HOME Featured Stories April 2011 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, 2011.

"We photographers deal in things which are continually vanishing, and when they have vanished, there is no contrivance on earth which can make them come back again. We cannot develop and print a memory." - Henri Cartier-Bresson


I drove past this site last week and noticed surveying stakes and bulldozers moving earth. I am accustomed to nature's disappearing act and am grateful for the photos which have captured moments never to be seen again.

Although we've almost turned the calendar to May, Israel continues to see occasional late spring showers, which provide sustenance to the greenery and flowering of the season. This shot was taken at the height of the spring bloom two years ago, in a field adjacent to the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv Highway at the Sha'ar Hagay junction.

Prowling around at midday, when normally my camera would be tucked safely away, I continued shooting because the impressive cloud cover saves this photo from the drudgery of high-noon brightness and harsh shadows. Often, sky shows such as this will motivate me to go out and shoot, even without a subject or destination in mind. The combination of the purple Egyptian Campion accented by the red anemones provides a perfect complement to the soaring sky to complete the composition.

Technical Data: Nikon D300, 12-24 mm lens at 12mm, f16@ 1/320 sec., ISO 200.

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 AFSI, April 30, 2011.

Mahmoud Abbas, our supposed "peace" partner, has now joined forces with Hamas, the acknowledged terrorist group. This is actually a declaration of war against the state of Israel since Hamas has never disguised its intentions of destroying Israel. The PLO has used the diplomatic track, hoping to delude Israelis and the world with its words of peace, while pursuing its terrorist ideology. The truth is now out. There is no more time for talk. Israel must pre-empt in order to save Jewish lives.

Mark Langfan, www.MarkLangfan.com, has created a map of Israel showing the range of enemy attacks on Israel from what might have been the "Palestinian state." Please see that the creation of such an entity would be suicidal.

Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is a pro-active pro-Israel advocacy group. AFSI may be contacted by mail at 1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128 (Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717); by email at afsi@rcn.com; or by accessing its website: www.afsi.org. Helen Freedman is Executive Director.

She writes, "The best way to send a message to the detractors of Israel in the media, the Administration, and the public is by joining AFSI and becoming active with AFSI's work. As a member, you will receive all our email alerts as well as email copies of our renowned monthly publication, The Outpost. See past editions."

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 30, 2011.


The New York Times contends that the Arab uprising makes it imperative that the U.S. propose an Arab-Israel peace plan. Past Chair of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Kenneth Bialkin, disputes this. He explains that nobody knows how the uprising will affect the military balance of power. All of Israel's borders could become war fronts. [Implication is that making concessions and unleashing the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) into sovereignty could be counter-productive.] Look before you leap.

Israel, Mr. Bialkin writes, has accepted the principle of a two-state arrangement. The P.A. has not. [He implies that Israel wants peace and the P.A. wants conquest.]

He has a recommendation for the U.S., too: let the U.S. urge the P.A. to accept Israel's offer to negotiate directly and without preconditions (letter 4/28/11).

Mr. Bialkin's criticism of the Times is well taken. But his advocacy of negotiations contradicts his criticism. His wish for the U.S. to intervene is unwise. It both puts the U.S. on the spot and gives the anti-Zionist Administration an opportunity to harm Israel even more.

What good would come from concession-offering negotiations with religious fanatics who use diplomacy to gain advantage in war and who turn areas from which Israeli withdraw into military fronts? That seems neither pro-Israel nor pro-peace.

It is time to move beyond negotiations to advancing Israeli consolidation in the Territories. That would mean historical justice for the Jewish people and stronger borders for Israel. Stronger borders deter invaders. Negotiations either fail or lead to expansion of terrorist entities.


Hamas and Fatah reached an accord on forming an interim unity government and holding elections within a year. Palestinian Authority (P.A.) Prime Minister Fayyad would not be part of the new regime. Abbas believes that internal unity would strengthen his drive for sovereignty.

Israel denounced the accord as Fatah turning toward Hamas and war, instead of toward Israel and peace. PM Netanyahu warns that Hamas may take over Fatah. The Obama administration called Hamas a terrorist organization, not a peace partner. The Accord may alienate western support. Sec. Clinton said that the U.S. would deny funds or cooperation if a P.A. government includes Hamas. Precedent is Lebanon, where U.S. military aid to the Lebanese Army was blocked by Congress on suspicion that that Army is allied with Hizbullah.

The accord also raises questions, the Times asserts, whether PM Netanyahu tried hard enough to make peace with Fayyad and Abbas, "widely considered the most moderate leaders the Palestinians have ever had." In support of that assertion, the newspaper claims that the P.A. has negotiated for a two-state solution, whereas Hamas continues to make war on Israel (Steven Lee Myers, Ethan Bronner, Isabel Kershner, 4/28/11).

Israel denounces the Hamas-Fatah accord as if surprised.

The Times makes false statements and implications about the P.A., Fayyad, Abbas, and Israel. The daily pretends, as the whole Establishment does, that Fatah is moderate. Fatah constitutes the bulk of the PLO, which has murdered more innocent people than has Hamas. Fatah is just as terrorist and just as jihadist as Hamas, but more dangerous.

Why is Fatah more dangerous? Fatah is willing to negotiate using the Islamic pretense at making peace. It gets concessions that facilitate jihad.

Has the Establishment forgotten that Fatah murdered U.S. diplomats, hijacked airplanes, murdering children, and specialized in suicide bombing? Either the New York Times knows or does not know that Fatah's Palestinian Authority schools, media, mosques, and summer camps indoctrinate in hating, lying, murdering, and dispossessing Jews. If it doesn't know, it is poorly informed; if it does know, it is misinforming readers.

I believe the latter, explained in my hundreds of articles about New York Times bias against Zionism. Surely the paper knows that Israel tried hard to make peace, but the Arabs tried hard not to. Netanyahu offered to negotiate without preconditions, but Abbas refused without preconditions, which closes off much Israeli negotiations. Arab preconditions are a never-ending war-talk-war-talk phenomenon reflecting bad faith.

Perhaps the editors do not know that Islam considers holy war a religious duty. Could they possibly not know that Abbas lionizes terrorists? How does that square with his alleged peace-loving? Maybe they missed his asserting that if he doesn't get what he wants in negotiations, he would resort to war. How little does that newspaper knows about the Arab-Israel conflict, or if it knows, how little it shares with readers!

Hamas-Fatah unity may bolster Abbas' drive for sovereignty, but it should not. Unity for what? When both terrorist organizations seek to conquer Israel, their unity bolsters the case against sovereignty and proves that Fatah is not interested in peace and has no principles against terrorism.


The May Commentary exposes the real purpose of human rights NGOs concerned with Israel.

Consider the Goldman Report. In just a few months and Goldstone's four-day visit to Gaza, his small mission came up with a 600-page report that details hundreds of accusations condemning Israel for almost everything it did in Gaza. Obviously, the mission could not have uncovered all that. It had outsourced the investigation to NGOs. [Mr. Goldstone did not disclose his recent membership on the board of one, Human Rights Watch].

These dozens of groups have an anti-Zionist drive disguised by falsely claiming that Israel violates human rights. NGO B'Tselem, advised the mission the most. B'Tselem was founded by far leftists. It purports to be an Israeli organization, but it is funded by the New Israel Fund, Ford Foundation, and European governments. It has become the main news source for journalists, officials, and activists who consider Israeli self-defense to be criminal oppression. The State Dept., European governments, and media accept B'Tselem reports almost word-for-word, apparently without verifying them. [I have seen quotations from them in the NY Times.]

Thus B'tselem has switched from: (a) Trying to persuade Israelis to change their policy; to (b) Helping foreigners pressure Israel into changing its policy. How can B'Tselem be both an impartial champion of civil liberties and an impassioned advocate for the Arab jihad against Israelis' human rights?

B'Tselem's head of data-coordination blogged that "Israel is committing Humanity's worst atrocities." "Israel is proving its devotion to Nazi values..." Another assertion: Israelis wouldn't mind erecting gas chambers for the Arabs. "...we have stolen lands, murdered, starved others, have created ghettos" and "allowed fascists to raise their heads." No evidence. Pure, prejudicial, ideological name-calling. Flinging mud in the hope that some will stick.

Another "B'Tselem official likened Israeli administration of the P.A. to S. African apartheid. She called the Israeli people paranoid in their self-defense [paranoid after multiple invasions seeking genocide and tens of thousands killed] , so they don't recognize Arab human rights. When asked about Arab violation of Arabs' human rights, she evaded the issue except to blame Israel for that, too. She considers her citizenship to be of the "world." [Then is her organization an Israeli one or an anti-Israeli one?]

Another one, Anne Biletsky, traced her activism back to the Communist Party [whose movement was one of the greatest oppressors of human rights]. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, her concern was that Israel would take advantage of that by "crimes against humanity." [Guilty in advance of action? That is paranoid.]

Biletsky helped draft the Odessa document: "We are united in a critique of Zionism, based as it is on refusal to acknowledge the indigenous people of this country and on denial of their rights, on dispossession of the lands, and on adoption of separation as a fundamental principle and way of life." Actually, Jews are an indigenous people there.

The document calls Israelis racists and claims they consider the Arabs subhuman. [Israelis do not, but the Muslim Arabs describe the Jews as subhuman — "sons of apes and pigs" and inherently evil.] Biletsky, chair of B'Tselem, uses more such language, and admits wanting to end Israel as a Jewish state.

When an Israeli Arab legislator was found to have stolen large sums from Arab charities and to have been an artillery spotter for Hamas terrorists, Biletsky expressed solidarity with him. Obviously her anti-Zionism is not out of concern for human rights.

The media fails to advise audiences of such B'Tselem bias.

How does B'Tselem gather data? All it's data-gatherers are Arabs living in [and under the harsh authority of] the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). It claims that its field work and cross-checking of documents ensure data reliability.

Reports by that NGO draw logical conclusions from what, however, are false premises. It concluded, for example, that the whole "settlement" enterprise violates Arabs' rights under the Geneva Convention and other international law, hence the Israeli presence there is an illegal occupation. But the false premise for that conclusion is that all the land in the Territories is sovereign "Palestinian" territory. There never was and still is no such sovereignty.

[The League of Nations intended the Territories for the Jewish people. For the sake of peace, Israel was giving them up. It got war. In self-defense, it had to send forces back in. Even if its forces there now constituted an occupation, which they do not, they would be there legally. International law permits that kind of self-defense.]

A later report claimed that Israeli self-defense is illegal, too, even though Israel is attempting to defend itself from terrorist attack. It called Israel's partial blockade of Gaza an imprisonment, though it did not say the same about Egypt's partial blockade of Gaza. Double standard!

B'Tselem still blamed Israel for Gaza's problems, even after all Israelis withdrew. It asserts that Israel is responsible for the welfare of Gazans, though it did not make clear why so. It did not ascribe any responsibility to Hamas, whose war on Israel requires a blockade of military ordnance.

Another report called all IDF checkpoints a violation of Arab rights, although they were erected to protect Israelis' human rights from Muslims seeking to violate them. The reasons given are: (1) Checkpoints were too inconvenient to the Arabs; and (2) Israelis have no right to be there, so they have no right to defend their civilians. B'Tselem called such self-defense "collective punishment" of the Arabs, though the term does not refer in international law to self-defense. Convenience is not a factor under international law, which weighs lives more heavily than convenience. B'Tselem distorts and redefines traditional terms of international law to come to the opposite conclusions the law intended.

Notice that B'Tselem blames only Israel and not at all the bigoted, violent, terrorists whose constantly violate international law and human rights. That's a human rights organization?

On the Gaza war, the NGO accused Israel of killing more civilians than soldiers: 1,387 Arab fatalities: 773 not involved in hostilities, and only 330 combatants. The IDF found 1,166 Arab fatalities, of whom only 295 were civilians. The discrepancy is because B'Tselem counted as civilians terrorists continuously in combat. When a soldier rests, he is not a soldier? They did not count Hamas police, leaders, financiers, propagandists, recruiters, arms smugglers, ands other support personnel. They counted as civilians 320 minors, as if axiomatic. By 6:1, however, the older minors were males. One may infer that most of the older males were fighting.

Hamas confirmed the IDF figures when it later admitted that 600-700 of those killed were its militants.

B'Tselem declares it is necessary to keep Israel a strong democracy, but it calls Israel racist, belligerent, and illegitimate. How do they reconcile such opposites? These NGOs are engaged in a propaganda war against Israel and in behalf of Arab claims. In other words, against a liberal state and for war lovers, against stability and for subversion. That is an agenda for failure. Such are the informants of Richard Goldstone's UN mission! (Noah Pollack, p.15.)

A Communist runs that self-proclaimed human rights group that favors the most vile abusers of human rights over the most considerate country of Arabs' human rights. Israeli soldiers often withheld fire and even risked their lives to spare enemy civilians, more than does any other country. I think Israel goes too far this way. The supposed champions of human rights don't notice Israel's efforts or won't mention them. Hence Goldstone's report was national character assassination, like pornography without redeeming social value.


Terrorist organizations are wont to hold hostages. A legitimate government does not. When and if Hamas and Fatah form a unity government, they must release Gilad Shailit, whom Hamas is holding hostage, or be considered terrorist rather than legitimate. So warns Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA.

Israeli leaders worry that in unifying the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) governments, Hamas gains an opportunity to take over. They also warn that merging the two P.A. regimes' forces could put them under control of the more belligerent side. Unity would disrupt the security cooperation between the P.A. and Israel.

Israel's Foreign Min. Lieberman foresees the release of hundreds of Hamas terrorists. They will be freed not only to attack Israelis, but also to fasten a grip on Judea-Samaria (Arutz-7, 4/29/11 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/).

I think that both regimes are equally evil and terroristic. A unified army, being stronger and directed for a common purpose, menaces Israel more strongly than the pair of separate ones. The prospect of military unity demonstrates what we warned the U.S. about, that its training of Abbas' forces in the name of internal security would some day make for external insecurity. The U.S. gives money to enemies of America and of Israel.

The so-called security cooperation largely has been an illusion. The illusion should have been punctured when PM Rabin identified for the PLO its agents in Judea-Samaria. Arafat immediately had the PLO purge those agents. The West should have concluded that the PLO remains the enemy and cannot be cooperated with in important ways.

The illusion should have been recognized as such when PM Netanyahu gave rifles to the P.A. police. As he was cautioned, the P.A. police used those rifles for attacking Israelis.

The P.A. is credited with security cooperation when it incarcerates Hamas members. This imprisonment is not meant to help Israel. It is meant to preserve Fatah from a coup. The recent Hamas-Fatah accord calls for releasing those Hamas prisoners. Conclusion: Jihad is more important to Fatah than preserving its hegemony over the P.A..

Phony security cooperation has been the P.A. means of gaining more control. Far from seeking stability and security, the P.A. keeps encouraging terrorism. Some of the terrorism is committed by official P.A. troops. No punishment by the P.A. for that, rather, praise for terrorists.

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Leslie J. Sacks, April 29, 2011.

Turkey claimed the moral high ground last year in actively supporting the Mavi Marmara flotilla aimed to break Israel's "siege" of Gaza. Truth be told the siege was in fact shared with Egypt and relates primarily to armaments, rockets and related war-faring materials (Israel itself transferred about 1 million tons of aid, 137 million liters of fuel and 50,000 tons of cooking gas last year across its borders with Gaza, an effective Hamas dictatorship in which free elections were held one time, and one time only). The

Marmara flotilla ended up with 9 activists dead and a public relations disaster for Israel, when the soldiers initially rappelled from a helicopter onto the ship armed naively with paintball guns only to be attacked with knives, lead pipes and hand guns. Turkey now plans support for many more and larger flotillas.

Turkey saw this incident as their opportunistic goose laying the golden egg of Turkish pre-eminence in the Middle East, a new world Ottoman Sultanate as it were. Yet hypocrisy drips deep from its own poisoned well. The Armenian genocide is still persona non grata and its Kurdish population, now at 18% is still largely disenfranchised. An estimated 30-40,000 Kurdish lives have been lost in the last 3 decades, during the Kurd's attempt to achieve a nominal degree of autonomy, including political and language rights. Turkey has already disqualified a number of candidates for the June parliamentary elections, most from the Kurdish Peace and Democracy party.

Yet Turkey sees fit to wax eloquent about the Gazan's rights to open borders, yet nary a word is said about the more than 15,000 rockets and mortars fired on Israeli civilians from Gaza since Hamas took power.

I would heartily support, and so should the relevant democratic countries and associations in the area, a flotilla sailing from Tel Aviv or Cyprus to Istanbul, with Kurdish and Armenian protestors on board, carrying Kurdish and Armenian books, cultural objects, accompanied by reporters and banned political candidates. I would not hold my breath waiting for the premier human rights organizations, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and others to join the flotilla — once Israel is removed as their Cause Celebre, motivations droop dramatically.

Let Turkey show the world their real taste for free expression, for democracy at work, for open borders. Then on arrival in Istanbul, the intended capital of any future Turkish Caliphate, the flotilla should disembark and a caravan of participants and good should wend their way through Anatolia to Eastern Turkey, to the centers of Kurdish and Armenian culture.

If the flotilla and caravan proceed unhindered, I and most of the world will publicly laud Turkey for their tolerance and democratic ideals. I somehow doubt, however, that the demand that Turkey made on the Israeli Navy, namely to allow unhindered access to all imports including armaments for Gaza, that this same access will be violently refused, for a peaceful flotilla of bibles and free speechers, from outside the controlled and sanctioned politics of Turkey.

My $10,000 seed money is ready and waiting, for just such a flotilla. Any takers?

Leslie J. Sacks

Contact Leslie J. Sacks at Leslie_J._Sacks@mail.vresp.com

To Go To Top

Posted by GWY, April 29, 2011.

This article was written by Caroline B. Glick, the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her book "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at Amazon.com. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com.

It appeared today in Jewish World Review


There are many reasons that Netanyahu is incapable of stating the truth and ending the 18-year policy nightmare in which Israel is an active partner in its own demise

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's response to the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority's peace deal with Hamas would be funny if it weren't tragic. Immediately after the news broke of the deal Netanyahu announced, "The PA must choose either peace with Israel or peace with Hamas. There is no possibility for peace with both." Netanyahu's statement is funny because it is completely absurd. The PA has chosen. The PA made the choice in 2000 when it rejected Israel's offer of peace and Palestinian statehood and joined forces with Hamas to wage a terror war against Israel. The PA made the choice in 2005 again when it responded to Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza with a tenfold increase in the number of rockets and missiles it fired on Israeli civilian targets in the Negev.

The Palestinians made the choice in 2006, when they elected Hamas to rule over them. They made the choice in March 2007 when Fatah and Hamas signed their first unity deal. The PA made the choice in 2008 when Abbas rejected then prime minister Ehud Olmert's offer of statehood and peace. The PA made the choice in 2010 when it refused to reinstate peace negotiations with Netanyahu; began peace negotiations with Hamas and escalated its plan to establish an independent state without peace with Israel. Now the PA has again made the choice by signing the newest peace deal with Hamas. In a real sense, Netanyahu's call for the PA to choose is the political equivalent a man telling his wife she must choose between him and her lover, after she has left home, shacked up and had 5 children with her new man.

It is a pathetic joke.

But worse than a pathetic joke, it is a national tragedy. It is a tragedy that after more than a decade of the PA choosing war with Israel and peace with Hamas, Israel's leaders are still incapable of accepting reality and walking away. It is a tragedy that Israel's leader cannot find the courage to say the joke of the peace process is really a deadly serious war process whose end is Israel's destruction, and that Israel is done with playing along.

There are many reasons that Netanyahu is incapable of stating the truth and ending the 18-year policy nightmare in which Israel is an active partner in its own demise. One of the main reasons is that like his predecessors, Netanyahu has come to believe the myth that Israel's international standing is totally dependent on its being perceived as trying to make peace with the Palestinians.

According to this myth — which has been the central pillar of Israel's foreign policy and domestic politics since Yitzhak Rabin first accepted the PLO as a legitimate actor in 1993 — it doesn't matter how obvious it is that the Palestinians are uninterested in peaceful coexistence with Israel. It doesn't matter how openly they wage their war to destroy Israel. Irrespective of the nakedness of Palestinian bad faith, seven successive governments have adopted the view that the only thing that stands between Israel and international pariah status is its leaders' ability to persuade the so-called international community that Israel is serious about appeasing the Palestinians.

For the past several months, this profoundly neurotic perception of Israel's options has fed our leaders' hysterical response to the Palestinians' plan to unilaterally declare independence. The Palestinian plan itself discredits the idea that they are interested in anything other than destroying Israel. The plan is to get the UN to recognize a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza outside the framework of a peace treaty with Israel.

The PA will first attempt to get the Security Council to endorse an independent "Palestine." If the Obama administration vetoes the move, then the PA will ask the General Assembly to take action. Given the makeup of the General Assembly, it is all but certain that the Palestinians will get their resolution.

The question is, does this matter?

Everyone from Defense Minister Ehud Barak to hard-left, post-Zionist retreads like Shulamit Aloni and Avrum Burg says it does. They tell us that if this passes, Israel will face international opprobrium if its citizens or military personnel so much as breathe in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem without Palestinian permission.

These prophets of doom warn that Israel has but one hope for saving itself from diplomatic death: Netanyahu must stand before the world and pledge to give Israel's heartland and capital to the Palestinians.

And according to helpful Obama administration officials, everything revolves around Netanyahu's ability to convince the EU-3 — British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel that he is serious about appeasing the Palestinians. If he doesn't offer up Israel's crown jewels in his speech before the US Congress next month, administration officials warn that the EU powers will go with the Palestinians. And if they go with the Palestinians, well, things could get ugly for Israel.

Happily, these warnings are completely ridiculous. UN General Assembly resolutions have no legal weight. Even if every General Assembly member except Israel votes in favor of a resolution recognizing "Palestine," all the Palestinians will have achieved is another non-binding resolution, with no force of law, asserting the same thing that thousands of UN resolutions already assert. Namely, it will claim falsely that Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza are Palestinian territory to which Israel has no right. Israel will be free to ignore this resolution, just as it has been free to ignore its predecessors.

The threat of international isolation is also wildly exaggerated. Today Israel is more diplomatically isolated than it has been at any time in its 63 year history. With the Obama administration treating the construction of homes for Jews in Jerusalem as a greater affront to the cause of world peace than the wholesale massacre of hundreds of Iranian and Syrian protesters by regime goons, Israel has never faced a more hostile international climate. And yet, despite its frosty reception from the White House to Whitehall, life in Israel has never been better.

According to the latest economic data released by the Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel's economy grew 7.8 percent in the last quarter of 2010. International trade is rising steeply. In the first quarter of 2011, exports rose 27.3%. They grew 19.9% in the final quarter of last year. Imports rose 34.7% between January and March, and 38.9% in the last quarter of 2010. The Israel-bashing EU remains Israel's largest trading partner. And even as Turkey embraced Hamas and Iran as allies, its trade with Israel reached an all time high last year. These trade data expose a truth that the doom and gloomers are unwilling to notice: For the vast majority of Israelis the threat of international isolation is empty. The same people telling us to commit suicide now lest we face the firing squad in September would also have us believe that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is the single greatest threat to the economy. But that lie was put paid this month with the demise of the Australian town of Marrickville's BDS-inspired boycott. Last December the anti-Israel coalition running the town council voted to institute a trade, sports and academic boycott against Israel. Two weeks ago the council was forced to cancel its decision after it learned that it would cost $3.4 million to institute it. Cheaper Israeli products and services would have to be replaced with more expensive non-Israeli ones.

Both Israel's booming foreign trade and the swift demise of the Marrickville boycott movement demonstrate that the specter of international isolation in the event that Israel extricates itself from the Palestinian peace process charade is nothing more than a bluff. The notion that Israel will be worse off it Netanyahu admits that Abbas has again chosen war against the Jews over peace with us has no credibility.

So what is preventing Netanyahu and his colleagues in the government from acknowledging this happy truth?

Two factors are at play here. The first is our inability to understand power politics. Our leaders believe that the likes of Sarkozy, Cameron, and Merkel are serious when tell us that Israel needs to prove it is serious about peace in order to enable them to vote against a Palestinian statehood resolution at the UN. But they are not serious. Nothing that Israel does will have any impact on their votes.

When the Europeans forge their policies towards Israel they are moved by one thing only: the US.

Since 1967, the Europeans have consistently been more pro-Palestinian than the US. Now, with the Obama administration demonstrating unprecedented hostility towards Israel, there is no way that the Europeans will suddenly shift to Israel's side. So when European leaders tell Israelis that we need to convince them we are serious about peace, they aren't being serious. They are looking for an excuse to be even more hostile. If Israel offers the store to Abbas, then the likes of Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy will not only recognize "Palestine" at the UN, (because after all, they cannot be expected to be more pro-Israel than the Israeli government that just surrendered), they will recognize Hamas. Because that's the next step.

It would seem that Israel's leaders should have gotten wise to this game years ago. And the fact that they haven't can be blamed on the second factor keeping their sanity in check: the Israeli Left. The only group of Israelis directly impacted by the BDS movement is the Israeli Left. Its members — from university lecturers to anti-Zionist has-been politicians, artists, actors and hack writers — are the only members of Israeli society that have a personal stake in a decision by their leftist counterparts in the US or Europe or Australia or any other pretty vacation/sabbatical spots to boycott Israelis.

And because the movement threatens them, they have taken it upon themselves to scare the rest of us into taking this ridiculous charade seriously. So it was that last week a group of washed up radicals gathered in Tel Aviv outside the hall where David Ben Gurion proclaimed Israeli independence and declared the independence of "Palestine." They knew their followers in the media would make a big deal of their agitprop and use it as another means of demoralizing the public into believing we can do nothing but embrace our enemies' cause against our country.

The time has come for the vast majority of Israelis who aren't interested in the Nobel Prize for Literature or a sabbatical at Berkeley or University of Trondheim to call a spade a spade. The BDS haters have no leverage. A degree from Bar Ilan is more valuable than a degree from Oxford. And no matter how much these people hate Israel, they will continue to buy our technologies and contract our researchers because Cambridge is no longer capable of producing the same quality of scholarship as the Technion.

And it is well past time for our leaders to stop playing this fool's game. We don't need anyone's favors. Abbas has made his choice. Now it is time for Netanyahu to choose.

Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, April 29, 2011.

We are the SC4Z and we say to the world and especially the Islamic world that there are no so-called "1967 borders" — if anything, these so-called "borders" were unsettled armistice lines because the borders of the Jewish Homeland were established by the San Remo Resolution during the Twenties of the last century and subsequent confirming treaties bind Europe and the US to uphold these boundaries. The land encompassed by the San Remo Resolultion boundaries extends "from the ocean to the sea" and beyond, even into the region that became the new state of Jordan.

The Jews who swarmed to leadership after Rabin was assassinated were either uneducated Jews or worse still, Jews who willfully subjected themselves to undue influence (quid pro quo?). Their willingness to discuss, negotiate, or accept diminished boundaries for the State of Israel was clearly ultra vires and their unwholesome submission to external influence constitute unlawful acts that remain to be set aside by a genuine statesman with a rigid steel spine. So far, Israel has not allowed a true statesmen (or woman) to rise to the top of its political pyramid and the reason for this failure must exposed, and if necessary, adequate punishment must be exacted. For instance, even though Shimon Peres currently attempts to resemble an elder statesman today, yesterday he was more than eager to repair to a tax haven, the Cayman Islands (noted for its secrecy laws) so that his new NGO could quietly engage in business transactions with the corresponding NGO established by "his dearest friend in peace" Yasser Arafat. Arafat was at that time gaily slaughtering Israeli women and children via his myriad goon gangs while Peres enveloped Arafat in his gooey embrace. When the news leaked of the the Arafat-Peres enterprise, Peres swiftly folded his Cayman operation and refused to talk about his theretofore secret operations. See: World Net Daily report. Read: Prof. Howard Grief's seminal treatise on international law: "The Legal Foundation of the Borders of Israel under International Law" available at www.amazon.com

This below was written by Eli E. Hertz, 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


In an interview with the German news paper Der Spiegel, the late Israeli diplomat Abba Eban, described Israel's pre-Six-Day War borders as "Auschwitz" lines.

Eban, a lifetime dove, vowed:

"With Syrians on the mountain and we in the valley, with the Jordanian army in sight of the sea, with the Egyptians ... hold[ing] our throat in their hands in Gaza. This is a situation which will never be repeated in history." [emphasis added]

In the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, after three Arab armies converged on Israel's nightmarish borders, even the United Nations was forced to recognize that Israel's pre-1967 Six-Day War borders invited repeated aggression. Thus, UN Resolution 242 - which formed the conceptual foundation for a peace settlement - declares that all states in the region should be guaranteed "safe and secure borders."

President Lyndon B. Johnson, in an address on September 10, 1968, declared:

"We [The United States] are not the ones to say where other nations should draw the lines between them that will assure each the greatest security."

"It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace. There must be secure and there must be recognized borders." [emphasis added] (Department of State Bulletin 348 [1968])

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Esther Green, April 29, 2011.

This is a News Release on April 28, 2011 from The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies For more information, contact: rafaelmedoff@aol.com / 202-434-8994

The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, located in Washington, D.C., is a research and education institute focusing on America's response to the Holocaust. It is named in honor of the eminent historian and author of the 1984 best-seller The Abandonment of the Jews, the most important and influential book concerning the U.S. response to the Nazi genocide.



NEW YORK- New evidence shows that U.S. diplomat James G. McDonald repeatedly challenged President Roosevelt on his response to the Holocaust--contradicting earlier portrayals of McDonald as a defender of the president's Jewish refugee policies.

The new documents were uncovered by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, in Washington, D.C. They are part of a new report called "James G. McDonald, FDR, and the Holocaust," that is being published on the Institute's web site, www.WymanInstitute.org, in conjunction with Holocaust Remembrance Day (May 1, 2011).

"Our research shows that U.S. diplomat James G. McDonald turned sharply against the Roosevelt administration in 1943-1944, over FDR's failure to respond to the Holocaust," said Wyman Institute director Dr. Rafael Medoff, author of the new report as well as twelve books about the Holocaust, Zionism, and Jewish history. "This new information contradicts previous depictions of McDonald's relationship with President Roosevelt."

The documents show that in 1943-1944, McDonald, in articles, letters, and speeches, publicly and privately criticized the Roosevelt administration's positions with regard to the plight of European Jewry. He did so at a time when he was still chairman of the President's Advisory Committee on Political Refugees. Key findings of the report:

"Endless Discussions": In a March 1943 article, McDonald challenged the forthcoming American-British conference in Bermuda on the refugee problem, saying "the time for lengthy discussion of this problem is long past." He criticized the Allies' "old-time diplomacy ...endless discussions and committees and unwillingness to face the peremptory need for bold planning and prompt action."

"Lip Service": In a speech in Buffalo on May 22, 1944, McDonald charged that the United States and its allies "paid only lip service" to the plight of Hitler's Jewish victims before the war, and "diplomats do not seem to have learned from past mistakes" and "today again are acting as if refugee problems were relatively minor matters." He said "timidity and fear of not being re-elected" were to blame for indifference to the plight of Jews in Nazi Germany.

"Pitifully Insufficient": In a speech in Chicago on November 19, 1944, McDonald said the Allies' response to the Holocaust was "pitifully insufficient." He accused the Allies of "hesitancy, procrastination, half-heartedness" and "calamitous blindness."

"Face-Saving Manuevers": In a letter to Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter on November 30, 1944, McDonald charged that the Allies "have almost never faced the realities of the tragedy of the refugees but that instead they have been guilty of face-saving maneuvers while millions of innocent men and women have been needlessly sacrificed."

The Wyman Institute's research reveals a side of McDonald very different from the one presented in the widely-publicized book Refugees and Rescue: The Diaries and Papers of James G. McDonald 1935-1945, by Richard Breitman, Severin Hochberg, and Barbara McDonald Stewart, which was published in 2009 by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and Indiana University Press. The book claimed McDonald's diaries showed that Roosevelt tried to rescue Jewish refugees. It also gave the impression that McDonald consistently supported FDR's policy toward European Jewry.

Contact Esther Green by email at eli100@zahav.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, April 29, 2011.

The 19th century violence on the European Street signaled the arrival of the Spring of Nations: national cohesion, liberty and rebellion against tyranny.

In contrast, the 2011 Middle East upheaval exposes the Arab Street: No "spring" and no "nations," but the exacerbation of tribal-ethnic-religious-geographic loyalties, splits and power struggles, the intensification of domestic and intra-Arab fragmentation, the escalation of intolerance, violence and hate-culture, the absence of stability, the deepening of uncertainty, exposing the tenuous nature of Arab regimes, the ruthless submission of democracy-seeking elements and the perpetuation of ruthless tyrannies.

The 19th century Spring of Nations was energized by waves of enthusiastic optimism. On the other hand, the 2011 delusion of the Spring of Nations is exposed by the impotence, despair and frustration of pro-democracy Arab activists, who are forced to emigrate rather than be persecuted.

The expectation for a near-term Arab Spring of Nations is detached from Middle East reality, could produce another victory of wishful-thinking over experience, already leads to a delusion-based policy and risks a lethal boomerang caused by delusional yearning.

In February, 2010, President Obama appointed a new ambassador to Damascus — following four years of diplomatic absence — "because Assad could play a constructive role in the Middle East." In July 2000, Western policy-makers and public opinion molders cheered the prospect of Spring in Damascus upon the succession of Hafiz Assad by his son, Bashar Assad. They were not alarmed by Bashar's 97% victory in two elections. They assumed that as an eye doctor, who interned in London, who is fluent in English and French, who was the chairman of the Syria Internet Association, and married to a London-educated wife who advocates women rights, he must be a moderate. They sacrificed documented facts — about the Assad family, the ruling Alawite minority, the Damascus vision and the centrality of the strategic cooperation between Syria and Iran — on the altar of the yearning of peace with Syria. The current turmoil in Syria exposes Western oversimplification and the authentic merciless nature of this Syrian despot.

In February 2011, President Obama and Secretary Clinton hastily proclaimed the ushering of democracy into Arab lands and the reincarnation of the spirit of MLK and Ghandi in the streets of Tunisia and Egypt. However, their expectations are thwarted by the thousands of moderate Tunisians who are escaping to the Italian Mediterranean island of Lampedusa and by the horrific campaign of killings, murder, torture, hate and corruption, which has accompanied recent volcanic eruptions in Arab countries.

In 1993, upon signing the Oslo Accord, the New Middle East visionaries announced Spring in Ramallah, the supremacy of standard-of-living over ideological and military considerations, the age of no-wars and the irrelevance of borders and military forces. But, the conduct of the Palestinian Authority (epitomized by hate-education), the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the intensification of Islamic terrorism, the Iranian threat, the proliferation of advanced missiles, the murder of Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, the wars in Lebanon and Gaza and the current Middle East upheaval, crashed the superficial New Middle East and Spring in Ramallah visions. However, in order to sustain the "peace process," Israeli and Western "elites" have ignored the unprecedented Arafat and Abu Mazen-initiated hate-education and terrorism.

In January 2005, they were further encouraged by Abu Mazen's rise to the chairmanship of the Palestinian Authority. They would not be diverted from the pursuit of their visions by Abu Mazen's track record: Introducing hate-education into Palestinian schools, mosques and media, subversion against Arab regimes, holocaust denial, enrollment in KGB and Muslim Brotherhood schooling, the embracing of ruthless Soviet Bloc Communist regimes, centrality in the 1972 Munich Massacre and the recent accord with Hamas.

The 1989 dismantling of the USSR and the fall of the Berlin Wall triggered a Spring of Nations hope and a New World Order concept, which was swiftly transformed into a New World Disorder. While the Spring of Nations introduced democracy into Eastern Europe, it could not advance the cause of liberty in Arab lands. 1,400 years of Muslim-Arab tyranny, guided by an imperialistic, intolerant and violent religion, which embraces terrorism and tolerates "female circumcision" (genital mutilation), constitutes too high a hurdle for the Spring of Nations. The British Empire attempted to democratize Arab countries - but failed, due to the lack of essential infrastructure of democratic values and education in Arab lands.

The turmoil in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Oman and Syria (and you ain't seen nothing yet...), coupled with the expected US evacuation from Iraq and Afghanistan, the Iranian threat and the inherent non-reliability of international or Western guarantees and forces do not usher in Spring; they do usher in lethal geo-political twisters and floods, which require the retaining — and not the giveaway - of critical Israeli security assets.

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 This article was published in YnetNews, April 29, 2011,

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 29, 2011.

A glance backward first, because I want to touch upon something that took place while I was away over Pesach.

This painful incident, from almost a week ago, links to recent Israeli history and to the future:

Last Sunday, in the early hours of the morning, three cars with Breslover Chassidim went to pray at Joseph's tomb — a holy site for Judaism — which is in PA-controlled territory (area A) outside of Nablus (traditional Jewish Shechem), in Samaria.

Pesach is a traditional time for prayers at the tomb, because the bones of Joseph, traditionally thought to be buried there, were carried out of Egypt by Moses on the first Pesach.

Warning shots were fired at the Chassidm by PA police. They continued to the tomb for prayers, and on their way out, PA police fired at them directly: One man — Ben Yosef Livnat, called Benyo, father of four and nephew of Minister of Culture Limor Livnat (Likud) — was killed.
mailbox:///root/.thunderbird/3oezh4io.default/Mail/ pop.hmc1.comcast.net/Inbox?number=72578990& part=1.2&filename=20110424100402.jpg

One more good man taken from the midst of the Jewish people. One more widow, four more orphans. Wrote David Wilder of Hevron, who knew Livnat:

"Benyo was a wonderful person, a beautiful Jew and his murder will leave a huge gap in the lives of all who knew him. May his memory be blessed and may G-d comfort his widow, orphans, parents, brothers and sisters and all who knew and loved him." Four others were wounded, one seriously.

After the Chassidim left the area, Arabs vandalized the tomb.


Background to this story is essential for it to be understood properly, in its painful and shameful particulars.

Kever Yosef is a Jewish holy site along with the Machpela, and Kever Rachel.

With the Oslo Accords and the division of Judea and Samaria into regions controlled by the PA and by Israel, this site fell within the area under Palestinian Arab control because of its proximity to Nablus. But Israel was to control the tomb itself, so that Jews would be able to visit the site and pray there. (This is parallel to Kever Rachel, today, which is within PA territory but is an enclave controlled by the IDF.)

Repeatedly, Jews at the kever were attacked by Arabs. Finally Ehud Barak, who was then prime minister, in 2000 ordered a retreat from the site. He should hang his head in shame for this abandonment. One IDF soldier, who had been shot, was left behind and died there when the order to the IDF was not to return. Barak should hang his head twice over. When the Israeli presence was gone, the Arabs burned the tomb.

I remember the feelings of rage and revulsion I, with many many others, felt that day. And it is impossible to disconnect that history from what is happening now.


After the IDF withdrew, the PA was supposed to allow visits by Jews, but, of course, they reneged on this. Nonetheless, pious Jews began sneaking in at night, to pray at the site. Finally the IDF began taking charge, arranging those visits to the kever under guard, for the protection of those who were visiting. And, I have heard from some who participated, it is quite a guard — not just one jeep with a couple of soldiers.

But when were the visits arranged by the IDF? In the middle of the night. Why? So that most Arabs in the area would be asleep and would not be aroused to violence by the "offensive" sight of Jews going to pray in their territory. And only about once per month.


What has been said about the group of Chassidim who were attacked is that they didn't clear this visit with the IDF, who would have subsequently cleared it with PA security.

This is absolutely true. But Breslover Chassidim often visit the kever. In fact, Gershon Mesika head of the Shomron [Samaria] Regional Council charged that "they [the PA forces] know them [the Chassidim] but for some reason, they decided to open fire this time."

Concluded Rob Miller of the Joshuapundit blog: "they decided to open fire because the 'Palestinians' are getting increasingly bold about killing Jews, given the events in Egypt and in the UN. They are staking out territory, trying to destroy yet another piece of Israel's Jewish heritage..."
Joshuapundit — http://joshuapundit.blogspot.com/2011/04/ jews-shot-en-route-to-prayer-jewish.html -- ran a picture of the vandalism that followed the murder:

With this comment:

"As you may know, anything to do with the bottom of one's shoe - like a boot print - is a deadly insult in Arab culture. The prints are identical with the 'Palestinian' police standard issue boots."


There is a serious question as to why unarmed, peaceful, religious Jews must get army and PA permission to pray at a Jewish holy site. And there are charges that if the IDF had provided more frequent and open visits this situation might not have arisen.

What is absolutely clear, even if it is determined that the Chassidim were in the wrong to go on their own, is that this did not provide the PA forces with latitude to kill them! They were not a threat to anyone, and they were actually on their way out of the area when they were shot.


Defense Minister Barak called this "murder," although others in the IDF preferred to refer to it as an "incident." Netanyahu demanded tough action by the PA against those in the security forces who were responsible. But there is another factor here that has been largely ignored:

The PA security officers who shot at the Chassidim were clearly heard to yell "Allahu Akbar!" It means Allah is great, but it is the cry that terrorists use when attacking innocent Jews. So it has to be asked what the hell is going on here. I'll try to answer this in a moment.

There have been calls for Israel to re-take Kever Yosef -- re-establish a military presence there — in light of what has happened. I concur entirely. It is a matter of Jewish national right and dignity. But I don't see it happening because Netanyahu has not the courage, even though this was the original agreement under Oslo. And our defense minister?

At any rate, this terrorist murder will not discourage pious Jews from visiting the tomb to pray in the middle of the night. On the contrary, even more intend to go.


As to how this connects to the future:

For some time now the US has been funding and assisting with the training of PA "security forces" — known for a while as "Dayton's troops," because of the long-term involvement of US General Keith Dayton. These troops are supposed to take out terrorists. Never mind that they are loath to take out their kinsmen who happen to be in Hamas.

As the training proceeded, the question was raised repeatedly in certain quarters with regard to how prudent a project this was. For there has been a history of PA forces, sooner or later, turning their guns on Israelis instead of terrorists. This happens in particular when there is Palestinian Arab frustration. Why make these people more skilled and supply weaponry? It was a myopic vision that encouraged this — the naive American idea that when the PA was strong enough there would be a moderate PA state that combated terrorism.

I did an extensive report on this issue a couple of years ago, and what was clear was that experts here knew no such thing was going to happen. There was great concern, as well, that Hamas might end up being in control of the troops trained by the US and weapons supplied by the Americans specifically to take out Hamas. (This happened in Gaza with the Hamas coup, when Hamas grabbed weaponry and sophisticated electronic devices that had been provided to Fatah by the US.) No one knew, as Dayton's training continued, if Hamas might ultimately take Judea and Samaria, or if there might be a unity government.


And here we are. A unity arrangement has been announced. While it is not clear yet what arrangements will be made with regard to control of security forces, there is no way to conclude that the results will be good. Yesterday I wrote that Hamas is the stronger faction.

Thank you, America.


Israel has been conducting some joint security operations with PA forces, and there is question, as well, as to whether these should continue.


I am encountering as many different viewpoints with regard to the "unity" arrangements as there are analysts and commentators looking at the issue.

My biggest concern is that the Western world should play it straight with regard to demanding of Hamas an honoring of the Quartet stipulations regarding acceptance of Israel's existence, renunciation of terrorism and honoring of previous agreements before it can be considered a legitimate player.

I've seen in the past some fancy diplomatic slight of hand with regard to this issue, and this makes me nervous. ("Well, Hamas association with the PA is bound to moderate it." "Hamas acknowledges that Israel does exist, de facto, that is almost a recognition, and the rest will follow." Etc.)

But from MEMRI we have this: Deputy Head of Hamas Political Bureau Moussa Abu Marzouq has declared that:

"Now the Quartet has become obsolete, along with its terms, and it is not taken too much into consideration."

While from Foreign Minister Mahmoud Al-Zahhar:

"Our perspective is entirely different from that of Fatah. Fatah believes in negotiations, while we believe that negotiations with the Israeli enemy are in vain. We believe in armed struggle...as well as making the government's resources available to the resistance. We believe that obeying the terms of the Quartet would have entailed the loss of the Palestinian rights....The terms of the Quartet meant, in short, recognition of the Israeli enemy, in exchange for bread, gas, and oil. Our steadfastness...has taught a lesson to the Quartet."

Can the Quartet and the European community more broadly ignore this?


David Wilder of Hevron is ready to break out the wine, because he says this will save us from a Palestinian state. He believes that Netanyahu would have gone to make his speech in Congress in May and offered further concessions, but will not be able to do so now. He may well be right.


Khaled Abu Toameh says that Hamas is now stronger.

"The unity deal does not require Hamas to relinquish control over Gaza and permits it to keep its security forces. Nor does the deal require Hamas to accept the Middle East peace process or accept the two-state solution. Hamas will be brought into the unity government as an equal partner, and has been recognized as a legitimate partner and player not only by Fatah, but also by the most populous Arab country, Egypt."

This is undoubtedly the case. We see it in the MEMRI quotes. But the PA — the entity with which we were supposed to deal — is now weaker, and has been exposed in its intentions.


Joel Greenberg, writing in the Washington Post, echoes my statements of yesterday, with regard to the fact that the "unity" is paper-thin and that actually resolving the tougher issues between the parties will be very difficult indeed:

"Four years of incitement and war between Hamas and Fatah are not going to be just scrapped in one day," said Mkhaimer Abusada, a political scientist at Al-Azhar University in Gaza. "It's going to be a very long and tenuous process." Khalil Shikaki, a political analyst and pollster in Ramallah, said that while the two factions may have agreed to reconcile, they had postponed the difficult problems dividing them and "may not be able to do it."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/abbas-seeks-to-allay- fears-on-accord-with-hamas/2011/04/28/AFg3DN8E_story_1.html


There's more, much more, to report, on this evolving situation. But this post is already long, and Shabbat is on the way.


Don't know how effective these things are in terms of affecting the behavior of organizations, but here are two polls concerning Israeli issues that you might want to participate in. Voting takes a second and might make a difference:

The Jewish Advocate is running a poll on whether the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston should keep J Street as a member organization.

The University of California at San Diego (UCSD) student newspaper is conducting a poll about a resolution by Muslim students to have UCSD divest from companies that do business with Israel, like General Electric.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by HandsFiasco, April 29, 2011.

This was written by Sarah Honig and is archived at


Self-flagellating demagoguery reigns supreme among us, painting ourselves blacker than black, while absolving our enemies of any sin.

If a netherworld truly exists, then its most infamous denizen, one Adolf Hitler, must be rubbing his hands in glee. During his lifetime, when he preoccupied the entire world with his war, he never ceased to proclaim hysterically that his paramount aim was annihilating all Jews. Obsessively he reiterated his resolve to cause all nations to unite in recognition of inborn Jewish villainy.

To some extent he already succeeded among his contemporaries. The Allies never sincerely cared about Jews and never fought for them. They protected their own skins. Europe's Jews were eventually liberated via the much-belated byproduct of Germany's defeat. The enormity of the Holocaust could have been lessened, but it was nobody's priority.

The Allies' indifference derived from their own Judeophobia, albeit of lower grade than the Nazi variety. Mere months before World War II's outbreak, when the Holocaust was about to be kick-started, Britain published its notorious White Paper ruling out this country as a viable asylum for refugees from Hitler's hell. Germany's Jews were already shorn of citizenship and fleeing, stateless, in all directions. Hitler's threats were well recorded, shouted in the world's face and hardly kept secret. The White Paper encompassed all the dubious goodwill the international community could reluctantly muster, lest "changes on the ground" occur that might rile Arabs in and around the Jewish homeland.

YET THE fault wasn't Britain's alone. Hitler tauntingly invited all democracies to take his Jews, if they were so fretful about them. He knew that for all their self-righteous rhetoric, these states wouldn't accept his provocative challenge. After 1938's Anschluss, their representatives met in Evian-les-Bains, on Lake Geneva's French shore, to decide what to do with Nazism's desperate victims, pounding on their gates in search of sanctuary. They never even called them Jews, lest they incur the fuehrer's wrath.

It turned into a great Jew-rejection fest. Britain bristled at any hint of allowing refugees into Eretz Yisrael, mandated to it to administer as the Jewish National Home. Progenitors of today's Palestinian terrorists made sure endangered Jews wouldn't be sheltered, and His Majesty's government appeasingly assented. The vast empty spaces of Canada, Australia and New Zealand were likewise off-limits. The American humanitarianism of Franklin Roosevelt, who unreservedly shared the predispositions of his European counterparts, consisted of tossing the undesirable hot potato into the international arena, because Jews weren't wanted in the Land of the Free either. Indeed FDR toyed with the notion of shipping German Jews to Ethiopia or Central Africa. The UK favored the jungles of Venezuela or Central America. Mussolini changed direction northward. Instead of exposing Berlin's urbane Jews to the rigors of the tropics, he opined that the Siberian arctic might be a preferable hardship. The competition was on: who'd suggest a more remote and less hospitable exile in which to dump those whom the British Foreign Office shamelessly labeled "unwanted Jews."

The motivation wasn't much more beneficent than Hitler's initial choice of Madagascar.

These were the seeds. Once war erupted, all attempts to rescue Jews were rejected. The Allies couldn't even be bothered to bomb the railways into Auschwitz or the crematoria therein, though they did drop leaflets at a POW camp nearby.

MADDENINGLY, IF he could peek into our reality today, a gloating Hitler would discern a world which had turned against the Jewish state in almost knee-jerk unison. The sovereign Jewish aggregate is treated like a despised pariah among the nations.

Pro forma none of this bears Third Reich hallmarks. The cynical pretense is that of enlightenment and benevolent antagonism to Nazism. The sappy "universalist" lesson learned from the Holocaust suggests that history's greatest premeditated crime wasn't particularized but had something nebulous to do with human nature and hate for nameless "others." The identity of both victims and perpetrators has conveniently been scrapped from history — the Jewishness of the six million and the Germanic faces of their murderers. A convenient mythology of German victimhood and lack of culpability is now the prevalent liberal theme. Holocaust atrocities were committed by indeterminate Martians called Nazis. Something bad happened about which nobody knew and for which nobody is blameworthy.

That essentially was the recurrent refrain of Pope Benedict XVI's frosty homily at Auschwitz-Birkenau in 2006. To hear the Bishop of Rome, no occupied country ever colluded in deporting its Jews, none spawned greedy looters and collaborators, while the occupiers themselves were an alien band of no distinct ethnicity, known generically as Nazis, or, in his words, "a ring of criminals."

Germany found itself embroiled in the unpleasantness almost incidentally. Gone from public discourse is the fiendish underside of German Jew-revulsion (the very term anti-Semitism was minted in 19th-century Germany). The Judensau (Jew-sow) was, for example, a shocking popular cultural mainstay of German religious and institutional artwork from medieval days and beyond. It's still proudly exhibited on cathedrals, churches and public structures. Most notable is the bas relief on the Wittenberg Stadtkirche, where Martin Luther preached. Luther himself commented: "Here on our church in Wittenberg a sow is sculpted in stone. Piglets and Jews lie suckling under her... A rabbi lifts her hind leg, holding her tail high and looking intensely under her tail and into her Talmud, as though reading something acute or extraordinary, which is certainly where they get their ShemHaMphoras [God's explicit name, shoddily transliterated from the Hebrew]." The inscriptions above the bas relief indeed read: ShemHaMphoras and Rabini. The roots of the Holocaust are embedded deep in Germany's psyche and cannot be explained away as mere aversion to foreigners. Analogies to Islamophobia are spurious. Jews resided in Germany from the dawn of its history and were more Germanized than Germans. They were hardly outsiders and certainly not Germany's enemies. And yet the past is conveniently shunted aside. At the very most, Jews and Germans are viewed as players inadvertently cast in given roles as the genocide drama unfolded. These roles, we're told, are eminently interchangeable.

BY UNIVERSALISM'S distorted yardstick, bloodstained Germany can under fortuitous circumstances transform into spotless, progressive New Germany, while Jews (whose life-affirming, justice-affirming and peace-affirming ethos is the antithesis of what Germany generated) can become the New Nazis.

This has seeped into Israel's discourse, too. Political-correctness purveyors make sure we don't dwell on our fears of falling victim to a new genocide but that we admonish ourselves for being potential New Nazis — vis-à-vis genocidal Arabs, illegal infiltrators and even elderly Holocaust survivors. Instead of teaching our young not to count on the conscience of other nations, we inculcate in them sensitivity to the demoralizing narratives of those who slander the Jewish collective. Self-flagellating demagoguery reigns supreme among us, painting ourselves blacker than black, while absolving our enemies of any sin (foremost the inimical descendants of Nazism's avid Arab collaborators).

If Holocaust Remembrance Day obliges us to anything, it is to see the Holocaust again through Jewish eyes and resist universalism's toxic saccharine. Otherwise, Hitler will have won. Syrupy sanctimony demonizes our national revival and simultaneously dulls our vigilance in the face of threats from Hitler's Islamic torchbearers.

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ralph Dobrin, April 28, 2011.

Dear friends,

Are there really any prospects for peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors? A very good indicator is what is taught in schools. IMPACT-SE is a research center reviewing textbooks in many of the countries of the Middle East as well as Palestine and Israel. According to this important center, while some positive modifications have been made in Palestinian school books, the question is: are Arab pupils taught to want a genuine, long-lasting, harmonious peace? Are Israeli pupils?

You can find some interesting answers in my latest blog — "Prospects for peace ..."

P.S. For those interested, my book "How to Avoid Armageddon" is available through Amazon and in Jerusalem at Yarden, Kikar Zion, or Holzer Books, cnr 91 Jaffa road and Hamashiach Borochov Lane. For information call me 02-6422347 or send e-mail.

Ralph (Rafi) Dobrin

Contact Ralph Dobrin by email at dan-dob@zahav.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 28, 2011.

Earlier legal systems in Judea-Samaria have been carried over into Israeli administration. One of the inherited principles of law there is the Ottoman Period squatters' rights. People who cultivate public land for ten years gain ownership of it. Under that provision, a Military Appeals Committee recognized ownership by some Jews of hundreds of acres near Nebi Samuel, north of Jerusalem and in Samaria.

The Military commander in Judea-Samaria had the State Prosecutor petition the Supreme Court to overturn the decision and to dispossess the cultivators. The petition would not apply to Arabs, thereby discriminating against Jews.

Reflecting radical anti-Zionism, the petition keeps referring to Israel as the "occupying power" and citing legal interpretations of Hague decisions that would limit Israel's rights in Judea-Samaria. Those legal interpretations Were meant to apply to sovereign areas, but the Territories have not been under any sovereignty since the British Mandate. [The legal status of the Territories remains that of unallocated land under the Mandate.]

The petition contravenes official Israeli government policy. The question becomes, who sets national policy and law, the elected officials or "agenda-driven academics in the Justice Ministry." Yesha Council urges the government to reassert its authority and order the Prosecutor to withdraw the petition (Hillel Fendel, Arutz-7, 4/26/11 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ ). Prosecution vs. Jewish Land

What we have here is not a difference of legal opinion. The law is clear. So what we have is the anti-Zionist agenda, same as in the foreign-subsidized NGOs and in the UN, to distort the law and distort notions of human rights, to discriminate against Jews and in favor of Arabs. With these leftists as with Islamists, everything is twisted into service against Zionism.

The Yesha Council appeals to the government to overturn the Justice Ministry petition. Enough protest might accomplish that turnaround. However, the petition reflects the grip of the leftists on the Ministry. As we have revealed, PM Netanyahu also pursues an anti-Zionist agenda, as by proclaiming the start and end of a building freeze, while informally continuing the freeze. He lets the PLO run parts of Jerusalem. In reality, the Netanyahu regime is complicit with anti-Zionism. Many people find this difficult to understand, because the leftists, seeking to consider themselves victims, have defamed him as a right wing extremist. His reputation as a nationalist is contrived. It is somewhat cultivated by himself as a disguise. Accordingly, he makes statements giving that false impression.

Antisemites claim that Israel controls the U.S. and that Jews all stick together against others. The sad truth is that the U.S. gets Israeli officials to work against their own country. Anti-Zionists exert strong influence in the government.

Thus the government strives in many ways, by unequal enforcement of the law, by often failing to protect Jews in the Territories, by foolhardy withdrawals, and by persecuting Jews who defend themselves from Arab robbers and terrorists, to unseat Jews from the Territories. In many ways, Israel is the anti-Jewish state.

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, April 28, 2011.

What does it take to make Islam bashers mend their ways? Why don't these folks come to their senses and see Islam as a religion of peace and praise the God of Abraham for continuing his beneficence on humanity by sending Muhammad to guide and humanize us?

Why is it that some people keep criticizing a religion that has nearly 1.5 billion followers throughout the world? Now, if this faith was indeed what its detractors claim it is, wouldn't these masses of people see through it and dump it?

Didn't our very own President go around the Muslim heartland and sing the praises of Islam at every stop? Didn't he bow with great deference to the King of Islam in Saudi Arabia? Didn't he proudly proclaim Islam as the faith of his dear and near kindred? Didn't he, time and again, tell us that Islam is indeed the religion of peace? Didn't he with his captivating oratory skills cite passages from the Quran to show how reverent he was toward this religion? Didn't he appoint a raft of "devoted" Muslims to sensitive and high posts in government?

Even ignoring the President's behavior and pronouncements, we have numberless others in the know such as politicians, media experts, academics and what nots who keep preaching to us that Islam is indeed a sanctified religion wrongly vilified by a bunch of hatemongers. After all, its very name means peace. How could anyone possibly have anything but praise for a religion called peace? What is more precious than peace?

Exacerbated, the champions of the religion of peace bemoan: what does it take to convince the detractors of Islam to stop their unceasing effort to present a distorted image of this wonderful world-encircling religion?

Well, just a few problems that makes taking the President's remarks and actions, as well as all the other Islamic apologists and know-it-alls, difficult.

  • Claiming "Islam" means "peace" is fraudulent to begin with. Islam is an Arabic word. And the word for peace in Arabic is "solh," and not Islam. Islam is derived from the root word "taslim," which means submission or surrender. Hence, Islam's true name, surrender, is in fact most descriptive of what it is: total, unconditional submission and surrender of the individual and the community to the will and dictates of Allah as revealed by his "rasool," messenger, Muhammad.

  • Further proof of the fraudulent nature of billing Islam as a religion of peace is the irrefutable fact that Muhammad himself led his followers during his lifetime in 78 battles, only one of which was defensive in nature

  • Perusing the religion of peace's holy book, the Quran, taken by Muslims as the literal revelation of Allah, reads more like a manual of intolerance and war than a divinely-revealed prescription from a benevolent God for a life of brotherhood and peace.

    Quran 2:216 "Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that you hate a thing which is good for you and it may happen that you love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, you knew not."

    Quran 8:65 "O Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you 20 steadfast, they will overcome 200 and if there be of you a 100, they shall overcome a 1000, because the disbelievers are a folk without intelligence"

  • Islam's true name, surrender, is in fact most descriptive of what it is: total, Deeds speak louder than words. From its very inception, Islam was a movement of violence. Violence both within its ranks as well as against the non-Muslims has been the unceasing practice. The minute Muhammad died, jockeying for power among his disciples led to numberless murders and battles. The faith of peace never saw peace even within its own ranks and never allowed the rest of the world any peace at all bylashing out to other lands near and far.

  • A quick scan of the daily news shows the adherent of the religion of peace engaged in unspeakable acts of mayhem and murder in much of the world. There is hardly any need to allude to them here. But the Islamists have an answer for that too. Islam is not responsible, they say. It is only a bunch of opportunists who commit these acts for their own political and economic objectives. We are to believe that those daily suicide bombers explode their vests in the midst of marketplaces, funeral processions, and even mosques are doing so to further their own personal agenda.

  • All these aside, a recent report from the FBI estimates that of the 2000 mosques in the United States, 10% preach Jihad. Welcome to the religion of peace as it is invading the land of the free to make it the land of submission. This is not some Islam-hating crackpot group reporting. It is the FBI, an agency known for its bending backward to be politically correct in tune with the rest of the administration.

    The Muslim population is rapidly burgeoning in America by high birth rate as well as successful extensive conversion in prisons. Even by the rules of probability, a fraction of these Muslims may be deeply influenced by the Jihad preachers and take upon themselves Islamist missions of various severity and destruction. How many Jihadists did it take to pulverize the NY Trade Centers? It took oneMaj. Nidal Hasan to take the life of 13 and injure 29 others in an outburst of Islamic peace-making.

  • Islamist apologists come in all shades. There are true faithful who are out and out in front about it. They believe Islam and its ways are the answer. It doesn't matter whether it is seen as good or bad by others. Then there are those who are hired mouthpieces who are like lawyers that defend a murderer to the limit of their ability simply because they are paid to do so. That's their chosen profession. We may not like either of the above two types, yet it is understandable.

  • What really is hard to deal with are those who either, through ignorance or a misplaced sense of fairness and multiculturalism, keep saying that Islam itself is not bad, the Quran contains no more violence than does the Bible, and that the moderate Muslims who are the vast majority are good people and need to do something about the criminal minority. These folks go even a step further and call those of us who sound the alarm against Islam in general, as unjustified hatemongers.

But the notion of moderate Muslims is an illusion created by the wishful thinking of a good-hearted yet deluded people. The so-called minority Jihadist-types are indeed the real Muslims. These Jihadists hate the so called moderate Muslims as much as they hate the kefirs — the infidels. And it is always the small group, the militant minority that eventually topples the complacent uncaring majority. History is replete with support of this contention.

In my view, truth and the naked truth should be the only standard. No sugar-coating, no political correctness, no hired-guns to cover up for the Islam menace that has inflicted humanity for so long and keeps marching across the globe for doing more harm.

So who is to repent? A Muslim by any other name is a Muslim. It is the human calling for every Muslim to cast off the chain of Islam and take his or her rightful place along the ranks of the truly peaceful and free people of the world.

Amil Imani is the author of Obama Meets Ahmadinejad. Contact him at amil_imani@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 28, 2011.

Me, that is. Certainly not this part of the world. I'm post-Pesach, post a major writing assignment, and ready to look at this part of the world (oi!) via my postings...


The big news now is the purported unity agreement between Fatah (the PA) and Hamas that has been secretly brokered by Egypt.

As I share information please keep in mind that it's all a bit nebulous and "iffy," with conflicting reports coming from different sources.

It is apparent why this is coming about now:

The PA wants to go to the UN in order to be recognized as a state in September. Its leaders believe their chances of pulling this off are better if they can say they are seeking a state that encompasses all Palestinians, not just half of their people.

Hamas, for its part, is concerned with increased international credibility. Without a doubt, Hamas is also watching the instability in other nations — Egypt, Syria — with which it has links and seeking to maximize its own stability.


An aside here: Even though the PA is much more like Hamas than most people perceive — both want Israel destroyed, etc. etc. — there is one significant difference. Fatah is still a nationalist movement, while Hamas, as a jihadist movement, is interested in an international caliphate.


The impetus for striking the deal was apparently Moussa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of the Hamas's politburo, and Fatah Central Committee member Azzam al-Ahmad. Announcement was first made by Egyptian intelligence via the Egyptian state news agency, MENA.

What is known about the deal at this point is that both sides have initialed an agreement, with signing to take place soon in Cairo. A caretaker government of neutral professionals — persons who would satisfy both parties — is slated to take over shortly, with this government then making preparations for presidential and legislative elections in a year. The election committee will be decided upon by both factions. Political prisoners will be released.


According to Reuters, Taher Al-Nono, the Hamas spokesman in Gaza, has declared that "All points of differences have been overcome."

And I will declare that I do not believe it for an instant. The "unity" that is being forged is superficial, with Hamas still in charge in Gaza and the PA in Judea and Samaria. The big unknown remains who will control what security forces: there is to be the formation of a "joint security higher committee."

How many times have the parties attempted "reconciliation," only to find it didn't work? What they have done now is determine that the semblance of unity would suit all concerned. How long this will last is anyone's guess.


One thing that is clear is that whenever Fatah and Hamas strike an agreement, it is Fatah that makes concessions, and Hamas that comes out ahead. In this instance, at the moment, I am seeing two things. One, that there will be re-structuring of the PLO so as to include Hamas participation; this is something Hamas has sought for a long time.

And then, it has apparently been agreed, at Hamas's insistence, that Salam Fayyad, who is currently PA prime minister, will not be part of the professional interim government that is to be set up. What is significant here is that Fayyad is the darling of the West, the one who presents the most moderate image. It is largely because of him that Western nations have been forthcoming with the support for the PA that they have. This decision, then, in essence, is Fatah thumbing its nose at the West.

Should this "unity" Palestinian entity achieve statehood (I do not think it will), the dominance of Hamas suggests that it would ultimately be in charge.


Prime Minister Netanyahu's response to this turn of events was quite clear:

"Palestinian Authority needs to choose between peace with the people of Israel and peace with Hamas. You cannot have peace with both, because Hamas aspires to destroy the State of Israel, and I'll say it openly.

"Hamas fires rockets at our cities and anti-tank missiles at our children. I think the mere idea of reconciliation demonstrates the Palestinian Authority's weakness, and brings up the question of whether Hamas will take over Judea and Samaria as it did Gaza.

""I hope the PA makes the right choice, to choose peace with Israel. The choice is hers."


Mahmoud al-Zahar of Hamas then responded that, "Our plan does not involve negotiations with Israel or recognizing it. It will be impossible for an interim government to take part in the peace process with Israel."

Following this, however, Abbas suggested that negotiations would still be possible following the establishment of the interim government because the PLO, which he heads, is responsible for negotiations.

What we see here, of course, is evidence that all disagreements have not been resolved.

My first, question, among many, is what about the agreement that Hamas would now be a constituent element of the PLO?

What sort of game is Abbas playing — pretending that he is prepared to negotiate, when a faction within the state we would be negotiating about is dedicated overtly to our destruction?

It becomes enormously convoluted — this game playing.


Abbas then responded to what Netanyahu had said, commenting that, "Netanyahu and Lieberman said yesterday that I had to choose between Israel and Hamas, but Hamas is part of the Palestinian people, and whether or not you like or agree with them, they are part of our nation and they cannot be extracted from us."


I am pleased to say that Obama has seemed disgruntled with the "unity" announcement. This throws a monkey wrench into his plans for negotiations.

White House spokesman Tommy Vietor issued a statement saying that: "To play a constructive role in achieving peace, any Palestinian government must accept the Quartet principles and renounce violence, abide by past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist."


Significantly, there are key Congresspeople who are suggesting that the Fatah-Hamas merger might spell the end of US support.

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), the chair of the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, declared, "The reported agreement between Fatah and Hamas means that a Foreign Terrorist Organization which has called for the destruction of Israel will be part of the Palestinian Authority government. U.S. taxpayer funds should not and must not be used to support those who threaten U.S. security, our interests, and our vital ally, Israel."

Others who are on board with this approach include Congresswoman Nita Lowey (D-NY), the senior Democrat on the foreign operations subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee; Congressman Gary Ackerman (D-NY), the senior Democrat on the House Middle East subcommittee and Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill), who is on the Senate Appropriations Committee.


In closing let me carry the idea of discontinuing aid to the Palestinians one step further: If there is a joint Hamas-Fatah government, the US is forbidden by its own laws from providing it with assistance. US funds cannot go to a terrorist entity. We will need members of Congress to be fully cognizant of these laws (some, I know, are not). I'll have more on this is due course.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, April 28, 2011.

Ever since yesterday's announcement concerning the 'new' bond between Hamas and Fatah, Israeli analysts having been breaking their backs attempting to explain the 'new' situation Israel finds itself in. Bibi is having conniption fits. Bibi to Abu-Mazen: Choose peace with Israel, or Hamas. So read the headlines. FM Lieberman isn't far behind: Hamas will conquer Judea and Samaria. Others, on left side of the political spectrum continue lambasting Netanyahu's policies.

Personally, I believe the agreement is a reason to break out the wine, set up a band, and celebrate. Why? Despite what would seem to be an almost constant disagreement with Shimon Peres, this time he has hit the nail on the head. Latest headlines quote him: "The agreement will prevent creation of a palestinian state."

Yeah!!! Right on!!!

Bibi has good reason to be upset. His Bar Ilan 2 speech, to be recited before a full house of Senators and Congressmen in Washington in a few weeks was just about finished. Concession after concession, abandonment of more land to our enemies, relinquishment of additional security precautions, a 'palestinian state' in temporary borders, perhaps even with a taste of Jerusalem for desert. It was all set. And now — what bombshell can he initiate? Not a one. At least, certainly not in the direction he planned.

First of all, it is mandatory to comprehend the starting point. The conflict between Hamas and Fatah has and did not have anything to do with ideology. Both agree that the state of Israel is an insufferable thorn in the collective throats of the Arabs that must be plucked out of existence at the first opportunity. Abu Mazen certainly hasn't changed his life's philosophy, which he expressed while planning the 1974 Ma'alot massacre and funding the 1972 Olympic terror killings in Germany. His present peace doctrine can be best summed up with the names Dalal Mughrabi and Wafa Idris, terrorists who killed Israelis and have been recently honored by the PA.

The major conflicts between Abu Mazen and his friends in Gaza were twofold: Ego — who would rule; and semantics — what is permissible to say? Abu Mazen was willing to play the game initiated by his predecessor Yassir, who was taught the rights and wrongs of diplomacy by Ezer Weitzman and our illustrious president, Peres. Hamas preferred to continue shooting rockets at Israel, making no bones about its intentions to delete Israel from the map.

However, their ties are much stronger and deeper than their disagreements. After all, they do have a common goal. A palestinian state in Gaza, Judea and Samaria is only a stepping stone to their main aim of destroying Israel.

What brings them back together? We can look for and perhaps find multiple reasons. But the TRUE inspiration has nothing to do with what they want. Rather, it is, as happens time and time again during the almost 4,000 year old history of our people, Divine intervention, G-d's way of saving us from ourselves.

Bibi already announced his acceptance of a palestinian state. But what can he do now? Every rocket now shot into Israel, at Sderot, Ashkelon or Tel Aviv has not one signature on it, rather two: Ismail Haniyeh and Abu Mazen. Gilad Shalit is now a captive of Hamas-Fatah. Every attempted terror attack initiated from Gaza is rubber-stamped: Fatah-Hamas.

The threat of Hamastan expanding into Judea and Samaria has increased a hundred-fold. The possibility of missile attacks from Yosh into Tel Aviv or Petach Tikvah is no longer an 'extremist's imagination,' as is the risk of attempts to shoot down planes flying into and out of Ben Gurion airport. These scenarios are being played out at this very moment on the plates of Israeli intelligence analysts, who have been participating in this banquet at least from the signing of the 1994 Oslo accords. Even Shimon, the chief architect of this cataclysm realizes that the end of his imagined paradise is quickly coming to an end.

Just as G-d hardened Pharaoh's heart, so too, today, He is throwing dust into the eyes of our enemies, blinding them, dulling their senses, and leading them down a dead-end road, leading, not to Israel's destruction, rather to their own obliteration.

This does not mean, under any circumstances, that we will have an easy time of it. Far from it. Dead end roads aren't necessarily short, and they can be quite bumpy. But the chances of another Arab state on our eastern border, created with Israel's blessings, have hit the lowest level they've been at in years. It won't be easy, but we will prevent creation of a palestinian state.

G-d is watching over us. G-d is protecting us, even from ourselves. Thank G-d!

With blessings from Hebron,
David Wilder

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 Steven Plaut, April 28, 2011.

It was in the year 2013. The Israelis at long last gave up their attempts to resist the pressures of the world. Their newly elected national unity government approved the plan. The Palestinians, led by a coalition of the PLO and the Hamas, had already earlier announced the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel's Left had been holding weekly protests in support of Palestinian statehood. When the UN had officially and unanimously called for such a state, even the United States of Barack Obama voted in favor.

The national unity government of Israel announced that Israel was willing to accept the unanimous UN proposal for peace, supported by every single country in the world. Israel would return to its pre-1967 borders, remove all Jewish settlements from the territories of the new state of Palestine, recognize Palestine, and grant Palestine all of East Jerusalem, that is, all of the city located east of a line running north-south through Zion Square, renamed Martyrs' Square.

The world had not seen celebrations like this, celebrations that greeted the Israeli decision and the creation of Palestine, since the fall of the Berlin Wall or the transfer of power in South Africa to the black majority. All-night celebrations were held in every city of the planet, but none so enthusiastic as the party held in Tel Aviv in Rabin Square. Speaker after speaker appeared under a banner "Liberation at Last" and praised the decision to agree to the terms of the accord as the ultimate completion of the work and dreams of Yitzhak Rabin.

The settlers were marched out of the lands of Palestine at bayonet point, with crowds of jeering Israeli leftists pelting them with garbage as they moved into their temporary transit camps inside Green-Line Israel. Liberal Jews in the United States organized a march in Washington to celebrate. "Peace at Last" was the number one pop single everywhere.

The State Department sent out a message urging Israel and Palestine to conduct good-faith negotiations and round-the-clock talks on all outstanding issues of disagreement still separating the two sovereign states. At long last, there were two states for two peoples. Land had been exchanged for peace. Peace had at long last broken out in the world´s most troubled region.

The morning after the Palestine Independence Celebrations, the message arrived in the Israeli parliament, brought in by special messenger. The newly formed government of Palestine had only a small number of issues it would like to discuss with Israel. It proposed that peaceful relations be officially consummated, as soon as Israel turned over the Galilee and the Negev to Palestine.

Israeli cabinet ministers were nonplussed. We thought we had already settled all outstanding territorial issues by giving the Palestinians everything, they protested. The spokesman for the Palestine War Ministry explained: the Galilee was obviously part of the Arab homeland. It was filled with many Arabs and in many areas had an Arab population majority. Israel was holding 100% of the Galilee territory, while Palestine held none at all, and surely that was unfair. As for the Negev, it too has large areas with Arab or Bedouin majorities, but is in fact also needed by the Palestinians so that Palestine can settle the many Palestinian refugees from around the world in lands and new homes.

Israel´s government preferred not to give offense and sour the new relations, and so offered to take the proposal under consideration. Within weeks, endorsements of the Palestinian proposal for stripping Israel of the Galilee and the Negev were coming from a variety of sources. The Arab League endorsed it. The EU approved a French proposal that the Galilee and Negev be transferred to Palestine in stages over 3 years. Within Israel, many voices were heard in favor of the proposal. Large rallies were held on the university campuses, organized by leftist faculty members. Sociologists from around the world produced studies showing that these Arabs were victims of horrible discrimination and that Israel as a state is characterized by institutional racism. Israeli poets and novelists wrote passionate appeals for support of the Galilee and Negev 'Others.'

When Israel´s cabinet rejected the proposal, the pressures mounted. A Galilee and Negev Liberation Organization (GNLO) was founded and immediately granted recognition by the UN General Assembly. It established representative consulate facilities in 143 countries. Weeks later, the infiltrations began. Squads of terrorists from Gaza and the West Bank infiltrated Israel through the new borders separating Palestine and Israel. The border fences were reinforced, but to no avail. The US State Department proposed that Israel defuse the situation by considering compromise on the matters of the Galilee and Negev.

Six months later, the 'victims of Jewish discrimination' in the Galilee and Negev decided to escalate their protests. Gangs of Arabs lynched Jews throughout the disputed territories. Roadblocks were set up, and entire families of Jews were dragged from their cars by the activists and militants, and beaten to death or doused with flames. The EU sent in observers, but warned Israel that there is no military solution to the problems of terrorism and violence. When Israel arrested gang leaders from the riots, the General Assembly denounced Israeli state terrorism against Galilee and Negev Arabs. French universities gave the pogrom leaders honorary doctorates. Dozens of universities around the world held special Israel Apartheid Week events to denounce the rump Zionist entity.

Meanwhile, boycotts of Israel arose throughout Europe. Israel´s own leftists launched a Movement against Apartheid, and the foreign press reported that 400,000 protested attended a rally by the Movement in Rabin Square. Cars around Israel had bumper stickers that read "My Son Will Not Die for Nazareth" and "Peace Now". The Israeli Left urged people to refuse to do army service outside metropolitan Tel Aviv. The Israeli Labor Party proposed erecting a series of separating barriers throughout the Galilee under the slogan "Good Fences Make Good Neighbors".

But Palestine could not sit idly by. Even before the formal demands by Palestine for the Negev and the Galilee were presented, Qassam rockets and mortars were being fired into Israel from Tul Karem, Beit Jalah, and other towns in Palestine. Over time, the rocket attacks escalated. Barrages of rockets and mortars drenched Israeli cities. The death toll rose to 1,000 Israelis per month. The White House and State Department threatened to cut off all supplies from Israel if it dared to launch reprisal raids against independent Palestine. Large cargo ships from Turkey and Egypt, laden with advanced arms, entered the besieged port of Acre to provide munitions to the Galilee militants. Thousands of volunteers streamed into Palestine from around the world to assist in the campaign to rescue the Galilee and Negev Arabs from Israeli oppression.

On the afternoon of Yom Kippur, tank columns from Palestine cut Israel in two just north of Tul Karem, near Netanya. Palestine offered to withdraw in exchange for immediately transferring the Negev and Galilee to its control.

Meanwhile, outside Israel, synagogues in Belgium and France were torched. Teach-ins for the Negev and the Galilee were held on US campuses. A new conference was called in Durban to denounce Israeli apartheid. The White House insisted that Israel not use force to expel the invading Palestine troops who had divided the country, for the dispute was a matter for negotiations and dialogue. Increasing numbers of Israeli politicians urged that Israel respond to the situation by granting limited autonomy to the Negev and the Galilee. The Americans offered to send in ground troops to protect the remaining Israeli territories, if Israel would only decide to accept the proposal to give up the Negev and Galilee. Let´s have peace in the hills that Jesus roamed at long last, suggested the President. Jews living in the Galilee and Negev were under siege everywhere and the roads were unsafe. The road through the Negev to Eilat was cut by Arab gangs in four places. Leftist Israeli professors officially joined the Arab militias fighting for liberation, as did solidarity protesters from Western countries. Two of the latter blew themselves up on a Jewish school bus to show their solidarity with the oppressed Arabs. Ahmed Tibi, head of the largest Galilee militia, insisted he was doing everything possible to stop the suicide attacks on buses and cafes in Tel Aviv and Haifa by Arab activists from the Galilee, but the Americans demanded that he do more. The UK demanded 100% effort to stop the violence.

The Negev and Galilee liberation organizations raised their flags over their towns and proposed that the Jews living in their territories be resettled elsewhere. The Palestine War Ministry was shipping them guns and explosives. The first word came of a detention camp north of Nazareth in which Jews expelled from their Galilee homes were being concentrated, with a second camp opened in the Negev near Rahat. Strange black smoke rose from the chimneys...

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@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, April 28, 2011.

Denis MacEoin, a senior editor of the Middle East Quarterly, addresses The Committee Edinburgh University Student Association


May I be permitted to say a few words to members of the EUSA? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain 's great Middle East experts in their day. I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field.

I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote. I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves.

Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those member of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby. Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I'm not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel. I'm speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a "Nazi" state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nuremberg Laws? The Final Solution? None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for. It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.

Likewise apartheid. For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled things in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is. That a body of university students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad comment on the state of modern education. The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country's 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha'is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world centre; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of all religions are protected under a specific Israeli law. Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population). In Iran, the Baha'is (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren't your members boycotting Iran ?

Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews = something no blacks could do in South Africa. Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.

In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home. It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a b oycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief. Intelligent students thinking it's better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?

University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others. If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak. I do not object to well documented criticism of Israel. I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations. We are going through the biggest upheaval in the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it's clear that Arabs and Iranians are rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by killing their own citizens. Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations and call for no boycotts against Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran. They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world's freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that protects the Baha'is.... Need I go on? The imbalance is perceptible, and it sheds no credit on anyone who voted for this boycott.

I ask you to show some common sense. Get information from the Israeli embassy. Ask for some speakers. Listen to more than one side. Do not make your minds up until you have given a fair hearing to both parties. You have a duty to your students, and that is to protect them from one-sided argument. They are not at university to be propagandized. And they are certainly not there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one country among all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only Jewish state. If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930s (which, sadly, there was not), don't you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to boycott it? Of course he would, and he would not have stopped there. Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more. You have a chance to avert a very great evil, simply by using reason and a sense of fair play. Please tell me that this makes sense. I have given you some of the evidence. It's up to you to find out more.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Denis MacEoin

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 Hadassah Levy, April 28, 2011.

This was written by Aryeh Tepper and it appeared in the Jewish Idea Daily


Five years before Theodor Herzl published The Jewish State in 1896, an American Methodist lay leader named William Blackstone dreamed of the Jewish people's returning to their ancestral homeland and rebuilding their ancient country. Blackstone translated his dream into a petition signed by 400 prominent Americans, including the chief justice of the Supreme Court, the speaker of the House of Representatives, and a future president, William McKinley.

Presented to then-President Benjamin Harrison, the petition, known as the Blackstone Memorial, called for a conference of European powers that would pressure the Ottoman empire to surrender control of Palestine and turn it over to the Jews. Although the initiative failed to bear immediate fruit, a quarter-century later Louis Brandeis, then a nominee to the Supreme Court and already a leading figure in the American Zionist establishment, appealed to Blackstone to update the document and present it afresh to President Woodrow Wilson. Blackstone obliged, this time getting organizations and churches to sign on instead of public personalities. One signatory was the Presbyterian Church, of which Wilson happened to be a member.

The plan worked. Wilson was sufficiently moved to inform the British, now regent in Palestine in place of the defeated and decaying Ottomans, that he would support a national home for the Jewish people in the biblical land of their forefathers. The promise of American support gave the British the diplomatic backing they needed to issue what soon became the Balfour Declaration.

William Blackstone was one of many Christian Zionists who, especially in Great Britain and the United States, have contributed significantly to lobbying for the Jewish state both before and after its establishment. His story not only helps put to rest the anti-Semitic canard that a nefarious "Jewish lobby" has been responsible for manipulating American policy in the Middle East. It also points to the role that philo-Semitism, the positive love of Jews, has played in modern — and not only in modern — history.

Some, including some Jews, have tended to brush off this phenomenon as inconsequential, or have suspected it of being but the flip side of anti-Semitism — based, that is, on a similar fascination with imagined Jewish power that similarly prevents its holders from seeing Jews in all their mundane complexity. But there are solid grounds for regarding it as an impulse with "a deep, complex, and significant history" of its own. So, at least, argue the co-editors of Philosemitism in History, a newly published collection of essays.

The book's contributors find evidence of philo-Semitism in locales and times as diverse as medieval Western Christendom, Renaissance Italy, revolutionary France, Victorian England, Imperial Germany, and 19th- and 20th-century America. One essayist has even uncovered "Philosemitic Television in Germany, 1963-1995." As for the book's editors, they assert in their introduction that although most students of the phenomenon trace its roots to aspects of the Christian tradition, "it is actually the Greek and Hellenistic legacies to which the most vital and variegated expressions of modern philo-Semitism owe their allegiance."

Regrettably, that last statement is unsupported by any essay included in the volume itself. Equally unexplicated is another remark by the editors urging close attention to the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche. But, to be fair, the book's aims are minimalist: "to be stimulating and suggestive rather than encyclopedic," and to refrain from comprehensive claims. The wide array of movements and personalities enlivening its pages are enough to whet the appetite for further exploration on one's own.

Without a doubt, the most engaging part of the book is the section on America. In one chapter, Jonathan Karp (one of the two co-editors) focuses intriguingly on three representative African Americans: Booker T. Washington (1856-1915), "the preeminent 'race leader' of his day"; Zora Neale Hurston (1891-1960), the freethinker and novelist; and Paul Robeson (1898-1976), the formidable vocal artist and political radical. All three reconciled "the biblical heritage" of the Jews with the "reality of modern Jewishness." For Robeson in particular, Karp points out, exposure to Yiddish culture and hasidic song helped him to embrace the African American spirituals that became a critical part of his own repertoire. Unfortunately, when one takes into account the recent growth of anti-Semitic trends within the American black community, the examples of Washington, Hurston, and Robeson also serve as an acute reminder of how ephemeral philo-Semitic moments can be.

The book's longest chapter, "'It's All in the Bible': Evangelical Christians, Biblical Literalism, and Philosemitism in Our Times," is also the most politically relevant. Its author, Yaakov Ariel, usefully surveys the prominent Christian Zionists in American history, including William Blackstone. To Blackstone, America's role was that of a modern Cyrus, helping the Jews return to Zion just as the ancient Persian king enabled the Jews to return to their homeland after the Babylonian exile. Ariel concludes by lamenting that, "As a rule, Zionist narratives have overlooked the role of Christians [like Blackstone] in promoting Zionist ideas and causes."

He is right about the neglect, though notable exceptions include Ambassador Michael B. Oren's study of America's role in the Middle East, Power, Faith, and Fantasy (2007). But it is also important to note a distinction. In the standard Zionist narrative, the modern national movement of the Jews originated in an act of self-emancipation, closer to Joshua's conquest of the land — even if the land in question was, at first, the inner dispositions and conditioned reflexes of the early Zionist dreamers — than to the release of the exiled Jews from Babylon in an act of royal noblesse oblige. Still, it is absolutely true that, in the political realm, the role played by British and American philo-Semites "in promoting Zionist ideas and causes" was and remains essential.

In the political sphere there is no such thing as absolute independence. No state dwells alone, and the pursuit of its interests by a small country like Israel needs to be informed by a clear recognition of the limitations of its power. The good news is that among the many non-Jewish actors with whom the Jewish state treats, some are real lovers of Jews as well as of Israel. The history and character of that love might benefit from further clarification, but this hardly means that it isn't real — and immeasurably valuable.

Hadassah Levy is Website manager of http://jewishideasdaily.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 27, 2011.

A jeep of Palestinian Authority (P.A.) police opened fire on some Israelis at close range near Joseph's Tomb. One was killed, several others wounded. The Israelis had been praying there. Joseph's Tomb is in the P.A. area but the Oslo Accords authorize Jewish access to it.

The IDF did not condemn the attack, expressed condolence to the slain man's family, and reminded people that the worshippers were supposed to arrange security coordination with the IDF. Defense Min. Barak demanded that the P.A. investigate the attack.

In earlier news, the P.A. also mentioned lack of security coordination with them. Security coordination with them? Their police were the ones who committed the murder. As some Israelis put it, P.A. police are terrorists in uniform. Israelis are starting to realize the mistake in Israel having furnished P.A. police with rifles. Those who don't realize that mistake might do so from the comment by P.A. security spokesman Gen. Adnan Damiri. He refused to apologize for the attack by his forces, on the grounds that settlers are not normal people. When the Israeli interviewer pointed out that the victims had been praying and were on their way home, he replied, maybe they were armed.

After the assault, Arabs desecrated the Tomb, again. Since the repeated Arab assaults and desecration there demonstrate the failure of the freedom of worship and the P.A. crackdown on terrorism that the P.A. signed onto under the various Oslo Accords, Israeli MKs have been demanding that the IDF restore the Tomb to the Israeli area. They conclude that the P.A. is not ready to become a constructive, independent country.

In the case of the slaying of the Fogel family at Itamar, the P.A. denounced the Israeli investigation for focusing on the neighboring Arab village. They said it may have been a foreign worker. My source claims that Itamar did not hire foreign workers (Arutz-7, 4/24/11

So the P.A. official doesn't care about people being killed if they are "settlers." And he thinks settlers are not normal people?

The Palestinian human rights organization keeps recommending that the P.A. and Hamas investigate and punish various crimes of violence (against Arabs — it almost never complains about P.A. crimes against Jews). But terrorists and dictators won't punish people acting out their Islamist ideology and don't honestly investigate. They have no rule of law! It is foolish to ask them to investigate. What then shall we think of Defense Min. Barak for demanding that the P.A. investigate? Does he call for investigation in order not to have to devise a better defense?

When Jews were wounded during prior attacks, the IDF could have rescued them, but let at least two of them bleed to death, with the excuse that the P.A. had primary responsibility. The P.A. did nothing to help the wounded. Same happened in Sinai, when an Egyptian policeman shot some Israelis. Egyptian police did not let an Israeli ambulance through, but had no medical treatment to give the wounded tourist bleed to death.

From these incidents, and from the attitude of the P.A. security spokesman, we can see that If those who propose statehood for the P.A. were sincere and intelligent about it, they would withdraw the notion. We can see that Oslo was a mistake. Arming the PLO was a mistake. Leaving more areas for the P.A. to patrol was a mistake. U.S. police on that — mistake.

The P.A. criticism of the Israeli investigation of the Itamar massacre is like U.S. Muslims complaining about ethnic profiling at airports. That profiling is good police work, up to a point, because most terrorism at airlines and most butchering in the Territories is done by Muslims even if not done by most Muslims.

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by YogiRUs, April 27, 2011.

Suggesting as Prof. David Biale does (below) that Jews should not be protected under the Civil Rights Act because "they have power" (which makes them, presumably, part of the oppressor class undeserving of bourgeois civil liberties) is, in a nut-shell, an example of the poisoned intellectual fruit and pseudo-Marxist New Left rhetoric of the '60's. Politics which these pathetic fools have not grown out of. But then again why should they, they've been subsidized for their "wisdom" by California taxpayers for the last 40 years, first as students and then as faculty, and it's been a good racket. Ya get what ya pay for!
- A.B.

This was written by Cinnamon Stillwell and Judith Greblya. It appeared in Arutz Sheva: (Israel National News) April 26, 2011 and is archived at

Cinnamon Stillwell is the West Coast Representative for Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.


The field of Middle East studies is notorious for producing apologias for radical Islam, particularly where anti-Israel and, at times, anti-Semitic sentiment is concerned.

These same tendencies are also increasingly common in an unexpected sector of university life: Jewish studies. An open letter dated March 3, 2011, and signed by 30 University of California Jewish studies faculty members, is a case in point.

The letter to the Orange County District Attorney concerns the orchestrated disruption of a lecture by Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the United States, at the University of California, Irvine on February 8, 2010. The D.A. recently charged the 11 offending students — all members of the radical Muslim Student Union, a branch of the Muslim Student Association — with one count each of misdemeanor conspiracy to disturb a meeting and misdemeanor disturbance of a meeting. Posted at the "Stand with the Eleven" website, along with a similar statement by 100 UC Irvine faculty members, the letter states:

As faculty affiliated with Jewish Studies at the University of California, we are deeply distressed by the decision of the District Attorney in Orange County, California, to file criminal charges against Muslim students who disrupted Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren's speech on the UC Irvine campus last year. While we disagree with the students' decision to disrupt the speech, we do not believe such peaceful protest should give rise to criminal liability. The individual students and the Muslim Student Union were disciplined for this conduct by the University, including suspending the MSU from functioning as a student organization for a quarter. This is sufficient punishment. There is no need for further punitive measures, let alone criminal prosecution and criminal sanctions.

While it might seem counter-intuitive for Jewish studies academics to support such an endeavor, a closer look demonstrates that many of the signatories are harsh critics of Israel. For example:

  • Mark LeVine, a Middle East studies professor who is affiliated with Jewish studies at UC Irvine, is an apologist for Hamas and blames Israel solely for the ongoing violence. In a June 2005 Al-Jazeera op-ed, LeVine described the Turkish terrorist supporters who were killed on the Gaza Flotilla ships as "martyrs," "heroes," and "warriors every bit as deserving of our tears and support as the soldiers of American wars past and present." In a 2010 History News Network op-ed, LeVine described the MSU's disruption of Oren's speech as a "teachable moment."

  • Daniel Boyarin, Hermann P. and Sophia Taubman Professor of Talmudic Culture in the departments of Near Eastern studies and rhetoric at the University of California, Berkeley, signed a statement from University of California faculty members urging the UC Berkeley student senate to vote "yes" on an Israel divestment bill. In a June 2006 article at the Arabic News website titled, "U.S. Professor on How Zionism and Apartheid Are Alike," Boyarin labeled Israel an apartheid state wherein the "destruction of human rights and democracy is at least as severe as that of the South Africans."

  • David Theo Goldberg, a professor of comparative literature who is affiliated with Jewish studies at UC Irvine, signed a 2009 open letter to President Obama describing Israel as "an apartheid regime" that is committing "one of the most massive, ethnocidal atrocities of modern times." In a 2009 article, Goldberg compared Gaza to a "concentration camp" and "the Warsaw Ghetto at the time of its encirclement" and argued that the Jewish state should be replaced with a bi-national state. In 2002, he signed a petition calling on the University of California to divest from Israel.

  • Emily Gottreich, vice chair for the Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES) at UC Berkeley and a specialist in Moroccan Jewish history and Muslim-Jewish relations, labeled a Berkeley Jewish Journal article questioning Saudi funding for CMES, "the most extreme form of right-wing Zionism."

  • David N. Myers, professor and chair of history and former director of the Center for Jewish Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, employed all the usual clichés — "cycle of violence," "disproportionately harsh" — to single Israel out as "the most responsible party" for the "escalating violence" in a July 2006 Los Angeles Times op-ed. In a piece titled, "Rethinking the Jewish Nation" in the Winter 2011 edition of the Havruta Journal, Myers argued that "Statist Zionism," or a Jewish state, should give way to a "global Jewish collective."

  • David Biale, Emanuel Ringelblum Professor of Jewish History at the University of California, Davis — and co-author of the "Irvine 11" letter, according to an email sent to Jewish studies faculty by Diane Wolf, chair of Jewish studies at UC Davis — writing in the October 2008 edition of the online journal Perush, referred to "the very real power that Jews and their allies ... exercise, especially in the Congress, around Israel" and claimed that the so-called Israel lobby "has the power to silence its critics." In the same piece, Biale criticized Ruth Wisse's 2007 book, Jews and Power, for being "an unabashed neo-conservative brief for Zionism and the State of Israel."

Although Jewish studies academics should not be expected to provide unquestioning support for Israel, the extremism exhibited by these signatories — culminating in the demonization and delegitimizing of the Jewish state — is startling.

What's worse, they turn a blind eye to campus anti-Semitism. None of the UC Irvine signatories who expressed support for the Muslim students disrupting Oren's talk thought to do the same for Jewish students suffering from harassment and violence on their own campus. Their names are conspicuously absent from a May 10, 2010, open letter expressing concern — on behalf of UC Irvine faculty — over "activities on campus that foment hatred against Jews and Israelis."

Moreover, none of the signatories signed a similar letter in June, 2010, to Mark Yudof, president of the University of California, highlighting the rise of anti-Semitism throughout the UC system. Penned by pro-Israel organizations and supported by an online petition signed by over 700 students, the letter states:

Bigotry against Jewish students has occurred over many years and on many University of California campuses. Over the last several years, Jewish students have been subjected to: swastikas and other anti-Semitic graffiti; acts of physical and verbal aggression; speakers, films and exhibits that use anti-Semitic imagery and discourse; speakers that praise and encourage support for terrorist organizations that openly advocate murder against Israel and the Jewish people; the organized disruption of events sponsored by Jewish student groups; and most recently, the promotion of student senate resolutions for divestment that seek to demonize and delegitimize the Jewish State.

Two ongoing investigations into anti-Semitism on UC campuses provide further evidence of this disturbing trend. Jewish student Jessica Felber is suing UC Berkeley for failing to provide a safe atmosphere after being assaulted by Husam Zakaria, a Berkeley student leader of Students for Justice in Palestine. The assault took place during a campus rally in which Felber, paradoxically, was carrying a sign that read, "Israel Wants Peace."

The U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) is investigating a June 2009 complaint filed by Hebrew lecturer Tammi Rossman-Benjamin detailing the poisonous atmosphere at the University of California, Santa Cruz. The complaint alleges "a long-standing and pervasive pattern of discrimination against Jewish students ... emanating from faculty and administrators at UCSC."

Summing up the problem, Kenneth Marcus — former OCR chief and now head of the Anti-Semitism Initiative at the Institute for Jewish and Community Research — in his March 28, 2011, article, "Fighting Back Against Campus Anti-Semitism," writes that such examples have

become sadly emblematic of a wave of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic incidents that have rippled across the country, nowhere more so than in the 'Golden State,' which has become an epicenter for the New Anti-Semitism in America.

Yet the Jewish studies signatories to the "Irvine 11" letter are more concerned about Muslim students facing the consequences of their actions — something they decry as "detrimental to the values exemplified by the academic and intellectual environment on our university campuses" — than about the rising tide of anti-Semitic hatred and violence in their own backyard.

Unbelievably, one of the signatories actually opposes efforts to combat the crisis. When the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights reinstated protection for Jewish students from ethnic- or race-based harassment in October 2010, UC Davis professor David Biale criticized the decision, calling it "a very bizarre tactic" because, as he put it, "the Jews are a group with power."

This obstructionism may stem from the fact that the majority of the anti-Semitic incidents and sentiment on California campuses and beyond originate with Muslim student groups. Indeed, UC Irvine's MSU is widely recognized as one of the worst offenders in this regard, to the point where even the Anti-Defamation League, which has been reticent to recognize Islamic anti-Semitism, has seen fit to single them out.

Meanwhile, the aforementioned Jewish studies academics remain oblivious or unconcerned and, as a consequence, complicit. Oren — himself an accomplished scholar of the Middle East — is deemed less important than what is, in effect, a gang of thugs.

Perhaps such behavior should be expected from those who sign petitions to divest from Israel, call Israel an apartheid state, compare Gaza to the Warsaw Ghetto, devote conferences and research to undermining Zionism, and falsely accuse Israel of ethnic cleansing.

Contact YogiRUs by email at YogiRUs@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Phillips, April 27, 2011.

For decades New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman has indoctrinated his readers in his personal idea of what are moral and just policies towards the Middle East and Israel. But Friedman's morality should be in question: he is accepting an honor from a college that just provided hater Louis Farrakhan a large forum to engage in vicious anti-Semitism.

In March notorious anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan addressed an audience of 1,500 at Howard University. Howard is one of the most prominent schools among the 47 Historically Black Colleges and Universities in the U.S. The speech was overflowing with vicious invective against Jews and the Zionist movement.

Let's be clear here, Friedman has skin in the game, on April 11 Howard announced that he'll receive an honorary doctorate from Howard at their commencement on May 14.

While a student at Brandeis University Friedman was a member the Steering Committee of the Mideast Peace Group and he signed an open letter entitled "Another Bad Omen," published in The Brandeis Justice on November 12, 1974. The letter attacked anti-Arafat protest plans and endorsed a statement from Breira, a forerunner of J Street. (See the January 1990 letters to the editor in Commentary for more on Friedman's time at Brandeis and my article on Breira and J Street.)

Friedman has not chastised Howard for providing Farrakhan a forum. As always, Friedman saves his criticism for Israel.

Farrakhan's speech was that offensive. And so was Howard's portrayal of the event. The campus newspaper, The Hilltop, in their coverage of the event left out much of the central message of the Farrakhan speech. Staff writer Michael Tomlin-Crutchfield failed to mention anything about Israel, Zionism or Jews in his article published on Sunday, April 3, 2011.

The official Nation Of Islam newspaper The Final Call proudly detailed Farrakhan's statements about Jews and Zionism:

I want you to hear what I've got to say unfiltered through the wicked corporate controlled, Jewish controlled Zionist controlled media of the United States of America.

"Have you noticed that the Republicans and Democrats can't agree on anything, except when it comes to Israel?

"Is that a strange picture that you can't agree on the welfare of the American people but you can agree on the best interests of the people of Israel?"

What's more Final Call highlighted another fact that The Hilltop left out:

"At the close of his message, Minister Farrakhan gave copies of The Secret Relationship Between Black and Jews Volumes One and Two as well as a copy of the message he had just delivered on DVD free to all the conference participants."

Similar to President Obama's attempts to offer excuses for his "old uncle who says things I don't always agree with" Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Howard University is willing to ignore the anti-Semitism that is a central component of the Farrakhan message because of the other ideas conveyed along with the hate.

Will Tom Friedman ignore the hate too?

The moral and just thing for Friedman to do would be to decline the honor. There is nothing moral about accepting honors from an institution that helps haters spread their message.

Moshe Phillips is the president of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel/AFSI. The chapter's website is at: www.phillyafsi.com. Moshe's blog can be found at http://phillyafsi.blogtownhall.com and Moshe tweets at http://twitter.com/MoshePhillips. This column originally appeared in American Thinker on April 24, 2011:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/04/ thomas_friedman_antisemitism_a.html"

To Go To Top

Posted by John Cohn, April 26, 2011.

This below was written by Mr. Josef Joffe, a senior fellow at the Freeman-Spogli Institute for International Studies and a fellow at the Hoover Institution, both at Stanford. It is called "The Arab Spring and The Palestine Distraction" and it appeared in Wall Street Journal and is archived at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870467740457 6284653239512520.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

As Josef Joffe notes, the plight of Palestinian Arabs has never been paramount for those who loudly proclaim to be their most fervent friends.

In the last century, tens of millions fled from ethnic, religious and political abuse including over 800,000 Jews that escaped from persecution in Arab lands and Iran. Others left their nations of origin in search of opportunity. Virtually all were resettled. Most all of us in the United States have families that came from somewhere else.

Uniquely among all the displaced peoples in the history of our planet, the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) was created for those Arabs leaving the newly established state of Israel. At the insistence of their Arab cousins, and with the support of Europeans, UNRWA's mandate was to ensure that those who left Israel in 1948, their children, their children's children, and their children's, children's children, eternally maintained refugee status.

Despite 22 states in the Arab League, and 56 in the Organization of the Islamic Conference (both include "Palestine" as members), the Palestinians' "friends" have been at the forefront of denying them what they need most — permanent homes were they can raise their families in peace and freedom.

Unfortunately for these perpetually displaced people, too many in the Middle East, including many of their Palestinian brothers, hate Jews more than they love Palestinians.


Arab peoples aren't obsessed with anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism. It's their rulers who are.

In politics, shoddy theories never die. In the Middle East, one of the oldest is that Palestine is the "core" regional issue. This zombie should have been interred at the beginning of the Arab Spring, which has highlighted the real core conflict: the oppressed vs. their oppressors. But the dead keep walking.

"The plight of the Palestinians has been a root cause of unrest and conflict in the region," insisted Turkish President Abdullah Gul in the New York Times last week. "Whether these [recent] uprisings lead to democracy and peace or to tyranny and conflict will depend on forging a lasting Israeli-Palestinian peace." Naturally, "the U.S. has a long overdue responsibility" to forge that peace.

Writing in the Financial Times, former U.S. National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft intoned: "The nature of the new Middle East cannot be known until the festering sore of the occupied territories is removed." Read: The fate of democracy hinges on Palestine.

So do "Iran's hegemonic ambitions," he insinuated. This is why Tehran reaches for the bomb? Syria, too, will remain a threat "as long as there is no regional peace agreement." The Assad regime is slaughtering its own people for the sake of Palestine? And unless Riyadh "saw the U.S. as moving in a serious manner" on Palestine, Mr. Scowcroft warned, the Saudis might really sour on their great protector from across the sea. So when they sent troops into Bahrain, were they heading for Jerusalem by way of Manama?

Shoddy political theories — ideologies, really — never die because they are immune to the facts. The most glaring is this: These revolutions have unfolded without the usual anti-American and anti-Israeli screaming. It's not that the demonstrators had run out of Stars and Stripes to trample, or were too concerned about the environment to burn Benjamin Netanyahu in effigy. It's that their targets were Hosni Mubarak, Zine el Abidine Ben-Ali, Moammar Gadhafi and the others — no stooges of Zionism they. In Benghazi, the slogan was: "America is our friend!"

The men and women of the Arab Spring are not risking their lives for a "core" issue, but for the freedom of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria. And of Iran, as the Green revolutionaries did in Tehran in 2009.

Every "Palestine-first" doctrine in the end comes down to that fiendish "Arab Street": The restless monster must be fed with Israeli concessions lest he rise and sweep away our good friends — all those dictators and despots who pretended to stand between us and Armageddon. Free Palestine, the dogma goes, and even Iran and Syria will turn from rabid to responsible. The truth is that the American and Israeli flags were handed out for burning by those regimes themselves.

This is how our good friends have stayed in power: Divert attention and energy from oppression and misery at home by rousing the masses against the enemy abroad. How can we have free elections, runs a classic line, as long as they despoil our sacred Islamic lands? This is why anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism are as rampant among our Saudi and Egyptian allies as among the hostile leaders of Iran and Syria.

The Palestinians do deserve their own state. But the Palestine-first strategy reverses cause and effect. It is not the core conflict that feeds the despotism; it is the despots who fan the conflict, even as they fondle their U.S.-made F-16s and quietly work with Israel. Their peoples are the victims of this power ploy, not its drivers. This is what the demonstrators of Tahrir Square and the rebels of Benghazi have told us with their silence on the Palestine issue.

So Palestine has nothing to do with it? It does, though not in the ways insisted by Messrs. Gul and Scowcroft. The sounds of silence carry a different message: "It's democracy, stupid!" Freedom does not need the enemy at the gate. Despots do, which is why they happily let the Palestinian sore fester for generations.

Israel, which has reacted in utter confusion to the fall of Mubarak, might listen up as well. If democracies don't have to "busy giddy minds with foreign quarrels," as Shakespeare has it in Henry IV, then Israel's reformed neighbors might at last be ready for real, not just cold peace. Mr. Mubarak was not. Nor is Mr. Assad of Syria, who has refused every Israeli offer to hand back the Golan Heights. If you rule at the head of a tiny Alawite minority, why take the Heights and give away a conflict that keeps you in power? Peace at home — justice, jobs and consent — makes for peace abroad.

Still, don't hold your breath. Yes, democracy is where history is going, but it is a long, perilous journey even from Tunis to Tripoli, let alone all the way to Tehran.

Contact John Cohn at john.r.cohn@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 26, 2011.


Duke University has its first Muslim chaplain, Abdullah Antepli. Mr. Antepli insists that Americans accept him as an example of a loyal and moderate Islamic presence in the U.S.. He roundly criticizes Americans who don't, but he also expresses animosity toward the U.S. and other Western countries.

Antepli attended a leftist conference on March 25 at Duke University, "Toward a Moral Consensus on Torture." There he said, "Being a Muslim in the United States is another form of torture, a psychological torture, an emotional torture, and it's just getting worse."

Was he tortured? No, he just complains in that language about Muslims feeling they have to prove themselves loyal to America. He considers such an expectation arrogant and that Americans are antagonistic to Muslims

This "torture" is part of America being a psychologically and spiritually diseased society. He did not show how. Neither did he explain why, if American is a sick society and if Arab societies are healthy, millions of Muslims desert their societies and flock to Western ones. The main speaker was Ingrid Mattson, director of the small Hartford Seminary, where Antepli is a doctoral student and got a master's degree. She was president of the Islamic Society of North America, an unindicted co-conspirator in a case of funding Hamas.

Mattson discussed real torture, that of U.S. prisoners in Iraq. She equated the few, individual cases of torture by people who got punished for it, with U.S. policy, which does not involve maiming people. That equating is specious if not dissembling. The conference really was just America-bashing.

Antepli was a mainstay of an Israel-bashing teach-in two years earlier, where he seemed to agree with two others that Israel is not a legitimate country and terrorism against it is legitimate.

A loyal American would not associate with the radical left and with academics part of Radical Islam (Jay Schalin, American Thinker April 24, 2011
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/ torturing_the_truth_at_duke_di.html and

Using the links in the original article, one finds that the language the Radical Left and Radical Muslims use is extravagant and bigoted against the West and Israel. Whatever they don't like, they call "racist," although Muslim Arab society is organized by prejudice. Name-calling and vague, unproved, and disproved claims about "torture" substitute for verifiable facts.

These Radicals make their disloyalty to us plain, even while they complain we are disloyal to them. Since they have committed many crimes of jihads against our country and others, including raising funds for terrorism, they are in no position to demand favorable opinions of them.

They arrive with an anti-Western ideology and a desire to impose it rather than assimilate. Therefore, they should have to prove their loyalty and we should have to consider the matter in our immigration policy.

I do not agree that a significant number of Americans are hostile to Muslims. Only now, with Congressional investigation, are Americans becoming aware of the menace to our country from Radical American Muslims. Muslims engaging in jihad pretend to be the victims, especially of self-defense by their victims. We have to learn to see through the hyperbole, falsehood, and pretended allegiance and victimhood.

A frequent comment I hear is that only a small proportion of Muslims are extremist, and most are moderate, so we don't have to worry. That comment contradicts common sense. If a small proportion of the huge number of Muslims are extremist, then a large number are extremist. It does not take many to pose a grave danger. Jihadists are waging holy war all over the world. In every country where they have a significant presence, they strive to dominate first their own faithful, then the whole country.

The proportion of Muslims that are moderate has not been identified. Estimates are that 10% of the billion+ Muslims are extremist, but polls show that the masses harbor similar sentiments of hatred of the West and belief in Islamic supremacy. Only a handful of the supposed majority of moderate Muslims speak up against Radical Islam. Few oppose the extremists? What good are they here, as Radical Muslims collect funds for terrorism?

When Islamists rule, they sometimes oppress their own people so harshly, that the people rebel. That happened in Iraq. In Pakistan, Radical Islam is very powerful, but the depredations of Radical terrorists have alienated many Muslims. That situation should be exploited by our side in jihad. Unfortunately, it is not clear whose side our President is on, since he refuses to define the enemy. He offers no leadership that benefits our country and much that benefits jihad.


Most young people of Egypt want democracy, Daniel Pipes believes, but they are not very influential now. Some day they may gain influence, but Egypt remains the military dictatorship it has been since the monarchy was overthrown. The Army merely replaced Mubarak with a new military leader.

What does the Army stand for? Mr. Pipes traces the original Free Officers who overthrew the monarchy to an ideology close to the Moslem Brotherhood. The Army is not a secular organization, as many Westerners imagine.

The Army bases government on some principles of Islamic law, but does not want to share power with, or yield power to, the Moslem Brotherhood. The Army has fastened its grip upon the economy, providing extra income to the Army. Political power is addictive.

Alternately releasing Moslem Brotherhood prisoners and gathering Moslem Brotherhood prisoners is the Army's way of balancing forces and retaining power. It was Mubarak's way of showing, as he did when he let the Brotherhood elect a sizeable parliamentary contingent, that the choice is between the Brotherhood and him.

The Brotherhood is weaker than generally believed. It has only 100,000 members, not a formidable mass-movement in relation to Egypt's population of 80 million. Nor is the Brotherhood united. One faction seeks revolution and Islamist takeover, but the other does not (Daniel Pipes,National Review Online, April 26, 2011

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Riad Awwad, April 26, 2011.

Imagine an elephant. This elephant is tied by one leg with a thin white thread. At any moment he would like, he could free himself without effort. There is a problem. It is tied around the foot since childhood, when he was a small baby elephant. Living and growing tied with such a thread, he now thinks there is no life before him if this thread would break. It is on the brink of freedom, but forced to remain subdued in his own psychic by something so frivolous and insignificant. "How, he asks himself, can I brake the bond with something that grew up with me? I lived with it, and so it means that I must continue like this" our elephant lies to himself, now an adult, but still so small minded. This is the fable of the elephant.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who came to lead the state through a revision of the Constitution, tailored to his size in 2000, after the death of his father Hafez Al Assad (1970-2000) who led Syria by iron and fire, has now the biggest problem of his mandate. He is in a position to choose between continuing the attack and the now condemned crimes by the U.S., EU and even neighboring Turkey, which until now have led to hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded from the start of the demonstrations on March 23 or a second way, begin a series of real initiatives to remove the emergency law imposed on Syria since 1963, the acceptance of human rights, gender equality, human freedom, empowerment of women and so on. There would be a third choice, the intervention of foreign forces to pull people from under the hand of the Syrian security, as is the case in Libya, but it seems that the president doesn`t see this fact looming.

Bashar al-Assad at this time gives us a message with two sides so that he can retain that power and control he gained over his population. It seems, however, that he loses his legitimacy, as we can see lately as some direct orders of his have not been met; we cannot really know who runs Syria. Is it him or his brother Maher al-Assad, head of the Presidential Guard? Or maybe his cousin Rami Makhlouf, who holds in his hands all the country's economy with his brother Hafez Makhlouf, head of Homeland Security in Damascus? Or his brother-in-law Assef Shawkat? We should also add here that all the "problems" in Syria in this period began in Darra, the city where another cousin of the president, Najib Atef, the head of Political Security, holds the control of the area and is known for the bribes he collects from small businesses in the city.

After Darra, the revolution has spread to other cities of Syria, through YouTube, Facebook and Tweeter, methods shooting crimes Security and pictures came out, were really helpful, because the Syrian authorities rushed to get rid of any foreign press correspondent with the escalation of events. The first was the correspondent for Reuters in Damascus. Among the three social networking sites, Facebook has had a major role, through it the spirit of the revolution has reborn in the hearts of Syrians, as they took to the streets chanting "From today no longer afraid! ". While they were chanting that the revolt is peaceful, the dictator ordered the use of ammunition on them. A sort of suicide in this regard, those who took to the streets in the early days with bare chests, no stones or even knives in their hands. It so was proved that Syria is a state of "Security" well built.

Many services not only follow the movements of citizens from the smallest to the oldest of them, the highest in the state even, but they supervise on each other.

1. Political Security - 100% of active officers are officers of the Police, led by Mohamad Zaitone
2. Military Security - 100% are active military officers led by Abdul Fatah Kudsi
3. State Security - 50% of officers are policemen, 50% military, headed by Ali Mamlouk
4. Aviation Security - a mixture of Air Force officers and other military weapons, led by Jamil Hassan
5. Forensics Security - 100% of active officers are Policemen, led by Mohammed Ali Al Salih
6. Security Forces - created in 2005 after the assassination of Rafic Hariri, led by Ali Younes
7. Presidential Security - headed by Maher Al Assad
8. Homeland Security - Hafiz Makhlouf
9. External Security - Ahmad Jarousy

All these services have stations in every village, county, city, direction, ministry or any other administrative unit. They "oversee" the prime minister, head of Parliament and each ant most likely each ant that dares to move on Syrian soil. All these services are well armed, well-paid, well built, because the money comes from the exploitation of oil (600,000 barrels / day) money that do not go to the state central budget, but straight to the presidential family. These sums go from the presidential family to Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist groups aimed at jeopardizing the only island of democracy in the continuing Middle East, Israel, instead of going to the people, who are 78% below the poverty margin, according to the latest reports of international organizations.

This revolution is a very important point in removing the fear, people coming on the streets unarmed to claim their rights and freedoms. People have easily observed that all the solutions the Presidential adviser Buthaina Shaban gave to the public were just a stunning poetry ment to please the unhappy people. As a top off, these solutions were in fact prepared by the Arab Baath Socialist party witch, on March 8, 1963, imposed the emergency situation law in effect to this day.

If we were to do a tour from 1968 to 2011 we would have to stop for a few moments and watch some important events in order to better understand the source of terror and fear that people feel. One extreme such happening takes place in the city of Hamma, in 1980. 30,000 people were killed there and then. Rafa Al Assad, the president's brother then built his own special force, known as Saraia Al-Difaa (Defense Units). Simultaneously, a cousin of the President, Ali Haidar, had his personal power-unit called Saraia Al Sira (Combat Units). These two forces were made up of officers and soldiers, 100% of Alawite religion. Hamma city population was 100% of Sunni origin. In response to the rallies that were taking place in Hamma, President Hafez Al Assad's brother and cousin left their army to intervene. They thus reached the carnage afterwards. Today, President Bashar Al Assad has left a cousin and a brother to intervene in the sunni city of Darra, in identical circumstances. Here's how history repeats itself, only the actors change.

Following the events of Hamma in 1980, a dispute arose between President Hafez and his brother Rafael, who had intervened with force in the street. The latter was even prepared to remove his brother (during the events in the streets a small spark would have been sufficient to start an internal war between the two brothers). The problem would be solved in the presidential family. Thus it was decided that Rafa had to leave Syria. He asked for the amount of U.S. $50 billion in order to leave the country. The Presidential family then called up the Libyan president

Muammar Gaddafi. Through the Defense Minister Mustafa Tlass, the Syrian presidential family then received a check for 50 billion dollars from their friend Gaddafi. Pleased with that amount, Rafa Al Assad is living to this day in Marbella, Spain. Early intervention and support from the Libyan President of Syria in today's events can be viewed from a different perspective after the pursuit of those few critical moments in history. Just remember that the first planes that fell in Libya had Syrian pilots in command.

Let us now turn our attention to the little parties in Syria. The Syrian Constitution Article no. 8 says that the Baath Arab Socialist Party is the only one leading the country. However, President Hafez Al Assad in 1972 built the Progressive National Front, which contains five smaller parties. After the 1980 murder in Hamma, law number 49 was added condemning the Muslim Brothers Party and its members to death without trial.

1. Arab Socialist Baath Party - was born on April 7, 1947, in power since 1963

2. Unifier Socialist Party - led by Faez Ismail, created in 1922

3. Arab Socialist Movement - currently split into two factions: the Arab Socialist Movement - Ahmed Al Ahmed and National Initiative - Abdel Aziz Osman

4. Arab Socialist Union Party - Safwan Cudsy

5. Democratic Socialist Union Party - Fadlallah Nasserdin

6. Syrian Communist Party - still exists since birth in two groups: - Wisal Farha Bagdash and Faisal Youseff

7. Syrian National Socialist Party - Essam Al Mahairi, established in 1917

In addition to the Arab Socialist Baath Party who has almost everything, each party has five members in the Parliament, a minister in the Government and 6 county councilors each. There can have no prefects, mayors, directors or any other functions provided.

Opponents of the system are as follows:

1. Muslim Brothers

2. Rafa Al Assad, former vice-president, is the uncle of the current president - has the station ANN

3. Former Vice-President, Abdul Halim Khadim, founder of the National Salvation Front, went to France in 2007, creating a television station there and the media channel called Free Syria; he latter left Syria after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, Prime Minister of Lebanon at that time, due to the friendship between the two.

4. 17 kurdish parties, smaller or larger, which are against the system; they still have no IDs, passports or any wrights since 1963 when their citizenship was withdrawn and no right to work or leave the territory of Syria was given afterwards.

Note: While the art. 49 of the Constitution sentences to death the Muslim Brothers party, Hamas is financed by the system, and while the law provides no rights to the kurds on Syrian territory and has kurdish parties in opposition, PKK activities outside the country are funded by the regime.

5. Damascus - Beirut Declaration - appeared in 2006, consisting of five opposition parties and nine people, were all sent to jail on different terms, thanks to the system; among them are Fida Al Horani, the daughter of one of the founders of the Arab Baath Socialist Party, Akram Al Horani, also founder of the Socialist Movement; Muntaha Al Atrash, syrian daughter of the head of the French Revolution of 1925; Suhair Atasi, daughter of former leader Jamal Atasi. Riad Seif, syrian parliament member who spoke about corruption acts of Rami Makhlouf; Haisaam Malieh old human rights advocate, 86 years of age and Professor Aref Dalila.

As we`re talking about prisoners and imprisonment, let`s not forget the young woman, 17 years more accurately, convicted in 2011 for spying. Her name is Tul Al Maluhi and she is the niece of former Minister of Environment in Syria; probably spied on the political relations between Tom and Jerry.

To pay attention to the religious and demographic context also, we will mention further the Sunni and Alawite population. Sunnis: Hanbali, Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi Alawis: Hadadin, Kheiatiin, Khalbie, Mawali.

In addition to the Sunni and Alawit communities we also have Ismaili, Druze and Yazidiin confessions.

After the death of Rafiq Hariri, Syria has "created" Fatah al Islam and Jund al-Islam, in order to have a scapegoat for his assassination. Nowadays they still use this cheap drama pointing to the various "terrorist" groups that are said to incite people to revolution. Unfortunately, our elephant is fooled again and remains tied by his thin wire thread, gazing ignorantly as the play takes place before his eyes.

The author writes, "Riad Awwad was born in Syria in June 1960. He is a Doctor of Medical Sciences and authorized mediator. He has over 40 books published in Syria, Lebanon, America, Cyprus and Korea in the areas of peace and democracy in the Middle East, politics, literature and international culture, participating in congresses and meetings on this issue in countries like Malta, Germany, Egypt, Japan, Finland, France. He was elected in 1997 by the USIA (U.S. Information Agency) to participate in International Visitor Program, taking part in numerous meetings on "Managing Regional Tensions". Correspondent in Romania for the Writers Without Borders Association and an active member of 16 other militant organizations to protect human rights worldwide. A graduate of courses on international relations at the Romanian Diplomatic Institute and the "Diplomacy and Security" course in the same institution, has published several papers on geopolitics and geostrategy. Was elected Ambassador of Goodwill by Middle East Info."

To Go To Top

Posted by Sanne DeWitt, April 26, 2011.

This was written by Jonathan S. Tobin and it appeared in Commentary Magazine
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/04/24/ murder-at-tomb-illustrates-the-future-of-jewish-holy-sites- in-a-palestinian-state/


Today's attack on Jewish worshippers at Joseph's Tomb in Nablus needs to be understood as something more significant than just another unfortunate instance of violence between Jews and Arabs. It is nothing less than a warning of what will happen once Palestinians achieve full sovereignty, as the Obama administration appears to be demanding, over all of the West Bank.

The incident occurred when a group of religious Jews, members of the Breslov hasidic sect visited the Jewish holy site this morning unaccompanied by Israeli soldiers. The tomb is located in the city of Nablus, a place that is completely under the control of the Palestinian Authority. Twice a month Israel coordinates a visit by those Israelis who wish to pray there but religious Jews believe, not without reason, that restricting Jewish worship at the site in this manner is wrong and often attempt to go on their own. But rather than merely accommodate the presence of a few Jews in an Arab city, the Palestinian Authority police attacked the group that arrived today, killing one and wounding two others.

That this crime was committed by a member of the Palestinian Authority's own security forces — which have been trained and vouched for by the PA's foreign donors such as the United States — is telling. Rather than keep the peace and root out the terrorists who are a threat to the safety of both Jews and Arabs, the PA police have yet again proven themselves to be a group that is willing to commit acts of terrorism themselves. There is, after all, a precedent for the PA police to act in this manner around Joseph's Tomb. In 1996, six Israeli soldiers were killed during a Palestinian attack on the site.

Four years later at the start of the second intifada in September 2000, PA policemen stormed the holy site that was at that time the home of a yeshiva. An Israeli soldier was killed in the assault after which a Palestinian mob sacked the Tomb, demolishing it and desecrating holy books and Torah scrolls.

Since then, the Tomb has been partially restored but Palestinian Authority leaders have continued to deny Judaism's connection to the site in spite of the obviously Jewish nature of this historical site (for example, the Tomb is oriented north to south which is inconsistent with Muslim tombs that are located north of Mecca).

While foreign observers routinely refer to the PA and its security forces as being committed to peace, this incident illustrates the problem that Israel faces. With the PA itself continuing to allow its media to foment hatred of Jews and Israelis, it is little surprise that their policeman use the weapons they have been given to commit acts of violence rather than prevent them. The Jewish man who was murdered today happened to be the nephew of Limor Livnat, a minister in Israel's current government. At his funeral she spoke the truth when she said that "He was murdered simply because he was Jewish."

But his death is a tragedy that should remind us that future atrocities await Israel if the PA is allowed to become fully sovereign. It should be remembered that if the Obama administration has its way and Israel is forced to retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, even more Jewish holy places would be placed under their control. The PA's clear policy is to deny the Jewish nature of virtually every sacred place in the country including the Temple Mount and Western Wall in Jerusalem. Those who believe that the PA can be trusted to guarantee free access and the right to worship in those areas where their police have unfettered control are kidding themselves. After all, although the West Bank is routinely referred to as being under Israeli occupation, today's incident in Nablus highlights the fact that the PA police can murder Jews with impunity there with Israel being reduced to merely complaining about the crime after the fact.

Those who advocate the creation of more such no-go zones are setting Israel up not for a future of peace but one in which the Jewish heritage of the land will be erased and where blood will be spilled with impunity.

Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA discusses the Interim Agreement by which "Joseph's Tomb to Have Israeli Guards and Free Unimpeded Access for Israelis"

There they were at yet another beautiful photo op signing ceremony in Washington D.C. solemnly witnessed by the United States and representatives of the other major powers in the world.

Much like the photo op ceremony President Obama would like to have with the same round of optimistic speeches and slaps on the back and of course memorable handshakes of the "peacemakers".

As always there will be reassurances that the United States will stand behind the deal.

And maybe Mr. Obama plans to reinforce that promise by saying "we stand steadfast behind our iron clad promise"

[Some cynics joke that he should say "cross my heart (appeal to the bible belt vote) and hope to die (a gesture to the tradition of the radical Moslems)"]

But we have experience with pieces of paper.

MK Limor Livnat's nephew is being buried today because he wanted to pray at Joseph's Tomb and wasn't willing to wait to see when he would have thechance to be part of the select few chosen for the monthly visit.

That's not what was supposed to be under the agreement.

A once a month visit for a select few is anything but "free, unimpeded and secure access".

But at the end of the day the agreement was just a piece of paper.

Just like the next piece of paper....


September 28, 1995

Annex I

Protocol Concerning Redeployment and Security Arrangements


Security Arrangements in the West Bank
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/ Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/ THE+ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN+INTERIM+ AGREEMENT+-+Annex+I.htm#article5

2. Area A

b. Jewish Holy Sites

(1) The following provisions will apply with respect to the security arrangements in Jewish holy sites in Area A which are listed in Appendix 4 to this Annex:

(a) While the protection of these sites, as well as of persons visiting them, will be under the responsibility of the Palestinian Police, a JMU shall function in the vicinity of, and on the access routes to, each such site, as directed by the relevant DCO.

(b) The functions of each such JMU shall be as follows:

(i) to ensure free, unimpeded and secure access to the relevant Jewish holy site; and
(ii) to ensure the peaceful use of such site, to prevent any potential instances of disorder and to respond to any incident.

(c) Given the Jewish religious nature of such sites, Israeli plainclothes guards may be present inside such sites.

(2) The present situation and the existing religious practices shall be preserved.


Jewish Holy Sites

Pursuant to Article V of this Annex the Jewish Holy Sites are as follows:

1. Joseph's Tomb (Nablus)

2. Shalom Al Israel synagogue (Jericho)

Sanne DeWitt publishes the East Bay IAC (IACEP) Newsletter. Contact her by email at skdewitt@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Robert Wolfe, April 26, 2011.

Something strange is happening. On the one hand, the wave of rebellion sweeping the Arab world has to be seen as a vindication of everything that Israel stands for. What the protesters are demanding is above all democracy, and also more enlightened economic policies than those currently followed by Arab rulers. In other words, what they want is what Israel has, and they must know this. Yet on the other hand, no one is treating the protests as a triumph for Israel, not the protesters themselves, and not Israelis either.

To the contrary, most Israeli commentary on the protests has tended to focus on possible negative consequences, particularly the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power in Egypt followed by a full or partial repudiation of the peace treaty with Israel. And the protesters themselves sometimes seem to be going out of their way to deny any hint of admiration or sympathy for Israel as an element in their protest. Protesters in Syria have chanted slogans implying that Assad, of all people, is not anti-Israeli enough, and some protesters in Egypt adopted a similar strategy, castigating Mubarak as a Zionist agent. To be sure, only a small minority of protesters have adopted such tactics so far, but we are not hearing anything from the great majority disassociating themselves from the rampant anti-Semitism of the Arab world.

It seems obvious that most protesters are deathly afraid of being portrayed as pro-Israel. And of course such accusations have already been hurled at them by their opponents, but so far the protesters have successfully avoided doing anything which would lend substance to these accusations. What is more, the "international community" has adopted a similar strategy, systematically avoiding the slightest reference to a possible connection between the pro-democracy movement and the only real democracy in the entire Middle East. In fact, far from treating the Arab demand for democracy as a vindication of Israeli policy, the "international community" has actually stepped up its criticism of Israel as an obstacle to "peace". There now appears to be a very good chance that the United Nations will vote in September to demand the establishment of a Palestinian state "within the 1967 borders" and impose sanctions or worse on Israel if she does not go along with this demand by dismantling all or most settlements in Judea and Samaria.

Can a pro-democracy movement that disassociates itself from Israel possibly succeed? I don't think so, and that is perhaps the main reason why informed commentary in Israel on the protests has not been more positive. The more that the system which the protesters want is seen to resemble the Israeli system, the more it will be vilified as a Zionist plot, and if the pro-democracy movement remains afraid to say anything good about Israel, it will be divided and weakened to the point where its success is unlikely. The whole point of anti-Semitism in general is precisely to defeat the democratic, liberal and secular forces in society by painting them as agents of the demonized Jews. These forces will never be able to raise their heads on a sustained basis in the Middle East until they are able to denounce the demonization of Israel as the anti-democratic strategy which it is and openly admit the relationship between their ideals and those which Israel has upheld for so long.

As for the "international community", it is high time that it stopped its coddling of Palestinian anti-Semitism and demanded explicit acceptance of the existence of Israel as a Jewish state as the basis for any kind of negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinians. Instead of castigating Israel as an obstacle to "peace", it should be castigating the Palestinians for refusing to accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. The failure of the "international community" to take a clear stand against Palestinian anti-Semitism is one of the main factors influencing the reluctance of the Arab pro-democracy movement to admit its affinity with Israel. This failure has to be traced to the power of oil, which is the main reason for the systematic tilt on behalf of the Arab cause displayed by the "international community".

Oil retains its power, but the protest movement that is sweeping the Arab world is in the process of redefining the Arab cause. The more that cause becomes identified with democracy, the more it will be compelled to call into question its previous identification with autocracy and anti-Semitism. At some point this dynamic has to call forth an explicitly postive attitude towards Israel on the part of the democratic forces. The "international community" could do much to hasten this eventuality, but so far it has done nothing. It is still in thrall to its traditional policy of alliance with the autocratic forces in the Arab world, a policy whose foundations are now crumbling before their very eyes. Advocacy of democracy for the Arab world and recognition of the progressive role of Israeli democracy in the Middle East must go together if the democratic cause is to triumph there.

Contact Robert Wolfe by email at bandl@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, April 24, 2011.

There was never a second Arab Awakening as it was never bounded by ideas, not even the democratic-Islamic ones.

There will be no great democratic revolutions in Egypt, Libya or Tunisia a year from now. What are the signs? Let's start with the obvious. US President Barack Obama has wished the people of the Middle East a happy Passover. He claims that the story of Pessah is being relived today in the "modern stories of liberation" taking place in the Middle East: "This year, that ancient instruction is reflected in the daily headlines, as we see modern stories of social transformation and liberation unfolding in the Middle Eastand North Africa."

If Obama said it, there's good reason to think it won't happen. It isn't because I don't like Obama. Obama is great; a great orator, a crowd pleaser, a man who warms the hearts of many. But he tends to speak rather than do, in the apparent belief that history will record his words and forget that they were empty. Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize without doing anything peaceful. He promised to close Guantanamo Bay, and that didn't happen (it would have been a real Pessah miracle if he had brought terrorist inmates from the American base in Cuba to trial). He talked about getting America completely out of Iraq and doing something about Bin Laden in Pakistan, and that hasn't transpired either.

But it isn't just because Obama has been talking about freedom that we can be assured freedom is far away. If we go back and read the headlines about Egypt, we see that the usual good-natured, well-intentioned souls were telling us about how exciting it was to see what was happening in Tahrir square.

REMEMBER LARRY Derfner's claim that "the incredibly brave people in Egypt inspire just about everyone in the world except us [Israelis]." Or Nicholas Kristof, of The New York Times, claiming that "a crude stereotype lingers that some people — Arabs, Chinese and Africans — are incompatible with democracy... [but] The record is that after some missteps, countries usually pull through."

Let's just put it mildly: those people who are inspired by the Egyptian revolution are the people I'd least trust to tell me which way the wind is blowing.

Why? Because they are so often wrong. Some of them are part of the same Michael Foucault dialectic that thought the Iranian revolution was going to produce progressive liberal democracy. Today's Foucault — the anti-Israel University of California feminist philosopher Judith Butler — has claimed that "If the Muslim Brotherhood is elected to positions in [the Egyptian] government, and the elections are free and unconstrained, then that is a democratic outcome."

The same progressive feminist philosopher has claimed "understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the Left, that are part of a global Left, is extremely important."

If the Butlers and Foucaults are so often on the side of totalitarian religious fanaticism in the guise of democratization, then it is hard to believe that we will see democracy in the Middle East, precisely because totalitarian religious fanaticism is not conducive to democratic institutions. In fact, this is what people have missed in Indonesia, which has often been held up as an example of where the Middle East might go.

Indonesia is not a great democracy. It is a country where ethnic and religious hatreds are common. Just recently, pornography was banned — not anti-democratic in itself, but part of a larger conquest of the public square by moralizing Islamists. A 19th-century Islamic religious movement called Ahmadiyya, that has many followers, has been banned in parts of the country. Democracies, at least the good ones, generally don't ban whole religious sects.

The New York Times has done some excellent reporting on what the masses of inspired people got wrong about Egypt. Michael Slackman documented in late March that "religion has emerged as a powerful religious force" in politics, and the Muslim Brotherhood has been "transformed into a tacit partner with the military government."

It turns out that all those who shouted, like canaries in the mine, about the role of the Brotherhood are being vindicated.

THE LATEST actions of the military in Egypt, banning Mubarak's political party and jailing a blogger who "insulted" the military, are not very democratic. The same is true in Libya. The Times reporter C.J Chivers noted on April 6 that Libyan rebels are "less an organized force than the martial manifestation of a popular uprising."

Fox News commentator Geraldo Rivera thinks "They are the worst army I've ever seen in the field, absolutely incompetent."

How are things going in Tunisia? We don't know. Syria? There, the nepotistic leaders are killing people, and neither Al-Jazeera nor the US State Department seem to care. Bahrain? The kingdom is on the brink of outlawing its Shia opposition, and is sending thugs house--to-house to roust them out. The failure of the revolutions in the Middle East is not the fault of all the well-wishers. It isn't really the fault of the secular progressive youths, the rock throwers, the Islamists or the feeble boastful rebels in Libya with their bulging ammo belts. The fault lies in the fact that there was never a second Arab Awakening. It was never bounded by ideas, not even the democratic-Islamic ones that Judith Butler tells us we should embrace. Sometimes riots produce successful revolutions, witness the Boston Tea Party in 1770 or the bread riots before the French Revolution.

But rebellion without ideas is like mortar without bricks — just a bunch of grey crap.

The writer has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies.

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, April 24, 2011.

Terrorist attacks such as today's murder of a Jew in Samaria and Judea were indeed invited by the tepid voices of organizations such as the NIF and "Machsom" (and yes, even by some of the bland and mild-mannered members of TIP) who o-so graciously sink into meaningless diplomacy-gargle when they reiterate Jewster-Barak's passive commentary, to wit, that this heinous attack was "unjustified." No, this was not an act that can be truthfully described as "unjustified," because it was the bloody attack of an arab terrorist, who, as such, must be wiped from the face of this earth. Barak's blather is insipid, unworthy of a man.

First of all, we want you to know what we think about Jews who curry favor from arabs by joining the NIF, thereby inviting the arabs occupying the Jewish Homeland to entertain the false notion that they have any right whatsoever to the lands of Israel. They are kin to callous, careless Jews like Shimon Peres, who didn't much care what sort of arabs he welcomed into the Jewish Homeland because as a Polish immigrant to Israel, he internalized the loathing exhibited toward Jews by his Polish fellow-travelers. This suicidal view, this self-loathing writ across the furrowed forehead of Peres, encouraged money-gubbers of every faith to rush forward and trade away Israel's land in exchange for ephemeral financial advantages and air-kisses for themselves and their relatives and cronies. You know who they are. Some of them rushed to the side of Arafat and Jimmy Carter to show their "solidarity" with the non-uniformed arab forces they invited into Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. Now the innocents of Israel are left to reap the whirlwind spun into being by infirm Jews who infamously maligned the idea of patriotism for Israel, their adopted country. The result was that native Jewish Palestinians were and still are being swept under the rug of inane, insane polity.

All good people of every faith in the US should make it clear that the arabs occupying Judea and Samaria have no sovereign rights there whatsoever, and no right to "defend" what has NEVER belonged to them. And certainly no attacks can be tolerated against Jews on their soil and NEVER on their holy days. Jews who refrain from spitting in the face of their detractors are asking for ridicule, calumny, and more attacks.

We believe that everyone who aligns themselves with the Saudi influencers within the US State Department, or who might sink to the level of reiterating Condi Rice's (and Colin Powell's) demand that Israel exercise "restraint" in response to to this unforgivable terrorist attack by non-uniformed arab forces, are simply unfit for government anywhere, not just here in the US.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z. Not Left. Not Right. Just 4 Justice 4 Israel.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Véronique Chemla, April 24, 2011.

On September 30, 2000, France 2 TV aired a report about two Palestinians being caught in an alleged exchange of gunfire in the Gaza Strip. Charles Enderlin, Chief of the France 2 bureau in Jerusalem, commented his Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma's images:

"Jamal [Al Dura] and his son Mohammed are the targets of gunshots that have come from the Israeli position... Mohammed is dead and his father seriously wounded".

Major General Yom Tov Samia, commanding officer in the Southern District, asked physicist Nahum Shahaf to investigate the alleged crime.

On November 27, 2000, after having read Shahaf's report, Maj.-Gen. Samia concluded that Mohammed Al Dura was likely killed by Palestinian gunfire.

The Al Dura's image became the mediatic icon of Intifada II. That blood libel vilified Israel.

Shahaf was convinced that the footage was staged.

Some journalists, including Stéphane Juffa, Editor in Chief of Metula News Agency (1), and German film director Esther Shapira, raised doubts about the authenticity of the footage. On May 21, 2008, Philippe Karsenty, founder of a media watchdog group, who had written that the controversial footage was a forgery, won its trial against France 2 and Enderlin who had sued him for"defamation".

On September 4 and 25, 2008, the French Jewish weekly magazine Actualité juive (1) published two articles authored by Clément Weill-Raynal, including an interview of Dr. Yehuda David, surgeon at Tal ha Shomer hospital in Tel-Aviv.

Dr. David asserted that Jamal al-Dura had been attacked with axes by Palestinians in 1992. He performed in 1994 a tendon transfer surgery from Jamal Al Dura's left foot to his paralyzed right hand. Thus, according to the surgeon, Jamal Al Dura's wound dated back to 1992, and not to 2000.

On September 9, 2008, Professor and Surgeon Raphael Walden wrote a letter listing Jamal Al Dura's injuries according to a Jordanian medical file.

Jamal Al Dura sued Dr. David, Weill-Raynal and Actualité juive for"defamation".

On February 8, 2011, the hearing was held before a Parisian Tribunal for about 10 hours.

Weill-Raynal described his in-depth investigation. He also listed Enderlin's and Abu Rahma's contradictories allegations, as well as incoherencies and discrepancies in their footage. He noticed that Prof. Walden never examined Jamal Al Dura.

Dr. David described the surgery he performed and why Jamal Al Dura could not medically have been injured by bullets in his foot and in his hand. He added that Jamal Al Dura's scar in a buttock was the hallmark of a Palestinian punishment inflicted on alleged"collaborators" with Israel.

Journalist Hervé Deguine, who investigated the controversial footage for Reporters Without Borders in 2005, was sure that the Al Dura incident was real, although he never met Abu Rahma and Jamal Al Dura.

The President of the French Jewish umbrella organization, CRIF, Richard Prasquier, said that he had called for the establishment of an "independent investigative commission" on the Al Dura affair on July 2, 2008. Retired Journalist Luc Rosenzweig spoke about the French state-run TV's refusal of that commission.

According to Professor in medicine Marcel-Francis Kahn, who based his opinion on x-rays, Jamal Al Dura had been injured by Israeli bullets in 2000. Maître Alain Jacubowicz, Dr. David's lawyer, ironically replied:"How can you be so sure that those x-rays are Jamal Al Dura's? They don't mention any date, any name of patient and hospital". Maître Gilles-William Goldnadel, Weill-Raynal's lawyer, recalled that the doctor was also a pro-palestinian militant.

The plaintiff did not attend the trial, and he was defended by Maître Orly Rezlan who stigmatized those who questionned the authenticity of the footage.

The Public Prosecutor Dominique Lefebvre-Ligneul recommended that the three judges drop the charges against the three defendants.

The defendants' lawyers insisted on their clients' serious investigations, legitimate questions and reliable sources.

The judges will pronounce their judgment on April 29, 2011.

This is archived at
http://www.veroniquechemla.info/2011/04/ french-justice-scrutinized-jamal-al.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berchuck, April 24, 2011.

Destroying The Tomb of Joseph in 2000.

And rebuilding it as a mosque.

Deluded by the fantasy promises that the Arabs would take seriously the stipulation of the Oslo Accord guaranteeing access to all Jewish Holy Sites, Israel gave over the care of the Tomb of Joseph — the son of Jacob who brought the Jews into Egypt — to the PA. It says something that the IDF felt obliged to protect the Tomb. In 2000, as soon as IDF abandoned the Tomb, Palestinian Authority caretaking consisted of standing around while Arabs vandalized the tomb, ripping apart Torahs, defecating in the tomb and defacing what they could not burn. The Israeli Government's response was not to punish the Arabs, but to forbid the Jews from coming to the Tomb. The Jews — mostly Breslover Hasidim — came by night. In their own country, they had to come by stealth. They cleaned up the damage. They restored the Tomb.

A7News: Palestinian Authority Police Kill Israeli near Joseph's Tomb

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu in today's Arutz-7 writes that

Palestinian Authority police Sunday morning shot and killed one Israeli and wounded four others after they prayed at Joseph's Tomb (Kever Yosef) around 6 a.m. Sunday (11 p.m. Saturday night EDT). The murder victim (pictured below) was identified as 24-year-old Ben Yosef Livnat, a nephew of Likud Minister Limor Livnat and father of four children.

Arabs attacked the funeral procession with rocks as it proceeded from his childhood home of Elon Moreh to Jerusalem, where he lived with his wife and four children. At least one car windshield was broken in the rock attacks, but no one was injured. People from Elon Moreh stood by the highway in dozens of cars as the funeral procession passed.

One of the three who were wounded in the shooting attack is in serious condition, and Army helicopters evacuated the injured to a hospital for emergency care. A group of 15 worshippers from the Breslov Chassidic sect had driven to the site and were returning when they were gunned down by Palestinian Authority police in a jeep.

The PA security forces continued to fire at the cars as they fled.[emphasis added]

The IDF hurriedly issued a statement that the trip to Kever Yosef was not coordinated with Israeli security forces, and military spokesmen referred to the murder as an "incident" and not an attack.

Kever Yosef is a Jewish holy site that was supposed to be under Israeli control and open to worshippers as stated in previous agreements. However, the government has surrendered the area to Palestinian Authority control, and local Arabs have desecrated it several times.

The Breslov group was known to Palestinian Authority authorities as people who frequently prayed at Kever Yosef without any other intentions, according to Gershon Mesika, chairman of the Shomron (Samaria) Regional Council. He called the shooting attack a "massacre at close range."

National Union Knesset Member Dr. Michael Ben-Ari indirectly blamed the American government for having "trained and armed the enemy army that is called the 'Palestinian Authority police' and is directly responsible for the murder at Kever Yosef."

He called on the Israeli government to restore the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva to Kever Yosef and to confiscate weapons from the Palestinian Authority

The attack on the morning before the last day of the Passover holiday comes less than a month after the savage stabbings of Rabbi Udi Fogel, his wife Ruthie and three of their six young children, including a three-month-old baby, in community of Itamar, also located in Samaria.

Residents of Judea and Samaria frequently have warned that the removal of roadblocks and checkpoints in the area would make it easier for Arab terrorists to stage attacks and would encourage PA police to attack Jews. Defense Minister Ehud Barak has argued that the easing of security measures are "goodwill" measures that strengthen PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's popularity and help him fight terror.

[As if that is what he want to do — BB]

"PA Arabs Celebrate Murder by Desecrating Joseph's Tomb" by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

Palestinian Authority Arabs set fire to Kever Yosef near Shechem Sunday morning several hours after PA policemen gunned down Jewish worshippers, killing one of them. Eyewitnesses saw smoke billowing over the tomb, which Arabs have frequently desecrated in the past.

The murder victim, 24-year-old Ben Yosef Chai, a nephew of Likud Minister Limor Livnat, was buried Sunday afternoon, several hours before the beginning of the last day of the seven-day Passover holiday Sunday evening.

PA police killed Livnat and wounded four others by opening fire on their cars after they prayed at Kever Yosef and were returning home.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak condemned the murder and said that the lack of coordination did not justify the Palestinian Authority police attack. He demanded that the PA investigate the shooting. Pictured is a bullethole in one of the vehicles targeted by the PA.

Many coalition Knesset Members are up in arms over the PA police attack. Cabinet Science minister, MK Prof. Rabbi Daniel Hershkowitz, chairman of the Jewish Home party that is part of the coalition, said the attack "unmasked the PA's true face" and called for the return of the IDF to the holy site, where previous agreements guaranteed Israel control and the freedom of worship to Jews.

Israel since has surrendered Kever Yosef to the PA.

National Union chairman MK Yaakov Katz called on Israelis to remember that it was Israel that first armed the PA with rifles as part of the ill-fated Oslo Accords, signed in 1993. Livnat's name is added to "the long list of 1,500 Jews who have been slaughtered by PA weapons," MK Katz added.

The Shomron (Samaria) Residents Committee stated, "The murder this morning at Joseph's Tomb illustrates the danger of relying on the Palestinian police. Every Palestinian policeman is a potential terrorist whose hatred of Jews" is always present.

Likud MK Ze'ev Elkin and National Union MK Aryeh Eldad said, "There can be no room for any concession on the need for total control and freedom of action for the IDF in all regions of Judea and Samaria."

The Human Rights Organization of Judea and Samaria declared that the murder provides further proof that contradicts a recent report that the Palestinian Authority is ready to become an independent country.

Palestinian Authority Arabs set fire to Kever Yosef after gunning down Jewish worshippers. To see a video of Joseph's Tomb in flames after the murder of the Jews: click here.

As if the failure of the Palestinian Authority to safeguard a Jewish Holy Site wasn't bad enough, we learn that the Palestinian arabs in the Shooting Spree were U.S.-Trained. This is by P. David Hornik:

Since 2007 the U.S. has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in training and equipment for Palestinian Authority security forces. Reports of rampant torture in the prisons run by these forces, and warnings by Israeli military and other figures of the danger posed to Israel, have gone unheeded.

Early Sunday morning the danger grimly materialized. At least one PA policeman opened fire on a group of Israeli worshipers in Nablus in the West Bank, killing one and wounding four, including one seriously. Read the full story at
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/palestinians-in- shooting-spree-u-s-trained/

This below is by David Wilder, spokesman for the Jewish Community of Hebron.


It is our collective responsibility to ensure that Joseph's tomb return's to Israel

Text messages, received at seven in the morning, aren't a good way to start the day. Today's was no different. A terror shooting at Kever Yosef, Joseph's tomb, in Shechem, left one Jew dead and others injured.

A little while later, arriving at Ma'arat HaMachpela for morning prayers, I asked a friend if he knew who'd been killed. When he answered Ben Yosef Livnat I froze. Benyo, as he was known, had been my neighbor. He had studied at Kollel Ohr Shlomo in Tel Rumeida for a few years. I saw him there every morning, studying "Hassidut," usually "Likutai Me'oran,' the teachings for Rebbi Nachman of Breslav, with a 'chevruta' a study partner, before the nine o'clock start of the regular day's program. During his last year in the Torah program, he moved, with his wife and family, to Beit Hadassah. They lived in an apartment under ours for about a year, before moving to a Breslav neighborhood in Jerusalem.

Benyo dead!? Shot and killed!? At Kever Yosef!? Now, a few hours later, I still cannot fathom Benyo — Ben Yosef Livat, no long among the living.

Benyo's father, Noam, was severely wounded while serving in the IDF. Belonging to the Beitar movement, he was involved in Gush Etzion and later became religious. He helped initiate the Elon Moreh and Kedumim communities in Samaria, and later studied at the Od Yosef Chai yeshiva at Joseph's tomb in Shechem. Benyo — Ben Yosef, was one of six children in the family and his name reflects the family's bond with Joseph and Joseph's tomb, where ironically, he was murdered.

Benyo is not the first Jew to lose his life as a result of total dedication to Joseph's tomb and the Shomron — Samaria region. This holy site, was, according to the cursed Oslo Accords, supposed to remain under Israeli control, despite the fact that the city Shechem, was abandoned to Arafat and the Arabs. However, numerous violent attacks at the site led to the murder of Israeli Border policeman, Cpl. Madhat Yusuf, there in October, 2000. Yusuf, injured by Arab gunfire, bled to death at the tomb when Israeli forces were forbidden to entire the site and save him.

A week later, Hillel Lieberman, was murdered by Arabs while trying to access the tomb following Israel's decision to abandon the area to the Arabs. A week and a half later Rabbi Binyamin Herling, also from Elon Moreh, was killed during a hike in an area just outside Shechem. He too bled to death after being wounded, when Israeli forces were forbidden to take actions necessary to end Arab shooting in the area.

Arabs destroyed the tomb, burning it to the ground. However Jews refused to abandon Joseph and leave this holy place Judenrein. For years Jewish worshippers have secretly visited the tomb, during the night and early morning, praying and reciting Psalms. Eventually the IDF began to offer 'secure visits' to the site. But the demand to permanently return to Joseph's tomb continued, with many groups, including many Breslav Hassidim, frequenting the holy site. So it was that Ben Yosef Livnat and some of his friends arrived there early this morning for early morning Passover prayers. Arabs in the area, including armed terrorists in uniform, known as 'palestinian police' were used to seeing Jews arrive, pray, and then leave. However, this morning these terrorists opened fire on a few cars of Breslaver's at the tomb, killing Benyo and wounding a few others, one of whom is in critical condition. Benyo, only twenty five years old, leaves a widow and four orphans, the oldest of whom is not yet five.

There are many conclusions to be reached following this horrid terrorist murder, on the eve of the last day of Passover. Again, and how many times must it be reiterated, Israel cannot and must not initiate so-called 'security arrangements' with the PA. Armed Arabs know only one use for their weapons, and that is, as has proven hundreds of times, is to murder Jews. Hundreds and thousands of Jews have been killed and injured by weapons provided to the Arabs by Israel and distributed to 'palestinian police,' that is, terrorists in uniform. How many more lives must be snuffed out until Israel's leadership understands that our neighbors will continue to kill Jews, given the opportunity to do so. Why should we help them to kill our own people!?

But, the first, and most obvious step to be implemented is the return of Kever Yosef, Joseph's tomb, to full Israeli control. Benyo's murder will not stop Jews from praying at this site; to the contrary, I expect it will accelerate and increase Jewish presence at the site. But Israel must, must, must, make it clear to our neighbors that there is a price for killing of Jews. Joseph's tomb is one of the holiest places in Israel, similar to Rachel's Tomb in Bethlehem and Ma'arat HaMachpela, the tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs in Hebron. Why should such a sacred place remain in the hands of our enemy, who continues to desecrate it and kill Jews there!? It is our collective responsibility to ensure that Joseph's tomb return's to Israel, and that responsibility obligates Israeli leadership, the Prime Minister, the Defense Minister, and the entire Israeli cabinet (including Benyo's aunt, Minister Limor Livat), to meet today, and officially decide to return a permanent Israeli security presence to Kever Yosef, thereby allowing full, free, secure access to all Jews who so desire to worship there, day and night, three hundred and sixty five days a year. This is the only way to sanctify the memory of all those killed at this site and prevent further Jewish bloodshed at this most significant location in Israel.

Benyo was a wonderful person, a beautiful Jew and his murder will leave a huge gap in the lives of all who knew him. May his memory be blessed and may G-d comfort his widow, orphans, parents, brothers and sisters and all who knew and loved 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 Doris Wise Montrose, April 24, 2011.

This was written by Stella Paul and it appeared in American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/. this_passover_free_us_from_a_f.html Write Stella Paul at Stellapundit@aol.com.


This week is Passover, the season of deliverance, and I'm praying for deliverance from America's failed Jewish leadership. As Jews confront the most dangerous era since World War II, whom are we stuck with for leaders? A clueless bunch of mini-Pharaohs, strutting around proclaiming their moral superiority, blissfully unaware the Jewish people's mortal enemies are pulling down their pants and laughing at them.

Cataloging their collective acts of evasion, cowardice, appeasement, and surrender is not for the faint of heart, but, luckily, I'm fortified by matzo balls and ready to rock. At the Passover Seder, Jews recite Dayanu, a prayer listing the many blessings bestowed by the Almighty, each of which would have sufficed (Dayanu) in its own right. Here, alas, is a woeful Dayanu of the failures of the American Jewish establishment. Can anyone tell me why these preening big shots haven't been forced to resign in shame? Why, in God's name, are our purported "leaders" still collecting cushy paychecks when their credibility is bankrupt?

If they only had allowed a storm of anti-Semitism to rise in the West, and hate crimes against American Jews to skyrocket to unprecedented heights, while they declined to muster even a listless response — Dayanu — they would have failed.

If they only had stood aside, shrugging, while America's college campuses became battlegrounds in the war against Israel, where anti-Semitic lies were force-fed to America's next generation of leaders, and Jewish students were intimidated and taught self-hatred and alienation from their own identities — Dayanu — they would have failed.

If they only had refused to educate the Jewish people about the growing threat from radical Islam, and remained silent about the long, tragic history of Jews forced to live as oppressed dhimmis under Muslim rule, as mandated by Koranic law — Dayanu — they would have failed.

If they only had cowered when American Jewish institutions came under mortal assault, when Muslim fanatics slaughtered helpless women in a Jewish administrative office in Seattle, and travelers at the El Al airport counter in Los Angeles, and tirelessly plotted to firebomb synagogues in Chicago, Nashville, and New York — Dayanu — they would have failed.

If they only had made a false idol out of "interfaith dialogue," recklessly pursuing Muslim "partners" without bothering to investigate with whom they were "dialoguing," and giving dangerous anti-Semites the official Jewish seal of approval — Dayanu — they would have failed.

If they only had declared their mission was to take dwindling Jewish resources and devote them to helping Muslims build mosques in America, for the sake of fighting the mythical sin of "Islamophobia," all the while ignoring the anti-Semitism destined to spew forth from those mosques — Dayanu — they would have failed.

If they only had attacked those few brave critics who brought forth objective facts about their Muslim "partners in dialogue," tried to shout them into silence, acted as false witnesses against them, and insulted and bullied them with their own self-proclaimed moral superiority — Dayanu — they would have failed.

If they only had descended into the pit of outright collaboration, privileging the lying narrative of our murderers over the truth, roping impressionable young Jews into meeting with terrorists, rallying for them, and taking up their cause — Dayanu — they would have failed.

If they only had turned their back on the land of Israel and our brethren there, indicting Israel for every perceived imperfection and loaning their prestige to those who would endanger our homeland — Dayanu — they would have failed.

If they only had desecrated the transcendent majesty of Judaism by turning it into an attack wing of leftist politics, replacing the Jewish mission of covenantal faithfulness to God with partisan faithfulness to a progressive utopia — Dayanu — they would have failed.

To be a Jew in America in 2011 is to feel the hot breath of history on one's neck. The day is short, the hour is late, and the Jewish establishment is merrily munching matzo and cashing their paychecks. With no Moses in sight to lead us from our mounting perils, maybe the time has come for each of us who treasures liberty to act as Moses in our own communities. Next year, may we meet in freedom.

Doris Wise Montrose is with Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors. Contact her at doris@cjhsla.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Jack Cohen, April 24, 2011.

Arguably the most significant event now occuring in the Middle East is the killing of hundreds of peaceful demonstrators by Government armed forces in Syria. This puts the lie to the claims by Pres. Bashar Assad that he has rescinded the hated 50 year old emergency regulations that allows him to rule without legal opposition. But, this situation is not yet ripe for international intervention.

The UN was triggered to intervene in Libya when the rebels had captured Benghazi (the second largest city in Libya) and Gaddafi's forces were on the outskirts and Gaddafi himself was threatening that they would enter every house and kill anyone who opposed them. Fearing a bloodbath in a large metropolitan area, the UN Security Council enacted resolution 1973 to establish a no-fly zone in Libya, and this was extended to preventing Gaddafi's forces from sending tanks into civilian areas. This has been further extended to the use of NATO air forces and US drones to attack Gaddai's forces outside Misratah (the third largest city in Libya) and anywhere else where the rebels are under siege and civilian lives are at stake.

Suppose a similar situation occurs in Syria. Suppose the rebels take over the city of Deraa, where most of the rioting has been, and suppose they drive out Assad's forces. But, then Assad sends his army in to "wipe out the opposition." Then, suppose the UN is once again motivated to pass a resolution to provide a military means to protect the civilians of Deraa. If this continues as it is doing in Libya, there will be a significant possibility of the West saying that Assad, like Gaddafi, must go. Then what will the Iranians do?

Iran has already sent advisors to help Assad to deal with the demonstrators, according to Pres. Obama, because of course it has a lot of experience in putting down civil unrest. There have been at least two major occasions, after the faked elections last year, and recently when Iranian civilians tried to demonstrate as the Egyptians did in Cairo. Syria is Iran's major ally, and the question is, can Iran maintain its strategy of threatening to take over the Arab Middle East by replacing the US, if it loses its major ally? The answer to this is of course "no". It would lose its conduit of arms and ammunition to its proxy Hizbollah in Lebanon and in fact its major means of threatening to attack Israel. Its strategy would be fatally disrupted.

So now, if there was western intervention in Syria, even based on a UN resolution, and if Iran regarded this as a causus belli, what would then happen? Would they send in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to assist Assad's forces, the Syrian Army and secret police (mukhabarat)? Remember that Iran and Syria do not share a common border, Iraq is in between (a distance of only 200-400 km). Now consider that the Iraqi Government is dominated by a Shi'ite Party and that they may agree to allow, overtly or covertly, the movement of Iranian forces across Iraq into Syria (this is occuring covertly anyway).

The entry of Iranian armed forces into Syria would be considered a threat to international peace by the Security Council, a basis for a resolution against Iran (although this might be opposed by Russia and China). Also, Israel would regard the movement of Iranian armed forces into Syria as a causus belli, a direct threat to its existence. Could Israel afford to wait until the Iranian armed forces were massed on its border? There is then the possibility of a direct armed conclict between Israel and Iran. This is a nightmare scenario, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility. Stranger things have happened.

Jack Cohen is an American who made aliyah. He blogs at www.commentfromisraelblog.blogspot.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Isi Leibler, April 23, 2011.

When your enemies do not follow the rules of war... An eye-opening interview with the man who helps set the IDF's ethical parameters The article below is an absolutely must read interview.

As a rule I restrict my website to my own columns and blogs and refrain from circulating other material. However, I am making an exception and incorporating an extraordinarily important interview which appeared in this weekend's Jerusalem Post.

For those of you who have not seen it, the lengthy (10,000 word) interview conducted by the editor, David Horovitz, with Professor Asa Kasher is absolutely compulsory reading for anyone seeking an understanding of the standard of morality under which the IDF operates.

Kasher, who teaches philosophy at Tel Aviv University, co-authored the first IDF Code of Ethics. The interviewer, David Horovitz, assumes the role of the devil's advocate and skillfully leads Kasher to respond to questions impinging on the blood libels and condemnations of alleged IDF behavior during the Gaza war upon which the Goldstone Report was based, which to this day are still being promoted to demonize Israel and portray its soldiers as war criminals.

Kasher has previously written and lectured extensively on the subject. But the straightforward manner of his responses in this interview are particularly compelling and comprehensible. They utterly repudiate the libels and expose the bogus ethics employed by those seeking to slander the IDF by challenging its morality and humanity. The interview is the most effective demolition of the slanders directed against the IDF I have ever read. In clear terms it enables those with an open mind to learn what really happened in Gaza and understand the truth. It convincingly demonstrates that despite the obscene distortions still being repeated this very week in the far left daily Israeli newspaper Haaretz, the IDF is undoubtedly the most moral military force in the world and could well serve as a role model for the army of any Western democracy seeking to minimize innocent civilian casualties. It enables those with an open mind to learn what really happened in Gaza and understand the truth about the IDF.

I urge you to read this interview, distribute it and file it for future reference.

The Foreign Ministry should circulate this document to all its envoys throughout the world and ensure that it is widely distributed to lawmakers and government officials. Organizations engaged in pro-Israel advocacy should do likewise and ensure that their activists read the interview.

It should also be compulsory reading in every Jewish day school and distributed to members of synagogues and other Jewish organizations. It ought also be translated into Hebrew and used as a text in Israeli high schools.

In addition to making an unassailable case displaying the morality of the IDF it should make every Jew, Israeli and supporter of Israel proud in the knowledge that the Jewish army practices a code of ethics that every country could benefit by emulating.

Read it now and distribute as widely as possible.

Editor's Comment:

When Israel reclaimed Samaria and Judea and eastern Jerusalem in 1968 after the Arabs had held them for 19 years, the Arabs expected to be treated as they would have treated the Jews if they won. Instead, they were given control of the Jewish Temple Mount and saw they were in no danger. So they reacted as Arabs do — they went back to their usual ways, killing and slaughtering the innocent. They are cowardly bullies. The prefer killing women and children — especially babies — who can't fight back. Intimidate them and they become passive. Ethics has nothing to do with it. Posturing to impress NGOs who want Israel weakened or eliminated isn't ethical. It's stupid. The Arabs have structured the situation so it's a win-win for them. The terrorists hide themselves and their ammunition among their own women and children. If the Israelis shoot, they can be accused of murdering civilians. If they don't, the terrorists are safe as they aim to kill the Jews.

As another point, wouldn't it be nice if the IDF treated the Israeli Jewish citizens who live and work in Samaria and Judea as scrupulously as they do the Arabs who are out to massacre them. Judaism says to kill the one who comes to kill you BEFORE he can. It doesn't say that your enemy's life deserves more consideration than your own. The politicians aren't practicing ethics, they are trying to minimize the flak coming from hostile media and anti-Israel countries. And the media and the countries are reacting as one would expect: the more Israel appeases them, the more they dump on Israel. Naturally, it's safe — they risk nothing.


IDF soldiers on patrol (Photo: Reuters)

Tel Aviv University philosophy professor Asa Kasher co-authored the first IDF Code of Ethics and continues to work on the moral doctrines that shape the parameters of our army's actions.

He has taught at the IDF colleges since the late 1970s and for a long time was the only professor talking to officers about military ethics. When the IDF decided to try writing a Code of Ethics, he was approached and appointed head of a team of generals that wrote a draft and then the final version of the 1994 code, which was approved by chief of staff Ehud Barak and prime minister Yitzhak Rabin.

In the wake of Richard Goldstone's belated withdrawal of the accusation that Israel deliberately targeted civilians in Operation Cast Lead, and the fresh round of moral argument the judge's climbdown has provoked, I contacted Kasher to discuss the IDF's ethics. I wanted to understand the thinking that underpins IDF dos and don'ts, the problematics of grappling with enemies that do not follow any such rules, and the gaping discrepancy, Goldstone's reversal notwithstanding, between most Israelis' certainty of the IDF's morality and the international diplomatic, media and legal community's relentless opprobrium.

I also wanted to put to Kasher specific criticisms of IDF actions in Gaza, including some that have been penned by columnists in this newspaper. Among them: the assertion that Israel was unwarrantedly heavy-handed in Operation Cast Lead, that the "kill ratio" of Israelis and Palestinians indicates a disproportionate Israeli response, and that we can hardly complain about Hamas fighting out of uniform and from within residential areas when it is Hamas that was under attack from an invading Israel in that operation, and it naturally defended itself as effectively as it could.

These are not criticisms, I should add, for which I feel any sympathy. But they are widely invoked, they will be raised again if, or rather when, the IDF is next drawn into conflict, and I wanted the IDF's guiding moralist to address them.

Kasher said much that I might have anticipated, but a great deal more, too, that placed Israel's recent wars in a context that I had not fully drawn before. I was particularly struck by his explanation for the change in IDF approach over recent years to the endangering of its soldiers — the altered balance it has drawn, prompted by Kasher, when it comes to the safety of its personnel, on the one hand, and the "non-dangerous neighbors" of terrorists, on the other.

People think, he said, "that soldiers are there to be put into danger, that soldiers are there to take risks, that this is their world, this is their profession. But that is so far from the reality in Israel, where most of the soldiers are in the IDF because service is mandatory." When it comes to Israeli soldiers, "I, the state, took them out of their homes. Instead of him going to university or going to work, I put a uniform on him, I trained him, and I dispatched him. If I am going to endanger him, I owe him a very, very good answer as to why. After all, this is a democratic state that is obligated to protect its citizens. How dare I endanger him?"

Prof. Kasher, I want to talk to you about the nature of the warfare Israel has been drawn into in recent years — the fact that it's not army against army. Israel is now fighting against enemies that maintain their offensive capabilities in the heart of residential areas, and that fire into our residential areas.

As someone central to drafting the IDF's moral code, I want to ask you about the moral considerations that underpin the way Israel fights these wars. And I want to know whether you believe we are capable of continuing to defend ourselves, practically and morally, against enemies that often have no moral compunctions. Are we capable, that is, of surviving, protecting ourselves, without sinking to their level?

I was very struck, in 2006, when I interviewed the then-air force commander Eliezer Shkedy, and he told me the Gaza Kassam crews often took kids out with them when they went to fire on Israel. I asked him whether we regarded these children as combatants, and thus were prepared to fire at them. He was offended by the question. He said that of course the IAF wouldn't fire on them. What it had done, he said, was improved its accuracy so that it could target the Kassam crews more precisely without hitting the children. ("If we know that [the terrorist] is holding his son's hand, we do not fire," Shkedy said then. "Even if the terrorist is in the midst of firing a Kassam, and the Kassam is aimed to kill. We do not fire. You should know that.")

I want to know whether we are still that careful, whether we're still prepared to follow that kind of framework. I wonder whether it is moral not to fire when a Kassam crew is about to fire on Israeli civilians but a child that the crew has brought with them is too close and might therefore be hit.

But let's begin with this question: Can we survive here, facing enemies that use immoral methods, without sinking to their levels?

Our responsibility is to maintain our moral standards. That's a very important starting point because in matters of war it can sometimes get blurred. People are always talking about factors like international law, public opinion, the Western world — that is, outside factors that we're supposed to match up to. No, I say we have to uphold our own standards.

What are those standards?

We take decisions that reflect our acceptance of some aspects of international law; other parts, we have not accepted. The prime question, in these fields of morals and ethics, is what I see when I look in the mirror — not when I watch the BBC.

When the enemy becomes more ruthless and harsher than it was in the past, then we have to protect ourselves in smarter and different ways, but still according to the standards that we have set for ourselves.

You can use the analogy of a police officer at a bank robbery. If he sees that the robber is holding a toy gun, he won't shoot him. He'll simply catch him. But if it's a real gun, and the robber has already killed hostages and he's about to kill more, and the only way to stop him and save the hostages is to shoot him, the policeman will shoot him.

That robber's actions have required me to protect myself from him via harsher measures. It's not a case of: he'll shoot so I'll shoot, or he'll do terrible things so I'll also do terrible things, or he doesn't care about killing hostages so I won't care about killing robbers. That's absolutely not the point at all. He doesn't care about killing hostages, but I do care: I don't want to kill him unless there's truly no alternative.

This robber is threatening people's lives, so we will shoot him if there is no other alternative. If we can catch him without firing on him at all, excellent. If we can catch him by injuring him, without killing him, excellent. If there's no alternative, it's a tragedy to hit him, but that's what has to be done.

And that broadly is what is happening with our enemies today. If our enemy would fight on the battlefield, on open ground, in uniform, carrying his weapons openly, then it would be a case of an army facing off against a force that behaved like an army, and children and other non-dangerous people would not get hurt. But the enemy has changed the way it fights. So we have no choice. We have to protect ourselves as necessary.

Now there's a basis to what we have to do: We are a democratic state. And that means two things. One, we are obligated to effectively protect our citizens from all danger. So we have a police force, to protect against crime. A Health Ministry, to protect against medical dangers. A Transportation Ministry, against the dangers on the roads. And we have a Defense Ministry, to protect us against the dangers our enemies represent.

The state cannot evade this obligation. It can't say, "I am busy, I have more important things to do." There is nothing more important than protecting citizens' lives. Nothing.

A democratic state wants to deal with all kinds of other things, all kinds of agreements, citizens' rights, elections, free media and so on. Okay, fine. But to enjoy all or any of that, you have to be alive. Before you get to any of that, to protect any of that, you have to protect my life. A state is obligated to ensure effective protection of its citizens' lives. In fact, it's more than just life. It is an obligation to ensure the citizens' well-being and their capacity to go about their lives. A citizen of a state must be able to live normally. To send the kids to school in the morning. To go shopping. To go to work. To go out in the evening. A routine way of life. Nothing extraordinary. The state is obliged to protect that.

At the same time, the moral foundation of a democratic state is respect for human dignity. Human dignity must be respected in all circumstances. And to respect human dignity in all circumstances means, among other things, to be sensitive to human life in all circumstances. Not just the lives of the citizens of your state. Everybody.

This applies even in our interactions with terrorists. I am respecting the terrorist's dignity when I ask myself, "Do I have to kill him or can I stop him without killing him?"

And I certainly have to respect the human dignity of the terrorists' nondangerous neighbors — who are not a threat. We always talk about "innocents," but "innocence" is not the issue here. The issue here is whether they are dangerous. So the correct translation is "non-dangerous."

As in, non-threatening?

Yes, that's the significance. If they are "not dangerous," that means I don't have even the beginning of a moral right to harm them deliberately.

Okay, so that's some of the theory. Now relate that to Operation Cast Lead.

Fine. We have to protect our citizens and we have to respect human dignity. But when it comes to a war like Operation Cast Lead, those two imperatives are likely to clash. I am obligated to protect my citizens, but I have no way to protect them without the non-dangerous neighbors of the terrorists becoming caught up in the conflict. What am I to do?

Two things: First, you decide what is more important in the given situation. And second, you do whatever you can so that the damage to the other side is as small as possible: Maximizing effective defense of the citizens; minimizing collateral damage.

How do I decide which of the conflicting imperatives is more important? People don't like this idea, because they don't understand it: They think it is immoral to give priority to the defense of the citizens of your state over the protection of the lives of the neighbors of the terrorists. They don't understand that the world is built in such a way that responsibility is divided.

Please elaborate.

We are responsible for the residents of the State of Israel. Canada is responsible for the residents of Canada. Australia, for Australia. And that's just fine. We are not responsible for the lives of Canadians in the same way as we are for the lives of Israelis and vice versa. This is completely accepted and completely moral and no one questions this. We don't have one world government that is responsible for everything. We have states with their own responsibilities.

Now from this stems the fact that when you have clash of imperatives, this responsibility for one's own citizens takes precedence over the other responsibility to the non-dangerous neighbors. This isn't anything to do with us being Israel, or Jews. The same applies to the United States or to Canada or to any other country.

I cannot evade my prime responsibility to protect the well-being of the citizens of my country. Now, among all the means I could use to protect them, I will choose those that are better morally — better from the point of view of the effectiveness of the protection and the minimalization of the damage to the neighbors of the terrorists.

And what do we do to minimize the harm done to the neighbors of the terrorists?

We can't separate the terrorist from his neighbors. We can't force the terrorists to move away, because they don't want to move away. That's their whole strategy: To be there. The Hamas terrorists in Gaza, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, they want to work from within. The terrorists have erased the difference between combatants and non-combatants.

They live in residential areas. They operate from within residential areas. They attack civilians. And they won't leave when I tell them to leave. No one has the power to move them from where they are without conquering the entire area, which requires special justifications.

But if we can't force the terrorist out, we can make the effort to move his neighbors. He won't move away from his neighbors, but maybe his neighbors will move away from him. And experience shows that this kind of effort succeeds. That is, very many non-dangerous neighbors do move away from terrorists if they are warned.

So Israel, the IDF, carries out very intensive warning operations. Unprecedented. There are those who don't like the term, "the most moral army in the world." I think it's a very complex phrase, and one has to make all kinds of professional diagnoses. You can't just blithely invoke it. But let's look at that claim in this particular context.

Who tries harder than we do to warn the neighbors [to leave a conflict zone]? Who does it better than we do? I don't know if the public realizes this, but we recently carried out precisely such an act of warning — by publishing a map of Hezbollah positions in south Lebanon. Israel released details of hundreds of villages where Hezbollah has a position deep inside the village. From there, they'll fire on us if and when they want to, and we will have to protect ourselves. That means we'll have to fire into the village.

The publication of this map is a warning: We know, it says, that Hezbollah is intertwining its terrorists with non-dangerous neighbors. Understand that to protect ourselves in this situation will mean endangering the populace. The populace has to know that it is in a dangerous situation.

What to do in this dangerous situation? We don't know. We're telling those non-dangerous neighbors to give it some thought. Try to kick out Hezbollah? That is apparently very difficult. Move away from the Hezbollah position? Perhaps that is possible. Get away when the time comes? That may sound theoretical at present, but when the time comes, who knows? The fact is, this is an advance warning.

Now let's come to Operation Cast Lead in this context. We distributed leaflets [to Gaza civilians, telling them that they should leave a potential conflict zone]. It may be that we can do that better — distribute better leaflets, more detailed, with more precise guidance on how to get away. We broke into their radio and TV broadcasts to give them announcements, to warn them. That can be done still more effectively.

We made phone calls to 160,000 phone numbers. No one in the world has ever done anything like that, ever. And it's clear why that is effective. It's not a piece of paper that was dropped in my neighborhood. The phone rang in my own pocket! Yes, it was a recorded message, because it's impossible to make personal calls on that scale. But still, this was my number they dialed. It was a warning directed personally to me, not some kind of general warning.

And finally, we had the "tap on the roof" approach. The IDF used nonlethal weaponry, fired onto the roofs [of buildings being used by terrorists]. That weaponry makes a lot of noise. It constituted a very strong, noisy hint: We're close, but you still have the chance to get out. What we don't use is nohal shachen (the "neighbor protocol"). I recently read comments by a British general, a commander in Afghanistan...

Gen. Richard Kemp?

No, this was someone else, saying at a press conference, how moral his forces are. And then he described their policy, which was nohal shachen, as the symbol of the morality of British soldiers.

What did he say, specifically, that they do?

He said that when they are facing a terrorist hiding out in a building with non-dangerous neighbors, they make one of the neighbors telephone or speak through a loudspeaker to the Taliban terrorist who is in this building, and say that rather than killing him and the neighbors and destroying the house, he should surrender and that he'll be taken away with various guarantees. This British commander was very proud of this ostensibly humane procedure — a procedure that the courts here forbid us to do. We don't do it.

We issue warnings in an unprecedented way — not one warning, but many. We make enormous efforts to get the neighbors away from the terrorists.

Now there's one more thing that maybe we could do, and there's an argument surrounding it: send soldiers into the building. Send in soldiers to check that maybe someone has stayed. I am against this. Very against this.

So there's a difference between what we did in Jenin [during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, where 13 soldiers were killed in an ambush] and what we did in Gaza?

Yes, we changed our approach. The approach is more appropriate now. I think what we did in Jenin was a mistake. There was a primitive conception that "it's all right to endanger soldiers." Every time there was a dilemma like this — soldiers here and non-soldiers on the other side — the soldiers were endangered.

Why was that wrong?

You need, to a certain limit, to warn the people to get out. At a certain point, the warnings are over and there are two possibilities. That people have stayed because they don't want to leave or because they can't leave. If they can't leave, despite all the warnings, despite the possibilities to get them out, even to send ambulances to get them out, that's interesting to me, and we'll come back to that.

But if a neighbor doesn't want to leave, he turns himself into the human shield of the terrorist. He has become part of the war. And I'm sorry, but I may have to harm him when I try to stop the terrorist. I'll do my best not to. But it may be that in the absence of all other alternatives, I may hurt him. I certainly don't see a good reason to endanger the lives of soldiers in a case like that.

Sometimes people don't understand this. They think of soldiers as, well, instruments. They think that soldiers are there to be put into danger, that soldiers are there to take risks, that this is their world, this is their profession. But that is so far from the reality in Israel, where most of the soldiers are in the IDF because service is mandatory and reserve service is mandatory. Even with a standing army, you have to take moral considerations into account. But that is obviously the case when service is compulsory: I, the state, sent them into battle. I, the state, took them out of their homes. Instead of him going to university or going to work, I put a uniform on him, I trained him, and I dispatched him. If I am going to endanger him, I owe him a very, very good answer as to why. After all, as I said, this is a democratic state that is obligated to protect its citizens. How dare I endanger him?

Even in uniform, he is still considered one of those citizens that the state is obliged to protect?

Yes, he is one of the citizens that I have an obligation to protect. But somebody has to do the protecting. So each generation produces its soldiers. Now it's this generation. Before that it was their parents. After this, it will be their children. Their turn. Their generation.

But even now that it's this generation, that these are the people in uniform, I need a very strong reason to send them somewhere dangerous.

Why do I conscript them to the army? Two words: No choice. Given the threats around us, a volunteer, standing army would not be sufficient.

And why did we send them to Gaza? Because for eight years before Operation Cast Lead, we tried all the other options. It didn't help. There was no choice. We sent the army to Gaza because there was no choice.

And why did we send them to that particular theoretical house we've been discussing? Because there were armed terrorists in it who were attacking Israel. There was no choice. But now you want to send soldiers into that house just in case, by chance, there's still someone inside, who doesn't want to leave. You want me to send in soldiers to pull him out? Why? Why do I owe him that? I have issued so many warnings and this man has refused to come out. I haven't got a strong enough reason to tell that soldier he has to go in. This man has been warned five times and decided not to leave. Therefore he took the danger upon himself. After all those warnings, one has to act against the terrorists and those of his neighbors who have decided not to leave, and not endanger the lives of the soldiers.

And what, now, of the issue of civilians who are prevented by the terrorists from leaving a conflict zone?

This has to be handled in a graduated fashion. I'll explain. Let's imagine a fictitious situation, whereby the terrorists have forced 20 children onto the roofs of every single building in Gaza that has been marked as a target because it has terrorists in it. That's what I see in my reconnaissance photographs. Every single roof is covered with children.

That means that I can't fire on those buildings. But they're firing at me from those buildings. There are 20 children on the roof, and from the house the terrorists are firing. It's the same in every house. If I can't fire on any house because there are children on the roof, I have lost my capacity to protect myself. There is nothing I can do.

Always in those circumstances, people say, "Well, make peace." Fine. Great. I want peace. We have to seek peace. But right now I'm facing these houses and they're firing at me. Talking about a peace conference now is not really the point. Or people say, as with the cop facing the murderous bank robber, "Don't shoot him. We need to clean up the neighborhood so that the people have jobs and don't turn to crime." Again, great, yes, that's true. We have to create a situation where there aren't criminals in that neighborhood, but right now I've got an armed robber in the bank and he's threatening to kill his hostages. So, right now I have to protect the citizens of my state, and if I don't fire at any of the houses that have children on the roof, then I won't be able to protect my civilians. And that's unthinkable, out of the question.

So, what I have to do, and it's tragic however you look at it, is fire at one of those houses. The first place that they fire at me from, even though there are children on the roof, I will immediately fire on it, and some of those children will be killed — because I have no choice, because I have no other means to protect myself. The terrorists took away from me the normal means of self-defense. It's out of the question that I not protect myself, so I hope the terrorists will take the children off the roofs, and I will wait for them to take the children off the roofs in order to defend myself against the terrorists, but if they don't take the children off the roofs, I will continue. I have no choice. A state cannot say "I will allow my citizens to be killed because the enemy has placed children on all the roofs and I will not kill children."

That brings me back to what you mentioned at the very beginning about your interview with former air force commander Shkedy and the circumstances when Israel will fire and won't fire.

I can always ask myself, in all kinds of circumstances, maybe there's a different way to stop this terrorist or that attack. Maybe I have more time. If there's time, if there's an alternative means, then that's fine. When he was IDF chief of staff, Moshe Ya'alon once said that he prevented a targeted strike at [Hamas military commander Salah] Shehadeh when his daughter was right next to him. (Shehadeh was eventually killed in a targeted strike in 2002, in which 14 other people were killed, including his wife and nine children. Then-prime minister Sharon later said he would have aborted the operation had it been realized that it would cause those other fatalities.) Ya'alon evidently knew there would be another opportunity and that he could take the risk of waiting longer to strike. It wasn't now or never.

But when it's now or never, there is no choice. I wouldn't sleep after giving an order which involved killing not only terrorists but also the daughter of a terrorist. If there is a choice, you have to use it because of your imperative to respect human dignity. But sometimes there's no choice.

Is Israel facing more and more such dilemmas? Are there more and more situations in which commanders would find it hard to sleep?

We will always be obligated to protect our citizens. We will never relinquish that obligation. This is very profound. This is Israel. This is the state of the Jewish people.

I was born here and my parents came here long before World War II. I didn't go through the Holocaust. My wife did. My wife is a survivor. What lesson do I learn from World War II? That we cannot rely on anybody else. That when it's time to protect ourselves, there's no one else we can rely on. And we have no exemption, ever, from thinking about how best to protect ourselves. And if the enemy puts children on all the roofs of the buildings from which it fires on us, we will not capitulate to them. It's a tragic situation, but we won't capitulate.

This also requires leadership that is capable of explaining to the soldiers why they have to do this — why they have to do something totally counter-intuitive.

Absolutely. And the package of measures that we take to minimize the harm to those who are not dangerous to us is truly without equal anywhere else.

When we carry out targeted killings, the approvals process is exhaustive. Then there's a stage when it goes through "operational research." A model of the situation is created in order to determine the most appropriate weaponry, the most appropriate plane to use, the most appropriate angle so that there's a high likelihood that the terrorist will be hit but that the collateral damage will be as low as possible. And what Shkedy told you about targeted strikes is confirmed in the statistics. The numbers for collateral damage in such strikes are very, very small nowadays.

Now let's say, in one such strike against a key terrorist, the pilot has fired his missile and in those few seconds before it hits the pilot suddenly sees a school bus appear on the scene. He doesn't need anyone's permission to abort the mission and detonate the missile elsewhere, harmlessly. He decides not to attack, in order not to cause collateral damage.

Obviously they would never seek out a yellow school bus, as was done a few days ago [in the Hamas missile attack near Kibbutz Sa'ad in which Daniel Viflik, 16, was killed]. We make immense efforts to minimize the damage on the other side, to minimize the harm to people who do not constitute a threat.

These Palestinians and Hezbollah, they're playing this win-win game and it's depressing to see. If Israel doesn't fire at them, they're very happy, and I can understand that. But if Israel does fire on them, and children are hurt, they're also happy. They celebrate. I believe that these losses destroy the mothers and the fathers. But the community is ostensibly happy: "Great, we've got something nasty to say against Israel. Israel kills children."

And you have this whole community, including parts of the international media and some Israelis, who look at these episodes with one eye. This community sees only the poor children who have been killed. And they really are pitiful children. What's the emerging narrative? That Israel kills children and doesn't care about it. Such aggressors. Such barbarians. And all the thousand things we do precisely to avoid such situations are ignored.

This community and various international political bodies tell us, "Yes, you're entitled to defend yourselves. We can't take that away from you. The right to self-defense is in the charter of the United Nations. So yes, you have to protect yourselves. But you mustn't harm anybody who isn't dangerous." There is no such reality. Not in Iraq, not in Afghanistan.

Well, they ask that Israel not be disproportionate, that it not be too heavy-handed.

It's good that you mentioned that. The world in general doesn't have a clue what proportionality is. Proportionality, first of all, is not about numbers. The question of proportionality, according to international law, is whether the military benefit justifies the collateral damage. And secondly, also according to international law, it is a consideration for the commander in the field, because only the commander in the field can make the judgment: What does he gain from what he's about to do and what is the collateral damage he is likely to cause? With Israel, we fire and two minutes later, the UN secretary-general is already accusing us of using disproportionate force. On what basis does he make that assumption? How can he possibly know?

And, finally, this whole concept of proportionality exists in international law only in situations where you know that you're going to harm non-dangerous people. It's not relevant in other circumstances. This is designed for situations where noncombatants will be hurt and in those circumstances the commander in the field must weigh the benefits and the damage. The questions of proportionality are clear only at the extremes. Between those extremes, only the commander in the field can weigh the balance. It's very hard to give him a formula.

I want to put to you some of the criticisms that have been raised about why and how the IDF conducted Operation Cast Lead, including objections raised by columnists in this newspaper. It's been asserted that we, Israel, invaded their territory, and they were defending themselves against us. The kill ratio, of approximately 100 to 1, has been highlighted as ostensible evidence of the IDF's disproportionate use of force. It's been argued that, of course Hamas didn't engage in open, conventional conflict with us — army to army, in uniform — because they would have lost. Their only chance was to fight from within residential areas. And it's been asserted, again as evidence of an ostensible Israeli overreaction, that while Israel sustained a little over two dozen fatalities from their attacks on us between 2005 and 2008, their losses in that period totaled 1,250.

First of all, it's absolutely ridiculous, and I have no other word, to say that we invaded their territory and therefore they were defending themselves from us, as though we stormed in out of the clear blue sky and they were protecting themselves. The true picture is that they attacked Israel non-stop and Israel was defending itself from their relentless attacks. If they had not relentlessly attacked us, the IDF would not have gone in.

Yes, but they offered a kind of cease-fire at the last moment.

But they always breach their ceasefires. They fire on us and then they declare a cease-fire so that we won't be able to protect ourselves against their next attack, against their next attack on a school bus. Out of the question.

Self-defense does not only mean the Iron Dome anti-rocket system. Self-defense constitutes a lot of other things as well. Iron Dome-style is a case of, okay, he fired on me, I intercepted the missile in mid-air and so he didn't succeed in hurting me. That's great. But self-defense means that I need to silence him — to cause him not to attack me next time, in a few moments, with the means that he's used to attack me now.

I have to deny him the capacity to do that?

Yes. Not in the widest sense of what that might entail, but by means that are appropriate for the situation.

Look at the Second Lebanon War. It began with the kidnapping of soldiers and the killing of soldiers. Does that mean that I am allowed only to kidnap or kill a few Hezbollah soldiers? No. I have to ensure that Hezbollah is not able now or in the near future to carry out a similar action. Self-defense extends to attacking the source of the attack he has just carried out and from which he would be able to attack me again in a moment. If I don't take action, he will presumably attack me again. He always wants to attack me. I have no reason to think that there will only be one Kassam or Katyusha. He'll fire another.

So, coming back to Cast Lead, this was certainly not our invasion and their defense. When facing the armies of the United States and the Soviet Union in World War II, did the Germans have the moral right to self-defense because those armies invaded their country? The entire invasion of the allies into Germany was self-defense against Nazi Germany. To claim that, in Gaza, they are defending themselves against our invasion is really a not-serious objection.

Now, as to the matter of kill ratio. That's not the point. It's not a sporting contest. You ask yourself, "What is he doing to me?" — not in terms of the damage but in terms of the danger.

Look at what happened with the recent attack on the school bus. Only one child was killed. "Only one." One too many. But if the terrorist had fired five minutes earlier, there would have been dozens of children killed. The fact is that there's a danger to the lives of children traveling in a school bus on the roads of Israel. That [most of the children] were lucky this time, that one child was killed and the rest not, does not enter the equation.

Let's say I have the ultimate Iron Dome system and nobody is being killed from their attacks. Am I therefore barred from attacking those who are firing on me? Of course not. I have to be concerned for a dangerous situation in which Iron Dome doesn't work, or doesn't work properly, or I don't have enough Iron Dome batteries in service. I need to silence the source of the danger and therefore I am permitted to attack it.

As for the numbers of those killed on the other side, that needs to be examined without any connection to how many were killed on our side. Hamas today admits to having lost very high numbers of people who were directly connected to Hamas. All those "policemen" [killed in IAF attacks at the start of Cast Lead] were not policemen in the Western sense of the word. Those weren't people employed to give speeding tickets. Information published soon after Cast Lead detailed their combat deployment, the role each of them was to play when the IDF came in. This was a support force for the Hamas army. We hit them legitimately.

Now, there were 200 people who were not dangerous who were killed.

Just 200?

Yes, 200 who had no link to Hamas. All the rest had a clear tie to Hamas. And each of the cases in which those 200 were killed must be checked. Those 200 are, of course, 200 too many. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have carried out the operations of Cast Lead as we did. But it does mean that if there's a Cast Lead II, we'll have to use approaches that mean there won't be the 200 — that there'll be the fewer the better.

We can learn from each of the circumstances in which the 200 were killed. On the margins, some of those deaths stemmed from a lack of professionalism, where a soldier didn't do what he should have done. Obviously there are things to correct.

But I would stress that to have the military police question hundreds of soldiers after an operation like this, while I understand the political effect, is not good for the army. It won't save lives. You have to rely on the probes that the army itself carries out.

People think the ideal treatment is to send in the toughest police investigators and mete out the heaviest punishments. You can give any punishment you like. But it won't solve problems that stem from a lack of professionalism, or mistakes in judgment, or misunderstandings, that cause people to get killed. Some of our soldiers were also killed, by our own fire. No one on our side wanted to kill our own soldiers, but it happened. They were killed. So obviously there are things to correct on the level of professionalism. Simply punishing people won't help in any way.

Internal army investigations are the correct forum for addressing this, initially at least. If it turns out to be necessary, you have a military prosecutor and it becomes a legal matter.

There was a case in the military courts of two Givati soldiers, from a combat engineering unit, who took a Palestinian kid and told him to open a suspicious bag. What's extraordinary about this story — and I've read all the court papers — is that these soldiers were standing right next to him. If the kid had set off an explosive, they would also have been killed. And when the kid could not open the bag, they fired at it. Again, if it had exploded, they would all have been killed. And these were soldiers whose military expertise was in handling explosives. So this was a failure of judgment by soldiers who hadn't slept, I was told, for three days. Unprofessional work.

Now, of course, this was inexcusable. They were rightly tried and punished for taking and using the child in this way. But the main problem was that they acted unprofessionally. That's what needs to be corrected.

I want to return to those Hamas policemen who were killed on day one of Cast Lead. On that day they weren't engaging in terrorism. They were at a graduation ceremony. And yet you say it was morally acceptable to kill them?

When you enter a place, you have to think about not only who is firing on you, but on who will be firing on you. That's the rationale behind the laws of war. In this case, those forces certainly had the potential to hurt the IDF. Gaza is a very small place. This is Hamas. These were the forces that were helping Hamas. And therefore it was clear that tomorrow they would be joining up with the forces trying to hurt the IDF.

What about the argument that Hamas would obviously be defeated by the IDF in a conventional war and therefore its only chance is to fight from within residential areas?

Listen, we're not living in the Middle Ages. These are not wars between knights, where it's not fair if one has a big spear and the other has a little dagger. This is about the obligation to provide effective protection for my citizens. The fact that you are weak militarily does not exempt you from the measures I have to take to protect my citizens.

If you take steps toward peace, then we won't be firing at each other. So, at a diplomatic level, I will tell you that I want peace. But there was a disengagement. I left your area altogether. What do you want from me? Israel left completely. It wasn't easy. Part of the public felt terrible pain. Personally, it didn't pain me to leave areas that we conquered in 1967. But to see that after 30 years we were destroying all the homes and pulling out the children who were born there, my heart ached for those children.

So we left, and what have we got? The Hamas Charter, which says you have to destroy Israel. Gilad Schalit, and no allowing the Red Cross to get near him.

Israel will protect itself in the light of the way that it is attacked. If the enemy doesn't have tanks, then it won't be a battle of armored forces against armored forces. But it will be a battle, and I will protect myself against whatever you use to attack me. The fact that you don't have tanks and planes does not justify terrorism. That's no moral justification. Moral justification is not a function of the means you have. It relates to the limitations on the means that you use.

And yet there is a lot of international empathy for the notion raised, among others, by Ted Turner a few years ago, that they have no weapons apart from their bodies. ("The Palestinians are fighting with human suicide bombers, that's all they have," said the CNN founder in 2002.)

Well, they could make peace. When did the suicide bombers start? After Ehud Barak made his offers to Yasser Arafat and Bill Clinton [in 2000], and Arafat rejected them. If negotiations fail that doesn't mean you say, "It's over, now we have to start shooting." If negotiations fail, you prepare better for the next round of negotiations. It's okay for Arafat to say "no" at some stage. That's how negotiations work. You can say no over and over, but you keep negotiating. Instead of that, that the suicide bombers start coming? Why is there sympathy for that?

People sympathize with that until it happens to them. When it happens to them, they all change. All those countries — Britain, Spain, Sweden — the moment they face terrorism, they change.

But they don't change. In Britain, for example, after the 2005 London quadruple suicide bombing, people blamed Tony Blair. They said Britain was being attacked because he was too supportive of Israel or too supportive of George Bush in Iraq...

But in practice, in Britain too you now have the Terrorism Act which allows them to do all kinds of things to fight terrorism. Britain is actually the most similar to us because it lived with Irish terrorism for so many years.

But I still don't see any empathy for Israel.

In my dealings with the representatives of foreign armies, I don't come up against any opposition to the principles I've set out for you. No opposition, except maybe among the Dutch. The Dutch don't think of themselves as an army — more as a force for policing peace.

Yet international public opinion is hostile, and that influences political opinion, which impacts the international climate, which ultimately can limit Israel's capacity to protect itself...

Let's dissect that concept of public opinion and governments and the international climate. Governments follow their own interests. When they have an interest in criticizing us, they criticize us. When they have an interest in defending us, they defend us.

When the Goldstone Report was published, I immediately said that we had nothing to fear from the point of view of implementing international law — because we are more moderate than the rest of the world, and if those were the standards, we would not be able to do anything to protect ourselves, but neither would the US or NATO or anyone else in Iraq or Afghanistan. And therefore the US and NATO could not allow that report to have a practical impact. Now that Goldstone's written his article, shifting a little, that's even more the case.

Would Israel have carried out all these investigations without Goldstone?

Yes. And look how few indictments were served in the end. It would have been the same without Goldstone.

So you have these governments whose actions are a function of their interests. You have the Human Rights Council of the United Nations — excuse me, but if people don't think this is all about politics, just look at this body, which was chaired by Libya and 80 percent of whose decisions are against us. Everyone's talking differently about Libya today, but this Libya they're all attacking now is the same Libya that acted against us all the time.

And you have all this talk about occupation, as though we're the only people on earth in this situation. The situation of occupation is very problematic. But China has been in Tibet for longer. And the former Soviet Union, in those islands north of Japan — also longer. And the world makes no fuss. There are no demonstrations anywhere about the fact that those Japanese islands are under Russian sovereignty. China has raped Tibet, killing monks and nuns, destroying the Tibetan monasteries. No fuss.

It's all a function of politics. Speaking out against us, it's because of political interests. And by the way, criticizing us isn't necessarily anti-Semitism. It can be a function of other issues, of oil issues, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq, I don't know — all kinds of considerations.

As for the international media being largely against us, there are lots of explanations for that. You have to recognize it, and put it in proportion. How important is it what The Guardian says? Now, with the Conservative government in England, who cares what the Guardian says? Does it influence the prime minister? That's hard to believe. It might matter a bit more shortly before elections. The public, at the margins, may be influenced by the newspapers, but the importance of newspapers in influencing politicians is limited.

Why is it deemed important what the newspapers say? Because they influence public opinion? And why is public opinion important? We have no genuine access to the public's real opinions. We don't know exactly what the public is thinking. And you'd have to prove to me that it is important. The public's influence on politicians is limited.

But the fact is that Israel feels itself increasingly isolated, and there are potential practical implications.

Really? What potential for practical consequences? We as Jews — and I understand this, but we have to stop it — are acutely sensitive to every attack on us. Not only when it's anti-Semitism or anti-Israel. Even when someone attacks us for this or that government's politics. The lights go on. "They're attacking us." It seems to us to be absolutely terrible. I understand that feeling. We don't have a history of being loved by everyone. Quite the reverse. But some perspective is required. Obviously we have to be active on all fronts. The international media is a front. So you have the IDF Spokesman. You have the Ministry of Public Diplomacy. Everyone must do what they can to improve this situation. But it's not that important.

Look what happened after Operation Cast Lead. European leaders and the US president came here. That was a sign of solidarity with Israel. So I don't think there's a danger of us becoming [a pariah state] like South Africa.

Practical consequences: This fall, the Palestinians may well take a resolution to the UN General Assembly seeking statehood. And over 100, 120, 130, I don't know, nations will support it, possibly backed by a "uniting for peace" resolution that carries the potential for non-binding sanctions and boycotts.

First, I don't know what practical implications there would be. Second, we know that in situations like this we sometimes only have the US and Micronesia with us, and we'll survive. And third, and most important, we do have to work on the question of Palestinian statehood. With more alacrity than we are doing.

I don't need to wait for a Bar-Ilan speech by Prime Minister Netanyahu, and for all kinds of interesting observations from prime minister Sharon, to recognize that it is essential that there be a Palestinian state. The State of Israel, in its Proclamation of Independence, recognized the Palestinian state. It declared that "the right of the Jewish people to establish their state is irrevocable. This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state." Like all other nations! The Zionist mainstream supported the Partition decision, which provided for a state for the Jews and a state for the Palestinians. We recognized a Palestinian state from the very start.

That's nothing new. That's not doing a favor to anyone. The question is under what circumstances will a Palestinian state be established. I don't have to help in the establishment of something that wants to wipe me out. But that the Palestinians have the right to be a people in their own state, in their territory somewhere between the river and the sea, goes without saying.

I want to come back to the objections to what the IDF did in Gaza. You note that we pulled out all our people, but the objection is that we didn't free Gaza. We still prevent products going in. We still control the borders. We haven't given them full control.

Since they are arming themselves relentlessly, via weapons-laden ships, via the tunnels, my self-defense requires those controls. I don't want to have to depend on Iron Dome to shoot down the missile. I want the missile not to reach Gaza from Iran in the first place. So I maintain the sea blockade, which is unquestionably legitimate according to all the laws of war at sea, to prevent them from bringing in the weaponry. And the same goes for the land crossings. We don't allow free access, because it is likely to endanger us.

We have "effective control" at the borders — on what goes in and out. But we don't have effective control inside. Hamas is the de facto government of Gaza; Hamas has effective control there. And therefore Hamas is responsible for the fact that there are terrorists mixed in with their non-dangerous neighbors. They carry the responsibility for that.

Apart from that, we take care that there not be a humanitarian disaster in Gaza from the point of view of food and medicines and needs.

Is existing international law on wars appropriate for the kinds of situations we've been discussing, or does it need amending?

International law was created for other purposes. It was created amid assumptions that war was a case of army against army. Uniformed forces. Civilians at the side. In those circumstances, what's accepted internationally is acceptable to us. By and large people respect this. These are laws that apply to classic war situations.

But now, when we are in a war with organizations, not states, all the assumptions collapse. Why are states signed up to international treaties? For reasons of political prudence, not high morality: If I don't harm his civilians, he won't harm my civilians, and we'll both benefit. If I won't kill his prisoners, he won't kill my prisoners; I won't fire chemical weapons at him, and he won't fire chemical weapons at me. It's all reciprocity.

But now, in our situations, there is no reciprocity. Israel is always trying to minimize the collateral damage it causes its enemies, and its enemies are always trying to maximize the damage — not collateral; they are really aiming for the citizens.

This takes us back to where this interview started: It doesn't mean Israel will now act in the way its enemies do. But you see now that Israel has to act according to its interests and its standards, and not according to some kind of picture that is common to Israeli and its enemies. This whole notion of reciprocity has disappeared.

And then there's the question of the practicalities underpinning the rules of war, which requires distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. It used to be very simple: soldiers have uniforms, with US Army or Marines or IDF written on them. Weapons are carried openly. You're either in uniform or you're not. It's very crude. And it works. It's clear who are the soldiers and who are not.

Now, it's a mish-mash. Now, you have citizens with good intentions and citizens with bad intentions. No one can tell you to preserve the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. We preserved it effectively, because it was easy to draw the distinction. Not any more.

I'm not saying we need to change the rules of war. But we need to widen them. Don't cancel anything, but understand that in these new wars, you need something else. Something else that rests on the same moral basis: to "alleviate the calamities of war," as someone put it in an international document two hundred years ago.

How do you alleviate the calamities of war? First of all, have no war at all, if possible. But if war erupts, let's ask ourselves how to realize those principles, how to protect ourselves and warn the non-dangerous neighbors, alleviating the calamities of wars. We need doctrines, in the spirit of international law, that tell us what to do in certain circumstances that are not the classic war situations. And remember, these certain circumstances are always changing. We need a doctrine that is appropriate for every situation.

In the first years of the 2000s, we fought against a civilian organization that dispatched suicide bombers from a political entity — the Palestinian Authority — but not from a state.

Then we had the Second Lebanon War, with Hezbollah, a semi-military organization, supported by the Iranian and Syrian armies, sitting on the territory of the state of Lebanon, and some of its activities were terrorism, and some were guerrilla activities against soldiers.

Then came Operation Cast Lead. Again, not against a state — the PA is in charge, but it's not a state — but against a semi-military organization, getting support from the same places, from Iran and from Syria, and it is the de facto government. Which was not the case in the two previous cases.

And now, if there's a Third Lebanon War, Hezbollah sits in the Lebanese government. It is no longer a militia sitting in south Lebanon. It is a party in the Lebanese government. So if it fires on us, we'll need a different doctrine covering what to do. The Lebanese government includes a party that has a militia that is firing on you. It's not the Lebanese Army that is attacking you, but you are being attacked by a force that is in the government.

These appropriate doctrines must be informed by the same spirit: we are a democratic state, we must protect our citizens, we respect human dignity, we must minimize collateral damage in every effective means...

And people are working to produce these new doctrines?

[Former IDF Military Intelligence chief] Amos Yadlin and I wrote a doctrine that dealt with targeted killings, in the mid-2000s. Every army that fights needs its doctrine.

Are people working on other aspects?

People are comparing notes. And every international situation is different. But if I look at the way democratic states are grappling with their situations, it's very similar. So there's a kind of process. There are treaties that the world has signed up to — Geneva, Hague and so on. And then there is customary international law. The world is full of non-democratic state bodies which don't interest me. But it seems that the democratic world...

Is following practical doctrines that are very similar?

Yes. I was in Germany not long ago, at a conference on targeted killings. It was an audience of officers. One speaker was a fourstar German general. One was from the International Red Cross. And I was there to detail the Israeli reality. And I presented the approach we have discussed regarding targeted strikes, which Yadlin and I and many others developed in the mid-2000s. The audience accepted it. The man from the Red Cross didn't object to it.

In the subsequent working groups, the German general said he understood the Israelis. They were in a different situation from the Germans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Germans were forced to operate in similar circumstances to Israel, they would do the same. And remember that today's Germany is super-democratic.

I hear the same thing everywhere in democratic states. I've been to something like 15 of them, from India to Canada. There is no one who will say I don't have to protect my civilians and to minimize the damage [to the other side]. There is no one who will say I must not harm the other side and minimize the damage to my civilians. No one will say that. No one. Nowhere.

Have there been things that Israel has done, that the IDF has done, that do trouble you?

We do need to greatly improve our professionalism — not only in terms of operating weaponry, but in terms of better understanding the principles I've set here.

I'll give you an example: I heard a certain person say, during Operation Cast Lead, that we have to cause the other side to understand that ba'al habayit hishtagea — that Israel has "gone crazy." That's absolutely unacceptable. In fact, we have to cause them to appreciate the very opposite: that Israel is anything but crazy. That Israel acts aggressively only because it has no choice. It hits people only because it has to. It hits non-dangerous people only in a case of collateral damage, while making immense efforts not to harm them.

And if some minister or other says something so unacceptable, because he is irresponsible or because he lacks understanding, that doesn't mean our soldiers should think that. Their commanders need to explain this to them. They need to understand this.

If the degree of understanding of the key principles I've laid out here was greater, it is possible that there would have been fewer than 200 fatalities among the non-dangerous people who were killed in Operation Cast Lead. We don't explain enough and we don't understand enough. People perform better when they understand what they are doing.

What do you think of the Israeli media's coverage of Operation Cast Lead and of the local NGOs, including the rush to highlight the subsequently discredited Rabin military academy allegations in March 2009 that soldiers had deliberately targeted civilians?

Local media is guilty of sensationalism and a lack of responsibility. Haaretz has an agenda and skews everything in the service of that agenda. And others, like Yediot and Ma'ariv, are just sensationalist. There is no connection even between their headlines and the content.

I read the protocol of that discussion in the Rabin academy. I also read everything that the Breaking the Silence soldiers said. I read the full document. That full document emerged only after the international media came to me for a response to the alleged summary that had come out a few days earlier. From that summary, you might have thought they had exposed a huge wave, a tsunami, of war crimes, which it was very hard to believe could be possible. And in fact, it wasn't possible. Everything was skewed in that report. This is a political body with a political agenda which is legitimate, but it uses methods in my opinion that are not legitimate in terms of media ethics and NGO ethics.

As for B'Tselem, and international NGOs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty, they all have double standards. For them, there is the poor, pitiful side and the strong side. Testimony that comes from the pitiful side is taken at face value. Whatever comes from the strong side is tainted — "it's a spokesman, it's a whitewash." Radical suspicion for one side and virtually an unlimited readiness to accept everything that comes from the other. That's a double standard and it creates an utterly skewed picture. I don't rely on them.

On the other hand, it doesn't matter where an accusation comes from, the IDF must take a look at it. The IDF must look into every story from B'Tselem, every story from Machsom Watch, every story from Amnesty International. Not because I rely on them. I don't. But you don't have to rely on them to do your work properly. Look into every story. There's a tiny, microscopic proportion that has some basis, so look, check, find out..

Contact Isi Leibler by email at editor@WordfromJerusalem.com and visit his website www.word from jerusalem. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 23, 2011.


The Left is puzzled by the recent murders of Western supporters in Gaza. Although the evidence implicates Radical Muslims, the Far Left tries to blame Israel for it. [Israel attacks wanted terrorists but not their supporters.] The Far Left neither denounces Radical Muslim fanaticism nor questions the wisdom of supporting them.

The Left also pretended that the most recent victim, Mr. Arrigoni, was a peace advocate. Actually, his website is full of advocacy for terrorist murder.

Muslim Arab assaults on Western sympathizers occur frequently. Radical Muslims are so fanatical, they don't care that those Westerners have come to help them. They are more concerned that those Westerners are not Muslims and may expose cultural mores different from Islam's.

Besides murder and kidnapping, Muslim Palestinian Arabs systematically, perhaps daily, rape Western women who have come to help them. [I have reported some such cases]. They get the women pregnant. The women then feel forced to marry them and convert to Islam. These women lose their birth families, and lead miserable lives in an alien culture.

Arabs did the same thing in Israel, but the women escaped back to Europe. It is harder to escape from Gaza, where Arabs don't let the women out unguarded.

For a long time, feminists and leftists did not report the widespread raping. They hushed it up, for the cause (Prof. Steven Plaut, citing specifics, 4/18/11).

The Left prefers ideology over truth, the cause over justice. Based on injustice and untruth, its cause is not so idealistic, is it?

An interesting question about how jihadists will react is when they accept non-Muslim fellow travelers and when they do not abide them. Arafat and Abbas have been more pragmatic. That helps their cause, but endangers ours.

As I have reported, the same thing happens in Egypt to native Christian women, in the Sudan slave raids, and in Kashmir. It must be difficult for Westerners, for whom marriage is a sacrament and theoretically based on monogamous devotion to fathom the depth of fanaticism that forces marriage upon strangers as a means of religious conversion. That is the fanaticism we are up against in defending ourselves from jihad. We must take their behavior and ways of thinking into account, in fighting them.

In Israel, Arabs have hidden their identity and seduced Jewish girls. Taking those girls to their villages, the men engage in the common Muslim Arab practice of wife-beating. (An earlier article reported about the Muslim in France who wrote a book advising how to beat wives without leaving tell-tale marks.) For Jewish wives, the treatment is worse, for they are discriminated against and live more under a form of house-arrest.

A private Israeli religious organization has rescued a number of those victims. Unfortunately, the government does nothing to rescue or protect Jewish women from the menace. Jews who protest are liable to be called discriminatory.


Israeli far leftists paid condolence calls on the Arab family of the murderers, not on the Jewish family survivors whose adults and babies were slaughtered in Itamar, "side-by-side" with the Arab village [to use the euphemistic phrase advocating Arab sovereignty in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza].

Shortly before the visit, the media hinted that security forces had arrested the perpetrators. Instead of waiting to hear the names and evidence, the women of Machsom Watch expressed sympathy for the Arab family, some of whose members were arrested. They called the security force operation a "pogrom," an intense investigation without violence.

The day after the visit, the names of the confessed murderers, who reenacted the crimes for police, were released. So were the names of other family members arrested as accessories to murder. The confessions stated that if the perpetrators had known that two more children were in another room, they would have slain them, too. They said they had willingly killed the baby for being a Jew.

"Machsom Watch is a women's group that interferes with soldiers looking for weapons and explosives at checkposts and is a member of the Women's Coalition for Peace. Both are radical groups that espouse a pacifist, anti-religious and anti-Western brand of gender feminism, and both received considerable funding from the New Israel Fund as recently as 2007, according to NGO Monitor."

"Despite allegations of siding with Israel's enemies, the New Israel Fund is still perceived as a legitimate body by many liberals in Israel and outside it."

Questions have been raised about banning or ostracizing organizations that promote Israel's murderous enemies (Prof. Steven Plaut, 4/22/11).

Elana Wesley, staffer at Tel Aviv University reported the family's denials that one of the confessed murderers had committed the crime. The mother claimed he was too ill. The mother speculated about torture forcing the confession, but had no evidence. Some leftists want to believe that the accused are innocent (Plaut, 4/21/11).

The Far Left really is in a war against the Zionist state, using human rights as a pretext for criticizing not the Arab violators but Israeli defenders against Arab violations. More for that reason, than over embarrassment at their comforting the guilty side instead of the innocent side, I do not anticipate the Far Left apologizing.


With the help of former U.S. officials, the Saban Center simulated a post-Israeli withdrawal, pre-sovereignty effect on terrorism.

The simulation postulated an Israeli withdrawal from all but the large settlement blocs and the posting of 10,000 international troops mandated by the UN to prevent terrorism. The mostly European force would include some troops from Morocco and some U.S.-trained Palestinian Authority (P.A.) troops in a sovereign P.A..

The results found friction between the U.S. and Israel, impairing their security cooperation. The P.A. relied entirely on the international forces to deal with terrorism, but the expedition was not able to stop it even if Israel warned of pending attacks.

The question is whether the simulation will cause promoters of P.A. sovereignty to re-think their advocacy (Eli Brandenstein, Maariv in IMRA, 4/22/11

Despite the pledge at Oslo, 17 years ago, to eradicate terrorism, the P.A. has stimulated terrorism. The only time the P.A. moves against terrorists is when those terrorists threaten the P.A. regime. Those who promote independence for the P.A. fail to admit that the P.A. is pro-terrorist. The PLO believes in jihad and in conquering Israel. How can it stifle that Islamic imperative, jihad against non-Muslims?

I think it more likely that the P.A. may approve of a foreign force long enough to get the Israelis out, then surreptitiously encourage terrorism against the expedition in order to force it out.

Certainly, if sovereign, the P.A. would have the legal right to ask the expeditionary force to depart. Pre-state agreements do not bind sovereign states, even if the agreements and promises were used as justification for granting sovereignty.


This is how the government of Jordan described a visit by Jews to the Temple Mount: "Occupied Jerusalem, April 21 (Petra) - Jewish extremists backed by Israeli policemen stormed on Thursday Al — Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied Jerusalem." (IMRA, 4/22/11

Inflammatory, isn't it! Not "Occupied," not "extremists" but practicing Judaism, and not "stormed." It makes one wonder how moderate Jordan is.


In Turkey, judges and journalists who investigate ties between businesses or Radical Muslim organizations and the government are themselves arrested and accused of being terrorists.

When PM Erdogan proposed a new Constitution to curb the power of the military, he included in it provisions to curb the political independence of the judiciary. Now he can appoint more compliant judges. One of his Constitutional reforms was to end the accountability of judges and prosecutors over abuse of office. s judge by their draconian punishment of Kurdish nationalists. However, in their sentencing, the judges are going by the law. PM Erdogan inspired that law!

As for the military, Erdogan arrested many high-ranking officers and accused them of plotting against him (Daniel Steinvorth, Der Spiegel, 20 April 2011,
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/ 0,1518,758101,00.html
based on interview with former Turkish judge Emine Ulker Tarhan, in IMRA, 4/22/11

Turkish Islamists have engineered a gradual coup d'etat. In some South American countries, presidents have been gradually neutralizing opposition in order to impose their sole, permanent rule.

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Warner, April 22, 2011.

Now that Sharia law is getting more attention, Islam is rolling out its defenses to defuse and confuse the thinking and the not-so-thinking public. If you are a watcher or connoisseur of Islamic politics, it is fascinating to see how similar the different arguments are. Read one apologist for Islam and you have read all of the apologists.

Argument 1:

Sharia is not static; it changes and evolves.

This promises the hope of reformation over time if Islam becomes more moderate. Islam is the doctrine found in the Koran and the Sunna of Mohammed. Mohammed is the perfect Muslim and his every act and word is to be imitated by all Muslims. The Sunna of Mohammed is found in the Hadith (his traditions) and the Sira (his actions). The complete Islamic doctrine is Allah and Mohammed, or Koran, Sira and Hadith.

Sharia is the interpretation of the doctrine of Islam. Of course, the interpretations change, but they keep being drawn from the same 1400 year old texts. The Sharia circles the sun of Allah and Mohammed, so the evolution of Sharia turns out to be an orbit. The Sharia becomes looser and tighter over the course of history, but it is still the same Sharia and still obeys all of the fundamentals found in the texts of Koran, Sira and Hadith.

One of the biggest fundamental principles of Islam is the Kafir, the non-Muslim. No matter how the Sharia changes, Kafirs are still the same Allah-cursed creature that Mohammed annihilated whenever possible. No amount of adaptation can change the cruel place that the Kafir has in Islam and the Sharia.

Argument 2:

There is no one thing called Sharia. There is no official document called the Sharia.

See the above. Since Sharia is the practical application of interpretation of the doctrine of Islam found in the Koran, Sira and Hadith, there will be different schools of thought on issues. But the principles never change. All of the versions of the Sharia subjugate and demean the Kafir.

Argument 3:

Sharia is overwhelming about religion and is not in conflict with national laws.

It is true that a standard table-top book of Sharia such as The Reliance of the Traveller starts off with a large section devoted to religious material, such as prayer and the charity tax. But after the religious beginning, the Sharia winds up with definition of crimes, punishment, business law, family law and the usual legal matters.

There is no problem with the so-called religious Sharia, but a there is a problem with the political Sharia that deals with the Kafir. The political Sharia is evil, since it oppresses the Kafir. Jihad is part of the Sharia and jihad against the Kafir is evil.

The Kafir cares that "only" 1% of a Sharia text is devoted to jihad; that is not acceptable. When it comes to oppression and cruel treatment of Kafirs, any amount of evil is intolerable.

The Amount of Text Devoted to Jihad:

Complete Trilogy: 31%
Hadith: 21%
Sura: 67%
Koran: 9%

The number of pages in a Sharia text devoted to jihad may be small, but it cannot be removed. Sharia is the interpretation of the perfect Koran and the eternal Sunna and since jihad is a major doctrine it cannot be removed from the Sharia. Sharia can not be reformed.

THE SHARIA NOT ONLY has disgusting doctrines such as Kafir and jihad, but also polygamy and wife-beating. It does not matter that Mohammed and Allah are good with polygamy and beating the wife; it has no place in our civilization.

There is no amount of Sharia that is defensible if it makes any political impact on our citizens and nation. Keep praying those Muslim prayers and washing those Muslim feet, but keep every single aspect of political Sharia out of our civilization.

Bill Warner is Director, Center for the Study of Political Islam. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, April 22, 2011.

NJ worker fired for burning pages from the Koran gets his job back.

The ACLU finally comes to the aid of a US citizen exercising his right to freedom of speech.
See: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/o/1110/04-22-2011/ 20110422053501_7.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top

This below appeared on Islamist Watch
(http://www.islamist-watch.org/6857/cair-strong-arm-tactics- in-the-cradle-of-liberty) and was written by Hillel Zaremba. It had originally appeared on the Pajamas Media website
(http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/cair%E2%80%99 s-strong-arm-tactics-in-the-cradle-of-liberty/). Hillel Zaremba is associate director of Islamist Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum.


Aaron Proctor, a Philadelphia-based libertarian writer, can count himself the latest victim of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization that ironically claims to work for civil rights.

Proctor, a colorful commentator for the Philadelphia version of Examiner.com, had the temerity to investigate CAIR's dubious background in connection with its Philadelphia branch's planned fundraising dinner on March 12 at a municipal facility, the Springfield Country Club. CAIR-PA invited Johari Abdul-Malik to deliver one of the evening's main addresses. Abdul-Malik works at the Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, which has the distinction of being the former base for an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and for Anwar al-Awlaki, mentor to Fort Hood murderer Nidal Malik Hasan and underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

In keeping with these associations, Abdul-Malik declared in 2001:

I am gonna teach you now. You can blow up bridges, but you cannot kill people who are innocent on their way to work. You can blow up power supplies ... the water supply; you can do all forms of sabotage and let the world know that we are doing it like this because they have a respect for the lives of innocent people.

When Islamist Watch notified various local citizens' groups of the Springfield Country Club event, Proctor picked up the topic. He titled his first posting on the subject "CAIR, an Islamic terrorism group, coming to Delaware County next month" and then challenged Congressman Pat Meehan, in whose district Springfield Township lies, to speak out about the banquet. Meehan responded cautiously, supporting CAIR's "right to peacefully assemble" while addressing its questionable history:

CAIR has recently made a series of statements accusing the FBI of falsely entrapping Muslim-Americans and advocating that Muslims not cooperate with law enforcement and the FBI. ... As a former U.S. attorney, I am extremely concerned about the message that this kind of rhetoric sends to the community.

CAIR-PA then attacked both Proctor and Meehan and strong-armed the Examiner with accusations of defamation and publishing "hate speech." Brazenly lying about CAIR's status as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) trial, it claimed that there was "zero court-admissible evidence to suggest that they are in anyway [sic] related to terrorism." In fact, CAIR practically admitted it was a "terrorist-supporting front organization" when it backed off a 2004 defamation lawsuit it had initiated, for fear of the discovery process. Further, as recently as July 2009, U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis found "ample evidence to establish the associations of CAIR ... with Hamas."

Setting its sights on the weaker adversary, CAIR-PA sent the local police Proctor's photograph and accused him of being a potential "security threat." In a letter to a senior staffer at the Examiner, CAIR-PA charged Proctor with "hate speech," "bigotry," and "slander" and issued a strongly worded request for the writer's dismissal.

The letter also fudged the truth about the Philadelphia chapter's link to the terrorism-tied national group, stating: "Although CAIR-Philadelphia licenses the use of the name CAIR, we are legally distinct entities." The claim of a wall separating the national organization from its local branch is ludicrous; CAIR-PA employs the same logo as the national organization, carries the same news alerts as the national organization, and responded to Meehan by citing the national organization's alleged crime-fighting credentials.

Frightened by CAIR's threats of libel proceedings and references to "hate speech," the Examiner folded. On February 11, management suspended Proctor from work while it reviewed the legalities of his anti-CAIR articles.

In an email sent on February 14, Proctor wrote about his tangling with this supposed champion of civil liberties:

To say that I wasn't scared not only for my life but for my loved ones due to the threats from CAIR would be a gross understatement. It's scary when you read someone has emailed the police about you when you haven't even made a threat to them and wouldn't do anything more than write about them.

Proctor disclosed that although he had won back his job at the Examiner, the experience left him shaken:

I have been reinstated on Examiner.com today. ... As a precaution (and of my own free will, not suggested to be [sic] by anyone), I've taken down my CAIR articles ... and will no longer focus on any further stories about Islam or CAIR. I guess that's the end game [sic] of terrorism: scaring people into [not] speaking out and keeping people away from seeking out their livelihood.

Did CAIR win? It would certainly seem that way, for there is now one less individual willing to question its behavior. The story, however, need not end there:

Pat Meehan serves as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security's Subcommittee on Counterterrorism and Intelligence and should hear from citizens who oppose those who use the liberties afforded by the Constitution to muzzle criticism and stifle debate.

Citizens of Springfield Township should ask their elected officials why a facility they own continues to be used by a group that admires someone who has recommended sabotage.

Examiner.com, "the fastest-growing local content network in the U.S.," should be true to its name and examine, closely and objectively, the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

Proctor may not always have chosen his words about CAIR wisely or well, but he left an eloquent appeal before descending into his self-imposed silence:

Please stand with me and stand with free speech and don't let these people twist the arms of America any more. Those of you who have dedicated much of your lives and free time to fighting the lies and propaganda and "lawfare" that CAIR seeks to implement in the U.S., please do not stop fighting.

Aaron Proctor has become yet another victim of the dangerous trend of CAIR stifling public discussion of Islamism. Who will be next?

One Reader, The Root '83, wrote this in response to James, who had written: "If things are as you say, then this is where we should be taking our stand and fighting back, not with that moronic Koran burning Jones."

You say:

"If things are as you say...this is where we should be...fighting back, not with that moronic Koran burning Jones"

But you then defeat your position concerning Mr. Jones with:

"The problem with CAIR is...even if...it was banned tomorrow they would just reassemble like rats in the walls..."

Which, distilled to its core is essentially: "The problem with Islam, is Islam"

Exactly the position of Mr. Jones.

In our Western Legal and Administrative settings, we cannot defeat the Islamists. Our laws and rules mean nothing to them. Their Prophet and their religion recognize no secular laws. They recognize no Bill of Rights, no rules or precidents contained in the concept of democratically elected republics....and most importantly, as a religion they have no moral obligation of truthful or honest dealings with us.

They will (and DO) constantly LIE about everything. It is a tennent of their faith to LIE TO THE INFIDELS, and with no guilt make endless promises they have absolutly no intention whatsoever of keeping. They do so continuously, all the while laughing at our disappointment that, no matter how hard WE TRY, they do not in return behave like US.

They will be caught, red-handed, funding Terrorist groups, and simply dismiss it by saying Hamas/Hezbola/Mahdi Army/Fattah/Muslim Brotherhood/ etc. etc. "are not terrorists". When these very groups murder children in their beds, CAIR will simply say "we don't support that activity".

We cannot challenge their threat with our rules. It is a fools game to believe we defeat them in court(s) we can someday win the "hearts and minds" of the "moderates" by showing them the benevolence of our version of Fairness and Justice.

Moderate Islam is an Oxymoron. As long as Mr. Mohammed is a revered figure to them, the violence and lying, (and the lying about the violence and lies), will continue.... as we chase our tail in frustration, looking for a "solution".

Until The Prophet Mohammed himself is fully discredited as the despicable character he was, and his way of life is openly condemned by every decent person in this country, their will BE no success against Terror, and the Religion OF Terror. You cannot safely "contain" them if you "respect" the ideology of their criminal cult, and allow it to grow further.

Islam is incompatable with western civilization, period.

Expose their putrid beliefs to the light of day, and treat those beliefs like the beliefs of the Bald-Headed Hitler-ites...or those White-Hooded Cross-Burners....or the Westboro Baptist funeral screachers... Tolerated? yes, in the abstract. But openly regarded as a perverse, minority viewpoint, condemned as simply "wrong" as a matter of course by decent people everywhere. Without fear, or apology.

Something Mr. Jones understands needs to happen, and fast.

While YOU advocate more paper-shuffle with killers.

Yeah, like THAT will slow them down...

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 22, 2011.

This comes from Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director of Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA). The website is at www.imra.org.il


Maariv correspondent Eli Brandstein reported in the 21 April 2011 edition that a war simulation organized by the Saban Center with the participation of former senior American officials found that a large international force of 10,000 deployed in a sovereign Palestinian state could not prevent Palestinian terror attacks against Israeli targets despite receiving advance warning from Israel.

The simulation also found that official Palestinian security forces would not act themselves to prevent the attacks, relying instead on the ineffective international forces.

To make matters worse, the simulation found that the presence of the international force in the Palestinian state served to increase friction and tension between Israel and the United States in a way that impaired security cooperation between Israel and the United States.

Under the simulation, a sovereign Palestinian state would be created after a complete Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank with major settlement blocs annexed by Israel and over 82 settlements evacuated. The 10,000 man international security force that failed in the simulation was composed of European soldiers along with some soldiers from Morocco and Palestinians under American command.

In the simulation the international force enjoyed complete security authority via a UN mandate with its principle mission being to prevent terror attacks against Israel.

Maariv did not indicate if any Palestinian state promoters have revised their position given the results of the simulation given that these result serve to undermine a key working assumption of those who claim that there are viable durable workable security arrangements that could be implemented in the event of the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state.

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC] (http://eufunding.org.uk)
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz Sheva, April 22, 2011.

This was written by MP Flamma Nirenstein and was published in Il Giornale
(http://fiammanirenstein.com/articoli.asp?Categoria=5&Id=2578), and translated by her.


The cruelty of the public execution of a young man who had family and friends, as it was the case with Vittorio Arrigoni's killing, is always awful. And this is clear.

What isn't clear to the European public is that it is patently evident that the killers are his old Islamic Jihadists friends from Gaza. But they could have been Afghanis, or Iraqis.

In 2002, Daniel Pearl was killed in Karachi with similar methods because he was a Jew; in 2004 the decapitation of the American Nick Berg in Iraq was filmed, the Jihadists said, "to give a clear message to the West"; the Italian Fabrizio Quattrocchi was executed because he was "an enemy of God, an enemy of Allah" and Vittorio Arrigoni, as his butchers say it in the video, in the words that scroll across the screen, because "he was spreading western immorality in Gaza" and because "Italy fights against Islamic countries".

It has been repeated again and again that Hamas, with whom Arrigoni was on friendly terms, has condemned the crime. But in actual fact it doesn't matter if the assassins are members of Hamas or not. They have been, they will be, they are all controlled by Hamas. Even Al Qaida, which has a presence in Gaza, is seen by Hamas in a better or worse light, depending on the moment. But Hamas is always top dog in Gaza.

Hamas is responsible for the captivity of Gilad Shalit; it was responsible for the armed destruction of the UN recreational camp for children, which did not abide by Islamic dictates; it was responsible for arresting 150 women under the accusation of witchcraft and the execution of several of them; it is Hamas that has introduced by law death penalty, whipping, cutting off hands and crucifixion, according to Sharia. Hamas killed the 32-year old Christian book salesman Rami Khader Ayyad, guilty of selling Bibles. Not all those who carry out these operations, or those to whom Hamas gives orders to fire Qassam missiles against Israel, are members of the terrorist organization that rules Gaza; indeed at times theyt pretend to fight them.

Hamas is a movement, a party, a fundamentalist State. Its statute stipulates that it wants to destroy the Jewish State, to exterminate Jews and impose an Islamic caliphate on the entire world. Salafite fringes and those linked more to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, those influenced to a greater or lesser extent by Iran or Al Qaeda and based in the Gaza Strip, join up and leave Hamas by turns. The fact that Hamas has now disowned the killers of Arrigoni is not of the slightest importance. In any case, they were still employed by Hamas as members of the Al Qassam Brigades.

To understand the death of this Italian activist, one important fact must be grasped: his death was triggered by the spurious way he mixed his humanitarian ideals with the cause of fundamentalist Gaza, by the fact that he mixed his life with that of his potential enemies, that he thought about as his best friends. But fundamentalists do not have stable affinities. Only their interpretation of Quran counts. Hamas Gaza, where Arrigoni has been killed, is for us a land ruled by awful and distant laws.

Arrigoni loved the Palestinians, but he remained a total foreigner for them. It is for us unconceivable, even if you are a militant like Arrigoni, to live alongside those who fire missiles on civilians, wear belts packed with explosives and hand out sweets when an Israeli family is killed in Itamar, including a three months baby, a four years old child and another of nine.

This is a crucial issue: when you go to Gaza, or Afghanistan, you have to realise that our conception of life, is completely different from any Islamic political conception of life. You can die because you are Jewish, because you are Italian, or Christian, because you are an apostate, or a corrupt Westerner... the extremist mentality, make no bones about it, cancels out friends and allies. No matter how much you have worked against the "Zionist power" or that you have called Zionists "rats" (and Arrigoni did this), nothing is of any worth if you break their rule, a rule which will remain unclear until the knife blade comes.

Arrigoni was fan of political Islamism because he was an enemy of the Jews, but this did not save him from a cruel execution in front of the camera, just as the one of many others friends or enemies of Hamas or the Islamic Jihad, never mind.

So it is intellectually sad and even dangerous that a demonstration in front of the Italian Parliament blamed Israel and Italy for Arrigoni's death; or that the ISM, the pro-Palestinian NGO Arrigoni belonged to, attributed 'moral responsibility to the State of Israel'. These reactions seem to be triggered only by ideological hatred.

But what is more striking still, with sincerest respect for the figure of the President of Republic, was the statement of condolences which Giorgio Napolitano rightly delivered; instead of laying the blame on Islamic fundamentalism, he asked that "a negotiated solution be found to the conflict which sees bloodshed in the region".

With the same coherence, he could have invoked any good cause: the fight against world hunger, or child prostitution. Yet instead, Israel is being summoned to face some mysterious responsibility. But the fault is only of Islamic fundamentalism; what is the point of dragging the pained witness and victim of Hamas terrorism into the question?

Read http://www.israelnationalnews.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz Sheva, April 22, 2011.

This was written by Rabbi Chanan Morrison and it appeared today in Arutz Sheva.


Baruch Duvdevani served as the Executive Director of the Jewish Agency's Aliyah department. He recounted this tragic story:

It was the winter of 5716 (1956), immediately following the Sinai Campaign. Poland and the USSR had just signed a treaty allowing all Polish citizens who had fled to Russia during World War II to return to Poland. Jewish or not, they had the right to return, as long as they were Polish citizens on September 1, 1939, the day the War broke out. As a result of this treaty, thousands of Jews throughout Russia returned to Poland, and the majority of them subsequently immigrated to Israel.

I was privileged to spend that year, and the next, in Poland, helping organize this mass aliyah to Israel.

One December morning, when the temperature in Warsaw reached 19 degrees below zero (Celsius), I arrived at the Israeli embassy where we were stationed for our immigration work. The courtyard was filled with scores of people who had come from Russia to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael. I stopped and talked to each and every one of them at length. Our hearts were so filled with joy that we did not feel the cold.

I noticed an old Jew standing in the corner of the courtyard. He was bone-thin, with practically no flesh on his body. His dim eyes lacked any spark of life; his cheekbones protruded profusely; and his clothes were tattered and torn, despite the bitter cold. I realized immediately that the man wanted to speak with me and that he was simply waiting for me to finish talking to the others.

When I finished, the man approached me and asked if I was from Jerusalem. I told him that I was, and then he asked me if I knew Rav Kook, of blessed memory. I answered that I had been privileged to benefit from his exalted Torah and inspiring discourses. At that moment, the man burst into tears and said, "What a shame! What a shame that I did not listen to him."

He continued to sob for a while, and when he finally calmed down a bit, he told me his story:

In the early 1920's, I was a big manufacturer in one of Poland's famous industrial cities. One day, I decided to take a trip to Eretz Yisrael and spend Passover there. Being a religious Jew, I visited Rav Kook zt"l immediately upon my arrival. He welcomed me warmly and encouraged me to seek out the good of the Land and consider settling there. After a few weeks of touring, I returned to the Rav and asked him, among other things, what I should do regarding the second day of Yom Tov, seeing that I was a tourist.

The Rav answered with a smile: 'Decide right now to bring your family here and to build a factory in the Land. Then, you can keep one day of Yom Tov already this Passover, like all inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael.'

"I took his answer jovially, and since the holiday was still a few weeks away, I decided to return at a later date and pose the question again, when it was more practical.

A few days before Passover, I went to Rav Kook and asked him the question once more. This time, the Rav answered sternly: 'I already told you that you should move here; then you may keep one day of Yom Tov starting now, even if you must return to Poland after Passover to settle your affairs.'

I said to him: 'Excuse me, dear rabbi, I have thought about it at great length; but in the end, da'ati lachazor - my intention is to return to the Diaspora. How, then, can I celebrate like the residents of Eretz Yisrael?'

The Rav banged his hand on the table and said with great emotion: 'Your da'at [intention] is to return? That is nothing but lack of da'at [sense]!'

The man continued in a broken voice: 'I did not listen to the Rav. I returned to the Diaspora and remained there. I lost my wife, my children, and my grandchildren in the Holocaust, and here I am today, lonely and desolate. I have come back here with nothing, after wandering for years through Russia. And I constantly recall Rav Kook's prophetic words: "That is nothing but lack of da'at!"

(From 'An Angel Among Men' by R. Simcha Raz, translated by R. Moshe Lichtman, pp. 257-259.)

Read http://www.IsraelNationalNews.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Shulman, April 22, 2011.


Turkey's President, Abdullah Gul, offers to mediate an Arab-Israel peace deal. He claims that the Arabs have revolted in each country for "universal values" and for "national pride and dignity." He suggests that whether they become democratic or tyrannical would depend on whether the Arab-Israel conflict is resolved. When democracies form around Israel, Israel would become more secure, he contends.

The conflict, he asserts, causes much of the region's turmoil and also is an excuse for extremism. A lasting peace must be made between the peoples, not just the elites. Without peace, Israel would not be able to deal with the emerging democracies.

In Pres. Gul's view, eventually the region would go democratic. It should follow the will of the people, not have policies that are "unjust, undignified, and humiliating.

He proposes that Israel follow the Arab Peace Initiative and withdraw from acquired territory and gain normal relations with the Arab countries.

Trying to enlist the U.S. in this effort, Gul declares, "The U.S. has a long overdue responsibility to side with international law and fairness when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process," and that this would benefit Israel (NY Times, 4/21/11, Op.-Ed).

Every point he made is dubious.

How can Turkey mediate honestly, when it is a Muslim country hostile to Israel and favoring Israel's enemies?

What evidence is there that the revolts were for democracy or can achieve it? In Egypt, the military and the Moslem Brotherhood are the dominant forces. In Jordan, the Islamists are the main protestors. In Syria, the Sunnis are the main protestors. In Bahrain, the Shiites are protesting repression by the Sunni majority, but how would they act if they got power. It has been coming out that the Libyan revolt may be more a matter of Radical Islam and of tribal rivalry likely to end in a bloodbath no matter which side wins. Perhaps the revolt in Tunisia will end well.

Democracy is not the be all and end all that Pres. Gul imagines it to be. There is no basis for assertions that if the Arabs became democratic, they would drop jihad. For example, the people of Egypt would prefer war with Israel.

The Mideast has much turmoil. Only a small part of it is due to the Arab-Israel conflict. There is no reason for that conflict other than the Islamic desire for religious hegemony. If Islam became tolerant, there would be peace. Peace is up to Islam, not to Turkey, the U.S., or Israel.

Much Mideast turmoil probably is avoided, because being anti-Zionist is a unifying force.

That the Arabs call their peace initiative is a call for Israeli surrender to Arafat's phased plan for the conquest of Israel. More about that in the next article. But here let us not Pres. Gul's incorrect statement that the initiative means normal relations. The initiative states that after Israel withdrew, the Arabs could consider normalizing relations. How likely they are to normalize may be gauged by the treaties already signed between Israel and Egypt and Jordan to normalize relations. Both Arab countries violate those treaties by not normalizing relations; the workers' guilds punish members to try to act normally toward Israel.

It is insulting of him to suggest that the U.S. does not follow international law, and acts that way in order to side with Israel. U.S. policy mostly sides with the Arabs, and distorts international law in order to do so. How fair is the U.S. in demanding Israeli but not Arab withdrawal, in demanding that Israel not defend itself much, in demanding that Israel remove security checkpoints, in demanding that Israel discriminate against legal Jewish housing but not stop illegal Arab housing, and in arming some of Israel's enemies, including Palestinian Authority terrorists and the pro-Hizbullah Lebanese Armed Forces?

How would it benefit Israel to shrink back to the territory it had in 1949, thereby losing secure borders? Wouldn't the Arabs continue to demand Israeli territory, inasmuch as jihad does not recognize the sovereign rights of non-Muslims?

As we have explained at length, Gul is imposing Islamist dictatorship over Turkey, by undermining, repressing, or taking over the country's media, universities, judiciary, and military. Israel would have to be crazy to accept mediation by a country that became hostile to it in order to ally itself with Iran, that defends Iran against criticism of its wrongdoing, and that supports Arab terrorists against Israel and oppose only Kurdish terrorists.

We Americans and those of us who are Jewish should not be smug about democracy, whose preservation requires eternal vigilance. If you follow my writing, you know about the increasing federal encroachment upon our way of life, Constitutional Rights, and on our freedoms via censorship, over-detailed, punitive regulations that cause problems including oppression from excessive discretionary power.

You also would know about the many non-democratic aspects of Israeli governance such that the people keep trying to elect officials who represent them against jihad, but get officials who surreptitiously collaborate with the State Dept. or with or in behalf of the Arabs. Then, like Defense Min. Barak in today's New York Times, reportedly tells people not to use the word, "treason," to describe such behavior (as his).

The Times, as much of the media, has become an organ of propaganda. Instead of informing people it induces people to conform to its views. The Times keeps many readers ignorant of jihad and of how government and taxation operate. The Times constantly campaigns for Israeli surrender to the war-like Arabs as if that would make peace. The editors fail to advise readers that it long has been anti-Zionist. Instead, it pretends to care about Israel, the country it constantly slights.


The evaluator is Mordechai Kedar of the Center for the Study of the Middle East and Islam (under formation), Bar-Ilan University (Middle Eastern Insights No. 6, 4/15/11).

Mr. Kedar once appeared on TV with the Saudi King's diplomatic adviser, Dr. Muhammad al Zulfa. Kedar suggested that the Arab League negotiate with Israel the details of its initiative.

Dr. Al Zulfa insisted that Israel accept and implement the plan without any change or discussion, it is non-negotiable. Only then would the Arabs talk with Israel.

Kedar asked, would Saudi Arabia or any other Arab state accept and implement any proposal dictated by foreigners, in detail and without its involvement? How could Israel accept an Arab treaty about Israeli national security without being able to negotiate any changes?

The presentation of the Arab initiative shows their contempt and (religious) sense of superiority. They must want to push Israel into indefensible borders.

"The Arab desire to tear away the Old City of Jerusalem, the capital of the Jewish people for 3,000 years, essentially reflects an Islamic refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish religion and expresses the belief that Islam emerged to replace Judaism rather than coexist with it. (Incidentally, according to this approach, Christianity too lost its role after the arrival of Islam.)

Kedar believes that the initiative aims to make Israel cede its territorial assets irreversibly. Then some or all Arabs would find excuses to renege. They would defeat Israel without suffering Arab casualties.

Current uprisings leading to calls in Egypt to cancel its treaty with Israel highlight the peril in making more concessions to the Arabs.

"Israel would have to be clearly suicidal to enter today into a process that enables the establishment of another Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria after we already have a terror "state" in Gaza that torments Israel with rockets and missiles made there or smuggled from Iran. There is no country in the world that can guarantee that the Arab League commitment to recognize Israel will be honored by a new Palestinian state, particularly if it is again taken over by Hamas through elections as in January 2006 or a military coup as in June 2007. Will the armies of Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Libya come to the territory of a Palestinian state to disperse the Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades or confiscate missiles and mortars from Islamic Jihad?" (IMRA, 4/15/11
http://www.imra.org.il/ from mkedar@mail.biu.ac.il).

The initiative would use up all of Israel's bargaining chips in return for a statement that maybe the Arabs would normalize relations with Israel. Would you buy from a used car lot, sight unseen, because the salesman lauds the car? He wants just your money. Jihadists want Jewish lives.

Jihadists have a philosophy and a record of reneging on agreements. Consider the 17 years of major, multiple, continuous violation of the Oslo Accords by the PLO. Why should Israel trust the Arab League, the group that endorsed earlier wars of aggression upon Israel?

Suspicion of the initiative is well grounded. What then commends itself to Israeli and other Western supporters of it? How come they didn't ask the prudent questions that Kedar did? Shouldn't their support of it forfeit their influence?


Although the Bangladesh regime professes secularism, organized Muslims have been freely seizing Hindus' property, destroying their temples, and threatening their lives. In the latest assault, Muslims burned the Hindu scripture known as "Srimad Bhagabad Gita" in the temple complex of Sribas Angan in the vicinity of Beyani Bazar of Sylhet district.
(http://hinduexistence.wordpress.com/2011/04/13/ mohammedan-fanatics-burned-sacred-hindu- scripture-srimad-bhagabad-gita/).

Ethnic cleansing of Hindus and Sikhs and of their temples has been almost completed in Bangladesh as well as in Pakistan and Kashmir, in addition to terrorism in India.

The UN does not notice. President Obama does not notice. He and the UN are concerned about legal Jewish housing in Israel's capital and the non-riotous burning of a Koran in Florida. They express concern for Muslims, often who are not victims, but not much for non-Muslims.

The lesson for us is that Presidents and international agencies and NGOs may assert an interest in civil liberties, but that assertion masks their intolerance. ANOTHER PEACE PROPOSAL, THOUGHTLESSLY ENDORSED

Haaretz intelligence correspondent Yossi Melman discovered from Wikileaks another proposed final status agreement between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. The key point in this proposal is that Israel would let in the dwindling number of aged refugees born in what now is Israel and who fled during the War for Independence.

Mr. Melman approves. It did not occur to him that for jihadists, there is no such thing as a final status arrangement unless Islam dominates. Once the aged refugees returned, the cry would go up for family reunification. Young relatives would insist on entering to provide geriatric care.

This likely outcome was not difficult to imagine. When intelligence experts such as Melman fail to imagine such an outcome, one wonders what other lapses of critical thinking befell them.

The proposed return assumes that the former refugees have the same legitimate feelings for the country as do Jews, whose homeland it was (IMRA, 4/15/11 from
http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/week-s-end/ the-power-of-words-once-spoken-1.356143).

Most of those Arabs were relatively recent immigrants. They had no notion of homeland or of nationality. They thought of themselves as members of families and clans, as Muslims, and in a mild sense as southern Syrians.

They forfeited their opportunity when they and neighboring Arabs sought to destroy Israel and drive its people into the sea. Genocidal jihadists do not deserve any consideration from Israel nor from anybody else except from the Arab states that made many of them flee.

I perceive the proposal as another way of getting Israel gradually to assume responsibility for Palestinian Arabs, after which to assume blame for their hardships. The proposal is a way of evading Muslim Arab responsibility for the Arab-Israel conflict and the resulting hardships for both sides.


If Israel were merely the most effective battle-tested laboratory available to the USA, the source for over 600 modifications of the F-16, and thousands of cutting-edge modifications in hundreds additional US military systems, enhancing US national security, while providing the US defense industries a unique mega-billion dollars competitive edge in the global market, expanding US employment, research & development and export infrastructures - Da'ye'nu (it would have sufficed to crown Israel as a unique two-way-street ally of the USA);

If Israel were merely the source of breakthrough battle tactics, which were the first to penetrate/jam/destroy the most sophisticated Soviet/Russian surface-to-air missile batteries and radar systems, in addition to transferring to the US the first Soviet MIG-21 and 23 and other Soviet military systems, which tilted global balance of power in favor of the USA, providing the US defense industries with mega-billion dollars bonanza - Da'ye'nu;

If Israel were merely the source of intelligence — shared with the USA - which exceeds the scope of intelligence received by the US from all NATO countries combined (according to Senator Daniel Inouye, former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and current Chairman of the full Appropriations Committee) and is equal to five CIAs (according to retired General George Keegan, former Chief of US Air Force Intelligence) - Da'ye'nu;

If Israel were merely the country which destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 (in defiance of global opposition), thus providing the USA a conventional option in the 1991 Gulf War, sparing the US a potential traumatic nuclear confrontation - Da'ye'nu;

If Israel were merely a source of battle-proven experience and military systems — combating IEDs, car bombs, suicide bombers and generic terrorism — shared with US Special Operations units, which battle Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus minimizing US losses - Da'ye'nu;

If — as stated by the late General Alexander Haig, former Supreme Commander of NATO and former Secretary of State -Israel were merely the largest American aircraft carrier which does not require a single American personnel, which cannot be sunk, which is the most battle-tested and cost-effective, and located in a region, which is critical to vital US economic and national security interests - Da'ye'nu;

If there would not be an Israel in the eastern flank of the Mediterranean, and the US would have to deploy to the region real aircraft carriers with tens of thousands of American servicemen, costing the US taxpayers $20BN annually and possibly dragging the US into local and regional conflicts — all of which has been spared by the existence and capabilities of the Jewish State - Da'ye'nu;

If there would not be havoc in Arab lands, highlighting the Jewish State as the only stable, reliable, credible, capable, predictable, democratic and non-conditional ally of the USA — Da'ye'nu;

If Israel were not the place where- according to Warren Buffett — hundreds of major American companies and investors shop for innovative ideas, which they transform into technologies, products and manufacturing lines, benefitting both American and Israeli employment, trade, research & development and exports — Da'ye'nu;

If Israel were not the source of hundreds of revolutionary medical device, healthcare, telecommunications, Internet, laptops, cellular and social networking technologies/products.- enhancing quality of life in the US and throughout the globe — Da'ye'nu;

If US-Israel covenant were not uniquely based on shared values (dating back to the Pilgrims and the US Founding Fathers), joint interests and mutual threats — Da'ye'nu (It would have sufficed to crown Israel as a unique two-way-street ally of the USA). (IMRA, 4/18
http://www.imra.org.il/ from Yoram Ettinger)

Suppose Egypt became democratic for a time. The people would abrogate the treaty with Israel, promote terrorism against Israel, probably invade Israel, and then oppress their own people, especially women and Christians. So let us not go overboard for democracy.


An unfortunate by-product of Saddam's overthrow is that Iraqi Christians are not being murdered. Although Christians represented 5% of the population, they constitute 40% of Iraqi refugees.

Saddam had utilized and protected Christians, because he trusted they would not try to overthrow him and he held back the Radical Muslims. Islamists consider the Christians pagans and warn them to leave or die. Beheading and crucifixion of Christians occur regularly. There are fatwas declaring it permissible to spill their blood, but the fatwas are superfluous.

Since the U.S. troops entered, more than 60 churches have been bombed, 711 Christians murdered, and half the Christian population made into internal and external refugees. In Egypt, many Christians seek to emigrate before it is too late.

"This anti-Christian violence is sustained by a widespread culture of Muslim supremacism that extends far beyond those who pull the triggers and detonate the bombs."

Do tyrants such as Saddam brutalize their society, or is the society so brutal as to require a tyrant to keep order?

The U.S. may have made a grave mistake in empowering the people there, for persecution is what they do with their power. Majority rule means domination by the biggest group, which may mean by Islamists. q

The U.S. has a president who considers himself a humanitarian. He does nothing about the terrible persecution in Iraq. But in the name of being humanitarian, he protests the al-Qaida-connected rebels in Libya. Obama does not mention persecution by Muslims. If he did, Muslims would claim to be insulted. He is trying to win their favor For a more complete account, read Raymond Ibrahim's "The Silent Extermination of Iraq's 'Christian Dogs'" below.

In answer to Mr. Ibrahim's question, I think that Muslim Arab culture is brutal and the brutes who run it make matters worse. Consider that the Palestinian Arab dictators have been indoctrinating their people in bigotry and terrorism, thereby ruining even the slightest chance of peace developing there.

Is it coincidence that President Obama seems always to favor Radical Islam over innocent victims? How does that protect Americans?

When the Arab uprisings occurred, Westerners immediately declared them democratic. I admit I was fooled for a while. Westerners also claimed that the uprisings disprove the notion that Muslims cannot be democratic. They made their claim before the proof was in. The revolutions are turning sour. Too much was expected of people whose religion denies minority rights, whose culture is violent, and whose societies lack democratic institutions and experience.


An Israeli Arab lawyer in Acre has been indicted for acting as a go-between for her client, Ayoub Hamza of the Majahat Kuds terrorist organization in Gaza and gang members imprisoned in Israel.

Israel arrested three other lawyers in northern Israel for doing likewise. They get well paid for illegal message-transmitting.

"Lt.-Col. (ret.) Meir Indor of Almagor, the Terror Victims Association, said of Suhir's arrest, 'The frequent visits by lawyers to convicted terrorists has become a national plague.'"

"'These visits have nearly nothing to do with the requirement of legal representation,... it has become clear that they are an effective method designed by the terror organizations to enable the relay of messages between organization heads and operatives, many of them having to do with operational orders about terror attacks." (Arutz-7, 4/20/11 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/)

The usual judicial procedures are not very effective in what is a religious war.


Some departments of Israeli universities, especially Ben-Gurion University, are dominated by the Far Left, which practices thought control. These departments intimidate non-leftists into silence and impose their own views on the students. Their ideology is extremely anti-Zionist. They are so irrational in their views that they call for an international boycott against their own universities.

When people object to unpatriotic and political indoctrination at those universities, the leftists there claim that they have freedom of speech and that critics are attempting to repress their speech. They recommend that the critics' speech be repressed.

Word about this academic treason [and the low academic requirements in recruiting almost exclusively leftists] is getting out. Foreign donors have been deserting those universities or donating to specific, not-political projects there.

In reaction, the leftists call the donors names. Such behavior is not likely to restore contributions (Prof. Steven Plaut, 4/20/11).


The people from the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) work for Jews in Judea-Samaria, they earn double what they get in the P.A..

The P.A. officially bans such work, but has not enforced the ban. If the ban were put to a free vote, would they decide to boycott the Jews or would they vote to keep working in "settlements?" (IMRA, 4/18/11 http://www.imra.org.il/).

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, April 22, 2011.

Here are the principles, according to the New York Times:

#1 Israel to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders

#2 Palestinians accept that they would not get the right of return to land in Israel from which they fled or were forced to flee. [AL: odd wording as it does not rule out "right of return" of refugees to within Israel, just that they do not have the right to a specific address inside Israel (e.g. the Lefties in Ramat Aviv don't have to worry that someone will knock on their doors to kick them out of the property that they claim their great grandfather once lived in, but that doesn't mean that millions won't land at Ben Gurion Airport to settle somewhere else in Israel demanding the compensation money they expect to receive for the Ramat Aviv or other property they can't move into] - is Helene Cooper not familiar with the terms of reference or is this the nuance wording the Obama team has come up with that exploits the Israeli tendency not to actually read anything longer than one word?

#3 Jerusalem would be the capital of both states

#4 Israeli security would have to be protected. [AL: Pigs can fly. Because you cannot actually have #4 if you have the other points. ]

This below is called "Invitation to Israeli Leader Puts Obama on the Spot," and was written by Helene Cooper and it appeared April 20, 2011 in The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/ middleeast/21prexy.html


WASHINGTON — A Republican invitation for Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to address Congress next month is highlighting the tensions between President Obama and Mr. Netanyahu and has kicked off a bizarre diplomatic race over who will be the first to lay out a new proposal to reopen the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

For three months, White House officials have been debating whether the time has come for Mr. Obama to make a major address on the region's turmoil, including the upheaval in the Arab world, and whether he should use the occasion to propose a new plan for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

One administration official said that course was backed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and the president himself, but opposed by Dennis B. Ross, the president's senior adviser on the Middle East.

As the administration has been pondering, Mr. Netanyahu, fearful that his country would lose ground with any Obama administration plan, has been considering whether to pre-empt the White House with a proposal of his own, before a friendly United States Congress, according to American officials and diplomats from the region.

"People seem to think that whoever goes first gets the upper hand," said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator and a director at the New America Foundation. Using Mr. Netanyahu's nickname, he said: "If Bibi went first and didn't lay out a bold peace plan, it would be harder for Obama to say, actually, despite what you said to Congress and their applause, this is what I think you should do."

The political gamesmanship between the two men illustrates how the calculation in the Middle East has changed for a variety of reasons, including the political upheaval in the Arab world. But it also shows the lack of trust and what some officials say is personal animosity between Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu.

White House officials are working on drafts of a possible proposal, but they have not decided how detailed it will be, or even whether the president will deliver it in a planned speech. If Mr. Obama does put forward an American plan, officials say it could include four principles, or terms of reference, built around the final status issues that have bedeviled peace negotiators since 1979.

The terms of reference could call for Israel to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders. For their part, Palestinians would have to accept that they would not get the right of return to land in Israel from which they fled or were forced to flee. Jerusalem would be the capital of both states, and Israeli security would have to be protected.

Mr. Netanyahu has made it clear that he wants Israel's security needs addressed before any peace deal with the Palestinians. He has become even more concerned about security because shifts in power among Arab states in recent months have weakened Israel's already fragile relations with its neighbors, particularly Egypt.

The tussling between the Obama administration and the Israeli government reached a peak last week when Mrs. Clinton, in Washington at a meeting of the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, announced that Mr. Obama would be "speaking in greater detail about America's policy in the Middle East and North Africa in the coming weeks."

Her announcement electrified Israeli officials, who quickly got on the phone with American officials and journalists to determine whether Mr. Obama had decided to put an American plan on the table. He had not made such a decision, and White House officials cautioned that the internal debate was still going on.

But two days later, the House speaker, John A. Boehner of Ohio, announced his intention to invite Mr. Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress. "America and Israel are the closest of friends and allies, and we look forward to hearing the prime minister's views on how we can continue working together for peace, freedom and stability," Mr. Boehner said in a news release.

Like many other foreign leaders, Mr. Netanyahu has addressed Congress before. He did so in 1996, and four other Israeli prime ministers have over the past 35 years. The platform gives American elected leaders the opportunity to publicly demonstrate their support for Israel before the politically crucial Israel lobby.

Mr. Netanyahu's address will coincide with the planned meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, arguably the most powerful of the American groups that advocate for Israel.

Brendan Buck, Mr. Boehner's press secretary, said that staff members had received no pushback from the White House about the invitation to Mr. Netanyahu. "Obviously, it's a troubled time for the region," he said. "Our members have been very interested in demonstrating that we stand with Israel."

Last November, Representative Eric Cantor, Republican of Virginia, told Mr. Netanyahu that the new G.O.P. majority in the House would "serve as a check on the administration," in a statement that was rare for its blunt disagreement on American foreign policy as conveyed to a foreign leader.

Mr. Cantor put out a statement after a meeting with Mr. Netanyahu saying that he "made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other."

Brian Katulis, a national security expert with the Center for American Progress, a liberal research organization, said that Republicans were trying to "make Israel a partisan wedge issue." "And that's bad for Israel, and that's bad for the United States," Mr. Katulis said. But he added that the administration would never publicly, or even privately, oppose the notion of an Israeli leader addressing Congress.

Two American officials, speaking on condition of anonymity out of diplomatic caution, said they thought that if Mr. Netanyahu intended to make a bold proposal for a peace deal with the Palestinians, he would do so before his own people in the Knesset.

"Instead of focusing on peace-making, everybody seems to be focused on speech-making," said Martin S. Indyk, vice president for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution and a former United States ambassador to Israel. "And unless the speeches generate peace negotiations, making speeches will not generate peace."

Much of the debate is taking place under a pending deadline of the United Nations General Assembly meeting scheduled in September, when the Assembly is expected to broadly endorse Palestinian statehood in a vote that could prove deeply embarrassing to Israel and the United States, which are both expected to vote against it.


This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: April 22, 2011

An article on Thursday about tensions between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel misstated the location of a speech last week in which Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced that Mr. Obama would offer details soon about America's policies in the Middle East. It was in Washington, D.C., at a meeting of the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, not in Qatar.

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC] (http://eufunding.org.uk)
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, April 22, 2011.

1. See this photo of the head of the communist-front Israeli "peace" group Machsom Watch, paying a pilgrimage visit to the mother of one of the MURDERERS of the Itamar babies, to support and comfort the mother of the MURDERER:
(http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=209083609110174& set=a.209083575776844.52570.116311335054069&type=1&theater)

Raya Yaron, Machsom Watch spokesman, comforting Nuf Awad, baby-killer's mother

Needless to say, the Yaron did not go to Itamar to comfort the victims of the murder.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print= print&type=0&item=143663

Leftists Visit, Hug Mother of Fogel Murderer
Nissan 17, 5771, 21 April 11 09:02
by Gil Ronen

(Israelnationalnews.com) Several ultra-leftist groups organized a visit to the Arab village of Awarta on Saturday, April 16, in support of the villagers and against the IDF's activities there in the search for the murderers of Ruth and Rabbi Ehud Fogel and their children Yoav (11), Elad (4) and Hadas (three months).

The leftists visited several homes in the Samaria village, including that of the Awad family, which spawned the murderers. The identities of the confessed murderers were released for publication on Sunday, the day after the visit. The murderers were already in IDF custody at the time of the leftists' visit and their arrest - including the fact that they are relatively young - was already widely rumored and hinted at by the press.

A photograph from the visit which can be viewed here, posted by one of the activists on her Internet blog, shows Raya Yaron, spokeswoman of Machsom Watch, comforting a woman described as being 37 years old and "in a deep depression." The blogger explained in her post that the woman fainted during the leftist women's visit and was distraught over the arrest of her husband, her two sons and a daughter.

The woman is easily recognizable as Nuf Awad, mother of Hakem Awad, whose photograph was featured on the front page of Arab newspaper al-Hayat al-Jadida Monday.

"It is impossible that my son did this," she is quoted by the paper as saying. "My son doesn't know how to slaughter a chicken" (the translation is from the Seventh Eye media-watch website). The two murderers confessed, however, to slaughtering five human beings and investigators reported that they expressed no remorse, and even said that had they realized there were two more children sleeping in the house, they would have killed them as well. They saw no problem in slitting baby Hadas's throat, they explained, since she was a Jew.

Another leftist visitor, Yaakov Manor of the Center for Alternative Information, described the visit thus on the AIC's Hebrew website:

"The horror that we witnessed at the home of the family of Muhammad Awad cannot be described as anything but a pogrom - a primitive and brutal act of revenge intended to strike fear and awe into the hearts of the residents..." "The father, Muhammad, 45, the son Majdi, 20, a third year university student, the son Amjad, 19, a freshman university student, and the son Hakem, 17, were arrested."

At about the same time that Manor wrote the post, a court lifted a gag order and allowed the press to publish the names and photos of the murder suspects. One of them was 17 year old Hakem Awad. The other was his cousin, Amjad Awad, who is apparently not the same Amjad mentioned above as brother of Hakem.

Machsom Watch is a women's group that interferes with soldiers looking for weapons and explosives at checkposts and is a member of the Women's Coalition for Peace. Both are radical groups that espouse a pacifist, anti-religious and anti-Western brand of gender feminism, and both received considerable funding from the New Israel Fund as recently as 2007, according to NGO Monitor.

Despite allegations of siding with Israel's enemies, the New Israel Fund is still perceived as a legitimate body by many liberals in Israel and outside it.

As reported on Arutz Sheva, Israel Online Ambassadors said Sunday that these leftist groups had crossed a red line. "The time has come to make leftist groups that support murderers illegal. Whoever supports baby killers has no place in a democratic society," the group said in a statement.

Nuf Awad on Al-Hayat al-Jadida: 'he couldn't slaughter a chicken'

2. The news of the massive refusal of Jewish donors to support Ben Gurion University as long as it continues to operate as Israel's University of Treason continues to thunder in Israel.

In the Hebrew news web site News1 comes an interesting Op-Ed written by Yehuda Drori. The writer was once in charge of fundraising for the Keren Kayemet fund in the American southwest. His article in News1 is entitled, "No Contributions to Slanderers and their Patrons." His article calls on people to contact donors and supporters of Ben Gurion University and other Israeli schools, and to call upon them NOT to support those academics involved in slandering Israel and serving anti-Semites and Israel bashers.

The following my translation of the article:

There is only one choice left to those of us who seek the eviction of those who slander Israel from Israel's academic institutions, and it is to appeal directly to donors and contributors to these schools, both foreign and Israeli donors, and to clarify to them that their generosity is being misused by these institutions to serve anti-Semitism and the enemies of the country.

Thirty years ago I was in charge of fundraising for the Keren Kayemet in the American southwest. I was generally successful in this capacity, especially when persuading donors that their contributions were serving Israel's development. Hundreds of generous Jews from outside Israel contribute each year to Israeli universities, as well as to hospitals and other projects that contribute towards Israel's development.

A few years back I discovered that a university in northern Israel (he means University of Haifa — SP) had eliminated all benefits for Israeli army vets. At the same time, it not only created preferences and benefits for Arab students, but also granted to them the right to organize politically on campus, including holding of incitement rallies against the country. The university refused to do anything at all about this, and simply barricaded itself behind the distorted mantras about supposed 'equality and democracy.'

It should be crystal clear that the status of an army vet who served his country for three years is not the same as that of an Arab youth who sat at home or worked for wages during the same period. It is clear that equality does not begin just at the university gate. And it is also clear that criminal incitement is not part of freedom of speech. Especially not chants of "Massacre the Yids" or the flying of PLO flags on campus. It also does not grant the right to silence speakers on campus who happen to oppose the 'rights' of the 'Palestinian people.'

Since there was no response at all to direct appeals to the officers of this university, I obtained the list of donors to the school and sent personal letters to each one, including translations of newspaper clippings. I described for them the outrageous scandal they were supporting. How they were in fact being put in the position of supporting anti-Semites and anti-Zionists. And I learned that my efforts bore fruit.

The officers of the school revoked most of the pseudo-"egalitarian" decisions that had been made. It placed constraints on the campus political activities of Arab students. This shows that if you want to create a separation between criminal incitement and freedom of speech, it is necessary to hit the phony "enlightened" do-gooders and bleeding hearts smack in their wallets!

We recently read in Maariv about an American donor who has frozen a promised contribution to Ben Gurion University because of the campus web of anti-Israel and pro-PLO incitement being operated from within by Neve Gordon. At the same time the CEO of the university, Rivka Carmi, who is herself identified with the Left, defends and justifies Gordon and his repulsive activities, all supposedly in the name of academic freedom and democracy, slogans that have become the last refuge of all haters of Israel and enemies of the country.

Next month hundreds of donors will be coming to Israel from all corners of the Diaspora to the Board of Governors meetings of Ben Gurion University. It is my intention, and everyone is welcome to join me, to explain to these representatives from all over the world that their support for Ben Gurion University must be conditioned on the eviction of the criminal inciter Neve Gordon and of his enabler Rivka Carmi.

All the chatter and patter about friendly persuasion and compromise with the university have long been proven to be pointless. We are in a war for our future and our image, and the enemy must be neutralized. Today we know who that enemy is and how to deal with him.

The full article in Hebrew appears here:

3. Israel's main Fifth Column:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4059449,00.html Israel's OTHER Fifth Column:

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@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, April 22, 2011.

If Netanyahu had any balls he'd declare sovereignty over all the land from the ocean to the sea and beyond, according to the dictates of the San Remo Resolution and all the subsequent treaties that are still good law binding the US. What this means is that the artificial state created out of the Jewish Homeland for the Hashemites would be restored to Israel and the arab invaders occupying Judea and Samaria would be pushed back to Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon etc. from whence they came. And Shimon Peres would be hung for trading with the enemy.

If Jews here in the US help the arabs destroy Israel, these very same Jews will once again be regarded as lower than gypsies. Fit only to be tormented, scapegoated, and hunted down, and not just by arabs. And this will happen if you Jews at the LA Times and the NYT help the arab thieves destroy Israel. Why so? Because the arabs don't lie when they say: After we destroy the Saturday People, we will exterminate the Sunday People.

And we cannot say these traitorous Jews who are begging for another arab terrorist state are not asking for just such a fate because everybody knows how Arabs despise people who are disloyal to their tribe. We have come to believe that arabs find it easy to exploit Jews because Jews are thin-skinned, vain, emotional, creative, and politically stupid. Arabs laugh at Jews because Jews are so quick to savage each other before even tinking about savaging their declared enemies, thereby proving their disloyalty to their tribe. Think about it--if you use your bully pulpit to help the arabs destroy Israel, this won't stop the arabs from hunting you down and tormenting you thereafter, because in their eyes, you've turned yourself once again into a spiritually homeless Jew who can be counted on to run when chased. You Jews who betray your brethren will be considered lower than a crusader-Catholic, who at least has had the good sense to preserve a nominal respect for the Pope and the Vatican.

Are you Jews at the LA Times and the NYT oblivious to the fact that the arabs disrespect Hillary? That they find it easy to let her know how they laugh at her behind her back? And she's trapped by her ambition in a losing task of pleasing her husband's Saudi benefactors and her boss, and we suspect she thinks she can buy herself some respect by sacrificing Israel on the altar of the arab oil-backs. Her peripatetic bowing boss made a laughing stock out of our nation. And she knows it, too. And you faux journalists aren't fooling the arabs by pandering to their dangerously misguided ambitions.

P.S. Obama doesn't know what in hell he's doing, he needs dozens of pricey "czars" to tell him what to do. And script writers, too. But he sure likes the catering service on Air Force One. And so do your reporters.

If the editors of the New York Times and the LA Times knew anything about international law they would be hung for treason for advocating for yet another state for avowed arab terrorists. Arab terrorists who are unafraid to spit in your collective faces because they learned that your faux journalists will pretend that their spit is spring rain. Which in part explains why thinking Americans condemn the LA Times as a rag sheet fit only for amusement and recipes.

We are the SC4Z (Secular Christians for Israel) and we stand by the Patriots of Israel.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, April 21, 2011.

Mr Schanzer:

Still hopa-hopa-hoping that your voice for "the peace of the dead" will make you a Nobel candidate? For goshsake, give it up. You can talk about peace to the arabs you hope to convert til you're blue in your face, and this won't stop the camel from forcing its way into places it doesn't belong.

When an arab tells you he's going to kill you, he's not funning you, and if you've still got your marbles, you don't just sit there with your blouse open hoping the arab cobra will slither up and be reformed by you squeezing the milk of your Jewish kindness into its fanged mouth.

Hamas has to be conquered. And since you are a Jew, we understand why you shrink from using the word "exterminate." Thankfully, we are free of that baggage, so we can only hope that Jews will finally realize in time for it to do them some good that if you don't hang together, you most certainly will hang separately. (Thank you Ben Franklin for those concise words.) Yep. The free world and Israel either exterminates these vipers or for sure they are going to exterminate you and if you're not up to this you are facing a world of horrors beyond anything the Nazis did to the Jews and the Poles and the Gypsies during WW II.

P.S. The State Dept. is infested with Saudi-poodles. Don't look to Hillary to waste her milk of human kindness on Jews. No. She'll first try to milk the Jews and worse still, she has the thin-skinned Jewish noodle-spines convinced she'll succeed. Somebody has got to tell the Jews that she's faking, but unfortunately, there's no Jew with the moxie up to that task.

Talk about the need to continue blathering for peace if you will, but understand that your eloquence cannot match the advantages accorded to the Clinton family by the Saudi "royals" who funded Bill's presidential library, thereby underwriting the nouveau riche lavish lifestyle the Clintons enjoy today while America's shrinking middle class fumes at her arrogant plonking. The Saudis figure Hillary for a boughten fool. And we believe Hillary suspects as much. Look at the expressions on the arab faces who are so smirking at her behind her back and you know they are dismissing her with the same impunity exhibited by Bing-bang Bandar who raised his shoe and pointed the underside of his "sandal" at Shrub's face.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z.

On Apr 21, 2011, at 3:58 PM, Jonathan Schanzer wrote the article below that is entitled "Misguided Engagement." It was published as Finnish Institute for International Affairs, Report #28, called "Hard Choices: The EU's Options in a Changing Middle East," (Timo Behr, ed), April 2011. It is archived at

Jonathan Schanzer is Vice President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a former intelligence analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury.


On June 20, 2007, Hamas leader Ahmed Yousuf published an opinion piece entitled "Engage with Hamas" in the American capital's premier newspaper, the Washington Post. After a brief but bloody struggle with the nominally secular Fatah faction, Yousuf's faction had only days earlier seized control of the Gaza Strip. Now in command of its own mini-state, the terrorist organization felt sufficiently emboldened to make a call for international recognition. "Hamas is stronger than ever," Yousuf gloated.[1]

In making its call to Washington elites, Hamas sought to encourage the growing number of voices calling for engagement with the terrorist group. Their narrative held that Hamas is pragmatic, even if it is violent, and can therefore be persuaded to make peace.

Ironically, the notion that Hamas could play the role of peacemaker first gained popularity during a period when the group was engaged in one of its most brutally violent campaigns. During the al-Aqsa Intifada, launched jointly by Hamas and Fatah in the wake of failed U.S.-led peace talks in late 2000 and early 2001, Western officials began reaching out to the group. In June 2002, former MI-6 officer and special European Union envoy to the Middle East Alistair Crooke, former CIA operative Milton Bearden, and other Western officials met with representatives from Hamas at the private, London-based Conflicts Forum.

"We need to engage those groups who have legitimacy, and listen to them...not listening and not talking to them prevents us from having the right analysis and the right tools," Crooke said. [2]

In an atmosphere of heightened terrorism awareness, it had somehow become insufficient to state that the West should not engage Hamas simply because it is a terrorist group. Nor was it sufficient to state that the group's 1988 charter (mithaq), which was never amended, openly calls for jihad, and further notes that "initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement."[3]

Even as Hamas's campaign of violence against Israeli civilians intensified, it was somehow banal to state that the organization was responsible for thousands of acts of political violence, ranging from suicide bombings and rocket fire to shootings and stabbings of Israeli civilians. Proponents of engagement with Hamas suggested then, as they do now, that one must differentiate between the military arm of the organization, the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, and the political bureau or the significant social welfare infrastructure the group has built over the years.

Proponents of engagement cede that the Qassam Brigades may be terrorists, but insist that terrorist activities are not the bulk of Hamas's work. In fact, in 2002, even amidst a heightened Hamas campaign against Israel, the EU added the Qassam Brigades to its list of terrorist groups, but not Hamas itself. [4]

The U.S. Treasury Department, however, soon breached this purported firewall between the wings of Hamas. In 2003, one Treasury designation, drawing from declassified intelligence, noted explicitly that "While Hamas may provide money for legitimate charitable work, this work is a primary recruiting tool for the organization's militant causes... Charitable donations to non-governmental organizations are commingled, moved between charities in ways that hide the money trail, and then often diverted or siphoned to support terrorism."[5] Soon after a 2003 bus bombing which killed 23 in Jerusalem,[6] the EU added both Hamas's military and political wings to its terrorist list.[7]

Nevertheless, the arguments that Hamas was a pragmatic political entity continued. Calls for engagement intensified when the organization officially entered politics in 2005, and announced that it would participate in the January 2006 elections. In November 2005, the EU announced that it would send an observer mission to monitor legislative Palestinian elections, and that it would have contact with all parties, including Hamas.[8]

Calls for engagement intensified after Hamas won those elections, which were deemed both free and fair. However, Western countries maintained a united front against normalizing relations with the group, given its refusal to renounce violence and unwillingness to engage in dialogue with Israel. However, these capitols ceded that if Hamas renounced violence, they would begin a process of normalization. Hamas refused.

The coup of June 2007, in which Hamas took full control of the Gaza Strip from Fatah by force — committing gruesome acts of violence against fellow Palestinians in the process[9] — was yet another indication that the organization was not interested in dialogue. However, the internecine war also made Hamas a government overnight. In many ways, the organization's new responsibilities as a government forced it to become more pragmatic. Realizing that violence would elicit painful Israeli responses like Operation Cast Lead of December 2008 and January 2009, Hamas has reined in (but did not halt completely) the rocket fire that had terrorized Israelis for nearly a decade. It has, since Operation Cast Lead ended, also ensured that the border between the two territories has remained relatively (but not completely) calm.

While the group began firing projectiles into Israel again in March 2011, Hamas has generally exceeded the low expectations placed on it by the international community. Rather than leading the Gaza Strip into the abyss of violence and all-out war with Israel, as many predicted, Hamas has (until now) stopped just short. It continues to arm itself and occasionally tests the limits of Israeli patience with rocket attacks that don't create quite enough damage to unleash a full Israeli retaliation. Indeed, Hamas for two years has chosen to avoid war. Perhaps this is why European policymakers seek to reward the group with dialogue.[10]

But to assess whether Hamas has truly moderated, or whether it has only pragmatically chosen to scale back on violence for reasons of self-preservation, one must take a closer look at the views and opinions of Hamas members today. Only this can provide a sense of the organization's future. To this end, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies employed military-grade software last year to gain a better understanding of what the organization's partisans do and say.[11]

The study found little to support the notion that Hamas has moderated. The study found, inter alia, that Hamas was actively working to reconcile its ideology with Salafists and other radical interpretations of Islam. Hamas and al-Qaeda sympathizers debated religion and politics on many levels, but regarding violence toward Israel, there was no disagreement between the Salafists and Hamas. Similarly, Hamas supporters were unwavering in their support for the aforementioned Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades.

More importantly, the Palestinian social media environment gives no indication that Hamas is willing to seek peace with Israel. There were no scored posts on this topic on any of the pro-Hamas forums. Nor were there any posts attributed to pro-Hamas users on this topic on other web forums. Indeed, the dominant position among Hamas users was rejectionist.

Of course, online data cannot, in and of itself, make the case against engagement with Hamas. However, it does mirror the unwavering rejectionist, violent, and anti-peace stance of the organization in the public space that has endured since Hamas's founding in late 1987. In short, there is little that might lead one to believe that Hamas is prepared for dialogue with Israel that might lead to peace.

For those who seek to engage with Hamas, however, there is usually another prong to the strategy: tougher policies against Israel. This approach, in recent years, has included a pressure campaign aimed at Israel's policies of expansion in the West Bank, coupled with an initiative at the United Nations that would force Israel to recognize a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders.

This strategy is as misguided as it is dangerous. It not only rewards terrorism and rejectionism by giving Hamas a free pass, it ignores the fact that Israel's democracy reacts to the threats around it. Right-of-center parties have governed Israel since the outbreak of the intifada in 2000 as a reaction to the rise in Palestinian radicalism. Left-of- center parties governed Israel during the 1990s when peace appeared possible. If the threat of Hamas recedes, it will not be long before the embattled Israeli peace camp finds its footing again.

Thus, rather than reach out to rejectionist groups, the European Union must find ways to invest in Palestinian reformers. With new elections slated for later this year, the West has an opportunity to support parties other than Hamas, which will not retreat from its violent platform, and Fatah, which is now under fire for being both ossified and corrupt.

These groups include but are certainly not limited to: the Palestinian National Initiative (Mubadara al-Wataniyya al-Filistiniyya) headed by Mustafa Barghouti,[12] Wasatia (translated as "balance" or "moderation") under Dr. Mohammed Dajani,[13] and Palestine Forum (Muntada Filastin) under Munib al-Masri.[14] All three of these parties officially advocate for nonviolence and political reform. To be sure, they only enjoy minimal popular support. However, amidst the "Arab Spring" sparked by the revolutions of January and February 2011 in Tunisia and Egypt, the Palestinians are looking for alternatives to the corruption and malaise that plague their societies.

If the goal of the EU is to help achieve peace in the Middle East, it makes little sense to engage with an organization that has vowed to prevent it. Instead, European policymakers must find ways to counter Hamas and other violent groups. Palestinian reform factions may offer an opportunity.


1 Yousuf, Ahmed (2007) "Engage With Hamas," Washington Post, 20 June 2007

2 Perelman, Marc (2005) "Ex-officials Push Engagement with Hamas, Hezbollah," Forward, 21 October 2005

3 "The Charter of Hamas"

4 Schiff, Zeev (2005) "Foreign Ministry protests EU contacts with Hamas officials," Haaretz, 16 June 2005

5 "U.S. Designates Five Charities Funding Hamas and Six Senior Hamas Leaders as Terrorist Entities," 22 August 2003.

6 McGreal, Chris (2003) "Palestinian suicide bomber kills 20 and shatters peace process," The Guardian, 20 August 2003

7 "European Union blacklists Hamas as terror group," Al-Bawaba, 11 September 2003

8 "Israel's concern over EU-Hamas relations," European Jewish Press, 22 November 2005

9 Urquhart, Conal & Black, Ian (2007) "Hamas Declares Victory," The Guardian, 15 June 2007

10 "Hamas wants dialogue with Europe," Gulf News, 29 July 2010

11 www.defenddemocracy.org/images/palestinian_pulse.pdf

12 www.almubadara.org/new_web/index_eng.htm

13 www.wasatia.info

14 www.palestineforum.ps

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, April 21, 2011.

This was written by Solly Ganor and it appeared yesterday on IsraPundit


Munich, April 12, 1946

"There is no such thing as a "bad" or 'good' exile. Every exile leads to extinction." Holocaust survivor Sheinson.

The harsh winter of 1946 in Munich was coming to an end. Spring was in the air and the Passover holiday was approaching. For us, Holocaust survivors, it was of tremendous significance. It was our first Passover Seder after our liberation. We were going to celebrate a double holiday of Freedom. One for the exodus of the Jews from Egypt and the other, our Exodus from Hitler's concentration camps. Yet the two events were vastly different. Moses managed to bring the whole Jewish people to freedom, whereas only a fraction of European Jewry survived the Holocaust. What were we to do? Spend the rest of our lives mourning for our nearest and dearest? The calamity was so enormous that had we mourned for a thousand years, it would not even make the tiniest dent in our grief. We also knew that those who perished wouldn't want us to do that. Their expressed wish was never to forget them, but to go on with our lives, rebuild the Jewish nation from scratch in our own homeland in Israel.

The debate of what should be the fate of the Sheerit Hapleta (the saved remnant) was going on in the DP camps all over Germany. Most of us were still in shock of the incredible liberation, when we were convinced that the Nazis would finish us off before their end came. Most of us were in a forced denial trying to shut out the gruesome experiences that no human being should have ever been subjected to. We couldn't function without that denial. The black hole of the Holocaust trauma would have swallowed us alive. But there was one thing that the majority agreed upon, that there is no other place for us, but Eretz Israel.

The project of the survivors Haggadah was born in Munich and the person whose brainchild it was, was my father's friend Sheinson. He had the idea that we survivors should have our own Haggadah, different from the traditional one. He was a fellow survivor from Lithuania, and he literally became obsessed with the project. Some thought it was a way of trying to forget what happened to him and his family. Not only did he write much of the text, but was involved in all the phases of its complicated logistics. He often consulted fellow Lithuanian Jews, among them my father, but he always made his final decision what to include and what to exclude from the Haggadah. I remember some of the arguments involving the text, as he advocated Allyah to Israel as the only way remaining to us survivors. Especially one sentence was objected by some: He wrote in Yiddish: "Nito kein shlechter oder guter goles. Yeder goles firt zum untergang." (There is no such thing as a "bad" or 'good' exile. Every exile leads to extinction.)

You must understand, that there were those among us, who were tired, dispirited, mourning after their nearest and dearest who perished in the Holocaust. The idea of going to Israel to face strife, hard work and war, after what they went through was impossible to accept. They simply couldn't take it anymore. Those of us who were determined to make Aliyah, could understand them. They simply didn't have it in them to continue to struggle indefinitely, as the struggle in Eretz Israel seemed to indicate. Still, Sheinson included that sentence, despite some protests.

The person who worked tirelessly to help us was U.S. Army chaplain Rabbi Abraham Klausner. He played an important role in all phases of our existence in Bavaria. From helping to establish the Central Committee of Liberated Jews in Bavaria, to founding the first Yiddish newspaper (Unzer Weg).

My father, who was one of the founders of the first Hebrew school in Munich and a member of the Central Committee, couldn't praise Rabbi Klausner enough for all he did for us survivors.

It was Rabbi Klausner who helped with the logistics of having the Haggadah printed. The printing of the Haggadah was done by a group that called itself "Achida." They were fellow survivors from Kovno Ghetto, who tried to avoid getting involved in the politics of the Yishuv in Eretz Israel. Ironically, the Haggadah was printed by a former Nazi printing house named Bruckman, who published during the war Nazi propaganda.

The two editors of Unzer Weg, Levi Shalit and Israel Kaplan, both fellow Lithuanians, took the Haggadah to Rabbi Klausner who accepted it and had it printed through army press facilities. There were some changes introduced by Klausner. The new cover was emblazoned with the tricolor insignia, in the middle of which there was a large white capital A, for the Third Army. (The army of occupation of Bavaria.) There was a poetic two-page introduction in English by Rabbi Klausner.

"And the khaki-clad sons of Israel commanded by Lt. General Trust gathered together as was the custom in Israel, to celebrate the Passover Festival."

Was the first sentence of the part of the Haggadah. The next page said in small letters: "We were slaves to Hitler in Germany"

Following was a Hebrew version and a Yiddish version of the Haggadah. Some of it was traditional text, but much was written by Sheinson's anguished soul, reflecting the anger of the horrors inflicted on us and hope for a new life in Eretz Israel.

Here is a passage in the Haggadah that Sheinson wrote. It is full of bitterness and irony towards the world.

"When the righteous among the nations of the world saw that Hitler had decided to exterminate Israel, their great assembly came together and out of their great sorrow decided to keep silent. And the righteous among them say: How can we in our weakness save Israel from the hands of the evil man! Perhaps this is the hand of G-d and who are we to interfere in the conduct of this world. And the people see how Israel is swimming in their blood and they pass by. And the children of Israel groaned and cried out but were not heard. And they cried out to the Lord, the G-d of their fathers, who saw their suffering and oppression, and their cry went up. And that man of evil, Hitler, made instruments of destruction which he sent across the sea, killing many. Babies were being killed and still no one knew what to do about it. Finally, the enemies of that man of evil grew indignant, and they girded themselves and unleashed against that man of evil and his people great wrath, rage and fury, disaster, and a band of avenging angels, afflicting them with two hundred and fifty plagues. And G-d hardened Hitler's heart. And instruments of destruction, and eagles of iron and copper shower fire and brimstone upon his garrison cities, killing man and beasts alike.

"And a multitude of chariots, as plenty as the sands of the sea, sweep across the land of the evil man, and destroy him, and the Holocaust survivors (Sheerit Hapletah, the saved remnant) are rescued and redeemed.

"When peace came down on earth, the people of Israel were gathering. The surviving remnants were coming out of the caves, out of forests, and out of death camps, returning to the land of their exile. The people of those lands greeted them and said: We thought you were no longer alive, and here you are, so many of you. And they sent the survivors all sorts of messages, telling them to leave the land, even killing them. And the people of Israel ran for their lives; they were sneaking across borders only to be robbed of everything they had. And they abandoned their homes, and they saved their lives, and they went to Bavaria in order to go up to our Holy Land."

Y.D. Sheinson

* * * * * *

This is but a small example of what is written in the Haggadah, we called survivor's Haggadah, but some, rightfully, call it Sheinson's Haggadah.

The full text of the Haggadah with an inspiring introduction by Professor Saul Touster can be obtained from the American Jewish Historical Society, in New York. ID # ISBN 0-911934-50-2

I would like to add that what makes the Haggadah even more unique are the printings of the original woodcuts surrounding each page. It was supplied by a superb artist and fellow survivor, Miklos Adler.

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Alex Maistrovoy, April 21, 2011.

Russia is probably not a friend of Israel, but much less dangerous than the West


"Another Tack: Kremlin or Canossa?" is the name of Sarah Honig's article in Jerusalem Post about Binyamin Netanyahu's visit to Moscow. I agree with Sarah on everything, almost on everything, to be more precise.

Russia is the ally of deadly enemies of Israel. Senior Russian officials have met with the political leader of Hamas, Moscow cooperates with Teheran and supplies Syria with rockets, knowing quite well that some of these weapons end up in the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas.

It is hardly possible to define the Putin-Medvedev regime as a developed democracy. It is a kind of Byzantine form of government with the democratic facade.

It's also difficult to "suspect" the Russian Orthodox Church of sympathy for Jews. Pogroms, "Black Hundreds" and the Pale of Settlement for Jews are the same gloomy part of Russian history, as czarism and serfdom. Sarah is really right: the current Moscow policy reminds of the policy of the USSR.

It's OK. I don't agree with Sarah only on one point: that Russian foreign policy is unpredictable.

On the contrary, the policy of the Kremlin is absolutely predictable, though such predictability can hardly please us.

In the Middle East Russia pursues specific political and economic goals. Its political goal is the maximum weakening of the USA and the West influence and regaining superpower status in the Middle East. Israel is the ally of the USA and thereby it becomes the object of Russian intrigue. The economic goal is arms-export profit. Russia is supplying weapons to the world's worst regimes, including Iran and Syria.

Russians have no sentiments: business is business. Besides, some Russian officials and diplomats (especially the ex-Soviet old guard) tend towards anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism in relations with Israel. These feelings don't define the political course, but color it.

The policy of the Kremlin is traditional, routine and mercantile. The term "unpredictability" should be used regarding the West, not Russia.

The purposes of the West are not at all clear. What made Barak Obama turn his back on Hosni Mubarak, the closest ally of the USA, at the first sign of danger? What do France, USA and Great Britain hope to achieve in Libya? Do they really believe that current turmoil in the Middle East is democratic revolutions, and the Muslim Brotherhood is not an extremist but secular movement?

What induced them after long years of friendship with Gaddafi to change their opinion radically during one night and decide to topple his regime? Don't they realize that supporting the insurgents they actually make Hezbollah and al-Qaida stronger and create the second Somalia? Why neither the White House, nor Paris nor London demand resignation of Assad, the ally of Iran? His regime is not less cruel, than Gaddafi's. How can Obama's demand of resignation of Yemeni president Ali Abdullah Saleh — the sworn enemy of al-Qaida — be explained?

The issue of Israel is even more confused. "Friends" of Israel in the West demand that Israel retreat to the borders of 1967, which Abba Eban once called "Auschwitz borders". Who demanded to stop building in Judea and Samaria as preconditions to negotiations? Putin? No, Obama.

Who broke the international conventions, recognized the independence of Kosovo, and is now going to recognize Palestinian independence? Is it the Kremlin? No, it's Washington, Paris and London. Who is so indignant about humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza ? They are Baroness Ashton, David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy, Samantha Power, and other Western politicians. Where is the demonization of Israel in full swing? In Russia? No, in European capitals, and liberal circles in the USA.

Calls for boycott of Israel don't come from Russian trade unions, scientists, politicians, or journalists. This campaign comes from London and Paris, Brussels and Stockholm, Ottawa and Los-Angeles, Madrid and Oslo. Russian composers, actors and writers willingly come to Israel, and aren't afraid to admire the Jewish State. "I feel Alarm because of the anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli sentiment growing throughout Europe and even further afield", - wrote Elena Bonner, the widow of great scientist and dissident Andrei Sakharov in 2009.

It's in the West that one can see massive anti-Israel demonstrations and find a lot of anti-Israeli literature. Anti-Semitism is being energetically spread by the Western mass media that are the second most hostile to Israel after the Arabian ones.

And one more important point: Israel-haters in Russia are marginal nationalists while in the West they are the ruling elite.

You are right: Russia can't be considered a friend of Israel, but does Israel have friends in the West? I know only one true friend — he is Canada's PM Stephen Harper. Some states in Eastern Europe sympathize with Israel too, but not the whole of the West.

Thus, I understand the purposes of Russia; they are quite clear, contrary to the purposes of the West. The actions of Russia are rational, they are realpolitik, and it is always possible to find a compromise on a practical basis. The actions of the West are unclear and therefore potentially harmful. I think that is the West that poses the real threat to Israel. I am afraid that the West will weaken Israel, and then betray it as it happened to Mubarak and earlier to Iranian Shah.

You are right, Sarah: there were monstrous pogroms in Russia. But after all, the Holocaust came not from Russia. It came from the West.

Alex Maistrovoy is a journalist. Contact him by email at alfeldm55@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, April 21, 2011.

This was written by Jim Kouri, CPP, formerly Fifth Vice-President and currently a Board Member of the National Association of Chiefs of Police;an editor for ConservativeBase.com; and a columnist for Examiner.com.


In the Obama Administration's continuing effort to embrace Muslims and their culture, the United States government will for the first time host an international Islamic forum held annually in the Middle East and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will headline the three-day event which begins today, according to a public-interest watchdog group that investigates and prosecutes government and political corruption.

Created to address issues critical to Arabs and Muslims, the U.S.-Islamic World Forum will come to Washington D.C. this week after eight years in Qatar. Clinton will be America's friendly host for the duration of the event, which begins Tuesday, and she will deliver the keynote address at a gala dinner on the first day, said officials from Judicial Watch.

Last year Hillary Clinton was the first senior member of a U.S. administration to participate in the U.S.-Islamic World Forum, which was held last February in Doha. At the event she announced President Obama's "new era of diplomatic engagement" with nations that have been "hostile to the United States" and promised to close the military prison at Guantanamo because it had "become a symbol of the wrong way to make America more secure."

"I wonder how Secretary Clinton will announce that Gitmo won't be closed as promised and that terrorists will be tried by the U.S. military justice system instead of the civilian courts? What sort of verbal gymnastics will she and Obama employ to ease the concerns of the Islamists?" former intelligence officer and New York police detective Mike Snopes rhetorically asked.

President Barack Obama recently participated via a video message that called for a "new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world." The commander-in-chief outlined a "government-wide approach" to improve the daily lives of Muslims and a commitment from senior administration officials — such as Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano — to engage Muslim communities in the U.S., said Judicial Watch officials.

Obama pledged to seek new partnerships in Muslim communities around the world and touted his efforts to engage with "faith leaders" and "civil society groups" to improve the nation's relationship with Muslims. The efforts are necessary, according to Obama, because the "United States and Muslims around the world have often slipped into a cycle of misunderstanding and mistrust that can lead to conflict rather than cooperation."

"This is almost the same liberal-left message we heard during the Cold War. While President Ronald Reagan portrayed it as a battle between the U.S. and the Evil Empire, the Soviet Union, the political left — some of whom are still in public office — portrayed it as a misunderstanding," said political strategist Mike Baker.

A similar message is expected to be delivered at this year's conference, which is being promoted as a platform for dialogue at the highest level between U.S. and Muslim public officials. The focus in Washington will be on the rapid, turbulent change in the Middle East and implications for Muslims around the world. The goal is to foster unique, positive relationships between policy makers business, cultural and religious leaders from across the Muslim world and the United States.

According to Judicial Watch, bringing the Islamic forum to the U.S. is simply the latest of many Muslim outreach efforts for the administration. In the last year alone Napolitano discussed national security matters with a group of extremist Muslim organizations, the nation's space agency (NASA) was ordered to focus on Muslim diplomacy and Clinton signed a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S.

The Obama Administration also sent an America-bashing mosque leader (Feisal Abdul Rauf) who blames U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on a Middle Eastern outreach mission and ordered a government-funded meal program for home-bound seniors to offer halal cuisine prepared according to Islamic law.

The Justice Department also created a special Arab-American and Muslim Engagement Advisory Group to foster greater communication, collaboration and a new level of respect between law enforcement and Muslim and Arab-American communities, Judicial Watch pointed out.

Special thanks to Judicial Watch's Jill Farrell, director of communications, for her valuable information.

Obama, "My Muslim Faith" video

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, April 20, 2011.

This appeared in Atlas Shrugged
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/ 2011/04/muslims-throw-their-women-overboard-overcrowded- refugee-boats-enroute-to-europe-.html?utm_source= twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook


The opposite of the West is Islam. The opposite of of humanity is the sharia. Remember the Titanic? When the ship was going down, the men put the women and children on the lifeboats and died like men. Here the Muslims throw the women overboard.


Here is an horrific update to this story: New Muslim Immigrants Testing Europe's "Unity"

Now we know why we don't see women among the thousands of Tunisian illegals flooding the Italian Island of Lampedusa BNI (hat tip Carl)

To prevent the overloaded boats from Tunisia and Libya headed for Lampedusa from capsizing, young males on board have been throwing the women overboard, most of whom apparently drowned. This could partly explain the virtual absence of any women among the Tunisian masses invading Lampedusa every day now

Le Figaro: When the small school bus in the town of Ventimiglia stops outside the station, some thirty immigrants take the assault immediately to the rotation to the shelter set up at the end of last week, authorities Municipal. The place is just a few miles from downtown, in a disused fire station in the valley of the Roya.Of the 500 to 600 Tunisians together this day last weekend near the station, only a minority will benefit from the emergency device.

"We installed 120 cots, and can reach 150 by tightening a bit," said Luciano Cosco, President of Green Cross localThe mayor offers them a meal they can take a shower and spend the night. "For others, it is public parks. Unless they try to pass that night. Like Mohammed, 29, who worked in hotels, now devastated. "I've done a few days ago along the coast, he says. But I was stopped in Menton and extended here. That night, I go back, insha Allah! "

All exclusively young men, rather poor and rarely speaking, tell the same story. As Tarek, 20, left there twenty days of Kairouan. "We were packed in 150 in a boat designed for 60, says the boy. During the trip to Lampedusa, twelve girls were thrown into the sea. Then I was transferred to Sicily, I escaped and took the train. But now I have no money, so tonight I'm going too the beach. "Their sole obsession: cross the border.

"Most want to go to France, Belgium, the Netherlands or Scandinavia, confirms Gaetano Scullino, the mayor came oversee operationThis is why we must solve the problem with Europe, it is not only France and Italy. "Meanwhile, the elected official has taken responsibility. "It was the image of our city and the tranquility of my constituents, but it was mostly a humanitarian issue, we could not sit back!" And while his city was the scene of a Saturday demonstration in support of Tunisian immigrants, in which regional organizations of the extreme left have called for the opening of the French border, Gaetano Scullino already feared more. "Since the government has decided to empty Lampedusa, thousands of Tunisians have escaped the Apulian, and they will come here!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, April 20, 2011.

Last week an Iraqi Muslim scholar issued a fatwa that, among other barbarities, asserts that "it is permissible to spill the blood of Iraqi Christians." Inciting as the fatwa is, it is also redundant. While last October's Baghdad church attack which killed some sixty Christians is widely known — actually receiving some MSM coverage — the fact is, Christian life in Iraq has been a living hell ever since U.S. forces ousted the late Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Among other atrocities, beheading and crucifying Christians are not irregular occurrences; messages saying "you Christian dogs, leave or die," are typical. Islamists see the church as an "obscene nest of pagans" and threaten to "exterminate Iraqi Christians." John Eibner, CEO of Christian Solidarity International, summarized the situation well in a recent letter to President Obama:

A Christian Iraqi grieves at the funeral of his two brothers. slain for being Christian.

The threat of extermination is not empty. Since the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, more than half the country's Christian population has been forced by targeted violence to seek refuge abroad or to live away from their homes as internally displaced people. According to the Hammurabi Human Rights Organization, over 700 Christians, including bishops and priests, have been killed and 61 churches have been bombed. Seven years after the commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Catholic Archbishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk reports: "He who is not a Muslim in Iraq is a second-class citizen. Often it is necessary to convert or emigrate, otherwise one risks being killed." This anti-Christian violence is sustained by a widespread culture of Muslim supremacism that extends far beyond those who pull the triggers and detonate the bombs.

The grand irony, of course, is that Christian persecution has increased exponentially under U.S. occupation. As one top Vatican official put it, Christians, "paradoxically, were more protected under the dictatorship" of Saddam Hussein.

What does one make of this — that under Saddam, who was notorious for human rights abuses, Christians were better off than they are under a democratic government sponsored by humanitarian, some would say "Christian," America?

Like a Baghdad caliph, Saddam appears to have made use of the better educated Christians, who posed no risk to his rule, such as his close confidant Tariq Aziz. Moreover, by keeping a tight lid on the Islamists of his nation — who hated him as a secular apostate no less than the Christians — the latter benefited indirectly.

Conversely, by empowering "the people," the U.S. has unwittingly undone Iraq's Christian minority. Naively projecting Western values on Muslims, U.S. leadership continues to think that "people-power" will naturally culminate into a liberal, egalitarian society — despite all the evidence otherwise. The fact is, in the Arab/Muslim world, "majority rule" traditionally means domination by the largest tribe or sect; increasingly, it means Islamist domination.

Either which way, the minorities — notably the indigenous Christians — are the first to suffer once the genie of "people-power" is uncorked. Indeed, evidence indicates that the U.S. backed "democratic" government of Iraq enables and incites the persecution of its Christians. (All of this raises the pivotal question: Do heavy-handed tyrants — Saddam, Mubarak, Qaddafi, et al — create brutal societies, or do naturally brutal societies create the need for heavy-handed tyrants to keep order?)

Another indicator that empowering Muslim masses equates Christian suffering is the fact that, though Iraqi Christians amount to a mere 5% of the population, they make up nearly 40% of the refugees fleeing Iraq. It is now the same in Egypt: "A growing number of Egypt's 8-10 million Coptic Christians are looking for a way to get out as Islamists increasingly take advantage of the nationalist revolution that toppled long-standing dictator Hosni Mubarak in February."

At least Egypt's problems are homegrown, whereas the persecution of Iraq's Christians is a direct byproduct of U.S. intervention. More ironic has been Obama's approach: Justifying U.S. intervention in Libya largely in humanitarian terms, the president recently declared that, while "it is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs... that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's right."

True, indeed. Yet, as Obama "acts on behalf of what's right" by providing military protection to the al-Qaeda connected Libyan opposition, Iraq's indigenous Christians continue to be exterminated — right under the U.S. military's nose in Iraq. You see, in its ongoing bid to win the much coveted but forever elusive "Muslim-hearts-and-minds™" — which Obama has even tasked NASA with — U.S. leadership has opted to ignore the inhumane treatment of Islam's "Christian dogs," the mere mention of which tends to upset Muslims.

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at list@pundicity.com This article appeared yesterday in Front Page Magazine and is archived
at http://www.raymondibrahim.com/9440/iraq-christians-persecution

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 20, 2011.


Some Arabs ambushed an Israeli driver. First they tried to enter her car. Then accomplices tried to drive her car off the road. When she called for help, the Arabs fled into the nearby village (Arutz-7, 3/12/11).

In earlier news, two Arabs attempted to infiltrate into a Jewish community in Judea-Samaria. Security forces ordered them to halt. They fled into a nearby Arab village. IDF pursuers were unable to find them.

The two murderers of the Itamar family fled into the adjoining Arab village of Awarta. Prof. Steven Plaut reports that Israeli police interrogated the whole village, taking many DNA samples. Before police announced any arrests, Israeli members of leftist Women for Peace, Gush shalom, and Adam Lelo Gvulot condemned the police, "The atrocity we saw in the home of Momammed Awad can only be described as a pogrom, as primitive and brutal revenge aimed at putting fear in residents' hearts," wrote activist Yaakov Manur.

Turns out, Awad's son was one of the murderers. He and his co-defendant admitted having received help from their relatives after having murdered the Fogel parents and children. The leftists believed the family claims that the police were harassing them unjustifiably. MK Hotovely complained that leftists showed solidarity with the enemy but did not comfort the enemy's Jewish victims (Plaut, 4/18/11)

A pogrom would involve killing and beating. Did not occur.

Arab terrorists keep fleeing to safety in Arab villages, whose residents hide them form police instead of turning them in. Presumably, the villagers approve of murdering Jews. How can Israel administer justice on an individual basis, when Arab society is collective? Are there many "innocent civilians" in those villages? Can't be — Most Palestinian Arabs hate Jews and approve of terrorism against them.

Apparently, Israeli Jews don't mind terrorism. Should the public elect leftists who favor their enemies? What about supposedly non-leftist politicians who coddle Israeli's enemies?

On what basis to diplomats and journalists suggest that peace can be had with jihadists? Do those diplomats and journalists ever wonder how religious hatred spread to almost the whole population of Palestinian Arabs. Are the diplomats and journalists unaware of the indoctrination in bigotry by Arab society there? They must known that the P.A. leaders, responsible for propagandizing for violence, cannot also be moderate. Then why urge concessions to them? If the diplomats and journalists do not know that the P.A. leaders are extremist, then they enable terrorism


The Google translation from the Arabic does not come out clear English. It is difficult when both sides use euphemisms and analogies, rather than straightforward terms. Perhaps I misunderstood. Apparently, Islamic Jihad in Gaza agreed not to a ceasefire, not to a "calm," but to a "lull." Each side reserves the right to fire back if attacked.

The Arab side anticipates that the agreement will fail. The Arabs attribute this to Israel continuing to target any "activists" whom it considers a menace, a "ticking bomb" (IMRA, 4/11/11 http://www.imra.org.il/).

The Arab side misrepresents Israeli policy. Israeli policy is to attack: (1) Gunmen preparing to fire upon Israel; and (2) Wanted terrorists.

It is only fair to attack gunmen preparing to fire upon Israel. Israel has a right to defend itself. The Arabs do not have a right to commit terrorism against Israel nor even to attack Israeli military forces. The Arabs signed an agreement to desist. One of them got a Nobel Peace Prize over that agreement, which he subsequently and immediately violated. Jihadists do not take agreements with non-Muslims seriously.

The Arab side has violated truces and ceasefires, before. The current agreement is much less than a ceasefire. The Arabs use words such as "calm" and "lull" to give the impression of a ceasefire without binding themselves to a ceasefire. After they resume combat, they act indignant when Israel returns fire, as if Israel agreed to a ceasefire.

Israel attacks wanted terrorists because those are war criminals who attacked Israeli civilians. Under international law, this is crime-fighting. International law does not recognize POW rights for terrorists. International law recommends capturing war criminals. Muslims, however, find legitimate almost any means jihadists use against non-Muslims. Hence the two sides disagree over this.

In Islamic ideology, truces are called to prevent defeat. Truces are broken to attain victory or a step toward victory. Since truces are a tool of jihad, the victims of jihad cannot expect jihadists to honor the truce. They are foolish to give jihadists a respite via truce.

Israel's Defense Min. Barak offered to stop firing altogether, if the terrorists from Gaza did likewise. That would be a full truce. During it, the Arab side would build up their forces so as to wreak more Israeli casualties when combat resumes.

Barak's foolish offer should not surprise anybody, considering the numerous foolish offers Barak and others make and the disastrous retreats that Barak, Sharon, Olmert, and Livni made. As a result, minor Arab forces built up large quantities of rockets, and now can inflict untold numbers of casualties upon Israel.


NEWS: Two youths from the Arab village of Awarta confessed and reenacted their murder of a Jewish baby and other family members in nearby Itamar. Six other relatives are under arrest for complicity.

Relatives constitute half the population of Awarta. Some relatives, who had condemned the murders, as had Abbas, did not believe the news. The deputy mayor told reporters that the murder of children is against Muslim and Arab tradition. The mayor demanded an independent, international investigation (Isabel Kershner, New York Times, 4/18/11, A8).

MAKING SENSE OF THE NEWS: Palestinian Arab society approves of jihad and terrorism. It is collective and clan-loyal. Evidence indicates that relatives helped the murderers. Relatives' skepticism of the confessions may be attributed to their loyalty, complicity, and propaganda.

Relatives of Arab terrorists usually act surprised. Some just don't want to be condemned for sympathizing with murder. Arab culture has a shame-honor syndrome that makes it especially difficult for them to admit to wrongdoing, and their society considers ethical what Western society considers abhorrent. Relatives of terrorists abroad may not have noticed their youngsters becoming radicalized, though non-Arab American parents have been concerned for generations about the company their teenagers keep.

Interesting that the mayor of a society lacking an independent judiciary and rule of law demands an independent investigation of Israeli prosecution. Israeli prosecution of Arabs has not been found questionable (though Israeli prosecution of Jews has been).

International investigations into the Arab-Israel conflict are biased, as examination of any number of UN and NGO reports demonstrates.

Abbas has a modus operandi of telling Westerners he condemns terrorist attacks but telling his own people to keep it up as a matter of Islamic honor. Among those he has honored are murderers of children, such as the woman who murdered nursery school children at Maalot. His whole society is organized around promotion of jihad. Palestinian Arab kindergarteners are taught to hate Jews. They are indoctrinated in a duty to slay them. Abbas does not punish terrorists. So much for the assertion that murder of children is against Muslim and Arab tradition!

Unfortunately, so eager are the biased media and politicians to see some hope for peace or is it some hope to bring Israel down, that with whitening knuckles, they grip their false illusion about his being moderate. He should be a laughing stock of the world. His aspiration for a state from which to destroy Israel should perceived as part of the Islamist assault on civilization.

The New York Times has omitted the significant facts and background information that affords a realistic perspective. False Arab statements are not refuted; the Jewish case is slighted.


Dozens of Israel's "most honored intellectuals" have proposed sovereignty for the Palestinian Authority "on the basis of the 1967 border." They claim that this would end "occupation" and bring "lasting peace."

Their declaration states, "The land of Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish people where its identity was shaped. "The Land of Palestine is the birth place of the Palestinian people where its identity was formed." They say that granting statehood would fulfill the Israeli Declaration of Independence pledge to "extend our hand to all neighboring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighborliness." [The Palestinian Authority is not a neighboring state.]

A similar proposal was made recently by business and security officials (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 4/20/11, A6).

Don't put much stock on people for having been honored. They tend to honor each other for toeing the party line.

Don't rely upon their being intellectuals. Intellectuals tend to rationalize insupportable ideology rather than analyze it.

Don't trust Israeli security officials. They tend to be promoted for their leftist ideology, which undermines Israeli national security. When they hate religious, Jewish nationalists, as many of leftists do, they turn to the Arabs, who hate them all. How smart is that?

Don't expect honored intellectuals to know that there was no 1967 border. There was an armistice line. One of the wars that Arabs launched to exterminate Israel and its Jewish population became suspended at that armistice line. That is no basis for a national boundary.

Aside from the land having been set aside for the Jewish nationality, without the Territories, Israel would lack secure borders. This is an issue that the Left and U.S. diplomats rationalize by pretending that minor adjustments in the 1967 Green Line would provide security. But the security would come from possession of the mountains of Judea and Samaria that would block invaders.

Since the Arab aggression of 1967 was launched from the other side of that line, the aggressors' goal, as declared, was to destroy the State of Israel. Therefore, giving Arabs the territory on the other side of that line puts them right back where they started their aggression from. How is that a formula for peace? Questions aren't answered by honored intellectuals, for they think they state truisms, axioms, dicta.

Those honored intellectuals feel they know all they need to; they are beyond needing to consider history, how we got to the present situation, and what agreements already have been reached. You might want to remind them that there already is a peace agreement between Israel and the representatives of Arafat's Arabs. Don't ask proponents of a new agreement how the first one turned out. The answer would embarrass them. The Arab side violates it, murdered a few thousand Israelis, and wounded thousands more.

Those are some of the results of Israel's attempt to fulfill its founding fathers hopes for peace with the Arabs. The Left insults Israel in claiming more effort is needed, since the Arabs stab the Jews' hands bearing an olive branch. Further insult is implying that Israel failed to offer peace. Israel has offered peace many times, but the Arabs spurned the offer and even started an Intifada over it.

Since the existing agreement doesn't work, the chances for a new one working are remote. After all, the Muslim Arabs have grown fiercer in their religious war. Fortunately for those who propose another agreement, being intellectual "luminaries," as the New York Times puts it, they are above logic. They assert, and we are supposed to obey. Don't tell me you thought intellectuals were logical?

Another problem in logic with the proposal is lack of connection between the proposed Israeli withdrawal and peace. Neither those Israelis nor the Times has ever shown a logical connection. Why should anyone believe them? Should we believe them because their colleagues have given them prizes and their newspaper has prestige?

Opponents of appeasement do show a logical connection — between withdrawal and war. Think of Gaza. Think of appeasement of the Nazis and Communists, leading to WWII. Since the Arabs in the Territories have a doctrine of conquering Israel, giving them sovereignty only facilitates their quest. This is a sound argument. Too bad such arguments seldom make their way into the leftist media.

"Occupation?" About 98% of the Arabs in the Territories rule themselves, but they are under occupation? A better case can be made that the Arabs constitute an "occupation" of the Jewish homeland. The Left's declaration even-handedly calls the Territories the place where "Palestinian identity" was formed. It was formed by fraudulent propaganda, during my lifetime — making it current events — in an effort to take away the Jewish homeland. Those Arabs are not significantly different from those in the countries around them, countries from which their families came relatively recently.


The New York Times attempted to polish Judge Goldstone's tarnished reputation in a lengthy paean with three photographs. I will skip his background, as irrelevant.

Mr. Goldstone is "a Zionist who believes that political reconciliation will result when both sides face the unbiased rigors of international law. His report, which blamed both sides, brought more recrimination.

He has retracted his worst complaint against Israel, that it deliberately committed war crimes by targeting civilians. His excuse: he did not know enough, but he refuses to disclose what he learned since, nor explain why, for all his touted investigation, he didn't find out until later. Another excuse for having called Israel a war criminal is that "in the absence of any evidence at all, the only conclusion we could come to was that it was intentional."

[I wrote many articles on the issue at the time, finding plenty of evidence, (for examples:
http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095- NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~y2009m11d5-Israel-on- danger-from-Goldstone-report

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel- Conflict-Examiner~y2009m9d23-UN-report-on-Gaza--Part-11- Why-Israel-did-not-cooperate) but Goldstone must have ignored it. He also must have been ignorant of the IDF tradition of humane fighting. The Gaza war was an example of its having a lower proportion of civilian casualties than other wars that, not involving Israel, the world does not care about. Admitting he had no evidence for his blood libel against Israel, he libeled Israel anyway. What kind of a judge makes a judgment without evidence?]

How many casualties were there? The IDF estimates 1,366, of whom 700 were combatants. Of the 700, about 250 were police cadets. Critics of Israel denied they were military. Later, Hamas admitted they were.

[Israel identified the cadets individually as combatants, many being also members of Hamas fighting forces.]

[The perspective that Goldstone and the reporters omit is that Hamas committed war crimes by keeping its forces in civilian areas. Under international law, Hamas is responsible for the resulting civilian casualties among its own people. Apparently, Goldstone doesn't know or won't admit the truth about international law.]

[Neither Goldstone nor the Timesadmits that for years, the anti-Israel NGOs counted slain combatants as civilians. It took Amnesty Intl. years of complaints against it, to stop counting combatants in mufti as civilians.]

Yet another excuse is that Israel did not let him inside to see the damage it suffered nor investigations of IDF combat by its military. [His mission heard testimony from Israelis, but David Bedein, one of Israel's most perspicacious reporters, who gave all the explanation Goldstone would need, stated that Goldstone napped through his presentation.]

Goldstone's UN mission's charter was one-sided: investigate Israel, not Arab means of combat. He claims he persuaded the UN to include how Hamas fought. Three paragraphs later, the reporters admit that the charter never was revised (Ethan Bronner, Jennifer Medina, 4/20/11, A4).

The evidence suggests strongly that Goldstone's verbal claim to have changed the charter merely was face-saving after he had agreed to a mission that was intended to be one-sided and was roundly criticized for that. The criticism was forgotten when the one-sided report came out, giving anti-Zionists clubs with which to batter Israel's reputation.

The article and the usual apologists for anti-Zionism claim that the report was not one-sided, because it did accuse Hamas of war crimes against Israeli civilians. But it was one-sided. Thousands of war crimes by Hamas, but only a few, tepid lines of criticism, emphasizing that Hamas should investigate itself, rather than condemning Hamas as beyond the pale of civilization. Goldstone and the Times don't realize that Hamas knew what it was doing, and that jihadists deliberately attack civilians and honor, rather than punish, those who do so?

The report also was one-sided for ignoring the Hamas war crimes of needlessly endangering its own civilians. If Goldstone had reported it, it would have been hard for his mission to condemn Israel, when Hamas both fights the IDF and places its civilians in harms way. People might have looked up international law and found it exonerates Israel on that.

The report also was one-sided in methods. It hardly investigate, instead accepting reports by anti-Zionist NGOs, which, in turn, accepted unverified testimony by unidentified Arabs. Israel refuted that testimony. The Times might have disclosed that among those NGOs is Human Rights Watch, with which Goldstone had close relations. Some Zionist!

International law may have "unbiased rigors," but the UN interprets them in a biased way. Goldstone further disqualifies himself by naïvely hoping his report would reconcile the two sides and get Hamas to investigate its assaults on civilians. Investigate? Hamas didn't know that its thousands of rockets fired into Israel were striking mostly civilians?


"At a recent Fatah event in the presence of Mahmoud Abbas and many other senior PA officials, a Palestinian [Arab] defined Palestinian land that "I am returning to" as spanning from Rosh Hanikra, in Israel's north, to Rafah

in the Gaza Strip in the South, and from Haifa, on Israel's Western coast to Beit Shean on Israel's Eastern border." Click to view

Click to view

This and many other examples show that although Abbas says that he recognizes Israel, his society anticipates taking over what is Israel. (IMRA, 4/14 from Palestinian Media Watch) though not as a Jewish state.

Many sympathizers with Abbas' Arabs call Judea, Samaria, and Gaza "Palestinian land." But we see here that Abbas' Arabs call Israel "Palestinian land," too. Their ideology demands that Muslims control it. Until they change that ideology, there will not be peace.

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, April 20, 2011.

This was written by Rabbi Meir Kahane in 1980 and printed in 1981. It is called "They Must Go."

If you did not received this Rabbi Kahane article personally and like to receive his articles weekly, contact me at: BarbaraAndChaim@gmail.com


The analysis and proposed transfer of Arabs from Israel that I have set down are not personal views. They are certainly not political ones. This is the Jewish outlook, based on halakah the law as postulated in the Torah.

The removal of all Arabs who refuse to accept the exclusive, unquestioned Jewish sovereignty over Eretz Yisrael is not only logical and normal for any Jew with a modicum of an instinct for self-preservation; it is also the Jewish halakic obligation. It is important that we know this in order to realize what true "Jewishness" really dictates and in order to instill in ourselves the faith and assurance that if we do this, all the nations in the world will be incapable of harming Israel.

The Jewish people are not merely one more nation. "Though I put an end to all the nations among whom thou art scattered, but I will never put an end to thee" (Jeremiah 30:11). Israel is indestructible. It is unique, it is holy, it is the Chosen of the L-rd; it has a reason for being. Its national uniqueness is built on an idea, on an ideology, that it alone has. The Jew is selected and obligated to be a religio-nation, commanded to obey the laws and follow the path of Torah. The covenant. The Jewish people took upon itself the yoke of the L-rd, acknowledging Him as G-d and observing His laws. The Almighty chose them as His unique people, pledging that they would be indestructible and would live in peace and prosperity in their own land, Eretz Yisrael.

The land was given as a reward, as a blessing. But it is more, much more, than that. The people of Israel have more than a right to the land; they have an obligation. "For you shall pass over the Jordan to go in to possess the Land which the L-rd your G-d gives you, and you shall possess it and dwell therein" (Deuteronomy 11:31).

A unique people given, uniquely, a particular land. Unlike all the other faiths that are not limited to one special country, the Jew is given a particular land and commanded to live there. And for a reason, as Moses explains: "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the L-rd, my G-d, commanded me, that you shall do so in the Land whither you go to possess it. (Deuteronomy 4:5).

It is impossible to create a holy, unique people that dwells as a minority within lands that belong to others. The majority culture must infiltrate, influence, corrupt, woo, tempt, pervert. The Jew is commanded to create for himself a holy nation, and that can only be done free of others, separate, different, apart. That is why the unique nation, chosen for holiness and unique destiny, was given a land for itself: so that it might create a unique, holy society that would be a light unto the nations who would see its example and model.

And as the Torah clearly commanded: And you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you...But if you will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come to pass that those which you let remain of them, shall be thorns in your eyes and thistles in your sides and shall torment you in the land wherein you dwell. And it shall be that I will do to you as I thought to do to them" (Numbers 3:52-56).

Far better than foolish humans did the Almighty understand the dangers inherent in allowing a people that believed the land belonged to it to be given free and unfettered residence, let along ownership, proprietorship, citizenship. What more natural thing than to ask to regain that it believed to be rightly its own land? And this over and above the need to create a unique and distinctly separate Torah culture that will shape the Jewish people into a holy nation. That "uniqueness" can be guaranteed only by the non-Jew's having no sovereignty, ownership, or citizenship in the state that could allow him to shape its destiny and character.

This is Torah. This is Jewishness. Not the dishonest pseudo "Judaism" chanted by the Liberal secularists who pick and choose what "Judaism" finds favor in their eyes and who reject what their own gentilized concepts find unacceptable. They weigh "Judaism" on the scales of their own intellectual arrogance — arrogance, incidentally, of intense ignorance.

And if this is not only the right of Jews but their obligation, what do we fear? Why do the Jews tremble and quake before the threat of the nations? Is there no longer a G-d in Israel? Have we lost our bearings that we do not understand the ordained historical role of the State of Israel, a role that ensures that it can never be destroyed and that no further exile from it is possible? Why is it that we do not comprehend that it is precisely our refusal to deal with the Arabs according to halakic obligation that will bring down on our heads terrible sufferings, whereas our courage in removing them will be one of the major factors in the hurrying of the final redemption?

What is wrong with us? Who blinded us and blocked from our memories the existence and power of the G-d of Israel? Did a Jewish people exist for 2,000 years without state, government, or army, wandering the earth interminably from land to land, suffering pogroms and Holocaust and surviving powerful empires that disappeared into history, just by coincidence? Did a Jewish people return to its land from the far corners of the earth to set up its own sovereign state — exactly as promised in the Bible — through mere natural means? What other nation ever did such a thing? Where are the Philistines of Goliath today? Where is imperial Rome with its Latin and its gods? Who defeats armies in six days, and on the seventh they rest?

Who if not an Israel because there is a G-d in it! The Land of Israel is His divine Land; the State of Israel is His divine hand. History is not a series of random events, disjointed and coincidental. There is a Creator, a Guide, a Hand that plans and directs. There is a scenario to history. The Jew has come home for the third and last time. "But the third shall be left therein" (Zechariah 13:8). The first redemption was that from Egypt; the second, the redemption of Ezra. The third will never end" (Tanhuma, Shoftim 9).

We live in the era of the footsteps of the Messiah, the beginning of the final redemption. The rise of the State of Israel from the ashes of Auschwitz marks the end of the night of black humiliation and agony, of Hillul Hashem, and the beginning of the dawn of the final, total redemption, of Kiddush Hashem, sanctification of G-d's name. The State of Israel is not a "political" creation. It is a religious one. No power could have prevented its birth and none can destroy it. It is the beginning of G-d's wrath, vengeance against the nations who ignored, disdained, and humiliated Him, who found Him irrelevant, who "knew Him not." But, it is only the beginning. How the final redemption will come, and when, depends on the Jews.

The exiles shall be ingathered only through "faith" (Mechilta, Exodus). If we have it, if we truly believe in the existence of the Creator and Guider of history, the G-d of Israel, we can bring the final redemption today. "When will the Messiah come? 'Today, as it is said: "Today, if you will hearken unto my voice'" (Psalms 95:7, Sanhedrin 98a).

The Arabs of Israel represent Hillul Hashem in its starkest form. Their rejection of Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel despite the covenant between the L-rd of Israel and the Jews constitutes a rejection of the sovereignty and kingship of the L-rd G-d of Israel. Their transfer from the Land of Israel thus becomes more than a political issue. It is a religious issue, a religious obligation, a commandment to erase Hillul Hashem. Far from fearing what the Gentile will do if we do such a thing, let the Jew tremble as he considers the anger of the Almighty if we do not.

Tragedy will be ours if we do not move the Arabs out. The great redemption can come immediately and magnificently if we do that which G-d demands. One of the great yardsticks of real Jewish faith in this time of momentous decision is our willingness to reject fear of man in favor of awe of G-d and remove the Arabs from Israel.

The world? The nations — united or otherwise? What do they matter before the omnipotence of the Almighty?

"Why do the nations rage...the Kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together, against the L-rd and against His anointed...He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh, the L-rd shall mock them..." (Psalms 2:1-4). The Jewish people and state cannot be destroyed. Their weapon is their G-d. That is reality

Let us remove the Arabs from Israel and bring the redemption.


Contact Barbara Ginsberg at barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To view previously e-mailed Rabbi Kahane articles go to:

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 18, 2011.


In 2007, the IDF confiscated hundreds of guns registered to Jews in the Territories. The guns were permitted them, unlike most Israelis, because terrorists attack Israelis more in the Territories.

The IDF claims it was gathering the guns in order "to put gun permits in order." The retort was that the government was setting the Territories' Jews up for terrorist attack. In 2010, a terrorist attack killed an Israeli whose gun had been confiscated, leaving him unable to defend himself and family. An outcry arose, and Members of Knesset took up the issue. MK Aryeh Bibi remarked that the confiscation may have been a leftist political decision. After all, it should not take more than a couple of days "to put gun permits in order, he said." Four years is on the way to being permanent.

Recently, most of the guns have been returned (Maayana Miskin, Arutz-7, 4/8/11

Are the gun permits now "in order?"

Will Israelis be allowed to fire those guns in self-defense, of will they be punished for doing so, while the Arab


Some U.S. Muslims are claiming the main security threat in America is not from Radical Muslims but against Muslims. CNN.com reported that stated impression, but omitted evidence to the contrary.

Cited as evidence are the recent House hearing on radicalization of U.S. Muslims, efforts to ban Islamic law from being imposed in the U.S., and Roger Stockham, caught preparing to bomb a mosque.

Problem is, for two months before the CNN report, there was strong evidence, including from Stockham's attorney, that Stockham had converted to Islam, had become a holy warrior, spoke Arabic, and quoted from the Koran (David J. Rusin, 4/8/11 http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2011/04/ cnn-islamophobia-piece-relies-on-flagrant ).

Efforts to impose Islamic law on Americans is evidence that the U.S. is under attack from Muslims, who seek to take over the country. The House hearing was the result of attacks on America by radicalized Muslims here, and sought to find ways of defense against radicalization, as by gaining the support of the purported moderate Muslims..

CNN and Radical Muslims pretend that Muslims are the main victims of bigotry. Actually, they are the main perpetrators of it. Jews are the most numerous victims of hate-crimes, most of which are committed against them by Muslims. Muslim hate crimes against Jews are many times the number of the hate crimes by all groups against Muslims.


Goldstone's three colleagues on his mission to Gaza had stated before the investigation that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. Their minds were made up before they attempted [or pretended] to gather the facts. Since their anti-Israel views were known in advance, one wonders whether that was their chief qualification for the mission.

Goldstone claims that he learned something, though he does not state what, that changed him mind about his report's gravest charge against Israel, that it deliberately attacked Gaza civilians.

Civilians' percentage of fatalities in Chechnya, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, were much higher than the percentage in Gaza. Russian and Sri Lankan forces killed thousands of civilians, more than they killed gunmen. Nevertheless, the UN criticized Israel, whose record is much better than those of those other countries.
(IMRA, 4/17/11 from Ben-Dror-Yemeni of Maariv


Iraqi PM Alawi secured a Supreme Court ruling that gave him power over formerly independent agencies that run elections, investigate corruption, and run the central bank.

The Court later ruled that Parliament had no right to introduce laws. Only Alawi's Cabinet would be allowed to.

Two human rights group claim that Alawi's armed forces run secret jails, where they torture prisoners. Daniel Pipes worries that the U.S. may have failed in its effort to bring democracy to Iraq
(3/6/11 http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/03/democratic-iraq).

Mr. Pipes does not indicate whether the human rights group's claim was verified.

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, April 18, 2011.

Contact IAM by email at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com and visit their website: http://www.Israel-Academia-Monitor.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, April 17, 2011.

April 18, 2011 (abridged edition)

Passover Hymn, Da'ye'nu: "How many degree of beneficence hath the Almighty conferred upon us?! If He had brought us forth from Egypt, and had not executed judgment upon the Egyptians, it would have sufficed (Da'ye'nu)... If He had inflicted justice upon them..., it would have sufficed (Da'ye'nu')..."

If Israel were merely the most effective battle-tested laboratory available to the USA, the source for over 600 modifications of the F-16, and thousands of cutting-edge modifications in hundreds additional US military systems, enhancing US national security, while providing the US defense industries a unique mega-billion dollars competitive edge in the global market, expanding US employment, research & development and export infrastructures - Da'ye'nu (it would have sufficed to crown Israel as a unique two-way-street ally of the USA);

If Israel were merely the source of breakthrough battle tactics, which were the first to penetrate/jam/destroy the most sophisticated Soviet/Russian surface-to-air missile batteries and radar systems, in addition to transferring to the US the first Soviet MIG-21 and 23 and other Soviet military systems, which tilted global balance of power in favor of the USA, providing the US defense industries with mega-billion dollars bonanza - Da'ye'nu;

If Israel were merely the source of intelligence — shared with the USA - which exceeds the scope of intelligence received by the US from all NATO countries combined (according to Senator Daniel Inouye, former Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and current Chairman of the full Appropriations Committee) and is equal to five CIAs (according to retired General George Keegan, former Chief of US Air Force Intelligence) - Da'ye'nu;

If Israel were merely the country which destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 (in defiance of global opposition), thus providing the USA a conventional option in the 1991 Gulf War, sparing the US a potential traumatic nuclear confrontation - Da'ye'nu;

If Israel were merely a source of battle-proven experience and military systems — combating IEDs, car bombs, suicide bombers and generic terrorism — shared with US Special Operations units, which battle Islamic terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus minimizing US losses - Da'ye'nu;

If — as stated by the late General Alexander Haig, former Supreme Commander of NATO and former Secretary of State -Israel were merely the largest American aircraft carrier which does not require a single American personnel, which cannot be sunk, which is the most battle-tested and cost-effective, and located in a region, which is critical to vital US economic and national security interests - Da'ye'nu;

If there would not be an Israel in the eastern flank of the Mediterranean, and the US would have to deploy to the region real aircraft carriers with tens of thousands of American servicemen, costing the US taxpayers $20BN annually and possibly dragging the US into local and regional conflicts — all of which has been spared by the existence and capabilities of the Jewish State - Da'ye'nu;

If there would not be havoc in Arab lands, highlighting the Jewish State as the only stable, reliable, credible, capable, predictable, democratic and non-conditional ally of the USA — Da'ye'nu;

If Israel were not the place where- according to Warren Buffett — hundreds of major American companies and investors shop for innovative ideas, which they transform into technologies, products and manufacturing lines, benefitting both American and Israeli employment, trade, research & development and exports — Da'ye'nu;

If Israel were not the source of hundreds of revolutionary medical device, healthcare, telecommunications, Internet, laptops, cellular and social networking technologies/products.- enhancing quality of life in the US and throughout the globe — Da'ye'nu;

If US-Israel covenant were not uniquely based on shared values (dating back to the Pilgrims and the US Founding Fathers), joint interests and mutual threats — Da'ye'nu (It would have sufficed to crown Israel as a unique two-way-street ally of the USA).

Happy Passover!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, April 17, 2011.

This was written by Judy Siegel-Itzkovich and Jerusalem Post Staff and it is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/ArtsAndCulture/Entertainment/ Article.aspx?id=217003


Daniel Viflic, 16, was critically injured when the school bus he was riding on was directly hit by an anti-tank missile fired from Gaza Strip; boy succumbs to head injuries after steady decline in his condition.

Daniel Raphael Viflic, the 16-year-old boy who was injured in the anti-tank missile attack on a school bus in the Negev by Hamas terrorists 10 days ago, died on Sunday after a steady decline to critical condition.

Viflic suffered severe head trauma and was artificially respirated at the scene after the bus sustained a direct hit by a missile. He was rushed to Soroka University Medical Center Hospital in Beersheba, where his family has been holding vigil for the past ten days. On April 12, the severity of his condition was upgraded to extremely critical and doctors expressed concern that he had suffered irreparable brain damage.

The anti-tank missile hit the bus moments after most of the children got off, while it was traveling near Kibbutz Sa'ad, about 2.5 km. from the Gaza Strip. Just two people were on onboard when it was hit — the driver, who was lightly injured, and the boy, who was en route to visit his grandmother.

The South has been barraged by more than 120 rockets and mortars in recent weeks. Last week, an informal UN-brokered cease-fire went into effect, but the quiet remained shaky. Two Grad rockets exploded separately in the cities of Ashdod and Ashkelon over the weekend, which was followed by IDF strikes on Hamas facilities in the Strip.

"We succeeded in postponing a large-scale conflict with Hamas but that conflict is likely inevitable," one senior IDF officer said on last week.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Mechel Samberg, April 17, 2011.

This comes from Union of American Hebrew Congregations) and is archived at


Does Judaism Condone Capital Punishment?

While the Torah supports the death penalty in principle, it places formidable obstacles to its implementation--and the Talmud nearly drove the executioner to extinction.

Does Judaism condone capital punishment?

Supporters of the death penalty often cite the Bible to bolster their position. "Ye shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer...he shall surely be put to death" (Numbers 35:31). Indeed, the Torah specifies a full litany of offenses for which a person may be put to death, including murder, idolatry, blasphemy, adultery, violating the Sabbath, wizardry, and rebelling against one's parents. The punishments for each transgression are noted as well--stoning, burning, and slaying by the sword.

But the recording of these laws in Scripture may give a false impression about the actual practice of capital punishment in ancient Israel. While the Torah supports the death penalty in principle, it places formidable obstacles to its implementation. HUC-JIR Bible Professor Dr. David Sperling has observed that the well-known lex talionus (law of retaliation) "Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe" (Exodus 21:23-25) may appear to endorse capital punishment, but it is actually a formula for restricting the punishment to be meted out. "In contrast to the Code of Hammurabi [an earlier legal code well known in the ancient Near East]," Professor Sperling writes, "biblical law limits the death penalty to the murderer--a family member cannot be executed in his/her place"

(Exodus 21). Moreover, the defendant may not be put to death unless two (or in some cases three) eyewitnesses testify against him or her. Each witness must be so certain of his testimony that he personally would be willing to carry out the execution.

Deuteronomy 19:13-21 asserts that a false witness is subject to the same punishment as the defendant--including, presumably, death. The Torah also distinguishes between a premeditated murder and unintentional killing. In the case of an unintentional slaying, the killer is permitted to take refuge in one of six cities on the other side of the Jordan River (Numbers 35:9-15, Deuteronomy 4:41-43, Joshua 20). The pattern of not inflicting the ultimate punishment is established early in the Bible. After Cain kills his brother Abel in a fit of rage, God does not demand Cain's life in retribution; instead, Cain is set free to wander the earth. The mark God places on Cain's forehead is not a sign of punishment, as is commonly assumed, but one of protection; it served as a kind of mobile "city of refuge," warding off anyone seeking to avenge the wrong Cain had committed.

Interpretations in the Rabbinic Age

The rabbis who compiled the Talmud in the first centuries of the Common Era interpreted and expanded upon the biblical laws governing capital punishment. They too stipulated transgressions deserving of death, among them idolatry, bestiality, blasphemy, illicit sex, violating the Sabbath, witchcraft, and adultery in certain circumstances. Then, in meticulous detail, they linked each crime with its corresponding method of execution (stoning, burning, strangulation, or slaying by the sword).

Grisly punishments all--but it is highly doubtful that the rabbis ever actually imposed the death penalty. After a long, elaborate discussion of the class of capital crime befitting the stubborn and rebellious son and a description of how the execution was to be carried out, the Talmud states: "It never happened and it never will happen."

The passage then explains that the entire matter is presented purely for study: "That you may study [the Torah for its own sake] and receive reward" (Sanhedrin71a). In other words, the discussion of capital punishment in the Talmud seems to exist only in the realm of theoretical speculation, just as--after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem--all the laws of sacrifice were retained and studied long after the sacrifices ceased to be offered.

The Trial

Capital cases were heard by a court of 23 judges (Sanhedrin 2A) and, in some cases, 71 judges (Sanhedrin 2A, 15A, & 16A), all of the highest character. "Anyone fit to try capital cases could also try monetary cases," the rabbis stated, "but a person fit to try a monetary case may still be unfit to try a capital case" (Nida 49B).

According to Rabbi Judah, a person whose disposition is cruel should be excluded from sitting in judgment in such cases (Sanhedrin 36B). Not only should a person's own record be pure and righteous, but his ancestry had to be free of blemish before he could sit on this court (Sanhedrin 36B). The judges sat on three rising semicircular tiers, as in an amphitheater, in order to see one another, and all murder cases were tried in the light of day; in these ways, everything could be open and aboveboard. Two judge's clerks stood before them, one to the right and the other to the left, and wrote down the arguments of those who would acquit and those who would condemn; both clerks were necessary as a precaution against any mistake. Rabbi Judah said that there were three such clerks: one to record arguments for acquittal, a second to record arguments for conviction, and a third to record arguments for both acquittal and conviction. Witnesses stood in front of these tiers of judges.

The stringent demands on witnesses in capital cases rendered almost impossible the likelihood that a defendant would be convicted. To ensure that a witness's testimony was not based on conjecture (e.g. circumstantial evidence), hearsay, simple rumor, or the observations of another witness, the court would "fill the witness with fear."

Witnesses were asked to establish the day and hour of the crime and explain the circumstances surrounding it (Sanhedrin 2B). They were then warned that they would be subject to rigorous questioning and relentless cross-examination and held personally responsible should the accused be falsely condemned. Bearing false witness in a capital case was in itself a crime punishable by death (Sanhedrin 9B, 32B, 86A, & 89A).

A witness in a capital case had to have seen the entire crime as it was being committed; circumstantial evidence was inadmissible. For example, Rabbi Simeon ben Shatach witnessed the following incident: "I saw a man chasing another man into a ruin; I ran after him and saw a sword in his hand dripping with the other's blood, and the murdered man in his death agony...." Even though he was convinced of the man's guilt, the rabbi could not testify against him, because he did not see the actual crime (Sanhedrin 37b).

Not only did witnesses have to see the crime take place, they had to have warned the perpetrator prior to the act that he was about to commit a capital offense. According to Rabbi Judah, a warner even had to inform the perpetrator of the type of execution prescribed for his crime (Sanhedrin 8B). The perpetrator was then obliged to have verbally acknowledged this warning by saying something like, "I know I am warned not to do this"; to have admitted his liability to death by adding something like, "even though I shall be punished by such-and-such manner, yet I want to go ahead and commit this crime"; and to have committed the murder within the time needed to make such an utterance (Makkot 6A). The great eleventh-century commentator Rashi explains this last restriction by suggesting that if a murder was delayed longer than the time necessary to make an utterance, the plea might be accepted that the perpetrator had forgotten the warning altogether. Furthermore, two or three witnesses had to have similarly interacted with the accused. And on the unlikely chance that such witnesses could be found, the court could convict the accused only if guilt could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to the Talmud, "A doubt in capital charges should always be for the benefit of the accused" (Baba Batra 50B, Sanhedrin 79A). Inreaching a verdict, a judge was free to argue in favor of the accused, but not against him. A judge who had argued initially for condemnation could subsequently argue for acquittal, but one who had argued for acquittal could not argue later for condemnation. Acquittal in capital cases required a majority of one vote, condemnation a majority of two. A verdict could be reversed for acquittal if errors were revealed, but no new evidence was allowed which would reverse a decision from acquittal to condemnation.

Staying the Execution

Following a guilty verdict, provisions were made to stay the execution. A herald was dispatched to announce something like:

"So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going forth to be stoned because he committed such-and-such offense, and so-and-so are his witnesses. If anyone has anything to say in his favor, let him come forward and state it."

If someone offered to make a statement in favor of the condemned man, a retrial followed.

A person was stationed at the door of the court holding a signaling flag, while a horseman stood at the ready within sight of the signalman.

If one of the judges said he had something further to state in favor of the condemned, the signaler waved his flag, sending the horseman to postpone the execution. Indeed, even if the condemned said he had something further to plead in his own favor, the court was obliged to reconvene (Sanhedrin 42B).

Rabbinic attitudes concerning the death penalty are also reflected in statements such as "a Sanhedrin that effects an execution once in seven years is branded a destructive tribunal." Rabbi Elizer Ben Azariah said "once in seventy years." Rabbis Tarfon and Akiba said, "If we were members of a Sanhedrin, nobody would ever be put to death." In that same Gemarra, however, Rabbi Simeon Ben Gamaliel dissented: "If we never condemned anyone to death, we might be considered guilty of promoting violence and bloodshed.... [We] could also multiply shedders of blood in Israel" (all Makkot 7A).

40 years before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 C.E., the rabbis abolished capital punishment altogether (Soncino Talmud, Sanhedrin page 161, footnote 10). Rather than applying the four methods of execution themselves, they ruled that punishment should be carried out by divine agencies (Sanhedrin 37B, Ketubot 30A, & 30B). In other words, a punishment so awesome as the taking of a person's life should not be entrusted to fallible human beings, but only to God.

This ruling does not mean the rabbis dispensed with punishment altogether. On the contrary, they expressed no compunction about decreeing corporal punishment--harsh physical suffering. If the rabbis/judges were convinced of a defendant's guilt in a capital case, but the high standard of evidence did not permit execution, he would be sentenced to prison on a ration of bread and water.

The thrust of Jewish tradition and the historical positions of the Reform Movement (see sidebar) impel us to oppose capital punishment in principle and in practice. A person wrongfully flogged for robbery can heal. A person improperly imprisoned for murder can be exonerated and set free. But someone put to death for a crime he/she did not commit can never be redeemed. If we are true to our faith and our tradition, we must respond to the imperative of its teachings and do everything we can to keep our society from committing the ultimate of injustices: the wrongful execution of an innocent person.

(source: Rabbi Daniel Polish, HUC-JIR class of 1968, is director of the Joint Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism and co-author with Rabbis Daniel Syme and Bernard Zlotowitz of Drugs, Sex and Integrity (UAHC Press); Reform Judaism Magazine, Summer 2002)


Reform Judaism on Capital Punishment

The Reform Movement has a long history of opposing the death penalty. In 1959, the UAHC adopted a resolution which states: "We believe that there is no crime for which the taking of human life by society is justified and we call upon our congregations and all who cherish God's mercy and love to join in efforts to eliminate this practice which lies as a stain upon civilization and our religious conscience."

"Our opposition to the death penalty was so firm," says Al Vorspan, director emeritus of the Commission of Social Action of Reform Judaism, "that we appealed to Israel not to set aside its deeply held commitment against the death penalty even in the case of Adolph Eichmann."

The UAHC reaffirmed its opposition to the death penalty in 1999, when it passed a resolution on race and the U.S. criminal justice system which states: "Statistical evidence shows that African-American men are disproportionately represented among those on death row and those who have been executed in the last twenty years. Although people of color are the victims in more than half of all homicides, a White victim case is over four times more likely to result in a death sentence than a comparable Black victim case...."

The Central Conference of American Rabbis expressed its opposition to capital punishment in 1958, 1960, and in 1979, when it adopted a resolution which states in part: "No evidence has been marshaled to indicate with any persuasiveness that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to crime....We oppose capital punishment under all circumstances."

In 1959, Women of Reform Judaism (then known as NFTS) adopted a resolution which includes the following: "We believe there is no crime, however horrendous, for which society has the right through its judicial processes to order the taking of human life. Rather, it is the obligation of society to evolve other more effective and more humane methods in dealing with crime. We pledge ourselves to try to prevent crimes by removal of their causes, and to foster modern methods of rehabilitation of the wrongdoer in the spirit of the Jewish tradition of teshuvah (repentance)....This practice is a stain upon an entire penal system and brutalizes the human spirit. We appeal to our members and to all who cherish God's mercy and love to join in efforts to eliminate this practice which lies as the blemish upon our civilization and our religious conscience."


Israel and the Death Penalty

So great is the Jewish revulsion against capital punishment that when the Jewish state was established in 1948, even though the death penalty was initially permitted and death sentences for murder handed down, these sentences were never carried out; instead the convicted were sentenced to life in prison.

At Israel's 1st murder trial, both the Ashkenazi and Sephardi chief rabbis sent a cable to the Minister of Justice, urging him to abolish capital punishment at once and warning the court that punishment of death was incompatible with the teachings of Judaism and a sin against Jewish law.

Partly as a result of their statement, when the penal laws were revised 6 years later, in 1954, the death penalty was abolished, with one exception: if the accused was found guilty of participation in genocide and treason during a time of war. Only one person has been executed in Israel since 1948: Adolf Eichmann, administrator of the Nazi destruction of the Jews of Europe.

Contact Mechel Samberg at mechelsamberg2@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, April 17, 2011.

Passover has arrived. This is one of those times during the year when I really feel ok with myself. Working as a spokesperson, with all types of media and journalists doesn't always leave me with a good, warm sensation. However, Passover, in Hebrew, Pesach, is known for the hidden words "Pe" "Sach" — "Pe," meaning mouth, and "Sach", meaning speaks. In other words, sometimes it's a mitzvah, a positive commandment, to talk.

Now is one of those times.

On the evening prior to the start of Pesach, observant Jews search their homes, ensuring that all "Hametz," that is leavening, has been removed from the premises. Leavened bread, that is regular bread, baked using yeast, is forbidden during the seven day festival. Only Matza, that is unleavened bread, baked only with water and flour, is permitted. And any food product considered to be 'hametz,' not kosher for Pesach, must be removed from a person's home. The final search is conducted the night before the "Seder," which marks the beginning of the holiday.

The next morning, only hours before the start of Pesach, any remaining Hametz is burned, until the only residue is ash.

According to many Jewish scholars, Hametz represents much more than simple leavening. Leavened bread rises as it bakes; this is compared to the trait of pride. Too much pride can lead to haughtiness. Matza, unleavened bread, represents an opposite characteristic, that of humility. Therefore, on the anniversary of the birth of the Jewish people, as a people, being redeemed from the oppression in Egypt, so too we attempt to reduce our arrogance and self-importance and behave more humbly. For this reason, on the morning prior to commencement of Passover, we burn our Hametz, thereby symbolically obliterating our self-conceit.

But this modesty does not determine our personality, individually or nationally, as that of meekness. Seven days after fleeing Egypt we had no choice but to jump into the sea, our fate being totally in the hands of G-d. But shortly afterward, the fledgling Jewish people were attacked by Amalakites, the most evil of all peoples, who rejected the concept of a G-dly people, and attempted to annihilate us almost before we were able to live as a people. We were then transformed into warriors, who were victorious only when Moses held his hands a high, pointing to the heavens, reminding the fighters to put their overall faith, not in their own hands, but in the Divine hands of the Creator. But warriors they were, fighting for survival against a deadly enemy. A soldier cannot be meek. They are two opposite attributes. But this is the wonder of the Jewish people, even upon their creation: on the one hand, seeming submissiveness, yet on the other hand, fierce combatants on the battlefield.

Perhaps part of our troubles at present is confusion as to our role, and our national personality. Are we to be fighters or are we to be timid? The answer is, of course, both of the above, depending on the given situation. There are times when it is necessary to set our pride ablaze. Yet there are other times when we are called on to battle without fear and without any restraint. For example, Samuel was a prophet, a seer, a man of G-d, holy from birth. Yet it is written that he cut the Amalakite King Agog to pieces with a sword.

Hametz too has different characteristics at different times. For one week during the year we are forbidden to eat it, or take any pleasure from it. The other fifty one weeks of the year it is not only permissible, it is also a necessary and normal part of our lives. Which then, is the real quality of Hametz? Quantitatively, all year minus one week. But in term of quality, in terms of setting the tone of our lives, determining how we should live, our life's ideal, the one week of Pesach takes precedence. So it is personally, as so it is nationally, as a people.

The Torah commands us, not only to burn Hametz prior to Pesach. It also instructs to literally, 'burn the evil from your midst.. In Hebrew, "u'biarta hara mikirbecha." This phrase is used numerous times in the Bible, telling us that, at times, normal punishment is not enough. Sometimes the evil must be totally destroyed — the evil must be set afire and burned, until nothing of it remains.

Israeli security forces set forth, a month ago, searching for Hametz. Early this afternoon the media reported what some already knew for some time. The creatures who massacred the Fogel family, two teenage cousins, had been apprehended. The details are difficult to fathom. First two children were butchered and then the parents. And then, after they left the house, only to return to search for weapons, did they discover four month old Hadas, crying in her bed. Then, she too was slaughtered. The butchers showed no remorse, except for the fact that they hadn't noticed two other children in the house. Had they seen them, they too would have been brutally murdered.

The butchers from Awarta, (the village where they lived, adjacent to Itamar), must not be allowed to continue to live. They must be tried, as quickly as possible, and executed. As the verse says, evil must be burned from our midst. Those who directly helped them, before and after the massacre, they must die too. There can be no mercy for participants of a massacre. The entire village, Awarta, must be razed and burned to the ground, all its citizens expelled to Lebanon or Egypt. For they all knew, and did nothing. And that site must remain ash, just as Hametz is burned and left as ash, an eternal reminder that the Jewish people are not meek, that we know what to do and how to do it, when necessary.

But not far from there, next to Itamar, the State of Israel must establish a new city, called Fogel, building fifty thousand homes — ten thousand for each member of the Fogel family murdered.

And we will know, and our neighbors will know, and the entire world will know — we will not be massacred — we will burn the Hametz in our midst, we will seek out and burn the evil in our midst and we will live in our land, for this is the goal of Passover, not to end slavery, not to walk in the desert, but to settle and live in our land, as a free people, in our land, Eretz Yisrael.

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 Richard H. Shulman, April 17, 2011.


After Pastor Terry Jones announced and fulfilled intent to burn a Koran, the Presidents of Afghanistan and Pakistan gave the news wide publicity. Muslims abroad murdered 43 people. Whom shall we blame for those killings?

The American "elite" more or less blamed the pastor. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durban, Sen. Lindsey Graham, House Committee Chair Mike Rogers, and President Obama each said parts of the following: the burning should be denounced by Congressional resolution, it should be punished, it endangered U.S. troops, and it evinced "extreme intolerance" whereas the murders were [merely]"deplorable."

A U.K. poll by the Guardian, however, found that 45% blame Rev. Terry for the massacre of UN personnel, and 55% blame the Muslim perpetrators. Some U.S. Muslim leaders blamed extremists for exploiting the news and declared that the safety of holy books does not justify murdering people.

Where does the violence come from? Rev. Jones' act was not violent and was legal, though in bad taste. It is our Constitutional right to critique Islam. One hopes the critique is not done vulgarly; civilization's preservation depends on it being done intelligently.

The violence comes from the Islamic claim to supremacy over other faiths, and an ancient, barbaric outlook. Unless that claim can be eliminated by a modern Reformation, Islamic religious violence will continue.

Attempts to repress American freedom of speech, in order to appease Islam, are improper (Daniel Pipes, FoxNews.com 4/6/11, http://www.danielpipes.org/9654/koran-burning-afghanistan-deaths).

Western attempts to repress criticism of Islam give Islamic rioters an incentive. The more they murder, the more we tilt their way?

The action of the pastor was indeed incendiary, the burning gratuitous. The fire distracted from the serious ideas in the trial of the Koran that he conducted. He indirectly did endanger U.S. troops. But the supremacist ideology of Islam and the demagogues who exploited the news directly endangered our troops. Our troops are in Afghanistan because of aggression by Radical Islam. Intelligent criticism of Radical Islam is needed to defeat the Islamic ideology of intolerance and violence. Only then can people of all faiths live in peace. We have to keep religion from going political and military.

Most religions offer their own values as ideal. The problem comes when some of them insist that only their values are ideal, only membership in their religion makes a person worthy, and force may be used to get others to join them, apparently lacking faith that their values are persuasive. They take themselves too seriously. They need to recognize that good people are good people, wherever they are.


To see an article contrasting the burning of one Koran with the regular slaying of Christians and desecrating thousands of Christian Bibles, goto http://www.meforum.org/2872/koran-christian-persecution


Iran's clerical regime has been cultivating West Africa, especially Muslim countries, for years.

Iran hopes to gain access to resources in West Africa and to break down international sanctions on itself.

Iranian VIPs meet with African Muslim councils and bring in Shiite missionaries. Some of the West African countries' version of Islam is Sunni of the Sufi [more tolerant] tradition.

Iran has prompted a jihad in Nigeria that has caused thousands of deaths, as the Muslim parts impose Islamic law and terrorist organizations try to push the process, even going so far as to attack the national government, which is Islamic.

Arrogant and heedless of past mistakes, Iran twice sent in freighters carrying arms. The Nigerian regime thought the arms were to promote war within its country. Iran claimed that one of the ships really was destined for Gambia. Gambia's rival, Senegal, suspected that Gambia would use the arms against it, so it severed diplomatic relations with Iran (IMRA,4/7/11 from Jacques Neriah, Jerusalem Issue Briefs Vol. 10 #35
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp? DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=6691).

Bear this kind of duplicity in mind, when evaluating Iran's claims to be pursuing nuclear development solely for industry and not for 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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, April 17, 2011.

Joint investigation of Fogel family murder by Shin Bet, IDF and police culminates in the arrest of two Palestinians. Both suspects admit involvement in terror attack; say they wanted to 'die martyrs' death. This was written by Hanan Greenberg and it appeared in Ynet News,


Cleared for Publication: Shin Bet, IDF and police have arrested two Palestinians, both residents of the village of Awarta, in connection to the Fogel family massacre in Itamar in March.

The first suspect is Hakim Mazen Awad, 18, a high school student whose father was active in the Popular Front terror organization. Awad has a prison record. His uncle, who was killed in clashes with IDF forces in 2003, was involved in a June 2002 terror attack in Itamar, which left five dead.

The second suspect, Amjad Mahmad Awad, 19, also a student, is affiliated with the Popular Front.

Hakim Mazen Awad (Photo: Shin Bet)

Amjad Mahmad Awad (Photo: Shin Bet)

The two suspects confessed to their involvement in the murders, and said that they sought to carry out a terror attack in order to kill Israelis. They expressed no regret over the murders.

The Shin Bet arrested the two subsequent to a strenuous investigation, which included the interrogation of multiple persons of interest in the case.

On April 5 and April 10, IDF forces arrested Amjad and Hakim. The investigation into the attack revealed that the two decided to carry out a terror attack and attempted to acquire weapons three days before the March 11 attack.

In order to obtain the weapons they turned to a Popular Front militant in their village, but he refused to acquiesce to their request. And yet, at midday on Friday March 11, they decided that they would go to Itamar that night, armed with knives and carry out the attack.

Masterminds of evil

At approximately 9:00 pm the two cut the settlement fence and entered its ground, masked. At first, they entered a neighboring house, found it empty, and stole an M-16 rifle, clips and a Kevlar vest. From there they moved onto the Fogel home.

Before entering the house the murderers noticed that there were children in the home. Undeterred, they still chose to proceed, killing two of the children immediately after breaking in. Parents Ehud and Ruth were murdered next. According to the investigation's report, the two struggled with their attackers before succumbing to multiple shotgun wounds.

Before fleeing the scene, the two stole an additional gun from the Fogel home. When they had already left the house and saw a patrol car outside, they feared they would be captured. At that point, Amjad insisted on going back into the house and searching for additional weapons. Unfortunately, this was when the Fogel's baby girl started crying. Fearing it would attract attention, the two murdered her, as well.

As for the two surviving children, the murderers said they hadn't noticed them. Had they found the two, both said, they would not have hesitated to kill them, as well.

The Fogel family home after the attack

The heinous deed done, the two, who are not related, returned to their village on foot and appealed to Hakim's uncle, Salah Awad, also a Popular Front militant, for assistance, giving him a detailed report of the attack they had carried out.

Salah Awad helped them conceal their weapons and bloodstained clothes, and later, he transferred the stolen weapons to Jad Obeid, a Ramallah resident, for hiding. The latter was arrested after the weapons were discovered in his possession

Israeli security forces also arrested five of the two's family members and friends in connection to the case.

Complex investigation, chilling reenactment

The Shin Bet noted that even though the murderers are affiliated with the Peoples Front, it appears that they acted of their own accord and were not following orders. The issue is still under investigation.

A senior Shin Bet official said that the massacre had the characteristics of a "lone-terrorist" attack and even though it was carried out by two people, obtaining intelligence to thwart such attacks in extremely difficult.

Sources familiar with the investigation said the two offered a dispassionate account of the attack, and "a chilling reenactment." Shin Bet officers described it as one of the most "shocking, cold, remorseless and detailed description," they had ever come across.

Amjad noted that he went to Itamar to "die a martyr's death", which strengthened his willingness to carry out an act of terrorism. During their interrogation the two suspects made no distinction between the murder of the parents and the children, describing it simply as an act against five Jewish Israelis.

The village of Awarta, with 8,000 residents is known as a breeding ground for terror and has quite a few hostile elements. Nevertheless, following the massacre and the series of arrests carried out by the defense establishment, the residents renounced the massacre and even attempted to point the blame away from the village.

The Shin Bet said that in spite of the time that passed between the murder and the case's resolution, it was a major achievement.

Following today's discoveries, Ruth Fogel's brother, Yochai Ben Yishai told Ynet: "We are very proud of the State and the security services. But on a personal level, there is no consolation, the pain remains sharp."

Yishai added that "the capture of he murderers gives us a sense of satisfaction on a national level but we must get to a point where these people are deterred before they take action and not just apprehended after the murder."

Editor's Note:

From Today's Arutz-7

"While the teenage terrorist butchers returned to school, as if nothing out of the ordinary had happened, the uncle took the knives used in the massacre and moved them to Ramallah. Israeli security agents have identified and arrested the man who hid the knives and have recovered the murder weapons.

"One of the suspected terrorist's mother insisted that her son was sleeping at the time of the murders, despite his confession. Another resident of Awarta, where the terrorists live, told Voice of Israel government radio Sunday that he does not even believe that the terrorist attack took place."


"Hakim Maazan Niyad Awad, born in 1993, a minor under Israeli law, was arrested on 5.4.11. A high school student, he is affiliated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). He was involved in the October 2010 stabbing of youths from Awarta; the motive was a personal dispute.

"Awad's father, Maazan, is a PFLP terrorist who, in the late 1990's, served approximately five years in a Palestinian Authority prison in connection with the murder of his niece and the burning of her body.

"Awad's uncle, Jibril Awad, was a PFLP terrorist who was killed in a December 2003 clash with IDF soldiers. He had been involved in the 20.6.02 terrorist attack in Itamar, in which Rachel Shabo (40) and three of her children (Avishai — 5, Zvika — 13 and Neria — 16), and their neighbor Yosef Twito (31), were murdered.

"Amjad Muhammad Fawzi Awad, born in 1992, was arrested on 10.4.11. A student, he is affiliated with the PFLP. He had previously worked as a laborer in Israel.

"Hakim and Amjad planned to perpetrate a terrorist attack in Itamar several days before March 11. To this end, they tried to acquire a firearm. They turned to Muhammad Said Awad (now under arrest), a PFLP militant in Awarta, and asked that he procure weapons for them; he did not do so.

"On March 11, Hakim and Amjad set out for Itamar, armed with knives and tools to cut the perimeter fence and cover their tracks. They crossed from Awarta to Itamar and climbed/jumped over the fence. Once inside Itamar, they proceeded to approach the first row of houses. They broke into a home adjacent to the Fogel residence but found nobody inside. They stole an M-16, clips and a flak jacket. They exited the home and thereupon burst into the Fogel residence."

From Arutz-7, April 18

"The IDF Civil Administration allowed PA Arabs from the nearby village of Awarta to harvest olives within Itamar that they claimed belonged to their village, despite concerns voiced by Itamar residents, who expressed fear that some PA Arabs could use the opportunity to learn the layout of the town in order to plan an attack. Residents of Itamar even said they would be willing to pick the olives themselves, and deliver them to residents of Awarta, rather than open their town to potentially hostile PA residents. However, Civil Administration officials insisted that Awarta residents not only be given possession of the olives in question, but be allowed to harvest the produce themselves.

"Residents reported Sunday that one of the PA "farmers" had been caught red-handed as he took pictures of IDF positions in Itamar during the harvest. The man was detained for questioning, but released on the orders of the Civil Administration.

"The IDF and the Civil Administration face pressure each year from the PA and the foreign and Israeli left to allow Arabs to harvest olives freely, regardless of security concerns. Many far-left groups, among them the International Solidarity Movement (ISM) and Rabbis for Human Rights, hold annual "olive harvest" events aimed at forcing Israel to allow PA Arabs to enter Israeli land during the harvest.

"Hakim Awad, 18, was permitted to enter Itamar along with other PA Arabs in order to harvest olives."

From Ari Bussel, "The War for Israel's Independence"

"Impossible," shouted the mother of one of the perpetrators. "He took a shower, ate the food I cooked, and read books before he went to sleep," she claimed. She was his alibi, the character witness and the judge: "No one from this village will dare touch children, it is against our religion, I have children too."

See also this audio of S'ad Nimr, Director General of PA Ministry of Detainees and Ex-Detainees Affairs. He justifies Itamar murders and includes their release in PA demands Itamar an act of resistance

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, April 17, 2011.

1. Rabbi Israel Rosen is an interesting guy. No one would ever mistake him for a bleeding heart leftist. In his commentary this week on religious matters, he writes about a phrase in the Passover Haggada song "V'hee she-omda". The phrase in question says "She-lo echad Amad Aleinu l'chaloteinu." It means, "Not only once do they fall upon us to annihilate us." The rabbi argues that the opening words, "She-lo echad" can also be read differently, as referring to a failure to unite.

He writes the following, inter alia:

(My translation)

"I found another interpretation for the Passover Seder phrase in the book, 'Making a Seder,' by Dov Goldberger, who argues that the "Lo Echad" in that phrase refers to the lack of internal unity among Jews. And it is THAT which stands ready to attack us in each generation and annihilate us from within, as referred to in the Haggada's phrase. How relevant and accurate are these words for our times and our situation! Oh how much better we would be without the radical treasonous Left, accomplice of our enemies, collaborating with all the anti-Israel international organizations, serving as a sort of Trojan Fifth Column. Even Dotan and Aviram, those trouble makers in the book of Numbers, did not betray their people to the enemy.

"And the Blessed One continues to rescue us from these, who create internal disunity. All those missiles suddenly landing in Beer Sheba and Ashkelon one fine day, the mortars landing in the Negev with no provocation, the constant attrition, the murders in Itamar — I believe that all these are meant to rescue us from the forces of internal disunity, the hands of the enemy, to show who they are and shut up their lying mouths...

"The hatred towards the religiously observant, coming out of the Far Left and Haaretz, is another facet of the Blessed One rescuing us from their hands. Their blind hatred is seen as repulsive by the forces of sanity, from wall to wall; it shows the public their true faces and leads to these people being placed outside the camp."

2. The Oslo Dayenu

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 the PLO 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 Palestinian 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.
Man, 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 surprised to find that 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. Oslo put the "die" back in "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 same politicians prepare for new unilateral withdrawals from Judea and Samaria.

3. Censorship and Leftwing McCarthyism at the University of Haifa:
Left-Wing 'McCarthy' MK Bans 'Racist' Ben-Ari
Nissan 13, 5771, 17 April 11 09:14
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu

(Israelnationalnews.com) Meretz Knesset Member Zahava Gal-On forced Haifa University to cancel a joint appearance with National Union Knesset Member Dr. Michael Ben-Ari because she refused to sit down with him on the same panel.

"I am not prepared participate in any panel with Ben-Ari because he is a fascist, a racist and a Kahanist [followed of the late Rabi Meir Kahane] and is not legitimate," said Gal-On.

The two MKs and other public figures were invited to speak at a discussion on "Religious Faith and the Israeli-Arab Struggle" at Haifa University. MK Ben-Ari said his letter of invitation from Prof. Yitzchak Wiseman stated, "I invite you to participate in the conference and take advantage of the podium because we are interested that all seams of thought present their views."

Despite the declaration of openness to different ideas, MK Ben-Ari received another letter that stated his participation was cancelled. "It is clear that the left exploits Haifa University, which surrenders to Gal-On's dictates. This is McCarthyism," he said, referring to the United States in the 1950s, when Sen. Joe McCarthy tried to rid the government of suspected Communists.

"The McCarthy leftists are working overtime," MK Ben-Ari added. "Her boycott [of me] is ridiculous. However, I sleep well at night without sitting down with her at the same forum.

"I have news for her. I am not less legitimate and perhaps even more legitimate than she is and than are her positions. I am happy she has unmasked her true face," he declared after the cancellation. MK Gal-On said, I have positions based on principles." She said that when she understood that Mk Ben-Ari was to speak at the same panel, she explained her position. "I then understood that he was to appear on a different panel instead, and I did not know that his participation was cancelled altogether. But it does not make any difference," she added.

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@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by YogiRUs, April 16, 2011.

This is exactly what I mean when I say that our leadership is hopelessly out of step with events and trends. We are not having serious discussions where it is needed most about the growing threats to our Jewish community in this country right now. We are deluding ourselves and ignoring the threat bearing down on us now. We need some leaders to stand up and deal with these issues among ourselves rather than hold meaningless "dialogues" with local Muslims. How many such "dialogues" did our people have with the Poles before Hitler...and then they enthusiastically helped to murder our people???

Leadership in many areas of the nation are dancing around the seriousness of the threat, patting themselves on the back over what minimum efforts they are making. Political correctness rules, as we seek "dialogue" with Muslims while the situation on many important college campuses verges on wholesale violence and college officials turna blind eye. Will it take a murder of a Jewish college student to get these people off their rear ends. It has already come close to just that. Yet they refuse to discuss it before mass audiences and congregations.

I received this from Alan Bergreen

Frank, excellent overview of the problem, but the authors stop short of considering what this reticence on the part of establishment Jewry really means. I fear it is not simply a question of making adjustments in the operation of the Jewish communal organizations or their counterparts on U.S. campuses. After-all, we are dealing here with the well-being of our youth and it would stand to reason that Jewish parents across the country would be demanding protection for them...unless...unless there was a larger set of fears at work of a magnitude to stifle such impulses and encourage a blind-eyed state of denial. And I believe there is. Simply put, at the back of the collective consciousness of the American Jewish community is an acute status anxiety and sense of impending crisis; the perception that perhaps the "golden-age" of American Jewry is coming to an end. Having invested so much in the notion of American exceptionalism and the confidence that American Jews would continue to prosper without limit, it now appears that expectation may not be true.

America is in a deep economic crisis which for the time being has only been papered-over by a series of stop-gap measures that fail to solve the nations problems. We have a President in which 79% of the Jewish electorate placed their hopes who has turned on us and slapped us collectively in the face. We are faced with a growing Muslim demographic invasion which is the source of palpable violence in the society at large and specifically toward Jews on American campuses. Another major shock to the American economy (which could easily be generated by OPEC) could ruin personal fortunes and render previously secure members of the Jewish community rapidly declasse. Add to this the fact that middle-class people, for the most part, like to be comfortable and non-combative, and are ill-equiped to go to the mat in a manner more aggressive than writing a letter to the editor (if that), and we see the stage set for a Weimar-like, head-in-the-sand dynamic which many thought could never happen here.

You also must remember that the Jewish organizations on American campuses are not really independent operations. They operate at the sufferance of the univesities and try their best to be above reproach and in step with university norms at all times. Which means they would sooner "man the barricades" on behalf of "trans-gendered" students, African-Americans, or the victims of "Islamophobia" (real or imagined) than members of their own beleagured community - the latter being too unpopular and too easily criticized as chauvinistic. They try their best to be more liberal than the ACLU, so to speak, to the point of self-deprecation, and the Hillel organization is probably the worst of the lot, pre-occupied as it is with all things trendy and politically correct.

The embourgeoisement of the American Jewish community, especially the younger generation, has left it largely unfit for a street fight. They reel in horror at the very notion. So, forgive the long-winded dissertation, but I think we're headed for some rough times ahead.

- A.B.

Alan also writes:


Here in sunny south Florida, we are surrounded by shuls, Jewish Community Centers, organizations with "Jewish" in their titles or in their fund raising brochures, who apparently have very little interest in the future of the next generation of Jews. A recent "love fest" meeting at local Florida Atlantic University between Jewish and Muslim students was indicative of the lack of understanding (of the Jewish kids) of the goals of the Muslim students. They've never heard of the situations at UC at San Diego, Rutgers and Brooklyn College, to name just a few? Are they unaware that the Muslim Student Association, and the MSO are part of the Muslim Brotherhood and all that group stands for? Why are these Jewish kids, who are smart enough to get into college, so stupid on matters of that should be of such great concern to them? Where are all the "Jewish" groups with vast amounts of Jewish funding to educate and alert them? Why are not the local JCC, JCRC, ADL, AJC and the vast network of shuls not educating them in the realities of Muslim religious hatred? What else are they concerned with??

The article below and other sources of truth re: the goals of Islam in our colleges should be handed out by local rabbis and their congregants at every single college within their communities. Bring the kids in and let them hear the the truth from experts in the field of Islam. Better to do this good deed than to waste time with such temple entertainment as, lunches, cruises, financial and sex improvement seminars and dance lessons at the shuls. To sit back and do nothing is the real "sin" for which we will pay dearly. Tell that to your rabbi!!


Below is an article entitled "Jewish Students Under Assault — Parts I and II" by Jonathan Rosenblum. Part 1 appeared April 1, 2011 at Jewish Media
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1436/ jewish-students-under-assault-part-u and Part 2 appeared April 8, 2011 in Jewish Media
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1439/ jewish-students-under-assault-part-ii

Part 1 Jewish Students Under Assault

Jewish college students find themselves increasingly under attack on campuses around the world. The seventh annual Israel Apartheid Week just took place on 55 campuses world-wide. Canada's Immigration Minister Jason Kenney rightly described such events seeking to "promote Palestinian human rights" as "accompanied by anti-Semitic harassment, intimidation and bullying." Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper lamented that the "anti-Israel mob" is frequently "allowed to prevail." And opposition leader, Michael Ignatieff described the anti-Israel events as a "cocktail of ignorance and intolerance." At Ottawa's Carlton University, a non-Jewish supporter of Israel and his Israeli roommate were surrounded and then chased by an Arabic-speaking mob, one of whose members swung a machete that missed the head of the non-Jew by inches.

The demonization of Israel to which young Jews are exposed begins long before university studies; the campuses are merely the venue for the most intense exposure. British journalist Melanie Phillips described on Israel TV this week the "demonization, dehumanization, and delegitimization" of Israeli Jews that has become the daily fare of the mainstream British media, and which she documents in nauseating detail in her new book The World Turned Upside Down. Channel Four recently broadcast the four-part historical fiction, The Promise, whose theme was summed up thus by Richard Millett, "rich European Jews came to Palestine after the Holocaust, stole the Palestinians' land and murdered British soldiers." Another Channel Four film portrayed Jewish soldiers killing Palestinian children for blood sport, a charge repeated in a recent BBC TV lecture by MP Richard Morpurgo.

James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, explained on Jordanian TV already in 1990, how a powerful Arab Lobby could conquer the campuses and media by allying the Palestinians with the American Left - '60s radicals now tenured professors, African-American student groups, and, above all, Jewish progressives. Vast sums of Arab oil money have been used to advance the process. Over the last ten years, 600 million dollars in Arab money has flowed to American universities — most to the elite universities, where the next generation of American leaders are trained — to fund Middle East Studies programs, for which excoriation of Israel is always the soup du jour. The recent resignation of the head of the prestigious London School of Economics over the receipt of very large donation from Libya, and the granting of a spurious PhD. to Muammar Gaddafi's son Seif in return, is an example of the same Arab largesse with strings attached in England.

The Jewish progressives have certainly filled their assigned role. Thirty professors of Jewish studies recently signed a petition asking Orange County, Calif. prosecutors to drop charges against Arab students who conspired to prevent Israel's ambassador to the United States Michael Oren from speaking at University of California at Irvine. The use of the criminal justice system to regulate student speech, the petition said, "is detrimental to the values exemplified by the academic and intellectual environment on our university campuses." The Jewish professors did not explain what intellectual environment is fostered by forcibly preventing pro-Israel speakers from being heard.

Charles Jacobs and Avi Goldwasser, co-founders of the David Project to combat the anti-Israel tenor of American universities, describe the success of Zogby's project: Radical professors express the dominant narrative that Israel is a racist, genocidal nation. "Outside the classroom anti-Israel groups hold conferences, screen films and conduct theatrical demonstrations that portray Israel in the harshest terms. Israel' advocates are prevented from speaking; pro-Israel events are disrupted; Jewish students are intimidated verbally or even physically, and are excluded from pro-Palestinian events. Pathetic attempts by Jewish students to initiate dialogue Palestinian students are rejected. ... " Political correctness, Jacobs and Goldwasser continue, dictates that the Israelis are by definition always guilty and the "darker skinned, impoverished Palestinians eternally innocent."

EVEN THOSE of us who would never contemplate sending our children to university should be profoundly troubled by these trends. Jewish students invariably find themselves identified with Israel, and the effort to flee that association can also lead them to stop identifying as Jews. At this year's AJOP (Association of Jewish Outreach Programs) an entire session was devoted to the impact on campus kiruv when Israel is no longer a source of pride or identification for many, if not most, Jews. At least at the subconscious level, intermarriage can seem like the most effective way to avoid being labeled one of those "racist" Jews, who are concerned only about their own kind and sure that their lives are more valuable than everyone else's.

The pressure to not identify as Jews becomes even greater when the demonization of Israel so readily slips into traditional anti-Jewish tropes. In a recent survey conducted by the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, which is associated with Germany's Social Democratic Party, nearly half of all Germans surveyed agreed that Israel is conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians, and 35.6% agreed with the statement, "Considering Israel's policy, I can understand why people do not like Jews." The comparable figure for the second question in England was 35.9% and in the Netherlands 41.1%.

Nor do academics even feel the need to hide their visceral distaste for Jews, not just Israelis. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz just returned from Norway, where none of the country's three leading universities would agree to sponsor a lecture by him on Israel and International Law, offered free of charge. The same universities have hosted speeches by prominent academic proponents of BDS (boycotts, divestment and sanctions) against Israel, such as Ilan Pappe. The framer of one Norwegian academic boycott petition began with an explicit reference to Jews' - even secular Jews' — "self-satisfied [and] self-centered tribal mentality."

The impact of the attacks on Israel on young Jews is profound. David Berkley, president of the Manchester Zionist Central Council, recently discussed with The Jewish Chronicle's Jonathan Kalmus the effect on Jewish youth of having grown up with "Israel the regional superpower, Israel the aggressor, the occupier and human rights abuser." (It was not even entirely clear from the quote in The Jewish Chronicle whether Berkley, like many leaders of mainstream British Jewish organizations, himself agrees with that characterization.) David Tuck, a 17-year-old Manchester Grammar School student, told the Chronicle that while he had "always thought Israel has a right to exist" - apparently a major concession - "it is hard when there is so much anti-Israel news and a lot of people I go to school with are quite strongly anti-Israel." Another student in Manchester's Zionist King David school echoed that sentiment, and admitted that he and many of his friends brought up in left-leaning families hold critical view of Israel. Blogger Edgar Davidson confessed that his daughter, who attends an Orthodox Jewish school, tells him that when Israel comes up in the Jewish studies classes, students routinely express the opinion that Israel has no right to exist because the land was stolen from the Arabs.

ON THE UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES, there will always be a hard-core group of students whose identity is strengthened by the sense of being a minority under siege, but for most the effect is just the opposite. Even those with the strongest Jewish identity become apologetic, if not absolutely cowed, when the subject of Israel arises. Consider the response of the Brown Hillel to the placement in the campus newspaper by the David Horowitz Freedom Center of an advertisement called the Palestinian Wall of Lies in response to Israel Apartheid Week. None of the Hillel students had written to the campus newspaper to protest Israel Apartheid Week or to remonstrate with the local Muslim Students Association for sponsoring it.

In an open letter to the Brown newspaper, the student leaders accused the Palestinian Wall of Lies advertisement of being "Islamophobic and racist," and expressed their opinion that there should be no place for these "spiteful, bigoted words" in the Brown community, even under the guise of political speech." The letter did not quote one word from the advertisement, much less try to refute it, and implicitly called for censorship of anything that Muslim students might find hurtful.

Communications guru Frank Luntz recently described to the Jerusalem Post's David Horowitz a focus group he did with 35 Harvard and MIT students, 20 non-Jewish and 15 Jewish. Within ten minutes, the non-Jewish students had started talking about "Israeli war crimes," "the Israel Lobby," "Jewish power." And all the while the Jewish students just sat there as if struck dumb. It took a full 49 minutes, until the head of the Harvard Israel Action group tried to answer. After three hours, Luntz dismissed the non-Jewish students and berated some of the brightest Jewish students in America for having being unwilling or incapable of responding. The latter sat there painfully embarrassed by the realization that if they could not even speak up to a group of peers, they would never be able to defend Israel any place else. And the situation at Cambridge and Oxford, where he spent three years in graduate school, Luntz confided, is even worse.

By way of partial explanation, Luntz suggested that the Jewish students have been raised by parents for whom tolerance and being non-judgmental are the supreme values - particularly the vast majority of Jewish students from left-wing background, As a consequence, they are uncomfortable standing up for Israel against Palestinian claims.

Luntz is right. When speaking to Jewish student groups, I have been stopped after a minute or two by a student asking, "How do I know that you are not just feeding me propaganda? I want to hear an Arab speaker." The students do not even have enough feeling of shared identity with Israeli Jews to first want to hear the Israeli side.

David Olesker, who teaches Israel advocacy, stresses that even among student groups brought to Israel there is no assumption that Israel needs or deserves a defense. In this respect, Jewish students are the polar opposite from Arab and Muslim students, who are highly politicized and relentlessly on message. Any private disagreements they may have are rarely expressed publicly. And one will never hear a Muslim student asking to hear the Israeli position. As one Jewish student at the University of Chicago explained to Olesker: the Arab students are simply more attached to their roots than we are.

The failure to provide Jewish university students with more tools to defend themselves constitutes one of the great failures of organized Jewry in both the United States and Great Britain. But the explanation is not hard to find. In their ambivalence towards Israel, Jewish students merely reflect the ambivalence of the larger community, including many in leadership positions in organized Jewish life.

Part 2 Jewish Students Under Assault

The failure of the mainstream Jewish organizations with respect to Jewish students on campus is twofold. First is the failure to aggressively defend students from physical and verbal intimidation, especially when they identify with Israel. Second is the failure to provide them with the information they need to defend Israel and to fend off a type of Stockholm Syndrome.

Charles Jacobs and Avi Goldwasser draw an interesting parallel to an incident that took place at the University of California-San Diego in 2009. A noose — presumably a symbol of lynching — was found on campus and students occupied the chancellor's office in response. Everyone from the governor on down condemned the incident, and the university quickly established a task force on minority hiring and a commission to address declining black admissions. (The noose, it turned out, had been placed by a minority student.)

Yet, write Jacobs and Goldwasser, when Jewish students and Jewish buildings are attacked and defaced, "Jewish leaders sit on their hands. No one calls for sensitivity training for Muslim and leftist students about the history of blood libels. ..."

Students who fight back aggressively usually do so independently or with the assistance of little known groups like The Fellowship for Campus Safety and Integrity or The Institute for Jewish Community Research. Jessica Felber, a student at University of California-Berkeley did not just sue the Palestinian leader who rammed her from with a loaded shopping cart and sent her to the university emergency medical services, as she held aloft a sign "Israel Wants Peace." She sued the University of California for "ignoring mounting evidence of anti-Jewish animus" and "physical intimidation and violence by Students for Justice in Palestine." And Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a lecturer at University of California-Santa Cruz fought for years — in the end successfully — to get the U.S. Office of Civil Rights to open an investigation of her own university for allowing an environment in which "professors, academic departments, and residential colleges promote and encourage anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, and anti Jewish views and behaviors."

This type of confrontational suit is anathema to many of the mainstream groups, who recall Israel Zangwill's old description of the Order of Trembling Israelites. Jacobs and Goldwasser, for instance, had to create a new organization, the David Project, when they decided to do a documentary exposing the naked anti-Israel propaganda to which students were subjected by Columbia University's Department of Middle East Studies.

When it comes to providing campus speakers and information as well, much of the heavy lifting is being done by smaller groups: CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Chabad, the Aish HaTorah affiliated Hasbara Fellowships. Among old line "defense organizations" only the Zionist Organization of America is highly active in the field.

Hillel would seem to be the logical choice to lead the campus fight for protecting Jewish students, as well as making the case of Israel. Yet the organization's devotion to maintaining the "big tent," which includes anti-Israel Jewish groups as well, renders it ill-suited to the task. One Hillel even funds Jewish groups that support BDS (boycotts, divestment, and sanctions) against Israel.

THE ORGANIZED JEWISH COMMUNITY cannot protect Jewish students who identify with Israel, in part because it is itself so ambivalent about Israel. The rise of J Street is emblematic of the tension within the community. J Street has never heard a criticism of Israel that it did not endorse: the group opposed the United States exercising a veto of a U.N. resolution singling out Israeli settlements for special condemnation. Nor has the organization ever heard a criticism of one of Israel's enemies that it could endorse. It has opposed sanctions against Iran, and is currently working against a congressional letter urging the administration to take a tougher stand on incitement against Israel in the official Palestinian media and educational system.

Just as Hillel seeks to preserve a big Jewish tent, at the cost of preserving any consensus on Israel, so does the mainstream Jewish community. The General Assembly of Jewish Federations created a new initiative last October to combat the BDS movement. The Israel Action Network (IAN) was budgeted at $6,000,000 and to be headed by Martin Raffel, the vice-president of the Jewish Council on Public Affairs. In a recent speech, quoted by Richard Baehr of Frontpage Magazine, Raffel, the leader of the anti-boycott effort, distinguishes between those advocating a total boycott of Israel, and those, including left-wing Jewish groups, who only advocate a boycott of goods produced beyond the 1949 armistice lines. The latter, he argues, should not be placed outside the tent. Thus the head of the mainstream community's anti-boycott efforts legitimates the tactic as applied to Israel, and leaves the opposition to a technical one over where to draw the lines.

The Washington Federation allocates communal funding to support an anti-Israel Jewish theater troupe called Theater J. One of the troupe's special offerings was Caryl Churchill's Seven Jewish Children, a short play based on the metaphor of Israeli Jews as today's Nazis. And the company also sponsored a bus trip to a showing of the anti-Israel agitprop play My Name is Rachel Corrie. The Orange County, California Federation and the University of California-Irvine Hillel participate in the Olive Tree Initiative, which features two-week trips to Israel, where students will hear from both Palestinian and Israel speakers who share a common animus for Israel. And, in the name of preserving multiple voices, the New York Federation CEO defends partnering with Jewish groups that support economic and political warfare against Israel.

As the communal consensus about Israel crumbles, it is hardly surprising that Federations and Jewish defense organizations are unable to assist pro-Israel students on campus. Nor can one blame Jewish university students for feeling tainted by any association with Israel, when so many of their elders feel exactly the same way. The late NYU professor Tony Judt, a teenage kibbutz volunteer in Israel, wrote a famous piece in The New York Review of Books in which he termed Israel — indeed the very idea of a state built on religious-ethnic identity — an atavism for which there is no place in the modern world. His strictures, needless to say, applied only to Israel, not to any of the world's 57 or so Muslim countries. Towards the end of the lengthy piece, Judt let drop what really griped him about Israel: He was tired of having criticisms of Israel directed at him at university teas and sherry hours.

One hears the same ennui in New Yorker editor David Remmick: "Even people like me, who understand that not only one side is responsible for the conflict and that the Palestinians missed an historic opportunity for peace in 2000, can't take it anymore." Remmick isn't interested in the issues, or rights and wrongs, but in the fact that Israel embarrasses him in the left precincts where he hangs out. "Sorry, it can't go on this way," he lectures Israel. President Obama is trying out of good will to get a peace process going, and Israel should go along with whatever he suggests, argues Remmick.

He couldn't care less about the security concerns Israelis have about further territorial withdrawals, or about Palestinian incitement, or anything else. Israel has made life more difficult for him and must capitulate in order to remove the unpleasantness to Remmick.

If Jewish adults cannot bear being looked at askance by their left-wing comrades, and have wearied of being associated with their militaristic Israeli co-religionists, how can we possibly expect university students to do any better?

Contact YogiRUs by email at YogiRUs@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 16, 2011.


For all the altruistic reasons that President Obama gives for U.S. warfare in Libya, Arabs assume that the real reasons are some U.S. interest. What is Obama's rationale?

In his speech of March 28, Obama repeatedly invoked the U.S. national interest, but failed to define it. He mentioned the U.S. interest and values together, implying that they are almost synonymous, which they are not. He suggested that we could not let masses of Libyans flee to Egypt and disrupt its democratic "impulses." [Lame excuse.] The rising influence of the Moslem Brotherhood in Egypt, and its army's firing upon Christians, makes one wonder about Egypt's impulses.

Nor does Obama care that much about assisting democracy abroad. He sees a role in Arab countries for the Moslem Brotherhood. If Arabs want the Brotherhood, Obama would bow to their aspiration as democratic [though it would end democracy there and boost anti-Americanism].

Obama said that a presumed massacre by Ghadaffi forces in Benghazi would have hurt our conscience and our national interest. How would it hurt our national interest? Obama did not say. Was he just posturing?

The Administration admitted that it did not know what the Libyan rebels stand for. Jihad Watch director Robert Spencer says that in the last few years, more jihadists entered Iraq from the rebel areas of eastern Libya, than from any other country.

Humanitarian intervention? Suppose the rebels win. Watch out for their massacring the people of western Libya! That massacre likely would be blamed on the U.S..

If Obama wants to save people from being massacred, cannot he find people who are not terroristic and who do not fight against U.S. troops? One thinks of Darfur [where there have been actual, massive atrocities). Why didn't Obama? Is it because the perpetrators are Muslims against Christians?

Obama also was bothered by what he acknowledges is unintentional destruction of mosques in Libya. Then why isn't he bothered by intentional destruction of churches in the Muslim world?

Obama's intervention is not necessarily humanitarian, and may be inhumane. It does not help the U.S. national interest, and may harm it. It may end up antagonizing Arabs further.

U.S. foreign policy should be made on the basis of long-tern U.S. national interests and common sense, not on the basis of "sentimental and idealistic platitudes" (Raymond Ibrahim, 4/6/11,
http://www.meforum.org/2871/ideals-trump- interests-in-obama-libya-policy).

Obama's policy sounds confused. It suffers from anti-Americanism — remember his slighting U.S. allies, praising or apologizing to U.S. enemies, deeming the U.S. a world trouble-maker, and wanting the U.S. to subordinate its sovereignty to international organizations.

In the light of prior stumbling into wars, and considering how much our resources have shrunk, along with the dollar, the U.S. should be much more prudent about foreign adventures.

Barack Obama seems dedicated to making Presidents Bush and Clinton look good.

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, April 16, 2011.

Palm Bark Out Of Water


Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
Go to http://reifyreadying.blogspot.com/ and http://abstractsfromfred-fred343.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, April 16, 2011.

We are the SC4Z--free of the Jewish demonicrat's political correctness that condemns most Jewish sheep to silence. We can speak freely, as did professor Howard Grief, who did not hesitate to describe Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak traitors. Add Sharon and Olmert to the spineless cowards. So ashamed of their Jewishness that they could only bleat "oy, oy, oy," while Colin Powell admonished them to "shut up and refrain." BTW--Colin Powell was made a millionaire by the oily arabs to thank him for Desert Storm. Him. Not the families of the soldiers who died protecting Saudi Arabia from Iraq.

We say these Jews are not only traitors to Israel, but traitors to freedom loving Christians throughout the middle east. These old cooters are the bleeding edge of a peculiar self-serving sedition that had them easily trading their brethren's freedom in exchange for flattery, air-kisses, and promises of secret sources of wealth. Confront Shimon Peres about his "peace" NGO in the Cayman islands which he established so he could partner with his dearest partner in peace, bloody Arafat. Watch his brow furrow with flop-sweat. Peres established his NGO in Cayman so it could partner with Arafat's NGO established for the PNA such that the two NGOs could in the name of peace secretly mine treasure from the Gaza--land that belongs to Israel. Peres promised it to his dear friend Arafat. See articles in Worldnet Daily, and Google Shimon Peres Cayman Islands.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z (Secular Christians for Zion) Not Left. Not Right. Just 4 Justice 4 Israel!

Below are two items: one by Yuval the Truth Provider, the other by Charles Krauthammer.


On Apr 15, 2011, at 11:12 AM, Truth Provider wrote:

A sign we saw in one of the sites in India proclaims:


Do the Indians maintain what Israelis have forgotten?

Dear friends,

The Jewish Passover commemorates and celebrates freedom.

But not only freedom, it also commemorates resistance and final victory of few over many, of the weak over the powerful.

The Jewish 2000 years' struggle to return and settle their ancient homeland (which lay completely barren in anticipation of the return of its legitimate people) continues until this very day.

The struggle of the very few, 6 million Israelis, against 100 million Arabs, 1.3 billion Muslims and a world which prefers to support the wrong side, is as significant today as it has been for 2000 years. The only blessed difference: Now Jews have the means to protect themselves.

For two thousand long years, scattered all over the Diaspora, under constant threat of physical annihilation and assimilation, Jews uttered two chants every year at the Seder dinner ceremony:

1. VE'HI SHE'AMDA. Translation: "[It is] The PROMISE which STOOD in support of our ancestors and of ourselves, for not only one has risen up against us, but in every generation many have risen against us to annihilate us, but the Most Holy, blessed be He, always delivered us out of their hands."


Unfortunately, in recent years, it was not Israel's many enemies that defeated us; it has been Israel's own leaders.

Modern Israeli leaders betrayed The PROMISE, our HERITAGE and forfeited our GLORY.

They failed to STAND against those who plot to annihilate us. They broke and severed 2000 years of yearning. By their short-sighted defeatist policies they led us to near annihilation.

Today, on the eve of Passover, I place an urgent call to all of you, my readers, to do all you can to stand by Israel and support Israel against all her enemies. The PROMISE should also be your promise. Please adopt it!

With your influence and votes you can strengthen the hands of our Israeli knee-jerked leaders to stand firm against ALL our detractors, from without and within.

Following please find some very gloomy comments by Charles Krauthammer.

However, unlike him, I do not think it is too late to save Israel from its leaders and redeem Judea and Samaria for their legitimate owners, the Jewish people. In fact, it is possible that the PROMISE will fortify the hands of PM Netanyahu and his government.

Israel must immediately annex Judea & Samaria and insist that Jordan is Palestine. It is not too late. In view of the turmoil in the Arab world, this might be the only and last opportune moment for Israel.

The demographic threat Krauthammer speaks about can be dealt with in various legitimate ways. Be that as it may, the demographic threat is much less dangerous than another Arab state in Judea and Samaria into which the Arabs will be able to pour millions of Arab "refugees."

In fact, if Charles Krauthammer is correct that Israel's leaders led Israel to catastrophe in 1993, Israel has no choice but to annex Judea & Samaria, or suffer a catastrophe.

Do not miss the audio recording of the Krauthammer interview within the JP article, link below.

The struggle for Israel is on. Let us all promise ourselves the most ancient and unbroken PROMISE of generations:



Your Truth Provider,


Here are experts from the interview Charles Krauthammer, the Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist and political commentator, gave to JP:

"Israel's diplomacy, unfortunately, tragically, catastrophically ... has given away the legitimacy of its claim on the West Bank," "Now you have to face reality; now you live in a new world, and you have to accept it.". "No serious player believes it can hang on forever to the West Bank."

"This is Israel as a nation. It conceded the legitimacy of the Palestinian revolution; it sort of accepted the Palestinian narrative, denigrated its own narrative of 1948-49. It got the world to accept Palestinian nationalism, nationhood - that's what Oslo did.".

"Israel was deceived, and allowed itself to be deceived into accepting the promises of the Palestinians in return for conceding statehood, essentially."."I said the battle for the West Bank is already lost; all that's left is the battle to hang on to Jerusalem-which the Israelis may also be losing as well.".

"Even the division of Jerusalem was something that came from Israel at Camp David 2000. An Israeli Prime Minister offers to divide Jerusalem, and he broke the taboo. He was the one. After that there was no way the United States could be for a united Jerusalem. You couldn't be more Catholic than the Pope. If the Israelis had given up in an offer to the Palestinians half of Jerusalem, it was a done deal. The rest of the world has now accepted that.".

Asked to impart a message for Passover, which begins April 18 at sundown, Dr. Krauthammer said: "I could say it in two words: "V'hi Sheamda," invoking the Passover Seder prayer acknowledging God's deliverance of the Jews from destruction in "every generation."."And let's hope that remains true forever."

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Teresinka Pereira, April 16, 2011.
They walk
and walk.
Spent and war-weary,
they arrive
at the refugee camp.
Heads sun-soaked,
feet coated in sand,
their souls testify to
infinite loneliness,
fear, humiliation.
Dull eyes reflect
their everyday encounter
with Death.
Who invented war?
Women and children
are forever
the refugees.

Contact Teresinka Pereira at tpereira@buckeye-express.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 15, 2011.


NEWS: Mk Zanin Zoabi of the Arabs' Balad Party calls Israel "racist" for being a Jewish state. She describes Israeli control over Judea-Samaria and partial control of Gaza's borders as "occupation." Israeli law permits banning a political party like hers, that seeks to overthrow the Jewish or democratic nature of the State of Israel.

She urges Arabs to start another Intifada, though a less violent one, and to participate in the global Arab uprising. She explains that occupiers should not be able to lead normal lives.

MK Zoabi was aboard the Mavi Marmara, the ship that ferried no humanitarian aid but did carry violent jihadists, in the Turkish flotilla. She welcomes the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.

She complains that persons unnamed count only Jews killed during terrorist incidents, not Arabs, as if Arabs do not count.

Last year, she and five other MKs visited Qadaffi. In reaction, other MKs attempted to strip them of their parliamentary immunity (Arutz-7, 11/14/11).

ANALYSIS: If stripped of parliamentary immunity, Zoabi could be prosecuted for her subversion and for breaking the law against visiting and comforting the enemy. The Knesset rarely prosecutes Arabs for subversion. It banned only one political party, a Jewish one that had become a growing rival to the established ones. That party had given fair warning of the coming troubles with Israeli Arabs. For that, established parties called it "racist."

The real bigots are: (1) Muslim Arabs who call the Jewish people "sons of apes and pigs," accuse them of inherent (implicitly genetic) evil, and believe their religion entitled to dominate or extinguish the rest; and (2) Other people, including Jews, who encourage Muslim Arab aggrandizement and inhibit Jewish self-defense. The term, "racist," is used as a weapon to inhibit dissent. Real racists use it often.

If Zoabi were sincere, she would denounce all Arab states and the Palestinian Authority for officially being Islamic and some for Arabs dominating other, native nationalities. Her struggle isn't about consistency of principle. What principle? This is about conquering others and waging that war as much by words as by machines.

How democratic and Jewish is Israel? The government of Israel aids and comforts the enemy, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars a year in transfer payments, half of which get relayed to Gaza. The Netanyahu regime has helped the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) build up its economy to the point where the UN deems it economically ready for statehood (but readiness for statehood does not mean readiness for peace). The government secretly but illegally lets P.A. authorities into, and freezes Jewish construction in areas it would like to abandon to the Arabs, including Jerusalem, and discriminates in favor of illegal Arab construction (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/, Arutz-7, 10/28).

The government punishes Jews who defend themselves against assault by Arabs, and rarely prosecutes the assailants. One wonders, in this perversion of civil liberties, how much democratic nature and Jewish character Israel has. If any party is to be banned, Likud qualifies.

My earlier articles found much undemocratic and subversive about Israel, where the parties represent political bosses, the government controls part of the media and the Left controls most of it, colleges are anti-Zionist indoctrination centers, the Supreme Court and Attorney-General make up legislation to suit their ideology, foreign agencies finance anti-Zionist NGOs, etc..

The first Intifada had its violence. In suggesting a third, Zoabi is utilizing the old Arab tactic of promoting religious war in the guise of democracy. If she were interested in democracy, she should complain about Israel's real lapses and about repressive Arab rule in Gaza and in Abbas' P.A..

Zoabi calls Israel's attempted restriction on war material entering Gaza a "siege," as if it were imposing something unfair on Gazans. If Hamas weren't trying to bring in war materiel, there would be no blockade. What would be fair for those people, wholeheartedly in favor of jihad, would be a total blockade except for exit visas. (For an expose of the flotilla, see
www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/ html/ipc_e123.htm.)

The rest of the world objects to a full blockade on humanitarian grounds. Their purported humanitarianism lets the Muslim Arabs' bigoted warfare continue. She calls those few restrictions on Gaza "occupation," though the Arabs there rule themselves in all other aspects. That is, their Radical Islamic leaders rule them, and rule them harshly.

Zoabi expresses herself as humanitarian, but she does not object to Hamas firing rockets at Israeli civilians nor to other terrorism. Don't get gulled by her line of humanitarianism!

Now think of Israelis in Judea-Samaria, the part of their homeland where Jewish civilization arose, trowel in one hand, in the other a Bible open to a page about the nearby hill where some prophet or Jewish judge or Joshua held forth, and an area to which the League of Nations recognized historical Jewish rights. Nevertheless, Zoabi calls it occupied.

One hears the expression, "Palestinian territory," although no Palestinian Arab state ever existed there. Arabs did not call themselves Palestinian until their second war by several Arab states failed to dispossess and destroy the Jews there and in Israel.

But why am I treating this issue on an intellectual plane, when Islam is in a war that it calls holy but that it conducts with deliberate deceit? Jihadists use whatever words give the desired impression, regardless of truth.

Arabs are masters at slogans that dupe Western donors into thinking that the sloganeers favor democracy. Many Westerners seem eager to be deceived. This characteristic gives totalitarian regimes, including the Nazi, Communist, and Islamic ones, an initial advantage in the struggle for survival. Will there be survival of the shiftiest?


The Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah polled Arabs in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) on the March, 2011 massacre of five members of the Fogelman family, Israelis living in Judea-Samaria. A baby was among those savagely butchered — - all slashed up. One third of the Arabs approved of the massacre (Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, Arutz-7, 4/6/11,

Perhaps Islam is a religion of peace, mercy, and love, but many Muslim Arabs and Pakistanis are hate-filled, unmerciful, holy warriors prompted by their religious teachers. For consistency and to show they are sincere and peace-loving, those who call Islam a religion of peace should condemn those preachers. They usually don't, at least not by name, which is what would count.

The fact that this case put the Arab side more on the defensive, so that Arabs know that this assault is unpopular, may have influenced the poll. Usually, higher percentages approve of terrorism and of holy war.

If you polled Jewish Israelis about possible terrorism against Arabs, hardly any would approve.

Many Arabs deny they support terrorism, but what else is the deliberate murder of a sleeping baby? The denials are mendacious, Mendacity is a jihad tactic. I am waiting for repeated exposure of jihadist deceit to generate skepticism of further Arab claims.


Both regimes in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) have been picking on journalists more, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW). The regimes have arrested, punished, and confiscated materials from foreign and local journalists. This intimidation is thought to result in self-censorship.

HRW usually condemns only the Israeli side. In this case, however, it urges withholding of foreign aid to the P.A. until the P.A. stops acting against journalists (Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, Arutz-7, 4/6/11 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/).

Do Western governments care that they are misinformed?


Saudi prince Turki al-Faisal urged that the countries within the Gulf Cooperation Council combine their militaries and acquire nuclear weapons, in order to face down Iran. He also wants Israel to stand down its nuclear weaponry (IMRA, 3/29/11 http://www.imra.org.il/).

By not forcing Iran to desist, and by not seeking the Iranian clerical regime's overthrow, we stimulated nuclear proliferation. We seem to follow the old rule of pay less now but pay more later.


Rabbi Richard Jacobs has been appointed head of the Union for Reform Judaism.

Rabbi Jacobs long has been on the board of the New Israel Fund, which finances NGOs that promote boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel.

He also is on the board of J Street, subsidized by George Soros. And by significant donations from pro-Saudi activists,Arab-American leaders, Muslim activists and State Department anti-Israel Arabists whose support J Street denied until confronted with the evidence. J Street opposed sanctions on Iran and urged Pres. Obama not to veto a UN resolution declaring Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria and eastern Jerusalem illegal.

J Street also urges an end to Israeli "occupation" in eastern Jerusalem and the dissolution of the Jewish Agency, Jewish National Fund, and the Israel Lands Authority, because those organizations hold some land purchased by the Jewish people for the Jewish people. (J Street would like such land released to Arabs, which would be a theft. J street ignores the Arab attempt to take over the country.)

Rabbi Jacobs supported imam Rauf and his mega-mosque project at Ground Zero, despite Rauf's pro-jihad, anti-American record.

Commentary Magazine observes that the Reform movement always was somewhat leftist, but now it might go further against Zionism (ZOA press release, 3/29/11 http://www.zoa.org/).


NEWS: A few months ago, some Jews hiking in the Judean hills were attacked by a large group of Arabs. To fend off the Arabs, some hikers fired warning shots into the air.

Arabs complained that one of them was shot dead. Despite no real evidence, no body, for example, and none of the usual forensic examination of the weapons, which one of the arrestees denied having fired at all, police arrested the three Jews who had carried guns, on charges of intent to murder.

Police demanded that the three be kept under house arrest. The judge disagreed, since they do not seem to present a public danger. But he restricted their further hiking.

Later, the court released the men, having found that they had acted in self-defense. After that, a higher court lifted the hiking restrictions as excessive (IMRA, 3/30/11 http://www.imra.org.il/ from

INTERPRETATION: I have been reporting regularly on Arabs attacking Jews, accusing Jews of having attacked them, and police automatically accepting the Arab version without or despite evidence, and punishing Jews for self-defense. This must be anti-Zionist policy. Remember, the courts and Attorney-General lean left, sometimes far leftward.

The authorities act indignant, but by what ethical principle of law do authorities discriminate in favor of assailants against victims?

Media, NGOs, and governments claim that Jews ("settlers") attack Arabs. When will they acknowledge that such attacks are rare but the reverse is frequent? In the absence of government protection, people eventually will protect themselves.

In all these cases, if Jews intended murder, why no deaths?

Why don't police arrest the Arab assailants? Instead of worrying whether firing warning shots would be treated as a crime and the gun owner being disarmed, facilitating the next Arab attack, why shouldn't defenders be encouraged to shoot to kill, in non-crowded areas? This is war! Serious consequences for Arabs intent on murder would discourage them. After all, the Arabs are at war, even if Israel is not. That puts Israel at an unfair disadvantage, vis-à-vis the Arab aggressors. Isn't that foolish?

When are friends of Israel going to realize that the government of Israel discriminates in favor of the Arabs attempting to kill Israelis and destroy Israel? Why don't they protest against constant Arab attacks on Jewish Israelis?

Peace is preferable to war, but when will those who keep urging negotiations realize that peace cannot be obtained with fanatics whose ideology is murderous and whose goal is to take the whole country away from the non-Muslims? Life is difficult enough, without naïve or prejudiced people imagining that peace is within our grasp if only Israel makes concessions? How long before the naifs compare years of futile appeasement with the growing Arab sentiment for jihad, and realize that appeasement is not the answer? The naifs are the big problem, because they paralyze self-defense.


Israeli officials propose that a two-acre island be constructed in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of Gaza, for Abbas' Palestinian Authority (P.A.) and under his control. The Island would harbor an airport and a seaport. Imports would fall under Palestinian Authority (P.A.) control.

The planners did not discuss how Hamas would be kept from taking over the ports (Arutz-7, 3/30/11 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/).

Leave imports under P.A. control?

First, there is no ideological difference between the P.A., Fatah, and Hamas over the goal of conquering Israel. The two movements have been negotiating coalition. It would be a coalition against Israel.

Second, The P.A. has violated its agreements with Israel, in order to make war on Israel. One of the violations was to ship in arms, for which Abbas disbursed payment.

Suppose the island remains just the two acres proposed. It would not be able to accommodate cargo planes. However, Arafat used to abuse his VIP status and smuggle arms by helicopter. So did other P.A. officials use their cars for smuggling arms — Israel treated them as VIPs, though they just were terrorists with titles. They want to kill Jews, so why should Jews expect them to keep their word to Jews?

Netanyahu gave the P.A. arms, which the P.A. turned on Israelis, as predicted. Rabin gave the P.A. the names of Israeli agents in the P.A., and the P.A. promptly liquidated them, as he should have foreseen. Trust, betrayal, trust, betrayal, trust, betrayal. The media and U.S. leaders talk about the "need for trust on both sides", but the betrayal all is by the Muslim side. That is a principal of jihad.

Trusting the P.A. would be criminally negligent. Israeli officials keep coming up with these dangerous arrangements. The greatest fool is the one who not only can't foresee anything in the near future, but also cannot see what happened in the recent past. If intelligence is defined as the ability to learn from experience, those Israeli leftists are unintelligent.


Hundreds of people protested at the Yorba Linda Community Center against a fundraiser being held there on February 13 for the Islamic Center of North America, that has ties to jihadists. The crowd was addressed by U.S. politicians, whose remarks were in good taste and factual.

Later, however, a portion of the crowd turned to harassing and insulting Muslims, including families of them. "On March 2, CAIR-Los Angeles released a video documenting the crude shouts of the splinter group: 'Go back home!' 'You beat your women and you rape your children!' 'Go have sex with a nine-year-old and marry her!' True to form, CAIR heavily edited its video by interspersing clips of lawmakers at the earlier rally with later footage of the second group's poor behavior, thus painting everyone with the same brush. Dishonest, but effective."

If not for the insulters, the occasion would have dealt a blow to Radical Islam. Instead, the Radicals gathered grist for their mill stereotyping opponents as bigoted against them.

Genuine protestors against Radical Islam should stick to the facts about what the organizations and their leaders do and say. Do not accuse the ordinary members of crimes and sins that some Muslims may practice abroad but for which there is no evidence against the ordinary Muslims attending the fundraiser.

Speakers and rally leaders should clearly disavow boorish behavior by trouble-makers in their midst.

Legitimate protestors should videotape their rallies. That way, they could disprove falsified Islamist videos (David J. Rusin • Mar 31, 2011,
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2011/03/ boorish-anti-muslim-protesters-aid-islamists).

We keep hearing of Radical Muslim organizations raising funds from Muslims who willingly donate to them. The funds support jihad against civilization. What are we going to do about jihad masked as charity?

I object to the boorish behavior not only because it is counter--productive but also because it is offensive and may pick on innocent people.

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Helen Freedman, April 15, 2011.

In preparing a Passover message, the thoughts about freedom and its relation to Pesach must resonate. We learn that the Jews left Egypt to escape slavery, but despite all the plagues and evidence of G-d's majesty and might, it is believed that 4/5 of the Jewish slaves were not part of the exodus. They chose to remain behind and endure the slavery. And amongst those who did leave with Moses, there were many who were weak, complaining, lacking in faith, and undeserving of the opportunity to enter the promised land.

So it is today in Israel. Our cry is "Let my people grow" instead of go - and the cry goes unheeded. It doesn't matter how many miracles G-d has performed in the land of Israel for his people, the people are of little faith. They speak of dividing up the land, giving it away, dividing Jerusalem. The leadership behaves like slaves, genuflecting, appeasing, conciliating, taking "risks for peace" while the terrorists become more and more arrogant and demanding. The appeasers are the 4/5 who would endure the slavery to the United Nations, to the EU, and to the Muslim-leaning Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States.

Those who choose emancipation, who lay claim to the promised land, who endure the bitterness of being despised and discriminated against by their own people, are the ones we at AFSI admire so much - the ones who live in the disputed areas and use their energies, enterprise, initiative, and all their strength to survive on the land HaShem promised to his chosen people. Tragically, these brave and self-sacrificing people are being targeted today not only by the Arab terrorists who deliberately murder children, babies, parents, and any and all civilians, but by their own Jewish government. This government is following a policy declared by one of its leaders as: "We don't have to kill the fish - just dry up the pond."

This May 29-June 7, AFSI will embark on another one of its unique Chizuk missions to the threatened areas of Israel. I invite you to read the enclosed report written two years ago following our mission. Nothing much has changed except to have grown worse. PM Netanyahu is planning to withdraw the IDF from areas in Judea and Samaria, allowing more Arab control in Areas B and C. This is in preparation for his visit with Obama this May wherein he is expected to extend the give-away process. In September, the PA will unilaterally ask the UN to recognize a PA state inside Israel with Jerusalem as its capital city. If we allow this to happen without a great outcry of protest, we will once again need a miracle similar to the dividing of the Red Sea to swallow up our enemies. Will we have merited such a miracle?

Despite all this, I hope that the Passover holiday will be a sweet and healthy one for you and your loved ones.


"No Need To Kill The Fish - Just Dry Up The Pond"
by Helen Freedman

Two years ago, May 17-26, 2009, Americans For A Safe Israel /AFSI conducted its 30th tour of the Land of Israel. These semi-annual Chizuk missions have always strengthened the participants, although our aim is always to give Chizuk to those we visit in the threatened areas of Israel. The strength, determination, faith and love of the "settlers" always serves to inspire us to return to our homes, determined to do whatever we can to help our brethren. This recent trip left me with a heavy heart. I see more clearly than ever that the Israeli government views the "settlement" Jews as enemies - perhaps even more dangerous to the secular Israel they desire than are the terror wielding Arabs.

On our first day in the Shomron, led by David HaIvri, liaison for the Shomron Community Council, we visited communities where Jews are living in caravans - where classrooms and dormitories are located in caravans. At Havat Gilad, despite the fact that the land is owned by a Jew, Moshe Zar, and named after his murdered son, the government does not provide water or electricity. Not one home is permitted to be built, nor one caravan brought in.

Rechelim, another "settlement", was built as the Zionist response to terrorism when two women named Rachel were murdered by terrorists. The AFSI Chizuk missions began visiting there when there was only a single tent. Now it has been declared an illegal outpost, even though it is a flourishing community. Its nursery school is in a caravan, and without government funding, it must depend on private funds for a permanent nursery. We learned that 2,450 children in the Shomron lack classrooms because Defense Minister Ehud Barak refuses to sign the necessary papers to add classrooms to existing schools and build nursery schools for young children. Gershon Mesika, the Shomron Regional Head, declared, "There is a concerted governmental effort to hold up construction and the children are being held hostage."

On our second day in the Shomron, with Israel Danziger of Mishmeret Yesha guiding us, we noticed that there was much more Arab traffic now that the roadblocks have been removed. The Arabs were driving beyond the speed limit, passing cars, changing lanes, and generally causing hazardous road conditions. I had never felt so threatened before. Shortly after our return to the U.S., we learned that Dr. David Matar was injured in a car accident with an Arab and a woman was killed by an Arab driver.

At Givat Ronin we found more caravans being used as homes for the twenty families in this ten year old community. Water and electricity are problems here too. In contrast to this impoverished situation, we see that the EU has promised 2.5 billion dollars to the Arabs in the area for new building, new roads, new mosques. As we drive along, we see a U.S. AID sign for Boreen, a PA town, and we discover that the Israeli government is also funding Arab mosques. All of this, while drying up the pond for the Jews.

Near Yitzhar, a Jewish community that has suffered many deaths from terrorism, we pass a Saudi Arabian Equestrian Center. There is an elegant path of palm trees leading up the driveway to the club house. The surrounding lands are filled with palatial Arab homes. This exists in the middle of the Jewish state. Why is this permitted? What difference does it make what words are spoken and what contracts signed when the facts on the ground are so evident? The Arabs are everywhere, and the Jews are holding on by their fingertips.

We arrived at Nachliel in the Binyamin area. Again, there is no government funding for the school. Caravans serve as dorms and classrooms. With the help of the students, we plant tall shade trees. It's a difficult, but satisfying experience. Israel Danziger tells us about the one hundred families that are holding onto the entire Shilo plains area made up of Adei Ad, Kochav Hashachar, and Esh Kodesh. Yad Yair has already been destroyed by the Israeli government. It is now only a slope alongside Ramallah.

We had the extraordinarily good fortune on Tuesday night, May 19, to join a convoy of fourteen buses that would be permitted to enter Shechem/Nablus in order to pray at the Tomb of Joseph. We regularly visited Kever Yosef when it was in Israeli hands and there was an army base adjacent to the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva at the grave. Even then, we had to travel in special armored buses to enter the PA controlled area. We watched the PLO officers strut around in their decorated uniforms, while the IDF wore fatigues - NOT uniforms - because that would displease the PA. We knew then that it would not be long before Israel would turn over the holy grave of Joseph to the Arabs and they would destroy it, as they did. Why was it all so obvious to us, and such a mystery to the Israeli government?

It was wonderful being back at the holy place, and experiencing the reverence and love pouring out from the crowd that pressed to board the buses and enter the Kever area. It was bittersweet however, since we were like thieves in the night, entering after midnight, and returning before dawn, as per the agreement with the Arabs and the IDF. And this was the holy grave of our forefather Joseph, and this was in the holy land of Israel, where Jews have become the outsiders.

As we drove out of Ariel along Route 60, we saw the spreading houses of Ramallah. The Arab homes are lavish and built close to the road. One eight story building overlooked the road, and could provide a perfect launching area for attacks on Jewish drivers. Once again the Arab taxis were a concern as they disregarded normal traffic rules and drove recklessly, as though they were the only ones on the road. We approached Pisgat Ze'ev at the northern end of Jerusalem and saw that an Arab home was being built at the main intersection of the city. We subsequently learned that many Arabs are buying apartments in the city, hoping to drive the Jews out as they move in. The same is true in French Hill. Driving south we came to Har Gilo and had a view of the ghastly concrete wall wrapping itself around Bethlehem and Gush Etzion. This is an ugly scar and distressing sight because we know the wall is not meant for security, but as a dividing line between Israeli and PA territory.

We arrived in Bat Ayin where Shlomo Nativ was killed a few weeks before, by an Arab wielding a pick-ax. Shlomo's friend, Yair Gamliel, was wounded in that attack. The Arab escaped. Gamliel's father has been in prison for 22 years for a supposed attempt at a bombing which never took place, and which he contends was never meant to occur. He was only allowed to visit his wounded son in the hospital while in chains and surrounded by guards. While Arab prisoners are allowed visits with their families, the Jewish prisoners must see their family members while behind bars. The discrimination against Jews is painful to witness.

We drove south on Route 60 past areas where 20-30,000 Arabs live. It was not surprising to learn that the Arab villages south of Hebron are under Hamas control. We were at the edge of the Judean desert, passing Carmel, Maon, Sussya, Beit Yatir, and Bedouin camps where the shepherds were grazing their sheep right up to the fence. We stopped for a visit at Chavat Magen David, the home of Jonathan Shareth and his new wife, Yael. Beginning in 2000, Jonathan had built everything himself, and we admired his handicraft. He spoke of the difficulties he encountered in trying to make a go of it alone.

The next day, led by Chaim Silberstein of the Jerusalem Capital Development Fund, we were on our way to Kever Rachel, the grave of Mother Rachel. Chaim told us the touching story of how it was the tears of Menachem Porush that convinced PM Rabin to include Kever Rachel into Area C - the Israeli controlled area, rather than A, where it might have landed because of its location in Bethlehem. Sur Bacha was pointed out to us. It is an Arab community in eastern Jerusalem that houses over 30,000 illegal Arab buildings. We hear no outcries calling for the destruction of these homes that threaten to swallow up Israel's capital city. One wonders how the world can believe that Israel mistreats its Arabs so badly when we see how they swarm into Israel's cities and lands, not waiting for permits or legal papers to begin building their homes. Logic makes us ask how bad the Israelis can be if Arabs are desperate to live on their land.

Chaim gave us a lesson on the ten Jewish neighborhoods on the periphery of eastern Jerusalem in which almost one quarter of a million Jews live. These are thriving communities like French Hill, Gilo and East Talpiot. The Arabs accuse the Israelis of having "occupied" their land and building on it. These are the "settlements" they insist on evacuating. The idea is preposterous. We looked past Ir David, the City of David, towards Silwan, the previous home of Jewish Yeminites. Today, Beit Yonatan is the one Jewish building standing proudly amongst the Arab dwellings, bravely flying the Israeli flag. How each inch that the Jews gain is such a victory, since it is done in spite of the obstructionist Israeli government!

Another such example of Jewish victory is in the Dr. Irving and Cherna Moskowitz housing development, Ma'Aleh HaZaytim. At present, 52 Jewish families are living there, surrounded by Arabs. In the Shimon HaTzaddik neighborhood there are seven Jewish families living amongst Arabs who have squatted on Jewish land. On our way there, we passed an illegal Arab auto dealer's "showroom," brazenly built without any permits. The Arab proprietor had no reason to hide his acquisition. He knew no one would stop him.

We met with Arieh King, a one man crusader for Jewish land - in Jerusalem and throughout the country. He railed against the ugly concrete dividing wall built inside Jerusalem, which is establishing the Arab side of the city, and keeps some Jewish communities on the wrong side. In the north, near Ramallah, land owned by the JNF is being lost to Arabs. Residents of Ramallah move into Jerusalem and members of the PA illegally take their places in Ramallah. There is no checking of legality because the wall makes that impossible. Of course, Jews are not allowed into Arab areas. There are actually parts of Jerusalem that are designated Area A - no Jews allowed. Arieh took us to the old Atarot airport, in northern Jerusalem, where we saw for ourselves that the Arab population had proliferated, with new building everywhere, This previous JNF owned land is now Judenrein. There was an UNWRA school located there, with teachers from Hamas. Because MK Dr. Arieh Eldad was with us, along with members of his Hatikvah party, we were able to enter the area and actually drive along the old airstrip, verifying the Arab take-over of the area. It was interesting to learn that Arab refugee camps - Calandria and Shoafat, were also built on JNF land. The E1 corridor, linking French Hill and Maaleh Adumim, and owned by Persian Jews is also under threat. The Arabs would love to break the linkage in Jerusalem. Will they win this battle also?

The Arab takeover of Israel is especially apparent in Hebron. Despite Rav Eliezer Waldman's words of optimism at the beginning of our visit, the reality that David Wilder presented to us was very distressing. Arabs have 98% of the city. The Jewish 2% also has Arabs living in it. When one looks over the city from Tel Rumeida, all one can see is Arab building. The Jews are confined to one street, and yet, they encapsulate the heart of religious Zionism in Israel. It is the Hebron Jew who has endured against all odds, from the time of King David's kingdom in the city. The 2,000 year old Maarat HaMachpelah, the burial site of Jewish matriarchs and patriarchs, is testament to the eternal nature of Jewish life in Israel. The Jewish "pond" in Hebron is remarkably small, but the "fish" breathe the holy air of Israel's second holiest city, and they will survive.

On Shabbat, we had a walking tour with Bracha Slae of Ateret Cohanim. With two guards accompanying us, we walked into the former Jewish Quarter, now called the Muslim Quarter, of the Old City. We found many young Jewish families living in renovated apartments scattered throughout the area. Their children played happily on the rooftops, unable to go into the streets without guards protecting them. We were impressed by the courage of those who chose to live amongst hostile Arabs, some of whom glared at us as we walked through the narrow, crowded passageways. At Mincha time we prayed at the Kotel Hakatan, with hundreds of white shirted Yeshiva boys. Afterwards, it was inspiring to see hundreds of them singing together in the Cardo. Their voices rose in the late afternoon light, and my heart was gladdened. No matter that wherever we looked there was illegal Arab building. There was also the Jewish heart and mind that reached out to HaShem and justified our existence in the Jewish homeland. Nothing could change that. Our spirits were lifted also by the newly renovated Ohel Yitzchak synagogue in the Old City. It's a gem of a building, restored through the generosity of Cherna and Dr. Irving Moskowitz, who have left their imprint throughout Israel - and especially in Jerusalem.

We were concluding our Chizuk mission with a series of visits that have become mandatory in the AFSI itinerary. Our friends from the former Gush Katif communities, which were destroyed in August 2005 - four years ago - and who are still living in tents, caravans, apartment buildings, and all manner of temporary lodging - have become very dear to our hearts. We wouldn't consider being in Israel without visiting them in their far flung places. Anita Tucker, one of the heroines of the Jewish refugees, and Dror Vanunu, who had been with us from our very first visits to Gush Katif, and is now an official spokesman for the group, met us at Yesadot, a farm area in the Negev. Anita explained that it took 3-1/2 years for the government to approve this permanent home site for the Netzer Hazani outcasts. Building is scheduled to begin in the fall to accommodate forty families. I looked out at this barren land which now encompasses the dreams of Anita Tucker and her fellow displaced persons, and I couldn't stop the tears from gathering in my eyes. I remembered the lush, beautiful, and bountiful hot houses that Anita would take us to where we would feast on tomatoes, celery, and a variety of wonderful vegetables. Would the Tucker family be able to re-create what had been destroyed? Would their neighbors be able to do the same? It was a gargantuan task, rebuilding an entire community, along with the farms and homes. Anita and the Netzer Hazani people will do it - despite the hardships and obstacles thrown in their paths the past four years. Their pond was destroyed, but they will build anew, defying all odds.

We stopped at Yad Binyamin to meet a spokesman for Job Katif. This is an extraordinary institution, begun by Rav Rimon from Alon Shvut, designed to retrain the members of the 21 Gush Katif communities who found themselves unemployed when their farms and communities were destroyed. Over 80% of the Gush Katif residents worked in their communities, so the expulsion and destruction also cost them their jobs. Job Katif had succeeded in helping over 1100 people start new businesses and get re-training. All of this was done without any government assistance. Private donations helped to keep the pond from drying up.

We roamed through the large caves of the beautiful Lachish area, some of which were traced to the Bar Kochbar period. We learned that some of the Gush Katif transplants will be settling there in the very near future.

Our last stop was in Nitzan where 550 families live in caravans which they jokingly call, "caravillas." They are also provided with sewer pipes for protection against rockets, and these are called "sewervillas." Moshe Saperstein refuses to enter the shelter for reasons not too difficult to understand. Rachel Saperstein, always the optimist, was especially concerned about government neglect. The lighting was out - the cleaning services eliminated, and there was no money for a makeshift summer camp for the 300 children of Nitzan - most of them from the former Nevei Dekalim. We learned that although 70 families are building today in the new Nitzan, 20% can't build because their compensation money was spent on their daily living expenses. Without jobs, they had no choice but to draw on whatever available funds there were in order to live.

When we spoke to some of the Gush Katif transplants from Eli Sinai, Dugit, and Nissanit - the northernmost Gush Katif communities, who are now living in temporary housing in Ashkelon, there was a feeling of bitterness. They spoke abut the Erez crossing which had succeeded as an industrial zone housing 120 Jewish and 120 Arab businesses until 2004 when Hamas terrorism overtook it. The entire zone was bulldozed with no compensation for the lost businesses. Out of the 160 former Gush Katif families now living in Ashkelon, most are renting homes. Four families were able to build new homes, and twenty are in the process of getting permission. The vast majority are unable to build because they have run out of money. There is a Commission of Inquiry investigating the failure of the government to find solutions. One wonders what findings will emerge from the government investigating itself, and what actions will be taken to remedy the situation.

Another must visit city on our itinerary is Sderot, and that was our next destination. Although the rocket fire has decreased in the city so that there is some semblance of normalcy, we visited a home where a Kassam had recently landed in the rear of the building, smashing a window next to the bed on which the owner's grandson was sleeping. An entire rear room had collapsed, with shrapnel cutting right through the walls, leaving pock marks everywhere.

We went to the police station to see the display of rockets. Of the 8,000 plus rockets that were fired from Gaza, there were 1,000 on display. Although Sderot had been targeted before the expulsion from Gush Katif, there had been a 300% increase in rocket attacks since the expulsion. And these rockets were deadly, being packed with ball bearings and screws in order to inflict maximum damage.

The bright spot in this city of 20,000 is the Hesder Yeshiva, run by Rabbi Fendel. On a previous visit, we had seen the sleeping palettes of the Yeshiva boys all in one large, protected room, and the Yeshiva itself as a run-down building. What we saw this time was somewhat miraculous. A beautiful new Yeshiva, sprawling campus, protected dorm rooms, have all been built with some help from the government, but most of the costs being covered by private donations. One must marvel at the transformation, amidst all the rocket fire. Again, there was Sderot, bombarded by Kassam rockets, with the government doing nothing to protect its citizens. One would think drying up this pond would send the fish fleeing for their lives. Not so. The city is thriving, with much of the thanks going to Rabbi Fendel and his Hesder Yeshiva boys.

We were coming to the end of our trip, our last stop before heading for the airport for the return trip to New York. We had been invited by some young Israeli women serving in the National Service to visit them in Yaffo. The ancient city, mentioned in the story of Jonah and the whale, lies adjacent to Tel Aviv, with a population breakdown of 55% Jewish and 45% Arab. As we walked along the main street towards the port, we saw that most of the stores were run by Arabs. We were stunned to learn that 80% of the Jewish girls were married to Arabs. The work of the National Service girls, committed to one or two years of full time effort, was to expose the unmarried girls to their Jewish heritage through teaching programs and service at community centers. The hope was that by learning the traditions of their own culture and religion, they would not be susceptible to the temptations the Arabs offered them. It was shocking to think that in the Land of Israel there are Jews who don't know who they are.

Our beautiful trip to Israel - wonderful as always - was tinged with sadness as we recognized the many problems that Israel must solve; however, as always, we are filled with optimism that G-d's promise to the Jewish people will be realized, and we've only just begun.

Helen Freedman is Executive Director For a Safe Israel/AFSI. She can be reached at the AFSI office, 212-828-2424; afsi@rcn.com Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is a pro-active pro-Israel advocacy group. AFSI may be contacted by mail at 1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128 (Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717); by email at afsi@rcn.com; or by accessing its website: www.afsi.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz-7, April 15, 2011.

This was written by Elad Benari, Gil Ronen and Gavriel Queenann and it appeared today in Arutz-7.


1. Body of Kidnapped Italian ISM Activist Found
by Elad Benari, Gil Ronen and Gavriel Queenann Security forces in Gaza located overnight Thursday the body of Vittorio Arrigoni, an Italian member of the anti-Israel International Solidarity Movement (ISM), who had been kidnapped by Salafist Muslims earlier.

Hamas officials, who reported that Arrigoni's body had been found, added that the body had been found in an abandoned home in Gaza.

Earlier, the Bethlehem-based Ma'an News Agency reported that Arrigoni's kidnappers belong to A-Tawheed wal Jihad, a terror group of the Salafist Muslim stream. The kidnappers released a video showing Arrigoni bruised, tied and blindfolded, and text scrolling across the screen "threatens that he will die unless Hamas releases Salafist prisoners by 5 p.m. Friday."

The organization wants Hamas to release all of the members of their organization who are currently jailed. Topping the list is a senior member of the group, Hisham al-Sa'adi.

Sources in Gaza told Voice of Israel state-run radio that Arrigoni has been living in Gaza for several years after arriving there on one of the Free Gaza boats.

Arrigoni writes a blog for for Guerrilla Radio and for communist newspaper Il Manifesto. During Israel's Cast Lead counter terrorist offensive in Gaza, he wrote: "Israel has every right to laugh and sing, even while it massacres its neighbor. Palestinians are only asking to die a different death, one of old age." p>Kidnappings of foreigners are commonplace in Gaza. In the past year 14 such kidnappings have occurred. In each case the victim has been released after a short period of time and unharmed. The demands are not usually aimed at Hamas, however.

In Sufi and Shi'ite literature the term Salafi is interchangeable with the term Wahabi, but many Salafis reject the term as unfounded despite philosophical similarities. Wahabi Islam dominates the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and characterizes the philosophy of the al Qaeda international terrorist organization.

Both sects are a part of the Sunni orthodox mainstream.

2. Hamas Blames Israel for ISM Activist's Murder in Gaza
by Gavriel Queenann Hamas: 'The Israelis Did It!'

Islamic organizations and terror groups in Gaza rushed to distance themselves from the murder-kidnapping of Italian ISM activist Vottorio Arrigoni.

Islamic terrorist organizations in Gaza decried the murder of Italian ISM activist Vittoria Arrigoni, who was kidnapped on Thursday. Arrigoni was found dead early Friday morning in the Strip.

Among those groups denouncing the murder was none other than Tawhid wal-Jihad, the al-Qaida-linked group who initially claimed responsibility for Arrigoni's kidnapping. Tawhid wal-Jihad said they were holding an Italian national and said they would only release him if their leader, held in Hamas custody, was released.

Hamas security personnel found Arrigoni's body in an abandoned house in Gaza following his abduction by 'militants,' a Hamas official said on Friday.

Two men were arrested and others were being sought in relation to Arrigoni's murder, the official added

Hamas condemned the murder and characterized it as "a shameful act, contrary to the tradition of the Palestinian people."

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said, "the goal of this depraved band of outlaws is to spread chaos and anarchy in the Gaza Strip, a desperate attempt to strike at the stable security situation."

Barhoum claimed the kidnapping and murder of Arrigoni was intended to scuttle the next Gaza flotilla, expected to depart next month. Barhoum explained that he believed the murder was meant to dissuade other foreign activists from arriving in the Strip.

In that vein, the Hamas spokesman accused Israel of perpetrating the murder noting Arrigoni had been a vocal opponent of Israel's policies in Gaza, and frequently blogged about 'Israeli crimes against Palestinians' equating Israeli policies to 'Nazi' crimes. Arrigoni had also been arrested twice by Israeli authorities, Barhoum alleged.

Accusing Israel of acts perpetrated by the terrorist groups themselves is a time-honored tradition among Arab terror leaders in Israel.

Tawhid wal-Jihad, a Jihadist Salafi group in Gaza, had threatened on Thursday to execute Arrigoni by 5 p.m. local time (2 p.m. GMT) unless their demands were met.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 14, 2011.


BACKGROUND: Reports about Muslim attacks on Christians often begin with a rationale that Christians insulted Muslims. Since Islam considers itself superior to all other religions and demands that all others submit to its rule, any self-defense by the others is called aggression. Evidence is almost never produced, except in cases of writing, such as the Danish cartoons. Over the cartoons, Muslims rioted in foreign countries, attempting to punish Christians elsewhere for Danes exercising freedom of the press. The Western media usually does not comment on the unfairness and barbarity of the riots.

Muslims, including government officials and clergy, have falsely accused Israel of all sorts of plots against them. A standard one since the 1930s and repeated over the decades is that Zionists are plotting to destroy, and have attacked the mosque on the Temple Mount. Yet decade after decade, the mosque stands undamaged, except when a deranged, foreign Christians started a small fire in it. Nevertheless, mobs will pour out of mosques on Saturday, committing violence in "defense of al-Aqsa mosque." Arafat and his people started an Intifada when former Defense Min. Sharon merely walked atop the Mount.

Ethiopia was one of the first countries to turn Christian, hundreds of years before Islam arose. Still primarily Christian, the Muslim population there has been growing.

NEWS: Muslims now constitute one-third of Ethiopia's population, but in some areas, 90%. In Besheno on November 9, Christians found notes on their doors warning them to convert, leave the city, or die.

In Asendabo, western Ethiopia, Muslims accused a Christian of desecrating the Koran. In reaction, Muslims set 50 churches and dozens of houses afire, killing one, injuring many, and displacing thousands.

For centuries, this kind of jihad has occurred in countries of mixed religions. The media report the most blatant attacks occurring in Egypt and Iraq, but ignore or minimize most.

During the attacks in Asendabo, Muslims countries thought moderate, such as Malaysia and Bangladesh, were mistreating Christians and their Bibles. The double standard was embodied by President Obama and Secretary Clinton, when they condemned an unknown U.S. pastor who threatened to burn the Koran, but not Muslims for actually mutilating many Bibles.

An advisor to the U.S. military, Lt. Cmdr. Youssef Aboul-Enein, "recommends that, if ever an American soldier desecrates a Koran, U.S. leadership must offer 'unconditional apologies,' and emulate the words of Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Hammond: 'I come before you [Muslims] seeking your forgiveness, in the most humble manner I look in your eyes today, and say please forgive me and my soldiers,' followed by abjectly kissing a new Koran (Militant Islamist Ideology, p. 26).

Experience shows that when Muslims constitute a tiny proportion of the population, they are passive, but when and where their numbers are high, they become aggressive.

Ethiopia, which in 615 originally welcomed Muslims fleeing a pagan tribe, is an object lesson for Europeans, who have been welcoming Muslims. Millions of Muslims have been immigrating into Europe, where their birth rate remains high, while the European birth rate remains below replacement. Europe can expect jihad (Raymond Ibrahim, Middle East Forum, 3/28/11, fromFrontPageMagazine.com,

Actually, Islamic intimidation of publishers and teachers, violence against Jews, demands for special privileges, and threats that Islam will take over Europe, already have begun.

For further comparison of Muslim complaints of discrimination and actual Muslim discrimination, note that Saudi Arabia routinely confiscates Christian Bibles at the airport. U.S. troops stationed in that country to defend it from Saddam were not allowed to pray openly on their own base.


U.S. diplomat Aaron David Miller urges U.S. presidents to declare peace between the Palestinian Authority and Israel in the U.S. interest, go to those areas, and set the stage by stating, "in the spirit of the 2002 Arab League Initiative," terms of mutual accommodation. He does not think our leaders have the courage to risk another failure in diplomacy.

His conditions are: (1) Spending millions of U.S. tax revenues on the proposed new Arab state [we already are spending hundreds of millions that merely keep up the jihadist war effort]; (2) Sensitivity to Israel's views on refugees and security, and sensitivity to Arab views on Jerusalem and borders. Dr. Aaron Lerner points out the contradiction between borders the Arabs demand for now [the rest after they get those demands fulfilled] and Israeli security. Why doesn't Mr. Miller see the contradiction?

Usually the diplomats propose enforcement of security by third parties who cannot be relied upon to be fair and to stay, so security would be unenforceable. The borders would be the infamous "Auschwitz borders."

Miller, like all those responsible for the Oslo debacle, refuse to admit their mistake. Instead, they persist in the same kind of policy of appeasement of the Arabs. They pursue such a policy solely because of their ideology. There is no logic to their policy (IMRA, 4/5/11).

The U.S. Chiefs of Staff made a study which found that Israel cannot have security unless it retains almost all of Judea-Samaria, whose hills are natural tank barriers and early warning posts.

Jihad is the major reason for the Arab-Israel conflict, not that one could tell from Miller's stance. Palestinian Arabs, part of the Arab nation and indoctrinated in intolerance, hatred, and violence, do not deserve sovereignty. U.S. policy should be to prevent it.

Miller fails to explain why the U.S. should get involved in behalf of jihadists, while fighting wars against jihadists. He does not explain the U.S. interest. I say the U.S. interest is in resisting and rolling back jihad.

The appeasers' mistakes are serious. Their mistaken ideology has led to pogroms and jihads. They haven't the honesty and intelligence to be ashamed of themselves.

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, April 14, 2011.

This was written by Claudia Rosett.


Welcome to the latest Magical Mystery Tour of American funding for the United Nations. Today's featured mystery is, how to explain the missing $2.8 billion?

Thursday morning, President Barack Obama's ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, testified before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, on "United Nations Budget and Policy." It was a long and lively session, full of questions about the U.N.'s despot-friendly, anti-American, anti-Semitic and financially opaque culture. But let us focus on the money, which was the core reason for the hearing. The U.S. is by far the biggest donor to the U.N., bankrolling 22% of the U.N.'s core budget, and roughly one-quarter of its far larger and murkier system-wide spending (estimated at somewhere upward of $25 billion). Rice was arguing the Obama line: That while the U.N. may be "far from perfect," the only ways of improving it depend on an uninterrupted flow of billions in U.S. funding. Some members of congress, including Committee Chair Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), were asking if it wouldn't be better to try to change the U.N.'s entitlement mentality toward those U.S. tax dollars, and pursue a policy of "reform first, pay later."

Looming behind all this is the question of how much money everyone is actually talking about. A simple question? Not a chance. This is the labyrinthine U.N., meshing with the mega-bureaucracy of hope-and-change America. Where these two meet and engage, details of the landscape tend to get lost in a miasma of cash.

But Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) made a valiant attempt to extract some genuine financial specifics from the witness. He asked Ambassador Rice if it's correct that the U.S. yearly contribution to the U.N. is $6.3 billion. As it happens, that was not a random number. Last June, the Obama administration sent a required report to Congress on U.S. funding for the U.N., covering fiscal year 2009. This report listed total U.S. contributions to the U.N., dispensed not only via the State Department, but via 18 other U.S. departments and agencies, ranging from the Department of Agriculture, to NASA, to the Peace Corps, Postal Service and Treasury. The grand total came to a hefty $6.3 billion. Or, to be more precise, $6,347,415,000.

That is the number that Rohrabacher was asking Rice about — the grand total of U.S. annual largesse to the UN. Since fiscal 2009, with the UN's soaring budgets and emergency appeals, that number has quite likely gotten even bigger than when Obama's budget office produced its most recent, 2009 figure. The U.N.'s secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon, is now talking about "austerity" in the form of 3% cuts in the moving target of some of the U.N.'s escalating spending, but genuine austerity has yet to materialize.

Rice did not have an instant answer for Rohrabacher. She shuffled through her papers and gave a series of partial figures. Rohrabacher asked, "What does that all add up to?" Rice, apparently stalled briefly on the arithmetic, said "I can get you that in a second." After some more back-and-forth on U.S. policy, Rohrabacher returned to the matter of money, this time asking: "How much has the budget of the United Nations grown over the past 10 years?"

The answer to that question would have to take into account, as the Heritage Foundation's Brett Schaefer testified to the same House committee in January, that the UN's regular budget over the past decade has more than doubled, the peacekeeping budget has more than tripled, and U.S. contributions to these, plus a host of other U.N. activities, have grown accordingly. But Rice did not address the question. Instead, she produced a figure for what she said the administration is now requesting for the United Nations.

The number she gave the House committee was $3.539 billion. That's a lot of money, or at least so it might appear to many of the U.S. taxpayers who earn it and then shell it out to the government. But it is well short of the $6.3 billion that the administration itself reported giving to the U.N. in fiscal 2009. It's $2.808 billion less, to be exact.

What happened? Did the Obama administration lop $2.8 billion or more off its annual contributions to the UN, and simply forget to tell anybody? Did the UN not notice? Surely this should be news!

Or maybe not. Rice's lowball $3.539 figure represents specific budget requests for just two U.S. accounts: the Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, and the Contributions to International Organizations account (which, as she noted, also includes funding for outfits such as the Organization of American States).

This cipher of $3.5 billion is what the news reports picked up on, and it is now circulating as the sum of the Obama administration's current plans for U.N. funding.

That's just wrong, As last year's U.N. funding report lays out, the administration dispenses money to the U.N. through a far wider array of spigots.

For instance, in fiscal 2009, the State Department dispensed $4.1 billion to the UN; that's listed separately from the $1.7 billion dispensed via USAID. That in turn was distinct from the $245 million dispensed by the Department of Agriculture, or the $44 million dispensed by the Department of Labor, or the $54 million from the Department of Energy, or the $132 million from Health and Human Services.

The list goes on. And though the lucre comes from different sectors of the administration, it's all U.S. tax money. It all flows into the U.N. A couple of billion here, a couple of hundred million there, and pretty soon — as happened in fiscal 2009 — you're talking about $6.3 billion. Or these days, possibly more?

Rohrabacher made one last-ditch attempt to pin down the real numbers, as time ran out on the committee clock, asking Rice: "And for all U.N. activities, we're talking about $3.5 [billion]?

"That's what I've just said," replied Rice, thus magicking into the debate a subtotal oddly short of the 2009 genuine $6.3 billion that Rohrabacher had initially inquired about.

What's the real total of U.S. tax dollars the administration is now planning to pour into the U.N.? It's a very good bet that it's a figure much larger than the $3.539 that Rice mentioned in her testimony. Culling the real total out of the current budget fracas is something the Office of Management and Budget should eventually get around to. But Rice never mentioned that. To get the grand total, or even an educated guess, it is apparently not enough that lawmakers ask America's envoy to the U.N. for the information, though her own legation's budget includes funding for such responsibilities as keeping an eye on U.N. getting and spending.

If members of Congress want full disclosure, it looks like they either need to summon someone from the trenches of the budget office, and spell out in big letters that they want the real numbers. Or they'll have to toil through testimony from whatever agglomeration of executive branch departments are now proposing to pour more money into Turtle Bay. These are serious matters, given the UN's record of spending dollars not only on blankets and bed nets, but on sky-high senior staff salaries, corruption-riddled procurement contracts, racist conferences on "racism," projects such as the rankly pro-terrorist, anti-Israel Goldstone report, and agency governing boards populated by the likes of Cuba, China and Iran. If Congress is seeking accountability for what the UN does with the American money it gets, one of the big questions that deserves an honest answer is, how much U.S. money is the U.N. actually getting?

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ken Timmerman, April 14, 2011.

An Iranian film unmasking Iran's true objectives — annihilation of Israel — has President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad backpedaling over the backlash associated with it.

The film has roiled the senior leadership of the Iranian regime, following its exposure to a Western audience by former Revolutionary Guards officer and CIA agent Reza Kahlili late last month.

The film details the belief held by key top leaders in Iran that they are acting out a prophetic end-times scenario as sketched out in the Hadith — with Muslim Prophet Muhammad saying that Iran will lead Muslim armies against Israel and usher in the return of the 12th Imam, a Muslim savior.

"The Iranian regime never intended for the documentary to be made public," Kahlili said. "Reports indicate that funds for its production came directly from the Revolutionary guards, and they intended to distribute it en masse throughout the Middle East to incite further uprisings."

One week after Kahlili released a shortened version with English subtitles of the film, "The Coming is Upon Us," Ahmadinejad was forced to fire Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaei, seen by many as a future presidential candidate.

The release of the film to the West appears to have made some Iranian leaders question that strategy.

Hossein Shariatmadari, the managing editor of Kayhan daily, which is controlled by the intelligence ministry, chastised Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff, and said the West was now using the video "to weaken Iran by showing the intimacies of their sacred beliefs to the world."

Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the highest-ranking cleric in Shiite Islam, issued a statement warning the faithful to reject the film's claim that the return of the 12th Imam was imminent.

"The analysis for the timing of the coming of the last imam is quite concerning," he said. "These analyses could weaken the belief of Muslims. Such activities should not take place in Iran ... This is very worrisome."

The criticism — and the firing of Rahim-Mashaei on April 8 — led the makers of the film, who call themselves "The Conductors of the Coming," to defend the movie at a press conference in Tehran. They revealed that before releasing the movie inside Iran, it was screened by the supreme leader himself, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Asked to defend their claim that Khamenei was the incarnation of the mythical "Seyed Khorasani" who defeats Israel and hands the flag of Islam to the 12th Imam, the filmmakers cited many prominent regime officials — including two former commanders of the Revolutionary Guards Corps — who have called him "Seyed Khorasani" to his face.

"Well if it was not true, if it was not in accordance with his own belief, then wouldn't the supreme leader come out and say this is not true and stop the argument?" the filmmakers stated.

On Tuesday, Khamenei's representative to the Revolutionary Guards Corps, Mojtaba Zolnoor, announced to the regime-controlled news outlet Khabar Online that a number of Islamic scholars and grand ayatollahs agree that Khamenei is the mythic figure from the Hadith who sets the stage for the return of the 12th Imam.

"Ayatollah Khamenei is from the province of Khorasan and has a disorder of his right hand due to the injury he received in an assassination attempt in 1981," Kahlili said.

Over the past two years, Iran has stepped up delivery of sophisticated weapons to Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the procurement of technology for its nuclear weapons program. The two groups have the ability of bracketing Israel from the north and the south, and have a long history of working together.

Read: "Israel Nabs Terrorist Weapons Shipment From Iran."

On Tuesday, Hamas fired a new generation Russian-built "Kornet" anti-tank rocket across the Gaza border, hitting a school bus 6 kilometers away inside Israel that had been carrying yeshiva students.

The only student remaining on the bus, 16-year old Daniel Viflic, was in critical condition on Thursday as a result of his wounds. The driver was also wounded in the attack, which blew out the engine compartment at the rear of the bus.

The film reveals the secret intentions of the Iranian regime to step up such attacks on Israel, Kahlili believes. Now, with the statement from Khamenei's own representative to the IRGC, "there can be no doubt that the Iranian regime is truly messianic and that once they have their nuclear bomb, they will attempt to bring about the end of times and the reappearance of the Imam Mahdi, as they have clearly shown in the movie. They intend to do this by destroying Israel and bringing about a total breakdown of the global economy."

For more, read, "Film: Iran Plans to Conquer Israel, World."

Kenneth R. Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc. He authored "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran" and is a contributing editor to Newsmax.com His latest non-fiction books is a thriller called Honor Killing, available at www.kentimmerman.com. Contact him by email at timmerman.road@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, April 14, 2011.

Little Neve Gordon, Muammar's darling

A few days ago we reported that Ben Gurion University was about to hold a conference on "human rights," in which every single speaker participating would be an anti-Israel Far Leftist. Not a single pro-Israel speaker would be allowed to speak.

Here was - once again - an example of the one-sided anti-Israel indoctrination "conferences" so popular in Israeli academic institutions. These are held regularly by the politics department at BGU, events which Ben Gurion University's cabbagehead president, Rivka Carmi, just cannot find. This "conference" was largely the initiative of the anti-Semitic pro-terror pseudo-academic Neve Gordon, who claims to teach "human rights" courses in the Department of Politics at BGU. But for Gordon, the only human rights that need defending are the rights of Arabs to murder Jews. Gordon has never heard of any human rights for Jews deserving of protection. His calls for boycotting and eliminating Israel appear, among other places, on the web sites of Holocaust Deniers and Neo-Nazis, in al-Jazeera, and in the state newspaper of Iran. Gordon was in the headlines a few days ago for justifying the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit. Virtually all of Gordon's "academic record" consists of churning out anti-Israel hate propaganda, and it was thanks to this hate propaganda that BGU awarded Gordon tenure and keeps promoting him. These promotions have the blessings of Rivka Carmi as well as the leftist Rector and ultra-leftist Dean of Social Sciences at BGU.

In our earlier posting, we referred to this week's one-sided bash-Israel "conference" as Ben Gurion University's Nuremberg Rally. The only "violator" of human rights discussed at the "conference" was Israel. No one at the conference could discern any human rights abuses in the 100 years of Arab anti-Jewish terrorism or genocidal aggression. No one could discern any violations of human rights in Libya or Syria or Yemen.

Today the Israeli daily Maariv carries a scoop, available only in Hebrew, which can be read here. Members of the Zionist student organization "Im Tirtzu" crashed the Nuremberg Rally at Ben Gurion University. They handed out to participants copies of a diploma, announcing the award to Neve Gordon of the Muammar Qaddafi Prize in Human Rights. As you recall, Qaddafi's people sit in the UN's "Human Rights Commission," and their ideas about human rights are exactly the same as those of Neve Gordon: namely, that pretend concern for "human rights" is a great bludgeon to use to destroy Israel.

Maariv cites officials at Ben Gurion University who expressed unhappiness with the one-sided anti-Israel character of the "conference." That did not have any effect on the content or the organizers, who just went ahead and held their Nuremberg Rally in campus facilities paid for by the Israeli taxpayer. Gordon himself is cited by Maariv as saying that there is also opposition in Iran and Syria to human rights conferences. He is wrong. The sort of conference he ran, consisting entirely of Israel bashing, is precisely the sort of "human rights conference" that Libya and Syria often happily host.

You can see the diploma for the Qaddafi Prize here:

It says: Hereby is the Certificate of the Granting of the Muammar Qaddafi Prize in Human Rights, for the category of brainwashing and silencing critics and for having the intellectual weight of a fly, awarded to Dr. Neve Gordon for his work in promoting our joint agenda. The destruction of Jerusalem will comfort us!

Diploma signed by: Azmi Bishara (Israeli Arab traitor now in hiding, wanted for terrorism and espionage), Che Guevara, and Joseph dze Jughashvili (Stalin's original name).

Meanwhile, the wonderful LATMA web site has also run an item about this. Latma is the delicious web site run by Caroline Glick that keeps coming up with those incredible songs and parodies. Writing about Gordon and his Qaddafi Prize (in Hebrew only) Latma calls for a responsible adult to remind the Maariv writers just who and what Gordon is. (Latma believes the Maariv piece did not come close to describing what a treasonous monstrosity Gordon really is.)

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@gmail.com His website address is
http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. This article appeared today in the Jewish Press

http://thejewishpress.blogspot.com/2011/04/ qaddafi-prize-in-human-rights-to-ben.html

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, April 14, 2011.

This is our response to Frontpage article by Seth Mandel, Frontpage Magazine April 13, 2011: http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/?p=6600

Study his article. Here is SC4Z's urgent response:

All of the advantages Seth Mandel ascribes to the Muslims currently occupying Judea and Samaria also abide in the Jews who live in Judea and Samaria and it was their ancestors who civilized this region. That being the case, these very same Jews not only can, but should claim statehood in order to establish a Jewish-Palestinian state in this region.

No doubt about it, the Jewish people living in Judea and Samaria have a unified claim to the lands historically known by these names; a language historically connected to the land as well as immutable historical claims with respect to their civilizing and cultivating this land, going back thousands of years. Jews also have the means of governing Judea and Samaria. These are facts on the ground, and as such, these facts are what particularly concern the Muslims and their arabist enablers, all of whom desperately hope to obscure the truth with their propaganda and illegal presence.

It's a fact that the presence of arabs in the Jewish Homeland (who were allowed to infiltrate Judea and Samaria) does not confer upon them any claim to the land they occupy---land that was accorded to the Jews as the Jewish Homeland by the San Remo Resolution and thereafter ratified by subsequent binding treaties ... and this is so even if politically correct US Jews and fearful euroid Jews chose to remain blind to the body of international law that buttresses Israel's sovereignty over Judea and Samaria.

First step: declare statehood, get recognition from US groups in America, several other states (perhaps Japan? Maybe China? India?) and then immediately set up a judicial system that confers legitimacy on the Jews in the same manner as has already been exercised by the arab interlopers. Jerusalem will become an open city governed by the new state of Jewish Palestine.

Second step: Create a flag with the Israeli blue star and an orange stripe simultaneously creating a "national guard".

Call your new state Jewish Palestine.

Hurrah! Problems solved. All it takes is daring, bravery, courage and brains! Go for it, you've got the moxie! Viva Jewish Palestine!.

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, April 14, 2011.

Dear People at SWC:

You need fresh "hasbara" --- Jewish drollery and pitiful weeping must cease immediately! When your esteemed Rabbi Hier makes such statements as: "Everyone's entitled to their memory, except Israel" all your enemies rise up and say: "See? He agrees with us! Jews are not entitled to their memories, their Rabbi says so!"

Get it? Rabbi Hier comes across very poorly. Eyes squinting. Shoulders hunched. Hands folded in submission and then out comes "the OY."

Where are your brave handsome men? Your brave beautiful women? They are in Israel and they will stand up and give a shout-out for your kin!

Stop HIDING your beauty under a bucket. Step out and shout: "We are SICK and TIRED of your crap, and we are NOT going to take it anymore."

Viva to the handsome and beautiful Patriots of Israel. We are the SC4Z and we stand with YOU, Israel, and not with the arab enablers and blundering euroids.

On Apr 14, 2011, at 6:34 AM, Simon Wiesenthal Center wrote:

Passover 2011:
"Everyone's entitled to their memory, except Israel,"
-Rabbi Marvin Hier, SWC Dean and Founder
April 13, 2011

View video.

We are counting on your support so that the Simon Wiesenthal Center can be on the frontlines in the global war against anti-Semitism, standing with Israel and fighting for the safety and security of Jews around the world.

Wishing you and your family Chag Kasher V'Sameach - Happy Passover!

Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, April 14, 2011.

In August 1998, according to press reports, official Israeli analysts met with Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet ministers to discuss what was termed the "potential strategic threat" stemming from the Arab population resident in Israel. Among other things, the report discussed a "worst case scenario" whereby these Israeli Arabs would launch a separatist campaign.[1] The report went on to draw explicit comparisons between this threat and the role of Sudeten Germans in Czechoslovakia in the 1930s.[2]

The report caused a minor uproar, forcing the government to apologize later and back down from this characterization of Israel's Arab citizens as a potential fifth column. Yet the comparison is an intriguing one, for Israeli Arabs and Sudeten Germans do have much in common, as recent research has established.[3] The historic analogy with the Sudetens arises with respect to debate over the real motivations behind demands for Palestinian self-determination, demands sometimes extended to include Israeli Arabs. Does the Sudeten story of six decades back in fact have lessons for today?


The modern Czechoslovakian state came into existence in 1918[4]; in the first of many parallels with modern Israel, it was a country recreated after centuries, having been destroyed and absorbed by others over the years. In the Middle Ages, Bohemia and Moravia had been separate Czech kingdoms, enjoying varying degrees of independence, generally within the framework of the Holy Roman Empire. During the Hussite rebellion of the fifteenth century, the Czechs regained their full independence in a heroic armed struggle that pitted the few against the many. Their independence was then to be crushed with finality in 1620, and the Czech lands were absorbed by the Habsburg Empire, while much of the Czech population was dispersed.

Modern Czech nationalism emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century. During World War I, Czechs participated in resistance and espionage against the Axis powers, and their leaders lobbied in European capitals for independence. After centuries of persecution, the Czechs reestablished their sovereignty following World War I and linked up with their Slovakian cousins in the new state of Czechoslovakia. Czechoslovakia occupied a strategically central location; indeed, Bismarck once observed that whoever was master of Bohemia was master of Europe.

Czechoslovakia contained a diverse and heterogeneous population, like the Habsburg Empire from which it emerged. In particular, about 23 percent of its citizens were ethnic Germans, concentrated in the Western section known as the Sudetenland. Most Sudeten Germans were violently opposed to incorporation within the Czechoslovakian state. Instead, they identified openly with larger neighboring countries and fundamentally opposed the very existence of the new state. On October 21, 1918, German deputies from all parts of the former Austrian Empire convened and issued a call for national "self-determination" for the Germans of Czechoslovakia, using the term President Woodrow Wilson had recently added to the international lexicon. In the following year, Sudeten Germans launched a wave of violent demonstrations and terrorism in opposition to the inclusion of their lands in the Czech state. In addition, thousands of Sudeten Germans fled from the new state to the neighboring countries of Germany and Austria.

In the campaign for Sudeten self-determination, its advocates ignored the fact that the vast majority of Germanic peoples already enjoyed self-determination in the form of Germany and Austria, two states contiguous to the area of Czechoslovakia in dispute. Rather, the advocates accused the Czechs of being "outsiders" who did not belong in the region. As Slavs, the Czechs were portrayed as invaders of Germanic Lebensraum.

The new Czechoslovakia thus included a large element with questionable loyalty to the state. Czechoslovakia was ruled by social democrats committed to social reform and egalitarianism; they made attempts to resolve this problem by winning over the hostile minority through economic integration, tolerance, freedom, and liberal social reform. The first Czechoslovakian president, Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, a powerful, strong-willed, charismatic, and progressive politician, proposed a comprehensive program of equality for all national groups in the new state. Indeed, he promoted the integration of the German minority as an ultimate test of his progressive principles.

Accordingly, Czechoslovakia quickly developed in the 1920s into a stable parliamentary democracy with protection for all the freedoms found in modern Western states. A large number of political parties contested elections and gained representation in the parliament. Government coalitions of parties were formed after a great deal of partisan horse-trading. The country passed legislative programs that were among the most progressive in the world. Trade union activism and power bloomed, and widespread experimentation with cooperative agriculture took place.

A pattern of decentralization evolved, where the German minority was permitted to operate its own schools in its own languages and control its own local affairs. German was an official national language in the German areas of Czechoslovakia. Sudeten Germans voted and were elected to parliament.

Still, Sudeten Germans did have some legitimate complaints. They were under-represented in the civil service and armed forces, partly because of security fears. They also experienced some security-related restrictions, particularly during periods of exterior threats and tensions. The issue of land ownership was one of extremist political passion for them. Land owned by Sudeten Germans was expropriated for defense fortifications, as the Sudeten lands were alongside Germany — whence any future military threats would come. (The Third Reich later used these land expropriations as a justification for its military aggression in 1938.) On the whole, the Sudeten Germans probably enjoyed better treatment than any other national minority in Europe.


However, by 1937 the Sudeten Germans found themselves at the center of escalating tensions. The radicalization of nationalist movements in neighboring countries, where power was seized by revolutionary and xenophobic leaders, led to growing international conflict. Specifically, the pan-German ideology and imperialist ambitions of the Third Reich inflamed the Sudeten conflict. Adolf Hitler saw Czechoslovakia as an integral part of the German national homeland, an area to be absorbed and integrated into the Reich. He allowed no room at all for Czechoslovakian self-determination. On March 30, 1938, Hitler wrote in his diary, "It is my irrevocable decision to destroy Czechoslovakia by military means in the near future."[5]

As international tensions grew, Berlin complained more and more about discrimination and mistreatment of the Sudetens. In response, Sudeten Germans moved away from peaceful coexistence in favor of polarization and extremism. Their patterns shifted as frustration peaked, from the more moderate parties in the 1920s to nationalist parties with totalitarian ideologies in the 1930s. Their growing nationalist movement was anti-liberal, anti-democratic, and authoritarian. The Nazi Party was formally banned in Czechoslovakia but support for the Sudeten German Party (SdP), the Nazi surrogate party, soared; in 1935 it received 63 percent of the German vote in Czechoslovakia (a higher percentage than what the Nazis received in Germany in 1933), and 78 percent in 1938.[6] The SdP never outlined a political or social program of nation-building beyond demanding "self-determination."

The SdP used violence to suppress other competing nationalist parties and asserted its own position as sole spokesman for the Sudeten Germans. It organized Sudeten refugees who had fled to Germany when Czechoslovakia became independent and recruited them into the Heimatbund, a paramilitary organization. This group later formed the basis of the Sudeten German Freikorps, a terrorist organization to which 34,000 Sudetens living in Germany were recruited. These terrorists raided Czech border areas and carried out atrocities until late 1938. The SdP and other Sudeten political organizations openly identified with the Nazi Party in Germany. Even in the face of escalating violence and provocations by the Sudeten Germans, the Czechoslovak authorities scrupulously maintained freedom of the press.

After coming to power, but especially beginning in 1937, Hitler turned the issue of Sudeten national rights into his main instrument for aggression against Czechoslovakia. Self-determination served him as a means to destroy and annex the country. Funds from Germany flowed into the SdP coffers and Berlin conjured up imaginary Soviet airfields in Czechoslovakia and labeled Czechoslovakia "a puppet of Soviet imperialism." But the most important Nazi assault on Czechoslovakia was its propaganda machine's denunciation of the supposed torture and physical abuse of Sudeten Germans at the hands of Czechoslovakia — this from the regime that had already built concentration camps.

By mid-1937, Hitler simultaneously pressured Prague to make concessions on the Sudeten issue and completed a military plan for the conquest of Czechoslovakia. The head of the SdP, Konrad Henlein, went on a diplomatic offensive, touring western European capitals and demanding that Sudeten rights be acknowledged. Henlein at first attempted to convince the European governments that his ambitions were limited to autonomy for Sudeten Germans. With time, his statements became increasingly belligerent. On January 1, 1938, he announced that "The Czechoslovak people must recognize that no settlement will ever be reached with our great neighbor, Germany, until the Sudeten Germans are satisfied." In 1938 the SdP adopted the Carlsbad Eight Points, a manifesto that essentially called for the partitioning of Czechoslovakia and the secession of the Sudetenland to Germany.


The internal problem of minority "rights" quickly assumed international dimensions. Responding to Nazi protests, the Western powers received Henlein with an official welcome of a kind usually reserved for a head of state. In contrast, as Czech historian Radomir Luza notes, Czechoslovakia's president Benes was treated "more cavalierly than if he had been the chief of a tribe in Africa."

This symbolism revealed a deeper outlook as the Western states pressured Prague to accede to Sudeten demands. In July 1936, Britain's Foreign Minister Anthony Eden urged Czechoslovakia to grant the Sudeten Germans full autonomy. Responding to these pressures, Czechoslovak leaders agreed to negotiate with the SdP and proposed a program for limited Sudeten autonomy. The SdP, acting under orders from Hitler, peremptorily rejected the plan. (Nazi foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop advised the Sudeten Nazis: "Always negotiate and do not let the thread break; but always demand more than the opposing side can offer.")[7] London pressured Prague to sweeten the plan and agree to a Sudeten plebiscite, though it was obvious that such a plebiscite would lead to the partition of Czechoslovakia.

Following the Austrian Anschluss (annexation) in March 1938, Sudeten German violence and mass demonstrations against Czechoslovakia grew, along with support for the SdP. Henlein escalated his rhetoric, denouncing the Prague regime as "Hussite-Bolshevik criminals," even as threats from the Third Reich assumed a more ominous tone. Reports arrived of German troop concentrations near the Czechoslovak frontier. At the same time that Berlin prepared for war, it denounced the Czechs as "the real disturbers of peace in Europe."

Prague from the beginning argued that the issue of Sudeten self-determination was a red herring, that the real cause of crisis was the Third Reich's aggressive intentions. The few Western voices that agreed with this analysis were generally ignored. William Srang, head of the Central European Department of the British Foreign Office, warned that the German government is "using the Sudeten German question as an instrument of policy to strengthen [its] political and military position." The democracies insisted on seeing the Sudeten conflict as a question of minority rights and self-determination. Britain and Germany held talks in September 1938 and issued a joint statement affirming the rights of the Sudeten Germans, with no mention at all of the security needs of Czechoslovakia.

Although Czechoslovakia had always maintained that the Sudeten problem was an internal affair and no business of the world community, in August 1938, London demanded and Prague had to accept a British mediator. Lord Runciman, known for his strong Nazi sympathies, recommended to Britain's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain that all agitation against the Nazis be forbidden inside Czechoslovakia. Runciman then added: "Czechoslovakian rule in the Sudeten areas for the last twenty years, though not actively oppressive ... has been marked by tactlessness, lack of understanding, petty intolerance, and discrimination, to a point where the resentment of the German population was inevitably moving in the direction of revolt." Chamberlain and French prime minister Edouard Daladier accused Prague of ill-treating the Sudeten minority and so being responsible for conflict. The European press routinely painted Czechoslovakia prime minister Benes as a warmonger.

During the negotiations over the mounting crisis, Prague had to accede under Western pressure to one German demand after another. It agreed on making the Carlsbad Eight Points the basis for negotiations. The SdP, under orders from Berlin not to reach a real agreement, met each new unilateral concession by Prague with new demands. Hitler told Karl Hermann Frank on August 6 that he had decided to go to war with the Czechs, even while continuing to negotiate "peace."[8] German strategy called for the negotiations to fail, so that the Reich would have an excuse to intervene militarily. Henlein was instructed that, in the unlikely event of Prague's complete capitulation to the Carlsbad program, to add new demands that would infringe on Czechoslovakia's ability to formulate its own foreign policy — thereby compromising its own sovereignty.

As tensions mounted along the borders in the summer of 1938, Czechoslovakia went on military alert. The Czechoslovak military being based mainly on a system of emergency reserve mobilization, the Western states exerted pressure on Prague not to mobilize, so as not to provoke Berlin. Prague persisted anyway and was denounced by some in the West for war-mongering.

In late summer 1938, Prague agreed essentially to the whole of the Carlsbad program. On September 13, before the SdP could formally respond to this capitulation, an intifada-like revolt broke out in the Sudetenland. Organized by the SdP, the rioters attacked Jews, Czechs, and democrats, and fired on many Czechoslovak policemen. As the SdP leadership fled to Germany, the Czechoslovak army restored order and established martial law. But London and Paris then increased pressure on Prague. On September 19, they proposed to transfer to Germany all parts of Czechoslovakia in which the population was more than half German; in exchange, they offered Czechoslovakia an international guarantee for its new boundaries after partition. In fact, no such formal guarantee was ever received. Earlier, the same two powers had pledged to defend Czechoslovakia sovereignty over its entire territory.


On September 29-30, 1938, the leaders of Europe met in Munich and sealed the fate of Czechoslovakia by agreeing to transfer the Sudetenland to Germany. No Czechoslovak representatives were present. They apportioned parts of Czechoslovakia to Germany and other parts of the country were awarded to Poland and Hungary. (See Map 1 above for the areas given to Germany.) On October 1, the German Wehrmacht entered the Sudetenland, where most Czechoslovak fortifications happened to be located with almost no opposition. They then rapidly expanded the areas under their control. (See Map 2 above.)

The Germans immediately instituted their program of Gleichschaltung, suppressing the Czech and Slovak languages, confiscating Czechoslovak property, and forcing at bayonet point the three quarters of a million Czechoslovaks remaining in the ceded territories to emigrate. At the same time, German propaganda clamored about the alleged denial of national and human rights of those Germans still living within the rump Czechoslovakian state, demanding recognition of their rights to self-determination. On March 12, 1939, German demonstrations took place in all the remaining Czechoslovak cities with a German population. On March 15, the German army completed the destruction of Czechoslovakia by seizing military control of all the remaining parts of the country. On March 16, 1939, the German army occupied Prague, and the rump Czech state ceased to exist. In October 1939 Hitler arranged for Slovak and Ruthene minorities within Czechoslovakia to declare themselves autonomous zones, independent of Prague, and then in November had Prague cede 4,600 square miles of territory to Hungary. Thus were the Sudeten people at last liberated and granted their national rights of self-determination. In all these events, not a single country had lifted a finger to save Czechoslovakia.

In 1938, in the midst of negotiations over the settlement of the Sudeten conflict, Czechoslovakia's president, Eduard Benes had warned the West: "Do not believe it [is] a question of self-determination. From the beginning, it has been a battle for the existence of the state." Several years later, after Sudeten self-determination had been granted and Czechoslovakia had ceased to exist as a country, Benes — then in exile — observed that "such a concept of self-determination is a priori a denial of the right of self-determination of ten million Czechoslovakians and precludes the very existence of a Czechoslovakian state."

The Czech historian Luza observes that "The Sudeten German problem was not a cause of the conflict but its pretext. The true reason, according to the Germans themselves, was a refusal of the Czechoslovakian state to become a German vassal" (emphasis in original). Years later in January 1942, Hitler confirmed this observation: "To put it briefly, the Czechoslovakians are a foreign body in the midst of the German community. There is no room both for them and for us. One of us must give way."


There are, of course, many differences between the Sudeten story and the Middle East conflict, the most important being the absence of a Hitler in the latter. This said, a large number of parallels between Sudeten and Palestinian self-determination are worth noting.

We know that the ultimate goal of Sudeten "self-determination" was not some corner of the country but the whole of it, including its capital Prague; likewise, Arafat announces several times each day that his goal is Jerusalem. In both cases, the campaign against the "oppression" of a minority group in fact served as an instrument for aggression against the state in which they lived. Since 1948, those who would destroy Israel have steadily insisted that they were acting out of moral high-mindedness and compassion for their Palestinian brethren, simply trying to help the latter achieve self-determination, though their goal is far more aggressive than that.

The campaign for Palestinian self-determination, like its Sudeten forerunner, has not the slightest connection with concern over the human rights and civic treatment of Palestinians. Those who exaggerated discrimination and oppression against the minority showed little interest in their plight in neighboring German and Arab countries. The Arabs' assault on Israel has been based on a determination to drive Israel out of their Lebensraum. As such, theirs is another example of the twentieth-century tendency to disguise naked aggression in the self-righteous cloak of promoting self-determination.

"Palestinian self-determination" serves as the banner for Arab aggression against Israel. In both cases, the minority group whose "oppression" formed the rationalization for aggression in fact enjoyed toleration and democratic rights that were completely absent in the neighboring countries where its ethnic brethren formed majorities. Refusal of the neighboring states to accept the presence of an "alien population and state" within their Lebensraum led to war. Both the victims of aggression were social democracies and states with extensive "progressive socialist" structures and high standards of living.

And the future? If the Oslo process results in Palestinian statehood, will this end the Middle East conflict or mark an intermediate stage of transition to a new form? Will the Palestinian state discover the plight of oppressed and mistreated Arabs remaining in the rump Israel, much as Germany demanded further concessions for Czech Germans in the rump partitioned Czechoslovakia? That seems likely, as such demands have long been heard by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Arab states. Will Arabs of the Galilee, the Negev, the Triangle, and then those in Ramla, Haifa, and Jaffa demand their self-determination? Is a Galilee Liberation Organization yet to be heard from?

The world chose to ignore the evidence that demands for Sudeten self-determination were a Nazi device to disguise military aggression aimed at destroying the self-determination of another nation; might something similar happen in the Middle East? It remains to be seen whether Palestinians will be permitted to fulfill their role, assigned to them by the Arab states, of the Sudetens of the Middle East.

And the Western reaction: Western powers have chosen to blind themselves to the misuse of the campaign for self-determination, and to the ambition by aggressor states to use "self-determination" to liquidate the target state. The powers bewail the sufferings of the minority group while ignoring the fact that the campaign on behalf of their "rights" are serving to delegitimize and weaken the democratic states being targeted for destruction.

Looking to the future, will Great Britain (with its Ulster, Scotch, and Welsh problems), France (with the Corsicans and Bretons), Belgium (with the Flemish and Walloons), Spain (with the Basques and Catalonians), and Canada (with the Quebecois) have any doubts? No, they are all likely to agree on one thing: the Palestinians are morally and politically entitled to "self-determination," no matter how this jeopardizes Israel's security or even, as in the Czechoslovak case, its very existence. Self-determination for the "oppressed" minority is assumed to provide an instant, just, and sublime solution to a conflict. Westerners (and the rest of the world, too) dismiss challenges to Palestinian self-determination with the same unthinking and indignant self-righteousness as their grandfathers did in the 1930s with regard to Sudeten self-determination.

But what moral basis is there for such self-determination? Palestinians always identify themselves as Arabs. That being the case, why are over twenty sovereign Arab states, in a territory larger than that of the United States, not sufficient? And if Palestinians are not Arabs, why do Arab leaders never demand, at least not audibly, self-determination for those Palestinians not under Israeli control — such as in Jordan and Lebanon, or in the pre-1967 West Bank?


It has become a matter of near-universal consensus in recent years that Palestinian self-determination stands at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In this view, the lack of such Palestinian self-determination drives the conflicts and the realization of such self-determination is the only formula that will lead to Middle Eastern harmony.

But this outlook ignores the fact that for a century nearly every form of aggression, irredentism, and xenophobia has wrapped itself in the banner of self-determination. Twentieth-century aggressors feel a need to present themselves as defenders of the downtrodden and friends of those souls seeking self-determination. Other examples of aggressors claiming to be fighting for self-determination for minorities or for oppressed peoples include Spain's invasion of Mexico (to protect tribes from the Aztecs); Japan's invasion of Manchuria, China, Indochina, and Burma; and Russia's occupation of Eastern Europe. More recent examples include Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia; Russia in Afghanistan; Iraq's aggression against Iran and against Kuwait; and the Serb invasions of its several neighbors, including Bosnia and Kosovo. If Iran invades Afghanistan, it, too, will rely on self-determination as a fig leaf for aggression. This historic pattern should give pause to anyone hearing appeals about the rights to self-determination.

For decades, Palestinian self-determination has being utilized to threaten Israeli self-determination. The PLO has often repeated that Oslo is part of the "plan of stages" by which all of Palestine, including all of Israel, will be liberated in stages. The Arab states have been even less reticent about promoting the ultimate goal of dismantling Israel.

Westerners seem unable to imagine that any form of self-determination is morally or politically objectionable or ethically deniable; therefore, they tend to receive the self-determination argument with understanding and approval. Ever since Woodrow Wilson devised the term, Westerners have tended to give "self-determination" the benefit of every doubt, even though many of the most horrific conflicts on the planet have been fought in the name of just this "self-determination."

The West must recognize that any form of Palestinian self-governance and "self-determination" must be preconditioned on the complete preservation and protection of Israeli self-determination.

1 A Gallup poll (Ma'ariv, Oct. 4, 1998), shows 62 percent of Israelis think it likely that Israeli Arabs (within the Green Line) could launch their own intifada; 31 percent think it not likely.

2 Ma'ariv, Aug. 16, 1998.

3 Most notably by Arie Stav, Czechoslovakia 1938 — Israel Today (Ariel, West Bank: Ariel Center for Policy Research, 1997).

4 General references include Rudamir Luza, The Transfer of the Sudeten Germans: A Study of Czech-German Relations (New York: New York University Press, 1964); Tomas Garrigue Masaryk, The Meaning of Czech History (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1974); Robert M. Smelser, The Sudeten Problem, 1933-1938 (Middleton, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1975).

5 Quoted in Josef Korbel, Twentieth Century Czechoslovakia, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1977), p. 123.

6 Ibid., p. 119.

7 Quoted in Smelser, The Sudeten Problem, p. 233.

8 Smelser, The Sudeten Problem, pp. 233-34.

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@gmail.com His website address is

This article appeared in Middle East Quarterly, June 1999, pp. 49-56,
http://www.meforum.org/459/palestinian-irredentism- a-warning-from-history

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, April 14, 2011.

This was written by Elad Benari


On Wednesday, a memorial service will be held in Netanya, marking 63 years since the death of Baruch Mizrahi.

Mizrahi was born 85 years ago to Mahmoud and Fatima and his name was Hamuda Abu Al-Anyan. His family was a famous family who lived in Tzfat. As a child he lived near the local Beitar stronghold in Tzfat and through this he came to be influenced by the Jews' lifestyle and by the national spirit in the Beitar stronghold.

Eventually he converted and became known as Avraham Ben Avraham. Naturally, Ben Avraham joined the underground Jewish movement, the Irgun, and took part in their activities against the British who ruled Israel at the time. During this time he changed his name to Baruch Mizrahi and was known by that name since.

At one point, Mizrahi was captured and exiled along with hundreds of Irgun fighters to a detention camp in Eritrea. The British entrusted the maintenance of the prisoners from Israel in the hands of the Sudanese natives, who more than once would randomly fire at Jewish prisoners.

On January 17, 1946, Mizrahi was one of several people who were severely wounded when the Sudanese guards opened fire at the Jewish prisoners. In a rare gesture, the British agreed to return him to Israel for further treatment, and indeed Baruch Mizrahi recovered. After he recovered, since he was still considered a terrorist by the British, Mizrahi was released but on condition that he would report to the police station once a week and sign in. These sign-ins were overseen by an Arab police officer.

After the adaptation of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine in November of 1947, the Irgun began fighting the Arab enemy, in particular against two major Arab gangs: One in Jerusalem and one in northern Israel, led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji.

The Irgun was assigned to bring a truck bomb into al-Qawuqji's headquarters in Jenin. Mizrahi was chosen for the job since he looked like an Arab, was well-versed in Arab customs, and had an Arabic accent. Mizrahi boarded an Arab bus that took him to meet the Arab collaborator who would give him the truck and the explosives. During the long ride, the passengers befriended Baruch Mizrahi, whom they thought to be an Arab.

When the bus reached the Megiddo Junction, it was stopped by a barricade set up by the Arab gang. Unfortunately for Mizrahi, one of the gang members was that same Arab policeman with whom Mizrahi would check in at the police station. The policeman identified Mizrahi and he was brought, together with the Arabs with whom he became friends during the trip, to Jaba, where they were all murdered. Mizrahi's body was thrown in a nearby cave.

Nineteen years later in 1967, Jaba was conquered by the IDF during the Six Day War. After the war, Mizrahi's friends recalled that when he was wounded in Eritrea, he made a request to be buried in Israel if he dies. Mizrahi's friends came to Jaba, located the cave and recovered his body. Mizrahi was later brought to burial in the military cemetery in Netanya, in the presence of Menachem Begin and the Irgun fighters.

Baruch Mizrahi had no family (he was a convert who died at the age of 22 before he could marry). The members of the Jewish community of Sa-Nur, which was destroyed by the Israeli government during the 2005 Disengagement Plan, "adopted" Mizrahi and tens of thousands of visitors who came to visit northern Samaria would hear his moving story.

"We wanted to put up a statue and also build a school in his memory, but unfortunately we were driven out of Sa-Nur," said the former residents of the community. "What we have left is to go to his grave each year on the anniversary of his death. Hopefully we will soon return fully to Homesh and to Sa-Nur and then we will be able to commemorate this hero properly."

The memorial service for Baruch Mizrahi will be attended by representatives from Sa-Nur, representatives of Beitar, and other people who will come to pay their respect to him. The service will be held on Wednesday, April 13, at 10:00am Israel time in the military section of the old cemetery in Netanya

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, April 14, 2011.

Shalom to everyone. On the Seder night, the Hagaddah begins with the negative and ends with praise. In this short message, we will do the same.

This past week, we once again had a painful reminder of the fact that the State of Israel cannot exist for a long time when it is disconnected from its Jewish foundations. The last round of fighting against the Hamas in Gaza ended with the score of 2:0 - in favor of the Hamas. On one hand, every bus within five kilometers of the Gaza Strip has now become an easy and accessible potential target, while on the other hand, Israel will not dare to carry out targeted assassinations or the abduction of senior Hamas terrorists when those measures mean that all the residents of Ashkelon and Be'er Sheva must stay in bomb shelters.

The military solution is essentially non-existent because the only way to triumph is to capture the Gaza Strip and to establish real Israeli sovereignty over the region. But he who is disconnected form his Jewish foundations cannot see this solution as an option. He is incapable of accepting the fact that Gaza is simply the Land of Israel and that our roots in the city and surrounding area are no less deep than our roots in Tel Aviv. From the mighty Samson through Rabbi Yisrael Najarah and until the 1930's when the Jewish community in Gaza was destroyed, there had always been a Jewish community there.

Are you familiar with the Shabbat songs Yoducha Ra'ayonai or Kah Ribon olam v'olmaya? You've heard them. The next time you hear those songs, remember that they were written in Gaza and that their composers are buried in the Jewish cemetery there.

He who sees only the here and now, he who is disconnected from our past and our destiny in this Land - also has no present. He finds himself running to bomb shelters or to sophisticated protective systems.

It is not only Gaza that we cannot capture without our Jewish foundations - we cannot even justify our presence in Haifa and Be'er Sheva without them. Just one generation after the Holocaust, Europe is no longer inclined to apologize. Our security-based claims sound to them - and in no small measure, justifiably so - like the tears of the Robbed Cossack. When is the last time that you heard an official Israeli representative simply say, "This is our Land"? If we also admit that we occupied a land that is not ours, how can we complain that our children are in danger?

The negation of Israel's legitimate right to exist is spreading like wildfire in the West, IDF officers and Israeli politicians are afraid to leave the country to which they themselves do not understand their connection.

O.K., we also have to leave some time for the positive.

The good news is that despite the confusion, the Nation of Israel is upward bound. As individuals we may be confused, but as a nation we are displaying unbelievable vitality. The birthrate among Jews in Israel is the highest in the Western world - even without the religious factored in. All the Western nations are shrinking and by us, construction of new apartments does not meet growing demand. Israel today is one of the most modern and developed states in the world. We export more to the US than we import - and that is even though we buy more from America than Brazil or India, with its population of a billion. The Western economies are collapsing - while the Israeli shekel is the most stable in the world. Our foreign debt is small and unemployment in Israel is relatively minimal. True, the lack of a balanced Jewish culture of modest spending and loving kindness is currently preventing the wealth from filtering down to all layers of the population, but as we connect to our culture, that will also work out. We're talking about the positive now, remember?

With G-d's help, next year most of the Nation of Israel will be in the Land of Israel - before next Pesach. This demographic status has not occurred since the era of the First Temple!

So what is happening here? On the one hand the physical aspect of our nation is flourishing, while on the other hand we are experiencing spiritual weakness that threatens our continued existence. How can we change this situation? How can we progress? How can we take advantage of our national sovereignty and the great abundance that our Father in heaven is showering upon us and not lose them, G-d forbid?

The answer is leadership. To emerge from our state of mental subservience to genuine national liberty, we need Jewish leadership that will know how to stabilize our national structure on the foundations of our Jewish heritage.

How will we do it? How will we deal with the Arabs? How will we explain it to the Jews? How will we stand up to American pressure? We have answers to all those questions and more.

You can start by reading our articles, arranged on the Jewish Leadership website by categories. Check out Tomorrow Magazine for more details on various issues. And most important of all, get our ideas out through your own blogs and social media outlets.

We are entering Pesach 5771 with great hope. With G-d's help, we will greet Jonathan Pollard, Gilad Shalit and all our other captives this year. All the wounded and sick will completely recover and all of our dreams will be realized in the very best way.

Reality is nudging our nation into a new consciousness - Jewish consciousness. We are building an alternative and with G-d's help, we will soon lead our nation and complete the journey that our ancestors began in Egypt 3,013 years ago - on the Temple Mount.

I wish you a happy and kosher Festival of Freedom.

Support Manhigut Yehudit Today
Now is the time!
Your donation can turn the State of the Jews into the Jewish State.

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell)

To Go To Top

Posted by Judith Lash Balint, April 14, 2011.

Citizens of southern Israel face the prospect of yet another Passover under fire. The barrage of missiles and rockets on our southern cities and surrounding western Negev kibbutzim is almost taken for granted by the international community as they prefer to focus on whether a few hundred more apartments are being planned in a Jerusalem neighborhood.

As if that weren't bad enough, hundreds of former Gush Katif residents are still in temporary housing almost six years since their eviction. Many who moved into the vast and dismal caravilla camp of Nitzan near Ashkelon are still unemployed and dealing with the emotional and psychological effects of displacement.

On the religious front, Haaretz revealed in a poll that 68 percent of the population answers 'no' when asked if they are planning on eating chametz during Pesach and 75 percent of Israelis will take part in a seder.

Meantime, on Pesach the extent of the dire poverty of hundreds of thousands of Israelis is exposed. Latest figures indicate that roughly 20.5% of Israeli families live below the poverty line. Moreover, 24.7% of Israel's residents and 35.9% of its children live in impoverished families.

Families and the elderly form almost endless lines in every city around the food banks and soup kitchens that do their best to provide the basics necessary to celebrate the holiday.

In every ultra-orthodox neighborhood during the week before Pesach, men and boys block the narrow streets with hand trucks piled high with sacks of carrots, potatoes, oranges and cartons of eggs--all courtesy of the Kimcha D'Pischa funds that funnel donations from abroad to the Haredi communities, specifically for Pesach food.

Tourists, largely oblivious to our problems, have begun to descend on us. Most visible are the busloads of Christian pilgrims from eastern Europe, Nigeria and an assortment of Asian countries looking to celebrate Easter--the Jews arrive in much smaller family groups, excited to be in Israel for one of the three pilgrimage festivals.

Meanwhile, for those who have read this far, here are 17 Ways You Know Pesach is Coming To Israel:

1. The Israeli Army presses into service some 200 IDF chaplains including reservists, to commence the massive task of kashering the hundreds of kitchens, mess halls and eating corners used by soldiers all over the country.

2. Street scenes in Israel change every day before Passover according to what's halachically necessary: In the days before the holiday, yeshiva students wielding blow torches preside over huge vats of boiling water stationed every few blocks on the street and in the courtyard of every mikveh. The lines to dunk cutlery, kiddush cups and the like start to grow every day, and, at the last minute, blow torches are at the ready to cleanse every last gram of chametz from oven racks and stove tops lugged through the streets.

Kashering cutlery for Pesach on a Jerusalem street

3. No alarm clock needed here--the clanging garbage trucks do the trick as they roll through the neighborhood every morning during the two weeks before Pesach to accommodate all the refuse from the furious cleaning going on in every household. Two days before the Seder there's the annual pick-up of oversized items and appliances. Dozens of antiquated computer monitors and old toaster ovens stand forlornly next to the garbage bins on their way to the dump.

4. The day before Passover, families replace the yeshiva students on the street, using empty lots to burn the remainder of their chametz gleaned from the previous night's meticulous search. In vain, the Jerusalem municipality sets up official chametz burning locations and issues strict orders banning burning in any other areas. Yeah, right!

5. Most flower shops stay open all night for the two days before Pesach, working feverishly to complete the orders that will grace the nation's Seder tables.

6. Meah Shearim and Geula merchants generally run out of heavy plastic early in the week before Pesach. In a panic, I make an early morning run to the Machane Yehuda market to successfully snap up a few meters of the handy counter-covering material.

7. Observant Jews mark the seven weeks between Passover and Shavuot by carrying out some of the laws of mourning--one of these is the prohibition against cutting hair.

Good luck if you haven't scheduled an appointment for a pre-Pesach/Omer haircut. You can't get in the door at most barber and beauty shops.

8. Mailboxes are full of Pesach appeals from the myriad of organizations helping the poor celebrate Pesach. Newspapers are replete with articles about selfless Israelis who volunteer by the hundreds in the weeks before the holiday to collect, package and distribute Pesach supplies to the needy.

9. The biggest food challenge to those of us ashkenazic, non-kitniyot (legume) eaters is finding cookies, margarine etc. made without kitniyot, but an increasing number of ashkenazic rabbis are coming out with lenient rulings regarding legumes.

10. Since most of the country is on vacation for the entire week of Pesach, all kinds of entertainment and trips are on offer. Ads appear for everything from the annual Boombamela beach festival, kid's activities at the Bloomfield Science Museum, concerts in Hebron, explorations at the City of David, solidarity excursions to Sderot and music festivals at the Dead Sea.

11. Pesach with its theme of freedom and exodus always evokes news stories about recent olim. This year, general immigration numbers are significantly down, but American aliya has enjoyed a mini-boom. For a couple of thousand new Israeli-Americans, it'll be their first Seder at home in Israel. Israel Radio announces that 700 prisoners will get a furlough to spend the holiday with family.

12. This just in: According to Israel's Brandman Research Institute study, 43 million people hours will be spent nationwide in Israel's cleaning preparations for Passover this year. How does that break down? Of those cleaning hours, 29 million are done by women and 11 million by men. Persons paid to clean do the remaining 3 million hours at a cost of NIS 64 million ($15.6 million).

13. Israel's chief rabbis sell the nation's chametz to one Hussein Jabar, a Moslem Arab resident of Abu Ghosh. Estimated worth: $150 billion secured by a down payment of NIS 20,000. Jabar took over the task some 14 years ago, after the previous buyer, also from Abu Ghosh, was fired when it was discovered his maternal grandmother was Jewish.

This year, volunteers from the My Israel movement will be collecting unwanted chametz at Israeli supermarkets and shipping it via the Foreign Ministry to needy victims of the Japanese earthquakes and tsunami.

14. Sign of the times? A few years ago, former Sephardi Chief Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu issued a ruling that Viagra may be taken on Pesach provided the pill is encased in a special empty capsule so that the drug itself is not in direct contact with the body.

15. At the Kotel last week, I watched as workers performed the twice-yearly ritual (pre-Pesach and pre-Rosh hashanah) of removing thousands of personal notes from the crevices of the Kotel to bury them on the Mt of Olives.

16. Guess Who's Buying Matza? According to Iyad Sharbaji, the manager of Gadaban Supermarket at the entrance to the the Galilee Arab town of Umm al Fahm, his Matza is consumed entirely by local Arabs. Sharbaji told Haaretz that he generally stocks up on Matza for Passover and has to replenish stock before the end of the holiday, due to keen demand by locals.

It turns out the avid consumption of matza is not a new trend in Arab towns and villages, whose inhabitants view the traditional Jewish food as nothing more or less than a welcome and refreshing change in the menu. "It's not a religious issue, and certainly not a political one," Sharbaji explains.

17. A sign of our economic times--supermarkets entice shoppers with a promise to allow us to settle up the bill in six equal monthly payments on the credit card. Yes, many of us will still be paying for the Seder come Rosh Hashana! Sphere: Related Content

Judy Lash Balint is an award-winner investigative journalist and author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" (Gefen). It is available for purchase from www.israelbooks.com. Contact her at judy.balint@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Senior Editor, News from Israel, April 14, 2011.

Jews are not allowed to pray on the Holy Jewish Temple Mount in Jerusalem. America wants this as well. I wonder, who does this judge work for? America? Or Israel? However, if you are islamic and help murder, or actually do murder "a Jew", especially an Israeli Jew, be they child, or woman, or a man, you may go and pray on the Jewish Temple Mount. Judge Aviv Malka, you made one hell of an evil, anti-Semitic ruling. You are one, just one, of the hordes who are the prophesied Armies that come to war against Israel. Judge Malka, do you know what side you are on? Would Hitler have stood with YOU, and with your decision denying JEWS access to the Temple Mount? You allow muslims, who murder Jewish children for sport, on the Temple Mount. You even let them pray there. But no Jews.

It's time we stop dancing around the issue, and just come out and say it as it is. I do not want to see Israelis arrested for standing, but we gotta do something.

Tell me judge, when will it be enough lives of Jews? Was it not enough in recent history? It was enough to get us to Israel, but now we can't be Jews in Israel. How many more lives must be STOLEN, in order for the Jew to have access to HIS Holy Temple Mount???? How many???!!!???!!! How in the hell can YOU, personally be part of it this time? What excuse will you try to make to history for what you do judge?


This below is the article from http://NewsFromIsrael.org


Jerusalem Judge Aviv Malka has ruled that Temple Institute director Rabbi Yehudah Glick may ascent the Temple Mount - but that he is not allowed "any religious activity" while there. Malka ordered Glick to give a 10,000 shekels deposit to ensure that he would comply with the rules while on the Temple Mount.

Malka ruled in Glick's favor regarding a request to prevent police from blocking his access to the mount. Police had banned Glick from the Temple Mount, a ban which he said prevented him from making a living, as he normally works giving tours of the holy site.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, April 14, 2011.

This past weekend, a bar mitzva boy in Beersheba received a rude welcome to adulthood. Sometime after midnight on Friday evening, just hours before the young man was due to ascend the podium to read from the Torah, an air-raid siren sounded.

"Tzeva Adom" (the equivalent of "Code Red"), it declared, signaling that Palestinian terrorists had launched projectiles from Gaza toward southern Israel.

My twin sons, who were attending the celebratory weekend, were fast asleep along with the rest of the guests. A youth ran into their room and attempted to rouse them, shouting that an attack was on its way.

Thinking it was just a prank, they did what teens around the world are so adept at doing: They rolled over and went back to sleep.

Moments later, the mother of the bar mitzva boy burst in and told everyone to get to the hotel's protected area forthwith.

One of my sons did just that, while the other just kept on snoozing — sleeping through his first rocket strike. Mazal tov! But this is no laughing matter. From Beersheba all the way up to Gedera, hundreds of thousands of Israelis were forced to seek shelter as Palestinian terrorists fired more than 120 rockets and mortar rounds in a 48-hour period, indiscriminately targeting civilians.

The weekend bombardment followed Thursday's deliberate attack on an Israeli school bus, when Palestinians launched an anti-tank missile at the vehicle, critically wounding a 16-year-old boy.

All told, since January 1, terrorists in Gaza have fired 269 rockets, mortars and shells at Jewish towns and villages in the South. That comes out to nearly three projectiles per day, every day, since the start of 2011.

This is simply insufferable, and it is time for Israel to take all necessary measures to stop it.

THE PRIMARY goal of the terrorists is to murder and maim innocent Israelis, and to sow fear and disarray among the public. We need to take the fight to them and stop allowing the terrorists to treat the residents of the Negev as targets in their own private shooting gallery.

As my kids recounted the harrowing Shabbat incident to me, I could not help but think of how successive premiers have not lived up to the primary responsibility of any government — to provide for the safety and security of its citizens.

Just imagine how the siren must have cast a shadow over the bar mitzva, and how it will be forever etched in the memory of the young boy, whose rite of passage was disrupted by some cruel terrorists bent on wreaking havoc. Is this any way for a nation to live? Unfortunately, for residents of the South, the disruption of daily life has become all too familiar. Even our dovish President Shimon Peres said that "the Gaza Strip has turned into a terrorist zone."

If that is the case, then why on earth do we allow it to continue? Indeed, perhaps Israel's gravest error is that we have been treating the intolerable as if it were tolerable, carrying on as though it were perfectly normal for our neighbors to be attacking us at will.

On Sunday, the government reportedly agreed to a cease-fire with the Hamas leadership in Gaza. But the question is: to what end? We cease, while they gear up to continue firing.

A couple of IDF air strikes and some tough words from the premier just won't do. Taking out a handful of the bad guys is not a long-term solution.

Israel must end this charade. The Jewish state needs to reassert control and topple the Hamas terrorist regime once and for all. It's time to correct the strategic mistake of withdrawing from Gaza, which allowed the area to become a launching pad for terror.

The residents of the entire country deserve some peace and quiet, which can only come once our foes are truly vanquished.

Sure, an Israeli move into Gaza would have far-reaching political repercussions, and there is no doubt that it would be messy and complicated. But we have no choice. Tranquility and calm must be restored to the Negev, and the lives of Israel's citizens must take priority over any other concerns.

Let's stop tolerating the intolerable and dismantle the Hamas government, so that southern residents need no longer scurry to bomb shelters on a regular basis.

For far too long, our leadership has been asleep at the wheel. They need to wake up and take action, because that is what the situation demands.

Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South America to return to the Jewish people. He served as an adviser to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his first term in office.

This article appeared today in The Jerusalem Post

To Go To Top

Posted by Alex Grobman, April 13, 2011.

During World War II, the staff of Hadassah Hospital played a significant role in helping Allied military forces throughout the Middle East. They offered weekly lectures and meetings to British medical personnel that acquainted them with regional medical issues including blood diseases, jaundice, dysentery, anemia and high blood pressure. Courses were also given on how to deal with infestations of sand-flies, worms, poisonous snakes, mosquitoes and other disease carrying insects.

The Hebrew University's Department of Bacteriology and Hygiene provided anti-typhus and anti-dysentery vaccines. The Zoology Department's research on relapsing cave fever taught the British army to avoid encampments near caves.

Malaria was a major debilitating threat to Allied forces. As a result, the British Army established ten anti-malaria units that were sent to Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, India, Burma, Greece and Italy in advance of their troops. Four of these units were under the command of Jewish malaria experts, who pioneered the use of aerial use of pesticides to kill nests of mosquitoes. Medical expertise was provided by the Parasitology Department.

While Hadassah and Hebrew University were assisting the British, Arabs led by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, were fighting a guerrilla war against the British and Jews. In late 1941, as a refugee in Berlin, the Mufti used radio broadcasts to urge Arabs to become fifth columns in the lands where they lived and to commit sabotage and to murder Allied troops and Jews.

His spies provided the Nazis with information about British troop movements. His reports also described successful acts of sabotage in the Middle East by many of his agents. They cut water pipes and fuel and telephone lines, and destroyed bridges and blew up railroads. He organized an Axis-Arab Legion, the Arabisches Freiheitskorps, who wore German uniforms with "Free Arabia," patches. They were part of the German army, and were responsible for protecting the Nazi communication system in Macedonia and for hunting down American and British paratroopers who landed in Yugoslavia.

Once the partition of Palestine was approved by the United Nations on November 29, 1947, the violence against the Jews intensified. The equivalent of a Red Cross medical convoy comprised of non-combatants including doctors, nurses and university faculty and students was ambushed by Arabs in the Sheikh Jarrah section of Jerusalem. Although The British High Commissioner and the British Secretary of State personally gave their assurances that these convoys would be protected by British troops and police, seventy-eight Jews were murdered.

The attack, which lasted seven hours, began at 9:30 a.m. and took place less than 600 feet from the British military post. The British watched from the sidelines. Jewish appeals for help were ignored until mid-afternoon. But by then the Jews had either been burned alive in buses or shot. There were 28 survivors, only eight had no injuries.

Among the dead were the founders of the new faculty of medicine, a physicist, a philologist, a cancer researcher, the head of the university's department of psychology, and an authority on Jewish law. A doctor who waited four years to marry the nurse he loved was killed when he went to say good bye to his patients before leaving on his honeymoon.

One victim, a doctor, treated the Arab peasants in the village of Isawiye on Mount Scopus two weeks prior to the attack. Yet Arabs claimed that the ambush was a heroic act, and the British had no business intervening even at the last-minute: They did not want a single Jewish passenger to remain alive.

Thousands of furious Jews attended the funeral and lined the streets of the procession. British indifference was responsible for this loss of life. The British Army dismissed the ambush as retaliation for an Irgun attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin. Official Arab response was that they had heard that Jewish gangs were assembled near Hadassah Hospital and Hebrew University. R.M.Graves, the British appointed Chairman of the Jerusalem Municipal Commission, said "...the Arabs do not realize that the killing of doctors, nurses and university teachers was a dastardly outrage."

Despite this sad and bloody piece of history, Hadassah has endured through hundreds of terrorist attacks and always has been there for the health of Jews and Arabs in the region.

Dr. Alex Grobman is director of the America-Israel Friendship. League Sources used: "Fortnightly Intelligence Newsletter" Number 66. (April 21, 1948), National British Archives; Philip Graves, Palestine, the Land of Three Faiths (London: Jonathan Cape, 1923); Rivka Ashbel, As Much As We Could Do (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press of The Hebrew University, 1989). Dov Joseph, The Faithful City: The Siege of Jerusalem 1948 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960). Harry Levin, Jerusalem Embattled: A Diary of the City Under Siege (London: Cassell, 1997). This article appeared on the Ruthfully Yours website,
http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/04/10/ dr-alex-grobman-april-13-1948-the-massacre- of-the-hadassah-convoy/

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, April 13, 2011.

Left: Harkness rose

Right: Sierra rose

"The camera is a most fantastic drawing instrument, like a pencil on steroids."
- Priscilla Ferguson-Forthman ***


Jerusalem's Wohl Rose Garden, opposite the Knesset on Givat Ram, is one of the city's most beautiful parks. At its peak, there are hundreds of flowering rose bushes, beautifully landscaped and identified for the amateur botanists among us. I photographed the park two years ago for a project paying tribute to the donors and I have returned there on occasion to enjoy the peace and tranquility.

As part of my approach to this assignment, I looked for rare flowers as well as examples of unusual lighting and composition that make the flowers look their best. The orange blossoms are from a rose plant known as the Anne Harkness, introduced by English breeders in the 1970s and characterized by apricot-colored petals with shadings of yellow at its base. Soft, diffuse afternoon sunlight gently enlivens the petals while the use of a long telephoto lens compresses the depth — making the background flowers appear closer — while throwing them out of focus just enough to remain identifiable.

The white and pink-flecked rose is fittingly called a Sierra Sunrise. Oddly, I found these roses growing intertwined with an unidentified, small yellow rose. I felt the curious placement of the smaller yellow rose inside this flower resembled an actual rising sun, and until I looked up images on the internet, was sure this is what gave the flower its name. Apparently not, but just the rare and unusual discovery I sought. I visited the park again this week and it is just beginning to bloom, with the flowering peak occurring in late April, May and June.

Technical Data:

Left: Nikon D300, 70-200mm at 135mm, f3.2@ 1/1600 sec., ISO 400. Right: Nikon D300, 28-105mm at 105mm, f5@ 1/1600 sec., ISO 250.

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 13, 2011.

Monday is erev Pesach — seder is Monday night. As I do not know if I will be posting again before Pesach, I wanted to recognize it here.

Pesach is the quintessential holiday of freedom. A gift from the Almighty that was given to the Children of Israel, which we in turn have transmitted to the world (or that part of the world that has chosen to be affected by the message).

No human being may own or control another. Each of us, in the dignity of our humanity, has certain elemental freedoms. But with freedom comes responsibility. We are not granted license to simply do as we please.

For the Jewish people, there was a very clear progression, as we came out of Egypt and forged ourselves as a nation. For we were brought then to Sinai, to the Revelation and an awakening to our responsibility to the Almighty. And then to the Land, which is both a sacred legacy and an eternal bond.


To all those who will be celebrating Pesach, I wish a Chag Kasher V'Sameach.

I do not expect that I will be posting during the course of the week of Pesach.


Let me return here to a variety of issues that require attention. At least some touch upon the matters raised yesterday in my call for communication to Prime Minister Netanyahu.


It is with sadness that I report that the young boy who was hit in the head during the attack on the school bus last week has taken a turn for the worse. Doctors are calling his case "mortal": there is no sign of brain activity.


This puts into obscene context the report from Palestinian Media Watch regarding a comment made by PA prime minister Salam Fayyad's advisor, Omar Al-Ghoul, on PA TV on April 8:

"Israel is a country that was founded on aggression and colonialism, and it lives on the continuation of bloodshed, war and violence. The racist Israeli apartheid state is incapable of turning to peace and coexistence between nations... This aggression is currently focused on Gaza, under the pretext of a shell being fired at an Israeli bus. The [school] bus wasn't that badly damaged, but Israel wants to use the attack on the bus as an excuse for its latest war crime against our people." (Emphasis added)

Not only are these our putative "peace partners," Fayyad is regularly touted as the most moderate of all. What we're seeing here is a courting of Hamas: the decision having been made to go with Hamas rather than sit at the table with Israel.

During Cast Lead, 2008/9, Abbas discretely encouraged us to hit Hamas hard. But that was then, and this is now. Which fact it is high time the world recognized.


Further exacerbating the situation is the fact that Israel has discovered that the anti-tank missile that was used against the school bus — a Kornet — is manufactured only in Russia. Israeli officials believe the missile was sold by Russia to Syria, Russian denials to the contrary notwithstanding. Syria, it is assumed, permitted them to get into the hands of Hezbollah, which smuggled them into Gaza.

Israel has raised the issue with Russia several times regarding the sale of weaponry to Syria that has the potential to shift the balance of power in the area.


According to Reuters, the PA is asking Western nations for $5 billion over three years, in order to be able to launch a state.

A detailed plan, which includes funds for Gaza, will be presented to potential donors at a pledging conference in June. Fayyad, who has World Bank connections, is spearheading this effort.


The Haaretz report I wrote about yesterday referred to concerns about a "diplomatic tsunami" that would follow in the wake of a General Assembly resolution on a Palestinian state within the '67 (armistice) lines.

In point of fact, the result of such a General Assembly resolution — which would be no more than a non-binding recommendation, without impact on international law — would be considerably less than a "tsunami."

This entire issue is one that I will likely re-visit several times. Here, I share a significant article by Moshe Arens, "Israel must not succumb to false diplomatic alarms," which ran, also in Haaretz, yesterday. I have bolded significant portions of what he wrote.

"Israel must not succumb to false diplomatic alarms.

"The important thing is to stay calm, not press the panic button, and not listen to those familiar faces who reappear every now and then with a new-old initiative suggesting that Israel announce it is prepared to withdraw to the '67 borders.'

"...The more sensitive the system, the more likely it is to sound the alarm when there is nothing to actually be alarmed about. Israel has its own tsunami warning system - and it is none other than our defense minister [Ehud Barak], who has already sounded the alarm. (Emphasis added)

"According to him, Israel will be hit by a political tsunami in September. His warning bell is being echoed by many who demand the government launch a daring initiative before it is too late, before the tsunami hits us. But they have a pleasant surprise awaiting them: Israel will still be here in September...

"States have never been created by UN declarations and never will be. For those who have forgotten, Israel was not created by UN resolution 181 in November 1947 [which recommended partition of Palestine], but by David Ben-Gurion's declaration of Israeli independence on May 15, 1948 and by the IDF's ability to take and control the areas of the new state.

"A UN declaration, whether at the Security Council or the General Assembly, recognizing a Palestinian state within the borders of the April 1949 armistice lines with Jordan, with Jerusalem as its capital, will be no more effective than Security Council resolution 1701, which prohibited Hezbollah from military operations in southern Lebanon, or General Assembly resolution 3379, which equated Zionism with racism.

"And one other point must be made: What they call the 1967 borders are in fact the armistice lines that were agreed on with Jordan in April 1949, an agreement that was violated by Jordan in June 1967. There is nothing sacrosanct about these lines, while many things have changed in the intervening 62 years that cannot be wished away. (Emphasis added)

"The important thing is to stay calm...and to not make any hasty, half-baked statements under the illusion that they will appease those applying pressure on Israel. (Emphasis added)

At this point, their minds are made up. And such statements will only come to haunt us in the future when the time becomes ripe for proper negotiations with the Palestinians. Only when it is clear that the Israeli government is standing firm on its positions will the pressure on Israel be relaxed." (Emphasis added)
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel- must-not-succumb-to-false-diplomatic-alarms-1.355459


There are ways in which we are going to see — are beginning to see — what seems to be strengthened support for Israel coming from the Obama administration. But I caution here, and will continue to caution, that such support is tactical, as Obama has his eye on a second term. Should he achieve that second term, we'd begin seeing something very different.

A piece by Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post — "Is Obama abandoning diplomatic support for Israel?" — provides evidence for this position.

Rubin writes that Obama is stepping carefully because his domestic situation does not permit him to go head to head with Israel. However, behind the scenes there is implicit encouragement by the Obama administration for a tough stance on Israel by European nations.

Citing an article in the Economist: "in private, European officials have told Israel that their pressure is choreographed with America." What makes this even more worrisome is that Dore Gold, who very recently testified before Congress on Israel's need for secure borders, expresses similar concerns.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/ post/is-obama-abandoning-diplomatic-support-for-israel/ 2011/03/29/AF6x70QD_blog.html

This piece sounds an important alarm.


The Quartet has decided — with encouragement from the US — to postpone its upcoming meeting. A declaration regarding establishment of a Palestinian state within the '67 lines had been anticipated during that meeting, but the US sees this as not constructive at this juncture. (Rubin's article, above, addresses this issue.)

There is no indication that the Quartet has definitively abandoned this approach — they're taking more of a "not now, and then we'll see" stance.


At the same time, Secretary of State Clinton has announced that the US will be pushing with a stronger hand to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. How exciting — to know that Obama and Clinton will be more involved. Last time he was "involved," he messed things up by pushing us for a full construction freeze. What will it be this time? "Active American leadership" is what she calls it.

Clinton says they are actually after a comprehensive Israeli-Arab peace.

Now? I ask. With all the unrest in the region? What planet is she from?


Please see this Washington Times article by Arnaud de Borchgrave: "The coming geopolitical upheaval."

"In Cairo, the latest conventional wisdom sees a groundswell of Islamist fundamentalism cloaked in moderate colors moving adroitly center stage. Following elections in the fall, the Muslim Brotherhood is expected to deliver about 40 percent of the vote, possibly even a majority. Either way, it will change the geopolitical calculus for the world's major players.

"...Behind Cairo's political stage, says one ranking Egyptian on a private visit to Washington, Iran's mullahs and Egypt's Brothers are unobtrusively sidling up.

Mohamed Badie, Brotherhood leader, said in a recent sermon, "Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslims' real enemies, not only Israel but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded.

"Governments have no right to stop their people from fighting the United States."

Title of the sermon: "The U.S. is Now Experiencing the Beginning of its End."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/11/ the-coming-geopolitical-upheaval/?page=all#pagebreak


Let me end on a positive note:

Z Street is holding a conference, "Rethinking the End Game," on May 4, in Washington DC. An excellent organization, and the speakers will be of high quality. If you have an opportunity to participate, please consider it.

Information on the Conference:
http://zstreet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view= rticle&id=350&Itemid=45

For an article by Lori Lowenthal Marcus, Z Street president, and Asaf Romirowsky, Senior Fellow at Z Street, that explains the rationale behind the Conference, see here:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/ rethinking_the_end_game.html

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 13, 2011.


NEWS: Palestinian Authority (P.A.) head Abbas declared there will be no peace until Israel releases all imprisoned "Palestinians." He means "all," no matter what they did and when they did it. He means freed, not extradited to face justice in the P.A. (3/26/11 http://www.imra.org.il/).

IMPLICATIONS: Some of the prisoners are ordinary criminals. Why release them?

Regular prisoners of war are released at war's end. However, most of the several thousand people Israel captured, tried, and imprisoned had committed or facilitated terrorism. Terrorism is the deliberate attack on civilians. This violates international law and the laws of decency. By not following the rules of war, the perpetrators forfeit prisoner of war status. War ends, they may be kept in prison.

Most of Israel's terrorist prisoners are too dangerous to let back onto the streets, especially considering their rate of recidivism. Releasing them, as has been done for thousands by Israel in lopsided trades and in misguided hopes of earning goodwill from fanatics, removes the deterrent of permanent incarceration.

Abbas' demand to have them released in a peace agreement or preferably immediately is improper. It reflects the jihadist approval of any means against non-believers. It reflects the Radical Muslim if not normative Arab Muslim approval of murdering Jews. By embracing those tenets, Abbas again proves himself a terrorist and Radical. Jihadists do not consider a war ended until they win and purge the enemy, regardless of what they sign. Therefore, Abbas is a man of war, that man whom the West touts as a man of peace.

Most of the prisoners were apprehended after the Oslo Accords were signed. In the Accords, Arafat, chief PLO representative, pledged not to commit or permit attacks on Israelis. Then he signed financial authorization for funds for specific terrorist attacks. What did Oslo accomplish?

Arafat's aide and successor, Abbas, gives fallen terrorists his society's highest honor. He demands the release of terrorists who committed their crimes after the PLO pledged to end terrorism. What is the point of Israel defending itself from terrorists if, as Abbas wants, it frees them immediately?

In violating the Oslo Accords like that, Abbas shows us that he takes his commitments casually and his jihad gravely. He makes a travesty of the Oslo Accords.

Give the P.A. sovereignty, and it would be all the more able to continue jihad. Abbas would not make peace.

If you believe Abbas wants peace, then you would have believed Stalin sincere in awarding peace prizes and Hitler's sincere in claiming to want peace.


NEWS: The IDF was amenable to a ceasefire proposed by Hamas. It cautioned us that whether the ceasefire would hold depends on how Hamas and its allies behave in the field.

The informal agreement would allow Hamas to continue: (1) Building bunkers: (2) Digging tunnels from Gaza to Israel, so terrorists could, by surprise, kill and capture Israelis; (3) Manufacture weapons; and (4) Smuggle in weapons from abroad. So long as Hamas does not prepare to fire, the IDF would not attack in Gaza (IMRA, 3/26/11).

RESULTS: Jihadists have broken many ceasefires with Israel. Hamas claims it does not control all the terrorist groups there, but it manages to repress its Fatah rival. Why not repress Islamic Jihad and other gangs? Because those gangs serve as proxies, which Hamas secretly unleashes while denying responsibility. This is an old trick Arafat used when hijacking airplanes, murdering U.S. diplomats, and smuggling in banned weapons.

So, rockets again streaked into Israel. Israel retaliated or pre-empted rocket crews as they set up their weapons for launching. Hamas complained that Israel was committing aggression (and violating the ceasefire). The Palestinian Authority demanded that the UN set up a no-fly zone over Gaza, to protect the perpetrators.

MEANING: For jihadists, ceasefires and truces are ruses, not recognition that a war has spent itself and it is time to negotiate peace. Arab Muslims keep reminding their people of an ancient example of Islam making a truce when it was weak, so during the respite, it could build up its strength and then reenter battle likelier to win the war. This is part of the jihadist principle encouraging deception of unbelievers.

Since peace is impossible to attain with jihadists, then for Israel to let Hamas continue to build bunkers, tunnels, and weapons means that when battle resumes, Israeli casualties would be higher.

The problem is that Israeli politicians repeatedly fall for enemy ruses and are inclined to value immediate safety over intermediate term danger. Another problem is that whenever Israel defends itself, the world criticizes it. The world pretends to oppose violence, but it really opposes Israeli defense from violence.

Many Jews are sensitive to hypocritical and undeserved criticism. They have not hardened themselves against it. If Israel's leaders took more seriously their religious principles, then, being in the right, they would fight when necessary and not fear outside criticism by enemy fellow travelers.

While Israel has military superiority, it should eradicate enemy forces. It never should have let neighboring Hamas and Hizbullah build up an arsenal of tens of thousands of rockets that could incinerate large parts of Israel. The enemy build-up presents a posture of weakness that gives the enemy the impression that Israel is afraid of them and is too weak for them. Therefore, a policy of restraint is imprudent. It gets more Israelis killed. It aids the enemy.


NEWS: The Iranian Embassy scheduled an event at a hotel in the Czech Republic. The hotel flew a number of foreign flags, including the Israeli flag. An Iranian diplomat protested to the hotel manager. The manager, who happens to be an Arab from Israel, told the diplomat that the flag stays, but that he is welcome to leave. The event was held.

A few years ago, the Foreign Minister of Iran noticed the Israeli flag at the Holiday Inn in Tashkent. He protested, too, also to no avail (IMRA, 3/27 http://www.imra.org.il/

ANALYSIS: The issue seems petty, but if petty, why do Iranian government officials raise it? They raise it because they are waging religious war, which they take seriously. The issue is important to their effort to render Israelis unwelcome. If the world treats Israel as a pariah, the jihadists will more easily be able to eradicate the Jewish state.

There is an irony in Iran working to make Israel a pariah. Iran stifles its women, ethnic minorities, and democratic protestors, fosters terrorism and imperialism, and obviously is pursuing nuclear weapons development while boasting that it will take over the world. The government of Iran is the rogue.


The Western media is presenting the Ivory Coast war as a civil war to uphold a democratic election. Actually, the rebels won the election by counting masses of illegal immigrants. Not democratic. Who are the rebels?

Ivory Coast is like the Sudan — Muslims populate the north, and Christians and animists populate the south. The demographic balance shifted after four million Muslims infiltrated from Burkino Faso and other neighboring states. Now they have taken over.

This is not a brief for the departed government. Both sides committed atrocities. But this is jihad. Foreign countries that intervened on the side of the rebels, largely Muslim Nigeria and France, ostensibly to reduce civilian casualties, are bringing Muslim rule.

Let this be a lesson to Europe, whose own demographic balance is tilting toward the Muslims, who boast they will take over! Let this be a lesson to Israel, asked to combine the Territories' Muslims with its own population, likely to lead to a bloodbath against the Jews (Prof. Steven Plaut, 4/11/11 http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/11/lessons-from-the-ivory-coast/).

A recent INSS report from Israel praised the Western intervention in Libya. The report claimed that Libya was more brutal than other dictators resisting ouster and that Ghadaffy intended to crush opponents.

Suppose that if unopposed by NATO, Ghadaffy would have defeated the rebellion so swiftly that few would have come out to oppose him. Perhaps his crackdown would have been limited. Would there have been mass-murder a la Rwanda?

It is difficult to predict massive killings until they start.

Foreign intervention is too often uninformed. The U.S. has made mistakes in taking sides, as when we armed jihadists to defeat Russians in Afghanistan. We do not know who the rebels in Libya are. We supported revolution in Egypt, and now the Moslem Brotherhood is likeliest to come to power there.

I think that French intervention sets a precedent for foreign expeditions against Israel. Considering that the UN comprises dozens of Muslim states and some Communist states, and considering the spread of antisemitism, foreign intervention can make matters worse.


Facebook swiftly shut down a page touting the KKK, but it took much longer and great protests for Facebook to shut down a page called "Third Intifada." On that page, Palestinian Arabs called for the murder of Jewish Israelis and even war.

The page had photographs, video-clips, and postings. The site was visited by antisemitic groups using its material to deny Israel's right to exist (ZOA press release, 3/29 http://www.zoa.org/).

In other news, Palestinian Arabs demanded threateningly that Facebook restore their presence. Defiantly, they set up additional pages. ZOA hopes that Facebook will move faster, this time.

It is too bad that people are not responsible about what they post. Sites on the Internet have to be policed, just as magazine publishers have to decide what material is appropriate and not libelous and murderous. Experience has shown that incendiary jihadist material ignites many Muslims into combustible mobs or inflamed suicide bombers.

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Elad Benari, April 13, 2011.

The phenomenon of Arabs one-sidedly claiming Jewish lands is nothing new, but it seems to have reached new heights in Efrat.

Noam Wassel, a resident of Efrat, has been seeing this occur with his own eyes, step by step, during the last few days.

Wassel described during an interview with Arutz Sheva's Hebrew website how he sees almost every morning Arabs arriving at the Efrat North Junction in an attempt to establish facts on the ground and claim the land. The fact that there has never been Arab agriculture in the area and the fact that an IDF post is situated close by does not bother them, he said.

Wassel described how last Friday, he traveled from his home towards Jerusalem, and during the ride he noticed young Palestinian Authority farmers working the land. This incident occurred after they were previously removed from the area by the soldiers who are stationed nearby to prevent stones and Molotov cocktails from being thrown by terrorists in nearby villages at Jewish vehicles traveling along the road.

He added that during the first incident, before the Arabs were turned away by the soldiers, he saw one of them waving a dry grapevine as proof that the land is his. "That was a delusional excuse," said Wassel. "No one has ever been on that land."

Despite this, the Arabs returned last Friday. Wassel noted that the area in question is located right by the IDF station but that the soldiers did not notice at all what was going on.

"I shouted out to the soldiers and told them that what was going on was dangerous," said Wassel. "After all, they can plant a mine or an explosive device when they are so close to the IDF post. The soldiers said they would send someone to check it out, and one of them indeed went to check what was going on. When he saw the Arabs he pushed them away."

Wassel said that both times he approached the local security force in Efrat, who wrote down his complaint and transferred it to the District Coordination Office, but told him that it is important to have a large number of complaints so that the District Coordination Office will work to prevent this phenomenon.

The story, however, did not end there: on Monday morning as he was on his way to work, Wassel noticed that about twenty meters from the IDF station, Arabs had fenced off the land so they can work it. He said that that the Arabs must have arrived overnight without the soldiers having noticed them.

In this case as well, Wassel turned to the security center and received a similar response: that more complaints are needed.

"These incidents are an indication of the weakness of the State Comptroller who does not investigate the takeover by the Arabs of the land here," said Wassel.

Arabs use different tactics to take over lands which are not theirs. In Jerusalem recently, Arabs added dozens of new tombstones to an ancient cemetery, even though no one is buried beneath them. Authorities removed the fake graves following an exclusive Arutz Sheva report on the issue.

Arabs taking advantage of Shabbat to establish facts on the ground and claim land that is not theirs in southern Judea is also a common occurrence.

Elad Benari writes for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, April 13, 2011.

This was written by Jubin Afshar, Director of Near East Studies at Near East Policy Research in Washington, D.C. and it is archived at


Why would Iraq's Prime Minister Al-Maliki order a heavy assault on 3400 unarmed, defenseless Iranian dissidents in a refugee settlement northeast of Baghdad? Reports reaching news agencies confirm that at least 31 Iranian dissidents have been killed and hundreds wounded. Medical supplies are being blocked as the critically wounded continue to die.

Ashraf has been home to the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, the most steadfast opposition force to Iran's ruling theocracy since the late 1980's, when the group's thousands of members and supporters moved to Iraq. The residents of Ashraf have organized resistance to the Iranian regime since then. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Ashraf residents disarmed in a deal with the US military that pledged in return to protect them. Ashraf residents are internationally "Protected Persons" based on the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Since last week the Iranian dissidents have been warning of an imminent attack. On Friday, thousands of Iraqi forces stormed the camp with armored vehicles and breached its protective fencing, killing and wounding many. There are reports of shelling of civilian residences in the camp and looting of areas overrun by Iraqi forces.

The attack is reminiscent of a similar brutal attack in July 2009, simultaneous with the uprisings in Iran, which resulted in the death of 11 dissidents. That attack resulted in widespread international condemnation of the Iraqi regime which has moved increasingly close to Iran's rulers. Al-Maliki and a majority of his regime are beholden to Tehran's assistance during their years of exile there. Despite pretenses of steering an independent line from Tehran, Al-Maliki is closely aligned with Iran's rulers in suppressing their main opposition based in Ashraf. He has shown his loyalty to an agreement to dissolve the camp and expel its residents to certain death in Iran despite international outcries and appeals to recognize Ashraf residents as refugees under international law.

Iraqi forces storming Camp Ashraf

Unfortunately, the US Administration has set the stage for Friday's attack. The US handover of security at Ashraf in 2009 to Iraqi forces was like giving the fox sway over the chicken coop. It was also a violation of international obligations of the United States which had pledged to protect the camp's residents. There are reports that US forces in nearby Baquba, who are tasked with monitoring security in Ashraf and intervening if necessary, did not respond to appeals for help at the camp. This all occurred during the visit to Iraq by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The Iranian state-run Fars News Agency reported in its Persian service that Iraqi forces launched their attack on Ashraf in coordination with US forces. Robert Gates was quoted by AFP to have "called for restraint" but mentioned that the US military would not have any role but to provide medical assistance, essentially remaining passive while a lethal attack was being carried out against a defenseless civilian population.

The US Administration's continues listing the People's Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI/MEK) as a foreign terrorist organization. This is despite a ruling by a US Appeals Court ordering the US State Department to review the designation after the court could not find convincing evidence supporting the designation. The ruling puts the US in the dubious position of being the only country other than Iran to list the organization as "terrorist." Just such a designation has been offered as justification for attacks on the camp by the Iranian-aligned regime of Nouri Al-Maliki.

The Guardian has reported that, "A WikiLeaks cable uncovered by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism at City University in London showed that the US was aware the Iraqi government planned to crack down on the MEK, with potentially grave humanitarian consequences."

"If the government of Iraq acts harshly against the MEK and provokes a reaction," warned the US deputy chief of mission in Iraq, Patricia Butenis, in a cable in March 2009, "the USG faces a challenging dilemma: we either protect members of a foreign terrorist organization against actions of the Iraqi security forces and risk violating the US-Iraq security agreement, or we decline to protect the MEK in the face of a humanitarian crisis, thus leading to international condemnation of both the US government and the government of Iraq."

Phil Shiner of the UK law firm Public Interest Lawyers, which represents some Ashraf residents, said: "I have not seen these cables. However, from what I can gather their content is quite astonishing and shows that the US — and by implication the UK — knew Iraqis were treating residents inhumanely, foresaw the possibility of serious injuries in clashes at the camp, and knew what was happening at the time of the deaths but did absolutely nothing."

As the reports from Ashraf continue to reflect a rising death toll, it is appropriate for all human rights defenders to ask the US, UK and European governments to seriously consider the moral and political consequences of their inaction in the run-up to this tragedy. The international norm of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P) has been applied in Libya as a raging madman repeatedly threatened and attacked a civilian population. US and Western credibility may be at stake if it is not equally applied in Ashraf where an increasingly authoritarian ally of the Iranian regime uses the US Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) listing to do Tehran's bidding in suppressing its main opposition movement.

The people in Ashraf deserve the right to life and liberty and are internationally protected persons. The US would do well do stand by its commitments.

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Moncharsh, April 13, 2011.

The Hebrew month of Nissan represents the start of a New Year. It was during Nissan that we Hebrews became a free nation for the first time. It's the New Year for Freedom.

In order to be really free, we must all take a good look at ourselves and see where we have enslaved ourselves and then remove those shackles.

Have we become slaves to our job? Our work? Our pension plan? Have we become slaves to our house, our city? Maybe slaves to our community or synagogue? Some of us have become slaves to our daily routine, others to our children, and still others to our grandchildren. And how many of us have become slaves to our phones, our computers or our other toys we can't live without.

Passover is our annual reminder that God freed us from a long and difficult slavery in order to serve Him. That is the only reason he took us out of Egypt.

This Pesach, let's all do our best to really be free!!

Our best wishes to you and your family.

freddy and donna moncharsh

To Go To Top

Posted by Dry Bones, April 12, 2011.

The Dry Bones cartoons are done by Yaakov Kirschen. The first cartoon was presented in January 1935. This cartoon is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, April 12, 2011.

1. For many years I have been posting comments on Israel's dual justice system, where one system operates for leftists and the other for everyone else. But this week one of the most blatant illustrations of the dual system was reported in a scoop in Maariv. The case involves a judge named Ruth Ronen.

Ronen this week approved the petition by the far-leftist anti-Israel NGO named "Gisha," which ordered the State of Israel to release classified documents related to the siege of Gaza and the people involved in it. The petition demanded that the names of individual army officers involved in enforcing the siege of Gaza be revealed, so that these officers could be individually targeted. The judge ruled in FAVOR of the petition. The documents in question, demanded by Gisha, were clearly covered by the exceptions in Israel's Freedom of Information Act, which reserves the right of the State to keep information classified when it is releated to the country's foreign policy, public safety, or national security.

The goal of "Gisha" in its petition was end Israel's siege of the Gaza Strip WITHOUT the Palestinians releasing Gilad Shalit or ending their rocket attacks against the Israeli civilians of the Negev.

The judge who issued the ruling against the state and in defiance of the Israeli Freedom of Information Law just happens to be wife of one Zeev Bergman, a leftist businessman. And Zeev Bergman just happens to sit on the board of the New Israel Fund, which is the main funding source for "Gisha." The NIF also finances "Gisha" through Shatil, the NIF's operative arm.

In other words, Judge Ruth Ronen ruled on a petition that her own husband was behind! She was obligated to recuse herself from ruling in this case, yet she refused to do so. The ruling she made was a political pronouncement, not a judicial statement. Maariv describes the ruling as "judicial activism gone berserk."

Michael Ben-Ari, a Knesset Member from the National Union Party, wrote a letter to the Minister of Justice and Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch, demanding Ronen's immediate suspension.

But firing Ronen is unlikely. It is almost impossible to fire a judge in Israel, no matter how corrupt or incompetent or biased. Even the Arab woman judge in Nazarath Court who endorsed Holocaust Revisionism in one of her verdicts and pronounced there that all of Israel sits on land stolen from another people — even SHE is still sitting on the bench in Israel.

More on the case:

2. When even Haaretz is running items bashing the dead terrorist Juliano Mer-Khasin, then you KNOW how to deal with the leftist chorus of sobs over the poor dead symbol of hope and peace:

See also this:
http://hurryupharry.org/2011/04/12/amnestys- memorial-and-tribute-in-honour-of-juliano-mer-khamis/ 3. The President of the Technion takes on the Chomsky: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/ the-faculty-of-murder-sciences-1.292706

4. Yet another Hebrew University Ultra-moonbat:
http://isracampus.org.il/third%20level%20pages/ HebrewU%20-%20David%20Shulman%20-%20Cheerleader %20for%20Terrorist%20Siam.htm

5. The REAL Nakba:

6. Jewish students under assault:
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1436/ jewish-students-under-assault-part-u
htt p://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1439/ jewish-students-under-assault-part-ii

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@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 12, 2011.

NEWS: Dennis Ross, Martin Indyk, Elliot Abrams, and Abraham Foxman have spent years in or out of the federal government plumping for unrequited Israeli concessions to Palestinian Arabs, including sovereignty. All the pacts, proposals, and negotiations failed. Nevertheless, they persist in that approach. Mr. Foxman suggests that Israel make an unspecified dramatic move.

Mr. Abrams suggests that Israel pay Jews living beyond the security fence to move into the State of Israel. His rationale is to separate Israel from the Palestinian Arabs. He and Foxman contend that such action would burnish Israel's diplomatic reputation.

The U.S. wants a Palestinian Arab state formed only via diplomacy. Ross maintains that the U.S. solidly nurtures Israeli national security, because of shared values. Mr. Indyk is concerned that unless another Arab state is formed in the disputed Territories, the general Arab revolution may come to focus on Israel, the traditional Arab way of refocusing away from their own problems. Ross believes that Iran will stoke the flames (IMRA, 4/4/11 http://www.imra.org.il/).

MAKING SENSE OF THE NEWS: Mr. Abrams' contradicts his assertion that he wants to separate Jews from Arabs, by not suggesting that the million radicalizing Arabs in Israel move out. No, he suggests only that several hundred thousand Jews in Judea-Samaria move out. He really would be separating part of the Jewish homeland from the Jewish people, to give a homeland to a non-nationality called "Palestinians."

I don't know whether he is sincere, but one can judge his ethics by his suggestion of paying Jews to abandon the cradle of Jewish civilization and the secure borders that a U.S. Chiefs of Staff study found vital for Israel.

Appeasement Doesn't Work

Decades of his policy's failure should prompt re-examination of the policy's premises. The premises in the policy here of appeasement of the Arabs are that Israel owes something to those Arabs, and that if the Arabs got more concessions, they would make peace. Those premises are false.

In this era of widespread antisemitism and UN log-rolling, how can Israel regain its reputation by appeasing antisemites? One would hope that this observation would be understood by the diplomats. One would expect it to be understood by Mr. Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League. His proposal is a common folly of Jews inheriting their people's Medieval psychology of weakness instead of rallying to Judaism's and Zionism's psychology of strength.

Appeasement of fanatics failed with the Arabs, Nazis, and Communists. The reason is that such fanatics want to conquer, not make peace. Nor does Israel owe anything to the Arabs, who have been trying to exterminate them and drive them out of their homeland, and who have territory one and-a-half times that of the U.S.. The Arab area includes most of the Land of Israel. What could be more criminal than the Arabs' attempted genocide?

Why P.A. Statehood Only From Negotiation?

Why does the U.S. propose P.A. statehood only from negotiation? I suspect that the State Dept. does not want to be blamed for the ensuing genocide. Therefore, the State Dept. seeks pliable Israeli leaders who would sign a disastrous, territory-ceding pact with the Arabs, if they can get the Arabs to pretend to recognize Israel.

Does U.S. Favor Israeli National Security

Mr. Ross claims that the U.S. favors Israeli national security. His diplomatic proposal, to give sovereignty to terrorists, undermines Israeli security. So do many other U.S. decisions, such as to subsidize and arm Israel's Arab enemies and to criticize and curb Israeli self-defense.

Result Of Israeli Concessions

One of the signs of failure of appeasement is that Israeli relaxation of security measures usually is followed by renewed Arab terrorism. When Israel offers concessions, the Arabs demand more. When the Arabs demand more, the likes of Ross and Indyk urge Israel to concede those demands, too.

In line with exhortation to make withdrawals, Israel withdrew from Gaza. Gaza turned into a terrorist entity, making war on Israeli civilians. That is a diluted preview of what independence for the whole Palestinian Authority would do. The result would be murder and war. War and murder would result from Israeli adoption of what the four diplomats urge.

When Hamas attacked Israelis from Gaza, the rest of the world said nothing. When Israel defended itself from Gaza, the UN condemned Israel. Shouldn't that give us second thoughts about the UN?

In any case, by now the Arabs are convinced that they can keep raising their demands, and get global support for doing so and global denunciation of Israel for not giving in. How do upwardly spiraling demands by the Arab aggressors discourage aggression and encourage peace? They don't. Would that those diplomats understood this!

Why aren't those diplomats realistic? Why do they, who tell Israel to make concessions, themselves make no concessions nor ask the Arabs to? Why are they so stubborn ideologically? Ashamed to admit they were wrong? Is their bias propelling their ideology, or is their ideology propelling their bias?

The Real Cause Of Arab-Israel Conflict

Ross, Indyk, Abrams, and Foxman miss the real context of the Arab-Israel conflict, which is jihad. Jihad targets the whole world, including the U.S.. U.S. national security would be enhanced by defeating jihad. That means U.S. diplomatic help to Israel, and withdrawal of financial help to the Palestinian Authority. These diplomats, who usually follow the policies of the Presidents and Secretaries of State, are harmful both to Israel and to the U.S.. Investigation, anyone?

Attempts to divide the U.S. against Israel, as if one must be either for one or for the other but not for both, miss the big picture of jihad. They end up harmful for both countries.

Who Runs U.S. Foreign Policy?

All four of those men are Jews. All four, in effect, are assisting the Arabs to destroy the Jewish state. Let that be the answer to the canard, cultivated by antisemites but spread by others, that "the Jews" are running U.S. foreign policy in behalf of "the Jews." And the Presidents and Secretaries of State do not run U.S. foreign policy in the U.S. national interest.

Postscript: These same issues have been before us for decades. Nevertheless, our short-attention-span contemporaries are not interested in these issues' history. They want only up-to-the-minute news. It would be news without background. They wouldn't know how their governments got them into the rut.

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gil Ronen, April 12, 2011.

The condition of Daniel Viflic, 16, who was wounded when Gaza terrorists fired an anti-tank missile at a school bus he was in, has taken a turn for the worse. He has been in critical condition since the attack Thursday, which ministers have termed "barbaric."

His family asks the public to pray for his health. His full name is Raphael Daniel Aryeh ben Tamar. Daniel is a student at a yeshiva in Beit Shemesh where there are round-the-clock prayers for his recovery since the attack.

David Vazana, who was close to Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu Z"tzl, told Arutz Sheva Tuesday morning that Daniel "needs much mercy from Heaven."

"The situation is very critical and only a miracle will make him stronger. I was asked to conduct a kapparot ceremony as the Rishon LeTzion, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu Z"tzl, instructed in the past in similar cases."

An additional kapparot ceremony is scheduled for Tuesday.

Rabbi Vazana also asked the public to pray for Raphael Daniel Aryeh ben Tamar, and also for Odelia bat Nechama who was wounded in the latest Jerusalem terror attack.

Gil Ronen writes for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 12, 2011.

Dear friends, you've heard me speak often enough about how we must "wait and see." But now we don't have that luxury. Now is a time when the message coming from Israel must be one of strength, and if each of you will act, it is much more likely that it will be.

We are beleaguered. No doubt. The world is on us for several things. But the way to protect Israel is to stand strong for our rights, and to be clear in what those rights are. Appeasement has never worked in the past, and it will not work now.

Yet we have a prime minister who seems to believe that when we are about to be pressured big time, the way to protect us is by offering something that will deflect that pressure. So what happens in effect is that we surrender something, without having gotten anything, because we're too afraid to take the stand that must be taken. We do our enemies' work for them.


There are two issues to be addressed here. I will describe each briefly, and then ask that you contact Prime Minister Netanyahu about these two matters in a single communication. I will provide contact information and sample letters for you to draw upon.

Please follow this message through and then act.


1) Haaretz, a far-left Israeli paper, came out with an article today that says:

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is weighing a withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces troops from the West Bank and a series of other measures to block the 'diplomatic tsunami' that may follow international recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders at the United Nations General Assembly in September."

What is being mentioned is the possibility of withdrawing the IDF from Area B — the region where the PA has civil control and Israel security control — and leaving the PA exclusively in charge.

Now this idea is more than stupid. This is suicidal idiocy that takes the breath away. It is absolutely and unequivocally something that cannot be permitted to happen. Since the IDF went back into PA controlled areas in 2002 — in Operation Defensive Shield, after horrendous terror attacks — we have had low levels of terrorism in Jewish population areas, because the IDF searches out terrorists. To give the PA full control of the area would be to sentence innocent Jews to death. It would be to bring us back to pre-Defensive Shield.


I have checked this with an impeccable source, who has, in turn, checked with a source in the prime minister's office. There is no official word on this. I am not telling you that this is Netanyahu's decision.

But what I am telling you is that this seems to be a trial balloon. An attempt to see how well it might fly.

Apparently, Netanyahu or someone on the left in his government (Barak? advisor Molcho?) believes it might be better to do this than to allow the General Assembly to declare a Palestinian state within the '67 armistice lines. But a vote of the General Assembly is only a recommendation, it carries no legal weight. And now is the time when the Israeli government should be making our case — broadcasting loudly the fact that the '67 line was never a border, and that Israel has rights to the land east of that line.


2) After everything, we have entered an uneasy period of quiet with Hamas in Gaza. Nothing official: an informal agreement on our part that we'll stop air strikes if the terrorist groups in Gaza, primarily but not exclusively Hamas, will stop launching rockets and missiles and mortars at Israel.

I have already written about the fact that such a lull works against us, as the terrorists will keep strengthening during that lull: we simply set ourselves up for worse later.

Now Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has come out with this position:

"There was quiet, and Hamas took advantage of the quiet in order to smuggle more and more weapons. We remember when Kassams only had a range of 20 km; today they reach Beersheba and Ashdod and in the end they'll reach Tel Aviv.

"Hamas took advantage of the quiet in order to gain power and turn a gang of terrorists into an organized army...another battalion and another company and they will truly follow Hezbollah's model."


Of course, Lieberman — who wants to invoke a clause in the coalition agreement making it a government goal to take out Hamas — is correct.

Even IDF high level officers concur with regard to what's going to happen next: The news yesterday was that the IDF expects a large confrontation with Hamas soon. Said one senior officer:

"Hamas has been busy rebuilding its forces for the past two years, and this can only mean we're facing an all-out clash."

According to Asharq Al-Awsat, cited by IMRA yesterday, what Islamic Jihad agreed to was a "lull" not "calm," which pretty much says it all. What is more, there is still a feud over the issue of our right to take out "smoking guns": if we stop someone who is actively planning or on the way to executing a terror attack, they would claim that we are the ones have broken the lull or quiet, or whatever it is.

Great! So we'll let them bide their time, and hit us at the time of their choosing?


Tzachi Hanegbi, former chair of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, has written an important piece in the JPost. He suggests we need "Defensive Shield II" instead of "Cast Lead II."

We learned during Cast Lead in 2008/9, he says, that "in the absence of widespread and sustained damage to weapons smuggling operations, and to the capacity of the local Gaza arms industry to continue to independently produce weapons, the practical effect of such an operation dissipates in a relatively short time."

And so, Hanegbi suggests that instead of a short-term massive operation, we do "a broad operation aimed at completely destroying the terror kingdom established by Syria and Iran on our southern border."


Please contact Prime Minister Netanyahu with regard to these issues. Keep it short, simple and to the point. Remain cool and polite. This is essential.

Communication to Prime Minister Netanyahu goes to:

Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369) This is most effective.

E-mail: Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm) use both addresses


Please use your own words — it is SO much more effective. But here are a couple of model letters to draw upon:

Dear Prime Minister,

I look to you as the head of the government of Israel to take a strong stand on Israel's behalf at this time when Israel is greatly threatened. Appeasement will only harm Israel. Please! do not do the work of Israel's enemies for them by conceding what should not be conceded. Instead, stand for Israel's rights and make the case for those rights forcefully within international forums.

There are news reports indicating that you are considering a pull back of the IDF in parts of Judea and Samaria as a way to counteract the plans of the PA to go to the UN General Assembly. Please! Do not consider this even for a second, for this would constitute a death sentence for innocent Israeli citizens.

Additionally, Israel has come to some terms with Hamas in order to achieve a measure of quiet in the south. This is not in Israel's interest either. You are permitting Israel's enemy to continue to strengthen and then to choose the time for attacking Israel again. It is past due: Israel must work out a plan for taking down Hamas at last.

Please know that millions of people who love Israel are with you as you face your enemies, and praying for you to be strong.

Most respectfully,


Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu,

A great deal rests on how you handle yourself during Israel's current struggles. I call on you to be a leader of strength. Please do not make concessions that should not be made — they will weaken Israel without achieving anything. Instead, have the courage to speak out for Israel's rights with full vigor.

I was horrified to learn that you may be thinking of pulling the IDF out of certain areas of Judea and Samaria to counter PA plans in the UN. Surely you know how seriously you will put the Israeli people at risk if you do such a thing. It is an idea that is beyond terrible.

I ask, as well, that you find the courage to deal with Hamas forthrightly. Periods of "quiet" — during which they can continue to strengthen — is not what Israel should be aiming for. This too is self-destructive. Foreign Minister Lieberman is correct: it is time to make the elimination of Hamas a strategic goal for Israel.

History is watching you now. I pray for you to have strength and wisdom as you proceed.

Most respectfully,


OK, now STOP. Please! Write your communication to PM Netanyahu NOW. If you table this task for later, you may well forget.

Then I ask you to immediately forward this to every person you can think of who might also respond to this. Post this on blogs and sympathetic genuinely pro-Israel discussion groups.

Do not imagine that what you do is worthless here. Numbers DO count and we need to deluge the prime minister with messages.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, April 12, 2011.


The Time has Come to Leave Egypt

Why No One Wants to Admit that a War is On?

Hamas has started another aggressive war against Israel. In accordance with international law, Israel, as any sovereign country, has the right to repel this aggression and end the occupation of Jewish land by removing enemies from Gaza. Why is Israel still behaving as a "Ghetto Jew"?

On Friday April 8 more than 60 Hamas and Jihad Islamic mortar shells and missiles hit Israeli towns, villages and farms on the Israeli side of the Gaza border and injured a civilian. This heightened Israeli fury over Hamas's attack on a school bus on Thursday, April 7, for the first time using a sophisticated Cornet anti-tank missile. A 16-year old boy was critically wounded. This attack was followed by 50 rockets and mortar rounds fired from Gaza by Hamas.

Hamas is trying to establish new rules for the conflict on advice and directives coming from its Lebanese ally, Hezbollah, by stepping up its barrage on Israel by 25 percent. Hamas was advised by Hezbollah to blitz Israel into relinquishing the 500-meter deep security strip the IDF had established inside the Gaza border. This occurred when Palestinians continued to fire on Israel after the strip was temporarily reduced by the 2009 Cast Lead operation.

The IDF is fighting to hold onto this buffer zone to keep back Palestinian terrorists from breaching the border to direct attacks in Israel. Hamas is threatening to raise the cross-border violence until Israeli troops pull back to the border. Its anti-tank missile attack on the school bus on Thursday was the opening shot of its battle for the buffer zone.

The IDF's tactics for countering Hamas aggression remain unchanged, except in scale. In the last 48 hours, Israeli helicopters, mortars, tanks and naval units have been pounding the Gaza Strip while Hamas releases barrages of dozens of missile and mortar attacks on villages and towns - practically without a pause. Israeli civilians were told to stay close to bomb shelters in the days to come. Schools, road traffic, public transport and businesses will function intermittently.

Since the Israeli government has not adjusted its policies to the new developments, its military tactics are operating a vacuum and will have little deterrent effect. The current upsurge of Hamas-Jihad aggression will therefore go on.

Hamas fires 24 Grads, 50 shells on Saturday.

A million Israelis in shelters!

Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak

There are many genuine people (nations) around the world, who are still suffering from occupation by others: Kurds, Armenians, Tibetans, Chechens, Western Saharans, and Basques. So-called Palestinians, a recently forged mix of people, are not one of them! In fact, they are actually the occupiers of Jewish land!

Cycle of Terror Attacks and Ceasefires Must End

In response to Thursday's terror escalation, a school bus was hit during a barrage of mortar shells and rockets, IDF strikes back hitting smuggling tunnels and terror cells in Gaza. No casualties were reported. Terror groups announce a ceasefire. (IDF is deliberately bombing tunnels, but avoiding killing terrorists. This stupid game has to end and Gaza must be free from occupation and reunited with Eretz-Israel.)

World Press 'Conspiracy'

The British media is failing to report the attacks on Israel and only reporting Israeli responses, thus creating the entirely false impression that Israel is the aggressor, thus, in turn, creating the kind of hatred of Israel in the world. By ignoring attacks on Israel the West is rewarding and encouraging Arab aggression.

Death Sentence for Peace Lovers

A well-known Arab Israeli actor, Juliano Mer Khamis, has died after being shot on Monday (04Apr11) by masked men in an attack in Jenin, Judea. He was a peace activist who ran a drama project in the theatre he founded in Jenin. (Arabs do not want peace with Israel. They do not want even to hear the ideas that would lead to peace!)

There is still Hope for Israel's Future

A poll conducted by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung organisation shows that 70% of Israeli Jewish youth ages 15-18 believe that if forced to choose between national security needs and the values of democracy, a country's security needs comes first. 60% said that strong Israeli leaders are more important than other considerations.

Unilateral Palestinian State Game

Israel is continuously threatened with a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. Dr. Dore Gold reminds: "Since the 70s, the US is committed to veto any unilateral moves." (Considering the current and historical record of the US 'commitments' to Israel and other friends, can Israel rely on the US at this time of unpredictability of its ME policies or of having no policy at all? There are no demands for recognition of independece of Tibet, Chechnya or Basque people. Is it because they are collonised by China, Russia, France and Spain?)

Quote of the Week:

"The Palestinians have a legitimate right to establish a viable independent state of their own. Israel has a right to live in peace and security within secure and internationally-recognized borders," - UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon - Where did he find the legal and historical support for the "legitimate right" of the fake and never existing nation, which was only forged in 1964 in order to destroy Israel? But, I completely agree with him if he meant that Israel must create a Jewish state - Eretz-Israel, within "internationally-recognised borders" established by the League of Nations in July 1922 and end occupation of Jewish land by Arabs and so-called Palestinians. At the same time, the fake Palestinian nation may "establish a viable independent state" in the Sinai Peninsula or anywhere in the vast mass of land controlled by Arab/Muslim states!

Jewish 'Peaceniks' Troubled about Jewish Own Land

Peace Now complains that an Israeli landowner is seeking to sell lots for 30 homes in Jerusalem's Ras al-Amud neighbourhood in the eastern section of Jerusalem, which is already home to 117 Jewish families. A century ago, the property where Ras al-Amud stands today was purchased from the Ottoman government by Nissan Bak and Moshe Wittenburg, who leased the land to build Jewish seminaries there in 1928. During the British Mandate, the authorities in Jerusalem refused to issue the necessary permits to build. Instead, the land was leased to Arab farmers for the purpose of raising wheat for the production of Passover matza.

Yin and Yang of ME Politics by Steven Shamrak, July 2005

Just one day after the London bombings by Islamic terrorists, British Prime Minister Tony Blair announced, quite inappropriately, the G8's 9 billion dollar 'aid package' to the Palestinian Authority (PA). For the next three years the infrastructure of terror will receive an extra 3 billion dollars a year from Western countries. Arab Palestinian terrorists are so happy and grateful for this generous gift! To leave no doubt of their appreciation they unleashed suicide bombers and a rain of rockets on the Israeli population.

What a 'wonderful' gift! I wonder how many more Jews will have to die from bombs purchased using the money from Israel 's friends? How many families of suicide bombers will receive generous pensions for the 'achievements' of their sons? How many Arab schools - actively propagating hate, martyrdom and Jihad - will benefit from this disgusting 'generosity'?

Nobody pays attention to the fact that the same ideology of hate motivates Arab Palestinian terrorists in Israel and Al-Qaida 'militants' worldwide. Billions of dollars are flowing into the hands of PA terrorists each year. They promised peace at Oslo. But the terror never stopped!

In 1992, United Nations Security Council Resolution 799 reinforced the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 to all the 'Palestinian' territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and affirms that deportation of (any) civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention. The resolution does not exclude Jews. Sharon and his cronies are in the process of violation of International Law! They must be charged with crimes against humanity and stand trial! The silence and inaction of the UN has exposed the deep anti-Semitic nature of the organisation and has nullified the Law, which was adopted with the prime purpose of preventing Jews from taking control of Jewish ancestral land.

Since the International community has not objected, but actually strongly supported, the forceful deportation of Jews from Gaza by Sharon government, the option of re-settlement of Arabs from the Jewish lands has become appropriate and legitimate from the point of view of International Law! The money can be better spent on repatriation of all Arab population from Jewish land to 22 Arab states or Sinai. This is a viable option, not racism, and it has been used many times to resolve international conflicts. This could stop the Arab-Israeli conflict. Nothing else has worked so far!

This decisive action could send a strong message to Islamic terrorists and their masters in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria etc... - subscribers to the Islamic Expansionism, that Western democracies are serious about the War on Terror! But are they?

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Sommer, April 11, 2011.

This is from IMRA. It is by Robbie Sabel, and is entitled "UN General Assembly 'Uniting for Palestine'". It is INSS Insight No. 251, April 11, 2011 and is archived at http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=21&incat=&read=5069


Decision making in the UN General Assembly is on the basis of one vote for each member state. This may reflect the principle of sovereign equality of states, but clearly a situation where Micronesia and China have equal weight does not reflect political reality. The drafters of the UN Charter were therefore careful not to grant the General Assembly any executive or legislative power. Except on matters of procedure and budget, all General Assembly resolutions are only recommendations. The other main organ of the UN is the Security Council, which was granted the primary responsibility for matters of international security and peace. In contrast to the General Assembly, Council decisions are binding if adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

During the early years of the Cold War, the Soviet Union used its veto power in the Security Council to prevent decisions being taken against North Korea. At the time the UN General Assembly was dominated by the Western states, and in order to try and bypass the stalemated Security Council the United States initiated General Assembly Resolution 377, commonly referred to as the "Uniting for Peace Resolution." The resolution declared that where the Security Council could not reach a decision because of a veto, a special session of the General Assembly could be convened "with a view to making appropriate recommendations for collective measures...including the use of armed force when necessary." Such resolutions require adoption by a two thirds majority at a specially convened emergency session of the Assembly. Because of the present automatic anti-Israel majority in the Assembly, "Uniting for Peace" resolutions have been used frequently for condemning Israeli policies. Resolutions adopted at such sessions, however, are still only recommendations and are not binding on states

There are reports that this September, the Palestinian delegation to the UN, which has observer status at the organization, will attempt to introduce a new "Uniting for Peace" resolution. There are a number of possible scenarios for such a resolution. The most likely possibility would by a call for recognition of a Palestinian state within the 1967 boundaries. In fact, a 2003 Arab sponsored General Assembly "Uniting for Peace" resolution has already called for "Affirming the necessity of ending the conflict on the basis of the two-State solution of Israel and Palestine living side by side in peace and security based on the Armistice Line of 1949." If adopted, a new such resolution would grant the Palestinians further international support for their demand for a return to the 1967 lines. It would not however be binding on Israel or on any other state, not even for those states voting for the resolution. Under international law, except for cases where a former border is inherited by new states, borders can only be delimited by agreement between the states concerned. No UN organ has the authority to delimit boundaries.

A General Assembly resolution recognizing a Palestinian state would not mean acceptance of Palestine as a member of the UN. In order to be accepted as a member of the UN, the Palestinians would have to officially declare that they are a state, an act they have refrained so far from doing. Should the Palestinians unilaterally declare themselves to be a state, it would be a violation of the Oslo agreements and of the Middle East Roadmap, but it might have the salutary effect of changing the current image of the Israel-Palestinian dispute from that of a homeless people under military occupation into a fairly minor border dispute between two neighboring states.

Even if the Palestinians were to declare themselves as a state, the General Assembly could then only accept Palestine as a member of the UN if there is a recommendation to that effect from the Security Council. In a 1950 Advisory Opinion, the International Court of Justice explicitly stated that "The General Assembly can only decide to admit [a new member state] upon the recommendation of the Security Council" and the admission of a state to membership in the United Nations cannot be done "by a decision of the General Assembly when the Security Council has made no recommendation for admission." The Security Council could make such a recommendation if it determines that Palestine fulfils the international law criteria for recognition. These requirements are that the presumptive state has an effective government, a permanent population, defined territory and an ability to conduct foreign relations. There is no need, however, for a state to have clearly defined boundaries provided there is at least some territory that is under its effective control. A Security Council recommendation cannot be adopted, however, if a permanent member of the Council vetoes it by voting against the resolution.

One other, less likely scenario, is that the General Assembly will call for a UN trusteeship to replace Israel in the West Bank and Gaza. The League of Nations mandate for Palestine could serve as a precedent, and the UN has undertaken such trusteeship functions in Namibia, East Timor, and Kosovo. For the Palestinians to propose such a trusteeship implies, however, that they do not see themselves as being ripe yet for statehood. It is unlikely that they will make such a statement. Furthermore many UN member states might be very reluctant for the UN to undertake such an expensive and thankless task. They have only to recall Britain's unhappy record as the Mandatory power.

A third possible scenario is that the Assembly will request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion confirming that the 1949 armistice lines are the boundaries of the Palestinian state. Requesting an opinion on the 1949 armistice lines might, however, be self defeating for the Palestinians as it would be extremely difficult for the World Court to find that a temporary Armistice Demarcation Line between Israel and Jordan is a binding international boundary. The Court in its 2004 advisory opinion on the "wall" in "Occupied Palestinian Territory," an opinion that was requested under a UN Arab sponsored "Uniting for Peace" resolution, refrained from making such a ruling regarding the 1949 Armistice Line.

The underlying issue remains that the UN General Assembly can only adopt non-binding recommendations. The Assembly cannot determine boundaries nor can it confer statehood. A boundary between Israel and a future Palestinian state can only be determined by agreement between the two parties. The international community can encourage or hinder agreement, but it cannot replace the parties in this respect.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, April 11, 2011.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." — Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hate is an unusual and deadly component in the human psyche. It embeds itself deeply like a tick under the skin. Unless removed it festers and sucks the blood of a victim.

Its diseases are brutal and deforming. Lyme Disease, for example, can maim and disrupt the normal flow of a victim's body, corrupting the mind and vital organs.

During the civil rights battles of the sixties, the Reverend Martin Luther King understood that hope for winning the war against hatred lies not in changing the minds of haters, but in teaching the younger generation to choose love.

I was a teen then and one who understood the power of love. I watched my contemporaries march alongside a new American icon, a leader who preached love and brotherhood, and the joys of overcoming hatred and evil toward a fellowman.

Why, you might ask, am I speaking about MLK and a movement that succeeded so long ago?

What has this to do with today, with Israel, with the world that has been foisted upon us by the armies of Satan?

During the election I watched as Reverend Wright spouted anti-Zionist (code name for anti-Semitism) rhetoric on sound bite after sound bite.

I was not terribly surprised because it was long obvious to me that the majority of America's Black population had fervently turned against its Jewish friends and allies. Many have forgotten Jewish blood was spilled and copious amounts of Jewish money funded and enabled their cause and success.

This is of course the way of the world. Sadly, gratitude is a lost art.

The irony however, never left me.

As America was on the brink of electing its first Black president, those who financially benefitted most from hatred turned up the volume.

The Sharptons, Wrights and Jacksons, whose livelihood depends on hating the white man, became terrified. They even turned on Barack Obama in their fearful state.

Watching these men espouse hate, it would almost appear there is more profit in disseminating evil than in spreading love. Despite their intentions however, they underestimated Dr. King's success, and his achievements, which were obvious as a new President was sworn in on Inauguration Day 2009.

What has this to do with the raging anti-Semitism and hatred that has taken over our world?

Quite a bit actually, and quite a bit more than most would observe at first glance.

I hear people, and even a great many Jews, say, if only Israel would do this, or Israel should do that. Some speak about the Jewish State conversationally, others with venomous rapture and anger.

What these advice givers do not see or understand is that the design of Israel's enemies is not to accomplish peace, but destruction.

As Dr. King proved so well, the hope of destroying hatred lies in a new generation. A generation brought up in an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance toward others.

Forging a new dynamic where it is possible to live together and grow in a positive and tolerant manner.

This can never happen in Israel or the world today. Quite simply, peace is not the end game the haters seek.

If Palestinians sought peaceful co-existence with Israel would they teach young children to hate and kill Jews? Would they preach to them the evils of Zionism and portray them on flashcards before young babies can even speak; or make cartoons depicting killing and murdering others?

When world governments tell Israel she must make peace, she must give all it takes, even her country and rightful capital to appease the enemy, it is sheer folly. It is no more than suicide for the Jewish people.

What a clever foil to get an entire people to commit suicide and portray evil as the innocent victim.

It seems they have taken a page from MLK's playbook and completely reversed it on its ear.

They are banking on the fact when the older generation dies out, a new, fresh crop of haters will arise in its place. They will die secure that their legacy of evil will remain to kill more Jews and fight more infidels.

The devil has been forced to be more cunning, and he has certainly arisen to the challenge. Whenever he reaches a roadblock in his agenda, he finds a way to overcome. From the smallest everyday matters like using the Internet to flesh out new prey for sexual predators, or creating fictional movies depicting Israeli soldiers harming children, or sending Jew hating Jews to advise the President of the United States on Israel, the enemy's deceit has been quite effective.

So good in fact, it is difficult to marshal the forces of good against the devil's soldiers.

So much evil; so little time.

When someone repeats the fairy tale to me that the Arabs want peace with Israel and it is the Jews who are the cause of the problem, I smile inside. So well brainwashed have these fools been, it is impossible to argue the point.

I simply must say to them that actions speak louder than words.

Watch the television cartoons constantly presented to young Arab children teaching them to hate and kill Jews. Listen to Hamas and the nations of the world constantly blame and delegitimize the Jewish State.

Look at the evil men who populate the United Nations. A body designed to foster world peace that allows children to be murdered across the world and incites hatred and chaos.

And even gets Americans to pay for their evil deeds!

The devil has set up headquarters there, I'm certain.

I can only say if you want to teach love and acceptance take a page out of Dr. King's playbook. Then look at the playbook of Israel's and the world's enemies and see if the two mesh.

It will become quite obvious they are polar opposites. The agenda of evil will become as clear as the results of their efforts.

We live in a world where children are killed and starved by the hour, hatred is a course in schools, and governments adopt murder and anti-Semitism as national policy.

The new generation is not learning love, but absorbing copious amounts of evil.

Unless the tide turns, the planet is in for a world of pain.

Oh, sorry, I forgot, the pain has already arrived and love has left the building.

Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jim Kouri, April 11, 2011.

Jama Idle Ibrahim, a/k/a Jaamac Ciidle, was sentenced in federal court on Friday to 25 years in prison for a violent act of piracy in the Gulf of Aden against a merchant vessel, the M/V CEC Future, that began in November 2008 and lasted for 71 days, until January 16, 2009.

The 39-year old Somali national pled guilty on September 8, 2010 to conspiracy to commit piracy under the law of nations and conspiracy to use a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. He received the maximum penalty of five years in prison for the piracy conspiracy charge and the maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for the firearm conspiracy charge.

This represents the first conviction in the District of Columbia for a piracy-related offense. The act of piracy against the M/V CEC Future began on November 7, 2008. According to a statement of facts presented to the court, Ibrahim and other Somalis were armed with AK 47s, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, and handguns when they attacked and seized the vessel. The ship is owned by Clipper Group, a Danish company, and contained cargo belonging to a Texas-based company, McDermott International, Inc.

The pirates approached the merchant ship in high-speed boats, and fired their weapons at the vessel in order to accomplish the takeover. They held the vessel, cargo and 13 crew members for ransom and forced the crew to anchor in waters off the Somalia coast. During the takeover, additional pirates boarded the vessel, and the pirates threatened the crew and controlled their movements with their weapons. The pirates stole money, food and supplies from the ship.

The vessel finally was released on January 16, 2009, after Clipper Group delivered $1.7 million in ransom to the pirates. "Modern-day pirates are nothing like the swashbuckling heroes in Hollywood movies," said U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen.

"Today's pirates are ruthless criminals who hold ships and their crews hostage with AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades. Twenty-five years in prison is a just punishment for this attack that threatened international commerce and human life."

The CEO of Clipper Group, Per Gullestrup, attended Friday's sentencing. In a letter to Judge Friedman, he told the court of the importance of bringing pirates to justice and said that he was grateful that the case against Ibrahim was pursued in the United States legal system.

In November 2010, Ibrahim was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment in the Eastern District of Virginia following a guilty plea to charges stemming from an April 10, 2010, pirate attack on a U.S. Navy vessel, the USS Ashland, also in the Gulf of Aden. The sentence from the District of Columbia is to run concurrently with the sentence from Virginia.

Jim Kouri, CPP, is Fifth Vice-President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police (copmagazine@aol.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Albert Wendroff, April 11, 2011.

This was written by David Suissa and appeared in the Jewish Journal and Huffington Post. David Suissa is a branding consultant, weekly columnist and the founder of OLAM magazine. He can be reached atsuissa@olam.org or at davidsuissa.com.


Dear Mr. Goldstone:

You really screwed up. You screwed up so badly that Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic says you contributed, more than any other individual, to the delegitimization and demonization of the Jewish state.

The deliberate killing of innocent civilians is the equivalent of murder. As far as accusations go, that's about as low as you can go. Your report accused Israel of a lot of things, but that accusation was the most lethal: targeting innocent civilians.

Now you write that you were wrong. Israel is not the war criminal she was made out to be. It was Hamas that targeted innocent civilians, not Israel. Well, like Goldberg says, "It is somewhat difficult to retract a blood libel, once it has been broadcast across the world."

Remember, this was no ordinary blood libel. This was an official indictment bearing the stamp of approval of the closest thing we have to a global legislative body - the United Nations. Thanks to this stamp of approval, Israel 's enemies have feasted on Israel 's good name like vultures on a carcass.

I'm sure you've noticed the global campaign to delegitimize Israel, as well as the flourishing BDS (boycott, divestment and sanctions) movement that is turning Israel into a pariah state. Sadly, much of the ammunition for these movements has come from the Goldstone report - the same report you now have repudiated with a phrase that might go down in Jewish infamy: "Civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

I wonder what went through your mind as you wrote those words: "Why did I rush to judgment? Should I have paid more attention to the hundreds of thousands of Israeli leaflets and phone calls that warned civilians, and to the preliminary Israel Defense Forces reports and other publicly available information that contradicted our conclusions? Should I have put Israel 's behavior in the proper context of defending its people after years of Hamas rockets? Should I have been more skeptical of sources I knew were unreliable?"

A friend told me over Shabbat that I should cut you some slack because you had the courage to eat your words in public after getting "new information." That's fine, but another friend told me a parable that made him somewhat less forgiving.

It's the story of a man who goes to his rabbi to ask for forgiveness because he spread false rumors about him. The rabbi instructs him to take a feathered pillow and a knife, go to a nearby forest and slice open the pillow. When the man returned, the rabbi said to him, "Now go try to retrieve all those feathers."

Now go try, Mr. Goldstone, to "retrieve" all the damage your report inflicted on Israel. Go to every television and radio station, to every newspaper and magazine, to every Web site and blogger, to every Jew and non-Jew on the planet who inhaled your dark accusations against Israel, and try to take those accusations back. Try telling them you didn't mean it.

Surely you must have known that so many past accusations of Israeli "massacres" have been proved false (see Jenin). And as an international jurist who is familiar with the phenomenon of anti-Israel bias, surely you must have anticipated the vermin that would rain on the Jewish state if a Zionist jurist formally accused it of targeting innocent civilians.

I wouldn't be surprised if you've had more than a few sleepless nights since then. Why? Because I do believe there is a piece of your heart that loves Israel, that believes in Israel and that now cries for Israel because of the damage you have inflicted upon her.

While you can never undo that damage, there is still something you can undo: the report itself. Given your deep knowledge of international law, with all its arcane rules and procedures, if anyone can formally retract the report or officially amend it, it is you.

It won't be easy. You will be going up against the many enemies of Israel, those who dream of turning the Jewish state into an illegal enterprise, those for whom the Goldstone report is the gift that keeps on giving - their little gold mine rich with never-ending ammunition against the hated Zionist entity. They won't give up that gold mine that easily.

But I have confidence you can do it. I have seen how you can be dogged and relentless in front of intense opposition. I have seen how when you put your mind to something, nothing can stop you, not even your own people. I have seen you go the distance.

Now go the distance on this one, Mr. Goldstone. Make this your cause. Put the Goldstone report where it belongs, in the delete button of history. You can replace it, amend it, retract it or do whatever you feel will correct it. You will not undo the damage, but you might at least stanch some of the bleeding - not just in Israel 's name, but perhaps in yours, as well.

Kol Nidre is still six months away, but you don't have to wait that long.

Contact Albert Wendroff by email at wendroff39@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, April 11, 2011.

The Closing Of The Muslim Mind was written by Robert R. Reilly. This is redacted from a much more detailed book review by David Aikman in today's Weekly Standard. David Aikman is the author, most recently, of The Mirage of Peace: Understanding the Never-Ending Conflict in the Middle East.


What happened to Islamic culture?

Why did a civilization that may have produced more books in Muslim Spain alone in the ninth century than existed in the entirety of the rest of Europe subside into a civilizational torpor that is the wonder even of the U.N.? Why do countries of the Arab world always come close to the bottom of a global list that measures things like literacy or schooling for women? Why, in Freedom House's annual compilation of countries that are "free," is there not a single Arab country listed?

Why, in 2006 to take a recent example, were there more foreign books translated in one European country, Spain, than were translated in the entire foregoing millennium in the entire Muslim world?

These are hard questions, and they call out for a rational, unemotional answer. Robert R. Reilly comes closer to providing a persuasive explanation than any other account I have seen. As Reilly succinctly shows, Islamic civilization, not just in the Arab world but later in Anatolia, in the Indian subcontinent, and then throughout Southeast Asia, threw out of the intellectual window the principles of rational inquiry that the Greeks had first introduced to the West half a millennium before Christ.

The collective Muslim ulema — theological leaders — decided that it would be too "dangerous" to allow free inquiry — not just of the Koran itself but of the daily reality before our eyes.

The reason, as Reilly makes clear, was a theological controversy within Islam. Formalized Islamic doctrine holds that the Koran existed from all eternity with Allah, and that it was only when the Angel Gabriel revealed its contents to Muhammad that the world was able to hear, through the Koran, what Allah was saying.

The Asharites (an early Muslim think tank) would have constituted a serious blockage to Islam's philosophical development, but even they were topped by a Muslim theologian who nailed down the hatch on the use of reason even more tightly than the Asharites. He was Abu Hamid al-Ghazali (1058-1111), one of Islam's most influential thinkers. Al-Ghazali vehemently rejected Plato and Aristotle in The Incoherence of the Philosophers and insisted that, in nature, there was no such thing as cause and effect. To question this, subsequent Islamic jurists averred, was to commit blasphemy by implying that there were limits on Allah's power and authority.

One tragic consequence of this mode of thinking was the complete withering on the vine within Islam of the spirit of scientific inquiry. Reilly quotes a prominent Pakistani scientist, Pervez Hoodbhoy, on this subject:

Science in the Islamic world essentially collapsed. No major invention or discovery has emerged from the Muslim world for over seven centuries now. That arrested scientific development is one important element — although by no means the only one — that contributes to the present marginalization of Muslims and a growing sense of injustice and victimhood.

The absence within Islam of any ontological basis for belief in the equality of human beings is what led to the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam, signed in the Egyptian capital by 45 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference in 1990. The U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that such rights apply to the entire human race, without exception. The Cairo declaration added the chilling stipulation that all rights mentioned in the Universal Declaration were subject to Islamic sharia: In other words, they were null and void.

Islamism, or the transformation of the Islamic faith into a political ideology, is the end result of the refusal to apply reason to either scientific or political problems.

See this video: Muslims Praying on Madison Avenue

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Burt Prelutsky, April 11, 2011.

It's not every day, thank heavens, that Louis Farrakhan, Dennis Kucinich and I agree about anything, so imagine my surprise when we all thought that Obama was a moron for deciding to abide by the U.N.'s wishes in Libya.

While it's true that Muammar Gaddafi is a brutal tyrant, that's par for the course in Arab and Muslim nations. In fact, the only thing I've noticed that sets him apart from the norm is that he appears to be a transvestite. So, why the heck are we looking to depose him? For offending the international dress code?

On top of that, we had Secretary of State Clinton announcing that the reason we weren't about to rush to the defense of Syrian rebels was because — and I hope you're sitting down for this — Syria's Bashar Al-Assad is a "reformer." I must confess that when the Ice Princess says goofy things like that, I find myself doubting the veracity of her business cards, which identify her as the Smartest Woman in America.

Speaking of people who aren't nearly as smart as they pretend to be, I keep hearing pundits suggesting that Hillary will battle Obama for the 2012 nomination. I realize that it's often difficult to come up with attention-grabbing commentary in non-election years, but this notion is beyond the pale. On what possible basis would she challenge him? ObamaCare? Heck, that was simply HillaryCare reheated in the microwave. Besides, the Democrats know they can't win a national election without garnering 90% of the black vote. Even Hillary isn't foolhardy enough to imagine blacks will troop out to vote for the white hussy who unseated their guy.

Speaking of Obama, I am always torn when it comes to listening to one of his speeches. Although I know I'll get a few chuckles out of it, as when he explained that after three weeks of dithering, he had to dip America's toe into Libya without discussing it with Congress in order to avert "a political massacre that would have stained the conscience of the world."

Where does he dream up this stuff? "The conscience of the world?" I fell off my chair, laughing. If only he had gone into show business. He's a comic genius. I mean, imagine keeping a straight face while delivering that line. Still, he really should seek help with his delivery. I mean, maybe it's just me, but I find it really annoying when he pauses...every few seconds...when doling out...his knee-slappers. By the time he gets to the punch line, it's easy to forget the set-up to his joke.

To be fair, the Democrats in the audience don't seem to mind. Like parents at their kids' first violin recital, they're always convinced he's great. Every time he opens his yap, they think they're listening to a combination of the Gettysburg Address and the Sermon on the Mount. Of course, unlike the two fellows who gave those speeches, Obama doesn't write his own material.

But that's how it is with liberals. When it comes to cutting their leaders some slack, you can't beat these slackers. Whether it's Harry Reid insisting that the NEA should continue receiving tax dollars, lest a cowboy poetry festival be forced to sell tickets, or Nancy Pelosi's announcing that a multi-trillion dollar bill be passed so that we can all find out what's in it, the ninnies on the left can always be counted on for a resounding "Amen!"

It doesn't even perplex liberals when they find out that, propaganda to the contrary, Wall Street donated more money to Obama's campaign than to McCain's, and that there are enough former Goldman Sachs executives in Obama's administration to field a softball league.

Speaking of liberals, I am often asked why so many of my fellow Jews are devoted to the left. It's a complicated matter, with part of the answer going back hundreds of years before Karl Marx was stinking up London libraries. But a short answer is that even though the Jews have a tough, patriarchal God, they're often raised in matriarchal families. As a result, they come to believe that conflict can always be settled through diplomacy (talking things out) or sanctions (time-outs and no dessert with dinner), but never through war (spanking).

Armed conflict, they're convinced, settles nothing. They will continue saying this, no matter how often you bring up the American Revolution, the War Between the States, WWII or the Six-Day War. They're convinced that there is no such thing as evil, but merely an honest difference of opinion, and that nothing on earth is immune to the power of tolerance, good intentions and verbal persuasion.

Which leads me to wonder: Is Barack Obama neither Christian nor Muslim, but Jewish?

Burt Prelutsky is author of "Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco (A Hollywood Right-Winger Comes Out of the Closet)." He has been a humor columnist (L.A. Times), a movie reviewer (Los Angeles magazine), a freelancer (NY Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Sports Illustrated, Washington Times, etc.) and written for TV (several movies, plus episodes of MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, McMillan & Wife, Dragnet, Diagnosis Murder, etc., etc.) Contact him by email at burtprelutsky@aol.com

This article appeared today in
http://patriotpost.us/opinion/burt-prelutsky/2011/04/11/ is-obama-or-isnt-he/

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, April 11, 2011.

This was written by Avi Yesawich and was published in Ynet News.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4054327,00.html Avi Yesawich is currently studying to receive his MA in Conflict Resolution and Mediation at Tel Aviv University. He is a graduate of Cornell University and a former IDF combat soldier.


Individuals who criticize Israel's response to rocket attacks are obviously clueless about the rules of war.

Over the past several days, Israel's southern region has been bombarded by a barrage of rockets and mortar shells from the Hamas-led Gaza Strip. It is important to understand that our southern border had not previously been privy to a period of exceptional calm and relative normalcy, but rocketed and bombed repeatedly, on a daily basis, by various terrorist groups throughout the Strip. However, these attacks have intensified over the recent days, and Israel, as she typically does, is responding with precision air strikes against Hamas terror cells and weapons compounds, attempting to inflict maximum damage on its targets while avoiding civilian casualties on the ground.

The recent escalation has prompted calls for a "serious response" from various Israeli officials, ranging from continued airstrikes throughout the weekend to a "Defensive Shield" type operation such as the one proposed by former Israeli national security advisor Giora Eiland. Whatever the ultimate size and nature of the response is, Israel will be pressured to act with restraint by the international community, including the avoidance of the use of "disproportionate force," a term that has seemingly become synonymous with Israel and the IDF.

How shockingly ignorant this notion appears to be. Despite what anyone may believe, there hasn't been a single instance in the history of warfare where a clear victor has emerged after inflicting "proportional force" against its enemy. One of the most basic understandings in war is that, naturally, one side must inflict superior damage on the other in order to force its surrender or capitulation. Israel, undoubtedly influenced by immense international pressure, is unable to respond in such a manner that would force Hamas militants to cease their attacks and restore quiet and calm on the border, simply because in doing so, she would be using "disproportionate" force in order to accomplish this objective.

And imagine for a moment if we did respond proportionately. Each time Hamas or Islamic Jihad indiscriminately fires a Qassam or mortar shell into Israel, threatening civilians on a daily basis, Israel returns the favor. When a Hamas terror cell deliberately fires an anti-tank missile at a clearly marked school bus full of children, Israel intentionally fires artillery shells into a kindergarten playground in Gaza City. In essence, this would be the proportionate response. Perhaps we can delude ourselves into believing the international community would accept such strategy.

Israel must respond disproportionately If Hamas hasn't made it clear enough to the international community about its strategy and intentions, I will try to summarize it clearly: Israel has no right to exist.

The organization deliberately attacks civilian areas, which constitutes a war crime and is a violation of international law. The Hamas charter openly calls for the violent destruction of Israel and rules out any chance of meaningful peace negotiations with the Jewish state.

As Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar sees it, "Palestine is Islamic, and not an Islamic emirate, from the river to the sea, that unites the Palestinians. Jews have no right in it." Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum puts it even more eloquently, stating that "the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder...Israel is based only on blood and murder in order to exist, and it will disappear, with Allah's will, through blood and martyrs."

Imagine for a moment if Israel were to respond even "proportionally" to these actions and statements.

When London was bombarded in World War II, England firebombed German towns and leveled Dresden completely. In order to end WWII, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, a non-nuclear state at the time. I doubt anyone would argue that Russia's actions in Chechnya were "proportionate" in any sense of the word.

In response to tragic events such as 9/11 and multiple terrorist attacks around Europe, the international community has waged overt wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya (albeit for very different purposes) and clandestine wars in several others. Yet the world nonetheless becomes hysterical when Israel rises up to defend herself against the unrelenting assault on her southern communities.

As our southern towns continue to come under heavy fire, Israel must respond disproportionately until normalcy and calm are reestablished and our waning deterrence has been restored. As we watch other nations respond to domestic and international threats as they see fit, Israel need not apologize for acting to provide her citizens with the safety and security they need and rightfully deserve.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 11, 2011.

As in Gaza.

Right now it's looking more than a bit dubious. According to the PA news agency Ma'an, last night UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Robert Serry had successfully negotiated a ceasefire — in which the Palestinian Arab factions in Gaza would cease launching projectiles at Israel, and Israel would halt attacks on Hamas in Gaza.

But there's no evidence of it, as those projectiles — mortars, kassams and Grads — keep coming and our operations have not ceased. There's been no word on this officially from either side.


The term used in English was "ceasefire," but I must point out that there are different gradations of what we would broadly see as covering this term. A hudna, in Arabic, is a mutually arrived at agreement — but still temporary. It's not "peace," of course. A tahadiya is a mutual quiet that is informal.

In either event, the possibility for the Arabs to continue to build and strengthen themselves exists. There would be no commitment that prohibits this, and in fact it is taken for granted that this is what they would do.

And this, precisely, is what makes it all so problematic.


Among the issues complicating matters is a rift between the political arm of Hamas, which would like to revert to a situation of quiet, and the military arm, which wants to keep hitting us.

The Hamas political organization, headed by Ismail Haniyeh, is interested in consolidating its strength inside of Gaza right now; there is fear that the sort of unrest that has engulfed much of the region might reach Gaza as well. There is no desire to be distracted by hostilities with Israel.

On the other hand, the military wing, Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, won't listen to orders from the political wing to cease firing. Spokesman Abu Obeida — who has taken responsibility for the school bus attack — says they will not sit idle when faced with the Israeli "aggression." "The blood of our citizens will not be spilled for nothing."

Among other hits, Obeida may have been referring to the Israeli air strike just over a week ago on a car in the Gaza strip that was carrying three Hamas operatives who were identified by Israel as a squad planning to kidnap Israelis over Pesach.


Then there is the question of who stops first — each side saying it will stop if the other does. From our side, the demand is that Hamas impose quiet on all other Islamist factions.


And perhaps most insane is this:

Israel National News reports that Hamas objects "to Israel being allowed to prevent 'ticking bomb' terrorist cells from firing rockets....According to a Hamas spokesman, a ceasefire specifically means that Israel cannot target terrorist cells preparing to launch rocket attacks on Israelis."


Last night, Prime Minister Netanyahu — who had returned just before Shabbat from a visit to Germany and the Czech Republic — issued a statement that, "We won't let Hamas set the rules. Even if we are not interested in an escalation, the response will be determined, harsh and ongoing."

The prime minister repeated this at the beginning of the weekly Cabinet session today. "If Israeli citizens continue to come under attack, the response will be much harsher."


Also at the Cabinet meeting today, Netanyahu praised the Iron Dome, which has now been utilized successfully for Israel's defense, deflecting missiles coming our way (but not, it must be admitted, in all cases).

The prime minister himself acknowledged that this is not "a complete solution" to what Hamas is sending our way, and that an offensive action is also required.

Word is, that the US has agreed to provide $205 million for the purchase and deployment of additional batteries of the Iron Dome. They will be installed for the protection of major cities.


Minister of Strategic Affairs, Moshe Ya'alon, in an Army Radio interview yesterday, warned that, while war is our last option, Hamas should not test our readiness to go that route if it is called for:

"They have taken some hard hits and they will sustain even harsher ones [if they continue firing rockets and mortars at Israel].

"We have a lot of options, and the IDF is prepared for them."


Certainly we've pummeled Gaza from the air in a punishing fashion in the last few days. In point of fact, more than 20 terrorists were killed over the weekend, and in the course of the last several days, 35 Hamas operatives have been killed.


Not surprisingly, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is talking tough. The Yisrael Beiteinu coalition agreement with Likud (clause 11) designates the toppling of Hamas in the Gaza Strip as a strategic Israeli goal. But until now no Israeli government has specifically done this. Even when we were at war in Gaza in late 2008 and early 2009, that goal was not delineated.

Lieberman wants his party to demand that this clause now be applied. ("the government will work determinedly and regularly against terror groups threatening Israel and do everything needed in order to eradicate them. A strategic target for the State of Israel would be the toppling of Hamas's rule in Gaza.")

This is worlds away from saying that we'll be quiet if they are quiet.


So where are we now? Monitoring the situation hour by hour, day by day.

Today Amr Mussa, head of the Arab League, announced that the League intended to appeal to the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza, parallel to what had been imposed on Libya. Never mind that the two situations are not parallel and that the deliberate targeting of a school bus with an anti-tank missile constitutes a war crime.

While Turkey on Sunday denounced what it termed Israel's "excessive and disproportionate" strikes.

So this war must be fought on two fronts, as might have been expected.


Let's turn for a moment to the boy on the school bus who was critically wounded. Daniel Viflic is actually from Beit Shemesh. He was in the south to visit his grandmother, and was riding the bus only because he is friends with the driver. His father, sitting next to him in the hospital, said, "Who knew, that a visit to his grandmother could end with this."

The family is asking everyone to pray for him: Daniel Aryeh ben Tamar.


Gideon Sa'ar, Minister of Education, said he intends to raise this issue with ministers of education in other nations, to highlight precisely what Palestinian Arab terrorism is like.

Minister of Homefront Defense Matan Vilnai has ordered three armored buses for the region, to transport children to and from school.


As far as I have been able to determine, this — which has been making the rounds of the Internet — is real: British Muslims for Israel. A real lift, a glimmer of hope. See this video, which turns to English after only a few moments:


And we've got more good news, as a Russian billionaire has announced that he wants to fund an Israeli Al-Jazeera.

Dr. Alexander Mashkevich, who is president of Keren Hayesod's Jewish Leadership Conference, made the announcement at a conference at Bar Ilan University:

He intends to found "a pro-Israel communication media, that will transmit, in the format of international news channels like Al Jazeera, and the BBC.

"Unfortunately, in the current situation, most of the channels just do not tell the truth about Israel ... every day that passes, we are losing the war on the country's image.

"It is not possible that Israel should not have a television channel such as channels that operate in countries like the United States, Britain and Russia. The establishment of such a channel is now imperative and necessary..."

More power to him! How this could this change things. He is not interested in PR or hasbara, but in transmitting the truth 24 hours a day.


After the school bus was hit, I noted that I hadn't seen a condemnation from EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton. Well, for the record, now she's delivered it, and she can keep this repugnant bit of moral equivalency:

"I strongly condemn yesterday's mortar and rocket attacks out of the Gaza strip, which once again hit the innocent civilian population and which must stop immediately."

However, she said, she was also "deeply concerned by the current escalation of violence." In fact, she said she also deplored "the loss of civilian life in Gaza and call on Israel to show restraint."

What a piece of work she is. She would deny us our right to self-defense.


Former Israeli ambassador to the UN, Dore Gold, addressed the US House International Affairs Committee last Tuesday at the invitation of chair, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. This was with an eye to the up-coming meeting of the Quartet. He was joined by Maj.-Gen. (res.) Uzi Dayan and Brig.-Gen.(res.) Udi Dekel.

Said Gold:

"The idea that the Quartet would dictate to Israel the 1967 lines and set the stage for an imposed solution serves this Palestinian interest, but not the interest of achieving real peace.

"European support for such initiatives would contravene the very peace agreements they signed in the past as witnesses. It would set the stage for further Palestinian unilateralist initiatives at the UN in September and deal a virtually fatal blow to any negotiations."

Gold stated that traditional US policy — dating back to UN Security Council Resolution 242 and reaffirmed in George W. Bush's letter to then-prime minister Ariel Sharon in 200 — recognized that Israel was not expected to withdraw from all the territories captured in the Six Day War.

These demands on Israel, "problematic in any event," were being proposed "at the worst possible time — that is, precisely when the entire Middle East looks like it is engulfed in flames...degree of strategic uncertainty for Israel, given current political trends around it, has increased sharply."

Gold pointed out that a demand that Israel withdraw to the 1967 lines contravened the 1993 Oslo Agreements (which were signed by the US, and by European nations as witnesses) that envisioned a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "Borders were to be decided by the parties themselves and not be imposed by international coalitions."


From Ros-Lehtinen came the observation: "America and Israel love and seek peace, but peace without security is no peace at all."

Gold heads the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which has put out considerable data on Israel's needs for secure borders. It is worth re-visiting this information here:

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by David Lev, April 10, 2011.

Soldiers at an IDF post near the Samaria town of Yitzhar — not far from Itamar, the site of the murder of the Fogel family just weeks ago — detected an attempted invasion of Arab terrorists on Friday night. The two terrorists who were attempting to get into the town escaped after a chase by IDF troops and the town's security brigade.

Soldiers detected two suspicious looking characters outside the town's security perimeter fence at about midnight Friday. The two were detected when they were about 150 meters from the fence, and were continuing to advance towards it. Troops focused a searchlight on them and called on them to halt, but the two began running away, escaping to a nearby Arab village. IDF troops entered the village in a search for the terrorists, but were unable to find them. They did, however, find seditious, anti-Israel material, including a PLO flag.

On Shabbat morning, after word spread throughout the town of the incident, residents approached the Arab village and conducted a protest outside it. A car was set on fire during the protests. No arrests were made.

Yitzhar residents praised IDF troops for their quick action in what they believe was another attempt by Arab terrorists to invade a Jewish town in Samaria and murder Jews. The incident was hauntingly familiar to the tragedy that occurred in Itamar just weeks ago, when terrorists successfully invaded the town and cold-bloodedly murdered five members of the Fogel family, including a three month old infant.

Friday night's incident occurred right outside the Shalhevet neighborhood where an Arab terrorist from the neighboring village of Azira al-Kabalia entered the town and set on fire a home in the town. The terrorist then stabbed a nine year old boy who attempted to alert security authorities of the terrorist's presence. The terrorist was killed a week later as he attempted to throw firebombs at Israeli vehicles in the area.

David Lev writes for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Susana K-M, March 10, 2011.

This was written by Alan Caruba. He studied Communications at University of Miami; and currently Lives in South Orange, New Jersey.


In the months and years leading up to the beginning of World War Two, all the parties knew full well Hitler's intention to start a war. When he struck a deal with Stalin to divide Poland, the die was cast. The invasion came in September 1939. Previously, diplomats had met with the Nazis to offer them the former Czechoslovakia and turned a blind eye to other provocative events.

World War Two was preceded by Hitler's Mein Kampf that spelled out his plans for Europe's Jews and the torrent of lies that led to war and the genocide that became known as the Holocaust.

It is not surprising that history is repeating itself as in the case of an April 7 letter to The Wall Street Journal by Alireza Miryousefi of the Iranian Mission to the U.N. "There is no evidence of any military diversion" in Iran's nuclear facilities claimed Mr. Miryousefi, who went on to assert that "the real threat of nuclear proliferation" was Israel which he described as "the Zionist regime."

Despite Iran's support for two terrorist organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, it was Israel, said Mr. Miryousefi, that was "the biggest terrorist and apartheid regime."

Today, everyone knows the Iran's crazed ayatollahs intend to secure nuclear weapon capability and everyone knows that, when they do, they will attack Israel with them. They have never ceased to call for its destruction. It is not a question of if, but when.

How close is "when"? The Iranians just released a video titled "The Coming is Near" that describes the current events in the Middle East as the prelude to the coming of the Twelfth Imam, the Mahdi, a figure particular to the Shiite branch of Islam and one that Islamic scriptures say will lead the armies of Islam to victory over all non-Muslims in the last days.

In a nuclear age, as Nikita Krushchev, a former Premier of the Soviet Union, once said, "The living will envy the dead." Those were the days of the Cold War and, with both the U.S. and Russia possessing nukes, the concept of mutually assured destruction, MAD, was understood. This, however, does not apply to the ayatollahs. They need massive destruction to bring about their Islamic End Times scenario.

In a recent Wall Street Journal interview with Bernard Lewis, the West's leading scholar on the Middle East, he pointed out that the mullahs "are religious fanatics with an apocalyptic mindset. In Islam, as in Christianity and Judaism, there is an end-of-times scenario — and they think it's beginning or has already begun."

The result, said Lewis, is that "mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent — it's an inducement."

In the days leading up to World War Two, the diplomatic choice was appeasement. Today, hope is that the mullahs can be deterred long enough that Iranians will somehow bring about regime change from within. The computer virus, Stuxnet, had the affect of interfering with the enrichment process necessary to weaponize uranium, but may not now be a factor.

In the meantime, the Gulf Cooperation Council, composed of six GCC states are discussing a proposal to identify and deport an estimated 20,000 Shiites linked to Iran. In Kuwait the plan would focus on Lebanese Shiites with links to Hezbollah and Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

It is believed that many Iranian agents have been activated this year and, as such, pose a security threat. Said one GCC insider, "For years, the GCC knew of these people, but looked the other way. We can't look the other way anymore."

The news, unfortunately, just keeps getting worse and worse. In the muddle that represents the effort to overthrow Libya's Gadhafi, DebkaFile reports that the "rebels" have sold thousands of chemical shells found in Benghazi to Hezbollah and Hamas, two puppet organizations funded by Iran.

When you add to that the thousands of rockets cached in Lebanon by Hezbollah and the rocketing that has been reinstituted from Gaza by Hamas, you have a trigger for a wider war.

Specifically, you have the elements of the destruction of Israel by the Iranians and the so-called Palestinians, a stateless group that have been the pawns of Iran and Arab nations for more than six decades.

In late March, Senators Mark Kirk (R-Ill) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) were joined by twenty-five other Senators who sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton asking her to identify specific steps the administration is taking to press the Palestinian Authority to end the "dangerous incitement against Jews and Israel." The letter was sent in the wake of the terrorist murder of the Fogel family in Itamar and a bombing of a civilian bus in Jerusalem. A school bus has since been attacked.

You don't have to be a CIA analyst to know that events in the Middle East will be exploited by the Iranians to bring about their apocalyptic End Times aspirations and that the destruction of Israel is, in their view, the trigger. After Israel, the United States and Europe will be next.

Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Marcia Leal, April 10, 2011.

This was written by Allon Friedman and Elliot Bartky
and it appeared in  American Thinker

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/ challenging_the_leftist_domina.html at June 05, 2011 - 06:15:41 PM CDT


Change is in the air. From the toppling of Middle East potentates to the Tea Party's dramatic rise to the recent historic public employee union legislation enacted across the Midwest, things suddenly seem to be turned on their heads. And from the unlikely location of central Indiana a new model has arisen for Jews whose unequivocal support for Israel and America has hitherto been marginalized.


In October 2010, the Jewish American Affairs Committee of Indiana (JAACI) (http://www.jaaci.org/) was born out of many years' worth of frustration with Indianapolis' Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC). The JCRC, in their own words, "is the public affairs advocacy and intergroup relations arm of the Indianapolis Jewish community." Their stated mission is to "1. safeguard the rights of Jews here, in Israel, and around the world, and in order to accomplish that, to 2. protect, preserve, and promote a just American society, one that is democratic and pluralistic."

For years the JCRC included representation of the major Jewish institutions in the Indianapolis area and was generously funded by the local Jewish Federation, with salaries for its two full time and one half time staff totaling over $230,000. The JCRC was therefore able to assert with some credence that it was the official communal representative of the Indianapolis Jewish community, or as it describes itself, the "central address" for the public to interact with the Jewish community. In support of its claim to represent the whole Jewish community the JCRC states that issue positions it takes are "designed to foster consensus."

The Indianapolis JCRC's mission statement is notable in two respects. The first is that while it adopts nearly verbatim the first and third goals of its parent organization, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs (JCPA), it tellingly leaves out the JCPA's second goal — "To dedicate ourselves to the safety and security of the state of Israel." Second, while the mission statement suggests the JCRC is receptive and amenable to the wide range of viewpoints that exist within the Jewish community, the reality is that the priorities and agenda at the organization were set by individuals with a very narrow and highly ideological point-of-view. This stance tilted heavily towards a liberal political, economic and social agenda, especially when compared to the wan, meager, and often conflicted support it gave efforts to safeguard Jews, both here and abroad.

This is not a new phenomenon for JCRCs. In The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege (1), Harvard psychiatrist and historian Kenneth Levin carefully chronicles how from the 1980s onward Jewish groups in the US came increasingly under the ideological sway of the New Jewish Agenda, which itself evolved from a hard-core leftist form of thinking that rejected Jewish particularism and embraced a universalist world view. Levin aptly describes how this shaped one prominent Jewish Community Relations Council:

The annual report......gave particular emphasis to reaching beyond the Jewish community to address "social justice issues" and advance "universal goals of tikkun olam, the repair of the world." There was nothing in what the JCRC calls its "action agenda" that entailed responding to the political and strategic challenges facing Israel. A glance at Action Alerts sent out by the JCRC over these two years — that is, calls on the community to political action, such as lobbying elected officials over some issue — reveals that virtually all those action alerts had to do with issues of support for immigrant rights, funding of welfare programs, and related matters. There was very little addressing threats to Israel, terror in Israel, and tensions in American-Israeli relations, even though these were very live issues over those two years.

These priorities reflected a leadership that preferred that Jewish self-definition focus less on Israel than on the traditions of charity and good deeds in Jewish thought and practice and on their application to a social activist and universalist agenda.

While Levin is in fact describing the Boston JCRC during the years 1997-1998, his characterization could apply equally well to the 2011 Indianapolis JCRC. A leftist view of human rights, social and economic justice, tikkun olam (thereby replacing the traditional meaning with a 21st century social activist chic version) — these and other buzz phrases from the New Jewish Agenda are generously sprinkled throughout the Indy JCRC's most recent website. Interestingly, Levin cites 1996 polling data demonstrating that the Indianapolis and other JCRCs leaned far left when it came to matters of Jewish security even when compared to the Jewish community's generally liberal orientation (2):

With regard to Israel, while the JCRCs were typically claiming not only that Israel was now safe but that American Jews overwhelmingly concurred with this view and also overwhelmingly supported Oslo, the Indianapolis JCRC poll indicated otherwise. Almost 80 percent of those questioned believed, for example, a Palestinian state would be a threat to Israel's security. Less than half felt that Israel should give up Judea and Samaria, even with a viable peace. More than two-thirds said Arafat could not be trusted.

All of this was continuously frustrating for many in the Indianapolis' Jewish community who found the JCRC's behavior not only ideologically problematic but also self-defeating, since it involved diverting precious community resources (through, for example, hiring a professional lobbyist) to almost exclusively promoting select social action issues that were apparently deemed critical to the Jewish community's interests. In the last year such issues predictably included voting against school vouchers and the defunding of Planned Parenthood and for the passage of something called the Child Nutrition Act. In the meantime it studiously avoided addressing what are objectively demonstrable threats to the future of Indianapolis Jews, such as the epidemic of intermarriage that is rapidly thinning Jewish ranks and the profound lack of a basic Jewish education that afflicts so many, leading to community apathy and assimilation.

While the JCRC would occasionally turn its attention to combating local or visiting fringe individuals and groups who worked to delegitimize Israel, these were infrequent diversions with dubious results. Oftentimes these efforts would include — bizarrely — requests from JCRC members themselves that any attempts by the JCRC to educate local groups about Israel include pro-Palestinian representatives in order to maintain a semblance of "balance." Not surprisingly, suggestions that the JCRC should educate its local constituency on the global Islamist movement (with its well-known local affiliate) with its genocidal anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist agenda were non-starters. In fact, on numerous occasions the JCRC enthusiastically promoted its participation in interfaith events that included stealth jihadist organizations with well documented anti-Semitic track records, such as the Islamic Society of North America.

Especially disturbing was that in the name of consensus no dissenting or minority position was allowed to be expressed in the JCRC's statement of principles, policy objectives, or lobbying efforts. When, in 2010, a number of JCRC members who were not in agreement with key principles and policy statements requested that the Indianapolis JCRC follow the example of the national JCPA and allow for a minority opinion, they were voted down by a majority who saw no reason to allow for minority representation. In response to the JCRC's refusal to allow for a minority voice the board of B'nai Torah, a local Orthodox synagogue, unanimously voted to withdraw its membership from the JCRC.

The Establishment of JAACI

With the withdrawal of B'nai Torah's JCRC membership, the long smoldering fire of pent-up frustration quickly ignited and spread to other congregations, community organizations, and individuals not only in Indianapolis, but throughout Jewish communities in Indiana. B'nai Torah's last representative on the JCRC, Elliot Bartky, spoke with a broad segment of the Jewish community around the state who shared B'nai Torah's frustration and were convinced of the need to start a new statewide Jewish organization unequivocally committed to Israel's defense and the promotion of traditional Jewish and American values. From these discussions the Jewish American Affairs Committee of Indiana (JAACI) was born.

In contrast to the JCRC, JAACI was established to advocate primarily on issues directly related to the security and well-being of the Jewish people and Israel. In a span of a few months, this governing philosophy has garnered the support of the majority of Jewish congregational leaders in Indianapolis, the majority of rabbis in Indiana, as well as congregants from Indianapolis' Reconstructionist, Conservative, Sephardi, and Ashkenazi Orthodox synagogues. In addition to its unequivocal support for Israel, JAACI's stance on political, economic and social issues is shaped by traditional Jewish values and the enduring principles of the American Republic.

The moment JAACI was established it hit the ground running. In less than five months it has achieved a number of notable successes. Its initial goal was to begin forging relationships and friendships with Indiana politicians regardless of their political affiliation. Its first scheduled event, held shortly before the historic 2010 election, was a forum entitled The Future of Indiana: Challenges and Opportunities, A Legislator's Perspective featuring Indiana Republican House Minority Leader Representative Brian Bosma. Representative Bosma expressed his appreciation to JAACI for the opportunity to address Indianapolis Jews, noting this was the first time he had heard a point of view from the organized Jewish community so strongly in support of traditional Jewish and American principles. As it turned out, the Republicans ultimately took control of the Indiana state government and Representative Bosma became Speaker Bosma. Soon after the new legislature was sworn in, Speaker Bosma invited JAACI's halachic advisor, Rabbi Yisrael Gettinger, to give the opening invocation for the new legislative session. This was the first time a rabbi had been accorded such an honor in Indiana's history. He was subsequently honored with an invitation for a second invocation address, this time for a session of the State Senate. Both addresses were received with much enthusiasm and support.

JAACI is now regarded by the Indiana House and Senate leadership as the "go-to" Jewish organization in Indiana, and they have consulted with JAACI on a number of issues of concern to the Jewish community. A highly contentious and priority issue in this year's legislative session was the introduction of bills promoting educational reform through new opportunities for public charter schools and school vouchers, allowing students to attend any school of their choice. In previous years the JCRC was one of the most outspoken opponents of such bills, premising its stance on "Jewish" values. This year, however, JAACI was invited to testify before the House on this matter, during which they expressed strong support for the bill, which could strengthen formal Jewish educational opportunities in Indiana. JAACI has also been consulted by the House and Senate leadership on other social, political, and economic issues. Although it has not testified on all the issues where its input was sought it has clearly become a voice state leaders are interested in hearing.

JAACI members also penned a number of essays for local and regional publications. One of them, initially published in the Indianapolis Star, was later picked up by Daily Alert, an internet publication of The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations and subsequently disseminated widely throughout the blogosphere.

But certainly JAACI's crowning achievement was crafting and helping organize support for a bipartisan, concurrent pro-Israel resolution that unanimously passed both chambers of the Indiana Legislature. Co-authored in the House by Speaker Bosma (R) and Rep. Ed DeLaney (D) and in the Senate by Senator Mike Delph (R), the resolution expresses "steadfast commitment" and support by the State of Indiana for Israel, its "greatest friend and ally" in the Middle East. It also supports Israel's right to act in self-defense and strongly criticizes attempts by the UN, various nations, and other actors to harm or delegitimize Israel. To our knowledge, this is the first resolution to be passed by any state that expresses full support for Israel without directly addressing the Arab/Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The JAACI Experience and American Jewry

Does the JAACI experience offer any lessons to American Jews for whom the New Jewish Agenda is a hollow, misguided, and ultimately self-destructive construct? We believe it does, and here are some of them:

  1. There is no inevitability to the New Jewish Agenda dominating the discourse within and beyond American Jewish communities. Even in a modestly-sized Jewish community such as Indianapolis, a handful of capable, motivated individuals (without any budget to speak of) have been able in a matter of months to completely rewrite the Jewish political landscape. We believe the time is ripe for concerned, informed, and determined Jews to begin to similarly challenge the status quo agenda that exists in many communities around the nation.

  2. Politicians are impressed with groups that take pride in and make no apologies for who they are and what they stand for. Hillel's aphorism "if I am not for myself, who am I?" is a lesson that many Jews need to relearn. Including a spiritual leader(s) or advisor(s) may also strengthen the authoritative nature of such an organization's positions, especially if they are well respected.

  3. We have more friends than we often realize. There are many excellent reasons why the large majority of Americans love Israel. Politicians are no exception. While it is our duty to constantly educate the public on why Israel remains of vital interest to the US, many non-Jews are not only aware that supporting Israel makes sense from a moral, economic, technological, civilizational, and geopolitical stance, but feel fulfilled when doing so. We just have to give them the opportunity.

There are Jews who have criticized us on the grounds that we are dividing the Indianapolis Jewish community. To those individuals we say: our sole intention is to promote Jewish values, ensure the survival of the Jewish people, and strengthen the Jewish state of Israel. We very much look forward to the day when we can combine forces with a local JCRC that shares these priorities. Until that day comes, we will do everything in our power to achieve our goals. We also look forward to seeing many similar-minded individuals around the nation follow our lead.


1. Levin, Kenneth H. The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus Global, 2005, p 178.

2. Ibid, p. 459.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nadia Matar and Yehudit Katsover, April 9, 2011.

This was written by Moshe Dann, a historian, writer and journalist living in Jerusalem. Contact him at moshedan@netvision.net.il This article appeared in Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/ Article.aspx?id=215649


Jewish sovereignty speaks to the purpose and promise of the State of Israel and to everyone who is inspired by that vision.

(Photo: Laslo Balogh/Reuters)

As the PA/PLO presses for UN recognition of statehood, the question of who has sovereign rights over Judea and Samaria becomes critical. Historically and legally part of the Jewish national homeland, it is also claimed by Palestinians. To whom does this area belong? A uniquely Jewish definition of sovereignty provides a compelling answer.

Sovereignty, the ability of a government to act independently and in its own interests, is the essence of statehood. Applying just authority and institutions to assure the protection and well-being of its citizens are what conventional statehood is about. A relatively modern concept associated with 16th-century French philosopher Jean Bodin, then later with Hobbes, Rousseau, Hegel and others, sovereignty is the expression of national independence and the right and responsibility to rule.

The roots of Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael (the Land of Israel), however, are not modern. They are biblical, grounded in Jewish thought and history: the first and second Temples, commonwealths and civilizations that flourished in the Land of Israel, especially in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria.

A thousand years ago, the great biblical and Talmudic commentator Rashi explained Jewish sovereignty. When the Jewish people conquer, settle and re-establish political sovereignty in the Land of Israel, the nations of the world will accuse them of stealing the land. His reply: Other nations simply occupy their lands; God Himself gave Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people as an everlasting inheritance. This suggests an understanding of Jewish sovereignty that transcends politics.

Sovereignty, like beauty, may be only in the eyes of the beholder, but it also says something about those who behold it. Unlike that of other countries and contexts, the concept of Jewish sovereignty in Eretz Yisrael adds a distinctly intimate dimension — Shechinah, God's Presence, an eternal bond between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel, a reverence for The Land itself as sacred.

The State of Israel, therefore, on behalf of the Jewish People, has the obligation and responsibility to say the truth: Eretz Yisrael, including Judea and Samaria, legitimately, legally and historically belongs to the Jewish People; it always has and always will. Proclaiming Jewish, rather than simply Israeli sovereignty is an authentic statement of the relationship between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.

DECLARING JEWISH sovereignty clearly and unequivocally will correct the distortion and misunderstanding of those who ignore or deny Jewish history and international law grounded in the League of Nations and in its Mandate for Palestine.

The Jewish return to Eretz Yisrael and the establishment of a state, Israel's towering achievements in science and technology, its contributions to world civilization and myriad creative innovations are physical, material representations of a profound spiritual dimension — the fulfillment of Jewish sovereignty and destiny.

Jewish sovereignty speaks to the purpose and promise of the State of Israel and to everyone who is inspired by that vision.

It is a statement of affirmation, not apology — of commitment, not appeasement. It is what true Zionism is all about. Israel's failure to express Jewish sovereignty over Judea and Samaria weakens its diplomatic position and strengthens those who contest its claim. Sovereignty Now.

Nadia Matar and Yehudit Katsover are members of Women in Green, an organization established by Nadia Matar and her mother-in-law, Ruth Matar. Women in Green is an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 9, 2011.


Gaza is a flat, fairly open territory 45 kilometers long and only 5-12 kilometers wide. Israeli forces could reach any part of it in minutes. Israeli forces during the last war there could have ferreted out and disposed of Hamas' whole leadership and most of its gunmen. Instead, the government cut short the military engagement there, as it had in Lebanon. Premature withdrawal enabled Hamas to revive.

Now Hamas has been trained by Iran and has rockets capable of reaching almost any part of Israel. Should Israel continue its policy of tit-for-tat retaliation on a small scale, while Hamas builds its forces further?

Should Israel rely on anti-missile systems that cannot down all the missiles? Should Israel build bunkers costing billions?

Should Israel wait until Iran finishes developing nuclear weapons, before terminating Hamas and rendering that front safe? Should Israel wait until a new Egyptian government decides to open its border with Hamas to heavy weaponry?

Or should Israel invade again, take over Gaza, control the Gaza side of the border with Egypt, this time with a sufficiently wider buffer strip so its forces can properly thwart attackers from within? Dr. Aaron Lerner suggests invading now and concluding before the word has time to intercept the mission (IMRA, 3/24/11 http://www.imra.org.il/).


Residents of Netzer in the Gush Etzion sector of Judea-Samaria have some agricultural fields on state-owned land allocated to them or not private but not yet claimed as state land. Arabs have claimed to privately own that land. They tried to prevent Jews from farming on it, before.

The Civil Administration checked and found that the land belonged to the Jewish community. Once Arabs usurp state-owned land, the Civil Administration considers it as owned by the Arabs.

Arabs kept interfering with Jewish farmers and vandalized their olive crop. Europeans subside Arabs, who may not live in the area, but who try to wrest land from Jews.

In April, six Arabs approached Israelis working in the fields. The Arabs claimed the land and demand that the Israelis desist. The Israelis refused. The Arabs physically attacked the Jews. One injured a Jew with a hoe. The Arab was questioned.

Police inveigled the injured Jew to come to the police station so they could photograph his wounds and take his testimony. Upon arrival, however, police told him he is suspected of having attacked the Arabs. The police said they would demand his exile from the area.

One of the farmers explained that police turn the tables on attacked Jews by policy. By doing so, they please leftist activists and avoid antagonizing violent Arab clans.

Women for Israel's Future (formerly Women in Green) assert that if not for their active presence there, the Arabs might have seized the land and it would be lost from the Jewish people (IMRA, 4/1/11 http://www.imra.org.il/).

Police may have another reason for their discriminatory treatment of Jews. The government long has been trying to get Jews out so they can get Arabs in and call it peace.

This is a struggle for control of a country and to dispossess the Jewish people, including from Israel, where Bedouin and other Arabs steal public land. The Arabs do not abide by the law, as shown by their repeated forays onto the same land that public records already proved do not belong to them. They use force and are abetted by foreign public opinion that ignores the facts and sympathizes with them on the basis of misinformation.


Mohamed ElBaradei, one of the mouthpieces for the crowds that overthrew Pres. Mubarak, now is running for the presidency of Egypt. He declares that if elected, he would open the Egypt-Gaza border crossings. If Israel invaded Gaza, he would invoke mutual defense treaties with Arab states and declare war on Israel (IMRA, 1/4/11).

ElBaradei did not indicate how Egypt's treaties with Arab states cover Gaza, which is not part of an Arab state.

People think that Egypt has a peace treaty with Israel. It does not. It has a non-aggression pact with Israel, with secret exceptions, one of which gives priority to Egyptian treaties with other Arab states. When Egypt signed the treaty with Israel, it reserved the right to invoke its treaties with other Arab states against Israel "aggression." Bear in mind that to Muslims, who consider resistance by non-Muslims impertinence, Israeli resistance or retaliation is considered aggression.

This threat of war by Egypt is the foreseen fruit of tens of billions of dollars of U.S. subsidy of Egyptian military procurement and training. Egypt now has a first class military, including a navy more powerful than Israel's. The U.S. was warned that Egypt's bent for aggression and its instability could mean trouble ahead. But the U.S. has inexhaustible funds and you don't mind paying taxes to build up aggressors, right?

When ElBaradei began speaking out in behalf of the revolution, he was called a moderate. The basis for that estimation was not given. ElBaradei had headed the International Atomic Energy Commission when Iran was building up its nuclear capability illicitly. He did not insist on Iran following the rules nor ring the alarm when Iran violated its nuclear treaty. He did not speak up until the problem came to a head. That is not moderate.

What role did ElBaradei really play in overthrowing Mubarak? Some think he was exploited by the Moslem Brotherhood. Opening the border crossings to Gaza would let terrorists move into Egypt and commit terrorism there, and move into Gaza, to make war. Mubarak preferred stability at the border.

There is some concern that Egypt is losing control over the Sinai to Bedouin smugglers and terrorists.

El Baradei's behavior hardly is that of a moderate. Certainly, threatening war if Israel in self-defense roots out terrorists from Gaza, is not moderate.

The media and politicians like to label people "moderate" and "extremist" as ways of conferring approval and disapproval for ideological reasons, without knowing or thinking about where those people stand. This does their own countries a disservice.

How is America going to make its way in the world when it doesn't know who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys?"

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, April 9, 2011.

Orchards on Bark

Opened and Closed

And There Was Light

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
Go to http://reifyreadying.blogspot.com/ and http://abstractsfromfred-fred343.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, April 8, 2011.

"And for those who claim that Alinsky was some kind of communist one need only to peruse the biography of Alinsky that was published by Paulist Press, The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky, to learn that the Catholic Church retained Alinsky's services for the better part of forty years to fight the influence of the communist party both in the US and abroad."


Saul Alinsky's vision: Grass Roots Community Organization vs. Big Government

Since US President Obama studied with Saul Alinsky's foundation and with some of Alinsky's students, people around the world want to know how Alinsky may have impacted upon Obama,

There are those who compare Alinsky tactics to the methods that Obama uses, with claims that Obama's policies derive manipulative methods derived from Rules for Radicals, which Saul Alinsky wrote in the last year of his life.

However, to understand Saul Alinsky as primordial model of community organization, you must review Reveille For Radicals, the best seller that Alinsky wrote in 1945 and also peruse The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky, written in 1984, 12 years after his death, to discern that Alinsky's vision ranged far beyond tactics, in order to understand the value that Alinsky saw in bottom up organizing - and not in top down dictates from centralized governmental bodies.

At a young age, Alinsky set out to study the power of organized crime in his home town of Chicago, because he wanted to know how the mob had become so effective in their sway over people. That is where Alinsky discovered the power of a community-based grass roots organization.

Alinsky's theme was to empower people - not governments - because public institutions, in Alinsky's view, only want to perpetuate themselves.

Alinsky resented the Great Society's anti-poverty program of the 1960's, and was often called on to help to create grass roots reconciliation community based organizations in riot-torn neighborhoods awash with federal money yet severely lacking in community organizations that allowed people to cooperate with one another.

Alinsky was acutely aware of the religious influence over communities, and spent a good part of his time courting priests and ministers of local parishes, and was eventually recognized by the highest levels of the Vatican as an asset to offset competitive street organizing of local communists

Alinsky feared any organization that grew too big, consistently warned against "organizational institutionalism"

Alinsky also warned against the standard training taught to community organizers who were not committed to changing the system. For that reason, the social work establishment fought and resented Alinsky, tooth and nail.

Alinsky's efforts focused instead on the grass roots, and consistently veered from the extreme left and feared the violent tactics of the "weatherman", and always stated that that he wanted to be a radical - not a revolutionary.

Alinsky differentiated between the training of an organizer and the orientation of a leader.

Always claimed that the purpose of an organizer is not to bestow leaders with a permanent situation of leadership.

Alinsky trained organizers - not leaders. Alinsky would not allow himself or any other community organizer under his tutelage to run for political office. As a man of principle, Alinsky could not have been elected dog catcher.

Alinsky taught that the organizer wants to facilitate power for others, warning that the leader only wants power for himself. That is the basic difference between the leader and the organizer. The leader wants power for himself. The organizer's goal is to create power for others to use.

Alinsky always sought feedback from people - Not from organizations. That is his motto in training community organizers - forcing organizations to act on principle, even if they never intended to do so.

Alinsky commented that existing organizations will always resent the radical organizer and always feared that agencies would create leaders - not organizers.

Alinsky also recognized the power of evil and the demons of anti-Semitism.

Alinsky placed the ovens of Dachau on his desk, next to his typewriter.

Shortly before his death at age 63 in 1972, Alinsky was witness to a model of his legacy - in Rochester, New York, where more than 100 community based organizations had sprung up, geared to empower local residents of all walks of life,... a community based model which Rochester residents attributed to his inspiration.


Given the approach of Alinsky which suspected and rejected large enterprises of any kind, it would be appropriate to use Alinsky criteria to take a dispassionate look at the career of Barak Obama.

During Obama's experience as a community organizer in Chicago, Obama adhered to Alinsky principles. Writing After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois, in the 1990 edition of Illinois Issues, published University of Illinois at Springfield), Obama relied on his c.o. experience in the Chicago streets when he wrote at the time that

"Community organizing provides a way to merge various strategies for neighborhood empowerment. Organizing begins with the premise that (1) the problems facing inner-city communities do not result from a lack of effective solutions, but from a lack of power to implement these solutions; (2) that the only way for communities to build long-term power is by organizing people and money around a common vision; and (3) that a viable organization can only be achieved if a broadly based indigenous leadership - and not one or two charismatic leaders - can knit together the diverse interests of their local institutions. This means bringing together churches, block clubs, parent groups and any other institutions in a given community to pay dues, hire organizers, conduct research, develop leadership, hold rallies and education cam­paigns, and begin drawing up plans on a whole range of issues - jobs, education, crime, etc. Once such a vehicle is formed, it holds the power to make politicians, agencies and corporations more responsive to commu­nity needs. Equally important, it enables people to break their crippling isolation from each other, to reshape their mutual values and expectations and rediscover the possibilities of acting collaboratively - the prerequi­sites of any successful self-help initiative.

In other words, the initial Obama approach was consonant with Alinsky's view - bottom-up organizing takes precedence over top-down organizing from the highest levels the top.

However, more than 20 years later, President Obama betrayed Alinsky's warnings in the formation of Obama policies:




As Jim Geraghtu wrote in "The Alinsky Administration" (NRO online, May 14, 2009), that "Obama insists that he doesn't want the government to run car companies, but he has fired CEOs, demonized bondholders, ensured the UAW gets the sweetest deal, and guaranteed warrantees. He insists that he doesn't want to run banks, but his Treasury Department hesitates to take back some of the TARP funds that give them influence over bank policies. He's critical of Wall Street, but he signed off on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's remarkably generous plan to give hedge funds and private investors a low-risk, high-reward option on toxic assets"

Meanwhile, a search of the Obama -initiated US Senate health bill will bring up "secretary" 2,500 times, awarding Obama's Health and Human Services Secretary with unprecedented new powers, including the authority to decide what medical care should be covered by insurers as well as the terms and conditions of coverage and who should receive it.

"It's a huge amount of power being shifted to HHS, and much of it is highly discretionary," said Edmund Haislmaier, an expert in health care policy and insurance markets at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.

The Washington Post ads " health care reform legislation would rely on the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for recommendations as to what kind of screening and preventive care should be covered....The group, which operates under HHS, drew sharp criticism for advising that mammograms should begin at age 50, a decade later than the current standard".

And as David Horowitz, noted, in his essay, Barack Obama's Rules for Revolution -the Alinsky Model, that "More than 35 "Czars" controlling billions of dollars and making management decisions about everything from our auto industry to "green" jobs to urban development. These Czars answer to no one but Barack Obama!"

What Geraghtu and Horowitz write about is the antithesis of the Alinsky model.

Saul Alinsky, if he were alive today, would be organizing grass roots community organization protests against a centralized Obama administration.{emphasis added]

The cardinal rule of Saul Alinsky was to fight the power of bureaucratized organizations and to fight for the little guy.

Alinksy trained a generation of community organizers to fight the power of any bureaucratized network.

And for those who claim that Alinsky was some kind of communist one need only to peruse the biography of Alinsky that was published by Paulist Press, The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky, to learn that the Catholic Church retained Alinsky's services for the better part of forty years to fight the influence of the communist party both in the US and abroad.

Saul Alinsky would not have tolerated the centralized manipulations of an Obama Administration, not for one moment. The concluding sentence of THE RADICAL VISION OF SAUL ALINSKY says it all: He stood up for the little guy.

How can the Obama embrace of Alinsky therefore be understood?

To adapt an adage from Shakespeare, the devil can quote Alinsky for his purposes.

David Bedein, who holds a master's degree in community organization social work from Yeshiva University (1980), studied with Saul Alinsky at the Free University of the University of Wisconsin forty years ago, shortly before moving to Israel.

In Israel, David has applied the Alinsky ideas of grass roots community organization to help the Jerusalem Black Panthers in their early stages, helped form activist community theatre groups in Tel Aviv neighborhoods and, in 1977, and pioneered "the Saul Alinsky brigade to Israel as part of his effort to bring more community organizers to Israeli communities. In 1983, David translated sections of Rules for Rules for Radicals into Hebrew for community organizers throughout Israel. As the founder of an unconventional media firm in 1987, which continues to this day, Alinsky's principles play prominently in the counsel that David has given to grass roots groups of all kinds.

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, April 8, 2011.

This was written by Seth Mandel, a writer specializing in Middle Eastern politics and a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Horowitz Freedom Center. It appeared today in Front Page Magazine and is archived at


The revolutions in the Arab world that began earlier this year were noticeably low on anti-Jewish propaganda, leading many scholars to express the hope that the West had less to lose from the overthrow of men like Hosni Mubarak than previously thought. But if German scholar Matthias Küntzel is correct, one incident should adjust the expectations that the Muslim Brotherhood — who expect to perform well in Egypt's upcoming parliamentary elections — can be a moderating force in Egyptian politics.

That one incident was the return and reception of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the leading Brotherhood theologian who has praised Hitler and endorsed the Islamic acceptance of terrorism against Israel.

"It was no accident that Ahmadinejad, after the first time he [expressed] his Holocaust denial — a kind of propaganda coup — the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt were the first to applaud," Küntzel, author of Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11, told me in an interview this week. "And also his promise to destroy Israel was of course very welcomed by the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. So I think that anti-Semitism is a central part of their ideology."

But the Brotherhood is taking part in a democratic process, and they are seemingly pushing a reformist political agenda, which is leading to a debate over whether their history and ideology can be separated from their role in day-to-day politics. Küntzel warns against this. "On the one hand they are of course reformists as far as their political strategy is concerned," Küntzel said. "So they want to participate in democratic elections. But that does not change their program. And we had the same in Germany. Adolf Hitler tried it with a putsch for the fist time in 1923, and later his Nazi party changed the approach and tried the parliamentary way... via the democratic way."

The question we must ask, Küntzel said, is what the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood are, rather than how they attempt to gain power. "And as far as foreign policy is concerned, they want to destroy Israel, definitely. There is no differentiation between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. ... This is their program. You can see their program realized in the Gaza Strip today."

Küntzel's groundbreaking work exposing the strain of Nazi ideology present in the Islamist world and how it got there earned him the Anti-Defamation League's Paul Ehrlich-Gunther K. Schwerin Human Rights Award in February — an honor usually given to politicians or other public servants.

"This was a big surprise for me," Küntzel said, adding that the award was received with great appreciation not just from Küntzel himself, but from other researchers and writers in the field.

"Matthias Küntzel has a long and distinguished record in speaking out against anti-Semitism and warning his readers in his native Germany and elsewhere about the dangers posed by this age-old virus that has no known cure," ADL Director Abe Foxman said at the award ceremony. "His work has been sorely under-appreciated in this country. With this recognition, we hope to acknowledge his ongoing efforts and also let the American public know of the implications of this disturbing trend."

I asked Küntzel how important individual players, such as Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who was the mufti of Jerusalem during WWII and struck up an alliance with the Nazis, were to the successful transmission of Nazi anti-Semitism to the Muslim world.

Very important, was the answer — especially in light of what was essentially a partnership in Jew-hatred between the two. "He made the suggestion to the Nazis in the thirties that he they should use this type of radio propaganda against the Jews, so it went both ways," he said. "At the time, only the Italian fascists used the tool."

On the other hand, he noted, al-Husseini wasn't well known or popular in Iran during that time, so there was a limit to how far the mufti could spread the propaganda. In the case of Iran, the Nazis used a popular radio host who could spread their ideology in a way that was localized to Iranian issues and Persian culture.

"The most important thing is the concept on the whole that you sell anti-Semitism in a way which fits to the people's customs," Küntzel said. This meant recognizing that the Arab-Israeli conflict was a much more salient issue among Arabs than in Iran. "The Nazis were smart enough to make this differentiation."

Küntzel is very disappointed with the response by Western leaders to the naked anti-Semitism and the presence of Nazi ideology in public statements by influential clerics like Qaradawi, such as when he praised the Holocaust.

"If the pope would do something like this, or some of those surrounding the pope in Rome, there would be an outcry throughout the world," Küntzel said. "But if this kind of very important Muslim speaker does the same, there is silence. And the reason is that people underestimate and don't know much about the roots of this anti-Semitism. The traditional way to analyze this is to say, well this is the result of the Middle East conflict so if Israel and Zionism would behave more correctly and we can finish with the conflict, then we can finish with anti-Semitism as well."

This is what Küntzel calls the filter that exists between actual events and their interpretation. Anti-Semitism, or at least a certain strain of it, was imported into the Middle East, and is now being exported from it.

"We are just at the beginning of a change in the analysis of the roots of the anti-Semitism in the Middle East," Küntzel said. "And I consider this a very important task also to educate Western governments that this is not just the outcome of a conflict caused by Jews who immigrated to Palestine, but that this is something very similar to Nazi anti-Semitism and has to be taken as seriously as the Nazi anti-Semitism was taken."

Küntzel said he is trying to dispel the false assumption that anti-Semitism has anything to do with Jewish behavior — it doesn't. Anti-Semitism stems from the mind of the anti-Semite, not with anything the Jews do. So to couch it in terms of a Jewish issue, he said, is completely backwards. It is the province of non-Jews, and therefore must be dealt with by non-Jews as well, not ignored. The Jews, he said, can't do anything about anti-Semitism if it is not dealt with by society at large.

And it's the job of researchers and educators not the fall into this trap, and to be willing to reassess and reevaluate preconceived notions such as this, when they are so clearly an obstacle to an accurate understanding of the issue.

"This is an ongoing struggle in the academic world," Küntzel said.

UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Dave Nathan, April 8, 2011.

This was written by David J. Rusin,
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2011/04/ cnn-islamophobia-piece-relies-on-flagrant


A March 27 article by CNN.com religion editor Dan Gilgoff is slanted journalism at its worst. Beyond the usual downplaying of radical Islam and tugging on heartstrings, it lies by omission, withholding vital data about a mosque incident to advance the narrative of Muslim victimhood.

Titled "In key American Muslim enclave, alienation is growing," the piece explores how Detroit-area Muslims are "feeling ostracized" because of the recent radicalization hearing, efforts to ban Shari'a law in courts, and so on. Arguing that Muslims are "under attack," Gilgoff highlights the case of Roger Stockham, a Californian who drove to Michigan, allegedly boasted of plans to bomb a mosque, and was arrested on January 24 outside Dearborn's Islamic Center of America (ICA) with fireworks in his car. Gilgoff lets a mosque leader explain the purported lesson:

To [ICA executive administrator Kassem] Allie, the incident is evidence that some Americans are being radicalized against Islam, turning the allegation of growing Muslim radicalization on its head.

"The suspect was apparently radicalized quite some time ago," Allie said. "And there are other instances of radicalization that are of great concern to us. "I have no problem addressing Islamic radicalization," he said, monitoring the mosque's security cameras from a computer screen in his ground-floor office. "But there should be an acknowledgment that other communities have the same problem."

However, in his desire to portray this as a clear-cut example of violent "Islamophobia" in action, Gilgoff never bothers to tell readers about credible evidence that Stockham himself is Muslim.

Back on January 31, the AP described the arrestee as "a Vietnam veteran-turned Muslim holy warrior" based on what he had said to a Detroit restaurant manager, who later testified that in addition to bragging about the plot, Stockham had told him about becoming Muslim and joining the "mujahedeen." Stockham's own attorney also called his client an "Islamic convert." Behaving like a radical Sunni, the defendant rejected his first lawyer because "he is a Shiite and I am not," asserting that the man attends the Shiite-run ICA. The same news item cites sources claiming that Stockham spoke fluent Arabic and quoted from the Koran during an interview.

Many jumped to conclusions about Stockham before all the information was in, but it had been in for almost two months on March 27, when Gilgoff's article appeared. Yet he mentions none of it, depicting this as a case of "Islamophobia," even as data suggest Islamic sectarian violence.

Two weeks have passed and the piece has done great harm, but news consumers still can make their voices heard. Dan Gilgoff is entitled to his own opinion — but not his own facts.

Contact Dave Nathan at DaveNathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, April 7, 2011.

Perhaps nothing so illuminated the true nature of the Israeli chattering classes and the Israeli Far Left, the two groups largely overlapping, as the past week's outpouring of passion and grief over the murder in Jenin of "half-Jewish, half Arab" terrorist Juliano Mer Khasin. Mer was offed by Islamist terrorists, probably because he was a Jew, sort of one. One cannot pick up am Israeli newspaper or open an Israeli news web service without running up against one piece after the next proclaiming the murder of Mer a cosmic tragedy, a catastrophic "death of hope." Mer-Khasin was proclaimed almost everywhere one looked as the ultimate symbol of Middle East reconciliation. Even "moderate" Israeli leftists, those not openly communist or "anarchist," wept their eyes out and rended their designer jeans at the great tragedy. And every anti-Semitic web site on earth, even the Neo-Nazi "Counterpunch" web site of Alexander Cockburn (or, as I call him, Alexander Burncock), ran long maudlin pieces about how boo-hoo sad they were over the murder of Mer Khasin. Many pretended not to know WHO killed Mer. See this for example:

I suspect that the only statement you ran across claiming that Mer Khasin was a disgusting terrorist, one the world was much better off without, was the one you got from me. But I have now been joined by Kalman Liebskind, who is a young columnist at Maariv, and - in my opinion - the very best Op-Ed writer now active in Israel.

Why is the wacky Israeli Left so enamored with Juliano Mer Khasin? I suspect it is because Mer-Khasin represents the ultimate leftist fantasy. Son of a Jewish communist woman who married an Arab communist and raised Juliano as an Arab anti-Semite, Mer Khasin personifies the post-Jewish fantasy of the radical self-hating Israeli Left, seeking the post-Jew morphing into a Palestinian. It is the wet dream that all radical Israeli leftists seem to pursue.

I counted 126,000 web sites "mourning" Mer. Here the international Left found its perfect hero — a half-Jew joining in Palestinian terrorism and promoting the annihilation of Israel. Who says that leftists hate all Jews? — here is one they ADORE!

Even seemingly sane and moderate Israeli leftists, like Eitan Haber, a stalwart in the Israeli Labor Party (and one-time senior defense advisor to Yitzhhak Rabin), cried their eyes out at the passing of the great "symbol of hope and peace." (Haber was the fellow who pronounced back in 95 the now famous statement, "The state of Israel announces in dismay the death of Yitzhak Rabin," and so in some ways represents the early Oslo "process" of Rabin and old-style Labor Party ideology.)

Just what exactly was Mer a symbol of? The answer is terrorism, Arab fascism, and anti-Semitism.

Kalman Liebskind in today's paperblasts to smithereens the hypocritical "mourning" over Mer Khasin much better than I did. He attacks the legions of Israeli talking heads on TV, on radio, and in the print media, wringing their hands melodramatically over the death of this great symbol of peace. Here are some excerpts from Liebskind's column today in Maariv (April 8):

"The newspapers that filled pages after pages with hype about the romantic character of Mer did not allow any facts to lead them astray. Haaretz' Tzipi Shohat wrote about the beautiful soul who devoted his life to spreading the message of peace. Yediot Ahronot ran Eitan Haber proclaiming poetically that along with Mer the hope for peace died. Maariv (Liebskind's own paper — SP) ran Gila Almagor expressing her passionate yearning for 'the most beautiful of men, a wild stallion, whom I loved so much.' Juliano Mer's extremist politics, and they alone, allowed this violent, vile person, vulgar without precedent, a man who threw rocks at demonstrators he disliked, who physically assaulted the late Haaretz cartoonist Zeev, who strangled one actress while punching a second one - only HIS POLITICS allowed this creature still to enjoy the adoration of his comrades and fans, proclaiming their love for him

"The director Avi Nesher declared that this week he felt like a member of his own family had died. Amos Gitai, a film producer, saw Mer as the 'third generation of people who sought to redress with their own bodies the hate between nations.' Almagor asked, 'Who could have possibly killed, on the ground in Jenin, a man in front of his own son?' As if she does not know exactly who could and did. As if she had no idea whatsoever who Mer's friends and associates were. As if no one ever told her about the theater student from Mer's Jenin theater who went off and murdered four women in a terrorist attack in Hadera, Israel. As if she simply forgot that Mer's best friend was terrorist leader Zakaria Zabeidi, in the past commander of terror units in Jenin. You take a look at this gang of chatterers and have trouble understanding the blindness that prevents them from seeing the assault rifle pointed at them, a rifle they insist is the beak of a white dove of peace.

"These 'heroes of our culture' continued to adore Mer even after he signed a petition demanding that their own cultural and artistic institutions be boycotted by everyone in the world. These groupies of Mer applauded him even when he proclaimed Zionism 'one of the worst crimes against humanity in history.' They continued to swoon at his beauty when he served as the spokesman for the suicide bombers. They simply turned the page when they read his statements of glee in the newspapers whenever Arafat's people shot and bombed Israelis. When Mer supported and celebrated the lying libelous smear film produced by Mohammed Bakri called 'Jenin, Jenin," a filthy piece of incitement against Israeli soldiers, the 'heroes of culture' demanded to continue to stand by Mer's side. When Mer proclaimed that his dream was to see a single Palestinian state stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, encompassing all of Israel, the 'heroes' beatified him as a great seeker of peace. When Mer told a newspaper interviewer that he endorsed all violence that was directed against policemen, racists, fascists and Israelis from the Right, he was proclaimed by the Israeli bleeding hearts a great master of reconciliation.

"These are the pathetic members of the gang who this week declared that with Mer's death all chances for peace also died. Mer himself always cursed these people, and endorsed terrorist violence against them, served as apologist and spokesman for those who bombed them. These are little Jewish Uncle Toms, who still applaud him and now mourn him with passion and romance."


One addition to Liebskind. Mer Khasin's partner in the Jenin "liberation theater" where he worked was none other than Dror Feiler. You may recall Feiler as the bloke who constructed a sculpture exhibit in Sweden to celebrate as "Snow White Pure" the woman suicide bomber who murdered 23 Israelis, including children, in the Haifa Maxim restaurant. Feiler was also one of the terrorists on the Gaza Flotilla ship, on which the savages attempted to murder unarmed Israeli soldiers.

And just to complete the picture of the passionate determination of the Israeli media to pursue national self-annihilation, just this week one Israeli TV station aired a propaganda film about Pnina Feiler, the Stalinist pro-terror mother of Dror
(http://www.iwff.net/en/Films.asp?Yid=2010&Fid=269). She was one of the people promoting and celebrating Tali Fahima, the Jewish Israeli woman who was jailed for helping her Palestinian terrorist boyfriend plan terror atrocities. (Fahima's terrorist boyfriend was the very same Zakaria Zubeida who headed the Jenin theater in which Mer worked!) Momma Feiler too is a great romantic heroine and role model seeking peace and reconciliation. So perhaps the hope of the post-Mer Israeli chattering classes is not completely dead after all.

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@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, April 7, 2011.

This was written by Yoel Meltzer and it appeared in Israel Opinion.


In all likelihood, the Palestinians are going to unilaterally declare statehood in Judea and Samaria within the coming year. This is not a ploy or a desperate attempt on their part but rather a clear, rational decision. By correctly gauging the stark contrast between the massive international support for their cause as opposed to the steadily increasing de-legitimization of Israel the "apartheid state," the Palestinians have wisely decided to bypass direct negotiations since there is no point in paying for something when you can get if for free.

Thus, with country after country pledging its support, the Palestinians are going to take their case to the United Nations.

There, the Palestinians have nothing to lose for even if the Security Council rejects their bid for statehood, it will most likely be approved by the General Assembly. Although this is less significant than an endorsement by the Security Council, an approval by the General Assembly does nonetheless have some teeth. Most notably, as many commentators pointed out, there is something known as UNGA Resolution 377 that allows the General Assembly to call for sanctions or even military force against a country that fails to implement its recommendations.

If the "civilized world" helps bring the Palestinian plan to fruition then a very likely result of such actions will be the outbreak of war. Thus, in a world turned upside down it will be the UN, a body formed to help foster peace throughout the world, which will be directly responsible for bringing the next great Arab-Israeli war to the Middle East.

Notably, more than 60 years ago the Palestinians rejected a similar state that had been allotted to them by the UN. A few months later when Israel had the "chutzpa" to declare a state, rather than reject one, in the portion they were granted by the UN, several Arab countries attacked the new Jewish state. That was the first war of independence, a result of Arab refusal to receive anything less than 100%.

In the following years, nothing has fundamentally changed in this respect, the only difference being that the Arabs have finally learned how to achieve their goal. Thus they're ready to accept what they formally rejected as a means for eventually getting it all.

Tsunami is coming

This brings us to today and the quickly approaching second war of independence. Unlike 60 years ago, this time around nearly the entire international community will be aligned with the Palestinians against Israel, making Israel the sole villain.

The war will not break out immediately, but rather, it will slowly escalate. First there will be calls for sanctions against Israel for failing to immediately remove its military and citizens from the new Arab state in Judea and Samaria. Then there will be the predictable eruption of terrorist attacks in Judea and Samaria, making life hell for the Jews living there. The attacks will then spill over into the rest of Israel, bringing back memories of the horror of a decade ago. Next up will be rocket attacks from Hamas in the south and Hezbollah in the north. Thanks to a porous border with Egypt as well as other regional changes, Iran will have no problem constantly rearming its proxies.

As the attacks intensify, Israel will be routinely chastised for retaliating and not showing proper restraint, as such Arab attacks will be viewed as somewhat understandable in light of continued Israeli noncompliance. Moreover, Israeli reprisals will probably draw some neighboring countries into the fray as they all begin to sense Israel's imminent downfall.

If Israel is still obstinate following the sanctions and Arab attacks, then the UN may call for military intervention in order to enforce the will of the international community. Consequently, they will do to Israel what they will never do to Iran. After all, Israel's continued presence in Judea and Samaria - and not Arab violence, terrorism, hatred, anti-Semitism and intransigence — will be considered, like it is today, as being the main reason that peace and harmony is lacking in the region.

Following the isolating effect of sanctions and de-legitimization, together with incessant terrorist attacks and missile showers, the threat of military intervention will probably do the trick. Having been cowered by the cumulative effect of all the actions, Israel will be sufficiently pliable to give in on everything — the removal of all Jewish presence from Judea and Samaria, the acceptance of the return of Palestinian refugees to Israel, the division and internalization of Jerusalem. Thus, the Palestinian War of Independence, the first stage in the total elimination of the State of Israel, will come to a conclusion.

Is this scenario an exaggeration? Perhaps, although one should keep in mind that before the Gaza Disengagement there were those who warned that the Israeli pullout from Gaza would result in missiles landing in nearby Ashkelon. As expected, such voices were ridiculed and ultimately ignored. History of course showed that these "right-wing hawks" erred. They were far too conservative with their predictions as missiles not only exploded in nearby Ashkelon but even reached Beersheba, nearly 50 kilometers to the east.

Israel, the tsunami is coming. Wake up!

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 7, 2011.

This afternoon an anti-tank missile shot from Gaza hit a school bus that was traveling just outside Kibbutz Sa'ad in the Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council district, in the south of Israel.

Most of the children had been dropped off already. One 16 year old boy was left on the bus, which apparently took a direct hit. An anti-tank missile is directed, not a Kassam that meanders randomly.

The boy was thrown into the road, which is where medics found him, unconscious. He was air-lifted to the trauma unit of Soroka Hospital in Be'ersheva, where he is in critical condition. The driver, who took shrapnel in his leg, was also taken to the hospital.


A barrage of rockets and mortars continued — some 45 in all — even after this hit, and residents of the area were ordered into shelters.


Defense Minister Ehud Barak ordered the IDF to respond to the attack "immediately" and to use "all necessary means" (whatever that implies). He said that Israel holds the Hamas terrorist organization "completely responsible for all attacks emanating from Gaza."

Within an hour, Israel Air Force fighter pilots had gone up: According to the IDF spokesman, two terrorist squads, who were involved in firing military-use projectiles at the Israel from the southern and northern Gaza Strip, were successfully targeted. Additionally, artillery forces returned fire at the area in the northern Gaza Strip from which the anti-tank missile had been launched.

And apparently this operation is not yet over.

Barak said the use of an anti-tank missile to hit the bus was very serious "because it hit deep within Israel's territory from deep within the Strip."

So I ask, if it came from near Gaza's border with Israel, and hit an Israeli target just on the other side (meaning a less powerful projectile was in play), that wouldn't be serious? Any fire of rockets, missiles or mortars against our civilian population is serious! This is part of the problem now, that every single projectile sent across Gaza's border has not been taken seriously. (Maybe it was "just" a Kassam, and it fizzled without injury, and so, nu, let it go with just some tough words.)

"This is something we cannot accept," declared Barak. "The actions being taken now are a reaction to this incident and they will continue as long as necessary in order to clarify that these things cannot go on."


And what I wish to say is that this is not nearly sufficient. This tit-for-tat response, this attitude that "you hit us, we'll make you pay by hitting you back."

It is, in my humble opinion, time to disable Hamas's ability to damage us. Past time. We didn't carry Cast Lead far enough.


Part of what is so enraging and generates such a sense of impotence is the diplomatic climate, which renders the Israeli government super-cautious with regard to actions taking.

The hard cold fact is that if we move into Gaza to take out Hamas, civilians will be killed. We've just gone through what we've endured with Goldstone. There is, undoubtedly, reluctance to go that route again And should we go in, there will be a tip-toeing with regard to operations under-taken, with the sense that the world is looking over our soldiers' shoulders.

A war cannot be waged this way. And we indeed are at war.

The IDF is the very model of an ethical army, second to none in the world. We have nothing to apologize for. We do not target civilians. We have no desire to see civilians injured. When civilians are injured, or killed, it is because Hamas uses them as human shields. The moral culpability lies entirely with Hamas. But the world does not choose to see it this way.

No nation in the world would tolerate what we have been enduring.


Also particularly infuriating is the moxy of Hamas itself. It's breathtaking.

Hamas says it is calling on the international community to "stop Israel's aggression in the Gaza Strip." Hamas spokesman Taher Nunu indicated that they planned to appeal to the UN Security Council because Israel was not honoring a lull agreement in Gaza. Just talk, of course.

A terrorist organization that launched 45 projectiles against Israeli civilians today is complaining about Israel not honoring a lull agreement?

A lull agreement, I will add, that has dubious value because it allows Hamas to keep arming and preparing, even when it is in place — meaning matters will be worse the next time they choose to hit.

Nunu said the rockets and missiles were launched to protect the people of Gaza and "pressure the occupation to stop its crimes."


So what does the IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz say?

I am "sure we will take control of matters. We will do everything that needs to be done."

Gantz is new, and it's too soon to assess where he will be going with this. I want to be careful not to second-guess what may be in the planning.

However, according to YNet, when Gantz was asked if the IDF was headed for a second Cast Lead, he advised citizens not to be "hysterical."


This, then, is the opinion of one "hysterical" citizen. Not an army officer, just a writer. But this is what I see:

Hamas doesn't care if one team or another gets taken out. Those lost can be replaced. Remember, they celebrate death, not life. If one launching site or cache of weapons is destroyed — so, they keep going, for they've got lots more.

I don't believe we have to level Gaza, nor am I suggesting we should. But the hit on Hamas, however it is planned, must be serious enough to genuinely and deeply cripple their capacity to act.

One reader, who will recognize himself, just wrote to say that we both know Hamas keeps weapons in underground bunkers. And indeed he's correct. But I'm not sure we have to take out every weapon, although it's likely with bunker busters we can take some that are hidden.

We must take out what weapons caches we can reach and hit those who manufacture weapons (the recent capture of Abu Sisi was marvelous in this regard and there may be more yet).

And we have to, finally, work to stop the smuggling of weapons, which might even mean a presence on the Philadephi Corridor.

We have to target their leadership vigorously as well, so they are too busy trying to save their lives to think about hitting us.

We have to hit them in multiple ways that will generate fear of us in their hearts. I see it as essential. This is for the sake of deterrence with regard to Hamas. But also more broadly.

We cannot be seen to tremble with hesitation now. We cannot seem to operate only with knee-jerk responses to a terrorist organization that is calling the shots.

Hezbollah is also watching.


Now that I've said it, we must watch and see how this particular action plays out and whether anything serious is in the works. There are undoubtedly vast amounts of information that I am not privy to. As I complete this posting — which I've decided to send through — first reports of a "cease fire" with Hamas are coming through. Don't know what that means yet.


I will mention once again my concern that what needs to be done is best done while the military still controls Egypt. If radicals take over, the dynamic shifts seriously.


I will also mention here the Iron Dome missile defense batteries, two of which have been installed in the south — one in Be'ersheva and one now in Ashkelon. Today, for the very first time, a Grad rocket headed for Ashkelon was intercepted by Iron Dome. This is good. It is not, however, the final answer. For many batteries would be required to provide full protection of the south, and intercepting every projectile that came from Gaza would become prohibitively expensive.


The US has condemned the attack on the school bus. I have yet to hear that either the UN or the EU have.


There will not be another posting until after Shabbat.

Allow me to make one correction — some of you received a version of my last posting that identified Eli Yishai as from Yisrael Beitenu, and he is, of course, from Shas.

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Phillips, April 7, 2011.

The news reports that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaeda terrorist mastermind behind the September 11th attacks, will be prosecuted by a U.S. military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay, come at a time like no other in Arab history. The dissent and rebellion in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, and most recently in Syria has caused most of the mainstream media to speculate about a future Middle East where moderates have a greater influence.

Cooler heads have pointed out that there is still much to be concerned about in regard to the growth and strength of al-Qaeda. For example, Admiral James Stavridis, NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, while testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill in late March reported that there was al-Qaeda activity among the rebel groups in Libya.

Dr. Judea Pearl is the father of slain American journalist Daniel Pearl. Daniel Pearl was the victim of another of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's vicious crimes. Dr. Pearl has chosen to speak out in recent weeks about his current concerns. And, again, the mainstream media has been uniformly silent. On February 23, 2011 Dr. Pearl shared with journalist Cliff Kincaid the reasons for his scrutiny of Al Jazeera.

Dr. Pearl's remarks included the following statement:

In the past four years I have been watching Al Jazeera carefully, through direct translation from their Arabic station, and I am sorry to state that the network has been shifting steadily from a posture of moderation and coexistence to a total and open alignment with the most extreme elements of the Arab world, including Hamas and Hezbollah.

Dr. Pearl also said:

Their unconditional support of Hamas's terror in Gaza, the Hezbollah takeover in Lebanon, and the Syrian and Iranian regimes betrays any illusion that democracy and human rights are on Al Jazeera's agenda — weakening the West is their first priority. Al Jazeera is an anti-Western propaganda machine that also engages in news services for profit and status.

To read Dr. Pearl's entire statement see:

Cliff Kincaid has done more than anyone else in recent months to expose the dangers of allowing Al Jazeera to broadcast across U.S. pay TV systems such as Comcast and others. Kincaid is the Director of the AIM (Accuracy In Media) Center for Investigative Journalism and the president of America's Survival, Inc. (ASI). Visit both www.usasurvival.org and www.aim.org to catch up on Kincaid's investigations.

On Friday, April 1, 2011 Kincaid organized a press briefing about Al Jazeera at the National Press Club. The program was called "Al-Jazeera, Global Jihad, and the Suicide of the West" and video coverage of the event is available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rR1XzY88ugo. It did not garner the attention it should have.

There should be no doubt that Cliff Kincaid, Dr. Pearl and others are providing warnings that are well worth giving full consideration. Tragically, on April Fool's Day in Washington, D.C. too many members the mainstream media skipped this vital press conference and instead decided to continue to fool with America's future security.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/05/ the-danger-in-al-jazeeras-new-branding/

Moshe Phillips is a member of the Executive Committee of the Philadelphia Chapter of Americans For a Safe Israel — AFSI. The chapter's new website is at: www.phillyafsi.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Marvin Belsky, April 7, 2011.

This was written by Martin Peretz


The scholarly texts of the Jews argue that "even though a Jew has sinned" — which in this context means sinned against his own — "he remains Israel." We can leave it for the Lord Almighty to decide whether Richard Goldstone remains among His chosen. Still, whether the judge can worship with members of the congregation, as he was finally permitted to do at his grandson's bar mitzvah last spring, remains in the hands of those who'd have to pray with him. If I were them, I would not allow him. Not for one moment. Let him pray with the Hamas Islamists who he believed or pretended to believe in his famous Gaza war crimes report would, like Israel has done, "investigate, transparently and in good faith," the charges made against them. Goldstone is crystal clear in his Washington Post disavowal of the report's accusations of intentional killing by Israel of non-Hamas Palestinians: "civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy." On the other hand, Hamas's rockets "were purposefully and indiscriminately aimed at civilian targets." Here is the judge's pathetic confession: "If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document." But why didn't Goldstone and his fellow judges know? Well, for one thing, two of his three companions on the U.N. Human Rights Council judicial panel on Gaza, Christine Chinkin of the London School of Economics and Hila Jilanu, a Pakistani jurist, had already condemned Israel even before the hanging court had been formed. And Richard Falk, the Council's designated rapporteur on Israel, has been nothing less than an enemy of the Jewish state for decades. You don't believe me? All you have to do is google Falk and Israel. There'll be no surprises. Anyway, the Council endorsed the report by a margin of 25 to 6. Were you surprised by this one?

It took The New York Times fully two days to publish anything in print (and, by the way, only on an inside page) about Goldstone's sudden repudiation of his work. (Up to a few weeks ago he was peddling his old wares to anyone who would buy.) Is this the Times's way of saying that such a recantation really has little meaning? But, of course, it is not only the Times which is allergic to admitting the falsehoods to which it gave currency and gave that currency altogether without scrutiny. Goldstone's report and his reputation (a drastically scrubbed-up reputation if you haven't researched his years as an apartheid judge) have since September 2009 become the poison gas with which the whole Israeli-Palestinian dispute has been made rancid and fiendishly immune to facts, let alone to the truth.

The lopsidedness of the voting in international institutions speaks neither to the alleged depravity of Israel nor to the justice of the immoveable ultimata made by the Abbas regime. It reflects a widespread contempt in the world for the Jews — for their intrinsic peoplehood and their achievements, embodied in the State of Israel, in modern nation-building and daring renewal. Believe me: I do not gloat. Still, the comparison between pluralistic Zion and the deteriorating state of just about each and every Arab society, now on display in rancor and in blood, could have, should have evoked some identification with Israel's cause. It will not, and not least because the very structure of global power is based in and has been routinized by illegitimate authority. It is gangster dictators who decide what will fly in the United Nations. More that that: These tyrants have been succored by the European and other democratic powers, to say nothing of the gargantuan dictatorships of People's China and Ruse on what to do about Libya at arms. Each of them (representatives of the United Kingdom, the United States, and France, for example) had done dirty work — no, really filthy work — for the mad tyrant and they were now negotiating with his sons.

Israel apparently will try to get the General Assembly to recant its endorsement of the Goldstone verdict on the Jewish crimes in Gaza. After all, the judge himself has recanted. Es vet helfn vi a toit'n bankes, my mother used to say: "It will help like hot suction cups will help a dead man." Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic made the point early on after the judge confessed to his sins: "a blood libel, hard to retract once it's been broadcast around the world." Maybe Washington, which voted against the report, will take the leadership role on this. The president, the secretary of state, and the American ambassador to the U.N. have, it bears remembering, argued that our presence at the Human Rights Council can make a difference. Will Obama even try? It would mean, of course, that another one of his exemplary lessons in creative engagement will collapse.

There should be many shamed faces in the crowd. The foreign high priest of the Palestinian cause is Desmond Tutu who, like his rival Jimmy Carter, finds no charge against Israel too preposterous to leave to, well, the gagasphere. But they have neither been heard from on Goldstone nor explained their silence. The Financial Times, which is the most consistent and hyperbolic critic of Israel in the United Kingdom, initially went bananas in praise of the Goldstone Report. It has not been heard from since the jurist's own mea culpa. The human rights organizations? Ditto. Stephen Walt, Juan Cole, John Esposito, Naomi Klein, Michael Lerner, Letty Cottin Pogrebin, J-Street, which peddled the report door-to-door on Capitol Hill. Here's my projection: Not a one of them will come clean.

As is the case with the Israeli "peace left." Not Peace Now, not the New Israel Fund, not B'tselem, not Agudah Lezchuyot Haezrch. And not Ha'aretz, either. They have made pacts with the devil.

To Go To Top

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, April 7, 2011.

"And Elisha said: Listen to the word of G-d, for so says G-d: At this time tomorrow a measure of fine flour will cost one shekel and two measures of barley will cost one shekel on the Shomron exchange. And the king's captain, on whom he relied, answered the man of G-d and said: Will G-d make windows in heaven? Will this thing take place? And he answered: You will see it with your eyes but you will not eat from there.
(From this week's Prophets portion, Kings II, 7:1-2)

Everyone was starving to death in Shomron, the kingdom of Israel's capital. There was even cannibalism. The mighty Aram army was deployed in siege mode in the valley, patiently waiting for the city to fall. Not only did they have an abundance of food, but also heaps of gold and silver. Why work hard and endanger themselves trying to climb up the treacherous slopes and menacing fortifications to Shomron? Soon, they were sure, the starving population would surrender their city for a few crumbs.

And the prophet? What does he have to say about this dire situation?

The prophet Elisha writes an economic forecast that seems to be taken from Globes. Does anybody really care how much grain will cost on the local exchange? Couldn't he simply say that tomorrow morning there will be abundant food for all?

G-d's Divine Providence is everywhere, but it is most obvious in economics. Economics is not science. No experts were able to tell us exactly when the last economic crisis would occur. Like historians, economists do a better job explaining what happened in the past than forecasting what will take place in the future.

If an economic expert had claimed five years ago that the Israeli currency would be the most stable in the (Western) world and that the entire world would flee the dollar, he would likely have been ridiculed, just as the captain ridiculed Elisha. But we are witnessing an economic miracle unfolding live. Due to the fact that we are the recipients of the miracle, we do not recognize it as such. We do not understand how the Creator changes the world - first and foremost through its economies.

Just as the Aram army fled within minutes, so America and Europe are disintegrating before our eyes. A new, G-dly world is waiting at the door. The process is being led by the economy. Elisha understood the axis around which all the processes were taking place and used it to depict reality.

Our Sages predicted that before the redemption, the gold of all the world will flow to the Land of Israel. The light that will shine forth from Zion will be preceded by great wealth, so that Israel's wisdom will not be the scorned wisdom of the destitute.

The gold is already starting to flow. Now we have to make sure to be worthy of the miracles.

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell)

To Go To Top

Posted by P. David Hornik, April 7, 2011.

"With the winds of change blowing through the Arab world, it's more urgent than ever that we try to seize the opportunity to create a peaceful solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis," President Obama said yesterday after meeting with Israeli president Shimon Peres.

Peres's visit is widely regarded as a groundbreaker for a visit in May by Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is expected to come under a mounting tide of pressure on the Palestinian-state issue, culminating in a Palestinian attempt to secure UN recognition of a Palestinian state in September.

Meanwhile a poll by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has found that one-third of Palestinians approve the attack in the Israeli West Bank community of Itamar in March. In the attack five members of the Fogel family — the parents as well as their 11-year-old son, 4-year-old son, and 3-month-old daughter — were stabbed to death in their home.

Four decades ago America was shocked by the Manson murders, in which intruders shot and stabbed to death four adults and a teenage boy at the house of actress Sharon Tate in Los Angeles (Tate, one of the stabbing victims, was eight months pregnant). One can imagine the horror Americans would feel toward any society one-third of whose members would approve the Manson murders. On the scale of horror, the Itamar massacre, given the ages of three of the victims, was even worse.

And two other points should be made. One is that the Itamar perpetrators have not yet been caught — in contrast to other Palestinian terror attacks where Israeli security forces usually quickly nabbed the culprits. The delay this time is attributed to Israel having withdrawn its forces from much of the West Bank, to be replaced by U.S.-trained Palestinian forces.

And second, while the ages of the young Itamar victims may indeed have been "too much" for many Palestinians, that wasn't the case with the 2008 massacre by gunfire of seven teenage boys and a young man in a Jerusalem yeshiva. That attack won the approval of 84 percent of Palestinians.

The above — focusing on the murderous anti-Israeli hatred of many of the Palestinians who are supposed to be awarded a state abutting Israel — can be added to the many arguments against such a state, at least at this time, that make no impression on the devout. Or as Netanyahu himself said recently — not about a Palestinian state per se, but about the supposed centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the region and the world — "There is no evidence that these true believers will not ignore."

Take, for instance, the above statement by Obama, who must be counted among those believers. Rationally speaking, the "winds of change blowing through the Arab world" should not make "more urgent than ever" the creation of a Palestinian state, but induce more wariness than ever. Those winds have already blown away the Mubarak government in Egypt, which upheld a formal albeit icy-cold peace with Israel for three decades, and is likely to be replaced by a far more hostile, quite possibly belligerent regime.

Then there's Jordan, also formally at peace with Israel since 1994, now subject as well to instability and seething with Islamist and Palestinian hatred of Israel. As for Syria, while the Alawite regime of the Assads is already one of the most hostile toward Israel, it's also a regime that has — out of pragmatism — maintained a peaceful border since 1973; its weakening, and the rise of Sunni Islamists in its stead, could well put an end to that pragmatism.

Rationally, then, the overall instability of the Middle East, where regimes can disappear overnight, is not an argument for creating yet another Middle Eastern state squeezed up against your borders; it's an argument against it. To this must be added the results of Israel's previous territorial withdrawals over the past decade — from Lebanon, leading to Hezbollah's takeover of the south and eventually of the whole country, now teeming with military facilities directed at Israel; and from Gaza, leading to the empowerment of Hamas and an ongoing nightmare of rocket fire and warfare.

Put popular Palestinian hatred in the mix, and the idea of the Palestinian state as an urgent policy goal emerges as not just irrational but crazy. It's been suggested that Netanyahu, instead of trying to parry the pressures with deft diplomatic games, should start boldly enunciating the truth. It makes a lot of sense.

David Hornik is a freelance writer and translator living in Beersheva. He blogs at http://pdavidhornik.typepad.com/. He can be reached at pdavidh2001@yahoo.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, April 6, 2011.

"When people look at my pictures I want them to feel the way they do when they want to read a line of a poem twice." - Robert Frank


The greatest joys of photography are most often in the doing and only rarely in viewing the results. I don't specialize in wildlife photography, but I do understand the thrill of the hunt that drives this genre of photographer. I also know that horses don't qualify as wildlife, but anyone who has spent time with them knows they are among the gentlest and most emotive members of the animal kingdom.

And so I gladly pulled off Route 91 on the Golan Heights to admire a quartet of horses grazing on fresh spring offerings. Animals, much like people, can deflate the best candid moments once the photographer is noticed. I approached the group slowly and silently and took a series of shots with a long lens. Sure enough, after a few moments, the horses looked up, broke their symmetry, and wandered over to say hello.

The backlighting worked well and this pair of animals posed without complaint, but the pleasure of those moments spent just watching them enjoy their floral feast filled me with a deeper satisfaction than this photo ever will. Happy birthday to my daughter, Liora, 20 years beautiful today.

Technical Data: Nikon D700, 70-200mm lens at 175mm, f8@ 1/500 sec., ISO 200.

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 6, 2011.

I try mightily to maintain a professional standard as I write these postings. It is for this reason that I must censor myself with regard to what I'd like to say about South African jurist Richard Goldstone. Those who understand, will understand. Goldstone, in an interview with the AP, let it be known that he does not intend to seek retraction or nullification of his report on our operation in Gaza. In his interview, Goldstone said:

"Further information as a result of domestic investigations could lead to further reconsideration, but as presently advised I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time." (Emphasis added)

How can he say this, when he just said last week that if he had known when he wrote the report what he knows now, it would have been a different report? When he admitted that, even though the report charged Israel with the war crime of targeting civilians, he now recognizes that this was not the case?

He can say this because he's a man beyond scruples, beyond shame. A shill for anti-Semites.

My own guess is that someone or several someones got to him. You're messing us up, he was undoubtedly told. Fix it! So (I was going to write "to his everlasting shame" but I just acknowledged that he has no shame), he fixed it.

A pox on him.


Meanwhile, a whole lot of people are angry with Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas), who called Goldstone, expressed appreciation for his "courageous" change of stance, and invited him to come to Israel to tour the south, which has been suffering rocket attacks for years.

It is being said that Yishai should have consulted with the government first. He claims he was speaking only for himself in tending that invitation. Most certainly, this would not have created the flack it has if it were not for Goldstone's retraction of his retraction.

But consider this:

Yishai says that Goldstone promised him he would take additional steps to change the status of the report. Danny Gillerman, a former Israeli ambassador to the UN, participated in this phone conversation and agrees that what Yishai claims is so. Says Gillerman, Goldstone indicated he wanted to "wait for the dust to settle."

Yet Goldstone, in his AP interview, insisted that, "There was absolutely no discussion about the Goldstone report on the call [with Yishai]." No discussion — even though Yishai called to congratulate him for changing his stance? Does Goldstone understand how foolish this makes him look?

Obviously, the someones got to him between the call from Yishai and the subsequent AP interview.


Goldstone did say Yishai invited him to Israel, but that he cannot make it until July. Should he have the nerve to come after all that has transpired, I know a lot of people will be waiting at the airport to hiss and boo him into the country.

Goldstone's parting shot in that AP interview: "I ended the conversation by expressing my love for Israel." Doesn't that just tear you up?


Well, Peres had his meeting with Obama. And subsequently, Obama, in the words of the JPost, "urged Israel to forge a peace in the Middle East..." As if one nation might "forge a peace" by itself.

Said Obama's statement: "With the winds of change blowing through the Arab world, it's more urgent than ever that we try to seize the opportunity to create a peaceful solution between the Palestinians and the Israelis."

I apologize here to my readers for the repetition. I find it as tiresome as you must, but my task is to report upon and respond to the nonsense being spouted.

Should we be surprised that this is what Obama said? Of course not. But he never packs it in.

First, I ask, WHAT opportunity? Has the president not noticed that the PA has renounced negotiations in favor of the UN gambit? Has it eluded his attention, that Abbas says he'll come to the table again only if Israel first agrees to all his terms, such as a Palestinian state within the '67 lines?

Or...is the president suggesting that we give Abbas whatever he wants, just so the negotiations progress?


The current diplomatic idea "du jour" is that the unrest in the Middle East makes it all the more important that we settle things with the Palestinian Arabs now. But this is wrong, wrong, wrong. It would be unwise to advance on this front, even if it were possible, until, as was said above, "the dust settles."

There are several reasons why it behooves us to hold tight now especially:

With current regional instability, and the possibility that Jordan might fall to Islamists, it becomes increasingly important for us to maintain that presence in the Jordan Valley (continue to control the valley, actually) and to sustain strategic depth.

It is also increasingly obvious that an accord with the PA would not be worth the paper it was written on; this is something that has always been clear to those willing to see — it's just MORE clear now. For the PA itself may be overthrown by Islamists, too, And if that were the case after an accord, we would be more vulnerable because we would have pulled back to make room for that state.

Lastly, there is radicalism in the air, not moderation, and the spine of the PA leaders is stiffened as they tilt towards that radical stance. This is not a time to talk with them. They are not going to moderate on nothing, no how. They wouldn't dare.

And yet, with great sagacity, a host of know-nothings persist in the suggestion that now is the time for "peace." I am sorry to note that Abe Foxman of ADL is among them.


Then we have this, which is part of the same thinking, except more so:

EU Foreign Affairs Representative Catherine Ashton put out a statement today that:

"I am deeply disappointed by the approval of 942 new housing units in the Israeli settlement of Gilo....These plans may further damage an already fragile political environment. I reiterate that the EU considers that settlement activities in the West Bank, including east Jerusalem, are illegal under international law, undermine trust between the parties and constitute an obstacle to peace."

And with this, I'm prepared, finally, to relinquish my professional stance and simply say what needs to be said: Damn them all.

"The settlement of Gilo?" This so raises ire. For Gilo is built on Jewish land and is in every way one might imagine solidly and totally a neighborhood of Jewish Jerusalem. Even if there were (G-d forbid) negotiations in which we relinquished part of Jerusalem, I assure, we would hold on to Gilo. It's a non-issue.

I believe we have rights in all of Judea and Samaria. But I can accept, in principle, that someone might argue that it's wrong to establish caravan communities on hilltops in Samaria that do not have government approval.

But for people like Ashton, there's no room for differentiation between that cluster of caravans on a hilltop and Gilo, which is totally establishment, totally government sanctioned. The common denominator, you see, is they're both past the Green Line.

That is what makes Gilo a "settlement." What this actually means, of course, is that it is past the place where the temporary ceasefire line was drawn in 1949 when the fighting between Israel and Jordan came to a halt. There is no sanctity to that line, not legally, not diplomatically, except in the distorted minds of people like Ashton.

Let it be stated here, for the millionth time: Building past the Green Line is not illegal.


As to it "undermining trust" and being "an obstacle to peace," I can only ask, once again, where Ashton and her ilk are when Fatah names city squares for terrorists? This doesn't undermine trust and create a peace obstacle? When has she came out with a statement with regard to PA praise of terrorists? Or insisted that PA textbooks stop promoting jihad?


Then to further exacerbate the issue, Ashton has this to say:

"If there is to be a genuine peace, a way must be found to resolve the status of Jerusalem as the future capital of two states."

There we have it again, a determination by an outside party of what "must" be. The Oslo Accords and all pertinent UN Security Council resolutions call for the outstanding issues to be resolved via negotiations between Israel and the PA. Last time I looked, we hadn't had those negotiations.

Of course, Ashton is totally incapable of perceiving that were we to give half of Jerusalem to the Palestinian Arabs we still wouldn't have peace. So let's leave that for the moment.

The offense here is that Ashton deigns to declare now not only that the city of Jerusalem must be divided, but that it must be divided along the Green Line — so that we are undermining the possibility of peace by building in a place like Gilo.

And why would this be so? Because the Palestinian Arabs have said so. That's why.

The EU is morally bankrupt and totally without credibility.


But let's take a quick look at the people with whom we are supposed to "make peace":

A poll has been conducted by the Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah. According to its results, one third of Palestinian Arabs located within the PA areas support the terrorist slaughter of the Fogel family last month.

While a report released today by Human Rights Watch indicates that the Palestinian Authority routinely harasses and abuses journalists. The report contained testimonies of journalists who were beaten, arrested for no reason, or had their equipment confiscated. HRW says this is PA policy.

What is it we hear, about moderate, democracy-seeking Palestinian Arabs?


Amos Gilad — who is the head of the defense ministry's Diplomatic-Security Bureau and has long served as the Israeli interlocutor with Egypt — has praised Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. It "embodies" the best of Egypt, he said, and deserves the "full support of the world."

Gilad said that because of "smart and sophisticated use of power in [the] face of unprecedented events," Mohamed Tantawi, who is de facto head of the country, has achieved stability. Gilad noted that the Supreme Council was committed to sustaining Egypt's peace agreement with Egypt, and is honoring the agreement to supply Israel with gas, as well.

All of this is a welcome perspective.


Recently, I've had considerable unease because of Egypt's declaration that it would be reviewing its relationship with Iran.

But I've since been reassured for several reasons. One savvy individual I spoke with seemed to think that a certain degree of posturing was prudent for the generals — in order to give an appearance of flexibility, but that in real terms this meant nothing. And, indeed, this is basically what Gilad has now indicated as well — implying that there will be many words but that policy is what we must watch.

Gilad said the Egyptians have a "deep understanding" of the true nature of Iran.

Additionally, the generals met yesterday with Egypt's news agency and editors, in order to indicate that they would not let an extremist Islamist group take over.

At present, this is the very best we could hope for in Egypt. May it continue.



The foreign minister of Sudan has charged that Israel is responsible for a strike by air on a car near Port Sudan last night, which killed two.

Israel has no comment.

There have been terrorists and weaponry tracked from Sudan that were headed to Gaza in the past. If we did this, I am confident it was with good reason.


I'm going to close with something that was a heartwarmer for me.

Eran Davidi, an Israeli who has been studying law in New York City, has written a piece on "Why I choose to return."

Life is comfortable where he is, Davidi explains. And were he to stay, he could make much more than he will in Israel.

"So why will I be returning to Israel? It's precisely the stay here that made me realize that we have no other place except our country. I now understand that Israel is the only place in the world where I'll truly feel at home. I understand that despite my reserve service and all the wars, I nonetheless feel the safest in Israel. I realize that Israel is the only place where my identity as a Jew won't stop me from at least dreaming to reach as far as possible.

"I also understand that it's important for me to take part in these historical moments where the Jewish people returned to its homeland after 2,000 years of exile. Mostly, my stay here made me realize that in the era of human rights the Jewish people has no future without tiny Israel. And this future is dear to me.

"People who moved overseas tend to say that they did it because of the quality of life. However, quality of life is not only measured by the size of your house or the view from the window; it is also not measured by the amount of money you make or its color.

"Quality of life is measured first and foremost by the meaning of the life you live and is derived from the sense of belonging to the people around you, the wholeness of your identity, and the knowledge that by living in our state you are part of something bigger; bigger than you, and sometimes bigger than logic.

"...something in my Israeli character doesn't allow me to despair; I am unwilling to give up when faced with a fateful mission unlike no other. Perhaps it's the age, or the stage in life, but many members of my generation and myself - all proud descendents of the Zionist movement - are still hopeful about Israel's future, and mostly feel that everything still depends on us."
http://www.ynetnews.com/ articles/0,7340,L-4052836,00.html

Baruch Hashem!

Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info

To Go To Top

Posted by Victor Sharpe, April 6, 2011.

Millions, perhaps billions, of the world's population do not know the meaning of the towering festival of freedom and liberty known as Passover; a festival recognizing an event that has blessed the world for some 3,300 years.

The festival begins on April 18th of this year and always on the 15th day of the Jewish month of Nissan. Jews and Christians know from the Bible the story of the Exodus and of the salvation of the Jewish people from centuries of slavery under the Egyptian pharaohs: This creation and deliverance of an entire nation.

Such a seminal event in humanity's history became the foundation for freedom and liberty — created many centuries before democracy was first enunciated by Greek philosophers who nevertheless lived within a polytheistic society.

Many people know in varying degrees the Passover story and the birth of the Jewish people and of their undying faith in the One and Only God; invisible and indivisible. Judaism has given the world monotheism in its purest and most undiluted nature. The Unity of God is what Jews have defended against all who attempted to suggest a plurality: even to enduring martyrdom.

The long suffering Jews under Egyptian bondage were led to freedom by the Jewish prophet, Moses, who brought them to their own very special and promised Land of Israel. Moses spoke with God in Sinai and brought a wondrous divine gift to the Jewish people and through them to all humanity — the Decalogue; the Ten Commandments, and the basis of today's laws of Western and Judeo-Christian civilization and jurisprudence. These ten brief commandments — a mere 120 Hebrew words — are written on the walls of synagogues and churches.

But, as in all Jewish practice, Moses was never deified. He was shown in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, as a man; nothing else. Indeed in order not to deify him or exalt him over others he is shown in the Holy Bible with human failings and his burial place remains unknown. He sought the mountain top and beheld the Promised Land of Israel, yet was never to enter. In fact, in the Torah Moses is described merely as "the humblest and meekest of all human beings." For in Judaism, only God is divine and besides Him there are none other.

Passover (Pesach in Hebrew) is the first of the Jewish holidays and festivals, coinciding with the coming of the Spring in the Jewish people's ancestral, biblical and native land: the land given by God in an everlasting Covenant to the Jewish people; a land extending from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea and including Gilead (the possession of the tribes of Manasseh, Gad and Reuben) east of the river, in the present day Arab state of Jordan.

The Passover festival precedes two other harvest festivals based upon the agricultural cycles of ancient and modern Israel. Next comes Shavuot, Pentecost, which records and commemorates the giving to Moses of the Ten Commandments followed by Succot, which is known as Tabernacles. Mankind was, and is, blessed through the Passover for it is a veritable gift to those who accept its divine message and perform the ritual meal, the Seder, recording the Exodus story.

But there is an evil in men's hearts, and it is a profound evil, for those who hate and envy this Jewish gift to humanity and its message of freedom, liberty and foundational democracy. They have chosen since time immemorial to rise up to destroy all that it stands for and persecute those — the Jews — who received it from God and who have shared it with all humanity.

Let me recount what Mary Antin wrote in 1911about the horrors inflicted upon the Jews in Russia as they celebrated the festival of liberty in the Exodus story during the festive Seder meal. Ms. Antin wrote of what routinely took place at Passover and of how Russian neighbors reminded the Jews that for them it was another Egypt:

"... in Russian cities and even more in country districts, where Jewish families lived scattered, the stupid peasants would hear lies about the Jews, fill themselves with vodka, and set out to kill their Jewish neighbors.

"They attacked them with knives and clubs and scythes and axes, killed them or tortured them and burned their houses. This was called a pogrom.

"Jews who escaped the pogroms came with wounds on them and horrible, horrible, stories of little babies torn limb from limb before their mother's eyes. Only to hear these things made one sob and sob and choke with pain.

"People who saw such things never smiled any more, no matter how long they lived and sometimes their hair turned white in a day and others went insane."

In the Passover story, which is enshrined in the Haggadah, the book retelling the events of the Exodus and of the order of the Seder meal, there is a profound and millennial old passage: "Not one man alone has risen up against us to destroy us, but in every generation there have risen up against us those who sought to destroy us; but the Holy One, blessed be He, delivers us from their hands." And so it was and still is.

Just recently, a family in the Jewish Israeli village of Itamar, in biblical and ancestral Samaria, was slaughtered by Arab Muslims whose tracks led back to a nearby Arab settlement. The members of the Fogel family were sleeping in their tiny home on the Sabbath when a Palestinian murderer entered and knifed to death the father, mother, and three children, including a little baby girl only three months old.

Mary Antin spoke about unspeakable horrors inflicted on Jewish families in Russia; atrocities which had been repeated time after time throughout Europe and the Islamic world for 2,000 years or so. Those relentless persecutions, pogroms and the shattering genocide perpetrated against the Jews in the Holocaust by Nazi Germany, in which a third of the world's Jewish population was exterminated, were done when the Jews were still living in the long night of statelessness after Rome had destroyed Jewish Judea in 135 AD.

Yet today, since the modern miracle in 1948 of Israel's rebirth and reconstitution as a sovereign, independent nation, restored again to its aboriginal, ancestral and biblical homeland, succesive Israeli governments since that of Yitzhak Rabin — despite all the overwhelming and empirical evidence of implacable Arab and Muslim refusal to ever accept it as a Jewish state — plead for peace. It is offered again and again to the Arabs, those who call themselves Palestinians, and again and again rejected by them. Yet still Israeli leaders make unheard of and suicidal offers of "land for peace."

This may seem to many observers as an aberration, an illogical and deeply naïve act in the face of so much evidence of antipathy and loathsome hatred exhibited towards the Jewish state by the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians.

What nation would accept such Arab and Muslim barbarity and withstand so many Palestinian crimes against its civilian Jewish population — and still hope for peace? What nation would continue, despite the rain of thousands of missiles launched from Hamas occupied Gaza upon Israeli women and children, to hold out the hand of peace to a people who display such cruelty and human rights abuses? What nation, after seeing the horror in the Fogel home, would still harbor hopes of a peaceful Palestinian state living side by side with Israel? What people would still entertain the insanity of dividing up the tiny land under the fatal rubric of a "two-state-solution?"

Well, only a state whose people embraced the Passover message for millennia and of the biblical passage in Deuteronomy 19;18, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself," would remain convinced of the benefits to all, even to an Arab people who have poisoned and morally crippled themselves for over 60 years with the most abhorrent and loathsome anti-Jewish hatred. But to give away one inch of the land is a profound rejection of the Covenant made between His people and Almighty God. It is also a strategy of national suicide.

As Passover approaches, again there are insistent reports that Hamas, the branch of the Muslim Brotherhood that occupies the Gaza Strip and ceaselessly calls for the extermination of the Jewish state, plans new atrocities against the embattled people of Israel during the Passover. Remember the words: In every generation.

An Arab terrorist who once planted a bomb in Jerusalem has now become a passionate supporter of the Jewish state. Walid Shoebat stated recently to a Jewish audience in America the following:

"Americans need to start looking at what really happens in Israel. They don't see what happens in their media. They don't see what happens to the religious places in Judea or what the world calls the West Bank. They have never seen what has happened to Joseph's tomb. They have never seen every single holy place, Jewish and Christian, in Judea desecrated by the Palestinian Muslims. Americans need to see the reality on the ground and what happened to two Jews who got lost in the streets of Ramallah in the Palestinian Authority. If they did they would see the frenzy, the demonic frenzy of the Palestinian Arab population of Ramallah. How they tore out the human hearts, lungs and kidneys of the hapless Israeli victims.

"The media in America and around the world must show the reality of how the Jews suffer and of how the Jew cannot go from his home to worship in Joseph's tomb or worship on the Temple Mount."

He also stated that the worst possible mistake Israel ever made was inviting Arafat and his terrorist cronies to end their exile in Tunisia and set up their new headquarters in Judea — Israel's biblical heartland. This decision by the left-wing Israeli government of Yitzhak Rabin led to Arafat and his terrorist gang gaining international acceptance, the so-called Oslo Peace Accords, which in time became the Oslo War in which thousands of Israeli civilians were murdered and maimed by Palestinian terrorists and suicide bombers.

Walid Shoebat concluded that he sees the Jewish people are afraid of the Arab Goliath. But he, Shoebat, born a Muslim and now a Christian who knows full well the death sentence imposed upon him under Islamic Sharia law, is not afraid of Goliath.

Neither should Israel be afraid, for in truth it is the David, the tiny Jewish state of only 6,000,000 Jews within a tiny land no larger than New Jersey, confronting Goliath, the combined Arab and Muslim world of one and a half billion straddling an enormous land mass dwarfing America plus most of Europe.

And Israel should no longer seek to placate those Europeans and the present U.S. Administration that remorselessly calls for a "two-state- solution, which would reduce the Jewish state at its most populous region to a width of only nine miles: yes, only nine miles wide: A sure and certain recipe for self-destruction within the Middle East, arguably the most evil neighborhood on planet Earth.

So we approach the Passover festival, which brings light and blessings to all humanity but which also brings the maniacal threats of genocide against the Jewish people by those who would unleash unutterable terror and who, like the evil Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, spew hideous ravings and shameless libels against the ever suffering Jews.

A brave and highly principled British journalist, Melanie Phillips, has suggested that Israeli leaders should finally tell the European and American leadership how they are guilty of double standards, moral equivalence and a bias against Israel which is shameful in the extreme. Here are some of her words:

"Israel should be making the case against the western media, and especially the British media, that it is an accessory to mass murder. Israel is always on the back foot. Israel is always on the defensive. It is always saying, '... it is not our fault, we didn't do these terrible things. Can't you see that they are doing it?'

"What Israel should be saying is quite different. Israel should be saying, '... world, this terrible conflict is your fault because you are persisting in supporting Arab aggression and punishing its Israeli victims. While you do that the aggression will simply continue. That's not rocket science, that's human nature. If you reward the aggressor he will have every incentive to continue his aggression.

"What you should be doing, world, is saying to the Palestinian Authority, let alone Hamas, '... what is this? After six decades you still say that you will never accept Israel as a Jewish state? What is this you are saying? If there was a state of Palestine, not one single Jew could be in a state of Palestine? How do you expect us to support such a racist doctrine?

"While you are racists, while you are so anti-Jew, and while you will not accept that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state, I am sorry but we, as the civilized world, will have nothing to do with you nor will we continue to fund your incitement and your prejudice. When you decide to join the civilized world we will welcome you. That's what Israel should be saying to the world, but Israel doesn't."

As Caroline Glick reminded Leah Zinder in a recent IBA broadcast, Israel is not alone. There are millions of Americans — the vast majority — who support Israel and want to fight for her in the media and in the political realm against grievous pressure from the Obama Administration but are waiting for Israel to give them the reason to do so.

So these timely thoughts and questions must be urgently considered before, during and after the time of Passover for it surely is humanity's moral barometer. As the great Rabbi J.H. Hertz wrote in 1935:

"Though man cannot always even half control his destiny, God has given him the reins of his conduct altogether into his hands."

May Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government take to heart the pleas of Melanie Phillips, Walid Shoebat and the millions of Jews who yearn for a principled and resoundingly firm response from him to the ever humiliating demands upon the Jewish state to surrender from the Obama Administration, the State Department, and all the flawed Chanceries of Europe and beyond.

And it would not go amiss to remind the increasingly Godless European Union of Passover's gift to the Jewish people: The promised and undivided land.

Oh, and by the way, for centuries Jews have uttered a prayer at the conclusion of the Passover meal. In Hebrew it is L'Shanah HaBa'ah B'Yerushalayim. In English it means, "Next year may we be in Jerusalem," the 3,000 year old eternal capital of the Jewish people.

But in the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century the world, through the hateful two-state-solution, is forcing Jerusalem to again be divided by a wall of concrete and Arab hate. Those who call themselves Palestinians demand the eastern half of the city and the ancient Jewish prayer at Passover may become a bitter and tragic joke.

Worshipers will be forced into saying, "Next year in West Jerusalem."

Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer and author of Volumes One & Two of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by David A. Isaac, April 5, 2011.

"People do not understand where they live. If you do not live in the real world, it is possible to disregard everything, and I suggest that they start being wary in order to protect the existing construction."

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made these remarks last month in an effort to justify an attack by Israeli security forces on a small Jewish community in Samaria where for the first time pneumatic guns were used on Israeli civilians by Israeli forces.

'The zeitgeist is against us,' Netanyahu was saying. 'Our international standing is eroding. We'll be lucky to hold onto even part of Judea and Samaria. So quit complaining. Those plastic bullets we pumped into you were a gift — a kind of reality check.' Having grown accustomed to international pressure, a hostile media and the acceptance of the Palestinian Arab narrative the world over, Netanyahu has resigned himself to life as he knows it.

Unfortunately, Netanyahu's approach is nothing new. When Zionist fortunes ebbed, even in its early stages, Zionist leadership was quick to accommodate itself to the new 'reality', regardless of how detrimental that reality was to the Jewish people.

In Lone Wolf (Barricade Books, 1996), his biography of the great Zionist leader Vladimir "Ze'ev" Jabotinsky, Shmuel Katz describes the depressed condition to which the Zionist movement had sunk only a few short years after Herbert Samuel, himself Jewish, had taken the position of High Commissioner of Palestine. Initially his appointment was greeted with elation by Zionists everywhere who interpreted it as further proof of Britain's noble determination to implement the Balfour Declaration which promised "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."

Those hopes were soon dashed. In Lone Wolf, Shmuel quotes Moshe Glickson, editor of the newspaper Ha'aretz: "The Jews of Jerusalem and Tiberias in the Jewish National Home under a Jewish high commissioner were treated like the Jews in the towns of Shklov and Berdichev in Czarist Russia. There too they had been a majority but were prevented from exercising their rights. In Jerusalem and Jaffa, only Arabs were employed by the municipality. The Hebrew language was treated with utter contempt."

What was the Zionist leadership doing during this time? Sadly, instead of fighting the situation, they were coming to accept it. As Shmuel writes:

the stage-by-state whittling down of the promise of the Balfour Declaration ... was then also the story of the accommodation of the Zionist leadership to that gradual emasculation.

Jabotinsky, partly blaming himself for the deteriorating state of affairs, wrote: "If the era of Samuel provides a precedent it is so only in one respect, and that a very sad one: that we were silent instead of reacting to these three years of systematic destruction of all that is dear and important to us. This is what has created an ineradicable precedent. ... I must conclude on a bitter note, with reproach to myself. This system was created and has taken root in Eretz Israel only because we have lacked backbone: and it threatens to become a tradition only because of us."

The blame really belonged to Chaim Weizmann, president of the Zionist Executive, under whose leadership and discipline Jabotinsky had placed himself. Weizmann, an anglophile, couldn't bring himself to publicly criticize Britain.

As Shmuel writes in Days of Fire (W.H. Allen, 1968):

He identified himself with the British way of life and with British interests, and this identification became a guiding principle in his public career.

Netanyahu may not share Weizmann's attachment to another country, but he does share an accommodationist mindset. And like Weizmann, Netanyahu understands the true state of affairs but lacks the will to change it.

For it was not that Weizmann failed to grasp what Britain was doing. As Shmuel writes in Days of Fire:

It was not that he was blind to the tragic facts. Indeed his basic comprehension was acute, and he did not shut his eyes to the British betrayal of the Balfour Declaration. In his autobiography, published in the evening of his days, he reveals how often he gave private expression to his bitterness, how free he was of illusions. He recalls conversations with British statesmen indicating their indifference to Jewish suffering, their irresponsible attitude toward their Palestinian obligations — the deceit inherent in their relations with him....Yet at the time he resigned himself to the belief that British policy must prevail, that when the last word of criticism had been spoken, when all persuasion had failed, British policy must be accepted by the "martyred people."

It's worth noting the startling speed with which not only Weizmann, but the entire Zionist movement accepted the worsening situation. Only three years after the heady days of Herbert Samuel's appointment, the Zionist movement had distanced itself from the idea of a Jewish state. Shmuel writes:

By 1923 to talk of a Jewish state or Jewish commonwealth had become uncomfortable in many Zionist quarters. .... "Throughout the whole of the Zionist front," Jabotinsky wrote, "the signal for retreat has been given. It is said that three-quarters of our political writers are busy... obscuring, or simply erasing, one by one, all the foundations of the Zionist program. Now that the term Judenstaat has for some time been qualified as tactless, they are taking us further: they have begun to whisper that even the creation of a Jewish majority in Palestine is not essentially a binding Zionist aim; and that if this arithmetical demand frightens the Arabs, why not by one means or another cancel it?"

Where Jabotinsky differed from Weizmann is that he wasn't prepared to live with the situation. Jabotinsky set about to reverse Zionism's slide and founded the Revisionist movement. According to a Ha'aretz report at the time: "The activism of Jabotinsky and his movement is a natural reaction against the passive attitude and the 'realism' which has penetrated the Zionist ranks in the last couple of years. ... If the Revisionist Movement arrests this passive attitude, awakens political thinking and revives the political activities of the Zionist Organization, it will be fulfilling its task; this will be its merit and its reward."

We are presented here with two models of leadership. There is Weizmann's accommodationist approach which in practical terms meant quiet acquiescence to anti-Zionist realities and further erosion of the Zionist position. Then there is Jabotinsky, who refused to passively accept 'reality' — a euphemism really for British betrayal — and who did everything in his power to stop the destruction of Zionist aspirations.

One would think Netanyahu would embrace the Jabotinsky model, especially as the Likud Party hangs banners of Jabotinsky from the walls of its headquarters. Netanyahu even asked Jabotinsky's grandson to run in the last Likud primaries, milking the event for all its press value. But Netanyahu has more in common with Weizmann than he does with Jabotinsky, accepting reality as it comes to him, hoping only to get Israel the best deal possible in a bad situation.

In the 1930s, Jabotinsky tried to save the Jews of Poland from approaching doom, urging a mass evacuation to Eretz Israel. The greatest resistance to his plans came from officials of the Zionist movement, who felt he was causing unnecessary panic and playing into the hands of anti-Semites.

The famous Yiddish author Sholem Asch was enlisted to speak against Jabotinsky. As Shmuel writes in "Wiseacres and Pragmatists" (The Jerusalem Post, May 20, 2004):

Sholem Asch, one of the great Yiddish writers of the last century, was not a politician but he was convinced, like many others, that in the ongoing Zionist conflict of the Twenties and Thirties between Chaim Weizmann and Ze'ev Jabotinsky, Weizmann was the rational, levelheaded statesman while Jabotinsky was an impractical dreamer.

When I met Asch in the early 1950s, he told me of his pre-Holocaust opinions on Zionist politics. "But," he added, "it turned out that I was all wrong. After all that happened, it became clear to me that the roles were completely reversed. It was Weizmann who was the dreamer, while Jabotinsky was the ultimate practical thinker."

Netanyahu is the dreamer if he thinks destroying Jewish settlements and shooting plastic bullets into his own people will assuage the howling international mob. Every retreat will only lead to demands for more retreats. The practical realists who settle Gilad Farm understand this. They have the courage to shape reality — rather than be crushed by it.

David Isaac is editor of the Shmuel Katz website: www.shmuelkatz.com. Contact him at david_isaac@shmuelkatz.com

To Go To Top

Posted by SMPE, April 5, 2011.

Send comments to UCSD.SPME@gmail.com
Posted by Bruce Kesler At college campuses across the US, student organizations that attack Israel have become more and more active, and obnoxious, over the past decade. The members are drawn from some of the Moslem students and their far leftist companions. Most students are there to get an education, or at least get their degree ticket punched. While there's little evidence these anti-Israel groups have much support, through their activism they load student governments and with their loud voices they usually dominate campus debates.

Over the past year or so, at many campuses Jewish groups have formed to counter this vileness. Others of sound minds have joined in.

The University of California, San Diego is one of the top-ranked academic campuses in the country. This week a group of professors joined together to call BS on the anti-Israel groups.

Dr. David Feifel, a professor at UCSD and Vice President of the UCSD SPME (Scholars for Peace in the Middle East) chapter, wrote a powerful editorial about the hypocrisy on campus relating to the Arab and Muslim students' focus on Israel Apartheid Week and their failure to acknowledge the suffering of the Arabs being murdered for demonstrating for democracy in Arab countries. Shockingly, the UCSD Guardian newspaper after an initial acceptance, at the final hour refused to run the editorial. So, the professors had to take out a full page ad which today featured the editorial with 28 signatures of UCSD Professors.

The editorial is below the fold. It is quite educational, and directly confronts the hypocrisy of the on campus anti-Israel groups for actually not giving much of a darn for oppressed Arabs but, instead being preoccupied with vilifying Israel.

These strong counters need to be spread to every other college campus. Please distribute this post to students and professors at other campuses.


An Open Letter To Our University Community About Troubling Hypocrisy On Our Campus

PRIL 4, 2011
http://maggiesfarm.anotherdotcom.com/archives/16897 -Professors-Call-BS-On-Campus-Anti-Israel-Groups.html

The past few months have witnessed historic political unrest engulfing Arab and Muslim countries in the Mideast, including Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Iran, Yemen, Bahrain and others. On our campus the muted reaction to this volcanic eruption of civil unrest and the ensuing horrific slaughter of thousands of civilians by their own leaders has been quite revealing. Sadly, it has confirmed strong suspicions of many students and faculty that the highly vituperative activism spearheaded by the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the Arab Student Union (ASU) and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and directed relentlessly against a single Mideast country, Israel, is driven less by positive impulses of fraternity toward fellow Arabs and Muslims than by hateful impulses to destroy the world's only sovereign Jewish nation.

The current maelstrom in the Mideast has laid bare for all to see the reality that, by any objective measure, the greatest human rights abuses suffered by the greatest number of Muslims and Arabs have been inflicted by the despotic regimes of the Mideast's 17 Arab countries and Iran, and not, as the MSA, ASU and SJP would have us believe, by Israel, the only country in the entire region consistently rated by Freedom House International as bestowing full civil and political liberties upon its Jewish and Arab citizens.

So, if hundreds of millions of Arabs and Muslims have suffered severe, long-standing repression throughout the Mideast, as is now highly evident, why then have those students who relentlessly pounce on every action and policy of Israel — which comprises 0.04% of the Mideast — been deafeningly silent all these years regarding the egregious injustices occurring in the other 99.96% of the Mideast? Why haven't the websites and Facebook pages of the MSA, ASU and SJP been abuzz with plans for social activism and moral outrage over the murder of civilians who are fighting to gain liberty in Arab countries as they always are when Israel exercises self-defense by striking at Palestinian terrorist groups who launch rockets at its civilians from Gaza or when it erects barriers to block suicide bombers? Are those students simply less moved by injustices carried out by Arabs and Muslims against their own people? Or is it possible that human rights and social justice have been hijacked by these groups for use as expedient intellectual weapons in the service of a culturally driven agenda — to bludgeon the Jewish state? In this regard we do well to heed the assertion of Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh, "What is happening on the U.S. campuses is not about supporting the Palestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state" and "ending the existence of Israel."

Critical debate is a cherished mainstay of universities, and Israel should, by no means, be above reproach. As a small and isolated democratic nation in a highly volatile geopolitical environment, some of its actions and policies will surely be considered misguided by fair-minded citizens of other nations, as they are by many Israeli citizens — a fact reflected in Israel's vibrant free press. However, as pointed out by Natan Sharansky, the respected Israeli human rights activist and former Soviet political prisoner, one test of malevolently motivated criticism of Israel is the "double standards" test — criticism of Israel that is applied selectively.

In a few weeks our campus will, once again, witness the flagship event in the Israel-bashing calendar: the weeklong hate-fest whose centerpiece is a wall on Library Walk that promulgates deliberately one-sided and selective information and inflammatory descriptive terms to provoke the moral indignation of students and convince them that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be simply reduced to egregious Israeli is deeds visited upon totally innocent Palestinians. Nearby we can expect the usual mock cemetery (commemorating Palestinian casualties exclusively) to offer emotive reinforcement of that message. Anticipate our university community to, once again, become polarized over the event.

However, this does not have to be the case. The organizers of the acrimonious and divisive spring event have a golden opportunity this year to show that they are genuinely interested in the rights and dignity of all the people of the Mideast by expanding their focus beyond the tiny Jewish state and, in so doing, put on an event that will do more to unite our campus than divide it. Will they rise to the occasion? Will they hold candlelight vigils and establish mock cemeteries also for the Arabs who have been recently massacred by their own leaders? Will they — dare we dream it — find a way to commemorate the innocent Israelis who have been murdered by Palestinian terrorists, like the 3 young children and their parents who were brutally stabbed to death in their sleep a few weeks ago? Will these student organizations sponsor an A.S. resolution this year calling for UCSD to divest from the many Muslim countries stained by egregious human rights practices, such as Saudi Arabia, where women are not allowed to vote or to drive and where public practice of any religion other than Islam is prohibited, or Iran, where homosexuals are executed by the state decree? Or, as they have in past years, will these human rights crusaders selectively sponsor initiatives against Israel, a country where Arab women sit as elected members in Parliament, where gay men and women serve openly in the military and hold annual gay pride parades in Tel Aviv and where Christians, Jews, Muslims, Baha'is and others freely practice their religions under full protection of Israeli law? Will the SJP decide this year to fully embrace its mission statement, "to promote justice, human rights, and the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people," by also raising awareness of how Palestinians in Gaza are denied political freedom by the ruling Hamas government, which suspended democratic elections indefinitely after it consolidated power through force of arms? Will it call on Hamas, recognized as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and E.U., to remove from its official charter overtly anti-Semitic quotes from Islamic religious texts, recognize Israel's right to exist and put a stop to rocket attacks on Israeli civilians? Or will SJP just continue to apologize for Hamas while relentlessly hammering Israel?

Absent these changes, students of good will should ask themselves if this event and the others like it are sincerely designed to educate and raise their awareness, or if they are being subjected to a cynical exploitation of human rights for a sinister agenda. Advocacy that deliberately distorts and omits information to convince others of a partisan viewpoint, that uses calculated, inflammatory rhetoric to demonize a nation, its citizens and its supporters, may be protected as free speech but should nevertheless be scorned by fair-minded students as a form of intellectual abuse. As the Liberal Party leader of Canada, where the first anti-Israel hate week took place, recently asserted, "By portraying the Jewish state as criminal, by demonizing Israel and its supporters...the organizers and supporters of Israeli Apartheid Week tarnish our freedom of speech."

David Feifel MD, PhD Professor, Department of Psychiatry
Joshua Fierer, MD Professor of Infectious Diseases
Ami Berkowitz, PhD Professor, Department of Physics
Joseph L. Witztum, MD Professor of Medicine
Seth M. Pransky, MD Clinical Professor of Surgery
Sidney Zisook, MD Professor, Department of Psychiatry
Larry Millstein, PhD Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Ron Evans, PhD Professor, Department of Mathematics
Eyal Raz, MD Professor, Department of Medicine
Gary Frost, PhD Founding Dean, Earl Warren College
David J. Printz, MD Associate Clinical Professor, Department of Psychiatry
Nora Laiken, PhD Assistant Dean for Educational Support Services, UCSD School of Medicine
Alex Groisman, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Physics
Howard Taras, MD Professor of Pediatrics
Pamela Cosman, PhD Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Herbie Levine, PhD Professor, Department of Physics
Brian G. Keating, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Physics
Neal Swerdlow, MD, PhD Professor, Department of Psychiatry
Shlomo Dubnov, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Music
Sonia Ancoli-Israel, PhD Professor, Department of Psychiatry
Ruth Covell, MD Clinical Professor, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine
Mort Printz, PhD Professor Emeritus, Department of Pharmacology
Murray B. Stein MD, MPH Professor, Department of Psychiatry
Vitaliy Lomakin, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering
Daniel M. Tartakovsky, PhD Professor, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Ivan Schuller, PhD Professor, Department of Physics
Yeshaiahu Fainman, PhD Professor, Jacobs School of Engineering
Daniel Arovas, PhD Associate Professor, Department of Physics

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J Frantzman, April 5, 2011.

The relationship between conservative Muslim societies, slavery and prostitution is more common than one thinks. In a shocking article in Harper's Magazine Lawrence Osborne tells of a "Pilgrimage of Sin: Booze, bombs and hookers in Islamic Thailand."

He regales his readers with the seeming contradiction between Malay Islamists in southern Thailand and the brothel culture they patronize. He meets five Muslim Malay men from Malaysia who have crossed into Thailand to visit the Pink Lady brothel. The five come from a southern state where Shari'a law has been enacted, and where the government considers Valentine's Day "synonymous with vice activities."

The author interviews local Malay men (southern Thailand has a large Malay minority), and finds that while they support the Islamist insurgents who murder Buddhist priests and kill policemen, they also love the female Buddhist prostitutes at the Pink Lady.

The relationship between Islamism, sex trafficking and prostitution is more common than one thinks. The 9/11 hijackers, Maj. Nidal Hasan of the Fort Hood massacre and radical preachers Abu Hamza al-Masri and Anwar Awlaki were all frequenters of strip clubs or prostitutes.

A RECENT article in The New York Times by Aubrey Belford reveals the latest twist in "Indonesia's culture war between peddlers of titillation and Islamist conservatives."

Ody Mulya Hidayat, an Indonesian Muslim filmmaker, has found a new secret to success — cast Japanese porn stars, with their clothes on, in his B movies like Evil Nurse 2. Aubrey writes that "many in Muslim majority Indonesia will pay to see foreign porn stars perform — clothed — in local films. Just don't expect Indonesians to own up to it."

Why the obsession with Japanese porn stars in the "conservative" society of Indonesia, where porn is illegal and volunteer religious police routinely harass women for not dressing in appropriate Islamic attire? Perhaps the answer can be found in the deserts of Sinai.

A December 13 report entitled "Hostages, Torture and Rape in the Sinai Desert" by Physicians for Human Rights in Israel revealed that African migrants were branded, whipped and routinely raped by the Sinai Beduin. One young woman from Ethiopia related that the Beduin "would take me into the front of the pickup and do whatever they liked with me. The distress of this was too much for my husband."

A third of the women interviewed by PHR claim to have been raped, and it is thought that many more are raped but, due to the shame, do not tell interviewers about it.

But when you go to the Sinai, the Beduin tell you they are a conservative Muslim society. They circumcise young girls, and their women are swaddled in embroidered black hijabs. So why does this "conservative" society engage in sex crimes against migrants? The same migrants in Israel are not raped by their employers, at least not that we know of.

THE ANSWER may lie in Iraq and the Gulf states. A recent article by the BBC related that "Ugandan women were trafficked into domestic slavery in Iraq."

The report found 146 women who signed up to work in the country. Upon arrival they found they had been sold to Iraqis for $3,500. One woman recalled that she had been forced to work from 5 a.m. to midnight. She was also raped. Other women that Anna Cavel interviewed were raped as well. But Iraq is a conservative society. The women wear the black abaya, and since the fall of Saddam Hussein, the country has become more religious.

The story continues in the Gulf states. Many of the female domestic slaves ("servants") imported from Sri Lanka, Nepal, Indonesia, the Philippines and elsewhere are subjected to sexual abuse. According to the Nepalese embassy in Saudi Arabia, "A majority of these women are raped, sexually assaulted, physically assaulted and have endured inhumane behavior."

Lawrence Osborne, in his article on Thailand, related that some of the brothels in Bangkok were frequented primarily by Saudis and Gulf Arabs — people whose own countries either banned women from driving or have imprisoned Europeans "caught" making out on beaches.

All the stories related here have one thing in common.

A conservative culture claims moral superiority, but subjects members of other cultures to dehumanizing treatment and sexual abuse. It doesn't seem like it can all coexist. But a very similar society existed in the American Old South.

The Old South was a conservative place, with a culture in some ways similar to what is found in the Islamic world. It was a society of large families that guarded the honor of their women. It imported servants and slaves, and took pride in its hospitality.

Historian David Hacket Fischer relates in his excellent book Albion's Seed that this patriarchal society "condemned as unnatural and even dangerous to society" single men and women, and that arranged marriage was common.

The Byrd household of 18th-century Virginia may have been typical. The slaves were beaten and burned with hot irons. "Women were held to the strictest standards of sexual virtue. Men were encouraged by the customs of the country to maintain a predatory attitude toward women."

William Byrd II kept a diary of his sexual exploits.

In a month-long debauch he "played with Mrs. Chiswell and kissed her on the bed... I neglected my prayers... we saw Molly King, a pretty black girl...[and] Jenny, an Indian girl, had got drunk and made us good sport... at night I asked a negro girl to kiss me... came to Mrs. Johnson and rogered her twice...I went to Mrs. Fitzherbert's... walked away and picked up a girl whom I carried to the bagnio [bathroom] and rogered her twice very well... endeavored to pick up a whore but could not."

Byrd would not be out of place in today's Islamist states, where conservative laws, slavery, rape and sexual avarice can all be found in the same place.

Byrd's diary reveals both his religious feelings — he complains often of "neglecting" his prayers — and his outright disregard for sexual mores. The "negro" and "Indian" women he encountered, the prostitutes and domestic white servants, were all fair game because of his sense of entitlement.

Is there any reason to think that the Beduin of Sinai or the Malays of southern Thailand feel differently?

Seth J. Frantzman has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. Contact him at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website:
http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com These essays appeared on his website.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 5, 2011.


New York newspapers are discussing Richard Goldstone's admission that his UN report erred in accusing Israel of deliberately targeting civilians in Gaza. Some New York Times letters observed that the:

(1) UN Report boosted international hatred of the Jewish state and unconscionable ignoring of Hamas barbarism;

(2) Admission throws into contrast Israeli stability and decency and the rest of the Mideast's instability and indecency. Nevertheless, Israel is urged to capitulate and concede safe borders and core homeland; and

(3) UN Charter recruits all peaceable states, but another Palestinian Arab state would not be peaceable. Since the UN condemns Israeli self-defense against Arab aggression now, one can expect more Arab aggression and condemnation of Israeli self-defense in future (4/5/11).

Arab aggression would get worse, because Israel would not be able to block a sovereign Arab state from importing heavier weapons. That means worse war. Ironically, those who seek such sovereignty for Arafat's Arabs do so in the name of peace.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) wrote in to deny significance to Goldstone's admission. It emphasized his other accusations against Israel, not repudiated. HRW persists in accusing Israel of deliberately targeted civilians and claims it did not investigate policies on it. HRW argues that Hamas only looks bad by comparison because it refuses to investigate.

The letter does not explain why Hamas won't investigate. Totalitarian fanatics do not investigate themselves and rarely admit wrongdoing. Hamas excused its firing of rockets into Israel as self-defense. In other words, Hamas excuses war crimes and terrorism. Having expended all its moral indignation and millions of dollars against Israel, HRW has little to say against Radical Islam's basic inhumanity in Gaza.

Israel investigated hundreds of allegations, almost all false and deceitful. (Israel restricts the IDF excessively, and mistakes happen in the chaos of war.) That isn't enough for HRW? Having disproved the allegations of deliberately targeting civilians, Israel obviously has no policy, for deliberately targeting civilians, to investigate.

HRW cites IDF firing upon Arabs waving white flags. I recall that the flags were, or were perceived by the troops, as a deception by Hamas gunmen. That kind of deception, called "treachery," is a war crime. Palestinian Arabs there, in Judea-Samaria, and even during the War for Independence's Deir Yassin incident, have been using white flags, women's clothing, and civilian ambulances to feign peaceful intent but then draw weapons. If HRW were unbiased, it would condemn those Arab war crimes.

HRW omitted an important consideration in evaluating its case: HRW has had to retract several accusations against Israel.

NGO Monitor and others disproved HRW's accusations. HRW distorted and fabricated international law to embarrass Israel. It distorted the legal principle of disproportional combat as if it refers to the relative amount of force used. Actually, it refers to heavy combat against a target that commanders do not consider military. HRW pretends it is unethical to kill civilians incidental to battle against gunmen, and ignores the war crime of Hamas in fortifying civilian areas and initiating combat from there. HRW based other accusations on unverified claims by interested Arab parties. The whole study was substandard, a hatchet job. Goldstone based his UN report largely upon biased reports by HRW and other NGOs whose activities are jihad by propaganda.

The original UN mission was set up to investigate only Israel and not Hamas. To show good faith, Goldstone had contended and now reiterated that he revised the mission to include Hamas. Yes, but he was responding to early criticism of the mission's obvious bias. It was so blatant, and so typical of UN anti-Zionism, that the mission would have forfeited credence. His eventual report practically ignored Hamas, accepted complaints against Israel by unknown Arabs under Hamas control, and was one-sided against Israel. That shows bad faith.

Goldstone's partial retraction admitted he had no evidence for his most serious claim. Then why did he make it?

NGO Monitor and others had informed Goldstone of his errors. Instead of acknowledging his complete failure, he waited many months for Israel to finish all its detailed investigations, and then claims that if he knew then what he knows now, he would not have signed the report. Israel has a history of ethical combat, why didn't he know?

Shoddy and sham reports against Israel often get away with libel because of widespread bias against Israel. I think that if Goldstone knew then how thoroughly his report would be debunked, he would not have issued it.


Police clashed with residents, when sent to demolish houses owned by Jews in Havat Gilad in Samaria, on February 28. Residents accuse police of brutality; police accuse residents of attacking them.

Since then, the Knesset has been considering whether to require police identification tags, so complaints can be lodged against specific officers. Police already have ID tags, which they say they removed to prevent being harassed.

Dr. Aaron Lerner suggests that instead of name tags, police be issued numbers. That way, complaints can be lodged against a specific number, without civilians learning the names of other police, whom they theoretically may harass (IMRA, 3/23/11 http://www.imra.org.il/)

In the 17 years I have been studying this subject, I have not come across Jewish civilian harassment of police and little violence against police. By contrast, Arab civilians often attack police, usually with impunity. Police often attack non-violent and legally operating Jewish civilian protestors. Police beat up Jewish protestors. They take off their ID nameplates before assaulting protestors and confiscating their cameras, in order to avoid being identified. Several have been identified and convicted of brutality. Former PM Sharon built a separate police force that is particularly brutal toward Jews in the Territories.

Some Jews initiated home building with government approval. Their final step to full legal standing awaits the pro form signature of Defense Min. Barak. He withholds that signature for political advantage. Knowing that they did not do anything illegal, some of the so-called "settlers" resist the resulting police orders to clear out. The same Israeli regime condones tens of thousands of illegal Arab houses. Those houses had no authorization to start; many sit on stolen land. Naturally, such Jews object to the Jewish state discriminating against Jews and in favor of the Arab enemy seeking to oust the Jews. They wonder at the anomaly and its irrational basis.

ID tags are a micro-solution. The macro-solution is for the Israeli public to understand and ban police state tactics, discrimination against Jewish observers and patriots, and condoning of Arab illegality. That, in turn, would require the Jewish people to overcome their over-sensitivity to gentile criticism. Global antisemitism now practically approves termination of Israeli sovereignty, even though it would lead to genocide.

Many of my liberal friends scoff at religion (including Judaism but, hypocritically, not Islam), but this genocide is where secular liberalism is leading.

Jews (and Americans in general) must learn that some ideologies are evil, are burgeoning, are against Jews, and come primarily from Muslims and leftists, including leftists of Jewish origin. The Jewish people need inner strength and mutual loyalty. When did they ever not need it?


President Obama condemned the terrorist bombing in Jerusalem and expressed condolence for civilians harmed by it and by Israeli retaliation against rocket-firing crews in Gaza. The statement drew a moral equivalence between deliberate Arab terrorist attacks on civilians and Israeli attacks on terrorists that inadvertently injured some civilians.

If Obama were consistent, he would urge the U.S. military not to fire its own rockets in Libya [or Pakistan], because sometimes they injure civilians by mistake. Unlike Israel, the U.S. is not fighting in self-defense in Libya.

After acknowledging Israel's right to self-defense, Obama then more or less denied it, by urging "all parties" to keep calm and prevent further civilian casualties. Obama's failure to name Hamas as the offending party was another false moral equivalence between terrorism and defense from terrorism. If he held to a proper moral standard, he would not urge Israel to restrain its retaliation and self-defense.

The entire guilt for injuring civilians is the Arabs'. None is Israel's fault, because if the Arabs did not attack Israel, Israel would not have to defend itself (Zionist Organization of America)
http://www.zoa.org/ (press release, 3/24/11).

Hamas places military targets in civilian areas in order to inhibit retaliation or to get Israel improperly condemned. Such placement is a war crime.

How else but by self-defense, is Israel supposed to fend off terrorism by religious fanatics? What does Obama expect Israel to do, simply sit and be killed? Obama's approach is unethical and shameful. Nor is it in the interest of peace to treat terrorists so lightly. If Obama had called terrorism unacceptable, had acted on that position, and had not slighted Israeli self-defense, the terrorists might restrain themselves somewhat.

A proper U.S. reaction would urge Israel to fire enough to eradicate terrorism. Instead, Obama subsidizes the Palestinian Authority, which shares half the money with Gaza's Hamas rulers. The U.S. subsidizes terrorism.

Is Obama decent, in offering condolences to the Arabs of Gaza? No. Gazans overwhelmingly endorse jihad and terrorism against Israel.

Why are U.S. government ethics so warped?

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@gmail.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 5, 2011.

The campaign engine, is what I am referring to. President Obama has announced that he's launching his re-election campaign.

A good dozen potential Republican candidates are currently testing the campaign waters, but none have yet declared. It is critical that the Republican candidate be absolutely top-notch: someone capable of defeating Obama soundly. For a second-term (lame-duck) Obama would be more dangerous than what we have now (which is dangerous enough), as he would no longer be concerned with his support for election purposes. He'd be much more likely to do as he pleases.

There will be much to say, in due course.


Israeli President Shimon Peres is in Washington, and will be meeting with Obama shortly. That they will talk "peace" is a given. There has been a great deal of discussion regarding whether Peres will be speaking on his own (dove-oriented) behalf, or officially on behalf of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Herb Keinon, in today's JPost, had another take: Netanyahu will be coming to the States soon, and Peres has gone, as a "scout," with the prime minister's explicit blessing, to test the waters and soften Obama up.

That Netanyahu should consider this necessary says volumes about where Obama is coming from.


Dirar Abu Sisi, a Palestinian Arab engineer, disappeared from a train in the Ukraine on February 19. For some days, no one knew of his whereabouts. Israel officials then confirmed that Israel was holding him, but little more was said.

Abu Sisi's wife lamented that he was an innocent man who didn't know about anything (the first thought was that this was with regard to where Gilad Shalit was being held). Abu Sisi's brother said maybe someone was framing him, but he is a good, and innocent man. Right. Yesterday an indictment against this "innocent" man was filed with the Beersheba District Court. The charges:

Abu Sisi received a doctorate degree from a Ukrainian military engineering academy, where he worked with a Scud missile specialist. During his studies the engineer gained knowledge on the development of missiles and their control systems.

Once returned to Gaza, Abu Sisi joined Hamas and engaged in covert operations of the organization.

Between the years 2002-2008, he was a Hamas commander and member of a committee in which Mohammed Def, the commander of the group's military wing, was also a member. The committee was charged with developing deadly missiles and rockets that have been used by Hamas since 2002 against civilians as well as IDF vehicles. Abu Sisi helped the group enlarge its rocket range from 6 km to 22, and vowed to further improve the range to 37-45 km.

Following Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, Abu Sisi was nominated to lead the establishment of a military academy charged with training Hamas commanders.

May he be put away for a long, long time.


Dr. Aaron Lerner's comments on this are worthy of note:

"The Israeli 'quiet for quiet' model - that appears to be continued to be embraced by the current Israeli government - takes the approach that the Arabs in the Gaza Strip can do pretty much anything that they want to do to prepare for war against Israel as long as they don't shoot. Yet. And when the Arabs shoot from Gaza, Israel responds with a 'tit for tat,' bombing a few targets from the 'target bank' rather than attempting to make a serious dent in the weapons stores in the Gaza Strip.

"Some have argued that 'quiet for quiet' could stop major advances in the weapons systems being deployed in the Gaza Strip as long as the Israeli Navy and others manage to stop the weapons systems in transit into the Gaza Strip.

"But the indictment of Dirar Abu Sisi reveals that extremely significant and deadly dangerous missile development was taking place in the Gaza Strip itself.

"The 'quiet for quiet' policy should more appropriately be termed a 'let's forget about tomorrow' policy."


And I'd like to carry an examination of the "let's forget about tomorrow" policy one step further. As I see it, there is the potential (potential — we don't know yet) for a vastly different dynamic with regard to our attacking Gaza. Until now, if we attacked Gaza, we dealt with Hamas, and that was it. And I believe it would still be the case at the moment, with the military ruling Egypt.

But now Mohamed ElBaradei, who is a candidate for the Egyptian presidency, has declared that as president he would find ways to implement the joint Arab defense pact, were Israel to attack in Gaza.

It's very unlikely that ElBaradei will win. But what if someone else who thinks similarly does? What if Muslim Brotherhood comes to power?

Is it not better that we take out the huge stockpiles of weapons in the possession of Hamas now, before the dynamic shifts? It is estimated that Hamas weapons capability has increased four-fold in the last fives years.

Just asking...


This comes from Ma'an, the PA news agency: The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics has released new information regarding living conditions among Palestinian Arabs.

Statistics are very similar for the West Bank and Gaza. Got that? Sort of puts a dent in the image of Gazans as suffering tremendously.

Home ownership in the West Bank was at 82 percent, and at 80 percent in Gaza, although crowding was greater in Gaza. Almost all homes had refrigerators, 94 percent had satellite dishes, and 47 percent had computers.


PA President Abbas has met in Amman with David Hill, Deputy to the US special envoy to the Middle East (that would be Blair).

Abbas informed Hill that negotiations will resume "only if there are clear terms of reference to the negotiations and after Israel stops all settlement activity." (Translation: only if Israel agrees to all terms before negotiations begin.)


On a brighter note, Dennis Ross, Obama ME advisor, speaking at the annual leadership conference of the Anti-Defamation League, noted that:

"We have consistently made it clear that the way to produce a Palestinian state is through negotiations, not through unilateral declarations, not through going to the UN. Our position on that has been consistent in opposition."

It would be good to know in real terms what this will mean with regard to US policy and actions if and when the PA does go to the UN. (I would suggest that the stronger the US is in communicating this opposition, the more the hesitation that will be engendered in PA ranks.)

After declaring strong US commitment to Israel, Ross then launched into talk about the need for those negotiations. "It's important that they [Palestinian Arab leadership] see that peace is a possibility. They need to see that negotiations can not only take place, but they can produce."

The problem with all this blather is that Ross does not confront the hard realities, such as the fact that the PA demands it all, and cannot have it all. What "possibility" is he addressing?


More good news:

Jerusalem's Building and Planning Committee voted yesterday to permit the construction of 942 housing units in the neighborhood of Gilo, in the south of the city. A zoning decision by the Committee may pave the way for an additional 300 housing units in the future as well.

According to a statement by the municipality: "The land where the units are to be built is owned by the Jewish National Fund (JNF) and private individuals. The private owners are asking that building plans be advanced in accordance with the law."


The municipal committee also planned to discuss the expansion of three other Jerusalem neighborhoods: Ramat Shlomo, Ha