addition to three additional problems for which this security arrangements solution provides no answers.

The five problematic assumptions can be summed up as follows:

1. "When the war erupts, it will begin with a situation in which both sides are located where they are obligated to be." In fact, it is almost impossible to verify the location of anti-tank missiles, certain types of anti-aircraft missiles, and small rockets.

2. "The warning will be issued in real time." The plan gives Israel only one warning station on Mt. Hermon, which will certainly be restricted in various ways — as opposed to its current two large stations on Mt. Hermon and an additional three stations along the entire length of the Golan Heights.

3. "A correct interpretation will be made with regard to any Syrian violation." Prior to the Yom Kippur War, for instance, Israeli intelligence correctly identified the Egyptian military concentration in the Suez Canal, but it was thought to be only a military exercise. The Syrians have many options for subterfuge, for example, dispatching the army under the pretext of responding to civilian riots.

4. "The Israeli government will react speedily and vigorously to any serious violation." Even if a warning is correctly provided and interpreted, the Israeli government will still have to decide, in a matter of hours, whether to dispatch forces into the Golan — which will be within sovereign Syrian territory, thus effectively declaring war.

5. "The IDF will fulfill its plan by outracing the Syrian force" — even though the Golan will likely be filled with new Syrian cities and towns around the principal transportation arteries, and possibly with anti-tank obstacles and the like.

Three additional problems, Eiland states, are these:

1. The increased effectiveness of advanced anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

2. The expected urbanization of the Golan Heights, including many "policemen" who can be expected, together with many other "civilians," to operate thousands of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles that will be stored in those cities, thus impeding the advancement of Israeli forces.

3. The Syrian strategic threat. More than Syrian ground forces, the major Syrian threat involves ground-to-ground missiles and large quantities of chemical weapons. In the discussions that took place in 1999-2000, no attempt was made to reduce the presence of these two capabilities

Seven False Beliefs

Finally, Eiland argues, "a dangerous tendency has been created in recent years by fostering the belief that a peace agreement with Syria would have positive repercussions in seven additional areas" — but these are either far from guaranteed or not very important, or both. The seven beliefs are:

1. "An Israeli-Syrian peace agreement will drive a wedge between Syria and Iran."
2. "A peace agreement between Syria and Israel will weaken Hizbullah."
3. "An Israeli-Syrian peace agreement will prevent Hizbullah from arming."
4. "A peace agreement with Syria will assist the Israeli-Palestinian track."
5. "A peace agreement between Syria and Israel will compel Syria to banish Hamas headquarters from Damascus."
6. "The agreement will improve Israel's relations with the Arab world."
7. "The peace agreement with Syria would enhance international support for Israel."

After explaining why these are wrong or of negligible importance, Eiland concludes: "The present border line is the only one affording plausible defense for the State of Israel. It creates strategic depth, albeit minimal, and, in addition, this line exerts eastward control deep into Syrian territory."

Manage, Don't Solve

Gen. Eiland sums up as follows: "The Israeli-Syrian conflict... resembles scores of conflicts throughout the world, some of them solvable and some of them not. The conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is an example of the insoluble category. In this situation it is preferable to continue managing the conflict rather than trying to solve it at an exorbitant price and risk. Should it ever be possible to reach another solution, then this can be re-examined."

Hillel Fendel is senior news editor at Arutz Sheva

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 10, 2009.


Israel's new regime has indicated a new direction in dealing with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). It will offer fewer concessions and demand more proof that the P.A. wants peace. Prime Minister Netanyahu's aide cited the "strong language" by which P.A. head Abbas criticized Netanyahu as not believing in peace. The aide suggested that Abbas fight terrorism instead of propagandizing against Israel (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 4/3).

Talking about a new direction doesn't guarantee walking in a new direction. Wait and see.

It never has been explained logically why Israel, the victim of Arab aggression, should make concessions to the aggressors. Past concessions have failed to bring genuine peace. Instead, they have strengthened the enemy and weakened Israel. Result: terrorist proxies, alone, have 50,000 missiles pointed at it, and Israel has less strategic depth to fall back on. Those who propose new concessions rarely examine the old ones' failure.

The Israeli aide's remark, that the P.A. needs to fight terrorism, not inflame people against the Israeli government by accusing it of not wanting peace, is sensible but an under-statement. The P.A. praises, coddles, and commits terrorism. Abbas is in no position to complain that Israel doesn't want peace, when it is he and his colleagues who keep making war and a war society.

What then is he really complaining about? For one thing, his constituency wants to conquer Israel, a desire that his government propaganda promotes. To keep their favor, he talks belligerently, instead of working towards peace. For another, he wants Israel to give him concessions so that he can attain imperialist goals without having to fight for them. That's what the so-called "peace process" really is.


Will the Egypt-Israel non-aggression pact survive the passing of Egyptian President Mubarak, given his people's dislike of it?

Dr. Aaron Lerner of Independent Media Review & Analysis points out that the pact led to America arming Egypt heavily (www.imra.org.il — 3/27).

If the pact does not survive, will Israel?


Tel Aviv U. invited economics professor Steven Plaut was invited to a panel discussion on "affirmative action." He anticipated high-level discourse, to which he would contribute the economic profession's general opposition to quotas.

The panel had eight other academics. All strongly favored quotas. They ignored quotas' disadvantages, such as lower standards, stigmatizing "beneficiaries" of quotas as not competent, discrimination by quotas, the arbitrariness in picking whom to favor, and the backlash and bigotry being fanned.

Some points were illogical or absurd. "One speaker quoted at length from US surveys showing that whites are strongly opposed to affirmative action, apparently trying to prove that racism was behind any criticism thereof. No mention was made of the fact that the same polls often show the majority of blacks and Hispanics also strongly opposed to affirmative action."

After a two-hour harangue, Plaut was he'd "...have up to three minutes to present the other side.... There were shouts from the audience that the level of the discussion would be lowered by allowing me to speak. I politely told the audience that the ground rules of the debate did not appeal to me and so I was relinquishing my three minutes, and then walked out, followed by a dozen students who demanded to shake my hand. The main victims of PC intolerance and censorship have always been college students who are denied the right to hear both sides of political issues. That PC suppression of dissent and debate should occur at Tel Aviv University was unbelievable (Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/23).

Not unbelievable so much as perverse. An Israeli told me that women's pensions are higher than men's. Most of the discussion was about radical feminist demands, but Israel has instituted quotas in behalf of Arabs, too.


Morocco has broken diplomatic relations with Iran, for spreading Shiism in Morocco. Finding that Iran seeks hegemony over neighboring Arab states, Egypt considers it improper even to conduct dialogue with Iran (IMRA, 3/24).

Iran also is spreading Shiism in Syria, whose ruling minority Alawite doctrine is closer to Shia than to Sunni doctrine. Missionary work is controversial in many countries. Is it an affront or a right? If a right by a native, may foreigners enter for the purpose of missionary work? What privacy may natives expect, similar to Americans' right not to be telephoned or mailed for commercial purposes? What recourse against missionaries who practice deception?


Israel believes that the 31 fighter planes could pose a threat to Israel, coming as it does in addition to upgrading other branches of the Syrian Army (IMRA, 3/29).

These military buildups make it ever more difficult for Israel to attack a proxy militia without risking a wider war or to raid Iran's nuclear facilities.


Israel's secret service reports that Hamas has brought in many more tons of war material from Sinai. He credits Egypt with attempts to block the shipments. Dr. Aaron Lerner, head of Independent Media Review and Analysis, scoffs at the notion that Egypt is trying hard, when its area to monitor is small and open.

Various radical Islamist groups in Gaza are planning to kidnap Israeli soldiers. The recent war has not dampened their ardor. Hamas, however, is keeping them relatively still, so as not to provoke another Israeli incursion and interference with Hamas' military buildup (www.imra.org.il, 3/29).

Israel's incursion missed its objectives. This failure hardly was reported. Perhaps that explains the plurality for the Kadima Party, whose Prime Minister and Foreign Minister made major decisions that made the war inadequate.


Sec. Gates said he thinks that sanctions would work better against Iran than would diplomacy ((www.imra.org.il, 3/30).

There is a general lack of understanding of international relations. Here is my understanding:

Military might can work, under favorable circumstances. It did for WWII.

Diplomacy can work, when the parties involved have a common interest in resolving a problem. That is not the case with Iran. Iran seeks not resolution, but Islamist domination.

Sanctions can work, when universally and firmly applied, as against the Union of S. Africa. Sanctions against other countries can work if backed by a credible threat of military might. Those conditions don't apply to Iran, supported as it is by other great powers — Russia and China — and when the US does not make a credible threat of force but keeps temporizing. Iran exploits the diplomacy and weak sanctions to keep developing nuclear weapons.

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@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by M. Steve Kramer, April 9, 2009.

Linda, my friend and sometime editor, recently accompanied her two granddaughters and their father, Ilan, on a trip to the fabulous Hula Valley in the northern Galilee. They spent the evening before their adventure in the Galilee panhandle town of Kiryat Shmona, which is adjacent to the Lebanese border. The town, sitting on the western slopes of the Hula Valley, is named in honor of eight of Israel's pioneering heroes and was built as a "development town". These are communities which were built to disperse Israel's population away from its crowded center as well as to house new immigrants.

After the 1948 War of Independence, Kiryat Shmona was founded as a transit camp for immigrants, mostly of Sephardi descent, who worked in agricultural projects in the area. Today a town of about 20,000 residents, Kiryat Shmona's pleasant spring and summer weather attracts many tourists and Israelis on holiday. Besides the many B&Bs (zimmerim) in the area, the nearby kibbutzim of Hagoshrim, Kefar Giladi, and Kefar Blum all provide hotel accommodations and many tourist activities.

Visiting the Hula Valley is a popular choice for Israelis of all sorts and birdwatchers from around the world — but its history is particularly interesting to anyone. Hula Lake is one of the oldest documented lakes in history: under the name "Samchuna", it was mentioned in the Tel el Amarna letters of Pharaoh Amenhothep IV in the 14th Century B.C. The name "Hula" is related to a Second Temple Period locality called in Aramaic, Hulata or Ulata. This name survived in Arabic as "Buheirat el Hule", which is similar to its modern Hebrew translation.

Before the lake was drained, the Hula Valley comprised a lake at the southern end and swamps in the north. The swamp consisted, for the most part, of an impenetrable tangle of papyrus, interspersed with channels of running water and pools. Up to 70% of the Jewish pioneers in the area suffered terribly from malaria emanating from the Hula swampland. [www.migal-life.co.il]

Several years after the declaration of the State of Israel in 1948, the government began to drain the swamps and the lake, covering more than 15 thousand acres at the time, to convert them into agricultural fields. The project became the standard bearer of the entire Zionist movement, the resettling of the land and the re-establishment of the Jewish National Home in Israel. Nevertheless, scientists and nature lovers waged a vigorous battle to conserve at least part of the original landscape. In 1954, the government agreed to set aside 800 acres of the pond for Israel's first nature reserve. Two hundred and fifty acres of wasteland just north of the Hula Nature Reserve were re-flooded forty years later, when environmental considerations became prominent, bringing the park to its present size. [www.parks.org.il]

Linda described to me the spectacular sunrise over the Golan Heights visible from Kiryat Shmona, as the beautiful valley below became swathed in glorious morning light. She continued: "Since no Israeli day can begin without 'breakfast', we enjoyed ours at one of the many picnic tables on the grounds inside the Hula Valley Nature Reserve. Once the families we were traveling with had agreed as to which vehicle we'd hire to take us around the 7 mile trail, we were off in two vehicles, best described as golf carts — one joined to the other — with Ilan at the helm — and six joyous little girls shouting "yeah, yeah, yeah".

The grandfather of our group was an elderly 'Crocodile Dundee' type, replete with hat and long red hair who had an excellent knowledge of birds and creatures, their names (in both Hebrew and English) and their habits. A father in the group, a professional photographer, also had a good knowledge of the fauna of the area and a camera with amazing lenses. And I'd say all the adults were there because they wanted to impart their love of nature to their daughters and granddaughters.

And what nature were we blessed with! Along the banks of the fairly deep canals which run along the rims of the irregular-shaped medium-sized lake, we saw tens of baby turtles resting on muddy land ... each one plopped into the water as we stopped to look at them. A water badger also obliged us by keeping dry for a while. Fields of wheat, planted not long before, were on one side, while on the other was the huge (for Israel) lake, much smaller today than the original lake and swampland of the '50s. We stopped whenever a special bird or creature came into view, got out to take a closer look and then continued on our way. Also on these roads were a few other visitors, some walking, some on bicycles, others on special tricycles, or golf carts. We were lucky enough to have missed heavy traffic but did see a tractor pulling an open coach full of religious woman on our return to the visitors' center.

We parked alongside the beautiful lake with its lush vegetation. There, one of the rangers had his enormous zoom lens focused on some of what must have been about five million birds, each type in its designated area in the shallow lake and on little man-made islands in the middle of the lake — islands which provide protected nesting sites for some of the species. There were massive flocks of migratory storks (apparently 100,000 of them fly past and stop in this valley with a quarter of them not moving on), cormorants, cranes, and other birds standing in the waters, and standing on the ground — more than 200 species in all. Blanks are fired sporadically in order to minimize the damage from the flocks of birds to the agriculture in the nearby fields, causing the birds to fly off. What a sight to see them up in the air like arrows as they fly in formation! There are also colonies of herons, kingfishers, kites and other species, which the more learned among us were happy to point out. We all managed to keep quiet from time to time in this noiseless atmosphere, where only the incessant singing and chattering of the birds filled the air.

Our next long stop was a circular observatory on a slightly raised piece of ground. Each window in the observatory provided a new and exciting outlook onto the lake and the canals, with ducks paddling through the water forming a V-shape in their wake. All around us were lush vegetation and flocks of birds ... enough to dazzle the eye. Also grazing on the green fields we saw water buffalo on one side and swamp horses and donkeys on the other. As far as the eye could see, it was a picturesque and dream-like scene of tranquility against the backdrop of the Golan Heights. No human habitation, other than a kibbutz nestled on its lower slopes, was visible.

It was lunch time when we returned to the visitors' center, (but not before we'd stopped next to the largest pelican I've ever seen, he who posed for us so gracefully) so out came the food again, filling empty and not-so-empty stomachs. Goodbyes were said and on we moved ... homewards. On our return journey, as the sun was nearly setting and the clouds were turning pink, several flocks of birds flew above us in amazing formations, a scene which had even my younger granddaughter aghast at the wonder of it all. A special ending to a superb day which exceeded even my expectations!" Thanks to Linda for her beautiful description of what was certainly a great experience for the entire group.

Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me."

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, Posted April 9, 2009.

This was written By Cliff Thier. It appeared today in American Thinker


The nightmare scenario for Israel is troubling me more and more. The end of the Jewish state is all too thinkable.

Passover approaches for Jews everywhere. A celebration of waiting, and patience, and liberation. There is a prayer that ends with "next year in Jerusalem" and it has been recited for almost two thousand years. All the years the Jews were barely tolerated guests in other countries. All the years they were chased out of one country after another. The words spoke of a longing and need to finally settle in one place. A place from which no one could ever chase them. A place where they would no longer be guests.

It's still recited today even though Jews have exercised sovereignty in parts of Jerusalem for more than 60 years, and all of it for more than 40. This year, however, may be one of the last that "next year in Jerusalem" will be said at Jewish tables and in synagogues while there still are Jews in Jerusalem.

I am haunted by a vision that soon the prayer will revert to the same lament it was since the year 70, when the Romans threw the Jews out of Jerusalem and razed the city.

It seems clear as can be. You'd have to be a fool, willfully blind, an American Jew even, not to see it.

Israel has no other options. If there is to be an Israel two years from now, it must flatten the Iranian nuclear program immediately.

I'm afraid, terrified, that it is already too late. Time has run out. The end of the Jewish state is closing in. And there is nothing that can be done to save it. Thoughts will all too soon turn to saving and resettling the six million Jews who now live there.

Obama seems to be looking for the best way to accept nuclear bombs atop intercontinental ballistic missiles in the hands of Iran's mullahs. Any chance that the United States would either take action to prevent this catastrophe or at least help Israel do the job ended on election night 2008.

Israel knows it must do take out the nuclear weapons capability of Iran. And yet, Israel will not be able to do it. Not because it doesn't have the military might to do so. And not because it lacks the will. But because Barack Obama will order the United States Air Force to stand in its way if it tries. Between the airfields of Israel and the reactors and research labs and storage facilities of Iran sit the armed forces of the United States and its hundreds of planes, missiles and radar. With our bases in Iraq and those floating in the Persian Gulf, the United States separates Israel and Iran. Obama would have to give his okay for Israel to pass. Obama will not.

In fact, he will have the United States erect an armed barrier to Israel.

If you have had your eyes open and your mind not befogged by Obama The Ideal and have paid attention to Obama The Man, you'd already know that this is so. The evidence piled up is the size of a mountain. Obama has surrounded himself with friends and foreign policy advisors who believe the world will be a better place once that sore called Israel is gone. These are not secret haters of Israel but open and proud haters of Israel. Obama surrounds himself with these people. Tell me another explanation for this phenomenon other than that Obama is like-minded. Please. Try. I want to believe you.

Still, if that is not enough for you, then think of Obama's trip abroad last week. Anyone with any doubt that America's friendships have changed need only look at the photograph of Obama bowing before the robed medieval autocrat running the regime called Saudi Arabia (you will have to look on the Internet because the major dailies, news magazines and broadcast networks refuse to show this photo to you). This King of Saudi Arabia, this Oil Well Tony Soprano, writes the checks to pay for the Salafist schools throughout the world that teach that Jews are no more than monkeys who deserve death.

Bowing is not a greeting exchanged between equals in the Saudi's world. It is an acknowledgment by the person bowing that he is inferior to the person receiving the bow. Unreciprocated bowing is an act of supplication. An act whereby subjects pledge loyalty before their king. No president before Obama ever bowed before a foreign leader, let alone an absolute monarch and guardian of Mecca and Medina.

What we witnessed was our representative, the symbol of our nation abroad, acknowledging the superiority of the King of Saudi Arabia. We witnessed the representative of the 300 million free people of the United States of America performing an act of submission to a brutal dictator. The dictator of a country in which Christians are discriminated against. A nation in which women are discriminated against. A nation which provides the funds that make international mass murder possible.

This photograph unambiguously shows this evil man happily bathing in the show of submission by the President of the United States of America. Although this picture received almost no distribution in the United States, rest assured that in the Saudis' world, it is getting plenty of viewing. In the Middle East, in Pakistan, in North Africa, in Venezuela, in Moscow, in North Korea, no one misunderstands the significance of Obama's bow. And, especially in Tehran, where the mullahs understand America's bowing down very well.

Barack Obama, the President of the United States, using powerful body language, acknowledged the superiority of the guardian of Mecca and Medina over the President of the United States.

Israel was our old friend. Yesterday's friend. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia — the property of the Saud family — is our new friend. Things change. Obama has made his choice. Obama has made our choice for us. He has made America's choice. And made it in the open and clearly enough even for the willfully blind — that is, American Jews — to see.

Be sure to tell me if you see Obama bowing before Netanyahu — if they ever should meet. I'll reconsider then, but not before.

The minute Iran has the bomb, Israel will begin to shrink. Jews in Israel will start to pack up and leave. Some at first, but more and more over time, Israelis will leave. Panic will begin to set in after the first 100,000 Jews or so have left their homes vacant. Businesses will be unable to fill job openings. The armed forces will find themselves combining brigades and companies.

Iran won't even have to fire a nuclear warhead at Israel to destroy it. The certainty that Iran can incinerate Israel, and the certainty that Iran will shortly do so, will be enough to convince enough of the six million Jews living in Israel today that they either must leave or be turned to ash that the economy and polity will lose viability.

Television reporters will stand in front of empty restaurants interviewing those owners who still remained, stubborn in the face of reality. The obligatory shot of a newspaper blowing down an empty street will fill the covers of the news magazines of the world. Cameramen will hope for a shot of a rat scurrying past a doorway. The visual clichés for decay and abandonment. The Atlantic and Harpers will run identical stories about how conservatives are to blame for encouraging Israel to be intransigent and unrealistic when it still had a chance to have peace years earlier.

There will be enormous outside pressures as well. Iran will tell the world's economic powers that either they cut off trade with Israel or else Iran will make a European capital or two disappear. Name a single European nation that will hesitate more than an hour before bowing to that threat. Israel's ports will become ghost towns, and what's left of the economy will strangle.

In response, The United States Mediterranean fleet will help evacuate Israelis to Cyprus or Malta or Italy. Some intermediate port of call. Some way station for the reverse Exodus. A few years later, an inspiring movie will be made on the subject by Steven Spielberg.

As many will go to the United States as Obama will permit — and maybe significant numbers to some other countries wise enough to admit six million educated industrious people, like Canada and Australia. Maybe a number of countries will each agree to take a few thousand or so. Maybe not. Some Jews will stay, of course, as modern day Maccabees, ready to lay down their lives. Others, the delusional few who believe they can get along with the Arabs once they are majority and running the country and it is all fair, will be slaughtered for their folly.

And then one evening, Obama will make an exceptional speech. He will acknowledge the debt that the world will owe the Jewish people for giving up their homeland so that the world can avoid an end-of-days fate. His baritone will ring forth with astonishing beauty. There will be symbolism galore. The phrases will be poetry. Heads will nod sadly.

It will be hailed as one of the greatest speeches ever spoken. Perhaps the greatest. And, when it is given, the cameras will show Charles Schumer and Rahm Emmanuel and Diane Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in audience.

They, and many others like them in politics and popular culture, are the "warranting Jews" (i.e., Jews who vetted Obama for other Jews). When I tried to wake a Jewish friend to the mortal danger Obama posed for Israel, she replied that that could not possibly be true with someone like Rahm Emmanuel vouching for him.

Martin Peretz will run a column in the New Republic on how he's stunned to learn that Barack Obama is no friend of Israel at all. He will cry in print. He will sob uncontrollably. He will wail that Hillary — at least Hillary! — where is Hillary? — should have opposed the sell-out.

A new fund will be established to help Israelis settle in their new homes. Jewish celebrities like Barbra Streisand will raise funds through concerts. Audiences will stand and hold hands at the end singing Hatikvah, the almost dirge-like anthem of the once-nation of Israel. Everyone in those audiences will weep together. Rivers of tears.

The word "schumer" will be added to the everyday language of Jews in the renewed diaspora. A schumer will be another term of opprobrium, and ill mean a Jew who closed his eyes to all evidence and voted for Obama to fulfill some neurotic need to be a "good person." A Jew who blinded himself so that he might succumb to an invented guilt and so helped doom Zion. The accomplice Jew.

And, centuries from now, if there are still Jews, and if they still have Passover Seders, they will speak of that last chapter for the Jews when — for only 64 years — Jews lived and governed themselves in the land of Israel. The years when they were not unwanted guests in other people's houses.

I am haunted by the nightmare that the end of Israel's story is already written. That Jews will now make ready to witness it. That there is nothing now they can do for Israel. It is too late. It was too late last fall, after the last vote was tallied. Israel will disappear, as so many other nations have disappeared throughout history.

Those of us who helped bring the end of Israel to pass, can asked God's forgiveness every year on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. And, on every Passover, we can all hold hands and recite the Kaddish for the nation of Israel that once was.

We should all begin to prepare ourselves for that day. It's almost here.

Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 9, 2009.

This email comes from P.B. Whigham (Pbwhigham@aol.com), who writes: "In memory of my brother-in-law, Lt.C.Thomsen Wieland, who spent 100 days at the Hanoi Hilton."

This is the same Jane Fonda that L'OREAL Cosmetics uses for their advertising on TV etc.... for their facial cremes .... which insults me .... and may insult YOU.

You can write to Loreal as I did (long time ago and she still advertises their cremes) .... and tell them what YOU think..... and if you find this acceptable to use Fonda in their advertising....

There are special contact links.... go towards their actionnaires — finance

The article below was written by Ronald D. Sampson, CMSgt, USAF, 716 Maintenance Squadron, Chief of Maintenance DSN: 875-6431, COMM: 883-6343


This is for all the kids born in the 70's who do not remember, and didn't have to bear the burden that our fathers, mothers and older brothers and sisters had to bear.

Jane Fonda is being honored as one of the '100 Women of the Century.' by Barbra Walters

Unfortunately, many have forgotten and still countless others have never known how Ms. Fonda betrayed not only our country, but specific men who served and sacrificed during Vietnam.

The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot's name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat.

In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison the 'Hanoi Hilton.'

Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ's, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American 'Peace Activist' the 'lenient and humane treatment' he'd received.

He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and was dragged away.

During the subsequent beating, he fell forward onto the camp Commandant 's feet, which sent that officer berserk.

In 1978, the Air Force Colonel still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying career) from the Commandant's frenzied application of a wooden baton.

From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E's). He spent 6 years in the 'Hanoi Hilton',,, the first three of which his family only knew he was 'missing in action'. His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned-up, fed and clothed routine in preparation for a 'peace delegation' visit.

They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they were alive and still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his Social Security Number on it, in the palm of his hand.

When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man's hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: 'Aren't you sorry you bombed babies?' and 'Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?' Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper.

She took them all without missing a beat. At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him all the little pieces of paper.

Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Colonel Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know of her actions that day.

I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968, and held prisoner for over 5 years.

I spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia and one year in a 'black box' in Hanoi.

My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border.

At one time, I weighed only about 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.)

We were Jane Fonda's 'war criminals.'

When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with her.

I said yes, for I wanted to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received... and how different it was from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by her as 'humane and lenient.'

Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees, with my arms outstretched with a large steel weights placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane. ;

I had the opportunity to meet with Jane Fonda soon after I was released. I asked her if she would be willing to debate me on TV. She never did answer me.

These first-hand experiences do not exemplify someone who should be honored as part of '100 Years of Great Women.'

Lest we forget...'100 Years of Great Women' should never include a traitor whose hands are covered with the blood of so many patriots.

There are few things I have strong visceral reactions to. Hanoi Jane's participation in blatant treason is one of them.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 8, 2009.

Swiss newspaper Le Matin reports of a new book titled "Islamophobia or legitimate defense: Equality of the Sexes and Democracy — the Swiss face Islamic Fundamentalism".

Today, criticizing certain practices of Islam immediately passes for Islamophobia, but a democratic and feminist Swiss is now fighting this state of affairs. She's publishing a book denouncing the the tactics of fundamentalist Muslims who want to put to sleep this critical ability of democracies, including the Swiss.

Mireille Valette, 58, from Geneva and France, former journalist, now working at the Geneva Institute, is a small, almost frail woman, not one to give the impression of a warmonger. However, she just wrote a book which promises a big debate and a flood of controversy.

In her book Mireille Valette says that when it comes to Islam, in Switzerland, the only ones to be constantly heard on the side of this religion are the fundamentalist, their imams and their spokespeople. Even worse, to put the people to sleep, these spokespeople adorn themselves with the trappings of modernity and open mind, and are specialists in double-talk, ducking and maneuvering.

Mireille Valette doesn't beat around the bush. A set of convictions drive her: a steadfast democrat and feminist, she places equality between man and woman, laicite (secularism), freedom of expression and respect for individual freedoms at the center of her concerns. She believes in these values, and thinks that they are the foundation of our western societies. She observes that Islam, in its literal interpretation, doesn't respect these values, nor the basic individual freedoms, such as the freedom to renounce your religion.

Mireille Valette's observations are relentless, thorough and documented: of apostasy, punished by death in certain Islamic countries, of forced marriages, by wearing headscarves, exemptions from gym, circumcision, fatwas against freedom of expression, the rigorous application of Sharia, and the list is long.

At the end of each of these observation comes the final test question: what do the imams, 'moderate' spokespeople, and civilized, intellectual Muslims who take pride of place here, in Switzerland, say of concrete practices. what do they say of this dark and deadly Islam?

In her book Mireille Valette parades them, squirming, dodging, not responding or knowing. For example, asked about a man who abandoned his religion and was sentenced to death in Afghanistan, the president of the League of Swiss Muslims says that his organization wants to discuss only issues relating to Muslim in Switzerland, and not to those in Afghanistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Another example among dozens, circumcision. Does the elegant and persuasive 'modernist' Tariq Ramadan condemn this practice? Mireille Valette says that one would imagine that he would condemn it with no ifs and buts, but that too demanding. She quotes the intellectual, who says that Islam recognizes cultural practices when they don't oppose an obligation or prohibition. Mireille Valette translates and decodes: circumcision is a cultural practice which isn't obligatory or prohibited by the scriptures, believers can therefore certainly practice it with the support of some Muslim scholars.

With all the examples she's collected, with the hundreds of quotes, the frail but stubborn Mireille Valette drives it in: why do all these so-called moderates, liberals, and humanists, have so much trouble condemning the intolerable? Because they're neither modern, nor liberal, nor humanist. Because it's masked fundamentalism.

At the end of this ruthless demonstration, Mireille Valette urges debate: she wants to end the accusation of Islamophobia of anybody who dares express an opinion critical of certain practices of Islam. She claims to have finally started the debate on Islam in Switzerland: a realistic and political debate, a democratic debate.

Source: Le Matin (French)

Netherlands: Studying European Islam

On January 1st, 2009, the Free University (Vrije Universiteit, VU) named Thijl Sunier to the first 'Islam in Europa' professor. The interest of this professorship: following a dynamic religions which is developing in a European context.

"Islam in Europe is now in a transition phase. It changes from a brought along religion to an integrated one. Therefore it's necessary to study and research the dynamics and changes in Islam, such as it experiences in Europe. When I began my Phd twenty years ago, a colleague named Nico Landman wrote a fantastic work about what at that time was organized Islam in the Netherlands. That book was published in 1992. If you read it and compare it to now, then you see how Islam is unbelievably changing and renewing. Therefore a continuous study is necessary."

Sunier thinks that sadly, when people speak of Islam,they only speak of radicalization: Radicalization is sometimes a religious, and often a political choice, and has nothing to do with lack of integration. On the contrary, radicalized youth often grew up in society. A good example is the youth who blew up the metro stations in London. They didn't come from far away countries, but rather grew up in Manchester and Birmingham.

But according to Sunier it's also a misconception to think that radicalization of young Muslim is a sort of expression of frustration against the way in which they're set apart in society. We can disagree with them, and if we deal with them, we can arrest them. There is naturally anger, but to make them into crazies and frustrated people is unwise, because these people have no psychiatric problems, but a certain political view, however much you don't agree with it.

The third misconception is to think that if you're born and raised in Europe, then you're automatically an enlightened man. "You see that in very many analyses about radicalization: 'We are good, we're blameless'. 'They did everything'. That is a short-sighted way of thinking that is also historically incorrect: it's saying 'this society is in principal good and here and there you have bad spots on the apples that you must cut away, than the problem is solved'. That is not so, and I therefore also don't want to look at radicalization in this way."

The integration debate in the Netherlands and Europe is nervous and hasty. The result is that too many people are excluded beforehand by society because they don't fulfill the demands. People forget, according to Sunier, that the migration of Muslims to this continent is very recent: "We're talking about 35 years. That is really just one generation, that we're talking about. We think that everything must happen quickly and if something doesn't happen fast, then it's a big problem."

Sunier doesn't deny that there are now certainly big problems in society: "But if you want to get a good picture, than you should look at the wider context."

The concept that Islam came to Europe recently and suddenly, just on the arrival of the immigrants, is according to Sunier one of the biggest misconceptions: "It's already centuries like that. In the south-east of Europe for example, Islam exists already for hundreds of years. And also the Ottoman Empire was partially a European empire and there were very intensive diplomatic and trade relations. After that, the colonization of the Islamic countries in Africa and Asia by the European big powers such as England, France and the Netherlands, made Islam into part of the history of Europe. Whoever claims that Europe has nothing to do with Islam, has then also totally no historical insight and cannot understand the development of Europe."

The Islam in Europe professor think that, for example, Geert Wilders should go into the history of Europe. "You don't need to wait fifty years. You can also now already say that Europe has a Judeo-Christian-Islamic history. The three religions have all three been influential on the way in which our current society came about and was constructed. The tendency to put up big walls around Europe, goes right past the fact that the history of Europe is so dynamic exactly due to miscellaneous influences from outside. [ed: this also ignores the fact that throughout history, Europe rejected anybody who was different]

Is the Islam a backwards religions? To this question Sunier responds with: "No, than Christianity is also a backwards religion. Why should you set Islam apart? The position, for example, that Christianity did and Islam didn't go through Reformation or Enlightenment is a strange generalization that is completely not based on historical reality.

But also on the level of individual Muslims there are big differences. In the first place, not all Muslims think the same. Some understand the Koran literally and see it as a prescription or manual for how you should behave. But it is not so simple. It is a text that must be interpreted. What in Islamic theology is much more important than in Christianity is namely "jihad": the discussion and interpretation of the sources. It can bring about differences of interpretation but it also offers room for development and therefore influences how Islam is shaped in Europe.

I'll give an example: here in the university there's a student association for Muslim which organizes a halal get-together. Many people ask: 'how can that be?' I say that it can, because Muslims shape it themselves. And there are also numerous Muslims in Netherlands who want it in this way."

Sunier think that European Muslims can play an important role in the reinterpretation of Islam. That will truly not go too fast. "There are indeed enough people who say: 'we don't want change'. And there are imams who say: 'wherever you are in the world, Islam is the same Islam'. But there are more and more who do see that Islam will get a European form. Change will happen."

"Should there be discussions with radical Muslims?" we ask in the end: "Yes, certainly!" he says. "Look, I don't have to agree with them. But I think it's dangerous to exclude people from the discussion in advance. This direction is going very badly in the Netherlands and other countries in Europe. I think it's important that we continue talking. With whomever. It is wrong to exclude a certain group. That's a disastrous way that in the end does more harm than good."

Source: Wereld Journalisten (Dutch)

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, April 8 2009.
Intense involvement of Obama administration called nearly unprecedented

This was written by Aaron Klein and it appeared today in World Net Daily.


JERUSALEM — Under intense American pressure and following a nearly unprecedented behind-the-scenes U.S. campaign, the Israeli government has decided not to bulldoze Palestinians homes built illegally on Jewish-owned property in Jerusalem, WND has learned.

The issue is critical since the 80 homes in question are located in Silwan, an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood close to the Temple Mount and Jerusalem's Old City that the Palestinians claim as a future capital. Jewish groups have been working to fortify the community's Jewish presence. Silwan is adjacent to the City of David, a massive archeological dig just outside the Temple Mount that is constantly turning up Temple artifacts.

Like tens of thousands of other Arab housing projects throughout eastern Jerusalem, the Palestinian homes in Silwan were illegally constructed on property long ago purchased by Jews. The Israeli government ordered the structures' legal demolition.

But during a visit here in early March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton strongly protested the planned bulldozing.

"Clearly this kind of activity is unhelpful and not in keeping with the obligations entered into under the Road Map," she said. "It is an issue that we intend to raise with the government of Israel and the government at the municipal level in Jerusalem."

The Road Map calls for Israel to freeze Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank but does not bar Israel from dismantling illegally constructed Palestinian homes in Jerusalem.

WND has learned that in the weeks since Clinton's visit here, the U.S. has mounted an intensive campaign lobbying the Israeli government against tearing down the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan. The campaign included letters from the Middle East section of the State Department addressed to various Jerusalem municipalities, with copies of the letters sent to the offices of Israel's prime minister and foreign minister. The letters called on Israel to allow the illegal Palestinian homes in Silwan to remain and stated any demolitions would not foster an atmosphere of peace.

The administration of incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was contacted, as well.

Also, in a follow-up visit here, State Department officials made it clear to their Israeli counterparts the U.S. opposes the Silwan bulldozing.

According to sources in the Israeli government, including in Netanyahu's administration, a decision has been made not to bulldoze the illegal Palestinian homes. The sources said the issue of the homes may be raised again in the future, but for the time being the houses will remain in tact.

The sources attributed the decision against the bulldozing — which has not yet been announced — to the intense American campaign against the house demolitions.

Said one source in Netanyahu's administration, "This was very frustrating to us. Can you imagine if a foreign government came in and told a city office in the U.S. not to tear down a house that was illegally constructed on someone else's property?"

While Clinton opposed the Palestinian house demolitions, informed Israeli officials said the Obama administration is carefully monitoring Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem and has already protested to the highest levels of Israeli government about evidence of housing expansion in those areas.

The officials, who spoke on condition that their names be withheld, said that last month Obama's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, oversaw the establishment of an apparatus based in the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem that closely monitors eastern Jerusalem neighborhoods, incorporating regular tours on a daily basis.

The officials said that in recent meetings Mitchell strongly protested Jewish construction in eastern Jerusalem. Mitchell also condemned the work of nationalist Jewish groups to purchase property in Jerusalem's Old City, including in areas intimately tied to Judaism.

Israel recaptured eastern Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount — Judaism's holiest site — during the 1967 Six Day War.

The Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.

U.S. helping Palestinians build in Jerusalem

A WND investigation last month determined the U.S. has been aiding the Palestinians in developing infrastructure in eastern Jerusalem, including on property owned by Jews.

The situation has been unfolding in the northern Jerusalem neighborhoods of Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis, which are close to the Jewish neighborhoods of Neve Yaacov and Pisgat Zeev in Israel's capital. Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis are located entirely within the Jerusalem municipality.

Much of the property there is owned by private Jewish landowners or by the Jewish National Fund, a U.S. Jewish group that purchases land for the states purpose of Jewish settlement.

A tour of the three Jerusalem neighborhoods finds some surprising developments. Official PA logos and placards abound, including one glaring red street sign at the entrance to the neighborhoods warning Israelis to keep out.

Another official sign, in Kfar Akeb in Jerusalem, reads in English, "Ramallah-Jerusalem Road. This project is a gift form (sic) the American people to the Palestinian people in cooperation with the Palestinian Authority and PECDAR. 2007." The sign bears the emblems of the American and PA governments and of the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID. The displays were not present during a previous WND tour of the neighborhoods in 2006.

Some local schools in the Jerusalem neighborhoods are officially run by the PA — some in conjunction with the U.N. — with many teachers drawing PA salaries. Civil disputes are usually settled not in Israeli courts but by the PA judicial system, although at times Israeli courts are used depending on the matter.

Councils governed by PA President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah organization oversee some municipal matters. USAID provides the PA funds for road and infrastructure projects.

Israeli security officials said the local Jerusalem police rarely operate in Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis; instead security has been turned over to the Israel Defense Forces and Border Police, who work almost daily with PA security forces. The PA police operate in the Jerusalem neighborhoods in coordination with Israel.

Shmulik Ben Ruby, spokesman for the Jerusalem police, confirmed the arrangement.

"If there are fights between some local families, sometimes we involve the PA police to make peace between the families," he told WND. "Yes, the PA police can operate in these neighborhoods in coordination with the IDF and Border Police."

Jews barred from sections of Jerusalem

In another recent development, Israeli Jews, including local property owners, have been almost entirely barred from entering Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis, while Israeli Arabs can freely enter.

Aryeh King, a nationalist activist who holds the power of attorney to some Kfar Akeb land owned by an Israeli Jew, told WND he was barred several times during the past few months from entering the neighborhood to administer to the land, upon which local Arabs illegally constructed apartments.

Police spokesman Ben Ruby explained this new arrangement is due to security concerns.

"It's quite dangerous to be there alone, so if they don't have to be there it's not allowed, because they might find themselves in danger if they go in," said Ben Ruby.

In 2002, in response to the outbreak one year earlier of the Palestinian intifada, or terrorist war against the Jewish state, the Israeli government constructed its security barrier blocking off the West Bank from Jewish population zones. The route of the fence also cut into northern and eastern Jerusalem, incorporating Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis on the so-called Palestinian side.

Israel recaptured northern and eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Temple Mount during the 1967 Six-Day War. The Palestinians, however, have claimed eastern Jerusalem as a future capital. About 244,000 Arabs live in Jerusalem, mostly in eastern neighborhoods, out of a total population of 724,000, the majority Jewish.

Jews lived in Kfar Akeb, Qalandiya and Samir Amis years before the establishment of Israel in 1948, but they were violently expelled during deadly Arab riots in 1929.

Jordan, together with other Arab countries, attacked Israel after its founding in 1948 and administered the three Jerusalem neighborhoods as well as all of eastern Jerusalem following an armistice agreement. In 1967, Jordan attacked again and Israel liberated the entire city of Jerusalem in the Six-Day War. During the period of Jordanian control, some new construction took place, including in areas previously purchased by Jews.

The recent barring of Jews from northern Jerusalem sections seems to coincide with an Israeli government decision the past year to allow the PA some presence in Jerusalem.

Last June, WND exclusively reported Prime Minister Ehud Olmert allowed the PA to hold an official meeting in Jerusalem to discuss dealing with expected Palestinian sovereignty over key sections of the city. Dmitri Ziliani, a spokesman for the Jerusalem section of PA President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, confirmed to WND the meeting was related to the activities and structure of Fatah's local command in some neighborhoods of Jerusalem.

"We were covering the best ways to improve our performance on the street and how we can be of service to the community," Ziliani said.

Ziliani said the regular PA meetings in Jerusalem are, in part, held in anticipation of a future Palestinian state encompassing all of eastern Jerusalem.

"Our political program as Fatah dictates there will be no Palestinian state if these areas — all of east Jerusalem — are not included," Ziliani told WND.

According to Israeli law, the PA cannot officially meet in Jerusalem. The PA previously maintained a de facto headquarters in Jerusalem, called Orient House, but the building was closed down by Israel in 2001 following a series of suicide bombings in Jerusalem. Israel said it had information indicating the House was used to plan and fund terrorism.

Thousands of documents and copies of bank certificates and checks captured by Israel from Orient House — including many documents obtained by WND — showed the offices were used to finance terrorism, including direct payments to the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group

U.S. Jewish group to blame for 'division' of Jerusalem?

Key land in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb is owned by the Jewish National Fund, which over the years has allowed tens of thousands of Arabs to illegally squat on its land, resulting in the current Arab majority.

The Jewish National Fund, or JNF, purchased the land in the early 1920s using Jewish donor funds for the specific purpose of Jewish settlement.

The JNF lands have been utilized for the illegal construction of dozens of Arab apartment buildings, a refugee camp and a U.N. school.

A previous tour of Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb found dozens of Arab apartment complexes, a Palestinian refugee camp and a U.N. school for Palestinians constructed on the land.

According to officials in Israel's Housing Ministry, Arabs first constructed facilities illegally in Qalandiya and Kfar Akeb between 1948 and 1967, prior to the 1967 Six-Day War during which Israel retook control of the entire city of Jerusalem.

Qalandiya, still owned by JNF, came under the management of the Israeli government's Land Authority in the late 1960s.

Ministry officials say the bulk of illegal Arab construction in Qalandiya occurred in the past 20 years, with construction of several new Arab apartment complexes taking place in just the past two years.

Neither the Israeli government nor JNF took any concrete measures to stop the illegal building, which continues today with at least one apartment complex in Qalandiya under construction.

Land in another Jerusalem' neighborhood, Shoafat, which has an estimated value of $3 million, was also purchased by JNF in the early 1900s and fell under the management of the Israel Land Authority about 40 years ago. Much of the illegal Arab construction in Shoafat took place in the past 15 years, with some apartment complexes built as late as 2004.

In Qalandiya and Shoafat, Israel's security fence cordons off the Arab sections of the JNF lands from the rest of Jewish Jerusalem.

Internal JNF documents obtained by WND outline illegal Arab construction on the Jewish-owned land. A December 2000 survey of Qalandiya summarized on JNF stationery and signed by a JNF worker states, "In a lot of the plots I find Arabs are living and building illegally and also working the JNF land without permission."

The JNF survey goes on to document illegal construction of Arab apartment complexes and the U.N. school under the property management of Israel's Land Authority.

Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, April 8, 2009.

The article below was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared April 6, 2009 in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562925476&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull Contact her at


A Palestinian ax-murderer walks into a peaceful Jewish village, a place where people meditate and make handicrafts, a place which absolutely refused to surround itself with a barbed-wire fence. He finds two little boys — a seven year-old and a bar mitzvah boy — and attacks them (at least one FROM THE BACK) killing the Bar Mitzvah boy and injuring the younger child, then running away. Is this condemned by the Palestinians, who claim they are a people and have a culture and a religion? Not at all. They fall all over themselves taking credit.

The "Palestinian People" don't exist. The Arabs who were born here, or wandered into this part of the world from other Arab countries lured by Jewish economic activity over the last hundred and fifty years, have taken up a name that is now synonymous with the murder of innocents, living off the dole of U.N. handouts, and electing terror organizations to represent them. It is a name that is connected to destruction in every sphere. The best thing that could happen would be for them to disappear from world history — going back to being Arabs, part of the vast Arab world — not to be ensconced in a formal political entity — a Palestinian State — that would perpetuate their failures and lead to further disasters.

I'm sorry that all Europeans, many Americans, and even a sizable number of Israelis don't understand that.

Below, more.
Naomi Ragen


We were not supposed to see Shlomo Nativ's name in the newspapers. At least, we weren't supposed to know who he was for several years. He was just a 13-year-old boy. He was loved by his family and friends. He had brothers and sisters, parents and grandparents. His life was not our business. And, to a certain extent, now that it is over, it still shouldn't concern us.

What should concern us is his death. Nativ was murdered last Thursday at the hands of a Palestinian ax murderer just a few meters from his home in Bat Ayin. And his death should interest us for what it teaches us, first of all about the nature of the Middle East and Israel's place in it.

The mainstream media in Europe and the US and even here maintain that Nativ's death tells us little we didn't already "know" if we are right-thinking people. By this view of things, the cold-blooded terrorist murder of civilians — even of children — is to be expected when the victims in question are Israeli Jews who live beyond the 1949 armistice lines. It isn't nice. It isn't pleasant to say. But as far as the right-thinking people of the Western media are concerned, Israeli Jews like Nativ, who live in Gush Etzion in Judea, are simply asking to be murdered.

Today, the media's view is shared by both European governments and the Obama administration. For years now the Europeans have accepted the legally unsupportable Arab claim that all Jewish presence in areas beyond the 1949 armistice lines is illegal. Since 1993, supported by the Israeli Left, the US government has gradually moved toward adopting this view. And today this view stands at the center of President Barack Obama's emerging policy toward Israel and the Palestinians.

At base, this view assumes two things. First, it assumes that the root of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the absence of Palestinian statehood, and therefore the solution is the establishment of a Palestinian state. The second thing it assumes is that the Palestinian demand that any territory that Israel transfers to Palestinian control must first be ethnically cleansed of all Jewish presence is completely innocent and acceptable.

OBAMA MADE clear that this is the view of his administration on two occasions in the past week. First, at a news conference before he departed for his European tour, he announced that as far as his administration is concerned, the only way of contending with the Arab conflict with Israel is by establishing a Palestinian state. In his words, "It is critical for us to advance a two-state solution."

And second, last Thursday in London, Obama made clear that he supports the mass expulsion of Jews from Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (as well as the Golan Heights), when he announced his support for the so-called Saudi peace plan.

The Saudi plan, issued as a propaganda stunt by Saudi King Abdullah during a meeting with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in 2002, calls for Israel to commit national suicide by removing itself to within the indefensible 1949 lines and accepting millions of hostile foreign Arabs as citizens in its rump state in exchange for "regular" relations with the Arab world.

Shlomo Nativ's murder shows clearly that Obama and his supporters are viewing the Arab conflict with Israel through a distorted lens. Their interpretation of both the nature of the conflict and its likely resolution are wrong.

IT TAKES A CERTAIN type of person to hack a child to death with an ax. In the case at hand, Nativ's murderer actually tried to kill seven-year-old Yair Gamliel as well. But unlike Nativ, the first grader managed to escape with a fractured skull.

Nativ of course was not the first child to be brutally murdered by Palestinian terrorists. Kobi Mandell and Yosef Ish-Ran were also 13 when they were stoned to death by a mob as they gathered wood for a bonfire in 2001. In 2003 five-month-old Shaked Avraham was shot in her crib by a Palestinian terrorist who pushed his way into her home. In 2002 five-year-old Matan Ohayon, four-year-old Noam Ohayon and their mother Revital Ohayon were murdered in their home in Kibbutz Metzer. And the list goes on and on and on.

It takes a special type of person to murder a child. And it takes a special type of society to support such behavior. Palestinian society is a special society. It has become routine, indeed it has become expected that in the aftermath of successful murders of Israelis — including children — Palestinians distribute candy in public celebrations.

In 2002 for instance, when word got out about the terrorist who barged into Nina Kardashov's bat mitzva party in Hadera and massacred six people, the masses took to the streets in neighboring Tulkarm to celebrate. That particular attack was carried out by a Fatah terrorist employed by the US-trained Palestinian Authority security forces. The Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) and the IDF now reportedly believe that Nativ was also murdered by a Fatah terrorist.

TO CELEBRATE the terrorist murder of children and to glorify child murderers as heroes is to celebrate and glorify the nullification of life — or at least the life of the target society. This is the case because at the most basic philosophical level, children represent the notion that life is intrinsically valuable. Since children haven't yet had the chance to accomplish great and lasting things for humanity, all they can give us is the promise of a future.

The fact that Palestinian terrorists target children specifically — both inside and outside the 1949 lines — and that Palestinian society celebrates their murder tells us that the two foundational assumptions upon which Obama and his supporters base their policies toward Israel and the Middle East are false. It is not the absence of a Palestinian state that stands at the root of the conflict, and it is not the presence of Israeli communities, or "settlements," beyond the 1949 armistice lines that renders the conflict intractable.

Instead, the root of the conflict is the Arab world's rejection of Israel's right to exist — regardless of its size. And the reason the conflict is intractable is because hatred of Israel and Jews is so deep and endemic in both Palestinian society and the wider Arab world that they view the very existence of Jews — including Jewish children — in Israel as an unacceptable affront to their sensibilities. Indeed, the Jewish presence both within and beyond the 1949 armistice lines is so unacceptable that murdering Jews at every opportunity is perceived as an acceptable and indeed heroic undertaking.

THIS BEING the case, the question necessarily arises, why are these basic facts so assiduously ignored by people like Obama who should know better? Why did Sen. John Kerry, who chairs the US Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, say in late February, "Nothing will do more to make clear our seriousness about turning the page [in US relations with the Arab world] than demonstrating — with actions rather than words — that we are serious about Israel's freezing settlement activity in the West Bank?"

Why did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attack Israel during her visit last month for lawfully destroying illegal Arab houses in Jerusalem? Why are Obama's supporters — from Peace Now to the Arab League to The Washington Post and Haaretz editorial boards — urging him to coerce the Netanyahu government to accept a complete halt to all building activities for Jews in Judea and Samaria?

The answer unfortunately is that in their actions, Obama, his colleagues and supporters are not motivated by facts. Instead they are motivated by a desire to ignore the facts. They wish to believe that the existence of Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria is a primary obstacle to peace because doing so allows them to ignore the fact that the reason there is no peace is because Palestinians and their Arab and Iranian brethren refuse to peacefully coexist with Israel regardless of its size. Accepting such bitter realities would make it impossible for them to move forward with their agenda of appeasing the Arab world because it would force them to acknowledge that the Arab world is unappeasable.

And that's the thing of it. At base, the so-called settlements are nothing but an excuse for appeasers to curry favor with the Arabs by blaming Israel for the absence of peace while ignoring the Arabs' bigotry, hatred and aggression. What these Israeli communities represent is nothing more than an assertion of Israeli rights to land — whether that land is within or beyond the 1949 armistice lines. If these communities didn't exist — as they no longer exist in Gaza — then a surrogate, such as the IDF which protects other Israeli land, would be found to replace them.

And if the IDF weren't around — as it isn't in Gaza or in southern Lebanon — then the appeasers would blame another surrogate, such as the Israeli naval quarantine of Gaza, or Israel's control over the town of Ghajar along the Lebanese border for the Arabs' bigotry, hatred and aggression against it. Here it should be noted that there is no difference in principle between the way the likes of the Obama administration and its supporters treat Israel and the way they treat the US and its non-Israeli allies. When on Sunday Obama responded to North Korea's launch of a long-range ballistic missile by announcing that he wishes to all but disarm the US of its nuclear arsenal, he was effectively arguing that US strength is to blame for North Korea's aggression. He did what amounts to the same thing when he apologized to the Iranian regime for supposed US arrogance. By Obama's lights, now that the US is humble, the Iranians may one day stop calling for its destruction, waging war against it in Iraq and Afghanistan and building a nuclear arsenal. Then too, when Denmark's Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen reportedly agreed to apologize to the Islamic world for Denmark's independent Jyllands-Postens 2005 publication of cartoons of Muhammad in exchange for Turkish support for his candidacy for NATO secretary-general, he was accepting that it is Western civilization — with its freedom of speech — that is to blame for Islamic aggression and intolerance.

In the end then, the truth exposed by Shlomo Nativ's brutal murder on Thursday in Bat Ayin is twofold. First, it demonstrated that the so-called settlements have no relevance whatsoever to the intractability of the Arab-Israeli conflict. When your enemy hates you so much that he hacks your children to pieces, there is nothing you can do, short of committing suicide, that will appease him.

Second, it reminded us of what appeasement places at risk. By attempting to appease the unappeasable, all that successive Israeli, American and European governments have done is strengthen our enemies at the expense of our security and freedom.

Contact Naomi Ragen at nragen@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Anbar, April 8, 2009.

During the Cold War an important article appeared in Foreign Affairs Quarterly, written by "X." (It was later revealed, that "X" was George Kennan, noted Kremlinologist). Now, in a like manner, a long standing expert on the Middle East has annotated President Obama's recent news conference on that region. His comments are in red.


During the Cold War an important article appeared in Foreign Affairs Quarterly, written by "X." (It was later revealed, that "X" was George Kennan, noted Kremlinologist). Now, in a like manner, a long standing expert on the Middle East has annotated President Obama's recent news conference on that region. His comments are in red.


Office of the Press Secretary


April 7, 2009
Tophane Cultural Center
Istanbul, Turkey
www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-Of-President-Barack-Obama- At-Student-Roundtable-In-Istanbul/
12:18 P.M. (Local)


If we want to say to Iran, don't develop nuclear weapons because if you develop them then everybody in the region is going to want them and you'll have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and that will be dangerous for everybody — if we want to say that to Iranians, it helps if we are also saying, "and we will reduce our own," so that we have more moral authority in those claims. [Mr. President: the arms race between ME counties will take place after Israel will be wiped off the map as proof of Iranian Islamic nuclear hegemony]

....I agree that al Qaeda is an enormous threat not just to the United States but to the world. I have no sympathy and I have no patience for people who would go around blowing up innocent people for a political cause.

I don't believe in that. [Mr. President: What about Hamas, Fatah and other members of the PLO that do exactly the same atrocities. Were they excluded from your consideration because their victims are Jews, including American Jews, i.e., subhumans, according to Islam, the religion of your half brothers in Kenya? Did you exclude those outrageous Muslim terrorist murderers because of your Islamic upbringing in Indonesia?]

So, yes, I think that it is just and right for the United States and NATO allies and other allies from around the world to do what we can to eliminate the threat of al Qaeda. [what about Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah?] Now, I think it's important that we don't just do that militarily. I think it's important that we provide educational opportunities for young people in Pakistan and Afghanistan so that they see a different path. And so my policies will be somewhat different, but I don't make any apologies for continuing the effort to prevent bombs going off or planes going into buildings that would kill innocents. I don't think any society can justify that.

...I believe that peace in the Middle East is possible. [Mr. President: I hope you are right. This will be possible only when Muslims worldwide will recognize Jews as people who and whose 3300 year-old history must be fully recognized and respected. Do you believe that you can change the hearts and minds of millions of Muslims to accept this. The moment renown Muslim leaders will announce in public to their Muslim followers the full recognition of the Jewish nation, its history and its national rights, we will all know that peace is possible in the Middle East] I think it will be based on two states, side by side: a Palestinian state and a Jewish state. I think in order to achieve that, both sides are going to have to make compromises. [Mr. President: I fully agree with you and I hope that you will convince the Palestinians state, namely Jordan, to permit Jews to live in it as citizens with equal rights just as Muslims live in Israel as its citizens. You do have to political power and prestige to achieve this. Once this equality is achieved the two countries will certainly be able to compromise on the shape of their common border.]

I think we have a sense of what those compromises should be and will be. Now what we need is political will and courage on the part of leadership. And it is not the United States' role or Turkey's role to tell people what they have to do, but we can be good friends in encouraging them to move the dialogue forward. [Mr. President: I truly appreciate your willingness to get involved and bring a just and lasting peace to the Middle East]

I have to believe that the mothers of Palestinians and the mothers of Israelis hope the same thing for their children. They want them not to be vulnerable to violence. They don't want, when their child gets on a bus, to worry that that bus might explode. They don't want their child to have to suffer indignities because of who they are. And so sometimes I think that if you just put the mothers in charge for a while, that things would get resolved. [Mr. President: You seem to grasp correctly the Muslim-Jewish conflict and I hope you will do your best to alleviate it.]

And it's that spirit of thinking about the future and not the past that I just talked about earlier that I think could help advance the peace process, because if you look at the situation there, over time I don't believe it's sustainable.

It's not sustainable for Israel's security because as populations grow around them, if there is more and more antagonism towards Israel, over time that will make Israel less secure. [Mr. President: Once you manage to achieve recognition of the Jewish nation by the entire Islamic world, something that only you might achieve thank your acceptance by it, the security of Israel will be guaranteed, just like that of the Palestinian state.]

It's not sustainable for the Palestinians because increasingly their economies are unable to produce the jobs and the goods and the income for people's basic quality of life. [Mr. President: Both of us seem to agree with new PM of Israel that this is a key issue and an absolutely necessary step on the route to peace in the Middle East.]

So we know that path is a dead end, and we've got to move in a new direction. But it's going to be hard. A lot of mistrust has been built up, a lot of anger, a lot of hatred. And unwinding that hatred requires patience. [Mr. President: If you just manage to convince the leaders of the Islamic world to recognize and respect the historical rights of the Jewish nation and make Muslim abandon their traditional Koranic misojudaism, which is the driving force of Islamic hatred of Jews, there will be no other hatred or anger to overcome.]

But it has been done. You know, think about — my Special Envoy to the Middle East is a gentleman named George Mitchell, who was a senator in the United States and then became the Special Envoy for the United States in Northern Ireland. And the Protestants and the Catholics in Northern Ireland had been fighting for hundreds of years, and as recently as 20 years ago or 30 years ago, the antagonism, the hatred, was a fierce as any sectarian battle in the world.

And yet because of persistent, courageous efforts by leaders, a peace accord was arrived at. A government that uses the democratic process was formed.

And I had at the White House just a few weeks ago the leader of the Protestants, the leaders of Catholics in the same room, the separatists and the unionists in the same room, as part of a single system. And so that tells me that anything is possible if we're willing to strive for it. [Mr. President: You must have surely realized that the Protestant-Catholic conflict in Ireland has been purely political. Neither Protestants nor Catholics were mandate by their religion to indiscriminately murder and totally exterminate the followers of the rival Christian denomination. Therefore, the analogy you drew between Ireland and the Middle East is based on false premises. The solution of the political conflict in Ireland did not require any change in the basic religious premises of neither the Catholics nor Protestants. The resolution of the conflict in the Middle East requires a fundamental change in the religious premises of Islam. I hope you will succeed in implementing this change]

But it will depend on young people like you being open to new ideas and new possibilities. And it will require young people like you never to stereotype or assume the worst about other people. [Mr. President: I fully agree with you that the way to a real and lasting change is going to take place with the help of the younger, more enlightened generation of Muslims.]

In the Muslim world, this notion that somehow everything is the fault of the Israelis lacks balance — because there's two sides to every question. That doesn't mean that sometimes one side has done something wrong and should not be condemned. But it does mean there's always two sides to an issue.

I say the same thing to my Jewish friends, which is you have to see the perspective of the Palestinians. Learning to stand in somebody else's shoes to see through their eyes, that's how peace begins. And it's up to you to make that happen.

All right. Thank you very much, everybody. I enjoyed it. (Applause.)

1:03 P.M. (Local)

Contact Michael Anbar at amara14@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Sadik Gergis, April 7, 2009.

Click picture to watch video:

Or to see a larger image:

The Guardian UK has published this amateur video and article which I've copied below.

I have nothing useful to add. I get so angry that I cannot speak and hesitate to position myself against Obama's stance in favor of further action in the region. What is happening to women over there is war and torture — Needless to say, I oppose recognition of Sharia Law here at home (and abroad). I challenge anyone to provide a credible reason why I shouldn't.

From The Guardian UK:

A video showing a teenage girl being flogged by Taliban fighters has emerged from the Swat Valley in Pakistan, offering a shocking glimpse of militant brutality in the once-peaceful district, and a sign of Taliban influence spreading deeper into the country.

The two-minute video, shot using a mobile phone, shows a burka-clad woman face down on the ground. Two men hold her arms and feet while a third, a black-turbaned fighter with a flowing beard, whips her repeatedly.

"Please stop it," she begs, alternately whimpering or screaming in pain with each blow to the backside. "Either kill me or stop it now."

A crowd of men stands by, watching silently. Off camera a voice issues instructions. "Hold her legs tightly," he says as she squirms and yelps.

After 34 lashes the punishment stops and the wailing woman is led into a stone building, trailed by a Kalashnikov-carrying militant.

Reached by phone, Taliban spokesman Muslim Khan claimed responsibility for the flogging. "She came out of her house with another guy whowas not her husband, so we must punish her. There are boundaries you cannot cross," he said. He defended the Taliban's right to thrash women shoppers who were inappropriately dressed, saying it was permitted under Islamic law.

The Guardian received the video through Samar Minallah, a Pashtun documentary maker and anthropologist who lived in Swat for two years in the late 1990s. It has been passed between Swat residents by mobile phones.

Ms Minallah said the punishment had been inflicted within the last 10 days, following the signing of a controversial peace deal under which the provincial government ceded control of the valley's judicial system to the militants.

"This video is being widely circulated because the Taliban want people to see it. They want to give the message that this is taking place after the peace deal because this is something they ideologically believe in," she said.

Local sources including journalists and human rights workers, some of whom declined to be identified, confirmed the video was recent, although estimates of its timing varied between one and three weeks ago. The Taliban spokesman said it predated the peace deal.

Sher Muhammad Khan, an official in Swat with the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, said: "They have committed so many atrocities since the peace deal. They have taken entire control of the district. There is nobody to control them; they decide disputes according to their whims."

Since the 15 February deal, a hybrid of traditional and Islamic law has been operational in Mingora, the largest city in Swat district. The qazi courts, as they are known, are not operated by the Taliban but by a related political movement. They have a murky legal status because the changes have yet to be signed into law.

Floggings and other physical punishments have not been imposed in Mingora, where some residents have praised the system's efficiency. However, in outlying districts, where government writ has been entirely crushed, a crude form of gun justice prevails.

The woman in the video, named as Chaand and believed to be aged 17, was punished in Matta, a district further up the Swat Valley.

Minallah and other sources said the girl was punished on suspicion of having had an illicit relationship with a married man. She did not receive a trial. "The whole case is based on the suspicions of one neighbour," said Minallah.

The woman's brother is among the men pinning her down, she added. "It's symbolic that he does it with his own hands. It gives him honour in local society, that he has done it for the sake of religion."

The Swat Valley is controlled by Maulana Fazlullah, a charismatic preacher who initially gained popularity through radio broadcasts, then seized control through gun battles, suicide attacks and intimidation of the local population.

Since the peace deal, women have been beaten for shopping unaccompanied in Mingora's main market and dozens of girls' schools remain closed, many of them bombed.

Fazlullah has sworn loyalty to Baitullah Mehsud, the overall Taliban leader from South Waziristan who claimed responsibility for last Monday's eight-hour assault on a police centre in Lahore and has vowed to mount attacks in Washington.

On Wednesday a presumed American drone fired rockets at a compound controlled by his network, killing at least 14 people.

The effective surrender of government authority in Swat has caused great alarm across Pakistan and among western allies.Minallah said she feared Talibanisation would spread across Pakistan. "I have distributed this video because I feel people are in denial. They don't want to believe what is happening."

Contact Sadik Gergis at sadek.copts@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Molly, April 7, 2009.

Israel's Lieberman should reject a new arab (palestinian) state "next to Israel".

Seems to us that Leiberman is making the same mistake that undoes Israel's sovereign rights: He is uncritically swallowing the same cunning agi-prop first fashioned by Jimmy Carter, who, together with the Egyptian terrorist, Yasser Arafat, declared by fiat that just about any arab who wanders into Israel (and Israel's territories) from his arabist homelands in Yemen, the Sudan, Syria, etc. should henceforth be referred to as "palestinian". Carter and Arafat did just that and so did Saudi Arabia (Hill and Knowlton advised the Saudis) and unfortunately, Israeli bureaucrats and its media thoughtlessly echoed Carter and Arafat's cunning ploy.

This clever gambit of referring to Islamic adventurers swarming into Israel and Israel's territories (from Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, etc.) as "palestinians" completely befuddled Israel's non-English-speaking bureaucrats who unfortunately permitted the invading Arabs to control the political relationships between Israel and the surrounding (new and old) Arab states with this semantic ploy.

The purpose of Carter's linguistic somersault was to erode Israel's rightful sovereign objectives and when the Israelis allowed the Arab tricksters to get away with this semantic political ploy, they enslaved themselves to the false notion that "any Arab who declares himself to be what he never was (that is, 'palestinian') should be allowed to do so without challenge and always at Israel's expense." Worse still, older Jews, beaten down by the Euroids, were too oppressed to combat this insidiously cunning "language attack " and thus they, too, allowed Jimmy Carter and the US State Dept. to disenfranchise tens of thousands of Jews who were in fact always native to the region formerly known as the Jewish Homeland of Palestine! In other words, Jews born in the more extensive lands of Jewish Palestine — as defined under the authority of the League of Nations (and later ratified by the UN) — abandoned their history when they rushed into tiny Israel, thereby unwittingly making it easy for just about any invading arab to slip into the 'Palestinian' cloak they dropped. In short, the encroachers turned the patriotism of these former Jewish Palestinians (who were new-born as Israelis) into and advantage for Yasser Arafat and his armed, non-uniformed forces. And don't forget this: the Saudis showed their gratitude to X-POTUS Carter for helping Yasser and the Sauds work this scheme by pouring millions into Carter's myriad NGOs and his presidential library.

It's NEVER to late to address and correct this situation, but first, the Jews of Israel (and their spoiled Jewish NY Israel-bashers) must admit to their own embarrassing short-comings in the "semantics battle" and then openly and forcefully correct their past mistakes. They can only do this if they first admit to their past mistakes, and then declare their right to correct them. It might take more words, but it would be salutary for Israel to refer to itinerant arabs as "Itinerant Arabs" or "itinerant Sudenese mercenaries" (for that is what most of them are) instead of mindlessly blanketing them with the imprimatur "Palestinian."

Another reason why old Jews bowed to fraudulent pressure was their need for money — from the US or anywhere else. So they were quick to bow to US State Dept. extortion in order to get money for Israel — and even more for their private purses. Corruption abounds! For that's what it's been at its worst: Jew-bashers like former Secy of State Jim Baker were getting rich on the Saudi dole and the price Baker was willing to pay for the money he got from the Saudis was not paid with his own blood, but with the blood of Israeli women and children — Jew and Muslim alike — who were butchered by Yasser Arafat's myriad goon gangs. And then the US State Dept would shove some money to the self-appointed "voices" of Israel (Shimon Peres, for but one example, Yosi Beilin for another) who raked millions into their unaudited, foreign NGOs. Peres and Yasser even had an arrangement in the Cayman Islands to do just this — together — via their respective "peace NGOs."

It's about time for truth to out — and this means immediately combatting Brit and CNN falsehoods and anti-US, anti-Jew, anti-Israel propaganda. So if Lieberman really wants to help the arabs fashion a new arab state (which will join the UN and vote against Israel and blackmail the US for "aid") then he had best demand that it be carved out of the extensive lands within the Arabian Peninsula, and not out of tiny Israel!

(We are secular Christians who subscribe to CAFI and UCI)

Contact Molly at pelago2000@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, April 7, 2009.

1. Who Stole the Holy Land?
By Steven Plaut
December 09, 2004

So let us see if we have this straight. The anti-Zionists claim that the Jews have no right to the land of Israel because before Israel was re-created in 1948, it had been almost 1900 years since the last time that the Jews exercised sovereignty over the Land of Israel. And the anti-Zionists claim that it is absurd to argue that anyone still has rights to land that was last governed with sovereignty 1900 years ago.

And on what basis do they argue that the Arabs have some legitimate claim to these same lands? On the basis of the claim that the Arabs last exercised sovereignty over that land 1000 years ago.

You all with me? 1900 year-old-claims are inadmissible. Thousand-year-old claims trump them and are indisputable.

Now let us emphasize that even the thousand-year-old Arab claim is not the same thing as a claim on behalf of Palestinian Arabs. After all, the last time that Palestinian Arabs held sovereignty over the lands of "Palestine" was ... never. There has never been a Palestinian Arab state in Palestine. Ever.

It is true that Arabs once exercised sovereignty over parts or all of historic Palestine. There were small Arab kingdoms in the south of "Palestine" already in late Biblical days, and they were important military and political allies of the Jews, who exercised sovereignty back then in the Land of Israel. After the rise of Islam, historic "Palestine" was indeed part of a larger Arab kingdom or caliphate. But that ended in 1071, when Palestine came under the rule of the Suljuk Turks. That was the last time Palestine had an Arab ruler. After that, it was always ruled by a long series of Ottomans, Mamluks, other Turks, Crusaders, British, and — briefly — French. And in any case, why does the fact that Palestine once belonged to a larger Arab empire make it any more "Arab" than the fact that it also was once part of larger Roman, Greek, Persian, Turkish, or British empires? Now it is true that historic Palestine probably once had a population majority who were Arabs, but today it has a population majority who are Jews. So if population majorities are what determine legitimacy of sovereignty, Israel is at least as legitimate as any other country.

So why exactly do the anti-Zionists claim that a thousand-year old claim by Arabs who were never ruled by Palestinian Arabs has legitimacy, while a 1900-year claim by Jews to the land should be rejected as absurd, even though the United Nations granted Israel sovereignty in 1947? The anti-Zionists say it is because the thousand-year-old Arab claim is more recent than the older Jewish claim. But if national claims to lands become more legitimate when they are more recent, then surely the most legitimate of all is that of the Jews of Israel to the lands of Israel, because it is the most recent!

The other claim by the anti-Zionists is that Jews have no rights to the lands of Israel (historic Palestine) because they moved there from some other places. Now never mind that there was actually always a Jewish minority living in the lands of Israel even when it was under the sovereignty of Romans, Greeks, Arabs, Crusaders, Turks or British. Does the fact that Jews moved to the land of Israel from other places disqualify them from exercising sovereignty there? The claim would be absurd enough even if we were to ignore that fact that most "Palestinian Arabs" also moved to Palestine from neighboring countries, starting in the late nineteenth century. But more generally, does the fact that a people moves from one locality to another deprive it of its claims to legitimate sovereignty in its new abode? Does this fact necessitate the conclusion that they need to pack up and leave, as the anti-Zionists insist?

If it does, then it goes without saying that the Americans and Canadians must lead the way and show the Israelis the light, by returning all lands that they seized from the Indians and the Mexicans to their original owners and going back to whence they came. For that matter, the Mexicans of Spanish ancestry also need to leave. The Anglo-Saxons, meaning the English, will be invited to turn the British isles over to their rightful original Celtic and Druid owners, while they return to their own ancestral Saxon homeland in northern Germany and Denmark. The Danes of course will be asked to move aside, in fact to move back to their Norwegian and Swedish homelands, to make room for the returning Anglo-Saxons.

But that is just a beginning. The Spanish will be called upon to leave the Iberian peninsula that they wrongfully occupy, and return it to the Celtiberians. Similarly the Portuguese occupiers will leave their lands and return them to the Lusitanians. The Magyars will go back where they came from and leave Hungary to its true owners. The Australians and New Zealanders obviously will have to end their occupations of lands that do not belong to them. The Thais will leave Thailand. The Bulgarians will return to their Volga homeland and abandon occupied Bulgaria. Anyone speaking Spanish will be expected to end his or her forced occupation of Latin America. It goes without saying that the French will lose almost all their lands to their rightful owners. The Turks will go back to Mongolia and leave Anatolia altogether, returning it to the Greeks. The Germans will go back to Gotland. The Italians will return the boot to the Etruscans and Greeks.

Ah, but that leaves the Arabs. First, all of northern Africa, from Mauritania to Egypt and Sudan, will have to be immediately abandoned by the illegal Arab occupiers and squatters, and returned to their lawful original Berber, Punic, Greek, and Vandal owners. Occupied Syria and Lebanon must be released at once from the cruel occupation of the Arabs imperialist aggressors. Iraq must be returned to the Assyrians and Chaldeans. Southern Arabia must be returned to the Abyssinians. The Arabs may retain control of the central portion of the Arabian peninsula as their homeland. But not the oil fields.

Oh, and the Palestinian infiltrators, usurpers and squatters will of course have to return the lands they are illegally and wrongfully occupying, turning them over to their legal and rightful owners, which would of course be the Jews!

And right after all this, Israel will be happy to implement the Road Map in full!

2. Anti-Semitism and the Economic Crisis Many people still blame Jews for capitalism's faults. By Ira Stoll April 6, 2009

Walking down the street in my solidly upper-middle-class New York City neighborhood the other day was a neatly dressed man angrily cursing into his cell phone about "Jew Wall Street bankers."

I was headed in the opposite direction and didn't stop to interview him about his particular grievances, but the brief encounter crystallized for me a foreboding that the financial crisis may trigger a new outbreak of anti-Semitism.

It is a fear that is being articulated ever more widely. President Bill Clinton's secretary of labor, Robert Reich, frets on his blog, "History shows how effective demagogic ravings can be when a public is stressed economically." He warns that Jews, along with gays and blacks, could become victims of populist rage.

In the New York Jewish Week newspaper, a column by Rabbi Ronald Price of the Union for Traditional Judaism begins, "In the 1930s, as Germany's economy collapsed, the finger was pointed at the Jews and the Nazis ascended to power. The famous Dreyfus Affair, in which a Jew was falsely accused of treason in France, followed on the heels of economic turmoil."

At this juncture, the trepidation may yet seem like paranoia, or special pleading akin to the old joke about the newspaper headline, "World Ends in Nuclear Attack: Poor, Minorities Hardest Hit." Everyone is feeling the brunt of the recession; why worry about the Jews in particular? After all, Jews today have two refuges: Israel and America, a land where Jews have attained remarkable power and prosperity and have a constitutionally protected right to exercise their religion freely. In that case, why worry about potential danger to the Jews at all?

One answer is that the historical precedents are exceedingly grim. The causes of the First Crusade, in which thousands of Jews were murdered, are still being debated, but some historians link it to famine and a poor harvest in 1095. As for the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492, the foremost historian of its causes, Benzion Netanyahu (the father of Israel's new prime minister), writes of the desire of the persecutors "to get rid of their debts by getting rid of their creditors." More generally, he writes, "it is an iron-clad rule in the history of group relations: the majority's toleration of every minority lessens with the worsening of the majority's condition."

Lest this seem overly crude economic determinism, consider that the Jews have been victims not only of unrest prompted by economic distress but of attempts to remedy such economic distress with socialism. Take it from Friedrich Hayek, the late Nobel Prize winning Austrian economist. In "The Road to Serfdom," Hayek wrote, "In Germany and Austria the Jew had come to be regarded as the representative of Capitalism." Thus, the response in those countries, National Socialism, was an attack on both capitalism and the Jews.

There are ample indicators of current anti-Semitic attitudes. A poll conducted recently in Europe by the Anti-Defamation League found 74% of Spaniards believe Jews "have too much power in international financial markets," while 67% of Hungarians believe Jews "have too much power in the business world." Here in America, the Web site of National Journal is hosting an "expert blog" by former CIA official Michael Scheuer, now a professor at Georgetown, complaining of a "fifth column of pro-Israel U.S. citizens" who are "unquestionably enemies of America's republican experiment." And over at Yahoo! Finance, the message board discussing Goldman Sachs is rife with comments about "Jew pigs" and the "Zionist Federal Reserve."

So will the Jews come under attack? The existence of the Jewish state guarantees refuge for Jews around the world, but it carries with it its own risks. Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, has said that if the Jews "all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them world-wide." It's a comment all the more chilling as Nasrallah's Iranian sponsors are on the brink of making a nuclear bomb.

As for the idea that Jewish professional, political, and economic success in America is a guarantee of security, that, too, has its risks. As Yuri Sleskine recounted in his book "The Jewish Century," in 1900 Vienna more than half of the lawyers, doctors and professional journalists were Jewish, as were 70% of the members of the stock exchange. In Germany, after World War I but before the Nazis came to power, Jews served as finance minister and as foreign minister. Such achievements have a way of being fleeting.

It may yet be that the Jews escape the current economic crisis having only lost fortunes. But if not, there will have been no lack of warning about the threat. When Jews gather Wednesday night for the Passover Seder, we will recite the words from the Hagadah, the book that relays the Israelite exodus from slavery in Egypt: "In every generation they rise up against us to destroy us." This year, they will resonate all the more ominously.

Mr. Stoll is the author of Samuel Adams: A Life (Free Press, 2008).

3. The Face of Palestinian 'Resistance'
Jonathan Tobin


While the world was harrumphing yesterday because Israel's new foreign minister affirmed the obvious futility of the Annapolis peace conference, an axe-wielding Palestinian terrorist slaughtered a 13-year-old Jewish boy and wounded another.

This disgusting crime took place at the town of Bat Ayin, a Jewish settlement a few miles southwest of Jerusalem. This means that in much of the world, the attack will be considered an understandable reaction on the part of a Palestinian humiliated by the sight of Jews living in that part of the country. Thats the way all such murders have been treated by the international press. Jews who live over the 'green line' are considered provocateurs at best, and deserving of retaliatory Arab violence at worst.

But though I don't doubt the murdered child, whose name was Shlomo Nativ, will be simply called a 'settler'. in most accounts, it isn't likely that we will hear much about the history of the area where he lived.

You see, Bat Ayin is part of the Gush Etzion bloc of settlements. Far from being built after the 1967 war and thus, wrongly considered a violation of international law, Gush Etzion was settled by Jews prior to 1948. In 1948, the Gush Etzion bloc was attacked by Arab gangs and after a long siege, overwhelmed by the attackers who were aided by Jordan's Arab Legion. Most of the Jewish inhabitants were massacred. After this territory was retaken by Israel in June 1967, some of the survivors of the 1948 attack returned to the area and began the work of restoring Jewish life to this part of historic Biblical Judea.

Just to confirm how normal and legitimate their town is the people of Bat Ayin have chosen not to build a fence around their homes because they believe it would be a sign of insecurity.

Objections to Gush Etzion cannot be about expropriation or 'illegal' settlements. The problem that Gush Etzion presents to the Arab and Islamic world is that the people who live there are Jews.

In recent years we have heard much about the suffering of Arabs living in the West Bank who have to put up with the inconvenience of Israeli Army roadblocks and a security fence, both of which are the direct result of a campaign of terrorism aimed at Israelis. What we don't hear much about is the constant harassment and attacks visited upon Jews who live in the West Bank. A lot of people don't think the idea of maintaining Jewish communities over the 'green line' is wise. But what the 'resistance' to the Jewish presence in the territories amounts to is not a protest against specific measures or even a dispute about land. As the attack on Bat Ayin confirms yet again, the hatred and violence directed against the settlers is a measure of the Palestinian antipathy for Jews, pure and simple.

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. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 7, 2009.

It is unlikely that I will be posting again until after Pesach. I ask you all — please! — after today to hold comments and sharing of information until the completion of the Chag.

As I contemplate Pesach, I am mindful of its messages for today. The Exodus forged us into a people. The Almighty brought us out of Egypt to come to Sinai and receive the Torah, and then, when we were ready, to enter into Eretz Yisrael, the land that has been given to us as sacred trust.

We were all there on that fateful night. We must stand together now.


To all those on this list who will be celebrating Pesach, I send my warmest wishes for a Chag Kasher v'Sameach. May HaShem bless and keep us in the year ahead.


It is time for standing tall.

StandWithUs, a fine Israel advocacy organization originally founded in LA, has put up a site called "Soldiers Speak Out.' It provides video clips (and summary text of those clips) of Israeli soldiers explaining how they tried to protect civilians in Gaza and how Hamas operates. There is one sequence describing a old woman crying out in pain, seen by soldiers. When they began to approach her to help her, they realized she was wired to a suicide belt and was being used as a trap. If this doesn't open eyes...
See it at: http://www.soldiersspeakout.com:80/ and recommend it to others.


On the very same subject, is other news, which merits a "How about that!"

Danny Zamir is the head of a pre-military academy who had called in some of his former students to discuss the operation in Gaza and what they had experienced or perceived as soldiers. He put the transcript of the discussion in an in-house newsletter which Haaretz — and then the NY Times and other media sources — picked up and ran, making implied accusations about the immorality of an IDF that allegedly shoots civilians, etc. etc.

Turns out that Danny Zamir himself was horrified with what was said and has now written and article and given an interview to the Jerusalem Post, to set the record straight.


"The whole story spun out of control," he says. What he intended as an internal discussion was used by the media to turn the IDF into war criminals. "It was as if the media were altogether so eager to find reason to criticize the IDF that they pounced on one discussion by nine soldiers who met...to share their experiences and subjective feelings...using that one episode to draw conlcusions that felt more like an indictment.

"...Operation Cast Lead was justified; the IDF worked in a surgical manner. Unfortunately, in these types of operations, civilians will be killed. The IDF operated in a way in which it tried to protect civilians in the most crowded place in the world (sic). There were no orders to kill civilians or anything like that..."


Zamir was particularly disturbed by one aspect of the reporting that I hadn't even touched upon here: the implication — most prominent in the NY Times — that an increase in the number of religious soldiers and officers was leading to a deterioration in the moral standards of the IDF.

This is a libel if ever their was one, and fits into the whole falsely constructed image of the "radical" religious Zionist as the enemy of moderation and peace.

Said Zamir, who is himself a secular leftist, the more graduates of the religious academies [yeshivas] in the army, the better. "There will be a higher moral level in the army. The religious Zionists are leading the camp in many areas..."


"The guiding principle that directs IDF combat soldiers," Zamir told the Post, "...encompasses a balance between two needs: to defend soldiers' lives and to minimize harm to the civilians behind whom terrorists try to hide. This is expressed in the tension between the necessity of opening fire when the soldiers' security and battled conditions require...and the absolute obligation to hold fire and to act with due compassion toward civilians when it appears they have no evil intent...

"These guidelines and the obligaiton to uphold them are an inseparable part of the Jewish Zionist world of IDF soldiers, and deeply anchored in generations of Jewish heritage, particularly in the doctrine of military conduct renewed by the early socialist-Zionists a century ago. They called this principle by a name that's unlikely to have been given to any other nationalist movement fighting for its independence; 'Purity of Arms'...

"...The outsider might not understand this, be we — the Jews of the State of Israel — live this every day, every hour.

"...In order to appreciate this moral code, one must note the context in which it operates...


"Our war against an unrestrained terror organization that uses human shields in various ways...presents the IDF...with almost impossible complexities...The greatness of any army fighting under such conditions lies in its aspiring to 'zero errors' and in its openness to examining its failures — finding them and fixing them.

"'May our camp be pure.' This is the watchword born by my soldiers in the IDF...because this is the essence of their belief and their national heritage."


"May our camp be pure."


All else will, please G-d, keep until after Pesach.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Mr La, April 7, 2009.

This was written by William Katz of the Political Mavens website.


You're going to be reading about this — how the UN Human Rights Council, that vastly corrupt gang of dictators and their friends — has shown ultra-fairness by appointing an esteemed "Jewish" judge to investigate war crimes charges against Israel. From the Jerusalem Post:

"The United Nations on Friday appointed a former chief prosecutor for war crimes in Yugoslavia and Rwanda to lead a high-level mission to investigate alleged war crimes committed by Israel in the Gaza Strip

"Richard Goldstone, a Jewish judge from South Africa, was named to head the investigation ordered by the Human Rights Council in January.

"According to the mandate, the investigation will focus only on Palestinian victims of the three-week IDF operation against Hamas terrorists."

COMMENT: This is cynical to the core. First, note paragraph three. The "Human Rights Council" has restricted the "investigation" only to Palestinian "victims." In other words, the probe is rigged in advance. Second, note paragraph two. This guy is a judge in South Africa, a country whose foreign policy is militantly anti-Israel. How did he do so well in South Africa?

Now add this: The same "Jewish" Richard Goldstone recently signed a petition calling for an investigation of the Gaza operation. The signatories said they were "shocked to the core" by Gaza. In other words, Goldstone has already expressed an opinion. Other signatories were the usual anti-Israel suspects.

The "Human Rights Council" has done this before, appointing the despicable Richard Falk, a "Jewish" former Princeton professor to head another probe into Israeli actions. The mainstream media never noted that Falk had a lifetime record as an America hater and Israel hater, and had become a 9-11 conspiracy theorist.

We've seen that not all "Christians" are very Christian, and not all "Jews" are particularly Jewish. Back in 1940 there were "Jews" who supported the Hitler-Stalin pact, long after the synagogues of Germany started to burn. These "Jews" had found a new religion in Marxism. And we've seen "Christian" groups, some associated with the National Council of Churches, who take some very un-Christian positions, like fronting for dictators. Religious labels are very dicey. You have to look at the individual and his or her record.

Oh, among the other signers of the petition that Goldstone signed are Desmond Tutu, a professional Israel hater, and Mary Robinson, who presided over the UN's now infamous Durban conference of 2001, which degenerated into an anti-Western and anti-Semitic hatefest. Goldstone certainly has great company.

Maybe Goldstone will rise above the UN and do a fair job. But he'll have to show us.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 7, 2009.


How are controversies over fired professors reported? Is it justified to fire them for remarks made outside their fields and their classes? Do universities police standards of scholarship?

Those key questions are highlighted by the lack of definitive answers in Dan Froesch's NY Times report of 3/24, A15, summarized below and followed by my comments. The second section, below, is from Katherine Mangu-Ward of the Wall St. J., sent to me by Prof. Steven Plaut. Prof. Plaut has written extensively about universities in the US and in Israel hiring and giving tenure to people whose "qualification" seems to be leftist ideology, who do not do peer-reviewed research, and who often browbeat their students into parroting their ideology.

Those teachers done educate, they indoctrinate; they don't open minds, they close them.


Prof. Ward Churchill worked for the U. of Colorado [department unstated]. The University fired him for plagiarism and falsifying his research on American Indians. Suing the University over it, he claims they removed him for his essay about 9/11. [The only features of that essay shown readers is that] It characterized office workers killed in the World Trade Center as "little Eichmanns." The article includes Prof. Churchill's defense of the essay [and not the criticism of him for it, upon which he bases his lawsuit].

About his essay, he admits he understands that his statement would hurt the murdered victims' relatives. His excuse is that he meant to advise the US to treat foreign countries better. He explains, "If you make a practice of killing other people's children for personal gain, they eventually will give you a taste of the same thing."

Prof. Ward claims he does not favor organized terrorism. [What about freelance terrorism by Muslims who become indoctrinated by Internet?]

About his research, the faculty committee found that he "...could not support his theory that the Army had shipped smallpox-laden blankets from St. Louis to infect American Indians at Ft. Clark on the Upper Missouri River." Churchill purports to have derived his theory from Indian oral tradition. University lawyers disagree. They say that neither tradition nor scholarly texts verify that. Churchill counters with a claim that he thought the theory so well accepted, that he didn't need to provide documentation that is available.

A similar instance cites Capt. John Smith. Churchill's defense: he didn't apply his theory unequivocally there, just meant it as a possibility.

Here are my comments. I think the reporter should have identified Churchill's University department, so we would know whether his comments about 9/11 were relevant. The reporter should have told us more about the 9/11 essay.

Likewise, the reporter should have included evidence on the charge of plagiarism and falsification. How else can readers decide for themselves what happened and whose version is right? The reporter brought up just the faculty claim that the research was unsupported and the faculty reviewers gave Churchill the benefit of some doubts. What were those doubts? Unstated.

Does Churchill write unclearly? What do the faculty reviewers say about whether his wording is ambiguous.

The reporter's omissions distort the significance of the article. Omitted were some of Churchill's more extreme statements. Those statements go beyond opinion and into totalitarian sympathies and incompetence. Some of those statements may not be relevant, but they would show us whom we are dealing with.

The Times similarly slanted its report about the nominee for daily national security report writer. Emphasizing his self-defense, it cited his less sensational statements, omitting ones that would show his extreme bias and poor judgment. Those statements would be relevant, because his job depends on independence of judgment and sagacity. I think that the newspaper manipulates stories.

If Churchill knew he were going to hurt the feelings of murdered victims' relatives, he should have made his point discreetly. His excuse, that he denounced the murdered workers in order to warn the US about its foreign policy has no logical connection to the hurtful statement that defamed many innocent people. The workers didn't murder anyone, nor did most of them bear on US foreign policy. His explanation accusing the US of constantly killing other people's children for profit is inflammatory without proof. That is irresponsible.

This is not to assert that US foreign policy is perfect. However, let's not go to the other extreme. US foreign policy is not the demon it gets portrayed as, but neither should it be exempt from legitimate, constructive criticism. The State Dept. keeps fouling up. That makes problems for the US. Let's correct them.

Churchill depicts 9/11 as retribution against the US. Fact is, Islamist aggressors had been attacking the US and other infidels all over the world for years. Therefore, his depiction is false, anti-American propaganda. People who reject US policy are not entitled to murder thousands of innocent civilians. I don't respect him for practically rationalizing that terrorism, but don't find that related to his faculty duties. There is a tendency to persecute people for controversial opinion, and for firing them over It, without a job-related cause. I deplore that. Let those who indulge in it beware lest some day, that kind of mob injustice strike them! However, Churchill's wild statements make his judgment and scholarship suspect, warranting a closer look at his university research and teaching. That the faculty did.

If Churchill could have documented the claims about colonial germ warfare he thought accepted, why didn't he do so when the faculty started investigating, instead of waiting until he go to court? Wouldn't the faculty committee have given him the opportunity to explain himself? How fair is the review process?

Unfounded, illogical, and intemperate, statements about current policies by many professors In the US and Israel raise broader questions. How did they get in? Who shields them from meeting standards of scholarship? What effects have they on society? Aren't they defrauding students of education? Are their deranged-sounding declarations within the normal range of differences of opinion or have they lost touch with reality? When they hate their own countries for poor reasons, and their countries are not great oppressors, aren't they pathological? When such professors are Jewish, and they malign their own people and defend antisemitic terrorists who misbehave the way they falsely claim Israel does, aren't they pathological? Shouldn't they be on the couch instead of in the classroom?


Churchill's field is ethnic studies. The University decided that he had the right to publish the essay about 9/11. Angry readers of it, however, started investigating his scholarship on ethnic studies. What they found invited faculty inquiry. The outsiders' motive may not have been fair, and often is not, but academic malfeasance is academic malfeasance.

For example, "...he ghostwrote an essay and then cited it in his own work as third-party confirmation of his views." [His defense of that was unstated.]

In his self-defense, Churchill asserts that history written by white men is full of lies. [That sounds worse than it is. Some historians attempt to be objective and others do not — the "new historians" in Israel comprise Communists and other tendentious radicals. The question is whether Churchill was objective].

In further defense of his essay, he described the World Trade Center workers as a "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire."

I would not call a financial network an empire. Its workers intended no harm. In fact, it created great wealth, including for undeveloped countries. Our economic system does need reform. Its strength is that usually it does reform. A mature approach to it would be to propose reform of it, not "understand" terrorism against it.


The arrested leaders were attempting to rebuild Hamas in those provinces. They were arrested by Israeli security forces (IMRA, 3/19).

They were not arrested by P.A. security forces. Such people almost never are. P.A. security forces do not see their mission as eradicating terrorism but as paving the way for replacing Israeli forces that do.


Ngo Monitor made a report on Trocaire, the taxpayer-financed, Irish Catholic Church's foreign aid agency. It gave Trocair a copy to review in advance. The report found that Trocaire finances radical NGOs in the Mideast.

Trocaire Director Justin Kilcullen called the report 'deliberately misleading, unsubstantiated and libelous'. He threatened to 'rigorously defend' Trocaire's reputation, if the report were published. He cited no specifics.

Trocaire partners with the P.A. NGO, Badil. Badil urges boycotts of Israel, an influx into Israel of refugee descendants, who would destroy it, and "journalists to organize a targeted campaign to expose the lies of AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League and to expose the Jewish and Zionist community's double standards". Trocaire legitimizes Badil's anti-Jewish conspiracy theories..."

This bias "...is inappropriate for a publicly funded aid organization claiming to create a constructive dialogue." Mr. Kilcullen "...dismissed lethal Iranian-made missiles fired by Hamas at Israeli civilians as 'homemade'" and claimed that Israel treats Gazans "'worse than animals in a zoo'" He wants "...the EU to embrace Hamas, the genocidal terrorist organization."

"Trocaire also provides funds for the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), which advocates boycotts of Israel and is spearheading attempts to prosecute Israeli leaders for 'war crimes' — both part of the political war, and entirely inconsistent with dialogue. PCHR also repeatedly refers to terrorism as 'resistance' when directed against Israel." [Is that what the IRA did?]

Trocaire makes "...no attempt to engage with most of Israeli society, and several of the organizations that Trocaire funds delegitimize the very existence of Israel. Instead of threatening lawsuits to prevent publication of independent analyses and a public debate on Trocaire's policies, we suggest that Mr. Kilcullen engage in dialogue with his critics." (IMRA, 3/19.)

European NGOs take the Arab aggressors' side unfairly, but claim to be humane.


After a synagogue was attacked in Scotland, nearby Muslims offered to help guard it. They denounced the attacks (Arutz-7, 3/29).


Change it to government "non-spokesperson." The NY Times public editor, Clark Hoyt, explains that most government sources now withhold their names. They claim they are unauthorized to speak, or the boss doesn't want anybody else's name publicized, or they could be prosecuted for disclosing classified information, or they want to promote or demote a policy, or they want the public to know what is being kept secret.

Now the public may wonder how official or reliable the information is (3/29).

Mr. Hoyt, as usual, presents reporters and editors all as earnest. He does not concede that they may be biased, like public officials. I find his paper biased. Against Zionism, it is almost rabid.


The main religious strain of Islam on the Indian sub-continent was Sufi. It is more mystical, pacific, tolerant, and interested in music and art. However, Sunnis have been attacking Sufis in the Swat Valley. The attackers destroyed a monument to a great Sufi poet, there. They drive Sufi performers from the Valley (Douglas Feith & Justin Polin, NY Times, 3/30, Op.-Ed.).


Israel and the US had no idea that Syria built a nuclear weapons facility, until a Syrian defector informed them. Then Israel destroyed it. The incident serves as a reminder that Syria cannot be trusted [and that Israeli intelligence is falliable]. It also serves to illustrate by comparison, the danger of peace pacts with relentless and unscrupulous enemies.

Suppose Israel had made a "peace" pact with Syria, and relinquished the Golan Heights. The Golan Heights enable Israel to see into Syria and to keep Syrian forces at some distance from Israel's population centers. A treaty might have inhibited Israel from attacking Syria (IMRA, 3/19).

Suppose Israel had not signed a treaty with Egypt. Israel still would have the Sinai. That control would enable Israel easily to block arms smuggling into Gaza, smuggling that Egypt lets through..


Delightful reading on both modern and ancient history is Moshe Dayan's Living With The Bible.

In 1954, Egypt controlled Gaza, where they sponsored terrorism against Israel. This posed a murderous threat to the young Jewish state. The answer to terrorist raids, to the demands of Arab refugees to return to their abandoned villages, to international efforts to get Israel to cede territory it had captured when fighting to keep its independence was to settle sensitive areas. Settling the Negev Deserve was a major goal of the elderly Prime Minister, Ben-Gurion. He offered the people a choice between pioneering in the Negev, and staying home and hoping others would protect them.

Ben-Gurion left the hospital prematurely, in order to call for volunteers. First he addressed 8,000 high school seniors in Tel Aviv. They heeded him not.

Then he addressed youth from producers' cooperatives. He told them that the immigrants settling in the area were not experienced at farming nor in defense. He asked their help. They rose up and volunteered.

I think that the city kids needed to be told what I now recommend for Jewish religious political parties. The kids assumed that their seemingly orderly and safe lives were secure, and that others would care of national needs for settlement and defense. They did not have enough Zionist idealism.

Their assumption was mistaken. Israel was and is precarious. Strong forces of destruction gathered and are gathering. If too few young people do their duty, the whole country would fall. Murdered or dispossessed, where then would be their orderly, secure lives, their comfortable livings, the urban way of life?

Cooperation between citizens and government must be two-way. The government often works against the religious sector, and religious political parties often focus only on their immediate needs — as for school and welfare subsidy. That narrow focus risks letting the enemy overwhelm the country, schools and all. Who would be left to observe the Torah?


"Anti-war" activists strive to let Hamas make war on Israel but not let Israel return fire. Leftists consider themselves brave in speaking out under taboo, although they appear frequently in major newspapers, websites, and books. When the Arabs say "no," leftists blame Israel for the failure to make peace. Progress in making peace is Israeli concessions to the Muslims whose ideology is holy war.

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@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, April 7, 2009.

A peach orchard in full flower on a mountainside in Gush Etzion

This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images.

Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT:

Most of the time, life in Israel is quiet, normal, maybe even a little boring. But it never lasts very long. So when an axe-wielding terrorist entered a nearby community last week and murdered a 13-year old boy and fractured the skull of a 7 year old, we all paused from our routines to cry, mourn, rage, and then attempt to reset our balance. In these moments, Israel doesn't seem so beautiful.

At the Passover seder, we are supposed to relive the exodus from Egypt as if we were personally enslaved and then liberated via God's miracles. It's a valuable exercise in this era of religious freedom and affluence, when we can easily forget our history and take our freedoms for granted. For many of us, however, reality supplants any need for fantasy at the seder.

This is a photograph of an orchard in Bat Ayin in Gush Etzion, where Shlomo Nativ, hy"d, was killed. I drove by the area a day after the attack and noticed the pink blossoms once again lighting up the mountainside, yet their radiance was dulled by the ache in my heart. It's a picture from another time, whose beauty seems marred by the violence which occurred in its midst. There is no question that we must stop and mourn our loss. But our strength as a nation and the true exhibition of our freedom has always been our resiliency, our ability to stride beyond adversity and continue to live in appreciation of nature, of creation, of each and every one of our blessings.

Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com and visit his website:
http://www.goldenlightimages.com. Reproductions of his work as cards, calenders and posters may be purchased at

To Go To Top

Posted by Rock Peters, April 7, 2009.

Resident Barack Obama and his Homeland InSecurity secretary Janet Napalitano have scrapped the terms "war on terror" and "terrorist attacks." The new hygienic, sterilized language and "politically correct" term being introduced by the Obama administration for the 'war on terror" is now, are you ready for this one ....."Overseas Contingency Operations" and in place of "terrorist attacks" we are to say, "Man Caused Disasters." Let's not offend murderers, al-Qaeda and the Muslim terrorists that attacked us, right? This will make us safer, I'm sure.

Obama and Napolitano are quite obviously out of their minds. If these mental cases were in power during WW II they would not call Hitler's "Third Reich" Nazism they would refer to Nazism as "Asserting German Pride."

If in the Obama administration the "war in terror" is now "Overseas Contingency Operations" and "terror attacks" are to be called "man made disasters" then I motion that we should now call:

Genocide and the "Jewish Holocaust" — "unnecessary mass death."

Rape should politely be referred to as, "unsolicited rough sex from an undesirable partner"

Rapists must not be offended and will henceforth be known as,"Unwanted lovers."

Burglars should be called, "unwanted house guests."

Shoplifters, "non paying customers"

Stolen goods, "un purchased items."

Stealing, "Borrowing without asking"

Murder should be called, "Abruptly ending another person's life."

Forgery is now "signing someone else's name."

Buying illegal drugs = "Purchasing un prescribed medicine."

someone else suggested we call drug dealers, "unlicensed pharmacists.

and last but not least: Pedophilia shall now be known as, "A Predilection, Preference, Desire and Fondness for little children" like Mohammed had.

For if killing a baby in the mother's womb is a "Choice" and an illegal alien is an "undocumented worker" and the war on MUSLIM terrorism is "Overseas Contingency Operations" and a MUSLIM terror attack is a "man made disaster" than all of the above are not jokes but make perfect sense....that is if you are completely insane and totally out of your bloody mind. Truly, and without a shadow of a doubt Liberalism is an extreme psychological disorder and a dangerous mental illness. Let us keep America safe and lock these loons up and throw away the key!

Food for Thought: Right now the government of the United States of America is run by ......

Barack Obama the illegal and unconstitutional Resident in the White House.

Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State

Harry Reid the Senate Majority Leader

and Nancy "Hair Brain" Pelosi the Speaker of the House

and ALL four of these politicians are functionally insane.

It's like watching "One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest." Americans Think Revolution!

Yours in Liberty,
Rock Peters

Rock Peters is an author, songwriter, poet and patriot. His multimedia website — www.godsaveusa.com — is dedicated to fighting Muslim terrorism. It is both factual and attractive. Contact him at rockpeters@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, April 7, 2009.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Arafat would pursue peace.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Hamas would be more of a threat to the PLO than to Israel.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Arafat would fight the Hamas and Islamic Jihad "with no Supreme Court or 'Betselem'" (in Rabin's immortal words).

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that terrorism would decrease.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that hostility to Jews in the Arab and the Western media would decrease.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that trade between Israel and Arab countries would flourish.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Palestinian Authority would be disarmed.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the PLO would cooperate strategically with the Israel Defense Forces.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that there would be an economic peace dividend.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Israeli Arabs would demonstrate increasing moderation due to the "peace process".

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Hamas and Jihad would be persecuted and suppressed by the PLO.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that PLO arms would never again be used against Jews.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the PLO leadership would speak in terms of peace with the Jews.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the PLO would denounce and renounce anti-Semitism.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the PLO would encourage normalization and daily peaceful commerce between Arabs and Jews.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Palestinian Authority would be forced to spend all its energies on resolving domestic social and economic problems.

But they were ever so wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Palestinian Authority would have so many internal troubles that it would not have the time or ability to pursue confrontation with Israel.

G-d, but they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the US would back Israel if the PLO reneged on its obligations or displayed duplicity.

What a joke, they were so wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the US would cease to pressure Israel to endanger its security and fundamental interests.

But they were mega-wrong. When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Europeans would rush forward to support Israel.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Japanese and Saudis would pour money into regional investments, including into Israel.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Egyptians would end all animosity towards Israel, Zionism and Jews.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the non-Arab Moslem countries would gush friendship for Israel.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Arab military expenditure would drop significantly.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Arab verbal threats against Israel would end.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Nazi-like propaganda in Arab countries would end.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Israeli Left would lead the retreat from the Oslo experiment it if proved to be not working.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the Palestinian Authority would never behave as a tin cup Third-World kleptocracy if granted power.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Jews remaining in Moslem countries would see their treatment dramatically improved.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that liberals and leftists around the world would congratulate Israel for taking risks for peace and rush forward with goodwill and support.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that the majority of Palestinians would denounce all violence and terror.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Israeli Arabs would exhibit moderation and increasing loyalty to the state of Israel.

But they were wrong.

When they forced Israel to commit Oslo, the Israeli politicians assured us that Palestinian chants of "Death to the Jews" and "Massacre the Jews" would end.

But they were wrong.

Dayenu. Any one of these errors in judgment should have been enough to end the career of a politician in a normal country, possibly even enough to indict that politician and imprison him or her. But in Israel? The politicians prepare for negotiations on the Saudi Plan and prepare for new unilateral withdrawals from Judea and Samaria.


To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, April 7, 2009.

It is time for a miracle.

Every spring, the Jewish people find themselves back in Egypt, enslaved either as pyramid-builders or, as some commentators suggest, assimilated idol worshippers. Each year, the Jews are in need of God's intervention. They cannot liberate themselves on their own. Indeed, the highly ritualized Passover meal is meant to teach Jews that true redemption, ultimate redemption, can only be granted by God. Moses, our greatest prophet and teacher, is not mentioned in the Passover Haggadah for this very reason.

Today, the Jews of Europe and Israel, and the handful who remain in the Islamic world, face grave, even existential danger. The perverse demonization of Israel and the equally perverse de-ification of Islam is almost complete. Right now, the Islamic member states of the United Nations are busy preparing Durban Two, a document and a conference that legalizes Jew-hatred even further. Iran continues to threaten to genocidally exterminate Israel through nuclear weaponry. The European Union and the United States are appeasing, not confronting, these Islamic nation states.

Early this month, our new, young and handsome American President, Barack Hussain Obama, bowed, but only slightly, to the British Queen; in contrast, President Obama, the leader of the free world, bowed quite deeply, to the Saudi King, a tyrant who funds Islamist terrorism, both in the Kingdom and globally.

On April 6, 2009, President Obama also told the Turkish people that the United States "is not and will never be at war with Islam." (But we need the Muslims to start telling us that). Whoa! Whom does our President believe attacked us on 9/11?

Does President Obama believe that such obeisance-diplomacy will soften the hard hearts of the Pharoanic-Islamists? Has he been advised that if he presents himself as "one of them," (which he has just done in Ankara and in Istanbul), that Islamists will give up jihad and terrorism, renounce Islamic gender and religious apartheid, cease their Sunni-Shiia religious warfare? Does President Obama believe that if he is popular among Muslims that his popularity will somehow strengthen moderate, peaceful, dissident and feminist Muslims in their fight against Islamism?

I hope he is right. I fear he is wrong. While Moses did keep politely asking Pharoah to let his people go — God also made sure to accompany these requests with a series of devastating plagues.

Slaves are liberated by force, not by appeals to reason; slaves are never sent away until or unless the slave-holder is terrified that he will lose much more, including his own life, if he does not do so. In our country, a Civil War had to be fought and much blood shed, in order to free the African slaves.

Mr. President Obama: While you may mean well, make no mistake. Most people who live under Islamist and Islamic rule are treated like slaves. Your dhimmi-like posture endangers precisely the kind of Muslims who most need America's support.

God, your world is in danger. Evil people — your creatures too — are now more technologically capable of destroying your Creation than ever before. Please do not allow this to happen.

God, with all due respect for human ingenuity, we (the Jews, the world), need a miracle and we need it now.

God, please have a wonderful Passover. This appeared today on Pajamas Media http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2009/04/07/ my-prayer-for-a-passover-miracle/

To Go To Top

Posted by Sonia Nusenbaum, April 7, 2009.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, April 6, 2009.
Happy Passover!

1. David Ben Gurion, the Founding Father of Israel (UN Commission, 1947): "300 years ago, the Mayflower launched its historical voyage. How many remember the data of the voyage, how many passengers were on the Mayflower and what kind of bread did they consume? However, 3,300 years earlier, the Exodus from Egypt took place. Every Jew knows the date of the Exodus — 15th of the month of Nissan — and the kind of bread — Matza, leaven bread — consumed. Until today, Jews all over the world, tell the story of the Exodus and eat Matza on the 15th of Nissan. They conclude the story of the Exodus [Hagadah] with the statement: 'This year we're slaves, but next year we shall be liberated; this year we're here, but next year in Jerusalem.'" The prayer Next Year in Jerusalem is recited twice a year: Yom Kippur and Passover, the most sublime spiritual and physical Jewish experiences.

2. Passover highlights the fact that the Jewish People have been passed-over by history's angel of death, in defiance of conventional wisdom. Non-normative salvation has characterized Jewish history ever since the Exodus, the Parting of the Sea, destruction of the Temple, exiles, pogroms, expulsions, Holocaust, Communist and other forms of Anti-Semitism, on-going Arab/Muslim wars and terrorism, etc. However, the involvement of Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb and Nachshon (the first to jump into the Red Sea before its parting) attests to the crucial role played by principle-driven leaders.

3. Passover commemorates the transformation from Diaspora — slavery to national-deliverance. The difference between the spelling of Ge'oolah (deliverance in Hebrew) and Golah (Diaspora in Hebrew) is the first Hebrew letter Alef, the root of the Alpha-Bet. The Hebrew spelling of critical root values and terms begins with Alef: G-D, Truth, Faith, Covenant, Credibility, Awesome, Power, Abraham, Light, Father, Mother, Love, Soil, Adam, Courage, Spring, Unity, Food, Responsibility, Immortality/Everlasting, Cure, Horizon, Patrimony, Tree. In order to transform (personal or national) Diaspora into Deliverance one must return to the roots.

4. The Exodus took place around 1,300BC, 600-700 years before Greek philosophers promoted democracy, establishing the Jewish People in the forefront in the on-going battle against rogue regimes. Passover is celebrated on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Nissan — the first month of the Jewish year and the introduction of natural and national spring (Nitzan is the Babylonian word for spring and the Hebrew word for bud). Nissan (its root is Ness — miracle in Hebrew) is the month of miracles, such as the Exodus, the Parting of the Sea, Jacob wrestling the Angel, Deborah's victory over Sisera, Daniel in the Lion's Den, etc. The 15th day of any Jewish month is endowed with full moon, which stands for optimism in defiance of darkness and awesome odds. It is consistent with 15 parts of the Hagadah (the chronicles of Passover), 15 generations between Abraham's message of monotheism and Solomon's construction of the first Temple and the 15th day of the Jewish month of Shvat, Arbor Day — the "Exodus" of vegetation.

5. Passover has four names: Holiday of Pesach (Passed-over; sacrifice), Holiday of Liberty, Holiday of Matza and Holiday of Spring. It is the first Jewish holiday, according to the Jewish calendar, which starts in the spring (Aviv in Hebrew, which consists of two Hebrew words: Father of 12 months), the bud of nature. The word spring is mentioned 3 times in the Torah, all in reference to Exodus. Passover — which commemorates the creation of the Jewish nation — lasts for 7 days, just like the creation of the universe. Passover is the first Jewish pilgrimage and the basis for the other two annual pilgrimages. Thus, the first stop of the Exodus was at Soukkota (Soukkot/Tabernacles — the 3rd pilgrimage), and Passover is the prelude to the receipt of the Torah/Ten Commandments (Shavou'ot/Pentecost — the 2nd pilgrimage).

6. Passover (role model of Liberty/Exodus) interacts with Pentecost (role model of Morality/Ten Commandments), since Liberty interacts with Morality. The one constitutes a prerequisite for the other. The absence of one means the absence of the other. The Liberty-Morality interaction/interdependence distinguishes Western democracies from rogue regimes. No appeasing-rhetoric would transform rogue regime into a free/moral entity. Herut is the Hebrew word for Liberty and Harut (spelled with identical Hebrew words) is the Hebrew word for Inscription, which refers to the Ten Commandments.

7. Passover — just like monotheism, the Sabbath, Ten Commandments, repentance/Yom Kippur — constitutes a Jewish gift to humanity. It constitutes inspiration to liberty and to national liberation ("Let My People Go"). Jews have been targeted by enemies of Liberty (from Pharaoh, Nazism, Communism to Palestinian/Arab/Islamic terrorism and Ahmadinejad), because Jews have been rightly perceived as the messengers of liberty as a God-given natural right and equality before the law.

8. Moses, the hero of Passover, has become a role model of principled leadership. Moses' name is mentioned only once in the Passover Hagadah, as a servant of G-d, a testimony to Moses' humility, in order to humanize — rather than deify — Moses and to highlight the role of God in the Exodus. Similarly, Moses' grave site is purposely unknown, and the only compliment accorded by the Torah to Moses — a prime leader in human history — is "the humblest of all human beings". The Mosaic legacy has greatly impacted US democracy, hence Moses' marble replica at the House Chamber on Capitol Hill, at the Rayburn House Office Building's subway station and at the Supreme Court (holding the Ten Commandments).

9. Passover inspired Puritans, Pilgrims and the US Founding Fathers:

  • George Washington and John Adams were compared to Moses and Joshua.

  • Adams, Jefferson and Franklin proposed the Parting of the Sea as the official US seal.

  • John Locke considered Moses' 613 Laws as the most fitting legal foundation of the new society in America.

  • Ezra Styles, the President of Yale University, stated that "Moses, the man of God, assembled three million people — the number of people in the America in 1776..." (May 8, 1783).

  • President Calvin Coolidge: "The Hebraic mortars cemented the foundations of American democracy..." (May 3, 1925).

  • John Winthrop, the first Governor of Massachusetts: "God has entered into a Covenant with those who are on their way to wilderness in America, just as he had entered into Covenant with the Israelites in the wilderness of Sinai..." (1630 sermon on the Arbella).

They considered themselves "the modern day People of the Covenant ", King George III was "the modern day Pharaoh", the Atlantic was "the modern day Red Sea" and America was "the modern day Promised Land".

The term Federalism is based on "Foedus", the Latin word for "The Covenant." The Founding Fathers considered the political structure of the 12 Tribes, sustaining semi-independence, governed by their own Governors and by Moses the Chief Executive, Aaron, Joshua and the 70 person Legislature, a model for the 13 colonies and the US political system.

10. The Exodus is mentioned 50 times in the Torah, equal to the 50 years of Jubilee, a historical pivot of liberty ("Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof", Leviticus, 25, 10, inscribed on the Liberty Bell). 50 days following the Exodus, Moses received the Torah, which includes — according to Jewish tradition — 50 Gates of Wisdom. Where does that leave the 50 States?! The commemoration of the Exodus is one of the 613 Jewish/Mosaic laws. It is highlighted in most Jewish prayers and rituals, such as the daily prayers, the welcoming of the Sabbath, the blessing over wine, each holiday, upon circumcision, at the door step (Mezuzah) of Jewish homes, etc.

11. Passover commemorates the victory of Jewish demography. Jacob arrived to Egypt with 70 members of his family, but Moses launched the Exodus with 600,000 adult males and a total of some 3 million people — quite a demographic momentum. The Exodus was the first case of a massive Jewish immigration (Aliya) to Israel, in defiance of odds and projections — as have been all major Aliya waves since 1948 — but in touch with Jewish history and destiny. A Jewish Demographic tailwind has currently been in motion between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. While Herzl launched the Zionist voyage — in 1897 — with an 8% Jewish minority west of the Jordan River in 1900, and Ben-Gurion celebrated the 1947 UN vote with a 33% minority, today's Jewish State is endowed with a 67% majority over 98.5% of the land west of the River (without Gaza) and a 60% majority with Gaza.

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 Previous documents are posted at The Ettinger Report: http://yoramettinger.newsnet.co.il.


Posted by Rock Peters, April 6, 2009.

Three generations ago
Nazism was defeated
but those who forget the past
are condemned to repeat it,

Polish Jews rounded-up in Warsaw Ghetto

At the end of 1945
6,000,000 Jews lie dead
Ike predicted one day they'll be Holocaust denial and today
by the Iranian leader Ahnadinejad, this very lie is spread,

The Nazi death camp Buchenwald
was liberated 4/11/1945 by General Eisenhower
today another Nazi named Ahmadinejad
wants to attain nuclear power,

And why? Well to attain the same goal as the Nazis
the mass murder of Jews
this should not come
as shocking news,

Polish Jews rounded-up in Warsaw Ghetto

For Ahmadinejad has said time and time again
"Israel must be destroyed"
and at this prospect
the majority of the Muslim world is overjoyed,

Ahmadinejad like the Nazis
thinks Jews are inferior
and he has actually referred to Israel
as a, "filthy bacteria,"

In the 1930's the Western democracies
faced with Nazi tyranny appeased, sat and waited
today we too are idle
When Ahamdinejad says, "Israel will soon be annihilated" (May, 11 2006 in Indonesia)

I don't get it
what don't we Westerners understand?
the Iranian leader has said plain and simple "Wipe Israel off the map!"
this is his demand,

Ahmadinejad has also said Israel cannot survive
even if she gives land for a Palestinian state
Jews and Christians, my fellow Americans, Israel
for what do we wait?

America, Israel, Western powers arise
strike Iran hard and strike Iran fast
unless we want
to relive the past,

When people say they mean to kill you
take them at their word

a nuclear Iran
must be, by any means deterred,

You can't talk to tyrants
because after long length
with fascists there is only road to peace...
and that is through strength!

Liberalism + [Pacifism and Appeasement] = Bloodshed, Death and Destruction

Never again — No Second Jewish Holocaust!

"The Stars and Stripes" and the "Star of David" are united, inseparable and indivisible. We are Americans and we stand by Israel, Today, Tomorrow, Forever!

General Eisenhower understood that many people would be unable to comprehend the full scope of this horror. He also understood that any human deeds that were so utterly evil might eventually be challenged or even denied as being literally unbelievable. For these reasons he ordered that all the civilian news media and military combat camera units be required to visit the camps and record their observations in print, pictures and film. As he explained to General Marshall, "I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda."

Rock Peters is an author, songwriter, poet and patriot. His multimedia website — www.godsaveusa.com — is dedicated to fighting Muslim terrorism. It is both factual and attractive. Contact him at rockpeters@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, April 6, 2009.

A FBI pro outlines how to trace (and finger) terror merchants

The second meeting of ACTmanhattan convened with a rare treat on the menu.

Sinewy, tall, blue-eyed and military-trim, Jim X (name withheld to protect his identity) has worked for the FBI for 35 years, first in the Washington area in 'FBby' crime-fighting, "getting the bad guys," as he says with a characteristic policeman's pride. After 9/11, he served in the Middle East in anti-terrorism, in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan. His pungent retelling lent strong flavor not only to the risks that one runs as a routine concomitant to living as an agent in such hot zones, but also provided numerous suggestions as to how to go about turning the tables on the various anti-US entities and terror-funding schemes that feed weapons and dollars to groups such as Hizb'allah, the Taliban and al Qaeda, in venues from the American South and Northwest, to the fastnesses of the souks of Pakistan and the rocky barrens of Afghanistan.

"Donnie Brasco," he says, is a stellar example of the true story of one such agent, Lt. Joe Pistone, played by Johnny Depp, with Al Pacino playing the unwitting conduit-informant, "Lefty" Reggerio. The project, conceived to extend for six months, instead, went six years, yielding major intel on the criminal underworld.

While some say "every religion has had terrorists at one or another," in fact it would be difficult to show that the world's prime religions had "deliberately targeted innocents to advance a radical agenda." Some actions are loosely deemed "terrorism" to soften the starkness of how violent one particular religion has been throughout history.

Suggestions from the experienced agent for tracking and/or foiling the transmission and sale of such contraband include cartons of cigarettes (transported across state lines without benefit of taxes), counterfeit or genuine top-of-the-line fragrances, electronics (cell phones are a favorite for many reasons, not least of which is their ease of use, sale and disposal), designer apparel — particularly jeans — and scarves, sunglasses, watches, CDs, top-rated films and the like. These find their way into the gray or black markets functioning in 150 countries worldwide.

The trafficking in the diversionary market is enormous, and is tracked to get the scope of the monies made for illegal and terror enablers. Legitimate articles are diverted into backdoor markets for cut-rate pricing; ends up in pockets of thugs, illicit marketers or terror networks.

Not all illegal trafficking in contraband, Jim X stresses, are terror-supporters. But the ramifying contacts of crime syndicates (Chinese; Bosnian; Russian; Muslim; homegrown) often eventually lead to such enemy sourcing and funding. "Not always," Jim cautions.

Jim X made a conscientious effort to distinguish law enforcement in country vs. abroad: The duty of the FBI — and all domestic law enforcement officers — is to defend and protect the Law. They will not blink or nudge-nudge if one oversteps any of the amendments in pursuit of the "bad guys."

The duties of the CIA, contrarily, are to catch malfeasants and terror operators. "They get paid to break the law." They achieve their goals by knowing what others are expected to do and know, and — as any staunch film-goer realizes — do battle with their wits to foil them in their tracks. Crime procedurals in film lore are legion. (Latest offering: "Duplicity.")

Suggestions for tracking merchandisers include due diligence in significant research, first.

  • Track Google Tri-Border Area (S. America: Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil)

  • Library of Congress

  • Motion Picture Association (MPAA),

  • Recording Industry Artists (RIAA)

  • Attorney General — deals with counterfeit items: cigarettes, faux fragrances, electronics: Civil cases

  • NY Division of Consumer Affairs

  • Precinct "Loss-Prevention" or Intellectual Property (IP) specialist(s)

  • Nikos Passas — transfer techniques of Hawallah (nonpaper-trailed "instant money" by Muslims in one country to Muslims in another — often entirely untraceable; exacerbated by [treasonous] NY Times disclosure of the US SWIFT program of bank tracking of fund transfers between terror factions and agents within those networks)

  • Bob Saffin — retired; resides in UK

  • Street vendor project; legitimate vendors are licensed or bonded; street thugs or freelancers in illicit items/diversionary sales are unlicensed, disappear at the sight of police/agents

  • Street Terrorism Task Force — includes FBI and other groups

  • Loss-prevention units of Estée Lauder, Proctor & Gamble, other fragrance manufacturers, etc.

Note that any terror op is funded 10% for the actual event/action; like an iceberg, the vast support undergrowth is 9/10ths of the end-result. So while 9/11 cost some $500,000 for the attack itself, the planning, prep, supplies and support efforts cost some ten times that figure. All such criminals and terrorists need to support their plans with criminal activities to feed cash into their efforts. This cash needs to be below the police and municipal radar, leaving no tax receipts or other tell-tails. It needs to be laundered through channels. Jeffrey Goldberg wrote a major article in 2002 on this nexus of international contraband, laundering and terror financing.

Befriend local police, as well as parent companies doing their own surveillance and monitoring of inventory shrinkage/diversion. Bring in any proof of inventory diversion or faux labeling and packaging once research and follow-up is completed.

Take-away: If one heard Steve Croft's softball interview on "60 Minutes" March 22, of the new President with a resume thinner than a discontinued newspaper, one heard Barack Hussein Obama apologize, subtly but distinctly, for not being nice enough to detainees and enemy combatants (our Webster's and Thesaurus still carry the term, despite efforts to rewrite acknowledged English by the 2-month resident of the White House) in detention for lethal attempts against Americans on the battlefield. Rather than express an interest in assuring his listening audience that releasing avowed al Qaeda jihadis into mainstream American cities would not happen, this nouveau stayed intent on signaling to our enemies abroad that he is meticulously concerned with the niceties of trial for our prisoners.

The community-activist President fears that we are making our enemies exasperated, possibly even dyspeptic, with our incomprehensible incarceration policies. We are "adding to their recruitment efforts." He reveals a deliberate obliviousness to the publicized goals of the Column A and Column B terror factions Jim X painted as dedicated to the purposeful killing of innocents to advance a radical agenda. The President's words betray no hint that he knows we have been the recipients of unprovoked lethal aggression from the same enemy for two centuries.

Accordingly, we cannot look to the chief executive for thoughtful or strategic efforts to reduce the proliferation of monies from illegal contraband siphoning abroad to Islamist operatives.

It is up to our police, our FBI and CIA, and possibly, us.

Marion Dreyfus is a writer and travelor; she has taught English in China on the university level. She can be contacted at dreyfusmarion@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Warner, April 6, 2009.

I went to an "Israel Solidarity Gathering for Peace" at a local synagogue. The title says it all. This was not a rally, but a gathering. (No, we do not want to get anybody fired up or pumped up.) This was to be a quiet gathering of intelligent, prosperous, and respectful people. From the look in the room there were no people there who could wield a weapon or throw a punch. They don't even want to know such a person.

Several of my Jewish friends were not there for various reasons. There was a big game on the boob tube and Sunday afternoon is for personal interests. The room was vacant of the 20-30 year old crowd and had a token smattering of children.

Kind people talked about the damage that Israel had sustained over the last eight years. Hamas are bad guys who used women and children for human shields. But there was only one mention of political Islam. One speaker mentioned that "moderate" Muslims have to rein in the "extremist" Muslims. He did not make any mention of how or why this would happen.

They said that the Israelis had bent over backward to avoid trouble. Children came up and talked about how wonderful they found Israel during their visit there. Yada, yada, yada.

"I love the smell of napalm in the morning," comes from an over-the-top officer in Apocalypse Now. There are people who will run towards a fight and there are those who run from a fight. These people were running from a fight. They do not want to smell victory in the morning. Victory reeks of oppression and these people don't want to be oppressors. Victim is the comfort zone. They weren't actually that comfortable with victim, but they were less comfortable with victory and the smell of napalm in the morning. Victim won by default.

In an hour's time, the word victory was not mentioned. This was a gathering for Peace. The word victory brings up a fight and a fight implies an enemy. And too much talk about an enemy might bring up dreadful questions. Such as: who is the enemy of the Jews? The only acceptable enemies of the Jews are the KKK, neo-Nazis and conservatives. No one else gets a mention.

All of this fits in with a modern day liberal concept of the sacred victim and how the victim is the winner in any social argument. These Jews think that if they plead their victim case everyone will realize that they are the moral winners. Victim is good. Unfortunately, Islam does not share the same ethical code as the Jews. Islam never grieves over its victims.

The last gathering by the Jews was about the torture/slaughter of the Jews in Mumbai. But there was no mention of Mumbai at the Peace Gathering. The reason is simple. There is no connection between Gaza and Mumbai. That is the official dogma. Each event of violence is unrelated to the next event of violence. There is also no connection between the rising Jew hatred around the world and Islam. Jew hatred can be mentioned as long as you don't mention Islam. Or, if you do mention Islam, you must say that those haters aren't real Muslims. It seems that every rabbi knows a "nice" Muslim who proves that Islam is good for the Jews. No ideology can be mentioned.

To aid in peace, one rabbi is leading an exchange of children for classes between the mosque and his synagogue. The Muslim children will learn how Jews respect them and want to live in peace. There will be no mention to the Jewish children about how Mohammed assassinated, mass executed the Jews of Medina, or how he tortured Jewish leaders to death. There will be no history of how Mohammed attacked the Jews of Khaybar, took their wealth, and land and made them dhimmis (semi-slaves of Islam). Jews were the first dhimmis and lived as dhimmis for 1400 years. The rabbi is ignorant of this doctrine and history and the Jewish children will remain as ignorant as he is.

Actually, there was one person in the room who mentioned victory. But he said it as he shuffled out leaning on his cane. He said, "You get peace from fighting. Kill the enemy until they are defeated. Peace will come after victory." I'll bet when he was young he knew what "wielding a weapon" meant. But his replacements coming up behind him don't want victory. They want peace and no enemies. What they will get is no peace and an enemy they refuse to acknowledge.

Bill Warner can be contacted at bw@politicalislam.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, April 6, 2009.

According to a meeting in mid-March with a top CIA asset, Gary Berntsen, President Obama will be in Afghanistan for "a looong time, maybe 10 years. Or more."

A decorated Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) career officer, Berntsen served in the Directorate of Operations, October 1982 to June 2005. At the CIA, he was CIA Station Chief three separate times, and spearheaded some of the CIA's most prominent counterterrorism deployments, which included the US response to the East Africa Embassy dramatic timed bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the 9/11 attacks. In 2000 he was recipient of the Distinguished Intelligence Medal and this was followed in 2004 by the Intelligence Star. He returned to Afghanistan as civilian advisor for Regional Command East on IED networks within the division of NATO acronymically tagged ISAF.

Berntsen is responding, says this great author and rapid-fire talker, to reports that we need to quell Afghanistan because — aside from other obvious reasons — it is incendiary and next to Pakistan, with its nuclear devices and its 175 mm people (imagine — this populous and religiously fermenting place, nearly under the sway of the relentlessly immoderate, fiercely murderous Taliban...the mind reels).

One glimmer of light: While we fear that this newbie Prez has an agenda that tilts rather precipitously toward our erstwhile brethren from long ago, my feeling is that BHO shall — willy nilly — need Israel, because he will be in a passel of over-commitment to forces and troubled real estate that will be, frankly, unavoidable.

The intel maven, author of JAWBREAKER, Quds Force (fiction, August 2008) and Human Intelligence, Counterterrorism, and National Leadership: A Practical Guide (November 2008) wrote his latest opus for the incoming head of state. HICNL includes detailed policy references, prescriptions and recommendations. He says that this new prez has assembled a "pretty good team" for the prosecution of the coming operations. But, Berntsen warns, the question is how he will deploy them. How will he manage the counter-insurgency? This, he stresses, is always the key to calm.

The goal for them, he repeats, is not democracy, which will not fly in these untrammeled, wild, unsettled, rocky, primitive, largely uncontemporary regions. The goal is, instead, stability. With a strongman head honcho, either local, or (preferably) American at the top.

The Afghanis have humbled powerful countries before this, and we have only 17,000 guys on the hook to go there with marching porders in the next year, when the number needed to quell the mess is, Berntsen says, at least triple that.

As an optimistic coda, he also maintains we will get UBL sooner or later. He was famously near to killing him at Tora Bora, and that but for a garbled and, yes, bad decision by the former White House, undersourcing and consequent undersupply (now that we are incredulous at the hash being made by the new one, the ''cool" one, the one who's joined at the lip to the Teleprompter, goes on late-night TV and writes out basketball futures), that one we are clearly missing long about now, we would have gotten him.

"Bush made many good moves," he avers, and was "pretty good in decision-making" in general, along with some of the generals, Cheney and so on, but that the missed opportunity was ''heartbreaking'' for being so close, but so wrong when they needed to act on their own. General Petraeus is fixing the fence, he notes. Spectacularly, he allows.

Fascinating tales of stealthy night raids and teen-aged guides, the sons of warlords and various local tribes, sects. A small, deft, silken-masterful cadre taking on hundreds. With few casualties. Fabulous: We are in our Tom Clancy modes, great. Even unheralded, we are better than the US public gets to hear.

The CIA man with a tight, sturdy, almost bullet-like frame says "they like us," even though the Taliban don't, can't. They just "like to kill things." Why do they do it? Not a simplistic single answer. But not the obvious — wrong — one, either. It is not poverty or resentment. It is not the slogans and the low-hanging fruit, elusive earnest explanations that don't take enough into account, either.

The French are doing a good job, he says — better than we hear. The French Foreign Legion model works for this part of the globe. I've been to the rock and sand spit where the French Foreign Legion, the last hope for despairing and reckless men with nothing to lose, go to have a portion of derring do. Or Three. The Comorros, the Lesser and Greater Comorros. Dusty, burning sand, Nothing on the roads but road.

The Poles and Canadians and Brits, too, are doing well. For the rest, they are Katzenjammer Kids — specifically, he says, to laughter, the Germans. Mostly known for being not on the field.

Proper counter-insurgency is the trick. And since 2/3 of the 'police forces' there, "after 11 whole days of training," are completely illiterate and have zero experience of the world outside their humble villages, they cannot be a force to reckon with. They cannot even speak Dari, their national tongue. Instead, they speak Pashto, their dialect, but cannot read/write a word, so their empathy is decidedly opaque. They need to be taught to read/write to become proper restraining forces and military worthy of their salt.

The One has bitten off rather more than he can comfortably chew, and one wonders why, with his anti-military stance — exceedingly clear to a blind man — he adopted this as his pet project, maybe as the way to patronize and convince the armed services that he does not in fact loathe them. Every president has his special project, the way every First Lady becomes identified with Reading or Special Needs Children, Beautification or the like. This novitiate will be adopting Afghanistan as his class assignment.

That initiative in mid-March was a strange and unprecedented one: have soldiers pay for their own meds and healthcare...! Such a thing has never been proposed, even in the bleakest and blackest humor since the starving forces of the Civil War were rag-tagging it back to their one-time hearths. Even then, after a bruising war, the union was a wreck and there was no money left in the treasury. At least Obama retracted that bizarre notion, getting a taste of veteran outrage.

Otherwise, the country has always stood by its soldiery — to do otherwise is to posit an oxymoronic stance v. the country he supposedly loves. I have never heard of such a vile suggestion. Even Stalin — if he had the resources — repaired his military once they were injured. The Obama seems to be scraping the bottom. And this is only his 2nd month.

Marion Dreyfus is a writer and travelor; she has taught English in China on the university level. She can be contacted at dreyfusmarion@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, April 6, 2009.

After living in California and being in the film industry for years, I've accepted living in La La Land — also called the Land of Oz. However, I don't know how much longer I can handle Obama worship. They wanted change and we are getting it! Our founders would drop dead if they saw how Obama has turned America into a socialist nation.

Everything is changing, yet, too much is staying the same. I know that we, as a nation, have dumbed down in recent years. But, we should not have forgotten the campaign promises of Candidate Obama.

Remember that he said, as a candidate, I won't tolerate earmarks!! If necessary, when bills that have them are placed on my desk I will go over each and every one of them, if necessary line by line!

Yeah, right. Until he had a bill that he wanted passed, and the Messiah didn't notice the almost 9,000 pork bills for an additional trillion dollars. We're at almost ten trillion and climbing. I don't know how you feel about his financial leadership but it scares the hell out of me.

Minute by minute, we're sinking into the abyss of socialism with the new government's idea of change. Change? We got it, alright. And now, I've just about lost hope.

Obama was the second largest recipient of the AIG donations with $101,332; Sen. Chris Dodd came in first at $103,332. Has anyone asked him to donate that back to the people? I don't remember even hearing about it.

But, that is only the beginning of my concerns. Do any of you remember any discussions of AIG's promotion of Sharia (Islamic law) in its Takaful division? That is the compliant insurance section of AIG. Go to the AIG Takaful web site where tell you that "it avoids prohibited elements in accordance with Sharia law. We do not invest in anything that is haram (prohibited under Sharia). We do not borrow, lend or enter into any financial transaction that is not Islamic."

Now the American taxpayer is directly funding sectarian Islamic religious activities. Check out a lawsuit being conducted by the Thomas Moore Law Center against the government. Or, Google either one of the only two elected officials, Representative Myrick, R-NC, or Frank Wolf, R-VA, who have publicly come out against the US government's AIG Sharia-bailout.

I wonder if Obama knew of these Islamic ties when he accepted their donations? Even if he didn't, do you think his involvement correct? The man who swore he'd never consider using lobbyist and now has an administration full of them. He even hired as Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, who before his job for Obama earned at least $320,000 in a 14-month stint on the board of mortgage giant, Freddie Mac. I bet you never even knew that, did you?

Amazing, that in such a short period of time, his administration has been able to create the conditions that make him the head honcho of manipulation. Obama is working non-stop and, as a result, a once democratic nation now has a new agenda under which everything will continue to be controlled by massive government bureaucracy.

Can you name one area where government has been the solution of anything? As President Regan once said, "government is never the solution... it is the problem!"

How can we trust that the people who got us into this mess in the first place will get us out? We are creating a culture contrary to the American spirit.

Before the election, he said that he intends to spread the wealth and pronounced himself a citizen of the world." I am having a lot of difficulty with that concept. I grew up as a citizen of the USA. My parents were charitable and gave to good causes. But, they were old fashioned enough to believe with hard work and education anyone could become successful. That's what I was taught and I did my best to teach that to my children.

Obama and company are on a 'fast track' to restructure everything from education and medical care, to interfering with your charitable donations.

I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I blame both of these inept parties for the mess we are in today. What I find astounding is how a full twenty-five percent of these people who are in our Congress and Executive branches of our government have never had a real job. This goes double for our president.

A moron should be able see that this nation is on a fast road to financial disaster. The budget that our vacuum of leadership has created is beyond financial irresponsibility, it's criminal! And, because Obama is charming, my neighbors believe him when he praises Timothy Geithner, the same way he once touted Rev. Wright.

What gives Obama the experience to tell the country how and where their savings are going to go? What in his background gives him the knowledge to know what we should be doing to get out of this quagmire of gook that we find ourselves?

Certainly not from his years of working as a county organizer; or, his close relationship with the dubious organization, "Acorn?" I'd feel a lot more comfortable if there were men like Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, Sam Walton, Steve Forbes, or even Oprah, in charge of handling our finances. These are men and women who actually know how to run businesses and make money. That won't happen because such people are now in the process of being demonized and soon will the enemy as the "filthy rich."

I find it ironic that so many of my neighbors in the film industry not only supported Obama, but contributed heavily to his campaign. It wasn't so long ago that the Hollywood crowd was a good thing; but these people were stupid enough to think that euphoria would continue once their friend, Obama got into power. It's amazing how shocked they were to have not been invited to the inauguration.

Do you think they are getting a taste of what the big donors from Israel who live here are beginning to experience. The truth is that Mr. Obama ain't no friend of Israel.

Frankly, I hope it continues because I think that when he has time to devote to his solutions in the Middle East, it's going to be harmful to the Jewish state. In fact, one of the first items on Obama's agenda was to give over a billion dollars to support Hamas terrorism, under the guise of rebuilding Gaza. Hamas will take that money and spend it to re-arm itself and build more tunnels in order to complete its stated mission: Israeli genocide. He's already meeting Jew-Hater Jimmy Carter to get his perspective and tell Bibi that first on the agenda should be the give-away of the Golan Heights to Syria. However, BiBi isn't brain dead like so many of the previous leaders. The Clinton White House summed up their experience with Netanyahu as: He was one of the most obnoxious individuals you're going to come across — just a liar and a cheat." I only hope that Obama and company dislike him as much. Maybe the second time around is as good for politics as it is for love.

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talkshow host. Her new book is called "Prison Cheerleader: How A Nice Jewish Girl Went Wrong Doing Right." She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 6, 2009.

In an address to the Turkish parliament today, President Obama stated, in a not-so-veiled response to our new government (and Foreign Minister Lieberman in particular), that:

"In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: the United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security."

He uses that expression "let me be clear" a great deal. But I would also like to be clear: Obama is living in that dreamworld in which he imagines that we can have security and peace, and a Palestinian state at our border at the same time. The old worn out terminology, which is so failed, remains the same. No thinking out of the box here. And what is worse, he made the statement in a Muslim country.

"...Both must live up to the commitments they have made." he said. "Both must overcome longstanding passions and the politics of the moment to make progress toward a secure and lasting peace."

Excuse me? Overcome longstanding passions and the politics of the moment? Passions such as Jewish devotion to the Land of Israel? Current politics that tell us that concessions are self-destructive? The man is an outrage.

And who is he to tell us that we "must" do anything?


According to Herb Keinon, writing in the Post, Netanyahu's new government is going to re-evaluate all diplomatic commitments. The prime minister has no intention of making a detailed statement on the nature of these commitments until the policy review is complete.

Interestingly, while Lieberman, in his remarks on taking office, had said we were obligated to the Road Map, an unnamed official in the prime minister's office is suggesting that this has to be re-evaluated as well, because the status of the document has changed. Final status talks were supposed to have been held by 2005.


Netanyahu may delay his trip to the US, tentatively scheduled for early May, until this review is complete.

But yes, indeed, the whiff of a collision is in the air. We might say that it is inevitable.

Consider these words by Environmental Protection Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud):

"Israel doesn't take order from Obama.

"In voting for Netanyahu the citizens of Israel have decided that they will not become the fifty-first US state."

Whoa! A new mood is definitely in the air. A mood that has the power to lift one's heart. Never mind that Erdan did all the necessary qualifying regarding the fact that the US is an important ally with which we'll communicate, etc. etc.


Netanyahu's office released a statement expressing "appreciation" for Obama's "commitment to Israel's security and to the pursuit of peace.

"The Government of Israel is committed to both of these goals and will formulate its policies in the near future so as to work closely with the United States towards achieving these common objectives."

Please note that while Obama put "peace" first, Netanyahu's spokesman referred to our security first. As I read this, the message to Obama is that, yes, the new government of Israel will be committed to peace (you'll never hear us say we're not for peace), but will make Israeli security its first priority. What is more, one might read this as a diplomatic challenge to Obama: a reminder that, as he has committed to our security, we do not expect him to sacrifice it on the alter of his vision of "peace."


Netanyahu has appointed a large 15-member security cabinet (including Netanyahu himself), that consists of:

Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon; Minister-without-Portfolio Bennie Begin; Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar; Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman; Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch; National Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau; Regional Cooperation Minister Silvan Shalom; Intelligence Agencies Minister Dan Meridor; Defense Minister Ehud Barak; Trade Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer; Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz; Justice Minister Ya'acov Ne'eman; Interior Minister Eli Yishai; Housing Minister Ariel Attias.

There are a considerable number of issues of importance that will come before this group.

Barry Rubin recently observed that of the 30 ministers in the new cabinet, almost half of them deal with security or foreign policy. For example, there are not only ministers for defense and foreign affairs, there is also a strategic affairs minister and a regional cooperation minister. That is reflected in this security cabinet.


At a pre-Pesach gathering before a left wing group, Defense Minister Barak confessed that:

"I don't feel as though I am a natural part of this government...despite the fact that I supported the party's participation in [Netanyahu's] government, I admit that I am still uncertain whether it was the right move or not. But I feel it was the responsible thing to do for the good of the country."

Labor MK Yuli Tamar opined that "there is a deep ideological crisis [in Labor], and I am not at all certain Barak still supports a two-state solution."


It's way overdue, but cause for celebration none-the-less.

The people of Netzer Hazani, a former community in Gush Katif, have been living in temporary and uncertain conditions since their expulsion as part of the "disengagement," going on four years ago.

A good percentage of the community ended up in temporary quarters in Kibbutz Ein Tzurim, not far from Ashkelon, after they were forced from their homes. (Some went straight there, while many others were briefly in Hispin in the Golan and later joined them.) They live in so-called caravilla, which are no more than glorified mobile homes.

Now, after many bureaucratic delays and false starts and promises, this community, which has in the main persisted in staying together, will be given the opportunity to build a new Netzer Hazani outside the community of Yesodot, a religious moshav about 20 kilometers northeast of Ein Tzurim — about midway between Rehovot and Beit Shemesh.

Today papers were signed for land to be purchased from Yesodot — by the government of Israel (represented by SELA, the Disengagement Authority) and individual members of Netzer Hazani. The new community is expected to take two years in formation.


I note the comment of Anita Tucker, a founder of Netzer Hazani and a spokeswoman for the community:

"At the same time, we long to return to our real homes — especially those of us who were born and grew up in Gush Katif. We hope the day will soon come when we will be able to return home to Gush Katif and rebuild there."

To which I say, Amen.

The courage and sense of purpose demonstrated by Anita and her fellow members of Netzer Hazani should be an inspiration to us all.

The people of Netzer Hazani went straight to the Kotel after having to leave their homes, and I was one of many hundreds gathered there to greet them that painful night. When I put my arms around Anita to comfort her, she smiled at me and said, "Don't worry, we may have lost our homes, but we haven't lost our spirit."


A community that had been close in proximity to Netzer Hazani in Gush Katif was Ganei Tal. The members of this community have been living, in similarly temporary quarters, in Yad Binyamin. They have now made arrangements that will allow them to rebuild their community outside of Kibbutz Chafetz Chaim.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Kenneth Preiss, April 6, 2009.

I wrote the attached and sent it to a few friends. They reacted enthusiastically and now this is being passed around the internet.


When the German government of the 1930's forbad the teaching of "Jewish science" such as relativity, they were operating rationally within their perverted frame of logic. In a rationality accepted by most of the public, including scientists, Jews had been deemed to be a pestilent menace. For the sake of humanity they needed to be eliminated from every aspect of society, and the urgency of this mission took precedence over the search for scientific truth.

This policy was based on a lie, and we know now that in its treatment of the Jews, Germany lobotomized itself. Germany has to this day not returned to the standing it had then in the scientific world. It does not escape attention that a country that in the 1920's was at the pinnacle of scientific achievement, by the 1940's had plunged to the lowest depths of vile, cruel and immoral wickedness. If this happened in Germany, it can happen elsewhere.

This is what came to mind when I heard of the proposal to boycott the presentation of Israeli scientists at the venerable Science Museum near my fondly remembered alma mater of Imperial College. Israelis are tired of justifying themselves to the world. Israelis, both as individuals and as a society, do much for the less fortunate of the world and they do so because this is their character, not for approval of others.

Despite the ongoing quest by the Arabs to destroy Israel, this includes infrastructural, medical, trade, scientific and cultural assistance to many, including the Palestinians — a group that has brought upon themselves much suffering but manages to convince a willing world that its problems are due to others. This is not the place to amplify upon this matter that has been written about abundantly elsewhere. In today's world many people prefer to remain ignorant of that reality. It is enough to wander around any Israeli hospital, enquire where the staff and patients come from, and see the equality of treatment each gets, irrespective of whether they are Jews or Arabs.

Free and honest debate would show that Israel treats the Palestinians better than any other nation would, including the British. The Palestinians have much to thank Israel for, even though mendacity about this subject seems to fill the airwaves, the Internet and newspapers. As for the mini-war in Gaza I cannot recall a conflict in which the aggressor so blatantly disregarded international law while the party attacked and defending itself made such great efforts to behave according to those same laws. In the Orwellian reports of that war the roles have been reversed. The text below shows the process we observed in the 1930's and where it led, and the parallel process observed today.

In 1929 a very serious global financial crisis started.

In 2008 a very serious global financial crisis started.

Over the next decade a medium sized power (Germany) armed in contravention of international agreements, threatened its neighbors, and used latent and overt hate of the Jews locally and world-wide to strengthen its standing.

A medium sized power (Iran) is arming in contravention of international agreements, threatens its neighbors, and uses latent and overt hate of the Jews locally and world-wide to strengthen its standing.

The world powers, led by England, tried to convince Germany to cease its threats. Appeasement did not work.

The world powers try to convince Iran to cease its arming and its threats. Appeasement is not working.

At the end of the decade a world war started that lasted 6 years and in which 56,000,000 people, 2.2% of a world population of 2,500,000,000, died.

Does history repeat itself? If so, 150,000,000 people, 2.2% of the world's current population of 6,700,000,000, will die.

In the decade leading to World War 2 there were those who said that war was inevitable, but no one anticipated, nor could even imagine, the enormous scale and cruel depravity inherent in that catastrophe.

There are those who say that war is now inevitable, but even they do not anticipate, nor can they imagine, the enormous scale and cruel depravity that would be inherent in that catastrophe.

We understand in retrospect the process that led to the tragedy called World War 2. Had that prior process not existed, the trigger that included Austria, Italy, Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain, Churchill and Poland would never have materialized. We do not know whether we are now in a process that could lead to over 100 million cruel deaths, and if we are we certainly do not know what will trigger that war.

In light of the calls to boycott Israeli scientists it is worth remembering that it was difficult for German scientists to oppose the boycott of Jewish scientists in the face of German public opinion. Had they done so the chain of events that led to World War 2 may have been diverted. If indeed we are now in a process where eventually an unpredictable event will trigger the tragedy of World War, you the boycotting British scientists, probably unsuspectingly, will have been part of that process.

You have stepped onto the slippery slope.

Kenneth (Kenny) Preiss is Emeritus Professor at Ben Gurion University of the Negev, in Beer Sheva, Israel

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, April 6, 2009.

This was written by Ofri Ilani, Haaretz Correspondent, and is archived at


A Haifa University archaeologist on Monday said he has unearthed structures in the shape of human feet believed to have been erected by the Israelites upon their initial entry to the Land of Canaan.

Prof. Adam Zertal said that the large compounds discovered in the Jordan Valley were "the first sites to have been built by the Israelites upon entering Canaan and manifest the biblical notion of claiming ownership of the land by setting feet on it."

Prof. Zertal's excavation team uncovered five large foot-shaped compounds that he identifies as the biblical site of Gilgal.

Most contemporary archaeologists do not consider the Israelite Exodus from Egypt and the conquest of Israel to be verifiable historical events. Zertal is one of the few Israeli archaeologists who claim to have found archaeological evidence supporting the Israelite entrance to Canaan.

Zertal's most famous discovery is a compound on Mount Ebal near Nablus, which he identified as the site of the Covenant ceremony depicted in the biblical Book of Joshua. Other archaeologists have identified that site as a watchtower.

Zertal has also recently claimed to have found clay markings unique to early Israelites, around the time of the conquest of Canaan described in the Bible.

According to the Book of Joshua, the Israelites arrived at Gilgal after having crossed the Jordan River. Some researchers have claimed that Gilgal is named after the collection of stones at the site that were used during various rituals, but no archaeological evidence has been discovered to support that claim.

Since 1990, five sites shaped like human feet have been excavated in the Jordan Valley. All five date back to the early Iron Age (12th to 13th centuries B.C.E.), and their shapes indicate that they were used as communal gathering places.

Zertal said that the foot-shaped sites were used during ceremonies following the Israelites' entry into the Land of Canaan. He added that the concept of the Jewish pilgrimage to Jerusalem on three major holidays (known as "aliya la'regel" or ascending on foot) also originates from the foot-shaped sites in the Jordan Valley and Mount Ebal.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Prowisor, April 6, 2009.

Once again, Israel buries another child victim of an Arab terrorist, or militant as world media calls it. If we look at the results of most of these attacks we see that most of the victims were unarmed and a surprising amount of them are children. Schools and children are of course their favorite target, along with school buses leisure areas and so on. These perpetrators are terrorists, and their culture is one of cowardice, it is simply who and what they are. Throughout Israel's years of existence, and before, the Arabs have, for the most part, attacked those that could not defend themselves, it is who they are.

What does that say about those that support them? Any Israeli, even the most extreme left-winger knows that Israel never intentionally targets civilians. Yes, innocents die in war, people die in war, and war is the human failure. However, how we wage it is how we are judged. No one has advanced the technology of terrorism greater than the P.L.O. or Palestinian Liberation Organization and their offshoots. They taught us great lessons in this modern era, how maiming and torture are still efficient weapons against humanity, how the use of children as shields are efficient tools in the media, or how to attack those who are defenseless and vulnerable. No one has grasped this strategy more than they have.

Years ago, an Arab co-worker of mine from Hebron said to me that "we would never defeat the Arabs because we are not cruel enough". He went on to explain that if a member of an Arab family is hurt or killed, they revenge the attack by slaughtering the entire family of the murderer. He further went on to say, that the Arabs know that the Jews would never do this, and this gives them motivation, and they see this as a weakness. I agreed with him, and said that we as a people are not capable of such cruelty on a one to one level. I was surprised at his analysis stating, that if we were able to respond as they, there would be peace in the Middle East.

Arab strategy has never changed, since Israel's early years, our civilian population have been targeted by Arab artillery, on all fronts. Arab snipers made Jerusalem resident's lives hellish, and those living on the border learned the meaning of "Fedayun", a predecessor to the P.L.O.. Growing up like this has forced us to become one of the premier military forces today, yet never did we turn into the murderers that they have become, as we remain the Israel DEFENSE Force.

I am reminded of my years as Security Chief of the Shilo region during the Intifada, how the favorite target were school buses and women, or families traveling on the road. Sickening how those that murder the defenseless are regarded as heroes in their society, and yet how they become the leaders. Is it no wonder why their system of education can't change? If their leaders and heroes are murderers of women and children, how can we expect any more of their general public? Who else do they have to look up to?

I must be rhetorical at this point and ask, how is it the peace loving people of the world hold their hands out to such a people, and endear them to the point of blind faith?

I feel sorry for them, those of them that pray for change and rejoining the human race often have to hide for fear of execution. Those that seek true peace are forbidden to speak up and those that do, disappear quickly or escape to a better life. This leaves the imposters, the present "Palestinian Arab" leadership that continues to dupe the naïve and ignorant of the world, convincing them of their striving for a peaceful coexistence with the Jews of Israel by means of a future "peaceful" Palestinian State.

Well so it is, and so it will be, once again showing us that we only have only ourselves and above to depend on, as the just of the world have declared self exile on themselves.

Terrors greatest product is that of fear. It is the means to their success, they wish to breed fear among us. They are achieving the opposite in Israel. The more terror they reap, the more our children strive for excellence in the IDF, the more courage is found among us, the more they prove to us just who they really are, cowards and the despicable.

I know that Islamic terrorism will continue to fool the world, and the weak among us will join their ranks. Islamic terror may continue to fool the media into calling them "Militants", but we know who you are. Be it known that there are those who will not bend to this cowardice and will be strong and fight back. Our victims stand witness to your cowardice and evil, Heaven stands the Judge, and we will pass sentence on you in time.

Marc Prowisor is Director of Security Projects, One Israel Fund. Contact him at marcpro@oneisraelfund.org and visit the One Israel website:
www.oneisraelfund.org and Prowisor's website: http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com/

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 6, 2009.


Israel is investing in the all-purpose Iron-Dome anti-missile missile. It won't be ready for more than a year. Each Israel missile would cost about ten times as much as each Hamas' short range-missile that it destroys and is destroyed by. That is like buying dollar bills with ten dollar bills.

Israel already has a radar-assisted, computer-guided, high-powered machine gun, capable of firing 3,000 armor-piercing rounds a minute. That machine gun could destroy Hamas' short range-missiles cheaply. The US has been using that weapon for years.

Neither Israel nor the US propose using it against Hamas (IMRA, 3/17).

This reluctance reminds me of drug companies not recommending zinc for certain diseases. Zinc is cheap and cannot be patented. The companies make more money on prescriptions than on minerals in the public domain, such as zinc.


The Western media is both an outlet for Islamist hoaxes and an inspiration for what Islamists then falsely claim are their "grievances." The Islamist check the Western media to ascertain what complaints the West would accept as excuses for their action or as reasons to appease them.

The Western media, which accepts Muslim claims uncritically, treats US, Israel, or British government statements with suspicion (Jewish Political Chronicle, winter 2009, p.50 from Bret Stephens, Wall St. J., 12/12/08).

It's like Sec. Clinton (or Sec. Rice, and Presidents Obama and Bush) referring to Palestinian Arab "aspirations" for statehood, when what the Arabs and, I believe, the State Dept., really want is to squelch existing Jewish statehood.


To let Israel insert its electronic warfare improvements into jets that the US sells Israel, the US would have to let Israel know more about the plane. There is something of a security issue, in that. More important, however, is the fact that by denying Israel the opportunity, Israel would not be able to sell such components to other countries, which would have to rely on buying them from the US (IMRA, 3/18). The US ban accords with its letting Israel lose its "edge" over the Arabs in order to have more US sales. Pollard exposed a subterranean US policy of letting Israelis suffer heavy military casualties.


"Senior Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan confirmed ...that Fatah.. does not recognize Israel, one of the basic demands of the Roadmap plan. The Western world has boycotted the Hamas terrorist organization because of the same refusal to acknowledge the existence of the Jewish state." He added, "... we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel even today..."

"Dahlan explained that although Fatah, headed by PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, does not recognize Israel, the PA does — but only in order to receive aid from the international community. Western countries have poured billions of dollars into the Ramallah-based administration."

"The other two requirements in the American-backed Roadmap plan — renouncing violence and accepting existing agreements — also have been violated by the PA." (Arutz-7, 3/18).

Will foreign donors continue to subsidize the P.A., now that they now it does not recognize Israel, meaning it won't make peace? (IMRA, 3/18.)

Fatah rejects existing agreements with Israel, but lets the P.A. pretend to accept the existing agreements, in order to bilk the West of billions. US officials keep citing approvingly that P.A. head Abbas accepts the existing agreements, so he is a force for peace. However, since his organizations, Fatah, rejects those peace agreements, he is not a force for peace but a fraud and a force for war.

Some Western leaders are fans of Dahlan, supposing he is strong enough to keep his word. Strong? Hamas swept his organization out of power in Gaza. EVIDENCE THAT ANTI-ZIONISM IS ANTI-SEMITISM

Khomeini used to express animosity towards the Jewish people. Upon seizing power, he substituted "Zionism" for "Jewish" (Jewish Political Chronicle, winter 2009, p.54 from Matthew Kuntzel, Weekly Standard, 11/17/08).


At their weekly luncheon, Pres. Obama picked the menu not only for himself, but also for Vice-Pres. Biden. The NY Times passed the incident off as Biden being good-natured and omnivorous and Obama having to show he is the boss (3/29).

An ego that bossy and intolerant over a personal matter is worrisome. Look for a pattern! Link it with Obama's having proved himself a pathological liar.


Pres. Obama's aides are urging him [as if he needs urging] to talk with Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas

The US and Israel often hold high level discussions, given Israel's experience with terrorism and prowess in intelligence. Israel's Chief of Staff came to the US, to discuss an issue of common concern, Iran's nuclear weapon and missile development. Israel has evidence that Iran will have built such weapons sooner than the US believed.

No pertinent, high-ranking US official was willing to discuss that with him. The new National Security Advisor did meet with him, but wouldn't listen. Instead he brought up complaints about Israeli security measures in Judea-Samaria. All Cabinet officials made themselves unavailable over the period of several days, including the Sec. of Defense. Same went for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence. This was a snub.

The story was given out that canceled appointments were replaced by conference calls and that the Israeli had to shorten his visit, in order to discuss a prisoner exchange, back home. Not likely (IMRA, 3/29).

Obama is the "nice guy?"' His egotistical approach imperils our national security.


The UNO picked Richard Falk as rapporteur on Israel. Mr. Falk believes that the US government was complicit in the 9/11 attack and that Israel perpetrates a Nazi-like holocaust upon the Palestinian Arabs. That selection reveals what a low state the UNO is in (Jewish Political Chronicle, winter 2009, p.57 from Alan Dershowitz, Hudson Inst., 12/18/08). Israel doesn't hate nor mass-murder.


Russia redrafted the Durban II statement, deleting all direct references to Israel and the Arab conflict with it. The statement, however, endorsed Durban I. Durban I was antisemitic and pro-Arab (IMRA, 3/18).

Sneaky! Will it be a sufficient pretext for Obama?


Private lawsuits by victims of terrorism holding banks liable for financial servicing of terrorism have prompted European banks to stop laundering (IMRA, 3/19).


The media accepts Hamas' false casualty statistics. It photographs children in Gaza it knows are pretending to have been injured during combat. Hardly having reported the thousands of Arab attacks, the media led Europeans to imagine that Israel fired "disproportionately".

The media and humanitarian organizations condemn Israel's blockade of Gaza, which lets food trucks in, but do not report Hamas and Egypt for blocking wounded Gazans. This is one-sided. Since they often ignore the millions starving in Zimbabwe, their profession of being humanitarian is suspect. Professed humanitarianism seems to be a cover for bashing Israel.

The media accuses Israel's response to rocket attacks as having set back the opportunity to make peace. No, Hamas' attacks did.

The media is a fifth column. It is on the wrong side, as civilization comes under jihadist attack. Under international law, the signatory states are required to punish genocidal efforts and those who support them. Many world leaders, including Western ones, support the Islamists, one way or the other, especially by hampering Israeli efforts against genocide (Jewish Political Chronicle, winter 2009, p.32 from Melanie Phillips in UK Spectator, 12/30/08).


First the P.A. stopped covering the medical expenses of wounded Gazans treated in Israeli hospitals, then for all Arabs. It stated that it did not want Israel to get credit for being humanitarian and didn't want its people to be treated by the country that harmed them. The P.A. seeks to end dependency on Israeli medicine. Besides, it contended, P.A. medicine mostly is adequate and where it isn't, P.A. Arabs can get treatment in Arab countries at lower cost.

P.A. patients don't share the P.A.'s optimism. They consider P.A. hospitals inexperienced, in some cases having caused the illness in the first place. They don't get to other countries readily. One girl died from lack of treatment.

Physicians for Human Rights — Israel argues that Israel should treat them free (Arutz-7, 3/19).

Physicians for Human Rights wants to assign to Israel the burden of costs for treating an enemy people during wartime. That is ridiculous. It blames Israel, when it should blame the P.A.. If P.A. hostility and pride didn't go so far as to let people die, it could compromise, saving some funds but keeping its people treated.

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@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Walid Shoebat, April 5, 2009.

I am a former causer of man made disasters and now involving myself in the project of overseas contingency plans.

If I were making a speech instead of writing it I might need a teleprompter to speak the title of this article. Does anyone understand what our government is doing? For those that cannot work it out or need help in deciphering President Obama's code for the new word or words for a terrorist and the latte elitist language for "War on Terror," you just got it in the title of the article.

Our most understanding president sends a love video to Iran; I just hope he sent it in the right format so they could actually see it. The Iranians must have seen it because there were comments from the mad mullahs that were not exactly encouraging.

As a person who in my youth was steeped in terrorism and hatred we would sneer at such talk from Israelis or Americans. The current NON-politics of fear will bring death and destruction, or "man made disasters." If the truth is to be known is that our President will be the true cause of the man made disasters with the policies of appeasement that are beyond irresponsible.

As a former Jihadist (which is a word that according to our President is the "politics of fear), let me tell you what will defeat the terrorists. First we must identify the problem, which in itself is politically incorrect. The issue is not terrorism, which is the symptom but the real problem is the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalism. In the Middle East and even in America Islamic Fundamentalism is the prevalent and dominant within the Muslim world. This is what needs to be defeated or blunted heavily before we can stop the violence.

For those that do not understand the meaning of Islamic Fundamentalist as a former Muslim terrorist let me give you it exactly: "Religious conditioning taught to Muslim masses, by using illusions of misery, historic manipulation, and illusion of the virtues of a distant past by continual reflection on glory days long ago, in order to convert the masses into angry, pride filled, remorseless killers and seekers of salvation by death. The goal is to intimidate non-Muslims by fear and threats, in order to re-establish a utopian theocratic world order in which Islam and Muslims are dominant and all non-Muslims are subservient. This conditioning becomes the sole focus of both the spiritual leaders, and the followers in every aspect of their daily lives."

I experienced the Friday prayers when the Imam would spew from the pulpit the hatred of Jews, Christians and Americans, the evidence of which is all over the Internet but not on our mainstream media. Today it is a hundreds times worse than when I was a terrorist in the 1970s and early 1980s. In America there is overwhelming evidence that the same hatred is being propagated at epidemic proportions in the United States within the mosques and no one in our government is willing to speak on it let alone do something about it.

Many in our media and even some of our most conservative voices wish to believe that the problem of terrorism is based on a minority of extremists but this I tell you as a former Muslim and a former terrorist is far from the truth. When I lived in the West Bank our whole society was steeped in this hatred from the school, the mosque, the media and even in our family, this is the way it is right across the Middle East which is hidden from us by the mainstream media.

If we are to defeat the evil of Islamic Fundamentalism and the scourge of "man made caused disasters" we need to first recognize the problem as I have identified if we are even to start to defeat it.

We need to educate ourselves, recognize the deceptions that we as a society are willing to accept for the sake of political correctness but in the long term will only create an even bigger disaster if we do not begin to deal with them today. The parallel comparison is our unwillingness to deal with the Nazis until it was too late. We have the potential for twenty, thirty or more Nazi states to emerge with the dominance if Islamic Fundamentalism. Churchill was regarded as a Naziphobe, he was one of the few who sounded the alarm bells. I am an Islamaphobe can I and a few others be right and the rest of the world wrong? History says yes.

The current policies and ideas from this new presidential administration will only bring more and bigger "man caused disasters" both to our shores and to our allies.

Walid Shoebat
Leader, Walid Shoebat Foundation


Keith Davies
Executive Director, Walid Shoebat Foundation

Walid is a former terrorist who now speaks to defend Israel. As he says, "The Israeli Arab Conflict is not about geography but about Jew hatred." His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Nathan, April 5, 2009.

1. Independent Norwegian poll: Palestinian majority opposes two states
DEBKAfile Special Report
April 3, 2009, 10:42 AM (GMT+02:00)

Amid the ping-pong between Washington and Jerusalem over the validity of a Palestinian state established alongside Israel as the end-product of peace negotiations, the Norwegian Fafo institute which sponsored the 1993 Oslo Framework accords decided to find out how the Palestinians felt about this solution. Its main discovery was that a majority, 53 percent, of Palestinians (like Israelis), is against two states.

This figure breaks down into 33 percent, who opt for the annihilation of the state of Israel, whether by political means or force of arms — to be replaced by a single Islamic republic on all parts of the country; and 20 percent, which favors a united Israeli-Palestinian state, to be eventually engulfed by the latter population.

When Hamas members are polled separately, support for two states drops to 21 percent.

Publication of these findings by the Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies, which is supported by Norwegian foreign ministry and respected by European Middle East policy-makers, indicates that its researchers have given up on the Oslo Accords and the two-state goal pursued by Washington.

However, DEBKAfile's Washington sources expect extreme reluctance on the part of the Obama administration to abandon this goal because it is the only policy objective it has developed and is being used, furthermore, as a key to open the administration's diplomatic door to the Muslim world, especially in the Afghanistan-Pakistan arena (now lumped together as the "Afpak" front).

The US president's advisers are urging him to speed up Israel-Palestinian peacemaking for these ends — even if it means foisting the two-state objective on the Israelis. Proof that the Palestinians too will have to be whipped into line brings the venture close to a mission impossible.

2. US Awards Iran Role as Military Partner, Sells Israel Short
DEBKAfile Excusive Analysis
April 4, 2009, 1:36 PM (GMT+02:00)

Only two weeks ago, Israel's chief of staff Lt. Gen. Gaby Ashkenazi, then visiting Washington, was denied interviews with US defense secretary Robert Gates and the chairman of the US chiefs of staff Adm. Mike Mullen. He cut short his visit after seeing national security adviser Gen. James Jones and Iran envoy Dennis Ross, lesser lights in terms of their direct influence on President Barack Obama.

Since then, the US president has decided the snub was ill-judged.

During 2008 and up until his exit from the White House, George W. Bush found Ashkenazi useful for conveying to the former prime minister Ehud Olmert and defense minister Ehud Barak his administration's strong objections to an Israeli military strike on Iran's nuclear sites. The US effort to hold Israel's hand brought Mullen and an array of top US generals calling at the chief of staff's Tel Aviv headquarters almost every ten days in the last months of 2008.

Mullen wanted to keep this effort afloat, but president Obama thought otherwise, which is why Ashkenazi was so coolly received in Washington in mid-March.

However, the inception of Binyamin Netanyahu as prime minister with Barak held over at defense occasioned a spate of declarations which worried the new administration: Netanyahu declared at his swearing-in last Tuesday that if American sanctions and diplomacy fail, Israel will be forced to take action against Iran's nuclear weapon drive and time was running out.

His words were echoed by Barak.

Obama therefore decided to revive the Ashkenazi track, while he was still abroad at the G20 in London and the NATO summit at Strasbourg, and before visiting Istanbul next week. He feared that Israel might upset his broad strategic applecart which hinges on the co-option of Iran as its primary hinge.

Ashkenazi was therefore invited to Strasbourg to carry some more bad news to his government, i.e. that the Obama administration wants Iran as its key military and intelligence partner for resolving America's Afghanistan-Pakistan (known now as "Afgpak") predicament. The shape of this alliance lacks final form; backdoor US-Iranian meetings at various levels are in progress at different venues to determine how far Tehran is willing to go. But the US president has set his course.

The high points of the proposed collaboration were first revealed exclusively by DEBKA-Weekly 390 of March 27 and 391 of April 3.

Its impact was sensed at the NATO summit in Strasbourg.

Aside from UK premier Gordon Brown, NATO leaders by and large refused the US president's appeal for more troops to fight in Afghanistan. German chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy told Obama there was no point in sending reinforcements to Afghanistan if US troops were on their way out, especially after Washington had opted for an "Iranian solution" for the conflict without reference to Berlin or Paris.

The Obama administration has a bitter pill for Israel to swallow for the sake of progress toward a strategic collaboration with Tehran on Afghanistan and Pakistan. It cuts close to the bone in terms of Israel's security and international standing:

1. Washington will not brook any unilateral Israeli military action that might upset US-Iranian moves towards cooperation in the Afgpak Arena.

2. Washington will apply all its resources to obstruct such action.

3. It will not be enough for Israel to stand idle as Iran develops a nuclear bomb. The Obama administration also has fish to fry with Taliban and is bent on an urgent breakthrough in Israel-Arab peacemaking for dividends relevant to this arena too.

Israel can therefore expect to be squeezed hard for sweeping concessions to Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians in order to enhance America's hand on both these tracks.

4. This will bring Jerusalem's Arab opponents to the negotiating table with loaded dice and no bar to treating Israel as the weak party.

The tidings Ashkenazi brings back to Jerusalem from Strasbourg will not be news because Israel officials have been aware of the state of play between Obama and Tehran for some weeks. The only question is how Adm. Mullen packaged his briefing: Did he offer the Israeli chief of staff the chance of military coordination with the United States alongside its evolving pact with Iran? Or simply outline the new situation as a take-it or leave-it proposition?

When this development finally percolates through to the Israeli public, opposition leader Tzipi Livni will no doubt use the opportunity to lay it at the door of the Netanyahu-Lieberman administration as the price for backing away from the Annapolis version of a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Livni's efforts to discredit the new government will be internationally popular — but chronologically and factually untenable. The new Obama strategy and its disastrous fallout for Israel took shape while she was still foreign minister and vice premier, for one; and, furthermore, a Palestinian state is clearly defined as the end product of the phased Middle East road map, which the Netanyahu government has formally embraced.

The Annapolis initiative never took off because the ensuing Livni-Olmert talks with Palestinian leaders led nowhere.

The Norwegian Fafo institute which sponsored the 1993 Oslo Framework accords decided to find out how the Palestinians felt about this solution. Its main discovery was that a majority, 53 percent, of Palestinians (like Israelis), is against two states.

This figure breaks down into 33 percent, who opt for the annihilation of the state of Israel, whether by political means or force of arms — to be replaced by a single Islamic republic on all parts of the country; and 20 percent, which favors a united Israeli-Palestinian state, to be eventually engulfed by the latter population.

When Hamas members are polled separately, support for two states drops to 21 percent.

Publication of these findings by the Fafo Institute for Applied International Studies, which is supported by Norwegian foreign ministry and respected by European Middle East policy-makers, indicates that its researchers have given up on the Oslo Accords and the two-state goal pursued by Washington.

However, DEBKAfile's Washington sources expect extreme reluctance on the part of the Obama administration to abandon this goal because it is the only policy objective it has developed and is being used, furthermore, as a key to open the administration's diplomatic door to the Muslim world, especially in the Afghanistan-Pakistan arena (now lumped together as the "Afpak" front).

The US president's advisers are urging him to speed up Israel-Palestinian peacemaking for these ends — even if it means foisting the two-state objective on the Israelis. Proof that the Palestinians too will have to be whipped into line brings the venture close to a mission impossible.

3. US, Japan, S. Korea, Russia fail to intercept North Korean ballistic rocket launch
DEBKAfile Special Report
April 5, 2009, 7:44 PM (GMT+02:00)

Despite an international outcry, a North Korean long-range rocket lifted off from its coastal Musudan-ri launch pad early Sunday, March 5. Flying over Japan it appears to have splashed down in the Pacific Ocean. Although on high alert to intercept the launch, Tokyo admitted it missed its timeline twice.

DEBKAfile's military sources report that Pyongyang's defiance of stern warnings delivered another serious setback to US president Barack Obama in his management of foreign affairs. But most of all, North Korea showed Israel that it was dangerous to rely on Washington and the rest of the international community and their diplomacy to put a stop to Iran's drive for a nuclear weapon.

Obama failed earlier to persuade NATO leaders meeting in Strasbourg to send substantial extra forces to fight in Afghanistan — only 5,000 non-combat trained troops were pledged. France and Germany turned him down flat.

The North Korean ballistic launch, which may or may not have boosted a satellite into orbit, expanded the world's stock of nuclear warheads days after Obama's agreement with Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in London to start reducing this arsenal before the end of the year. Tehran is not far behind Pyongyang.

Iran and North Korea have worked together for many years on their nuclear programs, a collaboration which the international community never stopped. Indeed, three years ago, Syria was co-opted to the partnership.

DEBKAfile's military sources date the onset of the current crisis to Jan. 3, when Iran launched its first satellite Omid into space, boosted by a nuclear-capable ballistic rocket which placed all points on earth within range. Instead of declaring an emergency, US and Israeli officials were at pains to play down Tehran's achievement.

Only on March 25, did AMAN military intelligence cief Amos Yadlin admit to the Knesset foreign affairs and defense committee that Tehran now possessed missiles capable of delivering nuclear warheads.

Given their long collaboration, it should have been obvious that the data and experience gained from Tehran's launch would be flashed to North Korea. Our sources confirmed that North Korean technicians and scientists attended the Iranian liftoff.

After Pyongyang announced the dates bracketing its launch, the US deployed warships opposite North Korean shores armed with interceptors; Japan threatened to destroy any missile violating its airspace. Saturday, Russia announced its Far Eastern forces were on the ready and S-300 anti-missile systems in place for shooting the North Korean rocket down.

But when it came to the crunch, the US, Japan and Russia were deterred from trying to intercept the North Korean rocket. What did work was Pyongyang's warning that interception would be a casus belli. All that is left for now is to seek tougher sanctions against North Korea at the emergency UN Security Council session called by Japan for later Sunday, April 5 and lots of condemnation. Sanctions in the past have never had any effect on the North Korean dictator Kim Il-Jong. China will anyway not approve extreme measures, in the same way as it has blocked harsh sanctions against Iran. South Korea has placed its forces in a state of readiness but will not act without Washington.

Obama's response was an offer to go back to the six-party forum for negotiating North Korea's denuclearization.

The new US administration started off by espousing diplomacy for international conflicts, but in Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's debut trip to the Far East she obtained Beijing's consent to work with Washington on the economic crisis, but not on international strategic matters.

Contact Dave Nathan by email at davenathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by LEL, April 5, 2009.

This article appeared in Tactical Middle East
http://tmideast.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/ george-bisharat-uses-nyt-to-publish-out-of-context-accusations/


Meet George Bisharat, currently a professor at the UC Hastings College of Law. Bisharat was born in 1954 in Kansas, to a Palestinian family from Jerusalem, eventually earning BA in Berkeley and MA in Georgetown. Later, Bisharat studied in Harvard, and assumed position of professor of law at University of California. Bisharat is an author of 'Palestinian Lawyers and Israeli Rule: Law and Disorder in the West Bank', worked with Palestinian Legislative Council and on editorial board of Journal of Palestine Studies.

I believe the above gives us clear understanding of Bisharat's allegiance; however, it is also clear he is a smart man. Bisharat criticized Israel's conduct in 2006 Second Lebanon War, pushes for the boycott of Israel, alleges Israel's conduct in 2008 Gaza campaign constitutes war crimes and an avid supporter of a one-state solution (read: Israel ceases being a Jewish state).

In a recent op-ed published by the New York Times, Bisharat presents us with a real problem, while using unsubstantiated claims to promote his point. Starting with

CHILLING testimony by Israeli soldiers substantiates charges that Israel's Gaza Strip assault entailed grave violations of international law. The emergence of a predominantly right-wing, nationalist government in Israel suggests that there may be more violations to come. Hamas's indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli civilians also constituted war crimes, but do not excuse Israel's transgressions.

The 'Hearsaygate', which we discussed in length last month, cannot be used as substantiation to anything, as both soldiers eventually admitted hearsay and rumors, rather than actual witness to the events described. Thus, Bisharat is being dishonest from the top, by attributing any value to 'testimonies'. By the way, Israeli Palestinian Rights Groups such as Betzelem and Yesh Din were — and are — doing their best, together with Israeli newspaper Haaretz, to unearth more testimonies and allegations of murder of innocent Gazans — months after the operation, they still have no facts at hand.

Bisharat also tries to distance himself from the issue of Hamas' rocket fire, by stating: "rocket attacks...also constituted war crimes, but do not excuse Israel's transgressions". Let us be clear on the issue: there would be no 'Israel's transgressions' if terror from Gaza would stop. Since 2001, thousands of rockets were fired into Israel, with only one reason for very few Israeli casualties: every new house built in Israel has a secure bomb shelter. Every street has a bomb shelter. Israelis prepare themselves for war, and it always comes. Bisharat never blames Palestinian governments for lack of civilian protective infrastructure — it is much easier to blame Israel for that.

Bisharat goes on with a list:

Violating its duty to protect the civilian population of the Gaza Strip. Despite Israel's 2005 "disengagement" from Gaza, the territory remains occupied. Israel unleashed military firepower against a people it is legally bound to protect.

Bisharat and the likes would expect Israel to open up entire Gaza to everyone — while it is under control of both Fatah and Hamas, both of which actively fight Israel. While Bisharat considers Gaza's position in 2005 as 'still occupied' — it should be viewed for what it is: Gaza just relinquished occupying forces and Gazans should now start to build a society. Bisharat obviously fails to mention that during Israel disengagement, Gazans were still firing rockets into Israel, and as soon as Israel left, Gazans renewed efforts to smuggle weapons and explosives — especially after Hamas took power in Gaza by rounding up Fatah activists and shooting them. Bisharat also fails to mention that 'evil Israel' allowed fleeing Fatah men to move to West Bank, as well as gave medical assistance to their families.

Imposing collective punishment in the form of a blockade, in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. In June 2007, after Hamas took power in the Gaza Strip, Israel imposed suffocating restrictions on trade and movement. The blockade — an act of war in customary international law — has helped plunge families into poverty, children into malnutrition, and patients denied access to medical treatment into their graves. People in Gaza thus faced Israel's winter onslaught in particularly weakened conditions.

Let us get the facts straight for this one too: nowadays, every action of a government against another government could be labeled as 'collective punishment'. Do US's sanctions against North Korea constitute 'collective punishment'? For example, US imposed a ban on satellite parts made in US reaching North Korea, effectively meaning most communications companies would not be able to launch their satellites from North Korea, whose government asks for much lower prices than most other countries. Could this also be a 'collective punishment'? Sure as hell could — North Korean economy suffers lack of monetary influx, thus hurting all North Koreans. World's sanctions against Iran, for example, are also 'collective punishment', as Iran's economy suffers due to the sanctions, making people suffer as well.

My point: you cannot effectively pressure any government into anything (like surrendering its genocidal goal) without eventually affecting civilians under that government. It is not possible. Gazan terrorist organizations never stopped firing into Israel — at first, at Israeli settlements within Gaza; then — at Israeli cities and towns within Israeli territory. How do you fight rocket launches without imposing some sort of blockade on Gaza? Even with the blockade up and running, Hamas managed to smuggle dozens of tons of explosives since operation 'Cast Lead' — quadruple that number without Israel's and Egypt's barrier.

Mr. Bisharat also never mentions Egypt in his article, even though Egypt is just as active in blockading Gaza as Israel.

Deliberately attacking civilian targets. The laws of war permit attacking a civilian object only when it is making an effective contribution to military action and a definite military advantage is gained by its destruction. Yet an Israeli general, Dan Harel, said, "We are hitting not only terrorists and launchers, but also the whole Hamas government and all its wings." An Israeli military spokeswoman, Maj. Avital Leibovich, avowed that "anything affiliated with Hamas is a legitimate target."

Israeli fire destroyed or damaged mosques, hospitals, factories, schools, a key sewage plant, institutions like the parliament, the main ministries, the central prison and police stations, and thousands of houses.

I think George Bisharat missed those videos released by the IDF, where terrorists can be seen using civilian infrastructure for fighting — such as schools, homes, mosques, UN installations, and others. It is also important to know that Hamas used civilian infrastructure — like houses — to trap Israeli troops, by planting explosives and booby-trapping entire structures, thus destroying a booby-trapped houses constitutes 'an effective contribution to military action' by saving dozens of lives of soldiers (tactics of booby-trapping buildings were widely used by Palestinians in Jenin refugee camp and by Hizb Allah in 2005. IDF learned its lessons from these operations.)

Willfully killing civilians without military justification. When civilian institutions are struck, civilians — persons who are not members of the armed forces of a warring party, and are not taking direct part in hostilities — are killed.

Bisharat bases his opinions on amount of Gazan civilians killed on report by Richard Falk — the person who compares Israel's actions to these of Nazis — clearly a disproportionate response on part of Falk.. The numbers of Gazan civilian deaths are highly disputed, with some Gazans even arguing deaths were as low as 600 — most of them Hamas terrorists. In Gaza, most terrorists wear civilian clothing in order to blend with civilian population, thus I can hardly understand how Bisharat — being a professional — straightforwardly believes told numbers.

Later, Bisharat says IDF troops shot at corners of building to warn the civilians. Bisharat apparently forgot IDF also phoned Gazan citizens, dropped leaflets, and used TV and radio stations to warn civilians of danger. What can I say, even if you are a professor, your memory does not have to be perfect.

Deliberately employing disproportionate force. Last year, Gen. Gadi Eisenkot, head of Israel's northern command, speaking on possible future conflicts with neighbors, stated, "We will wield disproportionate power against every village from which shots are fired on Israel, and cause immense damage and destruction." Such a frank admission of illegal intent can constitute evidence in a criminal prosecution.

Such 'evidence' would not be seriously considered by any court. Why? For two reasons: a) the world community is yet to define 'disproportionate force'; b) a statement by a commander of Israel's Northern command has nothing to do with Southern command, responsible for Gaza.

Illegal use of weapons, including white phosphorus. Israel was finally forced to admit, after initial denials, that it employed white phosphorous in the Gaza Strip, though Israel defended its use as legal. White phosphorous may be legally used as an obscurant, not as a weapon, as it burns deeply and is extremely difficult to extinguish.

Regrettably for George Bisharat, actual evidence of Israel using munitions illegally is yet to be presented to us all.

Last, but not least, Bisharat writes that Israeli 'political and military personnel' responsible for Gaza operation should be brought to justice. I wish he would also call for Hamas terrorists to be tried for war crimes. Sadly, George Bisharat does not care for Hamas' violence. He has his own interest. It would be interesting to know if parents to students of UC understand the degree of objectivity this professor brings to his teachings.

Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, April 5, 2009.
This essay was written by Professor Paul Eidelberg.

Part I

Back in 1976 I wrote Beyond Détente: Toward an American Foreign Policy. The publisher, Sherwood Sugden & Co., distributed some 2,000 copies of the book's galleys (before the book itself was published) to the members of the Republican Party's National Convention.

The publisher supported Ronald Reagan in the 1976 presidential campaign. Perhaps he hoped, contrary to the results of the presidential primaries, that the Republican Convention would choose Reagan as their presidential nominee. Well, as you know, America had to wait until 1980 before Reagan was nominated and subsequently elected as President.

You also know that Reagan was called "the great communicator." But he was more than that. President Reagan pursued a defense and foreign policy that hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now ponder the title of that book I mentioned: Beyond Détente: Toward an American Foreign Policy. In Israel, the title would be: "Beyond the Peace Process: Toward a Jewish Foreign Policy." I have written hundreds of articles bearing that message — even in a book: Jewish Statesmanship: Lest Israel Fall.

Well, Israel just elected Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister, and Netanyahu is also known as a "great communicator." That's as far as the resemblance goes, for Mr. Netanyahu is dedicated to the "peace process." In contrast, Reagan not only opposed détente before he became President, he also harbored the ambition to collapse the Soviet Union.

America, a big country, sometimes produces big men with big ambitions. Israel, a small country, tends to produce small men with small ambitions. I am speaking of contemporary Israel — not the Israel of King David or of King Solomon. The present State of Israel cannot even defeat a gang of terrorists: Fatah or Hamas!

Is it any wonder that the United States and the European Union treat Israel with contempt? Is it not remarkable — nay, grotesque — that they should demand that Israel cooperate in the establishment of an Arab-Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, the heartland of the Jewish People? But why not, since the major parties in the Knesset have endorsed a Palestinian state?

Thus, while the democratic world looks down on Israel with undisguised contempt and hostility, its attitude toward Israel's despotic enemies is benign even generous!

This moral inversion indicates that the democracies or their ruling elites have become Satanic. They have aligned themselves with the wicked. Contrast this alliance with the epigraph of Beyond Détente, where I quote from Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm: It is not my purpose ... to show how easily the tragedy of the Second World War could have been prevented; how the malice of the wicked was reinforced by the weakness of the virtuous; how the structure and habits of democratic states ... lack those elements of persistence and conviction which can alone give security to humble masses; how even in matters of self-preservation, no policy is pursued for even ten or fifteen years at a time. We shall see how the counsels of prudence and restraint may become the prime agents of mortal danger; how the middle course adopted from desires for safety and a quiet life may be found to lead to the bull's-eye of disaster.

Part II

In Beyond Détente (1977), I set forth a number of "philosophical profiles" contrasting the United States and the Soviet Union. Remarkably, many of these profiles closely resemble those that distinguish Israel from its Islamic enemies.

Here are profiles I wrote about the United States:

A. Immutable Laws of Nature:

  1. Unity of human nature, meaning, mankind constitutes a single species subject to the same moral law (before which all men are equal in their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness)....

  2. The purpose of negotiation is to reconcile differences or to reach lasting agreements among nations. Dangers:
    a. American tendency to make gratuitous concessions, sometimes a gesture of good will.

    b. Tendency to rely on various "agreements in principle" which, because of their generality, may be violated with impunity by adversary.

    c. Tendency to abide by agreements even after violated by adversary.

    d. Tendency to "mirror image", i.e.., to believe that one's adversary is similarly motivate or shares similar ends.

    [Here I cite J. William Fulbright, chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Simply substitute Muslims for Communists]: "Are we to regard the communists as more or less normal states with whom we can have more or less normal relations, or are we to regard them indiscriminately as purveyors of an evil ideology with whom we can never reconcile?" I also contrast Secretary of State Dean Acheson: "The Soviets negotiate ... to separate allies, or to undermine governments and their people, or to win over uncommitted peoples. Or it may be ... to bring a sense relaxation, goodwill and security, before some energetic offensive." [I warned Menachem Begin in 1977 that Anwar Sadat was using this strategy vis-à-vis Israel.]

B. The Primacy of Reason or Persuasion:

  1. Disposed to resolve conflicts peacefully by the methods of international law and diplomacy, employing force only as a last resort. Dangers:
    a. Tendency to overestimate the efficacy of diplomacy — of speech or reason — for the resolution of international conflict. Converse tendency to underestimate the importance of force in the conduct of foreign policy.

    b. Tendency [we see it today in the Obama administration] to attribute the causes of international conflict to a lack of mutual understanding among nations which in turn is supposed to beget mutual fear and suspicion.

    Again Fulbright: "Perhaps the single word above all others that expresses America's need is 'empathy', which Webster defines as 'imaginative projection of one's own consciousness into another being."

  2. Disposed to regard reason or the intellect as capable of transcending material interests or interests [and even ideology]. Dangers:
    a. Tendency to appeal to reason regardless of the character and behavior of one's adversary.

    b. Tendency to minimize or dismiss as irrelevant those speeches and writings of one's enemies which, by their expression of implacable hostility toward the United States, appear contrary to reason. (To many men of good will, unrelenting malevolence is incomprehensible.)

    George F. Kennan [former U.S. ambassador to the USSR]: "Statements about Communist aggressiveness and brutality impute to Soviet leaders a total inhumanity not plausible in nature and out of accord with those human ideals which we must recognize as lying — together with other elements less admirable in the eyes of some us — at the origins of European Marxism."

    Contrast Alexander Solzhenitsyn: "In addition to the toll of two world wars, we have lost ... as a result of internal political and economic 'class' extermination alone — 66 (sixty-six) million people!!! ... Marxist ideology bears the entire responsibility for all the blood that has been shed." [Contrast a recent report of the Center for the Study of Political Islam that Muslims have slaughtered 270 million people since Muhammad. Muslim apologists nonetheless call Islam "a religion of peace".]


    Postscript 2009:

    It should be noted that both Fulbright and Kennan were tainted by moral or cultural relativism, a doctrine that permeates education in the free world. This doctrine underlies American foreign policy to this day. (John Bolton refers to it as "moral equivalence" which, he says, is entrenched in the American State Department).

    Relativism, also conveyed as "multiculturalism," has influenced opinion-makers and decision-makers in Israel. Among the latter are Shimon Peres, Ariel Sharon, and Ehud Olmert. It is in this light that we are to understand Israel's policy of "territory for peace," a form of appeasement or refusal to cope with unmitigated evil.

    Ronald Regan rejected "détente" with the Soviet Union, which he called the "evil empire." Compare Israel's policy toward the Palestinian Authority." Prof. Paul Eidelberg is an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is the founder and president of The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. He has written on the Arab-Israel conflict and on Judaism. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org

    To Go To Top

Posted by Miki and Herb Sunshine, April 5, 2009.

This article was written by Rabbi Meir Kahane and it appeared in the Magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea, Shavat-5737, February-1977.

It is distributed by Barbara Ginsberg, who writes: "Anyone reading this Rav Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written by Rav Kahane and would like to be, please contact me at: barhow@netvision.net.il "

Previously e-mailed Rav Kahane writings are available at


"And Pharaoh called to Moses, saying: Go and worship the L-rd. Only your sheep and cattle will remain — your children will also go with you. And Moses said: You will also give us offerings and sacrifices for the L-rd our G-d, and our flocks will go with us." (Shmot 10:24-26)

The ninth plague-darkness — has struck Egypt with a vengeance and Pharaoh breaks. Step by step he has retreated and after the eighth plague — locusts — he was prepared to allow the Jews to leave except for their children. Now he surrenders almost entirely as he agrees that all the Jews can leave. He only asks one thing, one compromise, one small victory for himself, that the Jewish cattle remain behind.

Consider; the Jews have been slaves for 210 years. They have lived in misery and persecution. They suffered decrees such as the one casting their male children into the sea. They cried out unto the L-rd for freedom and salvation. Now, apparently the great moment has arrived! Pharaoh agrees that they shall go free! What does it matter that he asks for their cattle? Give it to him! The main thing is peace and salvation and we are willing to give up cattle for peace!

But Moses knows that this is not the purpose of the freedom of the Jewish people and of the story of the slavery and exodus. He is not prepared to compromise one inch because he knows what the purpose of G-d is. When Moses first entered the presence of Pharaoh and said: "The L-rd, G-d of the Hebrews, has said: Let my people go!" Pharaoh contemptuously answered: "Who is the L-rd? I know not the L-rd and will not let Israel go!" Here is where the battle was joined. Here is the purpose and aim of creation — to have the world recognize the dominion and kingship of the L-rd being challenged. Pharaoh must be made to recognize and totally acknowledge the sovereignty of the L-rd over him and his people. He cannot make compromises; he cannot strike bargains. He must submit totally!

"And I shall be glorified through (the defeat of) Pharaoh and his army and Egypt shall know that I am the L-rd." Only the total defeat of the wicked can raise and honor the name of the L-rd, says the Biblical commentator Rashi. This is why there will be no compromise with Pharaoh. He must totally submit, he must totally surrender.

And even when he apparently does this, after the plague of the first born, when he runs to Moses and says: "Get out, take your flocks with you, just leave and ask the L-rd to bless me!" Moses refuses and in the words of the Mechilta; "And he called unto Moses and Aaron in the middle of the night and said: get up and leave! Said Moses unto him: No, we have been ordered not to leave our houses until morning. What are we, thieves that we should slink out in the night? No, we will leave only in the morning with an upraised arm before the eyes of all the Egyptians!"

Not one inch of retreat here. The lesson of the L-rd being the Omnipotent, king of the universe must be seen and acknowledged.

The lesson is an eternal one and must be learned in our time, too. The question of peace in the Middle East is a question of the Arabs and the world acknowledging the total sovereignty of the All Mighty. There can be no compromise on this. It is only a peace that comes with Arabs submitting to the yoke of the heavenly kingdom that will be a permanent one and the Jew who gives up part of his land as a compromise, violates the entire purpose of the rise of the Jewish State and the demand of the All Mighty that the nations acknowledge Him as King. There can be no retreat from land because that is in essence a retreat also from the Kingship of the L-rd.

Herb Sunshine is a lawyer, qualified to practice in U.S.A. and Israel. He and his wife Miki live in Jerusalem. Contact them by email at sunshine.h@012.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Joshua Pundit, April 4, 2009.

President Barack Hussein Obama's $3.6 trillion dollar budget was approved by Congress yesterday.

It was done on a fairly sleazy way, just as the original stimulus was, without any Republican input whatsoever. The budget was presented as a 'reconciliation ' bill, a parliamentary squeeze play deliberately invoked by the Democrats to circumvent the Senate's normal rules requiring 60 votes to prevent a filibuster. It was designed to to limit debate, fast track passage and muzzle anyone attempting to oppose it.

Not one Republican voted for it, and a few of the more sensible Democrats, like Evan Bayh and Ben nelson joined them, but ultimately this was shoved through Congress like a triple strength enema.

The results of course will ultimately be quite similar, if a lot more expensive.

Obama is claiming that he going to shave $2 trillion off the debt (that's the cumulative deficit over his 10-year budget horizon), without raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year per household. That appears to be this week's definition of who's rich — subject to change, of course.

Below, economics Professor Micheal Boskin of Stanford cites the Congressional Budget Office numbers to show what's really going on — And that's without accounting for shortfalls in projecting, something DC is notorious for. Or the trillion bucks Obama just gave the IMF during his Big Adventure over the pond.

Of course, there's another alternative...a banana republic style devaluation of the currency with the resulting massive inflation. Ask someone from Argentina who lived through it what that was like.

Welcome to the change you voted for, America, You'd better hope enough grown ups get elected to Congress in 2010 to put the brakes on as much of this as possible...

(Graphic cheerfully swiped from Waystupid.Com)


He claims to reduce the deficit by half, to shave $2 trillion off the debt (the cumulative deficit over his 10-year budget horizon), and not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. While in a Clintonian sense correct (depends on what the definition of "is" is), it is far more accurate to describe Mr. Obama's budget as almost tripling the deficit. It adds $6.5 trillion to the national debt, and leaves future U.S. taxpayers (many of whom will make far less than $250,000) with the tab. And all this before dealing with the looming Medicare and Social Security cost explosion.

Some have laid the total estimated deficits and debt projections (as more realistically tallied by the Congressional Budget Office) on Mr. Obama's doorstep. But on this score the president is correct. He cannot rightly be blamed for what he inherited. A more accurate comparison calculates what he has already added and proposes to add by his policies, compared to a "do-nothing" baseline (see nearby chart).

The CBO baseline cumulative deficit for the Obama 2010-2019 budget is $9.3 trillion. How much additional deficit and debt does Mr. Obama add relative to a do-nothing budget with none of his programs? Mr. Obama's "debt difference" is $4.829 trillion — i.e., his tax and spending proposals add $4.829 trillion to the CBO do-nothing baseline deficit. The Obama budget also adds $177 billion to the fiscal year 2009 budget. To this must be added the $195 billion of 2009 legislated add-ons (e.g., the stimulus bill) since Mr. Obama's election that were already incorporated in the CBO baseline and the corresponding $1.267 trillion in add-ons for 2010-2019. This brings Mr. Obama's total additional debt to $6.5 trillion, not his claimed $2 trillion reduction. That was mostly a phantom cut from an imagined 10-year continuation of peak Iraq war spending.

The claim to reduce the deficit by half compares this year's immense (mostly inherited) deficit to the projected fiscal year 2013 deficit, the last of his current term. While it is technically correct that the deficit would be less than half this year's engorged level, a do-nothing budget would reduce it by 84%. Compared to do-nothing, Mr. Obama's deficit is more than two and a half times larger in fiscal year 2013. Just his addition to the budget deficit, $459 billion, is bigger than any deficit in the nation's history. And the 2013 deficit is supposed to be after several years of economic recovery, funds are being returned from the financial bailouts, and we are out of Iraq.

Finally, what of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.

What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama's plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That's in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama's budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits.

We can get a rough idea of who is likely to pay them by distributing this $6.5 trillion of future taxes according to the most recent distribution of income-tax burdens. We know the top 1% or 5% of income-taxpayers pay vastly disproportionate shares of taxes, and much larger shares than their shares of income. But it also turns out that Mr. Obama's massive additional debt implies a tax hike, if paid today, of well over $100,000 for people with incomes of $150,000, far below Mr. Obama's tax-hike cut-off of $250,000. (With interest, the tax hike would rise to more than $162,000 in 10 years, and over $20,000 a year if paid annually the following 10 years). In other words, a middle-aged two-career couple in New York or California could get a future tax bill as big as their mortgage.

This is archived at
http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2009/04/ obama-budget-passeswelcome-to-socialist.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 4, 2009.

Sura 9 "Our Absolute Right to Conquer the Whole Earth" and Sura 8 "How to Distribute the Loot that we Seize from Conquered Infidels" are surely tip-offs to the veracity of this description of Islam.

If we accept the UN resolution, we will be forced to ignore these Suras, while the protected Muslims get to act on them.

"...the United Nations Human Rights Council last Thursday approved a resolution ..."

If this UN Declaration passes, and is adopted by the General Assembly, then printing and disseminating the Koran will become a criminal act as it defames Jews, Christians, and pagans, as well as calling for violence against them. ????????!!!!!!

Under Islam of course there is no freedom of speech so what the Islamic bloc is proposing, under the guise of a widely supported UN resolution, is consistent with Islamic law which will be imposed on all UN member states.

How this resolution ever came into being says more about the UN which seems to have lost sight of its purpose and doesn't reflect the views of the free world.
This below is by Robert Spencer and is archived at


In the featured article at FrontPage today I discuss the UN's ongoing attempts to criminalize criticism of Islam, thereby destroying the freedom of speech:

In a crushing blow to the freedom of speech worldwide, the United Nations Human Rights Council last Thursday approved a resolution calling upon member states to provide legal "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

While the resolution speaks of religion in general, the proposal came from Pakistan and had the backing of the powerful 57-government Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN's largest voting bloc — so it was clear that Islam was the only religion the drafters of the resolution had in mind. This is underscored by the fact that Muslim states have worked energetically to make "Islamophobia" the focus of Durban II — the UN's upcoming second World Conference on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance. A draft declaration declares that "defamation of Islam" should be a criminal offense, even when it takes place under the "pretext" of "freedom of expression, counter terrorism or national security."

In other words, if the OIC and the drafters of the Durban declaration get their way, any honest examination of how jihadists use Islamic texts and teachings to make recruits will be illegal. So not only does this herald the death of free speech, but it also leaves us mute and defenseless before the advancing global jihad.

This has been a long time coming. The UNHRC resolution and the Durban II draft are part of an international agenda agreed upon at the March 2008 meeting in Senegal convened by the OIC.

At that convocation the OIC developed what the Associated Press called "a battle plan" to defend Islam — but not from the terrorists who, as we hear all the time, have "hijacked" their religion. Rather, the OIC declared its intention to craft a "legal instrument" to fight against the threat to Islam they perceived "from political cartoonists and bigots."

The OIC was referring, of course, to the "notorious" Danish cartoons of Muhammad that appeared in 2005, touching off riots and murders all over the Islamic world. "Muslims are being targeted by a campaign of defamation, denigration, stereotyping, intolerance and discrimination," explained Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, the OIC's secretary general. The AP reported that OIC "delegates were given a voluminous report by the OIC that recorded anti-Islamic speech and actions from around the world. The report concludes that Islam is under attack and that a defense must be mounted."

The offensive would take the form of a "legal instrument" that would criminalize what the OIC and other Islamic entities perceive as criticism of Islam. "Islamophobia," Ihsanoglu declared, "cannot be dealt with only through cultural activities but (through) a robust political engagement." This is a careful euphemism calling for restrictions on freedom of speech. Abdoulaye Wade, the President of Senegal and chairman of the OIC, made this point explicit: "I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy. There can be no freedom without limits."

The OIC's campaign against free speech met with its first big success at the UN Human Rights Council. In June 2008, Council President Doru-Romulus Costea explained that religious issues can be "very complex, very sensitive and very intense. ... This council is not prepared to discuss religious matters in depth, consequently we should not do it." Henceforth only religious scholars would be permitted to broach such sensitive issues.

"While Costea's ban applies to all religions," the AP explained, "it was prompted by Muslim countries complaining about references to Islam." The ban came after a heated session in which David G. Littman, speaking for several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), denounced the practices of female genital mutilation (FGM), execution by stoning, and child marriage as sanctioned by Islamic law. Egypt, Pakistan, and Iran angrily protested, interrupting Littman over a dozen times and eventually forcing the proceedings to be suspended.

With council president Costea ultimately prohibiting all discussion of "religious issues" from council meetings, the Islamic delegates can rest assured that there will be no more discussion of the fact that Islamic theology provides the basis for human rights outrages ranging from female genital mutilation to stonings. Thus, an international body ostensibly dedicated to promoting human rights voluntarily renounced any study of one of the leading sources of international human rights violations.

Shortly after this incident, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of Organization of the Islamic Conference, declared victory in clearly supremacist terms: Muslims had dictated to the West the "red lines that should not be crossed," and the West was complying. He said that OIC initiatives against "Islamophobia" had resulted in "convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam." He added: "In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film 'Fitna', we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked."

The attempt to compel Western states to ban insults to Islam is quickly picking up speed, and bodes ill for the ability of those states to defend themselves against the global jihad in all its forms — since Islamic supremacists and their allies routinely characterize all investigation of the Islamic roots of the jihadist agenda as "hate speech."

This campaign represents the international dimension of the stealth jihad. It does not consist of attacking western countries with guns or bombs, or even threatening to do so. Instead, we're pressured to accommodate Islam by placing the religion off-limits to critical discussion. It's presented as an act of "tolerance," but the deliberate result is the erosion of core Western concepts of free expression. Think about the extent to which that single value defines western civilization: for one thing, it is an indispensable foundation of the American Revolution and the American system of republican government. And we are surrendering it, gradually and voluntarily, to those who seek to impose on us a value system that elevates the sanctity of Islam over freedom.

In order to Islamicize the West, stealth jihadists need to convince us to relinquish our attachment to our traditional freedoms.

One would have never thought that westerners would give up free speech of their own accord, but we are now in the process of carving out a major exception for Islam.

Yet the freedom to criticize religion, of course, is the very cornerstone of the right to free expression. Once we surrender that right, can surrender of the freedom of religion be far behind?

Islam is a religion of peace, we are told. And anyone who argues otherwise better watch out — if the UN, with which Obama wants to work so closely, gets its way, he may soon face legal action.

The only victors can be the jihadists themselves: Western authorities, already mired in politically correct myopia, will grow even more afraid to speak openly about what they're trying to do and what we can do to stop it.

The losers can only be those who value freedom of speech and understand why it is so important in a genuinely pluralistic society.

The UN measure moves the West one step closer to submitting to the hegemony of Islamic norms.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 4, 2009.

Pesach comes close, and with it a slow-down in my writing. I ask you please, friends, to limit your communication to me to issues that are significant, and to understand that responses may be slow. If I could figure out how to put more hours in the day, it would be great.


I have no word on the capture of the terrorist who axed the head of two boys last week. The horror of that attack has lingered. The murdered boy had not wandered into dangerous territory. This was not a drive-by shooting. This was a case of the terrorist coming right into the town and going at young people.

Here I wanted to do just a bit of sharing. I was not well acquainted with Bat Ayin myself, but decided to do some checking in order to present a picture of this Gush Etzion town of 1000 that is being represented as "extreme" in certain quarters. This community, which is Orthodox — Religious Zionist in the main, with Breslov and Chabad and Carlebach influences — is devoted to organic farming and holistic medicine. A friend of mine who spent time there tells me the people are very gentle and that the atmosphere feels idyllic. The community boasts two institutions of Jewish learning — a Yeshiva for men and a Midreshet for women.


It's not going to stop: Today two terrorists were caught trying to plant bombs along the Gaza border fence and killed by the IDF.

Just hours later, a 16 year old Bedouin girl — an Israeli citizen, who had obviously been recruited and trained — attempted a shooting attack at a base in the Negev. Basma Awad al-Nabari of the village of Houra, arrived at a Border Police base between Arad and Beersheva armed with a gun, which it was obvious she was able to handle well, and began shooting at the soldiers. She was killed by an officer on the scene.

Investigation is now being done to determine who drove her to the base and who trained her.


Prime Minister Netanyahu has vowed to fight terror with full force and militarily, as necessary. Let us pray so.


It occurs to me that while we are quick to register distress with our officials when we are discontented, so should we register satisfaction. Especially is this the case with our new government, which is going to be pressured on all sides, and with our new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who spoke so forthrightly this past week. He needs to know we're pleased.

I suggest that Israel citizens take the time to send a word of congratulations and support.

For Prime Minister Netanyahu:
Telephone: 02-640-8456 Fax: 02-649-6659 E-mail: bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il

For Foreign Minister Lieberman:
Telephone: 02-640-8388 Fax: 02-640-8921 E-mail: aliberman@knesset.gov.il


It's generated a minor furor: the fact that US President Obama bowed from the waist to Saudi King Abdullah at the G20 meeting in London. This is obsequious and not in line with protocol. (He didn't bow to the Queen.)

It's not surprising — just one more reflection of the direction in which Barack Obama has chosen to orient himself.

Obama is on record as supporting the Saudi "peace plan," which is essentially a plan to weaken Israel into non-existence. It calls for pre-67 lines as borders and "return" of refugees.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, April 3, 2009.

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il See more of his artwork at

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, April 3, 2009.

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's candor in his "maiden speech" was indeed refreshing. He said inter alia that the Palestinian Authority must fulfill all the requirements of the "Road Map" to a Palestinian state — which means there will be no Palestinian state. This is "realism." It means no end to the conflict — not if one takes Islam or Arab-Islamic culture seriously.

It's plain that the Obama administration and the European Union do not take Islam seriously, which is why they are demanding a Palestinian state NOW. Unconditional acceptance of a Palestinian state was the objective of the Annapolis Conference, which Mr. Lieberman rejected in his maiden speech. In other words, he rejected unconditional surrender to Israel's enemy, the Fatah-Hamas Palestinian Authority. Turn, however, to Obama's visit to Saudi Arabia.

That the President of the United States should genuflect from the waist down to Saudi King Faud signifies the (ignominious) unconditional surrender of the United States to Islam.

Mr. Obama's father was a Muslim (which makes him a Muslim). His mother a secular Christian. Obama's bowing to King Faud signifies an alliance of Islam and the secularized Christian West against Judaism and the Jewish State of Israel.

This alliance may be said to have begun in 1975 when the United Nations declared Zionism a form of racism and subsequently endowed the Arafat-led PLO with "observer status." Thereafter, both the US and the EU rolled out the red carpet to Arafat. In violation of its agreement with Israel concerning the PLO, President Carter Jimmy allowed the PLO to establish an office in Washington, DC. PLO offices were also established in various European capitals. The two offspring of Judaism again bit the breasts that had suckled them.

All this is beyond the "realism" of Foreign Minister Lieberman. His realism merely elaborates Benjamin's Netanyahu oft-repeated slogan of "reciprocity" (a term foreign to the Islamic mind). What Lieberman and Netanyahu fail to see is that their affirmation of a Palestinian state makes their realism impossible.

This affirmation has pernicious consequences. First, to say "Yes" to an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria cannot but shrink and stultify the national identity of the Jewish people's as well as their confidence in the justice and nobility of Israel's cause. Acknowledging an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria — the heartland of the Jewish people — constitutes a PUBLIC TEACHING to Jews and Gentiles alike, that the Land of Israel does not belong exclusively to the Jewish people. This makes a mockery of the Torah and the teachings of the Prophets and Sages of Israel.

This teaching cannot but erode the historical memory of the Jewish people, since the teachings of their Prophets and Sages are intimately bound up with Judea and Samaria.

Second, nothing encourages the Arabs to persist in their genocidal objectives so much than the Jewish people's renunciation of their God-given and exclusive right to the Land of Israel. Affirming a Palestinian state not only arms Israel's Islamic enemies, it also undermines American and European support of Israel vis-à-vis the demands of those enemies. It is a confession of weakness. This weakness leads to almost irreversible errors.

For example, at the Likud central committee meeting that elected him as the party's chairman a few months before the June 1992 election, Mr. Netanyahu rejected a resolution to the effect that a Likud government would not be bound by any agreement that compromised Israel's security. He rejected this resolution on the fallacious grounds that a democracy must abide by its agreements. This is precisely the position of the present government coalition agreement.

What irony! For Great Britain violated the San Remo International Agreement which incorporated the Balfour Declaration and which affirmed exclusive Jewish sovereignty over what is now called the "West Bank"!

Quite apart from attorney Howard Grief's scholarly argument that the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of 1993 is itself a violation of international law (as well as of Israeli law), common sense tells us that no nation can be bound to an agreement which subsequently proves dangerous to its existence.

It is not international law — nor is it simply economic interests — that prompts democratic America and democratic Europe to unite with Islamic despots against the Jewish State of Israel. More significant is the age-old hatred of Judaism, the greatest enemy of paganism, which still animates the nations of mankind.

Here, political science or the reform of Israel's flawed system of multiparty cabinet government is of limited value. Israel's needs a rebirth of freedom — the freedom Abraham initiated when he turned away from paganism and became a servant of God. This is the freedom Jews exalt on Passover.

At this crucial moment of history, in which the West is capitulating to Islam, I can only pray that God will endow Israel's new government with the wisdom and courage to hold the fort against the barbarians and their timid allies in the democratic world.

Prayer by the Jewish people and by their political leaders may well be the only "realism."  

Prof. Paul Eidelberg is an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is the founder and president of The Foundation for Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. He has written on the Arab-Israel conflict and on Judaism. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org

To Go To Top

Posted by David Dastych, April 3, 2009.

This comes from Act! For America and is entitled " ACTION ALERT — CONTACT THE U.S. SENATE TODAY."

"ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America's national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. " Their website is at www.actforamerica.org


Dear David,

Our email yesterday addressed the issue of Iran launching a nuclear weapon over the United States in order to ignite an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) that could short-out electrical equipment, power grids, and sensitive electronic equipment. Those of us who have lived without electricity for a few days after a storm understand how this cripples our way of life. Imagine electrical power and communications wiped out for months or longer. The devastation to our economy and our very way of life is almost incalculable. Severe food shortages and lack of fresh water, leading to panic and chaos, would be just the beginning.

In the article below Jeffrey Goldberg reports on the recent interview he conducted with new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu's message to President Obama was clear and unequivocal: Stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or Israel will.

We have highlighted in red segments of the story that we find especially relevant to the ACT! for America message regarding how we must view and deal with Islamists — which is the theme of Brigitte Gabriel's bestseller They Must Be Stopped. (If you haven't yet read it you need to get a copy right away). As we noted yesterday, the Obama administration's various actions and overtures do not inspire confidence that President Obama will exert the kind of pressure on Iran that is necessary to convince the mullahs to abandon their nuclear weapons program. Perhaps this is why Prime Minister Netanyahu delivered this unmistakable — and necessary — message to President Obama.

The good news is we can take action on Iran TODAY! We have just learned that Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Joe Lieberman (ID-CT) have sponsored an amendment to President Obama's budget that will hit Iran where it hurts — by making sure your U.S. tax dollars DO NOT support companies that do business with Iran's energy sector.

The Senate will vote on this amendment TODAY. It is crucial that five Senators, listed below, are contacted as soon as possible and urged to vote "yes" on this amendment. If you live in Indiana, North Dakota, New Jersey, Washington, or New York, it's especially important that you call your Senator listed below.

So please take less than 5 minutes to call the Senators listed! Tell them to stop Iran's nuclear bomb by voting in favor of Amendment 932!

* Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) — 202-224-5623
* Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) — 202-224-2043
* Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) — 202-224-3224
* Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) — 202-224-2621
* Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — 202-224-6542
"Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran — Or I Will"
by Jeffrey Goldberg
March 31, 2009

The message from Israel's new prime minister is stark: if the Obama administration doesn't prevent Tehran from developing nuclear weapons, Israel may be forced to attack. An Atlantic exclusive.

In an interview conducted shortly before he was sworn in today as prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu laid down a challenge for Barack Obama. The American president, he said, must stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons — and quickly — or an imperiled Israel may be forced to attack Iran's nuclear facilities itself.

"The Obama presidency has two great missions: fixing the economy, and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons," Netanyahu told me. He said the Iranian nuclear challenge represents a "hinge of history" and added that "Western civilization" will have failed if Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

In unusually blunt language, Netanyahu said of the Iranian leadership, "You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran."

History teaches Jews that threats against their collective existence should be taken seriously, and, if possible, preempted, he suggested. In recent years, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has regularly called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," and the supreme Iranian leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, this month called Israel a "cancerous tumor."

But Netanyahu also said that Iran threatens many other countries apart from Israel, and so his mission over the next several months is to convince the world of the broad danger posed by Iran. One of his chief security advisers, Moshe Ya'alon, told me that a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East. "This is an existential threat for Israel, but it will be a blow for American interests, especially on the energy front. Who will dominate the oil in the region — Washington or Tehran?"

Netanyahu said he would support President Obama's decision to engage Iran, so long as negotiations brought about a quick end to Iran's nuclear ambitions. "How you achieve this goal is less important than achieving it," he said, but he added that he was skeptical that Iran would respond positively to Obama's appeals. In an hour-long conversation, held in the Knesset, Netanyahu tempered his aggressive rhetoric with an acknowledgement that nonmilitary pressure could yet work. "I think the Iranian economy is very weak, which makes Iran susceptible to sanctions that can be ratcheted up by a variety of means." When I suggested that this statement contradicted his assertion that Iran, by its fanatic nature, is immune to pressure, Netanyahu smiled thinly and said, "Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That's what makes them so dangerous."

He went on, "Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest. People say that they'll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?"

Netanyahu offered Iran's behavior during its eight-year war with Iraq as proof of Tehran's penchant for irrational behavior. Iran "wasted over a million lives without batting an eyelash ... It didn't sear a terrible wound into the Iranian consciousness. It wasn't Britain after World War I, lapsing into pacifism because of the great tragedy of a loss of a generation. You see nothing of the kind." [Editor's Note: This is why President Obama's words to the Iranian leaders, that claim we share the same values of the "preciousness of humanity", were incorrect, and reveal a stunning misunderstanding of the worldview of the Iranian mullahs. They don't share this value — even when it comes to their own people.]

He continued: "You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation." I asked Netanyahu if he believed Iran would risk its own nuclear annihilation at the hands of Israel or America. "I'm not going to get into that," he said.

Neither Netanyahu nor his principal military advisers would suggest a deadline for American progress on the Iran nuclear program, though one aide said pointedly that Israeli time lines are now drawn in months, "not years." These same military advisers told me that they believe Iran's defenses remain penetrable, and that Israel would not necessarily need American approval to launch an attack. "The problem is not military capability, the problem is whether you have the stomach, the political will, to take action," one of his advisers, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told me.

Both Israeli and American intelligence officials agree that Iran is moving forward in developing a nuclear-weapons capability. The chief of Israeli military intelligence, Major General Amos Yadlin, said earlier this month that Iran has already "crossed the technological threshold," and that nuclear military capability could soon be a fact: "Iran is continuing to amass hundreds of kilograms of low-enriched uranium, and it hopes to exploit the dialogue with the West and Washington to advance toward the production of an atomic bomb."

American officials argue that Iran has not crossed the "technological threshold"; the director of national intelligence, Admiral Dennis Blair, said recently that Israel and the U.S. are working with the same set of facts, but are interpreting it differently. "The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view," he said. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Michael Mullen, recently warned that an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would undermine stability in the Middle East and endanger the lives of Americans in the Persian Gulf.

The Obama administration agrees with Israel that Iran's nuclear program is a threat to Middle East stability, but it also wants Israel to focus on the Palestinian question. Netanyahu, for his part, promises to move forward on negotiations with the Palestinians, but he made it clear in our conversation that he believes a comprehensive peace will be difficult to achieve if Iran continues to threaten Israel, and he cited Iran's sponsorship of such Islamist groups as Hezbollah and Hamas as a stumbling block.

Ya'alon, a former army chief of staff who is slated to serve as Netanyahu's minister for strategic threats, dismissed the possibility of a revitalized peace process, telling me that "jihadists" interpret compromise as weakness. He cited the reaction to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza four years ago. "The mistake of disengagement from Gaza was that we thought like Westerners, that compromise would defuse a problem — but it just encouraged the problem," he said. "The jihadists saw withdrawal as a defeat of the West ... Now, what do you signal to them if you are ready to divide Jerusalem, or if you're ready to withdraw to the 1967 lines? In this kind of conflict, your ability to stand and be determined is more important than your firepower."

American administration sources tell me that President Obama won't shy from pressuring Netanyahu on the Palestinian issue during his first visit to Washington as prime minister, which is scheduled for early May. But Netanyahu suggested that he and Obama already see eye-to-eye on such crucial issues as the threat posed by Hamas. "The Obama administration has recently said that Hamas has to first recognize Israel and cease the support of terror. That's a very good definition. It says you have to cease being Hamas."

When I noted that many in Washington doubt his commitment to curtailing Jewish settlement on the West Bank, he said, in reference to his previous term as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999, "I can only point to what I did as prime minister in the first round. I certainly didn't build new settlements."

Netanyahu will manage Israel's relationship with Washington personally — his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, of the anti-Arab Israel Beiteinu party, is deeply unpopular in Washington — and I asked him if he could foresee agreeing on a "grand bargain" with Obama, in which he would move forward on talks with the Palestinians in exchange for a robust American response to Iran's nuclear program. He said: "We intend to move on the Palestinian track independent of what happens with Iran, and I hope the U.S. moves to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons regardless of what happens on the Palestinian track."

In our conversation, Netanyahu gave his fullest public explication yet of why he believes President Obama must consider Iran's nuclear ambitions to be his preeminent overseas challenge. "Why is this a hinge of history? Several bad results would emanate from this single development. First, Iran's militant proxies would be able to fire rockets and engage in other terror activities while enjoying a nuclear umbrella. This raises the stakes of any confrontation that they'd force on Israel. Instead of being a local event, however painful, it becomes a global one. Second, this development would embolden Islamic militants far and wide, on many continents, who would believe that this is a providential sign, that this fanaticism is on the ultimate road to triumph.

"Third, they would be able to pose a real and credible threat to the supply of oil, to the overwhelming part of the world's oil supply. Fourth, they may threaten to use these weapons or to give them to terrorist proxies of their own, or fabricate terror proxies. Finally, you'd create a great sea change in the balance of power in our area — nearly all the Arab regimes are dead-set opposed to Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons. They fervently hope, even if they don't say it, that the U.S. will act to prevent this, that it will use its political, economic, and, if necessary, military power to prevent this from happening."

If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Netanyahu asserted, Washington's Arab allies would drift into Iran's orbit. "The only way I can explain what will happen to such regimes is to give you an example from the past of what happened to one staunch ally of the United States, and a great champion of peace, when another aggressive power loomed large. I'm referring to the late King Hussein [of Jordan] ... who was an unequalled champion of peace. The same King Hussein in many ways subordinated his country to Saddam Hussein when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990. Saddam seemed all-powerful, unchallenged by the United States, and until the U.S. extracted Kuwait from Saddam's gullet, King Hussein was very much in Iraq's orbit. The minute that changed, the minute Saddam was defeated, King Hussein came back to the Western camp."

One of Iran's goals, Netanyahu said, is to convince the moderate Arab countries not to enter peace treaties with Israel. Finally, he said, several countries in Iran's neighborhood might try to develop nuclear weapons of their own. "Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons could spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The Middle East is incendiary enough, but with a nuclear arms race it will become a tinderbox," he said.

Few in Netanyahu's inner circle believe that Iran has any short-term plans to drop a nuclear weapon on Tel Aviv, should it find a means to deliver it. The first-stage Iranian goal, in the understanding of Netanyahu and his advisers, is to frighten Israel's most talented citizens into leaving their country. "The idea is to keep attacking the Israelis on a daily basis, to weaken the willingness of the Jewish people to hold on to their homeland," Moshe Ya'alon said. "The idea is to make a place that is supposed to be a safe haven for Jews unattractive for them. They are waging a war of attrition."

The Israeli threat to strike Iran militarily if the West fails to stop the nuclear program may, of course, be a tremendous bluff. After all, such threats may just be aimed at motivating President Obama and others to grapple urgently with the problem. But Netanyahu and his advisers seem to believe sincerely that Israel would have difficulty surviving in a Middle East dominated by a nuclear Iran. And they are men predisposed to action; many, like Netanyahu, are former commandos.

As I waited in the Knesset cafeteria to see Netanyahu, I opened a book he edited of his late brother's letters. Yoni Netanyahu, a commando leader, was killed in 1976 during the Israeli raid on Entebbe, and his family organized his letters in a book they titled Self-Portrait of a Hero. In one letter, Yoni wrote to his teenage brother, then living in America, who had apparently been in a fight after someone directed an anti-Semitic remark at him. "I see ... that you had to release the surplus energy you stored up during the summer," Yoni wrote. "There's nothing wrong with that. But it's too bad you sprained a finger in the process. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with a good fist fight; on the contrary, if you're young and you're not seriously hurt, it won't do you real harm. Remember what I told you? He who delivers the first blow, wins."

Contact David M. Dastych at david.dastych@aster.pl

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 3, 2009.

This was written by Bob Unruh and it appeared in World Net Daily http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=93696


(IsraelNN.com) The United Nations Relief and Works Agency has issued a warning to employees in Gaza who belong to Fatah,

Hamas and other terrorist groups, according to Haaretz. Employees' open political affiliation with terrorist groups is "worrisome" and must stop, said UNRWA's Gaza director, John Ging.

The warning came shortly after Hamas-affiliated employees swept the UNRWA union elections, while Fatah won leadership of the union as a whole. The Hamas victory made headlines, apparently embarrassing senior UNRWA workers.

Ging noted that similar victories have been reported in the past, but that previously such incident were reported by "hostile" bodies and not by residents of Gaza themselves.

The warning from Ging included a threat. If employees do not conceal their affiliation with terrorist groups, they could lose their jobs, he implied.

Ten thousand out of roughly 11,000 employees voted in the union elections. Tellingly, UNRWA teachers elected only Hamas-affiliated representatives, while voting among health workers and other employees was more mixed.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yardena, April 3, 2009.

This is from Arutz-7.


(IsraelNN.com) United-States President Barack Obama was caught on camera by journalists on Wednesday bowing in deference to Saudi King Abdullah as he greeted him at the opening of the G20 meeting in London, prior to being photographed with British royalty CAUGHT ON CAMERA:


The Saudi Plan calls on Israel to cede Gaza and all land east of the 1949 armistice line, including much of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, to the Palestinian Authority. Israel would also be required to cede the strategic Golan Heights region to Syria.

In addition, the plan requires Israel to release all terrorists currently in its prisons, and to offer citizenship to millions of foreign Arabs who say they are descended from Arabs who fled pre-state Israel during the War of Independence.

In exchange, Arab states would normalize their ties with the Jewish State.

In Israel, the plan has met with little support. Enacting the plan would force roughly 600,000 Israelis from their homes. In addition, senior defense officials have warned that the plan would compromise Israel's security.

The clip of Obama's bow is here.

Contact Yardena at Yardena3@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 3, 2009.


Um-El-Fahm is a large city of Arabs in Israel. Arabs have kept police and Jews out, running the town above the law. A Jewish nationalist activist, Baruch Marzel, appointed as an election watcher there [where votes are faked], was driven out. Finding this lawlessness intolerable, he led a peaceful march through the town, under heavy police guard, to demonstrate that Jews and police may enter. Arabs tried to block them, attacking and injuring police with rocks. Police arrested 10 (Arutz-7, 3/24). When Muslims attain a critical mass, they behave like that in other places, too, notably Britain and France.


"Narco-terrorists and the international criminal organizations that thrive on the illegal drug trade now threaten the national security of many nations." "Their partnerships are complex, linking illegal drugs, money, geography and politics. Yet, U.S. and international law-enforcement agencies overlook the connections between them, thereby unwittingly abetting the escalation in terrorism."

"Terrorists' and criminals' mutually beneficial activities include: illegal arms trafficking, extortion and protection rackets; kidnapping; prostitution rings and human trafficking; credit card, social security and immigration fraud and identity theft; tax fraud; counterfeiting currencies, pharmaceuticals, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.; pirating videos, compact discs, tapes, and software; and illegal oil trade. The hundreds of billions of dollars in revenues fill the war chests of terrorists and criminals alike. Some of that money is used to undermine the political systems where these groups operate or target."

The problem afflicts many countries, including the Afghanistan insurgents' resurgence, Mexico, Lebanon, and S. American ones. The UNO, however, which admits that the war on drugs is losing, considers that war a human rights violation. Addicts may be compelled to accept treatment.

Congress had proposed a fund to evaluate whether a certain fungus could destroy the commercial utility of the poppy crop, without affecting anything else of importance. No action was taken, however (Rachel Ehrenfeld, 3/17).


Massachusetts instituted a medical insurance plan that expanded coverage and left cost-containment for later. The politicians feared that if they tackled costs first, they couldn't get an agreement on expanding coverage later. Why should that be so? Lowered costs would make expanded coverage more feasible.

Came the fiscal crisis, and now Massachusetts is stuck with expanded coverage at high costs it cannot meet. What did they expect?

What does the Obama administration propose? It proposes primarily expanding coverage first and then reducing costs. Can't learn from experience?

One of the main methods by which government cuts medical costs is by fiat. Reduce allowances. That may force hospitals to reduce service and doctors to refuse patients they can't afford. The government is too conventional to analyze what Americans do to health with their polluted and depleted nutrients, lack of nutritional supplementation and complementary medical treatment.


The government claims to have a plan, but lacks specifics. It is just a series of statements and wishful thinking. It has not identified what caused the crisis. It proposes discretionary regulation. Discretion, in the hands of the government? Business would not know what the rules are. It would become too cautious.

Reform should be in the form of stated rules, compliance amenable to being checked by government auditors. I think that key rules are: (1) High margins, low-leverage, reasonable reserves for all types of lenders and, in the case of mortgages, also for buyers; (2) Restore fences against conflicts of interest within corporations; (3) Bundle debts only of the same rating, in the same bond. How to attain honest ratings?


When Israeli police consider an attack on Jews not ordinary criminal activity, they call it "nationalist." Would they call an Islamist attack on Christian Arabs "nationalist?" Probably not. Obviously, that attack is religious. So, too, are terrorist attacks on Jews.

Israel doesn't want to admit that the jihad against it is religious. An honest admission would undermine attempts and pretenses at settling the Arab-Israel conflict as if it were nationalist and were amenable to territorial bargaining. An honest admission also could arouse more participation by Muslims abroad.


Egypt wants Israel to have as its goal the establishment of a[nother] Palestinian

Arab state (IMRA, 3/16), in the Jewish homeland.

Why should a state founded to re-establish Jewish sovereignty in its homeland, want that? Shouldn't its goal be to eradicate terrorism there, not conferring sovereignty on terrorists? Yes, the US asserts that terrorism must be ended first, but in the 15 years since Oslo was signed, it did nothing to end terrorism, and it stopped Israeli efforts. The Arabs there have done much to boost terrorism.


"Secretary Clinton was interviewed this week on a PA teen television show and asked, 'What would you do if your daughter was unfortunate enough to have been born under occupation, born deprived of freedom and liberty?' She legitimized the question's false premise and actually helped incite hatred against Israel by not refuting it and ignoring the fact that 98 percent of Palestinians [i.e., P.A. residents] actually live under the Palestinian Authority or Hamas, not Israeli control. She responded, 'Well, I would do what so many parents here in the W. Bank and in Gaza do. I would love her... I would get the best education I could for her... I would never give up on the dream of a Palestinian state.' That an alarming number of Palestinian parents have encouraged their children to become suicide bombers was somehow lost from Secretary Clinton's response."

"During her visit to Israel last week, Clinton demanded that Israel take no action against illegally-built Arab homes in eastern Jerusalem — and that Israel disallow legally-built Jewish homes in eastern Jerusalem." (Arutz-7, 3/15).

The dream of a P.A. state is hers, not theirs. They dream is conquest of Israel. Consider the implications of a US Secretary of State not knowing or pretending not to know! If she doesn't know, then US policy is doomed to its usual failure that the State Dept. fosters. If she does know, then she is continuing its subtle anti-Zionism, which is so perverse that it promotes jihad. Since jihadists are anti-American, the State Dept., in effect, is anti-American.

Consider the implications of our President being equally ignorant or deceptive!


Appeasement-minded commentators sympathized with Mumbai terrorists' "grievances" and not with their innocent victims (Jewish Political Chronicle, winter 2009, p.49 from Dorothy Rabinowitz, Wall St. J, 12/1/08). Grievances don't justify torture and murder. Their grievances are phony, just a pretext.


Israel's secret service found that in the last prisoner exchange, almost two-thirds of the released Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists resumed terrorism.

PM Olmert reportedly is willing to release another thousand, experienced Hamas terrorists, in exchange for the one Israeli prisoner. The secret service would take that not only as a severe breach of security but also as a severe blow to morale. After all the risk and effort into capturing the thousand, it soon would have to recapture 665 of them, at further risk and effort. How many Israelis would those 665 murder, before being recaptured?

Israel has to find another way than disproportionate and therefore counter-productive exchanges, to get its people released. One way is to cut off all goods and services from Israel to Gaza. Israel would inform the protesting world that it would end the complete boycott as soon as Hamas releases its prisoner alive.

Another way is to assassinate Hamas leaders and to overturn the opinion of the Attorney-General that Israel has to allow family visits to terrorist prisoners (Arutz-7, 3/17).

Israel probably allows more visits than the Geneva Convention requires of POWs. Terrorists, however, by violating the humane rules of war, forfeit consideration as POWs. Therefore, Israel is not bound to allow family visits to them. The Attorney-General should be fired for giving aid and comfort to the enemy on that and on numerous other issues.

Israel also is entitled to execute terrorist prisoners. Under present conditions and mind-sets, it would not execute them in daily batches until Hamas relents. It hasn't the fortitude to deal with the world's hypocritical humanitarianism towards the Arabs, which contradicts the world's inhumane attitude towards the Jews.


Tens of thousands of foreign Arabs marry Israeli Arab citizens, in order to gain entry to Israel. In Jerusalem, 16,000 entered by that means. In the Negev, 14,000. Many divorce within a few weeks, their marriages a sham (Arut-z7, 3/17). Would it help to legislate that divorce within a year cancels citizenship?

Immigration fraud and loophole is known, but Israeli authorities do not act against it. No competence, courage, or loyalty? An estimated 130,000 Arabs entered by loophole and fraud, in the past decade. By the same means, about three hundred thousand Christian Russians entered. In allowing this, Israeli officials act as if anti-Zionist. They act that way in general.

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@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Rafael Medoff, April 3, 2009.

On Passover morning in 1946, Mrs. Margaret Ashton Stimson Lindsley crossed the moat surrounding the Acre Prison in British Mandatory Palestine. She gazed at the majestic fortress walls, still studded with cannon balls from Napoleon's assault a century and a half earlier.

A less adventurous soul might not have chosen to visit Palestine, much less its most notorious prison, in 1946, when the Holy Land was wracked by warfare between Jewish underground militias seeking statehood and a British Mandatory regime that refused to yield. More than a few would-be visitors postponed their travel plans to avoid being caught in the whirlwind of bombings and shootouts.

But Mrs. Lindsley was not the type to be deterred by the dangers of war. She was a crusading journalist of the old school, and she had adopted the fight for Jewish statehood as her cause. Acre Prison was exactly the kind of place she wanted to see, so she could expose the injustice of British rule to her readers around the world.

A native of the Boston suburb of Dedham, Lorna (her preferred name) Lindsley was, as the New York Times put it, "of early and distinguished New England descent." Her father, a cousin of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, had served as U.S. Ambassador to Argentina. Lorna attended Radcliffe College, then headed for the more exciting cultural milieu of interwar Paris.

It was when civil war erupted in Spain in 1936 that Lindsley found her true calling. Attaching herself to the Loyalist (anti-fascist) forces, she wrote a series of pro-Loyalist articles for U.S. newspapers and political magazines. Lindsley did not pretend to be an objective reporter. In between articles, she served as a nurse to wounded Loyalist soldiers and wrote letters home for those too badly injured to hold a pen.

After Franco's triumph, she returned to Paris. In the spring of 1940, with the German army approaching, more than 1 million of the city's residents fled. Lindsley too left — but only for a few days, to smuggle out film footage of the invasion. Three days later, she was back in the French capital. For the next five months, Lindsley defied the terror of the Nazi regime in order to help smuggle Jewish and political refugees out of the city. Her reports from within the German zone became an important source of eyewitness information for the American and British press. After returning to the United States in 1941, she wrote her first and only book, War is People, which described the impact of war on the lives of ordinary citizens. Lindsley could not sit still for long. By 1946, she was in Mandatory Palestine, championing the cause of Menachem Begin's Irgun Zvai Leumi militia as it fought the British to achieve Jewish independence. When Lindsley's request to interview imprisoned Irgun fighters was turned down by the British authorities, she "found a way to go without asking" — by pretending to be a member of the first family of Revisionist Zionism, the Jabotinskys, so she could join them on a visit to jail.

Lindsley's account of her memorable visit to the Acre Prison appears in an unpublished article that has been made available to the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies by the family of Eri Jabotinsky (1909-1967), son of the Revisionist Zionist leader Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Lindsley's report offers a fascinating behind the scenes glimpse at the men and women who fought for the creation of Israel.

Eri was a leader of the Irgun's "aliya bet" underground railroad, which smuggled tens of thousands of Jews from Europe to Palestine in defiance of British immigration restrictions. He also spent much of 1941-1944 in the U.S. as one of the leaders of the Bergson Group, which organized protests urging the Allies to rescue European Jewry. In 1939-1940 and again in 1945-1946, Eri was jailed by the British, in the Acre Prison, for his immigration activity.

While Eri was in Acre the second time, he was joined there by his 17-year-old cousin Peleg Tamir, also an Irgun activist. By the spring of 1946, Eri was free but Peleg remained behind bars.

Visits to security prisoners were granted to their families once every two months, plus on Jewish holidays, so the approach of Passover presented Lindsley with her opportunity.

"I was to be 'adopted' by a family for that day, and would enter as one of them," she wrote. Eri invited her to be a Jabotinsky for the day, and so she traveled to Acre with Peleg's grandmother and parents, Eri and his wife, and Eri's 3-year-old daughter Karny — "her first visit to a prison, to get her used to it," Eri joked.

"As we crossed the drawbridge of the ancient castle so handsome to the passing eye, Eri Jabotinsky looked at me and grinned and said, 'Welcome to the family chateau!'"

Visitors were allotted 25 minutes. "Peleg was at the wire, a handsome dark haired boy with a fine smile, and all the family started talking at once to him till he begged for mercy." They "exchanged the news from outside the prison for the news inside the prison."

Peleg and 19 comrades had been arrested while undergoing Irgun training in Shuni. The British also claimed they were linked to a cache of arms discovered in the area. They denied the charge but were convicted anyway, and given prison terms; Peleg was sentenced to three years. "On the same day and in the same court, an Arab was tried for keeping an unlicensed gun on the roof of his house," Lindsley reported. "His defense, uncorroborated, was that the gun had been planted there by a policeman who had a grudge against him. The Arab was released." This kind of double standard is "what makes for a bitterness [among the Jews] in Palestine," she noted.

Also among the Jabotinsky "family" that day was Hassia Hassan, "a fifteen-year-old Canadian girl, a Jewess, a young sweetheart of Peleg's," Lindsley wrote. "She did not speak, she gazed at Peleg and adored him in silence. Because she was his friend she was now under house arrest in Haifa, which meant no movies nor ice cream for her at the corner food shops. In her the Government of Palestine has another political prisoner in the making."

All too soon, "a guard with a baton started beating on the wooden barricade, our time was up." Lindsley wanted to leave some books for Peleg, and was annoyed at how carefully prison officials scrutinized them. She wondered, sarcastically, whey they did not object to her leaving Macbeth, since, she pointed out, "it's full of political killings, and plot and subterfuge." Lindsley and the Jabotinskys then walked to the shore for a picnic lunch consisting of "the cold remains of our Passover dinner of the night before."

With the sea "pounding against the Phoenician seawall, and the sound of heavy guns from a British artillery school" in the distance, Lindsley and the Jabotinskys spoke about the ancient Festival of Freedom and their generation's own struggle for Jewish national freedom.

Just two years later, that struggle reached its successful conclusion as the State of Israel was established.

Eri Jabotinsky was elected, in 1949, to the First Knesset, as a member of Begin's Herut Party. Israeli politics was not to his liking, however, and after one term he returned to teaching mathematics.

Eri's daughter Karny grew up to become a prominent Israeli psychiatrist and, for some years served as ombudsman for Israel's Ministry of Health.

Peleg Tamir was released from Acre in 1947, but was then rearrested and placed in the Atlit detention camp, from which he escaped by hiding in a suitcase. His distinguished career over the past half-century has included serving as general director of the Israel Manufacturers Association and head of manpower and personnel for the Israel Air Force. Today he chairs the Jabotinsky Institute, the Tel Aviv-based center for scholarship on the Revisionist Zionist leader and his movement.

And that Canadian teenager whom Lindsley pitied? Hassia Hassan, the innocent schoolgirl whose biggest problem, Lindsley thought, was being deprived of "movies and ice cream," was actually an active member of the Irgun and would herself eventually spend time in prison. Hassia and Peleg recently celebrated their 58th wedding anniversary.

The postwar years were not so kind to Lorna Lindsley, however. Her marriage ended in divorce, her daughter Leonora was killed in a jeep accident in Germany, and in the summer of 1956, at age 67, Lindsley herself suffered a fatal cerebral hemorrhage.

But it would not have been Lorna Lindsley's way to leave this world without one last fight. At the time of her death, she had taken up the cause of the Mau Mau rebels battling for the independence of Kenya from its British colonial rulers. Undaunted, as usual, by the dangers of the war zone, Lindsley had recently traveled to Kenya for a firsthand view of the situation. For Lorna Lindsley, the Passover spirit of freedom that she embraced in Palestine in 1946 continued to echo across Europe, Africa, and anywhere else people struggled against oppressive regimes. Dr. Rafael Medoff is director of the David S. Wynam Institute for Holocaust Studies at http://www.wymaninstitute.org

This article was posted April 3, 2009 at JTNews.

To Go To Top

Posted by Eye on the UN, April 2, 2009.
This was written by Anne Bayefsky. It appeared in National Review Online
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q= YTM3N2FhODVlMDM5NDM0MjE4ZmNlMjEzMjViZmY4ZGU=

Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and at Touro College. She is also editor of www.EyeontheUN.org.

The U.N. Human Rights Council is a human rights catastrophe. So why did U.S. President Barack Obama decide this week that the United States would join it?


Pres. Barack Obama has announced that the United States will seek a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council for the first time. The formal election of new members is in May, but the result is a foregone conclusion. The human-rights abusers who dominate the Council and use it to protect themselves, to eliminate universal standards, and to demonize their democratic foes are already celebrating.

This is a surrender of American values unlike any other. The spectacle of this particular president legitimizing a lethal weapon for the defeat of human rights will haunt him until the end of his term.

The Council was created in March 2006 after the U.N. Human Rights Commission became too much of an embarrassment even for the U.N. The General Assembly rejected a U.S. proposal requiring that states actually protect human rights as a condition of Council membership. As a result, the United States voted against the Assembly resolution that gave it birth.

The Bush administration also refused to use taxpayer dollars to pay for the Council. Obama's move will reverse this policy. It is, therefore, important to appreciate exactly what American tax dollars will now be purchasing. Here is a sample of what the Council has "accomplished" over its short history.

  • The Council has adopted a formal agenda of ten items that governs all its meetings. One agenda item is reserved for condemning Israel. This item is called the "human-rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories"; the human rights of Israelis are deliberately omitted. And one agenda item is assigned to the human rights of the remaining 99.9 percent of the world's population. By taking a seat on the Council, the United States will be agreeing to this agenda and to the resulting apportionment of the Council's time.

  • Every morning throughout the Council sessions, all U.N. member states meet to strategize and share information in one of the U.N.'s five regional groups. All that is, except Israel. At the Council, Israel is denied membership in any regional group, including the amalgam of Western states to which the United States belongs. The United States is, therefore, about to attend a continuous stream of meetings through doors effectively marked "no representatives of the Jewish people allowed."

  • The Council has had ten regular sessions concerning human rights worldwide and five special sessions to condemn Israel.

  • The Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all the other 191 U.N. member states combined.

  • The Council has terminated human-rights investigations of such paragons as Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Liberia.

  • The last time the Council took action on Sudan was seven months ago. The resolution on that country "acknowledges. .. the steps taken by the Government of the Sudan to strengthen the human-rights legal and institutional framework, principally in law reform." (The Sudanese criminal code prohibits homosexuality, makes adultery a capital offense, and provides for flogging, amputation, stoning, and crucifixion.)

  • The Council has just terminated every investigation of "consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms." Under this heading, it has discontinued investigations of the likes of Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Even the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission had investigations under way every year since this process began in 1974.

  • The Council president has made a procedural ruling that any commentary connecting the practice of Islam to human-rights violations is out of order.

  • The Council has sabotaged the key resolution in the U.N. system on freedom of expression. The resolution now requires investigation of "abuses of the right of freedom of expression" . Most Council members do not permit freedom of expression, much less suffer from the abuse of it.

  • The Council regularly adopts resolutions on the "defamation of religions," an overt attempt by Islamic states to stymie free speech of individuals in the name of protecting "religion."

  • The Council has made repeated efforts to circumvent universal principles. It has spawned numerous entities charged with searching for "normative gaps" — with the intention of filling them with sharia exemption clauses.

    The Bush administration also refused to use taxpayer dollars to pay for the Council. Obama's move will reverse this policy. It is, therefore, important to appreciate exactly what American tax dollars will now be purchasing. Here is a sample of what the Council has "accomplished" over its short history.

  • The Council has adopted a formal agenda of ten items that governs all its meetings. One agenda item is reserved for condemning Israel. This item is called the "human-rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories"; the human rights of Israelis are deliberately omitted. And one agenda item is assigned to the human rights of the remaining 99.9 percent of the world's population. By taking a seat on the Council, the United States will be agreeing to this agenda and to the resulting apportionment of the Council's time.

  • Every morning throughout the Council sessions, all U.N. member states meet to strategize and share information in one of the U.N.'s five regional groups. All that is, except Israel. At the Council, Israel is denied membership in any regional group, including the amalgam of Western states to which the United States belongs. The United States is, therefore, about to attend a continuous stream of meetings through doors effectively marked "no representatives of the Jewish people allowed."

  • The Council has had ten regular sessions concerning human rights worldwide and five special sessions to condemn Israel.

  • The Council has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all the other 191 U.N. member states combined.

  • The Council has terminated human-rights investigations of such paragons as Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Liberia.

  • The last time the Council took action on Sudan was seven months ago. The resolution on that country "acknowledges ... the steps taken by the Government of the Sudan to strengthen the human-rights legal and institutional framework, principally in law reform." (The Sudanese criminal code prohibits homosexuality, makes adultery a capital offense, and provides for flogging, amputation, stoning, and crucifixion.)

  • The Council has just terminated every investigation of "consistent patterns of gross and reliably attested violations of all human rights and all fundamental freedoms." Under this heading, it has discontinued investigations of the likes of Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Even the discredited U.N. Human Rights Commission had investigations under way every year since this process began in 1974.

  • The Council president has made a procedural ruling that any commentary connecting the practice of Islam to human-rights violations is out of order.

  • The Council has sabotaged the key resolution in the U.N. system on freedom of expression. The resolution now requires investigation of "abuses of the right of freedom of expression". Most Council members do not permit freedom of expression, much less suffer from the abuse of it.

  • The Council regularly adopts resolutions on the "defamation of religions," an overt attempt by Islamic states to stymie free speech of individuals in the name of protecting "religion."

  • The Council has made repeated efforts to circumvent universal principles. It has spawned numerous entities charged with searching for "normative gaps" — with the intention of filling them with sharia exemption clauses.

  • The Council has created an investigator charged with reporting on respect for "cultural diversity" (read: the refusal to hold Islamic states to universal standards of human rights). Not surprisingly, this plan was spearheaded by some of the worst human-rights abusers on the planet: Iran, Syria, Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela, and Belarus.

  • The Council's one new device — the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) — was heralded as introducing a careful examination of all U.N. states without discrimination. What actually happens is that a series of human-rights abusers congratulate one another, avoid any serious scrutiny, and then denigrate the democracies that agreed to the travesty in the first place.

It is true that some human-rights groups are willing to admit there is a problem with the Human Rights Council. But they still insist that Obama's decision to participate in this sham raises the prospect of change from

Serious reform of the U.N. Human Rights Council is impossible. The United States failed to win over a majority of U.N. members to the idea of minimal preconditions for Council membership because the majority of U.N. members are not fully free democracies and have no interest in introducing democratic hurdles for anything they do. On the Council itself, the majority of seats are held by the African and Asian regional groups, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has a majority in both of these groups. That means the OIC holds the balance of power. The more time the Council spends demonizing Israel, the less likely it becomes that it will ever get around to condemning genocide in Sudan, female slavery in Saudi Arabia, or torture in Egypt.

President Obama's decision to bring the United States into the Council is a gift for his political adversaries. The Council and its many subsidiary bodies meet almost year round, and many of their proceedings are webcast. Every time the president makes a speech about human dignity, the welfare of minorities, the equality of women, or an end to torture, his critics can circulate another picture of the hapless American representative to the Council glued to his chair during the adoption of yet another decision trashing human rights — with the United States paying the bill.

Human-rights victims will rue the day that the United States legitimized this morally bankrupt institution. President Obama will, too.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, April 2, 2009.

After Avigdor Lieberman's introductory statement yesterday as Israel's new foreign minister I started thinking about writing this article. This morning, seeing one of the headlines in the Jerusalem Post, that thought was reinforced. However, after the brutal murder of a 16 year old at Bat Ayin, the thought transformed into words on paper.

You may not have picked up Lieberman's remarks yesterday, being that most of the major internet news networks didn't mention the fact that Bibi Netanyahu was sworn in as Israel's new Prime Minister. I watched CNN, MSNBC and Foxnews all day. The event was totally ignored. What did Lieberman say? That Israel is not obligated by any agreements enumerated in the Annapolis Accords, because they had never been voted on in the Israeli cabinet. He did say that Israel was obligated by Bush's 'roadmap,' but one would imagine that he also believes that the Arabs must also keep their part of the agreement before Israel makes any further concessions. That doesn't look too promising.

What about the headline in the Jpost: PA: Death to those who sell land to Jews. Khaled Abu Toameh writes, "The Palestinian Authority has issued yet another warning to Palestinians against selling their homes or properties to Jews, saying those who violate the order would be accused of "high treason" — a charge that carries the death penalty. The latest warning was issued on Wednesday by the Chief [Islamic] Judge of the Palestinian Authority, Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, who reminded the Palestinians of an existing fatwa [religious decree] than bans them from selling property to Jews."

This is nothing new. I've been repeating this to tourists and journalists for years. (The latter very rarely believe me.) This became an issue following Hebron's purchase of Beit HaShalom, when the Arab owner screamed that he'd never really sold the property. He had no choice but to make this claim; anything less would have led to his immediate torture and death. His initial statements denying the sale came when he was sitting in an Arab jail in Jericho. However, now we have it again, officially, from the mouth of the "Chief Rabbi — Chief Justice" of the Arab terrorist authority, aka, the PA. Can you imagine what would happen if the Israeli chief justice, Dorit Beinish, or one of the Chief Rabbis of Israel would make a similar statement, saying that any Jew selling property to an Arab was to be summarily executed?!

The previous government, with Olmert at the reins and Barak in Defense, tried very hard to convince the Israeli public that 'times had changed.' The atmosphere seemed to be more relaxed. Abu Mazen was behaving himself, and Israel needed to do everything to strengthen him against continued attempts by Hamas to take over all of Arab-occupied Judea and Samaria. Unfortunately, these attempts to continue to deceive the Israeli public started to explode in their collective faces. Two police were killed in the Jordan Valley. A terror-tractorist tried to kill cops in Jerusalem. A car-bomber terrorist almost brought down a mall on hundreds of people in Haifa.

Here in Hebron we are told that everything is wonderful. Life with the Arabs has become tranquil Real lovey-dovey. So the IDF has notified us that soon the only road leading to Hebron, passing by the western entrance to Kiryat Arba will soon be open to Arab traffic. The last time this happened two Jews were killed on the same day: David Cohen and Hezzy Mualem. Other roadblocks are being opened, 'gestures' to the 'moderate' PA leadership. Gestures that inevitably lead to bloodshed and loss of Jewish life.

That brings us to today — a few hours ago. An Arab terrorist ('militant' in the language of all journalistic channels) with an axe broke into the municipality building in the Bat Ayin community and starting swinging. Two people were struck: Sixteen year old Shlomo Nativ was killed and a seven year old injured. I don't know the family of the murdered youth, but his sister studied in high school with one of my daughters and his brother is a student in a Yeshiva where one of my son's-in-law is his Rabbi. It hits close to home.

Bay Ayin really is a picture of tranquility. We have friends that lived there for a while and we spent a couple of Shabbats there. Surrounded by the Judean Hills, it's quiet and picturesque and a lovely place to live. Maybe fifteen minutes south of Gilo, Jerusalem, the population is a mixture of religious Jews who practice their religion with their way of life.

So, what do you say to people whose teenage son goes out for a little while and comes back home, dead, a week before Passover? The Jerusalem Post quotes Hamas sources, "For its part, Hamas called the attack a natural response to the "occupation." "This attack was committed in the framework of the resistance," Ayman Taha, a spokesperson for the group said. "This is a reaction to the continuing occupation and the continued building of settlements. This is a natural reaction," he said, "especially against the backdrop of Israel attacks. We are a people occupied, and it is our right to defend ourselves and to act in every way and with every means at our disposal in order to defend ourselves."

So let's go out and kill some kids.

So, as we approach the Passover holiday, with the advent of a 'new government', let's start anew. Israel has no obligations to the Americans, the Arabs, the Europeans, or anyone else. Some 3,500 years ago G-d gave birth the Jewish people by taking us out of Egypt and leading us to the Promised Land, to Eretz Yisrael. He created us, He made the rules, and He commanded us to follow those rules. First and foremost, to live in our land. Our first responsibility is to those rules, to freely in our land as a free people. Our government's first commitment is to its people, to ensure their safety, to ensure their lives in their land.

Israeli governments have always been very good at shirking this responsibility. Hebron's Jewish residents were abandoned to their fate when then Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu gave our Arab neighbors the hills surrounding the Jewish neighborhoods, leading to Arab shooting at Hebron for over two years. A few days ago Hebron marked the eighth anniversary of the murder of 10 month old Shalhevet Pass, shot and killed by a sniper from those very hills.

Gush Katif came under Arab mortar fire for years on end, with virtually no attempt to end the attacks by the Israeli government. So, too Sderot, hit by rockets for years and years; despite the Olmert-Livni-Barak supposed attempt to put an end to these attacks, they continue. Need more be said?

The question is what will Bibi do now — ten years later? Bibi has always said the 'right' thing, but done the wrong thing. Will he change his ways and start acting as a proud Jewish leader should? Prior to the elections he espoused the 'right' thing — opposition to a 'two-state solution.' Any normal human being with eyes in his head and a semi-working brain understands that a 'palestinian state' can only be catastrophic. Lieberman's comments yesterday were greeted with consternation by staff of the Israeli foreign ministry. Lieberman's first job should be to find those who expressed dismay at his statements and fire them. It's time that Israeli policy changed, and there is no need to hide the truth behind locked doors. The Israeli government must encourage land purchases such as Beit HaShalom in Hebron, working to further such deals rather than trying to squelch them.

And last, but certainly not least, this administration must act quickly and decisively following today's brutal murder of a sixteen year old at Bat Ayin. The response to such attacks must be immediate and equally brutal. The first reaction to the Hamas statement must be an unequivocal decision refusing to release Hamas murderers from prison in exchange for Gilad Shalt, killers who will surely return to their old ways once released from Israeli custody. Other measure, which need not be enumerated here, must be implemented, letting all know, Israeli lives cannot be, and will not be, trampled on. Our children, our women, our families, our citizens, are not cattle fodder, and any and all attempts to harm us will be answered appropriately.

Let the truth hang out!

EDITOR'S NOTE: UPDATE April 26, 2009

It has now been released for publication that the axe-wielding murderer of 13-year-old Shlomo Nativ in Bat Ayin just over two weeks ago was arrested only a few days later.

The terrorist, Mustafa Teet, 26, of an Arab village near Gush Etzion, has confessed to the murder and to the wounding of 7-year-old Yair Gamliel. He said he wished to die as a "shahid," a holy martyr.

On Thursday, April 9, Teet entered the Jewish town of Bat Ayin in Gush Etzion. He approached a group of children who were playing outside, and proceeded to attack them with an axe. Shlomo barely managed to stagger back home, where he died of his wounds, while the terrorist continued to attack one other child and attempt to do the same to a third. A local man tried to take the axe from the terrorist, suffering wounds in the process, but the terrorist escaped.

Five days later, Shabak (General Security Service) agents apprehended him.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 2, 2009.

It's too soon to be certain, but it's looking like Avidgor Lieberman, our new Foreign Minister, may become one of my heroes — after all of the many doubts I've had about him. At any rate, at the moment he's sure a breath of fresh air.

Following here are the main points he made at a ceremony of transition at the Foreign Ministry yesterday:

"Things have changed since [I studied international relations]...

"In my view, we must explain to the world that the priorities of the international community must change, and that all the previous benchmarks...have changed. There is a world order that the countries of the free world are trying to preserve, and there are forces, or countries or extremist entities that are trying to violate it.

"The claim that what is threatening the world today is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a way of evading reality. The reality is that the problems coming from the direction of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.

"What is important is to maintain global and regional stability...

"I think that we have been disparaging many concepts, and we have shown the greatest distain of all for the word 'peace.' The fact that we say the word 'peace' twenty times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We have seen the disengagement and witnessed the Annapolis accord. I read in the newspaper about the dramatic proposals made by the Prime Minister to the other side, which I do not think have ever been made, outside of Barak's visit to Camp David.

"...I do not see that it brought peace. To the contrary. We have seen that during this period, after all the gestures that we made, after all the dramatic steps we took and all the far reaching proposals we presented, in the past few years this country has gone through wars — the Second War in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead — and not because we choose to. I have not seen peace here. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors — Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly became extremist.

"We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions, and constantly saying 'I am prepared to concede,' and using the word 'peace' will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. 'Si vis pacem, para bellum' — if you want peace, prepare for war, be strong.

"We definitely want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility. We have proven this more than any other country in the world. No country has made concessions the way that Israel has. Since 1977, we have given up areas of land three times the size of the State of Israel. So we have proven the point.

"The Oslo process began in 1993. Sixteen years have passed since then and I do not see that we are any closer to a permanent settlement. There is one document that binds us and it is not the Annapolis Conference. That has no validity. When we drafted the basic government policy guidelines, we certainly stated that we would honor all the agreements and all the undertakings of previous governments. The continuity of government is respected in Israel. In the cabinet I voted against the Road Map, but that was the only document approved by the cabinet and by the Security Council — I believe as Resolution 1505. It is a binding resolution and it binds this government as well.

"The Israeli government never ratified the Annapolis accord. Neither the cabinet nor the Knesset ever ratified it, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any result.

"So we will therefore act exactly according to that document, the Road Map...I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses — I believe there are 48 of them — and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four — dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full, including...the Zinni document and the Tenet document. I am not so sure that the Palestinian Authority or even we — in those circles that espouse peace so much, are aware of the existence of the Tenet and Zinni documents.

"When was Israel at its strongest in terms of public opinion around the world? After the victory of the Six Day War, not after all the concessions in Oslo Accords I, II, III and IV. Anyone who wants to maintain his status in public opinion must understand that if he wants respect, he must first respect himself. I think that, at least from our standpoint, that will be our policy." (Emphasis added)


For speaking with integrity and national self-respect, and refusing to kowtow and wallow in demeaning concessions, give this man a standing ovation! We've waited a long time for an official of Israel to speak this way.

As Daniel Pipes (thanks Joel K.) put it, in similarly praising Lieberman's speech. Lieberman has now announced "Israel is back." That, I think, magnificently sums up the delight felt here.


For the record, the Zinni plan was a concrete proposal, with benchmarks and a timetable, put forth by US envoy Anthony Zinni in March 2002, whose principles Israel accepted. It deals with such matters as the PA collecting illegal arms, taking action against weapons factories and preventing smuggling. That was before there was a Hamas in control of Gaza.

This followed the Tenet plan — known as the Palestinian-Israeli Security Implementation Work Plan — put forth by George Tenet, CIA director, in June 2001. Among its several provisions is one calling on the PA to "move immediately to apprehend, question, and incarcerate terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza and...provide [a designated] security committee the names of those arrested as soon as they are apprehended, as well as a readout of actions taken."

Yes, there are Israeli commitments as well, but the key here is holding the Palestinians' feet to the fire. A term Netanyahu has used consistently is "reciprocity."

All of this is to say that the Palestinians have a great deal to do before they can talk about final negotiations for a state. A great deal to do that they're not about to do. (see below)


Also for the record, I am most decidedly not in favor of the Road Map, which ostensibly ends in a "two-state solution."

Lieberman, as he himself points out, was opposed as well, but now supports it because the Israeli government committed to it, and he will honor that commitment. But one step at a time, not by beginning at the end of the process with final status negotiations.


The latest report from Shin Bet head Yuval Diskin includes the fact that just since our military operation in Gaza ended there have been 22 tons of explosives and 45 tons of raw materials used to manufacture weapons smuggled into Gaza.

And today Abu Ubeida, the spokesman for Hamas's military wing, said that his group will refuse to sign an agreement that calls for the cessation of weapon smuggling, "or any other agreement that might undermine the resistance in Palestine."

Declared Abu Ubeida, "the arms that reach the pure hands of the resistance fighters who fight the Zionist occupation are not smuggled weapons, but a human necessity... as part of the struggle for the nation's dignity."


Outgoing foreign minister Tzipi Livni, who made concessions at every turn and promoted Annapolis as the plan for saving Israel, was present at the ceremony when Lieberman spoke. Needless to say, she was less than pleased by Lieberman's words, which repudiated her "peace" efforts.

Netanyahu, she said later to Army Radio, must distance himself from these comments, which "showed the world that we are not a partner [for peace]."


Environment Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) observed to Army Radio that Lieberman was just saying what most Israelis think.


And Lieberman was not finished. (Hopefully, he's just getting started.) In an interview released today in Haaretz, he said, "There is no cabinet resolution regarding negotiations with Syria, and we have already said that we will not agree to withdraw from the Golan Heights.

"Peace will only be in exchange for peace."


Syrian President Bashar Assad had an interview that was released today, as well — his was in the Qatari paper A-Sharq.

"There is no escape from the liberation of the Golan," he declared. "Either through peace or through war. When a citizen loses hope, he turns towards resistance in one form or another."

He also defended Syria's support of Hezbollah:

"Hezbollah has an issue with Israel and we have the same issue. We therefore support the organization.

"We are speaking about a national organization with a religious agenda that acts in the framework of the Lebanese homeland. We see here a national party. It is therefore natural that we have a relationship with it."

Presumably, the "same issue" is a claim that Israel has Syrian and Lebanese land.


A terrorist wielding an axe attacked a young teenager, Shlomo Nativ, in his community of Bat Ayin in Gush Etzion early this afternoon. He ran into a nearby house after being attacked, and attempts were made to resuscitate him. But he died of his wounds.

His parents, Haim and Revital Nativ, were among the original settlers of Bat Ayin.

A seven-year-old child, Yair Gamliel, was moderately wounded in the attack. He was saved when a Bat Ayin resident, Avinoam Maimon, saw what was happening and ran to help. Ultimately he disarmed the terrorist, who ran away. "I saw the lust to kill in his eyes," Maimon later said. The child is in Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center with a fractured skull.

The IDF set up roadblocks and began searching the area. They now report they have a lead on the whereabouts of the terrorist.

Islamic Jihad and a little-known terrorist group called the Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh both claimed responsibility for the attack.


Ofer Gamliel, the injured boy's father, will be permitted to travel, under escort, from his prison cell to the hospital, to see his son. The senior Gamliel is serving his seventh year of a 15-year term for plotting to bomb an Arab school. The defense mounted by Gamliel and associates was that they were only planning a bomb scare — the bomb indeed was a dud — but the court rejected his claim.


This is amazing and the implications for Israel, and the Western world are potentially huge:

An Israeli company called Innowattech has developed a technology that allows the "harvesting" of mechanical energy generated when vehicles drive along the street, or people walk on a sidewalk. The vehicles or the people have to move across something called a Piezo Electric Generator system, which would be embedded in the sidewalk or street. Electric crystals in the system harness energy from the vibrations. A stretch of road less than a mile long, four lanes wide, which is traveled by about 1,000 vehicles per hour, would create about enough energy to power 600 homes.

It is now being tested.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 2, 2009.

This comes from yesterday's JoshuaPundit website.


It's to be expected of the Palestinians, but they've set a new record in self-defeating rejectionism today.

The Netanyahu government has just been sworn in today and Fatah's capo del tutti Abbas and his assorted thugs are already kicking and screaming:

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas charged on Wednesday that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not believe in peace, urging the international community to exert pressure on him to accept a two-state solution.

"It's obvious that Netanyahu does not believe in the two-state solution and the agreements signed with the Palestinians and does not want to stop settlement construction," Abbas said.

"Therefore, we must tell the world that this man does not believe in peace and as such we can't deal with him." Abbas said that he was nevertheless prepared to talk to representatives of the new government if he sensed that Netanyahu was willing to move forward with the peace process and accept the two-state solution.

Abbas added that Netanyahu's plan to focus on boosting the Palestinian economy was insufficient as long as it doesn't have a political content.

"The Palestinian issue is not an economic problem," he said. "This is, first and foremost, a political case."

Yes, the last thing Fatah's chief mafioso wants is for his people to actually have a real economy. Not only would it cut into Fatah's monopolies and rackets given out to various cronies, it might actually cut into that lovely donor aid that the Palestinians receive and that Fatah skims a healthy chunk of right off the top.

And who knows? With a real economy, the Palestinians might actually decide that living in peace next to the Jews is preferable to living in misery under a corrupt kleptocracy. And.We.Can't.Have That.

Admittedly, Netanyahu was silly to propose it knowing that Abbas and his people run things and would never give it the time of day, but it was still the most common sense solution. That is, if your goal is to have a functioning state living next to Israel in peace instead of nurturing revanchist fantasies of destroying it and replacing it with greater Arafatistan.

Another Fatah spokesmouth, Fahmi Za'areer was also heard from:

"The right-wing in Israel is talking about the so-called economic peace to avoid fulfilling Israel's obligations under the terms of the Oslo Accords and other agreements," he said.

"Any talk that does not include the principle of land for peace and the establishment of an independent Palestinian state will be doomed to failure."

Za'areer said that the Palestinians were not afraid of the new right-wing government in Israel "because our people won't wait forever for the peace process to succeed." The Netanyahu government, he added, is not a partner to the free world or its values."

This, from a group that has yet to fulfill any of their commitments under either Oslo or the Road Map! And as for the new Israeli government not being a partner of the free world or its values, I doubt Mr. Za'areer has the foggiest notion of what those values are. For the record, they don't include executing gays, honor killings, turning children into homicide bombers, deliberately targeting non-combatants, paying stipends to convicted murderers in Israeli jails, rigid government control of the media, making people who murder kids 'honorary citizens' or insisting that your territory be Jew-free.

Then we have the right half of Yasir Arafat's forked tongue, Saeb Erekat, who drives a BMW while his people live in squalor:

Saeb Erekat, chief Palestinian Authority negotiator, said it was clear from Lieberman's statements on Wednesday that the government is not committed to the US backed road map for peace.

"So why do people blame Hamas" for not committing to previous agreements signed "when Lieberman said he is not committed?" he asked.

Actually, Saeb ol' buddy, what Lieberman said was that Israel was committed to the Road Map, just not to the gang rape that occurred courtesy of Condi Rice at Annapolis. It's the 21st century, Saeb, and you just can't lie like that in public anymore and get away with it. Well, okay, maybe in the New York Times and al-Jazeerah you still can, but it's just not as easy as it was in the old days.

Still, if you and the boys want to ditch all the previous agreements and start from scratch, I'm sure the Israelis are more than willing to accommodate you and get back some of the ground they lost back when you had Olmert and Tzipi Livni to sucker in.

Bottom line? Yet another episode of Palestinian rejectionism.

Without waiting to see what Netanyahu actually proposes or puts in play, they're letting him know that they're not prepared to negotiate or concede a damned thing. They either get everything they want no matter what or they'll accept nothing at all, just like they've always said.

The thing is,by putting this out there, they've also sent a message back to Netanyahu that anything reasonable he might of considered proposing is out of the question and off the table.And given that the Israelis have a lot more pressing concerns then pleasing the likes of Abbas and Erekat, they might just have picked the wrong time to overplay their hand.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz Sheva, April 2, 2009.

Two articles on the attack on Jewish children in Bat Ayin.


(1) Terrorist Attack in Bat Ayin
by Hana Levi Julian

A Palestinian Authority Arab terrorist attacked the Judean community of Bat Ayin late Thursday morning, south of Jerusalem.

One boy was murdered and a second was seriously wounded by the axe-wielding terrorist, who infiltrated the Gush Etzion community, carried out the attack and managed to escape within an hour's span.

Magen David Adom officials who rushed to the scene said that despite desperate attempts by paramedics to save his life, the soul of 13-year-old Shlomo Nativ slipped away shortly after the terrorist attacked him.

Murdered Boy is Son of Founding Family

Gush Etzion Regional Council head Shaul Goldstein told Voice of Israel government radio that Nativ was the son of one of the original founding families of the community.

"People are shocked" by the attack, Goldstein said. He challenged the new Netanyahu government to respond properly to the attack, pointing out several recent reductions in the number and strength of IDF forces in the area.

"This attack demonstrates clearly that we must not release anymore terrorists," he said. The funeral for Shlomo Nativ will be held in Bat Ayin Thursday afternoon at 5:00 p.m. He will be laid to rest in the Gush Etzion cemetery.

Wounded 7-yr-old's Father Not Home

A second, younger boy who was also attacked suffered serious head wounds and was evacuated by helicopter to Jerusalem's Hadassah Ein Kerem Medical Center. A spokesperson for the hospital said that Yair Gamliel, who arrived fully conscious despite his grievous wounds, would soon undergo surgery to repair his broken skull. He is listed in serious, but stable condition.

The wounded child is the son of Ofer Gamliel, who is serving his seventh year of a 15-year jail term for plotting a bomb attack against Arabs.

The bomb that Gamliel used years ago was not a bomb that was capable of exploding. He claimed in court that he and his friends had only planned a bomb scare and had purposely used a neutralized bomb. The court did not accept his claim and found him guilty of an attempted attack.

Resident Struggled to Stop Terrorist

The terrorist, who had no connection with the community, managed to escape, despite the efforts of residents to stop him.

"I ran towards the terrorist and tried to grab the axe from him," said Bat Ayin resident Avinoam Maimon. "I yelled to a woman who saw us to call the police. I could see murder in his eyes."

Maimon told reporters that the terrorist "kept trying to hit me while we struggled. At one point I fell down, and he ran away. But then I saw someone running after him and I heard gunshots."

MDA and security officials urged residents to remain in their homes, and blocked those outside from coming in to the community while IDF forces searched for the terrorist. The road was reopened to traffic about two hours after the attack.

Gush Etzion Regional Council head Shaul Goldstein denied that the terrorist was an Arab worker in the community. "No Arab workers are allowed in Bat Ayin," he explained, pointing out that the residents prefer to support Jewish labor.

The attacker's identity is unknown and no terrorist organization has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Council: Removing Roadblocks Leads to Terror

The Binyamin and Shomron Development Council issued a statement on Thursday afternoon blaming Defense Minister Ehud Barak for the attack.

The council said that Barak's "lax policies and removing road blocks" was responsible for allowing terrorists to move freely about the region, enabling them to attack Jewish communities.

"The prime minister and defense minister must understand that the foolish security policies of Barak sacrifice Israeli safety in order to please the left," said the council. "Barak is playing with the lives of Jewish citizens and we demand that the prime minister bring this to an end."

Bat Ayin Resident Murdered by Terrorists Two Years Ago

Another Bat Ayin resident, Erez Levanon, was stabbed to death by Arab terrorists who ambushed him just outside the community two years ago.

Friends and neighbors of the 42-year-old husband and father of three searched for him when he did not come home on February 25, 2007. A well-liked musician, friends said that Levanon made it a habit to seek solitude in the nearby hills where he could contemplate the wonders of creation.

His bloodied body was finally located late at night by his neighbors and friends on the side of a dirt road just a few hundred meters from his home in the Judean Hills.

(2.) Bad Policy Blamed in Attack
by Maayana Miskin

Members of Knesset, activists, and grieving residents of Judea said Thursday that a murderous attack in Bat Ayin was made possible by policies that focused on appeasing the Palestinian Authority while ignoring the security needs of local Jews.

"It's been proven again — when checkpoints and junctions are opened to PA traffic, Jewish blood is spilled," said members of the Gush Etzion-Hevron Regional Council that covers the area in which Bat Ayin is located.

Members of the Development Council of Binyamin and Samaria called the attack "a direct result of the policy of eased restrictions and checkpoint removal led by Defense Minister Ehud Barak."

Criticism of government policy was heard from within the Knesset. "We've warned for several weeks that removing checkpoints and the policy of easing restrictions for the PA would lead to disaster," said Ichud Leumi (National Union) MK Michael Ben-Ari.

MK Aryeh Eldad of NU also linked the removal of checkpoints in Judea to the fatal attack. Eldad accused the government of weakening local security details in Judea and Samaria and called on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to "explain to the Defense Minister that with the new government comes a new policy regarding Arab terrorism."

Several Likud MKs voiced criticism of government policy as well. MK Tzipi Hotobelli called on the Likud-led government to "cease the policy of easing security restrictions for Palestinians immediately... and restore security to residents of Judea and Samaria."

Likud faction head Zeev Elkin said, "The Palestinian terrorist groups are again revealing their true face to the world. Our hearts are with the residents of Gush Etzion at this trying time."

The attack proves the hypocrisy of terrorists who complain about Israel, Elkin said. "Whoever sends a terrorist with an axe in his hand to murder innocent children shouldn't come and preach to us in the name of justice and peace," he said.

Residents of Judea called to "restore Jewish deterrence by taking a tough approach to Arab terrorism." They also warned against opening junctions in the Hevron region that are scheduled to be opened to PA traffic in the upcoming days.

See the Arutz-Sheva website at http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 2, 2009.

"We will honor all the agreements and all the undertakings of previous governments and act exactly according to the Road Map."


Good afternoon, honorable outgoing Foreign Minister, honorable outgoing Deputy Foreign Minister, incoming Deputy Foreign Minister, Director-General Ministry employees, honored guests,

When my fellow students and I studied international relations, and learned what an international system is, we learned that there is a State and there are international organizations and all kinds of global economic corporations. Things have changed since then and, unfortunately, in the modern system, there are countries that are semi-states. It is hard to call a country like Somalia a state in the full sense of the word and the same holds true for the various autonomies in Eastern Europe, in the Balkans and here as well. It is even hard to call a country like Iraq a state in the full sense of the word. And even worse, there are now international players that are irrational, like the Al Qaeda organization. And we can certainly also ask if the leader of a strong and important country like Iran is a rational player.

In my view, we must explain to the world that the priorities of the international community must change, and that all the previous benchmarks — the Warsaw Pact, the NATO Alliance, socialist countries, capitalist countries — have changed. There is a world order that the countries of the free world are trying to preserve, and there are forces, or countries or extremist entities that are trying to violate it.

The claim that what is threatening the world today is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a way of evading reality. The reality is that the problems coming from the direction of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran and Iraq.

What is important is to maintain global and regional stability. Egypt is definitely an important country in the Arab world, a stabilizing factor in the regional system and perhaps even beyond that, and I certainly view it as an important partner. I would be happy to visit Egypt and to host Egyptian leaders here, including the Egyptian Foreign Minister — all based on mutual respect.

I think that we have been disparaging many concepts, and we have shown the greatest distain of all for the word "peace." The fact that we say the word "peace" twenty times a day will not bring peace any closer. There have been two governments here that took far-reaching measures: the Sharon government and the Olmert government. They took dramatic steps and made far-reaching proposals. We have seen the disengagement and witnessed the Annapolis accord. I read in the newspaper about the dramatic proposals made by the Prime Minister to the other side, which I do not think have ever been made, outside of Barak's visit to Camp David.

Yisrael Beiteinu was not then part of the coalition, Avigdor Liberman was not the foreign minister and we even if we wanted to, we would have been unable to prevent the arrival of peace. But I do not see that it brought peace. To the contrary. We have seen that during this period, after all the gestures that we made, after all the dramatic steps we took and all the far reaching proposals we presented, in the past few years this country has gone through wars — the Second War in Lebanon and Operation Cast Lead — and not because we choose to. I have not seen peace here. It is precisely when we made all the concessions that I saw the Durban Conference, I saw two countries in the Arab world suddenly sever relations, recalling their ambassadors — Mauritania and Qatar. Qatar suddenly became extremist.

We are also losing ground every day in public opinion. Does anyone think that concessions, and constantly saying "I am prepared to concede," and using the word "peace" will lead to anything? No, that will just invite pressure, and more and more wars. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" — if you want peace, prepare for war, be strong.

We definitely want peace, but the other side also bears responsibility. We have proven this more than any other country in the world. No country has made concessions the way that Israel has. Since 1977, we have given up areas of land three times the size of the State of Israel. So we have proven the point.

The Oslo process began in 1993. Sixteen years have passed since then and I do not see that we are any closer to a permanent settlement. There is one document that binds us and it is not the Annapolis Conference. That has no validity. When we drafted the basic government policy guidelines, we certainly stated that we would honor all the agreements and all the undertakings of previous governments. The continuity of government is respected in Israel. In the cabinet I voted against the Road Map, but that was the only document approved by the cabinet and by the Security Council — I believe as Resolution 1505. It is a binding resolution and it binds this government as well.

The Israeli government never ratified the Annapolis accord. Neither the cabinet nor the Knesset ever ratified it, so anyone who wants to amuse himself can continue to do so. I have seen all the proposals made so generously by Ehud Olmert, but I have not seen any result.

So we will therefore act exactly according to that document, the Road Map, including the Tenet document and the Zinni document. I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses — I believe there are 48 of them — and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four — dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full, including — as I said — the Zinni document and the Tenet document. I am not so sure that the Palestinian Authority or even we — in those circles that espouse peace so much, are aware of the existence of the Tenet and Zinni documents.

When was Israel at its strongest in terms of public opinion around the world? After the victory of the Six Day War, not after all the concessions in Oslo Accords I, II, III and IV. Anyone who wants to maintain his status in public opinion must understand that if he wants respect, he must first respect himself. I think that, at least from our standpoint, that will be our policy.

Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 2, 2009.


I witnessed firemen coming from other areas, to help quell the fires of 9/11. American police still work to safeguard us from terrorism. We should show our appreciation for them and should bring them into a coalition against radical Islam.


In Stalin's time, half the non-Communist leftists were cheerleaders for the USSR, despite its atrocities. Lenin called them "useful idiots."

Now, many leftists are fellow travelers of radical Islam. These useful idiots enable Islamist atrocities by undermining opposition to them or by keeping silent. Hard to focus moral indignation against radical Muslims when the far Left divides the West.

If really liberal, leftists would oppose illiberal, Islamist injustice.

Another set of enablers is the small, Orthodox Jewish sect of the Netura Karta. Iran pays for it, and it smears regular Jews, to the delight of antisemites.


Some Jews are under the illusion that if only they are nicer, people won't hate them for being Jewish.

That illusion is based on false assumptions: (1) Jews aren't nice; (2) Are uniquely so; (3) Antisemites dislike them for that; and (4) Would be reasonable and change their minds if Jews reformed.

Those assumptions are false in all regards. Nice? Antisemites hate all Jews, whether nice or not. Jews who follow Jewish ethics have contributed more to mankind that most other nations. Israel behaves more ethically towards enemies than do others. Uniquely not nice? So much evil abroad, why pick on the Jews? Illogical. Many antisemites resent Judaism for having a higher ethical standard and are bold about it because Jews are few. First comes antisemitism and then whatever Israel does is criticized under double standards. Therefore, antisemites are not reasonable. Hence, appeasement cannot ameliorate antisemitism; it gets exploited by antisemitic bullies.

The phobia is pathological and of more than one origin. Islam indoctrinates in it; Muslims treat it irrationally. Other gentiles cannot explain their phobia. Some Jews absorb their enemies' criticism. Any psychiatric therapy for all this? Or should we deny antisemites psychiatric coverage for having a pre-existing illness?

During his campaign, MK Netanyahu disparaged negotiating a final peace agreement with the P.A., but now he says he would be a partner for peace. The NY Times considers that self-contradictory. I don't, because Netanyahu explained that peace is something he wanted to build, as through the economy and institutions [and culture]. He said it cannot reliably be concluded by a political agreement for an entity unstable and not prepared for peace. His explanation makes more sense than the Times' unthinking rush to the finish line.

The editorial goes on, "...we suggest that he start with freezing further settlement construction and expansion in the W. Bank, as Israel has so often promised but failed to do. He should lift roadblocks between Palestinian (sic) cities and towns that are not needed for security. In E. Jerusalem, he should stop the humiliating eviction of Palestinians (sic). And in Gaza, he must expand exceptions to the blockade to allow the import of cement and reconstruction materials."

"If Mr. Netanyahu is serious about being a partner for peace, he will not get in the way of the militant group Hamas entering a Palestinian unity government with the rival, Fatah faction — as long as that government is committed to preventing terrorism and accepts past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. He will recognize that the US has its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the Palestinians — and allow the Obama administration the freedom to pursue them. He also will not start a prevent war with Iran." His new Foreign Minister, Lieberman may have "anti-Arab views." Beware, lest failure to pursue peace talks with the P.A. irritate Europe and the Obama administration (3/27).

What's missing from that lecture? All the demands are made of Israel, to please the Arabs. Where is the side to which Israel should be a peace partner? Why does the Times ask nothing of the Palestinian Arabs? Why is Israel treated with suspicion and not the P.A.? After all, hasn't the P.A. been in full violation of the peace agreements for 15 years? Isn't it the Arab side that keeps resorting to war and by means foul? Heaven forbid that Lieberman should be "anti-Arab," (which he isn't), considering that the Arab side proposes genocide against the Jews!

How amusing that the Times implies that many roadblocks were erected not for security, especially since the US doesn't like them. It also is amusing to find the Times continuously mischaracterizing the demolition of housing in Jerusalem as biased and sympathizing with the Arab scofflaws as "humiliated." Do readers wonder why Arabs are humiliated by demolition and not Jews? Perhaps not, because the Times does not inform them much about the housing situation, in which there is some illegal Jewish building and extensive illegal Arab building for no valid reason. But the Times has adopted Arab language, such as use of the term "humiliation." To be told anything negative by infidels is to the Muslim Arabs a humiliation, but that is not justified, it is do to their religious arrogance, holding themselves to be above other faiths and above the law in infidel states. This, too, is something that the editors don't tell readers.

The US has its own interests with the P.A.? What are they? Whom does the Land of Israel belong to? Not to the US. And what temerity of the editors to suggest that Israel risk its national security to avoid friction with anti-Zionist Europeans and Obama-ites! Why not tell those outsiders, who have fouled up the world for centuries, to keep out?

The demand not to reject a P.A. coalition regime with Hamas sounds reasonable, because of the conditions of accepting past agreements and preventing terrorism. Actually, it is a trap. We've seen these lures catch Israel, before. Israel agrees to something in principle or on condition, such as not to destroy Egyptian missile sites because the US guaranteed that they won't be moved forward to protect an invading army. They were moved forward. The US did not make good on its guarantee. Israel suffered many casualties as a result.

In this case, the trap is that the new regime, but probably not Hamas, itself, may make the desired promises. It wouldn't keep them. Does the

Before advising, nay, demanding, that Israel let construction materials into Gaza, shouldn't the Times address Israel's concern that such materials would be used to build Hamas bunkers? Hamas exploited construction imports for that purpose, before. Unfair, the editorial.


US officials' electronic surveillance and informants confirm long-held suspicions that Pakistan's spy service assists the Taliban against US troops in Afghanistan. Pakistani officials admitted knowing firsthand about the secret assistance, but denied it helped the insurgency. They claim they just are keeping tabs.

Pakistani intelligence service supplies money, supplies, and strategic planning guidance to Taliban commanders. They attributed this to preparation for the departure of US troops, that might entice India to enter.

Pakistan opposes domestic terrorist groups, and supports ones that operate abroad. It protects and shares intelligence with the Lashkar-t-Taiba, suspected of having attacked Mumbai (Mark Mazzetti & Eric Schmitt, NY Times, 3/26, A1).

Money, supplies, and strategic planning do more than keeping tabs. There is no evidence that India has any intention or capability of intervening in Afghanistan. In any case, we now have proof that Pakistan has been double-dealing with the US. Like S. Arabia, it may not want terrorists to take it over, but it has no scruples about using terrorism to destabilize other countries, in behalf of jihad.


During combat in Gaza, the IDF did not permit journalists to accompany it. Ethan Bronner admitted that journalists over-emphasize sensational news, such as death, and ignore constructive events. The Economist's Jerusalem Bureau chief wrote that the outside world was not particularly interested in Israel's attempts to justify its assault in Gaza. Foreign correspondents consider that boring, compared with claims of casualties.

Israel should set up its own blogs and media outlets (Jewish Political Chronicle, winter 2009, p.9 from Jer. Post, 1/19).

Want excitement? Expose Islamists staging phony assaults and forging casualty figures.


The more Cabinet Members declare that Israel must pay "a high price" to get Hamas to release its Israeli captive, the higher that price (IMRA, 3/17).

Israeli officials talk too much, they bluster, they don't think. Officials all over tell the media too much that is confidential, and not enough that isn't. An Arab tactic is to raise new demands when the other side agrees to the prior ones.


A number of Jewish college professors rejected Zionism and left Israel years ago, but solicit attention as "Israeli academics." Two of them are the "new historians," Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappe [both of whom are Communists]. When they write broadsides against Israel, they pose as Israeli academics, for credibility. But when they suggest academic boycotts of Israel, they do not do so as "Israeli academics," for they are not in Israel.

They falsely excuse Hamas war crimes as "resistance," and accuse Israel of terrorism. They constantly call names and make inapplicable analogies between Israel and Nazism and between David and Goliath; their analogies reverse the roles of the Jews and of their oppressors. These are shallow, cheap shots. [Apt analogies can be made between the Islamism and Nazism.]

Many professors in Israel are no better. The irony is that "students studying at a university or college in Israel could well die from the very rocket being fired by someone whom their professor or lecturer describes as a 'freedom fighter' or 'militant' with a 'right to resist.'" Despite the volume of their propaganda, each one claims to be just about the only one speaking out (Prof. Steven Plaut, 3/15). The fifth columnists pretend they are brave and are rare voices, but patriots are. Patriots don't get that much opportunity to speak out.


As in the financial crisis, policy makers in the Mideast crisis conceal the risks, in this case, the risks of appeasement. They give appeasement a euphemism, "engagement." That euphemism legitimizes dangerous concessions (Jewish Political Chronicle, winter 2009, p.36 from Martin Kramer).

Good observation. Their proposals rarely mention the disadvantages. When I wrote proposals for new business systems, I stated the advantages and disadvantages of the various alternatives. Our leaders on Mideast policy don't give evidence of having thought the problem through, to be up to that stage.


Hizbullah and Hamas, alone, have 50,000 rockets. Israel still has no defense against them. The two counter-measures it is working on could not deal with that heavy volume (Arutz-7, 3/15),

Israel never should have let that enemy arsenal build up. Now what is it to do? Find a tactical neutron bomb and kill millions?

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@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, April 1, 2009.

This was written by Leslie Sacks an art dealer and gallerist in Los Angeles. It is archived at


Google "Congo killings" and the search engine will find you 3.56 million references. The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is 2.3 million square kilometers, and is home to 62.6 million people.

Enter "Gaza killings" and Google will locate 8.56 million references. The Gaza Strip is 360 square kilometers, and home to 1.5 million people. That is one-thousandth of the land mass, and two-hundredths of the population, of the DRC.

The media (both 'new' and 'old') bias is indisputable.

Less than 1,000 Gazans were reliably documented as killed in their last war with Israel, many of whom were armed militants. In Congo, over four million unquestionably innocent civilians have now been killed — by weapon or disease — in the past 12 years. Horrific stories of rape, burnings, and mutilations abound. And yet, the media's fixation on Israel's "oppression" of the Arabs continues. The question is evitable: why is there such a focus on deaths in Gaza-a war triggered by the firing of over 6,000 rockets at Israeli civilians-while the exterminations in the DRC are comparatively ignored? Is it because the Congolese are black and invisible people who cannot help but murder each other? Or is it because Hamas and the Gazans have been granted victim status amongst the worldwide left, giving the cognoscenti and 'activists' everywhere a perfect whipping boy in Israel?

Either way, it doesn't speak well for the evolution of mankind: blacks, apparently, are still savages, and Jews still deserve to be killed.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, April 1, 2009.
This comes from the Elders of Ziyon website
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/03/ arab-world-isnt-embarrassed-at-all.html

I've mentioned many times before about the plight of Iraqis of Palestinian Arab descent who are stuck in refugee camps between Iraq and Syria. Arab countries have refused to help them, so the lucky ones are getting resettled in Iceland, Brazil, Chile, and Canada.

But one Arab country has offered to take all of them in: Sudan. In an effort to divert the world's attention away from the genocide in Darfur, Sudan has offered to house the Iraqi-Palestinian refugees, and the refugees are considering it. This is from the Ma'an News Agency:

A delegation of Palestinian refugees stranded on the Iraqi-Syrian border visited Sudan recently to discuss possible resettlement there.

The deputy head of the Refugees Affairs Department in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Muhammad Abu Baker, said that refugees from Al-Walid Refugee Camp went to Sudan in hopes of moving there.

Abu Baker told Jordanian newspaper Al-Ghad that four representatives of the refugees met with a committee that is working on arranging the move to Sudan. The committee includes representatives of the PLO, the Sudanese government, and the UN High Commission for Refugees.

The delegation also met with an aide to Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, Uthman Isma'il, and looked at examples of the mobile homes the Palestinians could move into in the capital, Khartoum.

Abu Baker explained that this visit came in application for a resettlement agreement between the PLO, Sudan and the UN. Under the proposed terms of the agreement the Palestinians would reside "temporarily" in Sudan.

According to Abu Baker, the Sudanese government promised the Palestinians that they will enjoy full civil rights in Sudan, including the right to employment. "The Palestinian refugees moving to Khartoum will live as Sudanese people do," the report said.

Most of the refugees hold Palestinian passports. Some who hold Iraqi passports will be able to keep their documents until a special Sudanese ID can be issued for them.

With the obvious exception, that is consistent in the Arab world: no citizenship for anyone who can be called a "Palestinian." Ever.

Our of all the oil-rich Gulf countries, out of all the Arab countries who host hundreds of thousands of descendants of Palestinian Arab refugees, the only one that offers any semblance of help for these people is genocidal Sudan. Yet the PLO doesn't castigate the Arab countries — their caring brethren — for treating 2000-3000 people like dirt. Gazans live in luxury compared to these real refugees from Iraq, but there are no Arab charities helping them, no Arab calls to take care of them, no outraged international conferences about their plight.

The reason, of course, is because their plight has been created and extended by Arabs — and Israel cannot be blamed.

The Arab world does not betray even a hint of embarrassment about how they treat their so-called brethren, nor over the idea that Sudan is the only Arab country that (cynically) offers to help.

For a society that is based on honor and shame, it is notable that the Arabs have no shame at all when it comes to abusing their own.  

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@aol.com and visit his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, April 1, 2009.

"On March 20, just one day after the story broke in Israel, The New York Times covered the allegations in a front page, above the fold story."

Recalling that the Times relegated most news of the Shoah to tiny articles in its back pages.

This article was written by Gilead Ini and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1238562883231&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull is a senior research analyst at CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America.


In February 2009, a few veterans of the recently concluded Operation Cast Lead met to discuss what some of them felt was immoral conduct by the IDF. The soldiers exchanged war stories, including two specific allegations about unarmed civilians being killed in Gaza. Details of the now notorious meeting emerged the following month, when a transcript of the conversation was leaked to Israeli newspapers.

On March 20, just one day after the story broke in Israel, The New York Times covered the allegations in a front page, above the fold story. A follow-up piece the next day repeated the allegations. And a day later yet another piece dealt with the issue.

Almost exactly one year earlier, in March 2008, American veterans of the most recent Iraq war got together near Washington to publicly recollect their battlefield experiences. They told stories of indiscriminate fire, the killing of innocent civilians and systematic cover-ups of wrongful deaths.

Although these veterans' charges were clearly more relevant to American readers of The New York Times — they were, after all, about American soldiers, American policies and alleged American atrocities — the newspaper didn't cover it on its front page, as it did with the Israeli allegations. It didn't cover the Americans' accounts in three consecutive articles. It fact, although other mainstream news organizations covered the story, the Times didn't report on it at all.

THE TIMES isn't known for being soft on Americans. But this baffling discrepancy between the newspaper's handling of stories about Israeli soldiers and American soldiers is no fluke.

For example, when a US sniper testified before a military court in February 2008 that "he had ordered a subordinate to kill an unarmed Iraqi man who wandered into their hiding position near Iskandariya, then planted an AK-47 rifle near the body to support his false report about the shooting," The New York Times buried the story on page 8.

When the newspaper learned in August 2008 that two American soldiers confessed, in a signed statement to army investigators, to executing handcuffed and blindfolded Iraqi prisoners and dumping their bodies into a canal, the story ran on page 11. And when the soldiers were formally charged with murder a month later, it was noted on page 16.

Perhaps the most striking contrast is between the newspaper's treatment of the Gaza stories and its caution in dealing with allegations that American troops wrongfully killed civilians in the Iraqi town of Haditha. While The New York Times put on its front page the news that, in Israel, "the military's chief advocate general ordered an investigation into" the alleged Gaza killings, it's early 2005 report that the US military was "investigating whether a Marine squad... near the Iraqi town of Haditha committed wrongdoing" amounted to three short paragraphs hidden at the end of a long article on page 12. In fact, it wasn't until more than 10 weeks after Time magazine first scandalized the country by suggesting there may have been a massacre in Haditha — and only after US officials said the military investigation was expected to find that the marines indeed "carried out extensive, unprovoked killings of civilians" — that The New York Times found the incident worth publishing on its front page.

It gets worse. Even before The New York Times published its three pieces about allegations of Israeli misconduct, those charges had been substantially discredited. Israel's Channel 2 television station reported that the source of one of the allegations admitted his story was based only on rumors. Yet none of the three Times articles mentioned this key point. On the contrary, they wrongly described the allegations as "testimony," "revelations" and "eyewitness accounts."

This unfair overemphasis on allegations of Israeli misdeeds relative to similar, and sometimes more credible, stories about Americans is, simply put, discrimination against the Jewish state.

It took more than a week for the Times to finally reveal, in a fourth article, that the core of what it reported in the three earlier pieces was nothing more than hearsay, and that Israeli investigators believe the charges are almost certainly false. But the damage was already done. The trigger happy New York Times splashed dubious rumors on its front page, and in doing so caused irreversible harm not only to Israel's reputation, but also to the truth. (The newspaper's "retraction" — which was not described as a retraction — was published on page four.)

In prominently highlighting the false accusations, the newspaper seemed to be implying that IDF troops, in their fight against Hamas's guerrilla fighters, exhibited bad judgment and were too quick to kill Palestinians. But what the stories actually showed was that, when it comes to bad news from Israel, it is The New York Times that's guilty of bad judgment and being quick on the trigger.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Buddy Macy, April 1, 2009.

This was written by Aaron Klein, the World Net Daily Bureau Chief in Jerusalem.

Palestinian official says U.S. strongly opposes Jewish construction


JERUSALEM — A delegation from the State Department promised the Palestinians the Obama administration will strongly oppose any new Jewish construction in the strategic, biblical West Bank, a top Palestinian Authority official told WND.

The PA official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. delegation last week told the PA in a meeting it views Israel's presence in the West Bank as an obstacle to peace and that Obama was ready for a possible confrontation with incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the issue of any new construction in the territory.

The PA official, who was present at last week's meeting in the West Bank city of Ramallah, said the State Department officials told the Palestinian leadership that Obama opposed both so-called illegal outposts and "natural growth" of settlements — meaning expanding existing Jewish communities in the West Bank to accommodate a growing population.

Previously, the Bush administration opposed "illegal outposts," a term referring to Jewish structures built in the West Bank without Israeli government approval. But the Bush White House and State Department largely accepted Israel's West Bank natural growth trends.

The PA official said Obama's administration conveyed messages that it is seeking a nearly complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, which borders Jerusalem and is within rocket range of Tel Aviv and Israel's international airport.

One Palestinian activist told WND the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem was closely monitoring all Jewish construction in the West Bank.

"The consulate is in contact with many Palestinian activists. They tell us that if we see a single packet of cement for (Jewish) building, to call and let them know," the activist said.

Israeli officials previously confirmed to WND the U.S. consulate was closely monitoring both West Bank and eastern Jerusalem construction to the point that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert received several calls from the consulate since January asking about the alleged sighting of bulldozers in Maale Adumim, an eastern Jerusalem community.

A State Department spokeswoman would not comment on closed door meetings with the PA, except to say, "We are committed to a two state solution."

While Jewish construction is being closely watched, the U.S. has not protested rampant illegal Arab construction on Jewish-owned property in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem.

Israel recaptured the West Bank in the 1967 Six Day War. The territory, in which about 200,000 Jews live, is tied to Judaism throughout the Torah and is often referred to as the biblical heartland of Israel.

The book of Genesis says Abraham entered Israel at the West Bank city of Shechem (Nablus) and received God's promise of land for his offspring.

He was later buried with the rest of the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs, except for Rachel, in Hebron's Tomb of the Patriarchs. The West Bank's Hebron was site of the first Jewish capital.

The nearby West Bank town of Beit El — anciently called Bethel, meaning "house of God" — is where Scripture says the patriarch Jacob slept on a stone pillow and dreamed of angels ascending and descending a stairway to heaven. In the dream, God spoke directly to Jacob and reaffirmed the promise of territory. Earlier, God had promised the land of Israel to Abraham at Beit El. In Exodus, the holy tabernacle rested just north of Beit El in Shiloh, believed to be the first area the ancient Israelites settled after fleeing Egypt.  

Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 1, 2009.

Yesterday I expressed my sense of letdown at the formation of the new government. Today I wish to express something else completely different.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was sworn in late last night, after which he addressed the Knesset.

"It is not with a victor's joy that I stand here today in front of you, but with a great sense of responsibility," he said.

I ask for your trust at this time of worldwide crisis of a kind we haven't known before, and it is with a sense of worry, but also with hope and faith..."


As someone who lies awake at night contemplating "that worldwide crisis of a kind we haven't known before...," I find myself keenly attuned to what Netanyahu was saying.

The prime minister then addressed two key concerns facing us: The economy and the attempt by Iran to achieve nuclear weapons.

That's getting priorities right. As to Iran, he said, "The Jewish people has experience with dictators and it cannot overestimate megalomaniac dictators who threaten to destroy it."

The worst thing for the State of Israel and the world would be "that a radical regime obtains nuclear weapons."


Netanyahu just gave an interview to Atlantic magazine in which addressed this very issue. He said the Obama administration had a mission to prevent Iran from going nuclear, but if it failed to do so, Israel might be forced to resort to a military strike on Iran's military installations.

"You don't want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs. When the wide-eyed believer gets hold of the reins of power and the weapons of mass death, then the entire world should start worrying, and that is what is happening in Iran.

"...Iran is a composite leadership, but in that composite leadership there are elements of wide-eyed fanaticism that do not exist right now in any other would-be nuclear power in the world. That's what makes them so dangerous. Since the dawn of the nuclear age, we have not had a fanatic regime that might put its zealotry above its self-interest."


He is correct, and what I'm seeing is that he is telling it straight. Talking tough to America, actually: saying they have a job to do and they must be on notice that we will do it if they do not.

No tone of submission to the US, no attempt to be conciliatory and "reach out a hand" to the world.

This is encouraging.


It is refreshing, as well, to note that he didn't — à la Olmert and Livni and Peres — say that our top priority was to give away half our land to form a Palestinian state.

Oh, he spoke about dealing with the Palestinians. But he said that the failure to make peace with them was not the fault of our leaders. Implied: the PA hasn't really wanted it.

Again, he's correct.

And he reiterated his position: that we will give them all the rights to rule themselves, except for those that endanger Israel. That's a whole lot of (figurative) territory.


And so I found myself thinking that Netanyahu is entitled to some modicum of trust from the Israeli people — some space that allows him to demonstrate what he can do and the directions in which he can take us.


There's another reason why I think this, another problem of huge dimensions that he must confront, but that he didn't mention explicitly.

The world is at us. As never before, there are international attempts to delegitimize us and weaken us and challenge our rights. This is part of what keeps me awake at night.

And I'm convinced that we here inside of Israel must not be part of that chorus that would weaken the new government. The world hears every word, and turns it on us. This has been demonstrated time and time again.

I don't want to see Binyamin Netanyahu on the defensive now. I want to take stances that will stiffen his spine and let him know that we want him to stand strong against the world. And that we are with him as he does so.


The new government was presented to the Knesset last night, which passed it 69 to 45, with five abstentions (a protest from Labor MKs Shelly Yacimovich, Eitan Cabel, Yuli Tamir, Amir Peretz and Ophir Pines-Paz).

The only member of the Knesset absent was Ahmad Tibi, of United Arab List-Ta'al. And where was he, precisely? At the Arab League meeting in Qatar. Hopefully, we have not heard the last on this.

The list of members of the government is at the bottom of this posting.


And this is a sampling of what we must cope with:

According to Khaled Abu Toameh, senior Hamas officials in Gaza reported yesterday that Switzerland and Norway are spearheading European efforts to engage Hamas.

Ahmed Yussef, a political advisor in Hamas's Foreign Ministry, said the two countries were "leading the change in Europe's position vis-à-vis the Islamic movement." While another Hamas official said that Hamas sensed a "real change" in the attitude of some EU countries.

Of course, the Europeans at this point are urging that Hamas renounce violence, accept the two-state solution and recognize Israel's right to exist. But mark my words, now that the shift in thinking has begun, these demands will not hold. Hamas, said Yussef, responded by expressing its readiness to reach a long-term truce with Israel. Eventually, some permutation of this will be seen as sufficient. A long-term truce? Hey, implicitly then, Hamas is recognizing Israel and renouncing violence, no?


Understand that at the same time that the Europeans are inching towards recognition of Hamas, they are jumping on the bandwagon to criticize the new Israeli administration for refusing to overtly embrace that "two state solution."

It's perverse and upside down and we must cope with it.


Abbas, of course, is milking this for all he can. At the Arab summit, he declared:

"The Palestinians must tell the world that Netanyahu does not believe in peace, so how can we cooperate with him? We must push the ball to the international court so that the countries of the world put pressure on him."

The world will be happy to oblige, while turning a blind eye to the fact that the PA textbooks still teach jihad and that Abbas has refused to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

This last, by the way, was right before Annapolis began. Olmert said he wouldn't negotiate if Abbas wouldn't recognize this, but then, under pressure from the US, he did so anyway.

This would be a good place for Netanyahu to start.


Our new (32nd) government:
Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud) Prime Minister, Health, Pensioners, Economic Strategy
Moshe Ya'alon (Likud) Vice Premier and Minister for Strategic Affairs
Silvan Shalom (Likud) Vice Premier, Regional Development and Development of the Negev and Galil
Ehud Barak (Labor) Defense and Deputy Prime Minister
Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beitenu) Foreign Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister
Yuval Steinitz (Likud) Finance
Eli Yishai (Shas) Interior
Gideon Sa'ar (Likud) Education
Ya'akov Neeman (Independent) Justice
Binyamin Ben Eliezer (Labor) Industry and Trade
Ariel Atias (Shas) Construction and Housing
Yitzhak Aharonovitch (Yisrael Beitenu) Internal Security
Yisrael Katz (Likud) Transportation
Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) Infrastructures
Shalom Simhon (Likud) Agriculture
Moshe Kahlon (Likud) Communications
Yuli Edelstein (Likud) Diaspora Affairs
Stas Misezhnikov (Yisrael Beitenu) Tourism
Gilad Erdan (Likud) Environment
Daniel Herschkowitz (Habayit Hayehudi) Science
Sopa Landver (Yisrael Beitenu) Immigration
Limor Livnat (Likud) Culture
Ya'acov Margi (Shas) Religious Affairs
Michael Eitan (Likud) Gov't Services
Dan Meridor (Likud) Intelligence Agencies
Avishay Braverman (Labor) Minorities
Isaac Herzog (Labor) Welfare
Meshulam Nahari (Shas) Minister without Porfolio (In PMO's office?)
Bennie Begin (Likud) Minister without Portfolio
Yossi Peled (Likud) Minister without Portfolio

There is still the question of who will sit on the more limited Security Cabinet


Deputy Ministers:
Yitzchak Cohen (Shas) — Finance
Gila Gamliel (Likud) — PM's Office
Leah Ness (Likud) — Pensioners Affairs
Ayoub Kara (Likud) Development of the Negev and Galil
Danny Ayalon (Yisrael Beiteinu) — Foreign Ministry
Matan Vilnai (Labor) — Defense
Orit Noked (Labor) — Industry and Trade

UTJ has just signed a coalition agreement and will have two deputy ministers in Health and Education (not clear who will assume these posts — Moshe Gafni will chair the Knesset Finance Committee) _____________________

Chair of the Likud faction (in the Knesset): Ze'ev Elkin
Speaker of the Knesset: Ruby Rivlin (Likud)

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top