Think-Israel Logo

THINK-ISRAEL features essays and commentaries that provide context for current events in Israel. The war Islam is waging against Israel and the West is top priority. We report on global anti-Semitism, Islamism and creeping Sharia.We aim to make sense of what's going on.  

NOTE:CLICK Items In The White Box Above To Go DIRECTLY To The Featured Articles And The Latest Blog-Ed Page, etc. Or scroll down until you come to the Featured Articles and the links to the Blog-Eds pages.
This search box uses standard Google. It doesn't do partial words or wildcard expressions or find every possibility. It does do limited booleans using AND or OR. If a and b are searchwords:
  * a AND b finds files that include both searchwords.  a OR b accepts any file with either or both searchwords.
  * A set of searchwords separated by spaces is an AND search.  A phrase in quotes is a single searchword.
This search engine searches the Think-Israel site only
   We are told that there is a difference between extremist Islam and peaceloving normal Islam.
   Judging by their behavior, Muslims are anti-West, anti-Democracy, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Buddhist, and anti-Hindu. Muslims are involved in 25 of some 30 conflicts going on in the world: in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Cyprus, East Timor, India, Indonesia (2 provinces), Kashmir, Kazakastan, Kosovo, Kurdistan, Macedonia, the Middle East, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Somalia, Sudan, Russia-Chechnya, Tajikistan, Thailand, Uganda and Uzbekistan.
   Doesn't this mean that extremist Islam is the norm and normal Islam is extremely rare?
"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa. While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."   (PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, March 31, 1977, interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw.) The Palestinian leadership, including Ahmed Shukar and Yasir Arafat, has openly admitted Palestinian "peoplehood" is a fraud; Read This
"It should be remembered that in 1918, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Britain and France were handed more than 5,000,000 square miles to divvy up and 99+% was given to the Arabs to create countries that did not exist previously. Less than 1% was given as a Mandate for the re-establishment of a state for the Jews on both banks of the Jordan River. In 1921, to appease the Arabs once again, another three quarters of that less than 1% was given to a fictitious state called Trans-Jordan." (Jack Berger, May 31, 2004.)
The total for all the 22 Arab League countries is 6,145,389 square miles (SM). By comparison, all 50 states of the United States have a total of 3,787,318 SM. Israel has 8,463 SM, about one-sixth of that of the State of Michigan. Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and Afghanistan are Muslim but not Arab and are not included.
     World Arab population: 300 million; World Jewish population: 13.6 million; Israel's Jewish population: 5.4 million.
"... during the late 1940s, more than 40 million refuges around the world were resettled, except for one people. They [Palestinian arabs] remain defined as refugees, wallowing 60 years later in 59 UNRWA refugee camps, financed by $400 million contributed annually by nations of the world to nurture the promise of the "right of return" to Arab neighborhoods and Arab villages from 1948 that no longer exist."
Some 900,000 Jews left behind $300 billion in assets when they were forced to flee for their lives from the Arab countries in the 1940s. They hold deeds for five times Israel's size.
Re Israel's irrevocable ownership of Israel, Golan, Samaria, Judea and Gaza: "Nothing that Israel's legal system says can change the facts that: (1) the legal binding document is the Mandate of the League of Nations and (2) the obligations of the Mandate are valid in perpetuity." (Professor Julius Stone)
"By 1920 the Ottoman Empire had exercised undisputed sovereignty over Palestine for 400 years. In Article 95 of the treaty of Sevres, that sovereignty was transferred to England in trust for a national homeland for the jews. The local Arabs had never exercised sovereignty over Palestine and so they lost nothing. Their rights were fully protected by a provisio in the grant: ' being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...' The proviso has been fully observed by the Israelis. Since 1950 the Arabs have built some 261 new settlements in Judea and Samaria — more than twice as many as the Jews, but you never hear of them. They fill them with Arabs from Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan and by the grace of God they become Palestinians. Allahu Akbar! The Arabs call Judea "the West Bank' because they would look silly claiming that Jews are illegally living in Judea."
Read More Quotes Here



What we are talking about in the March-April, 2012 Issue

  1. Accommodating Genocide (Imani, Ahlert, Paul, Meir-Levi, Steyn)
  2. Europe is suffering from the plague--and the USA is infected (Bawer, Bostom, Ibrahim, Cline)
  3. The Arab as a Victim (Lipkin,Karsh, Hornik, Halper, Dann, Proudman)
  4. Actual Stories of ordinary Muslims (Adelman, Ahlert, Haivri)
  5. Alternative Solutions to the "Peace Process" (Ettinger, Haivri, Hausman, Kedar)
  6. Still Dithering about Iran (Joscelyn, Asculai, Goodman, Mckay)
  7. Practioners of Hate (Grobman, Rennert, Plosker, Steyn)
  8. History Section (Eydar, Berdichevsky, Sharpe, Honig, Levin,)
  9. March-April 2012 Blog-Eds


We start this issue with a two-pronged question: What does Islam want to accomplish and how are we in Western culture helping them by self-censorship, complacency and appeasement?

In the 1930s, during the economic crisis before World War 2, the then American President, Franklin Delano Roosevelt said we had nothing to fear but fear itself -- but in those days, the whole country was involved. Nowadays, many don't seem to know Islam has declared an unending, multi-faceted uncompromising war against us -- we act as if this is a debating society and we can talk them to death. In truth, we may have lots to fear and nothing to gain by not fighting back.

Let's start by watching this video:
3 things about Islam

Fred Reifenberg, who sent it in, points out that parts of the text have been strongly inspired by the website:

Material also came from these sources, which we encourage you to read:

Keep in mind that the adherents to Islam aren't allowed to pick and choose. They can't revise an outdated command by giving it a figurative or milder meaning. A good Muslim -- a pious Muslim -- follows the Koran without deviation. It is the word of Allah, as given voice by Muhammad, who is himself the best example Muslims have of how to think and behave as a Muslim.

Resurgent Islam's mission to rule the planet is neither haphazard nor short-lived. It has been well-planned. An early objective has been to kill off the growing power of a Jewish presence in the Middle East. When the modern State of Israel survived the onslaughts and invasions by her Arab neighbors, it became a subsidiary objective to cut the ties between Israel and the Jews in the West who contribute to its viability. After years where antisemitism was disapproved by the well-bred and thus pushed under the radar, Jews in the west are now themselves a target. The new antisemitism is mouthed not just by skin-head crazies but by respected academicians at major universities, by mainline churchmen and by minority groups that have been the beneficiaries of the unequaled participation by Jews in the fight for political and social equality.

We have reached the point where many in the West sing the Siren Song of accommodation with the terrorists. As Sarah Honig writes below: "The international community can’t wait to whitewash, exonerate, find extenuating excuses for and otherwise legitimize Arab terrorists, lessen their culpability, conceal their ideology, make light of their record, explain away their sins and gloss over their proven malice."

What is perhaps most disconcerting is that so many Jews -- particularly those in organizations designed to defend Judaism from its antisemitic enemies -- seem oblivious to what's happening. The well-funded and sustained campaign to demonize Israel and marginalize Jews in America is seldom rebutted by one of the major Jewish organizations. It is a benchmark of sorts that the Holocaust has become too controversial for the Jewish Federation. This is discussed by Ahlert's article in this set.

While we play our silly lets pretend that all-is-jolly games, Iran is building nuclear weapons to terrorize the Middle East and silence the West. Locally in Israel, Hamas and Fatah continue to act as they proclaimed in their charters.

"Goals: Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence. Method: Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic… in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished…. Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine"
– Fatah Constitution

This is not much different from Hamas's charter, which reads:

"Israel will exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it…. Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement…. The Day of Judgment will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslim, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him."

Should the impossible occur and the Arab terrorists -- the pious Muslims of today who most clearly emulate Mohammad -- mellow their genocidal message, isn't it clear that the pious Arab populace would soon replace them with leaders from the smaller, less media-highlighted groups of devout terrorists, rabidly ready to carry on the Prophet's vision?

The brutal and the bloodiest prepare on the small stage of Israel to take their perfected mission to a larger audience. Yet the West sleeps.

by Amil Imani

  Amil Imani has written an excellent summary of the Islamic threat throughout the world: "Islamists are hell-bent on imposing their Stone-Age system on everyone." They consider it -- including their master-slave model for a well-run society and their brutal tactics in achieving their goal -- a religious duty, which rids them of guilt and hesitancy. "Islam, by the nature of its very doctrine, appeals to man’s baser nature." This is so alien to other religions and to secular humanism, that there is a tendency to disbelieve the reality.


by Sarah Honig

  Sarah Honig states bluntly what many in the West would like to ignore: "Hamas anchors its Jew-revulsion in the Koran." As the Hamas Charter asserts, "there is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad." Nevertheless, no matter how openly Hamas states its intent, Westerners, with all the evidence against them, continue to act as if Hamas can be gentled, that we can all reason together, if we but make the effort -- again. Honig suggests, using the Swiss as example, that either they "know what Hamas is but just [don't] really give a hoot" or ... "don't wish to burden their selective conscience with excess information — as per precedents from Third Reich days about other genocidal harangues"

by Arnold Ahlert

  Self-censorship is an excellent way to deny the threat of resurgent Islam. If we never get into a confrontational situation, we don't have to think about the consequences of standing up -- or not standing up -- for our way of life against a group that places no limitations on what it will do to win. One excellent indicator that self-censorship is at work is when Muslims object to the Holocaust being taught, and the school or local school board accede to their demand. Or often, they cut the course or lecture series when no one has yet complained, but they are aware that Muslims objected to it somewhere else. This has become commonplace in Europe, especially England. But it is still fairly new in this country. In this essay, Arnold Ahlert chronicles a recent example that occurred at Purdue University. What makes it particularly appalling is that Jewish Federation, a major Jewish organization, went along with the action.

by Stella Paul

  This being the season in which we celebrate the Passover and our deliverance from slavery into becoming a free people, we present Stella Paul's special prayer for deliverance from an American Jewish leadership which for many years has shown itself to be "A clueless bunch of mini-Pharaohs, strutting around proclaiming their moral superiority"... This being the season of the Passover, she frames her prayer in the format of dayena, "It would have been enough, O Lord." Actually, considering the tone of the essay, a better translation might be the Yiddish-English "genug, already." (Enough already!)

by David Meir-Levi

  David Meir-Levi provides us with is a detailed summary of how far the Islamists have come in softening us up so that we won't resist their next phase of attack on western civilization. They have effectively used a variety of procedures from lawfare to terrorism. Almost unnoticed is "the quiet, gradual and peaceful infiltration of Muslim operatives and their supporters into our social, legal, educational and political systems under the guise of legitimate democratic activism..." What makes all of this so depressing is that like lobsters slowly subjected to increasing heat, we seem to adapt and remain quiescent. We show no alarm.

by Mark Steyn

Mark Steyn tells us how important Geert Wilders is in the fight for all of us in the West to retain our freedom of speech and thought. Wilders was put on trial for committing the sin of describing Islam accurately in its own words. Unfortunately, in Europe, "[t]hose who seek to analyze Islam outside the very narrow bounds of Eutopian political discourse wind up either banned (Belgium’s Vlaams Blok), forced into exile (Ayaan Hirsi Ali), or killed (Fortuyn, van Gogh)." "In 21st-century Amsterdam, you’re free to smoke marijuana and pick out a half-naked sex partner from the front window of her shop. But you can be put on trial for holding the wrong opinion about a bloke who died in the seventh century." Fear of Islamic intolerant reactions to what they call Islamophobia -- i.e., any criticism of Islam -- has made European officialdom intolerant of those of their citizens who question Islam's assessment of itself.


Europe is suffering from a plague that has reached epidemic proportions. The plague is not accidental; it's been carefully planned to maximize its impact. The plague carriers are an unruly, contentious group, the Muslim immigrants, who do not wish to associate in a peaceable way with the natives. They wish to dominate and impose their values. The symptoms the natives exhibit are these: they suffer from a loss of nerves, a fear of confrontation, a tendency to appeasement and self-censorship and an inability to exert themselves to reverse the situation. The USA has been infected, and in America as in Europe, many an academician and politician has signed up to help transmit the disease to different target groups. We are beginning to watch our language so as not to offend Muslims; our courts are toying with the idea of accepting sharia law in a limited way; we bleach truthful statements about the ruthlessness of the Muslim conquests out of our textbooks. But the plague has not yet reached an epidemic -- and possibly irreversible -- level.

by Bruce Bawer

  Bruce Bawer writes of the Obin study of the impact of Islam on the educational system published in France in 2005. It contains a litany of refusals by Muslim children to participate in anything or eat anything or accept anything or study anything at odds with their religion -- this in a country that prides itself on its multicultural integration. Hand in hand with this, the Muslim children were thoroughly-indoctrinated Jew-haters. "Muslim students objected to anything having to do with Judaism. Holocaust denial was common." It noted that "...there is no school in France — not even a Jewish school! — where Jewish children are safe from the pernicious evil of Muslim Jew-hatred." If anything, the situation has worsened for Jews. France itself is unlikely to remain a democracy much longer, given that this Muslim population is rapidly increasing, they will not assimilate, and the French leadership shows no signs of takings measures to reverse the situation.

by Andrew Bostom

  Whoever is blueprinting the takeover of the West by resurgent Islam must think it is a powerful tool to say exactly what Islam plans to accomplish. Andy Bostom recounts the dream of that patriotic American, Salah al-Sawy, who is willing to live briefly under American law until he has sufficient resources to change things to their proper state, where everyone lives under Allah, and Muslims are in control. Eventually, the Islamic Umma expects to "supercede Western conceptions of human rights as enunciated, for example, in the US Bill of Rights, and the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights." If they don't succeed, it won't be for want of trying. For "Muslims serving as judges in non-Muslim (including US) legal systems: It is permissible to work as a judge in an infidel nation or a nation which rules by infidel law, even if that leads to ruling by their law, if by so doing one is able to increase the good and decrease the bad as much as possible." As it is said, "he judges by the rulings of the Shari'a as much as possible, even if by a ruse." So now we know.

by Raymond Ibrahim

  "Because it is now almost axiomatic for American school textbooks to whitewash all things Islamic", Raymond Ibrahim undertakes to gives us a more accurate picture of the Muslim Conquest of the vast land area from the Middle East and Spain to central Asia and India. The inhabitants were offered the usual Muslim choices: conversion, dhimmitude or a fight to the death. This is taught proudly in the Muslim world. But Western textbooks would have you believe the conquered people couldn't wait to accept Islam.

by Edward Cline

  A major objective of resurgent Islam is to criminalize any criticism of Islam that any Muslim might object to. Their campaign has been sufficiently successful that we have become infected with the fear of saying anything that can be considered Hate-Islam-speech. It easily overrides our supposedly-irrevocable and guaranteed-by-the Constitution free speech. It has indeed become dangerous to verbalize a whimsical or logical train of thought that might be politically distasteful. Muslims that aren't too squeamish to decapitate a human apparently are too sensitive, too delicate, to be subjected to hurtful words. In this essay Edward Cline describes the stigmata of the disease with which we are afflicted. If virtue still has power, this essay will become a classic.


The bedrock of Muslim propaganda is that the po' defenseless Muslims have been victimized by just about everybody. In India, the Hindu is the victimizer, ignoring it's Muslims who commit all the acts of terrorism. In Europe, just by showing displeasure, the Muslims are succeeding in having Holocaust studies removed from the curriculum. In America, the loudly-voiced Muslim claim that they are the chief victim of hate crimes would seem to substantiate their claim that America is irrationally islamophobic. In actual fact, religion-based hate crimes against Jews are more than seven times as frequent as religion-based hate crimes against Muslims (70% versus 9%) -- and many of these crimes are committed by the po' defenseless muslims. In Israel and the Territories, the po' Palestinian Arab claim they are victimized by the Jewish government, though, case by case in the courts, Arabs are consistently favored over Jews in any property dispute. In this section we present cases where the Arab is actually the victim -- of other Arabs. It is ironic that Arab brutality to other Arabs is ignored, but the world's press calls Israel's killing a human shield a criminal act. It is ironic that Arabs do better in Israeli courts than Arab women in Sharia courts.

by Al Skudsi bin Hookah

  Mr. bin Hookah is foreign correspondent and roving reporter for The Gaza Gajeera. In this column, he recounts his experience as an unwilling resident in an Israeli jail these past few years.

by Efraim Karsh

  Israel has been accused of killing a handful of human shields in 2009 in Gaza. Syria has in fact murdered some 12000 of its own citizens within the past year, including some 400 children that were jailed and tortured. Yet the Anti-apartheidniks rage against Israel and ignore Syria's barbaric behavior. Efraim Karsh points out in this essay that Syria's human rights record is not atypical. Apartheidism is endemic in the Arab states -- as is religious intolerance, ethnic inequality, racism, gender discrimination, slavery and other practices that Western liberals condemn in theory but ignore when they are done by their proteges, the Muslims of the Middle East.

by P. David Hornik

  When a culture is built on aggression and conquest, it's not surprising that the same lack of respect for others spills over into family relations and clan interactions, where brutality is also the norm. David Hornik tackles an important subset: Arab on Arab violence. Ignoring the phenomenon allows Arab propagandists to balloon out grievances against Israel that are likely the expression of the resentment Arabs feel against Jews being in control, when in their perfect world, Jews -- and everybody else -- should be dhimmis. Given their religion-based culture of violence, as Hornik notes, "...the idea that upgrading the West Bank and Gaza to statehood would be a step toward peace, let alone democracy, is surely in need of a reality check."

by Daniel Halper

  In keeping with the discussions in the previous articles, a grave problem is that Palestinian Arabs are in danger from their own leaders, who consider it is a capital crime to sell property to a Jew. This has had consequences. Sales have been handled between Arab and Jew surreptitiously. They avoid filing papers and out of fear of their own leaders the Arab seller can't own up to the sale. Now the Israeli Supreme Court is jeopardizing the use of this outlet.

by Moshe Dann

  Moshe Dann writes of the highly discriminatory rulings against Jews in Israeli court cases when a Jew and an Arab have a property dispute, As he notes, "This ruling should send shivers down the spine of everyone who respects the rule of law. It means that Israel's Supreme Court has been compromised by a political agenda that discriminates against Jews. By abandoning the Ottoman rules, the High Court may well have undermined the rule of law, by changing the age-old principles of land occupancy in Judea and Samaria by sudden judicial fiat."

by Charlotte Rachael Proudman

  A reader of the original article, Michelle Brooks, wrote: "I am always absolutely incredulous to find instances where British laws are broken over and over again without penalty ... Well done Charlotte Proudman for shedding more light on such a dark corner of our judicial system - and for those who will say that Sharia councils are not courts -- we know! However, because thousands of vulnerable Muslim women don't know, these operations continue to bring in a steady flow of cash to a sinister bunch who have callous disregard for the welfare of women who are often sent back to their abusive husbands as they haven't been beaten enough to warrant a divorce."


by Gadi Adelman

  As Gadi Adelman points out, acid attacks are not unique to Islam, but they are commonly used in the Islamic culture as punishment or retaliation. In Jewish law, 'an eye for an eye' became the foundation for tort law, where an equivalent monetary recompense was substituted for retaliation. In Islamic countries, one can find recent court decisions where someone found guilty of blinding another has his own eye removed. Acid attacks are commonly used against women and children by husbands and fathers angry that they are not obeyed; and these are seldom punished. I was going to say it was a dog's life for women in Islam, but that's not true. Women don't get eaten. They are just brutalized and regarded as inferior creatures.

by Arnold Ahlert

  Arnold Ahlert writes about a ruling under Sharia law that seems insane to Westerners. A young Muslim woman aged 16 was ordered by the court to marry the man who had raped her a year before. The important issue in that culture is not that a young girl suffered psychological and physical damage. What matters is that in losing her virginity before marriage, the victim causes her family to lose honor. So says Sharia. Since Sharia law blames the woman when there's a rape, the family often feels marriage to the rapist is the only way to restore the family's honor -- it's that or killing the woman that was raped. In this case, after suffering several months of beatings after marriage, she committed suicide. There is a stark difference between Western and Islamic law and attitudes; and stories such as this one cut through the nonsense that "all cultures are equally viable," all ideologies equally acceptable.

by Mohshin Habib

  Not that long ago, Bangladesh, a Muslim country, was noted for being democratic, secular, tolerant and modern in outlook; the attitude was reinforced by its Constitution. But as in Turkey and in Egypt and Iran, the fundamentalists took over and the country has become conventionally Islamic. Mohshin Habib gives us a look at how the Muslim religion influences some every-day matters.


Advocates of the "Push Israel to allow a bunch of hostile Arabs live near, around, in and next to Israel" (AKA "2-state solution") present this as the only possibility outside of the suicidal 1-state solution, where the Arabs would control the state and the Jews -- if allowed to live -- would be dhimmis. But there are many other possibilities. Over the years, Think-Israel has presented many ideas that would allow the Israelis to build their remarkable country in peace and bring stability to at least a small part of the Middle East. Our own solution is among several suggestions presented in the September-October 2010 issue. Click here to read it inter alia

Below we present two other ideas. We start with factual article that provide context: (1) Who are the Palestinian-Arabs? and (2) How many of them are there in the Territories?

by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

  Yoram Ettinger provides definitive information on the origin of the name and region called Palestine and the quite-separate origin of those we now call "Palestinians. The article is noteworthy for using population statistics from various sources. They make it clear, in the words of Dr. Carl Hermann Voss, that "[t]he Arab population of Palestine was small and limited until Jewish resettlement restored the barren lands and drew to it Arabs from neighboring countries." When England was given the League of Nations Mandate to help the Jews develop the area into a Jewish state, she called it Palestine. She betrayed her trust, splitting off the 78% of the territory that was on the east side of the Jordan river to and giving it to the Hashemites to administer, then encouraging Arab immigration into the remainder of the land while making difficulties for Jewish immigrants, "until Arab demography was sufficiently enhanced". Palestinian is a recent name intended to lend support for the false claim that these Arabs are a separate people. But thanks to the multiplicity of cultures, nationalities and races that never assimilated -- the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica counted 51 -- and the chronic internecine warfare of a volatile and ever changing population in the region, no nation or people had crystallized in all the years since the Arab conquest. Nor had the population increased significantly. "In 1554, there were 205,000 Moslems Christian and Jews in Palestine. In 1800, the total population was 275,000." Then the Jews came. And the Arab population figures increased steeply.

by David Ha'ivri

  The West invests so much media promotion, economic resources, and political capital on the Palestinian Arabs, one would suppose determining reliably how many Arabs actually live in the Territories would be a simple lookup. It isn't. David Ha'ivri lays out the problem and suggestions possible reasons why the data are sequestered. He refers to "reputable, independent studies" that use accurate statistics to estimate Arab population. We suggest googling articles by Yoram Ettinger on demographics to obtain these. To understand the implication of these data, we also include an article by Ettinger contrasting current fertility rates for Arabs and Jews in Israel and the Territories. Most surprising.

by Matthew Hausman

  Matthew Hausman elegantly demolishes the notion that the Oslo Process was a vehicle for peace, and suggests an alternative procedure -- declaring Jordan, which already has a Palestinian Arab majority, as the Palestinian state.. He makes clear that the Jews have had a historic and religious attachment to their homeland for thousands of years and in point of fact never completely left it. The Palestinian Arabs, in contrast, "had no ancestral connection", nor were they a nation or a people. They were mostly immigrants from the neighboring countries, attracted by the economic opportunities created by the Jews and the British. That being the case, moving them to nearby Jordan does not sever them from their homeland. Just the opposite -- it gives a motley group of Arabs, the local Arabs and for the millions living in the refugee camps in the various Arab countries, land that could become their homeland.

by Dr. Mordechai Kedar

  Dr. Kedar has written, “Tribalism, which may be understood as ‘loyalty of individuals and groups to a traditional framework, such as a clan, sect, ethnic or religious subgroup’, ... forms the basis of much of the social structure of the Arab and Islamic world. ... tribal or family alliances endure intact even after tribal territory has been incorporated into a state system." Building on this observation, Dr. Kedar suggests a novel suggestion for solving the Palestinian Arab problem and thus bringing peace and stability for at least a small part of the Middle East.


This set of articles focus on Iran. Complicating a situation that is already in crisis, Prez Obama is playing Russian Roulette with the Middle East, where the blanks are endless sessions of talk and sanctions but no one is stopping Iran's development of nuclear weapons. This set of essays discusses some misleading data that encourages procrastinators to dither and why we should act before we have to confront a nuclear Iran. One of the essays reminds us that lack of resolution also characterizes how we are fighting resurgent Islam in other parts of the globe. Another points out that we won't stop a domestic attack by ignoring that our enemies are ceaselessly working at destroying our way of life.

A modest proposal: If Prez Obama is convinced we can wait and still act effectively when necessary, he has a simple way to convince us: let him allow his children to live incognito in Israel. Is he willing to put something in the pot besides high-falutin' words -- and the lives of thousands of Israeli Jews and Middle Eastern Arabs?

by Thomas Joscelyn

  Thomas Joscelyn writes that the 2007 NIE report was "flat wrong about Iran's covert work," in that it ignored Iran's ongoing work on "civilian" uranium conversion and enrichment. It did grave damage in that it supported the notion that Iran wasn't all that warlike in its nuclear ambitions, a conclusion many politicians and 'let's give negotiations and sanctions a chance' ideologues, including the present American administration, welcomed. When dealing with a group of fanatics who wasted some 100,000 to 500,000 of their own children, who were sent to blow-up land mines (and themselves), it would seem more intelligent to err on the side of suspicion of Iran's claims of innocence, particularly when it announces its intent to blow up Israel as soon as it has a bomb. Or maybe it will attack the USA directly. Or just cow its neighbors into political surrender. When the bomb goes off or is used as political blackmail, will Obama blame it on Bush?

by Ephraim Asculai

Ephraim Asculai provides the basic facts about Iran's ability to produce nuclear weaponry. We are certain of these facts or, at the very least, can make educated guesses about them. He concludes "Iran has the technical know-how and the facilities to enrich its LEU (3.5 and 20 percent uranium) to high enriched uranium (HEU) of about 90 percent enrichment." "the Iranians can, If the technicians receive the order to do so, quite quickly produce HEU for the first core of a nuclear explosive device."

Brett Stephens in a March 19, 2012 Wall Street Journal article entitled "The Bogus Iran Intelligence Debate" uses a less technical way to make the same point: given that the Iranians have the components, focusing on when they will be ready to produce bombs is bogus. He explains the actual core issue (no pun intended) this way: "You may not be able to divine whether a drinker, holding a bottle of Johnnie Walker in one hand and a glass tinkling with ice in the other, actually intends to pour himself a drink. And perhaps he doesn't. But the important thing, at least when it comes to intervention, is not to present him with the opportunity in the first place. [...] To have sufficient quantities of enriched uranium is, so to speak, the whiskey of a nuclear-weapons program. By contrast, 'weaponization'—the vessel into which you pour and through which you can deliver the enriched uranium cocktail—is merely the glass."


by Alana Goodman

  Alana Goodman makes a chilling but compelling observation that pierces the unstated belief of many an antisemite that Iran might take over the Middle East, even blast Israel, but they won't attack America. Based on the fact that Hezbollah agents -- tools of Iran -- are in the USA and have a sufficient network of donors to be effective, she asks, "the argument from the appease-Iran crowd is so counter-intuitive. If there's broad concern about the threat of Hezbollah operatives in the U.S. now, why would we expect them to be less of a threat if they were backed by mullahs with nukes? Or are we just supposed to that pray Israel and our other allies don’t do anything that might offend the regime once it obtains nuclear weapons, lest its Hezbollah allies retaliate against us domestically?"

by Karen Mckay

  Karen McKay reminds us that we are repeating the cut and run tactics we used in Vietnam, instead of staying the course and fighting effectively the war that radical Islam is waging against us. We need also to understand that the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War are not separate wars; they are components of the global war Islam is waging around the world. As McKay writes, "We are at war with an implacable enemy who intends to cleanse the world of Jews and destroy Western civilization. Mealy-mouthed speeches, attempts to excuse or “understand” those who are dedicated to destroying us, and limp-wristed responses to threats—such as negotiations and feel-good sanctions--will doom us. Our enemies respect only strength, decisiveness and fearlessness."


Propaganda, public relations statements, harangues and debate arguments are not in themselves either good or bad. It depends on how they are used, when the text is supposed to be factual. It depends on how much -- or how little -- the writers feel the need to tell the truth. It would be nice if they were constrained to tell "the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," but that doesn't necessarily happen, not even in respected papers such as the New York Times. Often they will tell some of the truth, fudge some of it, distort some, confabulate, lie, generalize a minor incident, ignore significant data, and stretch out a small point to make it seem as the core issue. Some of this, of course, is due to sheer dullness -- how many media people were physics or math majors, or even took courses that required logical thinking? But much is deliberate obfuscation and inventive lying with malicious intent. There is one interesting subset: when the object of the media's attention is both guilty and a Muslim. The press utilizes its standard practices of distortion, but now the intent is to minimize the heinous crime. The media can actually sounds kind and understanding. They can make you feel vindictive and ungenerous if you disagree with them.

by Alex Grobman

  Responding to a number of people have asked if they can use the introduction of his book License to Murder: The Enduring Threat of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Dr. Alex Grobman had made it available. Here below is a copy. As Kenneth Bialkin, Chairman of the America-Israel Friendship League, puts it, "Dr. Alex Grobman seeks to explore how and why a vicious lie, a warrant for genocide, first written in the early 1900s, aided endemic antisemitism and then morphed into anti-Zionism."

by Leo Rennert

  One would think that the naming a square in memory of Dr. Dajani. "an Arab physician who treated both Arabs and Jews" before Israel became a state would be a heartwarming story. The Washington Post used it to vilify Israel, distort recent history and revise the Bible to suit Arab propaganda. As Leo Rennert writes, the Post's reporter, Joel Greenberg, "inject[ed] his piece with anti-Israel poison pills in an attempt to undermine the very legitimacy of Israel's nationhood." The Arab invasion of the new-born state is ignored and Israel is made to seem responsible for the Doctor's family leaving. "With Greenberg, the sad tale of the Dajani family is turned into Palestinian victimhood rather than the outcome of massive self-inflicted wounds by Arab leaders. The 1948 debacle was caused entirely by Arab rejectionism, not by Israel's creation." Rennert rightly concludes that its "journalistic selectivity ... tells worlds about the paper's anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bias in its news columns."

by Simon Plosker

  We are familiar with lone wolf terrorists, imbued with the peaceful messages of Islam, massacring non-Muslims with no visible instruction from a central planning group. Now we hear of lone-wolf propagandists, who, apparently independently, set up a well-structured hoax, when, usually, a successful hoax requires coordination, planning, money and authority. The al-Dura construction, for example, required one group of Arabs to distract the IDF while another crew faked the death of a 12-year old boy, Muhamad al-Dura. The cameraman, standing near the Arab snipers, reassured the network that the posed shot was of a 12-year old boy hiding behind his father, caught in the crossfire between the IDF and Palestinians. The boy's father told lies that were later discovered. The French network and its anchorman broadcast that the Jews had shot an innocent Arab child. This brilliant hoax fueled a global hatred of Israel, which was immediately condemned as the killer of innocent Arab children. Only later did it become known the Palestinians had shot at al-Dura, and, even now, few know the real story. Simon Plosker writes of this new twist on how to libel Jews.


by Mark Steyn

  There is one type of occasion that brings out a show of kindness and understanding in the media. When a Muslim slaughters an innocent, the press has a well-practiced, ritualistic procedure to wheedle us into believing the Muslim isn't a monster, just a good guy gone wrong because of social factors. He is another victim of society. If they had their druthers, they would keep it secret that the murderer was a Muslim. A man's religion is considered unimportant if he's a Muslim. Mark Steyn describes the steps in the procedure..


by Dror Eydar

  On Mount Ebal, where the Jews entered the Land of Canaan some three thousand years, Adam Zertal, an archaeologist, has been excavating what likely is Joshua's Altar, the first altar built in the Promised Land for service to HaShem, in accordance with the instructions recorded in the Bible. Dror Eydar tells an exciting story on two levels. There is the awesome story the excavation is disclosing. The specific objects found, the evidence provided by the debris, the topology of the area -- all these say that the rules for sacrifice and kashruth were in place at the beginning of Nationhood. The architecture of the altar, itself, amazingly enough, mirrors the structure of the altar of the Second Temple but precedes it by a thousand years. And there is the less salutory story -- this is yet another example where new data are denigrated because they don't support the belief system of the establishment, the established religion in this case being the belief by establishment archaeologists that the Bible isn't history.

by Norman Berdichevsky

  Norman Berdichevsky writes of the history of the Iraqi Jews -- the Babylonian Jews of ancient times -- "Like the overwhelming majority of the large Jewish population of approximately 800,000 Jews living in the Middle East in 1948 outside of Palestine," they were "the casualties of modern Arab nationalism and religious extremism." "They are unequivocally the oldest diaspora community going back to the Babylonian captivity after the destruction of the Temple in 586 BCE. They can also claim to be the original Zionists, following the call of Ezra the Scribe to return to the land of their fathers in Judea." Berdichevsky describes their modern flight to Israel from persecution in Iraq and the period of adjustment in an Ashkenazi-dominated society. "It was particularly galling to the older generation that they "had been for many centuries the center of the Jewish world" and "in the course of just a few years [their dominance] was completely liquidated." But integration was helped by shared army experience and today Jews from the Arab countries are prominent in Israeli culture, in politics and in the military, while retaining their ancient traditions. As Berdichevsky observes, "Israelis have learned to live together and to rely less and less on simply being tagged with a label whether ethnic, racial or cultural." A fascinating story.

by Victor Sharpe

  Victor Sharpe writes of two British men, both of whom loomed large in the days preceding the birth of Israel. T.E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, helped defeat the Turkish army fighting the twilight battles of the Ottoman Empire. He was a proponent of Arab Revolt against the Ottoman, although, given the Arab performance -- as in the taking of Beersheva -- it would seem the Arabs were after loot not nationalism. Richard Meinertzhagen was not flamboyant, but he was an excellent tactician and "an avowed Christian supporter of Jewish and Zionist aspirations working for the reconstitution of a Jewish state within the ancient, ancestral and biblical homeland." Intertwined with the activities of these men to destroy Ottoman rule was the NILI, a group of young Jews who operated in Turkish territory and acted as dedicated spies for the English. Sharpe writes, "The conquest of El Arish, Gaza, Beersheba and finally Jerusalem would have been almost impossible without the massive amount of information provided by the NILI Jewish underground."

by Sarah Honig

  Sarah Honig writes of the events of the first full day after the modern state of Israel was declared at 4p.m., May the 14th, 1948, before the Sabbath began. The police, who just the day before were the Mandatory Police, charged their first thief -- he had stolen a book. A ship from Europe docked, filled with Jews who just the day before were considered illegal, and the passengers, were now declared legal immigrants. But the new state did not even have that single day to be at peace as it began meeting the demands of sovereignty. Contrary to the myth that Israel was born because of Holocaust guilt, as Honig writes, "The 'Great Arab Revolt' of 1936-39 – fomented by the still-revered Haj Amin al-Husseini and financed by Nazi Germany – merely delayed Jewish independence." Now, the Arab League, "avidly pro-Nazi", declared war, and the armies of seven Arab states invaded Israel, determined to destroy the newborn, which had, thanks to England's collusion with the Arabs, only a meager amount of military armament and a population that was combat-unready. The Jews survived the onslaught and went on to build up an impressive country. The Arabs remain mired in misery, fixated on destroying the Jewish State.

by Menucha Chana Levin

  When the U.S.A. abandoned Vietnam, for many of her Vietnamese allies "...hoping to escape Communist persecution and torture – there was no choice but to perilously attempt escape by sea." Many perished. Some came within sight of ships from different countries, which ignored their distress signals. One boat was lucky. The passengers were rescued by an Israeli vessel and eventually brought to Israel. 25 years have past. Menucha Chana Levin tells the story of the rescue and the aftermath.


March-April 2012 BLOG-EDS

  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index.

To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

March 2012 BLOG-EDS


April 2012 BLOG-EDS



What we are talking about in the January-February, 2012 Issue

  1. Themes In This Issue
  2. Changing People's Minds (Kaufman, Lipkin, Reilly, Solway, Julius, Bell)
  3. Reclaiming Jewish Land; Rejecting the two State Solution (Grief, CILR, Hausman, Weinberg, Shaw, Lerner, Abrams, Sherman)
  4. Insights Into Arab Behavior (Ibrahim, Greenfield, Ibrahim)
  5. Arab Internecine Wars (Ettinger, Glick, Burr, Jorisch, Rubin)
  6. Iran (Silverberg, Thornton, Glick, Lipkin)
  7. Muslim Brotherhood (Rubin, Mauro, Leibler)
  8. Where Are All The Moderate Muslims? (Sullivan, McCarthy, Habeeb)
  9. Infiltration Into Our Education System (Plaut, Thornton, Baehr, Tassel, Lappen)
  10. PR And Dirty Tricks (Visser, Chesler, Hinderaker, Stern, Silber, Lademain, Leiber, Haivri)
  11. History Section (Loewenberg, Klinger, Ginsburg, Salameh)
  12. January-February 2012 Blog-Eds

Themes In This Issue

We talk about some new misanthropic and misleading media attacks on Israel and we discuss ways of changing people's attitudes. We spend some time considering the fallout after Newt Gingrich startled everyone by saying what so many knew but wouldn't acknowledge: the Palestinian Arabs are not a people. Israel did not steal their land. We ask: what does it mean that so many in the media knew this, but didn't share their knowledge with their readers. On the contrary, many argued for concessions to the Arabs. Why the long-standing inhibition on bringing the truth to the foreground? Why was the Palestinian People invented?

Given that the Press will stay hostile but more people understand the pro-Palestinian pretense of being a People is just a pretext to justify killing Jews, we ask why doesn't Israel stop her "White-Knight" quest for peace with the Arabs? It's just as bizarre as anything out of Alice in Wonderland. But it's not just ineffective, it's dangerous. Israel owns Samaria and Judea and Gaza legally, as well as morally, by history, by Bible and by conquest. Why not annex them and be in a position to protect her population centers? She can then deal with the resident Arabs as a separate problem, which may require different strategies.

We examine some new insights into the Arab character and how Arabs/Muslims act out Islamic dictates among themselves. Iran is of particular concern in a region where there's little stability outside of Israel. We try again to solve that mystery: is there such a thing as a Moderate Muslim, that we define as one who is pious but doesn't -- and doesn't want to -- practice jihad against others.

We also has some essays on how Islam is doing stealth jihad-wise. We explore the relationship between what Harvard academics write and what school children are taught as facts about Islam.


What changes people's minds? The impact of authority figures -- favored professors, parents, religious leaders -- is a major factor in how opinions are formed. Clever and/or dramatic media presentation may work to set an attitude. Or to help change it. Occasionally, the change seems, paradoxically, both fated to be yet easily attributable to random factors. This segment examines some possibilities.

[1]  Having a well-known figure assert an obvious but ignored truth is especially effective when a once-popular, policy is defunct but no one wants to be the first to say so. Newt Gingrich spoke out forcefully and said what apparently everyone -- except those who only read Arab press releases -- knew; to wit, there is no authentic Palestinian people. It is a collection of Arabs who came into what is now Israel mostly in the 20th Century from all over the Middle East and was declared a people by Yassar Arafat in 1964. The curious fact is that the bubble didn't immediately burst. The varied reactions are themselves are interest. cbh We discuss the responses in the essay called "Israel's Existential Problems" (see above).

[2] Another way depends on what, initially, seems to be an unfocused need to do something different. An individual is dissatisfied. He is looking for something he feels he's missing. Often his journey is spiritual or takes the form of making contact with his roots. This is another theme explored below.

[3] A bold reframing of the structure of the debate will often work.

[4]  An open mind that pays attention to disparities can force a review of long-held attitudes and assumptions. The information that Middle Eastern wealth is aggressively used in ugly and annoying ways to promote Islam in America is not secret. As Ralph Peters has pointed out: "...right now, in 21st-century America, estimates project that at least 70% of mosques and madrassahs in the United States receive Saudi funds, directly or indirectly." "...the Saudis also spend extravagantly on building mosques at the extreme fringes of Muslim penetration — to mark the territory for Islam." (Emphasis added.) Nevertheless, the author of the last essay below ignored the evidence -- as do many on the Left. He assumed that the local opposition to the erection of a mega mosque in the heart of the Bible Belt was simple bigotry. How he came to a deeper understanding makes a fascinating story. When all is said and done, it is pretty chutzpadic of Saudi Arabia to bleat about tolerance when they won't allow someone of a different religion -- not even the American soldiers who protect them in their homeland -- to worship openly.

by Jerome S. Kaufman

 In this article, Jerry Kaufman sums up what Newt Gringrich said. In actuality, the Palestinians are a fake people. They had not developed into a people over the centuries. Those we called Palestinians have no identity distinct from the general Arab population. The 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica lists half a hundred groups living in Mandated Palestine -- Beduins, Circassians, Jews, Christians, Arabs, etc. There was no group called Palestinian or one that called itself Palestinian. Michael Curtis of the BESA Center puts it this way:

" independent Palestinian state has ever existed, let alone one that manifested a "Palestinian identity."

"A few examples can illustrate this. The first Congress of Muslim-Christian Associations in the area met in February 1919 to consider the future of the territory formerly ruled by the Ottoman Empire, which dissolved after World War I. The Congress declared: "We consider Palestine as part of Arab Syria as it has never been separated from it at any time. We are connected with it by national, religious, linguistic, moral, economic, and geographical bonds." The celebrated scholar Philip Hitti, testifying before the Anglo-American Committee in 1946, stated there was no such thing as Palestine in history, "absolutely not." The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), in its September 3, 1947 report, remarked that Palestinian nationalism, as distinct from Arab nationalism, was a relatively new phenomenon. It concluded that Palestinian identity was part of a rich tapestry of identities, mostly predicated on Arab and Islamic solidarity.

"The Palestinians themselves reached the same conclusion. Palestinian spokesperson Ahmad Shuqeiri told the UN Security Council in 1956 that Palestine was nothing more than southern Syria. The head of the Military Operations Department of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Zuheir Muhsein, declared on March 31, 1977, "Only for political reasons do we carefully underline our Palestinian identity. ...the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there for tactical reasons." The PLO, in its own Charter or amended Basic Law (article 1), states that Palestine is part of the Arab nation. That "Arab nation" never included a state known as "Palestine." Indeed, the inhabitants of the general Palestinian area were not subjects of an Arab nation but of the Ottoman Empire, which ruled the area from 1516-1918. This was the last recognized sovereign power in the area. The area of Palestine was a district of the Empire, officially a vilayet (province), not a political entity. No independent Palestinian state has ever been established, nor was there a single administrative or cultural unit of Palestinians. Arabs in the area were not different in any way from other Arabs in the Middle East. Nor was Israel established on the ashes of any state other than the Ottoman Empire.

"On the other hand, a sovereign Jewish state existed prior to the rise of the Roman Empire. While the Romans destroyed the Second Temple, changed the name of the land to Syria Palestina, and banished the Jews from Jerusalem, this did not eradicate all Jewish presence in the area. Moreover, the Jews in the Diaspora maintained a strong consciousness of the historical connection of the Jewish people to Palestine — a connection that was acknowledged in the League of Nations mandate."


by Bernice Lipkin

Newt Gingrich said forthrightly that there was no such thing as a Palestinian people and they had never owned the land. Bernice Lipkin examines one aspect of the aftermath: the response of the media. In that most of the media have been more or less pro-Palestinian, one would expect they would be shocked and ask for proof. Instead the general response could be summed up as: we know but so what. Let's get on with the peace process. Now why is that?



by Robert R. Reilly

Robert Reilly asks a critical question: why were the Palestinian people invented? The short answer is they serve as a political ploy, as visual aids to keep us focused on the unfairness of a nascent Israel surviving invasion by her neighbors. Their suffering becomes justification for the Arab doing any loathsome deed to drive the Jews out. The assertions that the Arabs Palestinians own the land, that they were driven from their homes, that they are Cinderella and Israel is cruel step-mother are latter-day accretions. The basic issue is that by the rules of Islamic theology, Jews have lost their right to the Holy Land, therefore they should not be a sovereign power. They should not.


by David Solway

  How do you return to what you hardly knew? David Solway recounts his all-of-a-sudden start of a journey to the religion of his birth, Judaism, when 9/11 shocked him out of the accretion of anti-Zionist hate propaganda that had coated him and cocooned him. He realized he had "acted out of mere rote behavior and fortuitous conjecture, out of an unexamined desire to think in accordance with the inferences and presuppositions of my friends and colleagues,..." He realized he'd made the Jew the repository of all he disliked; reacting against himself, he had expelled "himself from his own community." As he travels forward in time, he has shaken off opinions and attitudes he now sees as puerile and/or malignant. A fascinating odyssey.


by Lyn Julius

Lyn Julius writes that Israel's pointing out its significant contributions to the advancement of humanity "in technology, science, agriculture, ecology, immigrant absorption" doesn't rebut the negative opinion of Israel held by "grassroots" Europeans. To achieve that, Israel needs to "explode the misconception, commonly held on the Left, that Israel is an outpost of western colonialism and imperialism. Jews were indigenous to the region 1,000 years before the Islamic conquest" in the 7th Century. They lived everywhere in the Middle East without interruption for over two millenia world until the Arabs "ethnically cleansed" the Jews from their ancestral homes in 1948. More Jews than Arabs were made refugees when the Arabs invaded Israel in their attempt to nullify Israel's rebirth. "Jews 'stealing Arab land' is an offensive inversion of reality." Ironically, the Liberal's disregard of Jewish rights while supporting Muslim rights will have the effect of reinstating the Muslims as dominant and the Jews and Christians as inferior dhimmi -- which was the relationship of the religious groups imposed by the Muslims when they conquered the Middle East.


by Eric Allen Bell

When this article appeared on Frontpage Magazine, the editor, Jamie Glazov, wrote that he'd invited the author, Eric Allen Bell, to tell his story. "Bell [is] a filmmaker who was recently banned from blogging at the Daily Kos because he wrote three articles that ran afoul of the mindset there, specifically naming '' as a 'terrorist spin control network.'" It started innocently enough when Bell heard that the local folk in Murfreesboro Tennessee -- where he was living -- were attempting to deny Muslims the right to build a mosque. Anyone even vaguely aware of stealth jihad would know immediately that giving the few local Muslims a place to pray wasn't why the Muslims wanted to put up a huge mosque plonk in the heart of the Bible Belt. It was, in fact, a typical Muslim in-your-face challenge. It is putting up a command center. It is announcing that from now on the Muslims will be pushing for special privileges, intimidating the natives, restructuring the environment for their own convenience and expanding their control of the region. Bell had to find it out the hard way, from first seeing the drama simply as bigotry on the part of the Christians and then slowly discovering there was more to the story. Islam really does pose real life threats to our way of life. Their Koran-based attitude towards women, homosexuals, Jews and infidels -- actually, to the entire non-Muslim world -- simply can not be aligned with ours, no matter how glib the Muslim presentation, no matter how untrue the accusation that all critics are Islamophobic. Bell's simplistic view has crumpled. As he says, "I support human rights and oppose anything which I perceive to be in violation of human rights." It's been a painful journey, refusing the pablum and opting for strong meat. Discombobulating. And I doubt it is over.



The notion of a 2-state solution stays alive, first, because it is coercively presented as the only possible solution: "Give away Biblical Israel to those nice Palestinians OR the bogie man will make you accept a 1-state solution where those nasty Palestinians will outnumber you.." Secondly, the diplomats have put some effort into twisting Israel's arm to accept belligerent neighbors and they believe they are making headway. They haven't really considered alternatives. Bloggers and think-tankers have. Solutions proposed and available on Think-Israel have considered some sort of union with -- or transformation of -- Jordan; a return to the original Mandate formulation where everyone has human rights protection but only the Jews have voting rights; and a population transfer, where the first stage occurred in the 1940s and '50s when the Jews were driven out of the Arab countries where they had been living even before the Arab invasions in the 7th Century C.E. Think-Israel has formulated a 2-state solution where Israel takes possession of all of its land and the Palestinian state is placed where it belongs -- somewhere inside the enormously large Arab land holdings (See here.)

In the present set of essays, Barbara Lerner is convincing in her insight that the best way we have to fight specious Muslim proposals for stealing Jewish land is to begin by appreciating our own Jewish and Christian Biblical roots in Biblical Israel. Several article conclude that the best way to end the refugee problem is to get rid of UNRWA. Martin Sherman suggests helping the individual Arab families relocate.

Any viable solution must recognize that the so-called Palestinians have no valid claim on any part of the Land of Israel -- Howard Grief's essay provides the legal substructure that protects Jewish rights in the land -- and that Israel would be negligent if it didn't defend its borders and protect its citizens from Arab predators. The best way to do this, as Martin Hausman's article suggests, is to annex the Territories formally.

Thanks to the U.N., there exists a large -- and growing -- group of stateless Arabs, rejected by the Arab states, regarded as throwaways in the Arab War against the West and a constant source of budding terrorists and terrorist activity. The Palestinians are (not politically) correctly described in several essays below. It would benefit the West to rid the region of this constant irritant by (1) by urging that Arab states where the refugee camps are located to give the refugees citizenship status; or (2) by breaking up the collection of Arabs referred to as Palestinians/Arab refugees into family units, each individually supplied with the means to negotiate for immigrant status in countries that will accept them; or (3) declaring Jordan with its Palestinian arab majority the state of Palestine. Professor Mordechai Nisan of Hebrew University argued the case for this solution in Front Page Magazine. or (4) by giving the Arabs now living in the Territories and in refugee camps a fixed space in some part of the enormous Arab land holdings that is isolated from population centers and where they can determine their own future. They can decide to learn to develop the infrastructure for becoming a state or they can continue to kill each other. It's their choice, providing it doesn't involve harming other people. "An Alternative 2-State Solution" is such a proposal and is available here. These and variants should be considered singly and in possible combination.

by Howard Grief

Howard Grief sets forth the firm legal foundation of Israel being the exclusive owner of the land designated as Jewish by the League of Nations. The Land of Israel -- current Israel, Samaria and Judea (aka West Bank), the Golan and Gaza -- was given to the Jewish people as a perpetual trust and handed in that condition to the successor to the League of the Nations, the United Nations. This is a clear presentation of the documents that preceded the document of ownership and some of the history of the time. Any whittling away of this trust is illegal, whether it is attempted by a foreign country, the Israeli government or the U.N. itself. The question that remains is why have successive Israeli governments not asserted their claim. For that matter, why would a Jewish government allow control of the Temple Mount, its most holy site, by the Arabs?


by Canadians for Israel's Legal Rights

This a sister paper to Howard Grief's article on the San Remo conference. It was produced by the Canadians for Israel's Legal Rights (CILF) and summarizes the pertinents points.


by Matthew H. Hausman

The case for annexing Samaria and Judea -- the parts of the Land of Israel that Jordan grabbed as soon as Modern Israel was born -- is brilliantly presented by Matthew Hausman. We have reached the point that Israel has this choice: "Either she can continue participating in a farcical 'peace process' that is heavily weighted against her national interests, or she can proactively seize the day and craft a solution that makes sense historically, geographically and legally." I can only add that in reading Hausman's essay I had this thought: when Israel regained control in 1967, she didn't annex Samaria and Judea, fearing the large number of resident Arabs that would be incorporated into Israel. Solving the problem by annexing the land and relocating the Arabs was rejected -- it wouldn't be a nice thing to do. Consequently, Israel is now confronted with pressure to give the land to the Arabs, the Arabs they call Palestinian. And should that happen, Jews will not be allowed to live there. Jews will not be allowed in Biblical Israel or in parts of Jerusalem! The Jews living there now will be forced out and will become refugees in what is left of Israel. As they say, be kind to the cruel and you'll end up being cruel to the kind. Your own kind.


by David M. Weinberg

Are the Palestinian Arabs ready for statehood? David Weinberg points out they are on the dole and have almost no self-generated income. "Over the past 10 years, the Palestinians have received more than $25 billion in international assistance, and the PA itself pulled in more than $4 billion per year in 2009 and 2010." Yet "the PA has a billion dollar budget deficit." They squander water given them by Israel as if they were living in a rain forest and are polluting the common water supply by dumping their untreated waste. They have few organizational, administrative or governmental skills, nor are they eager to acquire them. They think in terms of death and destruction, not building and living in peace. Quel resumé!


by Barry Shaw

Barry Shaw paints a picture of the Palestinians that is right on the mark: their illogic, their viciousness, their skill at becoming the world's pet victims. As Shaw writes: "They are trapped in their negative stew of victimhood and brutality. It finds expression in the nonsensical statements of people like Zahar, or those who accuse Israel of being an Apartheid state. Their nonsense, to them, makes sense. Sad tales have their impact. The emotional tale of victimhood is their power."



by Barbara Lerner

Barbara Lerner writes about the Muslim ambition to become top dog globally, with Islam the supreme religion and all other religions treated as inferior. Destroying Israel seems to be a necessary step. When invading Israel didn't work, Israel's Arab neighbors began waging a stealth war. Their weapons were oil money, taqqiya (creative lying, approved by the Koran, whereby a Muslim could do and say anything and not feel honor-bound to keep his word) and the newly-invented Palestinians would invert reality and become the quintessential victim. They are succeeding in discrediting Israel -- which was out of its league at playing their propaganda game -- and winning the overwhelming support of the Europeans. Lerner points out that our acceptance of Muslim's assertions and our denigration of our own Jewish and Christian Biblical values earn the West contempt and make the Muslims more confident they will win. "To change their minds, and our future, we need to reject the Palestinian Taqqiya and embrace Biblical Israel."


by Elliott Abrams

  UNHCR, an agency of the United Nations, has helped millions of refugees since WW2 to find new homes in a timely fashion. Refugeehood isn't transferrable to the next generation. UNHRCR handles all refugees except the Arabs refugees, who have an agency, UNRWA, dedicated to them and their children and (great)grandchildren, with no termination point in sight. Unlike all other refugee groups, they have been preserved as refugees until they can return to their homes in Israel. UNRWA feeds them and provides them with education and medical services. It also allows them to be inculcated with hate toward Israel and trained as terrorists. Elliott Abrams makes the case that "Palestinian refugees should be handled by UNHCR with the intention of resettling them. That process should begin with a redefinition of who is a refugee entitled to benefits, so that benefits are based on need rather than on status." It would improve life for them. It might even improve the chances of peace in the Middle East. (For additional material on UNWRA and how it keeps the refugee problem from being resolved, see this.)


By Martin Sherman

Martin Sherman has long suggested (See his article here.) that the best way to eliminate the Arab refugee problem is to eliminate UNRWA as an intermediary between the refugees and the outside world. He would provide "doweries" directly to individual Arab families to give them the means to find new homes in Arab countries or elsewhere. His latest articles on this are:
"Note to Newt I: Univenting Palestinians"
and "Note to Newt II: Rethinking"
The present essay answers concerns that have been raised and put the features of the plan in sharper relief.



Daniel Greenfield in "Islam Uber Alles" wrote: "The first law of human affairs is force. Before all other laws, the ballot box and appeals to reason is that primal law that enforces submission through violence. Islam is a religion built on that first law, forcing everyone to choose whether they will be the oppressors or the oppressed, whether they will be a Muslim or a Dhimmi." As in the Little Red Riding Hood story, the wolf is showing its teeth, but we in the West still persist in believing it is peaceable while -- in a stunning example of a disconnect between awareness and behavior -- modifying our styles of life so as not to arouse the volatile fury of the beast. Like parents who are afraid to slap down a screaming destructive child, we reassure ourselves that Islam 'will grow out of it' while the Muslim leaders are slowly but steadily stunting our growth, forcing us into conversion or servility. For us to survive, our lamb leaders will have to forgo their fantasy of us eventually lying down with hungry wolves. The real choice, as Greenfield puts it, is "... between being hated as a despised underclass, as pigs and dogs, by people who have the ability to harm us on a regular basis, or being hated as the cruel persecutors who kept the faithful from extending the Dar Al Islam by people who have to try very hard to be able to hurt us."

Not a sunny picture. And streams of nonsense about giving the Palestinian Arabs an incentive to settle down won't change it. Think of the conversion of Gaza to a terror manufactory since August 2005, when the Israeli government uprooted the Israeli Jews living in Gush Katif, Gaza from their homes and greenhouses and businesses and synagogues, making them refugees who -- seven years later -- are yet to be fully resettled in Israel.

For me, the story of how an Arab girl repaid free treatment in Israel for her ruined face is emblematic of what to expect from the Palestinian Arabs. Dr Arieh Eldad, a plastic surgeon and a member of the Knesset, told the story in an interview conducted by Jerry Gordon in New English Review in November, 2008:

"I was instrumental in establishing the Israeli National Skin Bank, which is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations. This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in Jerusalem where I was the chairman of plastic surgery. This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza, who was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheba after her family burned her. Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are suspected of having an affair.

"We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was successfully treated by my friend and colleague Prof. Lior Rosenberg, and discharged to return to Gaza. She was invited for regular follow up visits to the outpatient clinic in Beersheba.

"One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt. She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where they saved her life. It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would forgive her."

"This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of Israel. It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational conflict, or rather a war between civilization and barbarism."

Wafa al-Biss was a member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. She was imprisoned and then released in October 2011 in the first group of the thousand Arab prisoners who were swapped for the kidnapped IDF soldier, Galad Shalit. She has since become a speaker, telling Arab children, "I hope you will walk the same path we took and God willing, we will see some of you as martyrs," At one such rally, her audience carried Palestinian flags and chanted, "We will give souls and blood to redeem the prisoners. We will give souls and blood for you, Palestine."

As you can see from this photo, Israel did a good job repairing Wafa's face. Such a nice looking girl.

Wafa Al-Biss and her mother (AFP)

by Raymond Ibrahim

Raymond Ibrahim has previously written classic papers on taqiyya, the lying to the infidel that is permitted by Koranic law (e.g., see here). In this essay, he writes about tawriya, a Muslim "doctrine that allows lying in virtually all circumstances — including to fellow Muslims and by swearing to Allah — provided the liar is creative enough to articulate his deceit in a way that is true to him." It needs also to be differentiated from concept words that mean one thing in Arabic and another in English. For example, as Andrew McCarthy writes in his essay on the Moderate Muslim, "hurriya, Arabic for 'freedom,' connotes "perfect slavery" or absolute submission to Allah, very nearly the opposite of the Western concept."


by Daniel Greenfield

The Salafists are less well known than the Muslim Brotherhood,(MB) but share with them a mission to put Islam in control of the world. Roughly, the Salafists are more fundamentalist than the MB and less willing to cloak their ideology in a modern style in the political arena. They are more likely to speak openly of suppporting violent jihad. In this essay, Raymond Ibrahim writes about Sheikh al-Burhami, a Salafist leader who says clearly "that all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive." The model for dealing with infidels is how Mohammad dealt with the Jews of Medina. Initially, when he was weak he spoke peace. When he was strong, he attacked them. Similarly, "Muslims may be tolerant of Egypt's Copts now, and not collect jizya and place them in dhimmitude, until they are more capable — just like Palestinians may make peace with Israel now, till they are more capable of waging an offensive." The Supremist goal in Islam doesn't change.



by Raymond Ibrahim

The Salafists are less well known than the Muslim Brotherhood,(MB) but share with them a mission to put Islam in control of the world. Roughly, the Salafists are more fundamentalist than the MB and less willing to cloak their ideology in a modern style in the political arena. They are more likely to speak openly of suppporting violent jihad. In this essay, Raymond Ibrahim writes about Sheikh al-Burhami, a Salafist leader who says clearly "that all notions of peace with non-Muslims are based on circumstance. When Muslims are weak, they should be peaceful; when strong, they should go on the offensive." The model for dealing with infidels is how Mohammad dealt with the Jews of Medina. Initially, when he was weak he spoke peace. When he was strong, he attacked them. Similarly, "Muslims may be tolerant of Egypt's Copts now, and not collect jizya and place them in dhimmitude, until they are more capable — just like Palestinians may make peace with Israel now, till they are more capable of waging an offensive." The Supremist goal in Islam doesn't change.



Now that the Arab spring is here, internal conflicts and external hostilities are breaking out all over the Middle East.

The move to theocratic governments goes hand in hand with the de facto decision of the Western governments to capitulate rather than fight Islamic jihad.

The rule of thumb to predict what the USA will do in any particular situation in the civil wars in the region is this: the present administration will side with the group that is the more theocratic, the more Islamic, the one that has the harsher practice of Islam, the one that most dislikes the USA. In Iran, it supported the mullahs, ignoring the Iranians who gave up their lives to protest a phony election. In Egypt, it helped eliminate a controllable dictator and supported the protesters, where the only well-organized group of rebels was the Muslim Brotherhood. In Libya, American soldiers helped kill off a pro-American dictator. Al-Qaeda is said to be waiting to take over the country. Even if this doesn't happen, the Libyan rebels are in the process of moving from a secular state to one that is strictly Islamic. In Syria, which is important as an expediter of Iranian policy, he does nothing to help the rebels. Turkey's prime minister is pressuring a once secular country to conform to strict Islam, and Prez Obama applauds. The U.N. is equally partial to condemning Israel for killing any Arab but ignores Syria when it mowed down thousands in the city of Hom.

The Arab Spring has done little to ameliorate the lives of the multitude living in dictatorships, many of which still practiced primeval Islam. It did however make obvious the absurdity of the carefully crafted assertion that the Arab-Israeli conflict was the lynch pin of problems in the Middle East. As Guy Bechor pointed out in NYET on February 10, 2012, "The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is marginal compared to the region's real conflicts and its actual influence is limited." It was useful to the Arab leaders who could deflect blame for their countries' problems by blaming Israel.

The articles in this set give us an excellent description of what's going on, including information on the Salafists, who are not well-known in the West. One group of Salafists, the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), once known as Salafi Group for Preaching and Combat, is based in north Africa and is an affiliate of Al-Qaeda. Active since 2002, it routinely kidnaps tourists and aid workers. AQIM is dedicated to overthrowing the Algerian government.

One of the authors was willing to predict outcomes along broader lines: the war between the Sunnis and the Shia. This is not easy to do, considering that alliances are made and broken, as if the participants were in a round-robin dating meet, with 5-minutes to convince another participant of its good intentions. This time it means what it says. Honest.

by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

Gail Winston wrote about this article, "If the Western world could mentally and emotionally absorb the historical facts well catalogued by Yoram Ettinger, we might be able to understand why the Muslim world hates us in the West. Then, therefore, we might be able to live and thrive in our own countries by being strong enough to thwart the Muslim world's main goal and desire in their lives to create a Global Caliphate for and of Islam.

"They would require that we all follow their Shariah Law (strict Islam) or they would simply kill us. It says so very precisely in their Koran. Without this understanding of this basic bestial mode of death cult which they have literally "cultivated", we have little chance of surviving the storms caused by their conflicts which they intend to spread in order to conquer the Western way of life."


by Caroline Glick

Speaking about the "Peace Process", Caroline Glick notes that in recent speeches by Gingrich and Perry, "the Republicans have generated ... useful contributions to America's collective understanding of current events in the Middle East." The Democratic Admistration, however, continues policies that are not responsive to the turbulent restructurings in that region. Iran continues to be run by an extremely repressive set of strict interpreters of Islam. And under P.M. Erdogan, Turkey is rapidly regressing to fundamentalist Islam, and the anti-Americanism typical of strongly-Muslim countries. Yet Obama's administration continues to support Turkey, which has an indirect alliance with Iran in mutual sponsorship of Hamas. In effect, Washington is acting as Hamas's protector. So Hamas is reinforced in its determination to destroy the Jewish state. The Administration also continues to maintain its support of Fatah, which more and more openly refuses to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. "Fatah has no reason to compromise since the US will blame Israel no matter what. And Israel has no reason to make concessions since the US will deem them insufficient." Glick concludes that "[f]or the US to secure its interests in the Middle East, it requires leaders who are willing to reassess what passes for common wisdom on both sides of the aisle."


by J. Millard Burr

In January 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood won two fifth of the seat in the Egypt Parliamentary election. This surprised the believers in the advent of an Arab springtime of democracy. This also surprised the pessimists who knew the MB would eventually take over, but expected it to take longer. The biggest surprise was the strong showing by the Salafists, who are as -- if not more -- devoted to implementing Sharia in all aspects of civil and political life as the MB. Together, the MB and the Salafists now control the Lower House of Parliament, making the notion of a democratic Egypt an impossibility, while they will see to it that Egypt joins the number of Muslim countries hostile to the West and Israel. We've been fairly well-educated about the Muslim Brotherhood and how it intends to overturn the West and establish a Caliphate. The Salafists groups are less known. J. Millard Burr brings us up to snuff on the Salafist groups: who they are and what we can expect.


By Avi Jorisch

Avi Jorisch writes about one of the smaller groups of loosely-affiliated terrorists that infest the Middle East and north Africa. The Salafist al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) is an affiliate of al Qaeda, and is primarily to be found in Algeria and Mauritania. Its particular goal is to overthrow the Algerian government, but it is expanding its aims as well as the territory it covers.


By Barry Rubin

Barry Rubin lays the broad outlines of the Sunni and Shia conflict as it plays out in the various Arab states. As Rubin points out, the tension had been between religious states and more or less secular states. "Once there are Islamist regimes, theology becomes central again, as it was centuries ago." He points out the negative impact on the Palestinian Authority and predicts a possible alliance of Sunni states, independent of both Iran and Turkey.

What is to become of the Arab Spring towards democracy and a 'tolerate your neighbor' attitude? Rubin suspects "the hope for moderation is minimal. In a region when regimes and movements are competing to prove their militancy and loyalty to a radical interpretation of Islam, nobody is going to want to make peace with Israel." So what else is new?



From Dry Bones, February 2012 Archive (

These essays suggest that our options for responding to Iran's almost completed development of nuclear weapons have become more limited, particularly because Iran is led by religious fanatics. Their determination to recreate the Caliphate globally trumps any rational deterrence scheme. The essays assume that our leadership is rational and, given the salient facts, will recognize that military action is now necessary . But what if they don't? Or don't have the will to do what's necessary?

by Mark Silverberg

With regard to Iran, "the only question is when can Iran produce a nuclear weapon, and the reality is, it is in a position to do so whenever it chooses." As Mark Silverberg notes, "... the policy of the Obama Administration continues to be based on the carrot and stick approach — diplomatic engagement with the mullahs coupled with international sanctions and the build-up of a large military and naval presence in and around the Persian Gulf all aimed at compelling the Iranians to abstain from building a nuclear weapon. ... "Israeli military strategists are concerned that the U.S. may be unwilling to undertake ... a [military] strike regardless of how many 'red lines' are crossed by Iran." Iran says it wants to destroy Israel. If Iran is bluffing, the bluff is not about using its bombs but what it targets first: the little Satan, Israel, or the Big Satan, the U.S.A. Even if Iran holds off on its genocidal intentions, it will have the means to control the Middle East. We may dismiss them as a bunch of religious fanatics, but Iran's leaders have a mission that they intend to fulfill, regardless of the cost in human lives, including the lives of a sizable part of Iran's citizenry. As Silverberg says, "We are confronted with a fanatical theological Islamist movement that will accept nothing less than the submission of Western civilization to Sharia law."


by Bruce Thornton

Bruce Thornton notes that "Iran has been killing Americans for 30 years with impunity, from the 241 military personnel killed in Beirut by a suicide bomber, to the hundreds more soldiers murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan by Iranian proxy terrorist outfits trained and armed by Tehran." The American President's weak responses to her growing nuclear capability doesn't signal a change in American's policy of appeasement and weak or empty threats. Moreover, Iran is led by fanatical believers so that ordinary deterrence techniques are not effective. Like it or not, we need to accept that military "force is the 'strong magic' that compels fanatical believers to abandon their murderous ideologies or keep them within their own borders."


by Caroline Glick

American spokespeople seem to believe it's a comfort for Israel to know that if Iran strikes, America will then strike Iran. Thatcartoon where the children are gathering sticks for a bonfire and reassure the girl that she can play Joan of Arc. American pyrotechnics after the fact of first strike would only add to the horror. In this essay, Caroline Glick makes clear that President Obama is unwilling to jeopardize his reelection whatever the future costs to Israel and to America. He has intimidated Israel, threatened her and spoken false reassurances to the assembled Jews and Christians at AIPAC. Israel with less resources must strike before Iran makes much more progress. Or sit and wait for whatever happens. America can afford to wait longer before acting. "When one recognizes Israel's short timeline for attacking, one realizes that when Obama demands that Israel give several more months for sanctions to work, what he is actually demanding is for Israel to place its survival in his hands." "Israel will be completely at h Brotherhood, Iran's proxy takeover of Lebanon and Iran's most effective gofer, the Syrian government, Obama "...has adopted policies and taken actions that have endangered Israel militarily on all fronts and in fundamental ways." Naturally, he'd expect Israel to take him on faith.


by Bernice Lipkin

Let's suppose that America really does have a workable plan to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power before it's too late. Suppose we muff the timing. Or suppose -- as is more likely -- we have no such plan but are hoping for the best. Bernice Lipkin pursues some of the possible scenarios that could be the consequences of ignoring the problem. And other implications.



In the early days of the Arab Spring, when all the romantics were sure the small group of idealistic youth who helped started the rebellion would win out, it was considered bad taste to suggest the Muslim Brotherhood would be the ultimate winner. Actually, they've taken control faster than most expected. In the recent critical parliamentary election, the Muslim Brotherhood won about 47% of the seats and the al-Nour party, part of the even more religiously conservative Salafi movement, won 20%. Between the two parties, Islamists are in control of the Lower house of Parliament.

When it seemed the MB would be sharing control with the military, we read honied tripe about how they'd balance each other (or trip each other up) and democracy would triumph. Now that the MB has a goodly hold on the Parliament, it is demanding the government be dissolved so that the MB can pick the Prime Minister. Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood wants government sacked, feb 9 2012. egypts-muslim-brotherhood-wants-government-sacked

Egypt was one of the first countries in the Middle East to appreciate Western mores. Even under the Ottomans, it was becoming westernized, with an increasing secular life-style that encouraged secular higher education and alliances with Western countries. With the new theocratic administration that is actively hostile to the West, 100 years of moderation have gone down the tube. But we in the west don't seem to recognize the danger. We've ignored the problem of what will happen to the advanced weaponry the USA gave and is still giving Egypt. The Obama Administration's solution to a potentially dangerous situation has been to downgrade the virulence of the Muslim Brotherhood and declare it moderate.

Though Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt never succeeded in creating a pan-Arab union of the Arab states, in a twisted sense the Muslim Brotherhood can do so. Segments of the MB reside in different countries and may have differences of opinion but they have a common ambition: to resurrect the Caliphate. So there is no assurance that the 1.3 billion dollars worth of advanced weaponry we give Egypt yearly won't end up in other Muslim countries or on a ship carrying dirty bombs. There is even less assurance that Egypt will not abrogate its treaty with Israel. Already Hamas is using the Sinai Desert to develop more ways to attack Israel.

An Arab Spring may not have come to Egypt, but Yusaf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual head of MB, has.

Egyptian Islamic scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi, returned to Cairo today to deliver a sermon to the crowd during Friday prayers in Tahrir Square, Friday, Feb. 18, 2011. (Khalil Hamra/AP)

In his first speech he said: "I have hope that Almighty Allah, as I have been pleased with the victory in Egypt, that He will also please me with the conquest of the al-Aqsa Mosque [i.e., Jerusalem], to prepare the way for me to preach in the al-Aqsa Mosque."

As another example of their moderation, note that the second flotilla to Gaza in jun 2011 was coordinated by Muhammad Sawalha, a senior UK-based Muslim Brotherhood figure connected to Hamas.

The King of Jordan is a reasonably accurate sensing device in that he's among the early kowtowers to whatever group of Arabs are likely to take control. He started honoring MB members back in 2010. In America, instead of acknowledging that the MB has straightforwardly declares it wants to destroy Western culture, the American administration is devoted to whitewashing it. We no longer have Islamic terrorists at least semantically, even as Sharia law infiltrates more of our institutions. Our security agencies worry about the possibility that returning American soldiers might be a danger, but give access to our security secrets to known Hamas sympathizers.

Under the guise that we need to come to terms with a "moderate" Islamic group, Deputy Secretary of State William Burns met in January 2012 with Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, the highest-level contact between the United States and the Egypt's largest Islamic group.

Upon receiving the blessings of the State Department, as Samara Greenberg writes, "Mohammed Mursi called on Washington to adopt a 'positive position concerning Arab and Muslim causes,' saying its policies in the past were 'biased' -- an apparent reference to the strong U.S.-Israel relationship."

By Barry Rubin

The strife that was to usher in a flowering of democracy brought the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) into power "in Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Tunisia, and very probably Libya, where its branches will control the governments. In Jordan, the brotherhood leads the opposition; in Syria, it plays an important role in the revolutionary upheaval." The region is "now overwhelmingly controlled by radical Islamists." Despite the American President certifying to its moderation, the support of its members for violence, its open anti-Semitism and the speeches of this members say otherwise. Barry Rubin offers sensible suggestions on how Israel can best "respond to the brotherhood's new power and threat."


Ryan Mauro

Ryan Mauro makes clear how misleading it is to assume that the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is moderate because it is cautious, does long-term planning and constant re-assessment. Its single-minded mission is to reestablish Muslim dominance. If we don't understand this, it is not because the MB has kept it secret. It is us who are deaf, dumb and blind. They keep telling us. They call it gradualism. Of course, they also describe it as their form of "democracy" and "freedom," which, even their spokesmen admit, is a tad different than our concepts. In the West, to those who listen, it's better known as 'stealth jihad.' The basic MB strategy, called The Project, was discovered back in 1982 (See Poole, "The Muslim Brotherhood Project" here for a complete description of The Project.) The MB now has the White House reassuring us that the MB is moderate, but all objective signs suggest it would be injurious to our health to believe in the MB's good will.


by Isi Leibler

How much plainer can it be said than how Isi Leibler phrases it: "What those attempting to embrace the Muslim Brotherhood fail to comprehend is that this organization represents one of the most fanatical and dangerous of the radical Islamist groups in the region, with a dark record of violence and terrorism imbedded in its DNA. It is rabidly anti-Western, anti-Christian and anti-Semitic, is committed to imposing sharia law and a global caliphate — and willing to employ any means to further its objectives." If this exaggerates, explain the pressures exerted against the West to accept Sharia law since 9/11. Explain the MB fronts that the MB has started. Consider its alliances with terrorists around the world. Explain the Muslim fingerprints that are everywhere: in insulting us by wanting to build a mosque where they destroyed our financial center; in infiltrating the FBI and Homeland Security and the White House, itself; in instructing our Military; in co-opting banks to make Sharia banking acceptable. Do you really think that the MB has abandoned its mission to conquer the West? Do you really think appeasement will stop them?



Andrew McCarthy has written a must-keep essay that really does explain how Islam wraps the Muslim and envelops him, dampening out all other influences. The other essays are contrasts. One is an example of supposedly moderate Arabs who, like Lewis Carroll's snark that turned out to be a boojum, are decidedly immoderate. The other seems actually to be an ordinary American of Arab origin.

The Arab Spring was not hijacked.

Andrew C. McCarthy

Some months ago, Andrew McCarthy wrote that he wasn't sure that was such a thing as a moderate Muslim, but he gave them the benefit of the doubt and wrote as if there were such an animal. Many of us essayists were doing the same. In this essay, he is no longer ambiguous. Nor can we be. A pious Muslim can not be moderate. He can not follow the dictates of the Koran -- especially when they are backed and reiterated by respected Mullahs and Muslim theologicians -- and at the same time agree that everyone can peaceably practice whatever religion to which he adheres.


William Jackson Sullivan II

In the Hunting Of The Snark, Lewis Carroll wrote of the travails of a sea captain and his crew who hunted that hard-to-imagine and harder-to-capture beast, the Snark. In similar fashion, so many who purport to know the crags and crannies of the Middle Easterner's temperment believe there exists a subgenre of devout believers in the Koran who are pious yet who are 'just like us' -- involved in normal hopes and ambitions for themselves and their family. Unfortunately as the contours become clearer, we are beginning accurately to define the Moderate Muslim. He is simply an impious Muslim OR he is hibernating, easily incited to rioting and ravaging when his sheikh and/or mullah so commands. The captain discovered his "snark was a boojum", capable of making anyone who meets up with it "softly and suddenly vanish away." In this article, William Sullivan writes of two cases of Palestinian moderates who turned out to be boojums. Me thinks we best start reshaping our beamish response to sharia infiltration, lest we, like the unwary crew member, disappear into the maws of Middle East Islam.

(ADDENDUM: When I finished this introduction, somewhat uneasy that I had drifted too far from a peshat exegesis of Carroll's boojum, I googled snark boojun and to my delight chanced upon "The Snark was a Boojum" at Read it and enjoy.)


by Lee Habeeb

What can one say about this essay except maybe "Wow!" We've learned much about different genres of Arab in the U.S.A.: Arabs who are called moderate because they are indifferent to Islam; quiet-appearing Arabs who are easily made rabid by their leaders; lone-wolf Arab terrorists; organized Arab terrorists; Arabs with grievances; Arabs who push the envelop for special privileges; fanatic Arabs dedicated to destroying American culture and taking over our country; and moles who pretend to believe in democracy but who are actually Muhammad groupies. This essay is by a most unusual Arab. Lee Habeeb is unusual because he is a very ordinary American. He comes with his own baggage and a family history partially rooted in Arab mores but his identity is American. He's another amalgam in the American melting pot of diverse cultures. He suggests an simple test for determining where an Arab's basic loyalty lies: how does he feel about Jews -- the regular run-of-the-mill Jew? It doesn't count that he accepts the New York Times Jews who can justify any bad deed done by a minority, unless it was committed by a Jew. It is no test that he is friendly with the traitor Jews who loathe Israel because its very existence makes them aware of their identity problems. How does he feel about the ordinary Jew? And Israeli?




In the last issue of Think-Israel, we talked about John Mearshiemer of the University of Chicago, who has used his academic credentials to make Jew-hate mainstream and acceptable. In early March, the Kennedy School of Government -- where Mearshiemer's buddy, Steve Walt, holds court -- is hosting a conference entitled, "One State Conference: Israel/Palestine and the One-State Solution". A institution once so sensitive that it fired its president for suggesting that girls and boys may have different aptitudes and maybe math wasn't really a girl-thing is holding the academic equivalent of a "Kill the Jews" rally, featuring shoddy academics, notorious for fabricating data and advancing dishonest arguments to delegitimatize Israel.

Harvard's propagandizing was encouraged by a hefty gift from the Saudis, who, as we know, respect the freedom to think independently and to come to heretical conclusions from data. As the World Jewish Daily says of the conference: "Ladies and gentlemen, you should be scared. When the nation's top university hosts a conference dedicated to discussing ways to wipe Israel off the map, well, Boston's Jews may be next."

Considering how weighty the brain power is reputed to be in Cambridge, it is surprising that the basic propaganda technique is so primitive. Essentially as Bruce Thornton's essay points out, the pretext that legitimizes all Palestinian terror is the supposed need to protect the defenseless Palestinians from the big brute Israel. Buy that and Arab terror -- its brutality, its blood lust, its preference for preying on women and children, slitting their throats, drinking their blood, shooting them at point blank range, throwing rocks -- become understandable, even justifiable.

Why am I spending so much time on these upper echelon schools? It's because they have a respected and influential place in the American educational system. Held in high regard, they can do much damage. As the Yiddish saying goes: A fish starts stinking from its head. It would be bad enough if the attacks on Israel were limited to a single prestigious university, but as the "Poison Ivy League" article points out about Ivy League schools in general: "You cannot slander gays, women or Muslims, but Israelis have become fair game."

To focus on Harvard once more, Harvard gives good value for their Saudi money. Their academic staff has spread fatuous pleasantries labeled as facts about Islam far and wide throughout the school system.

The other articles in the set examine how extensively Islamic propaganda has infiltrated our educational system.

Editor's Addendum, March 20, 2012:

Brigette Gabriel, President, Act for America Education (, announced that the organization has released its textbook analysis report, "“Education or Indoctrination? The Treatment of Islam in 6th through 12th Grade American Textbooks."

She writes:

"This report shines a bright light on a pattern of errors, omissions and bias in the textbooks reviewed. Our children deserve better. Our children deserve facts and accuracy, not historical revisionism.

To give you just one example of the errors our research uncovered, in discussing the 9/11 attacks, the textbooks typically fail to mention the perpetrators were Muslims or that they acted in the cause of Islamic jihad. In one book the terrorists are portrayed as people fighting for a cause. In just a few years after September 11th, the history of what happened on that tragic day was rewritten in our school textbooks. Omitting this vital information, that jihad was the motivation for the attacks, makes it difficult, if not impossible, for today’s young teens, who don't remember 9/11, to really understand what happened that day —and why.

To access the report log on to

There's a video on anti-Israel academics speaking at California State universities. See here.

This is a video on students taken on a field trip to a mosque and urged to pray to Allah. Click here. Read also Stella Paul's article, "When Jewish Boys Bow to Allah" on the same page.

by Steven Plaut

As Steven Plaut writes, "... in a few days it [Harvard] will be restoring a great Harvard tradition dating back to the 1930s: the tradition of hosting Nazis and violent anti-Semites on campus seeking the mass murder of Jews." The show will feature academics whose poorly-substantiated assertions (lies and Quasimodo-like distortions to us common folk) have been deservedly discredited. Unhappily for Harvard's reputation, Jew-hate rain dances are less acceptable than in the 1930's -- and this despite the huge sums of money the Muslims has spent to create a climate where Jew-Hate can thrive.


by Bruce Thornton

Bruce Thornton examines a basic tactic used to delegitimize Israel: the world is called on to help the poor Palestinian deprived of his land by the evil Jews. This inverts reality but it gets a good response, usually from the ignorant. Surprisingly, this theme will serve to structure a conference held at the Kennedy Center at Harvard. The Center is a feeder at the well-filled Saudi trough and apparently it takes its commitment to its patron seriously, seriously enough to ignore academic standards and a truthful exploration of the facts. The conference is billed as a look at Israel, Palestine and the One State. The thrust is to promote the One-State solution, which -- when the spin slows down -- will be seen to be an Arab state, with the Jews in dhimmi status -- if they are allowed to remain, at all. As Thornton concludes, "The Kennedy School conference, then, is a propaganda exercise the effect of which is to further the Palestinian Arab "phases" strategy for destroying Israel."


by Richard Baehr

Richard Baehr makes the point that the insidious anti-Israel poison coming from Harvard isn't unique. Unfortunately, Jew-hate in the form of anti-Israelism is showing up at many of the elite schools, to a greater or lesser degree. When asked why they allow these exercises in hate, the administrators at these schools fall back on the "free speech" defense, That would be fair, if it were applied in the same manner to all hate confabs. But it is hardly likely that "free speech" would be the important issue if the Klu Klux Klan wanted to hold a Day At The Racists.Or if a group of minorities held in fear and servitude in Muslim countries asked to have a Down with the Slave Masters powwow to examine conditions in Saudi Arabia. A cursory examination of the academics invited to speak at Harvard makes clear the organizers aren't aiming at a high level of academic quality. They just need to have the conference, so that later they can cite its findings as authority for anything they want believed by the hoi polloi. Do we really need to let this obscene show of hate run its course?


by Janet Tassel

Jew-hate lectures, some paid for by Arabs, some stemming from present-day Marxist theory, some the residual of centuries of hate preached by the Church, have been reported. At the Friends Seminary in New York, a day school established by the peace-seeking Quakers, the invited speaker to celebrate Martin Luther King day this year was Gilad Atzmon. Atzmon's reputation as a Jewish Jew-hater is so solid that when John Mearsheimer wrote an endorsement for Atzmon's new book, it was irrefutable evidence that John Mearscheimer is just another run of the mill anti-Semite. He's not the sincere seeker of the truth about the Jew's influence on American Policy he's claimed to be. Allen Dershowitz apparently doesn't know the Quakers have always favored those they see as underdogs -- from the Indians who collected scalps when raiding white-man villages to bomb-carrying Arabs, knifing Jewish babies. He was surprised that when he made the headmaster, Robert Lauder, aware of how unsavory Atzmon is, Lauder chose to do absolutely nothing. (January 18, 2012, Dershowitz doesn't say if the student body or their parents complained.

Local Muslims often give free talks in schools about Islam. They paint a glowing picture of Islam, that owes little to history or to actual practices. They teach children to pray Muslim-style. They usually focus on promoting Islam, rather than making a inter-religious tolerance speil. [video jewish boy] Often parents are unaware that their children are being inculcated.

When parents learned the speaker at a public school in Tampa Florida was a man from CAIR, they were much annoyed and let the School Board know it. CAIR is an Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) spinoff. The IAP is an arm of the Muslim Brotherhood and a fundraiser for Hamas, as is CAIR. The Board in its superior wisdom ignored the parents. But they aren't giving up or giving in. (See Jack Minor, "Parents won't quit fight over CAIR indoctrination," February 16, 2012 Minor's article includes bios on over a dozen CAIR members who fundraise for Hamas, work in the Hamas organization and/or actively support Hamas.) Parents in other states have had similar experiences.

Students can be exposed to distorted views of the Arab-Israeli conflict by their regular teachers in school. History teachers who use the Arab World Notebook as source material quickly begin to sound like Arab propagandists, praising women terrorists and blaming Israel for everything. In this essay Janet Tassel reports such a situation in a Newton Mass high school. When a student's father confronted the teacher, she was surprised at his attitude. "After all, the head of the history department had gotten this material at an outreach workshop of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Harvard!" It came from Harvard. How could it not be reliable?

If you thought suggesting that academics have become fancy foot soldiers for introducing Sharia law into this country was over-the-hill alarmist, consider this consequence of various divisions of Harvard University working to convince the country that it isn't the Muslims who are the enemy, it's the Jooz. Janet Tassel presents anecdotes that reveal the pernicious connection between groups at Harvard who are exploiting Harvard's prestigious reputation to promote their political ideology and the Islamic propaganda being mouthed by duped school marms. That they are even able to get away with this: "Muslims from Europe were the first to sail across the Atlantic and land in the New World, starting in 889... [and that]West African Muslims had not only spread throughout South and Central America, but had also reached Canada, intermarrying with the Iroquois and Algonquin nations so that, much later, early English explorers were to meet Iroquois and Algonquin chiefs with names like Abdul-Rahim and Abdallah Ibn Malik." says much of the level of education and gullibility of our teachers. It is also important to note that the Harvard Administration has done zilch to stop this tripe being distributed in their name. What will it take to make them start saying, "I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you."


by Alyssa Lappen

Alyssa Lappen provides us with a general survey of how Islam and sharia law are being taught in American schoolrooms. "In the last two decades, sanitized Islamic history and dogma [has] crept into broad use in U.S. public school books..." Fortunately, there has been some efforts at countering this misinformation. For example, a Texas Board of Education forced textbook publishers to rectify their half-truths and inaccurate portrayals of Islam. Lappen notes that "Islamic forces spent decades stealthily cultivating influence over our nation's public schools and curricula through 'minority' channels afforded by 'textbook adoption.' Other 'adoption state' authorities should perhaps now add teeth to their own Texas-like counter-efforts.'



When the power of the keystroke is abused

In this set of essays, we have a candidate for the most gratuitously nasty story about Israel and a couple on the ooze from the New York Times, the newspaper that holds the record for protecting the religion of peace. Other essays examine wording -- words are weapons in the fight to support Israel. Speaking about supporting Israel, when does Israel's hasbara establishment plan to open shop?

by Yochanan Visser

This article was written by Yochanan Visser and discusses an article written by a Dutch reporter, Lisa van Heusden, who was living in Israel during her pregnancy. Laura, who sent in this article, is obviously indignant about a mother who complained because she received excellent pre-natal care in Israel. Laura writes:

"This is unbelievable. So Israel's committment to providing the best medical care possible is spun to be some nazi-like desire to produce a master race. What's wrong with these people? Instead of this woman being grateful for the high quality prenatal care she received in Israel and writing a positive article about it, this is the sick way she twists her experience. Whatever Israel does is spun by the media to be something sinister. If it helps earthquake victims in Haiti, Israel is accused of stealing organs. If it provides high quality prenatal care for its citizens, it is attacked for wanting perfection for the chosen people rather than being seen as an example of a modern, progressive society. And "critics" of Israel feign surprise when they are accused of antisemitism, yet we are constantly bombarded by hostile, ugly trash about Israel such as this."

It does seem incredible that a mother -- especially one with a viral infection that can interfere with the development of a healthy baby -- wouldn't be grateful her child was born healthy. Instead, she complained her baby was born perfect, when he could have had problems from the virus she carried. She was delighted that her son was born with a toe that was too small. As she put it "His personal revenge on the Israeli health system." The mother is a media person. So it must be hard for her to break old habits. She's learned how to make Israel look bad no matter what the circumstances.

Until Lisa came along, there was an iconic joke that best described Israel's always receiving bad press. The joke goes like this:

An Israeli is on vacation and is visiting a zoo in England when he sees a little girl leaning on the lion's cage. Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the cuff of her jacket and tries to pull her inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.

The Israeli runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the nose with a powerful punch.

Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the Israeli brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly.

A reporter has watched the whole event. The reporter says to the Israeli: 'Sir, this was the most gallant and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'

The Israeli replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really. The lion was behind bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt right.'

The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a journalist, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front page. So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you have?'

The Israeli replies, "I serve in the Israeli army and I vote for the Likud."

The journalist leaves.

The following morning the Israeli buys the paper to see news of his actions, and reads, on the front page:


I have to admit, Lisa's take on Israel wins by a mile.


by Phyllis Chesler

As Phyllis Chesler writes, "On a single day, the New York Times has been known to publish anywhere from two to six anti-Israel articles, editorials, op-ed pieces, and letters. Today, I see a new danger arising in their pages... After spending a year proclaiming the triumph of democracy and the miracle of the Arab Spring and, as PM Netanyahu has just noted, refusing to document the existential danger in which Israel finds herself, the Newspaper of Record has now begun the process of normalizing Islam in North America and Europe. Its pro-Muslim "multicultural" agenda is, paradoxically, another form of racism." What can account for their obsessive concern with the protecting rights for Muslim religion. Perhaps the answer is: cherchez la moneé.



by John Hinderaker

This essay by John Hinderker makes an astute observation about a New York Times practice. It also provides us with yet another indicator to alert us when the Gray Lady speaketh false and/or ignores truth.



by Sol Stern

This is an impressive exploration by Sol Stern of the character and ideology of Hannah Arendt, perhaps best known for her exclaiming how banal evil was, when she saw the very ordinary looking Adolf Eichmann, who was responsible for the killing of thousands of Jews. She was raised as an assimilated German Jew and socialist. After the Nazis rose to power, she became a Zionist. Fleeing to the USA, she still considered herself a Zionist but was soon attacking outstanding heros such as Vladimir Jabotinsky, Peter Bergson and Ben Hecht, calling them fascists and charlatans. They saw clearly the coming Holocaust and were desperately trying to save the European Jews. She didn't help in the rescue effort. Stalin was her hero. She abhorred the idea of an independent Jewish state in Palestine and urged the Jews to establish a binational state controlled by the Arabs, ignoring that the Arabs wanted none of it. In sum, she behaved as a Marxist and a dhimmi, blaming the Jew for the Arab's recalcitrance. She became a confirmed anti-Zionist, supplying many of the criticisms that would become standard accusations for the next generations of Jewish haters of the Jewish state.


by Uzi Silber

Uzi Silber describes Jewish self-hatred as Jewish flu, implying it is so varied and involves so many germ types, it is impossible to wipe out entirely. But it can be kept as a low level. Currently, "its modern symptoms are a rejection of Israel's identity as a Jewish state and a dismissal of its right to defend itself militarily, while embracing the goals of its nihilistic Arab enemies." Its adherents, both on the Left and on the Right, broadcast their anti-Jewish messages openly. Read a 'blame the Jews' article which ignores appalling behavior by Arabs, and you can be sure you'd nailed another victim of the Jew Flu.


by Paul Lademain

Here be words of wisdom on how to designate areas, places and people, when labels are sensitized political statements. Paul Lademain provides us with simple rules that allow us to fight Israel's fight when we speak of events in the Middle East. Lademain's instructions have the added bonus that we will be speaking accurately and won't have adopted the meretricious language used by Israel's enemies. You will find ways to add to the list. I, for one, was alerted when a well-meaning supposed advocate for Israel said, "He is a Hamas activist." I corrected him, pointing out that the correct term is Hamas terrorist. As Lademain says, "Be ye not fools, O Israel." Master his examples. You'll be surprised how soon they become automatic, and other people repeat your language choices.


by Isi Leibler

Isi Leibler presents another horror story about Israel's incompetence in presenting its case. What is there about the management of ideas that attracts those least able to produce information in a timely and understandable fashion? If only Israel's information officers could handle truthful information as adeptly as the Arabs and their buddies manipulate lies! When they eventually do get around to responding, it's We did not or We did, too. How about going on the offense? It's still the best defense. We understand that the brainy guys are busy elsewhere, but can't they filter the bottom layer a bit better? And oh yes, for the sake of accuracy, stones in this article should be changed to rocks or sharpened stones, depending on which was used -- Arab children are well-versed in a variety of weapons.


by David Ha'ivri

David Ha'ivri writes in particular about distributing information about the Jewish citizens who live in Biblical Israel. But his advise is of general value to improve Israel's ability to communicate. As he says, "The problem is mainly that Israel's advocates are not addressing the particular issues for which Israel is under attack. By avoiding and not responding to the accusatory claims, it appears that Israel doesn't have a good answer." The comments in the original Ynet article serendipitously illustrate how to provide right answers. Someone pushes the incorrect but frequently-used "Israel is violating international law in occupying the West Bank." Knowledgeable readers respond appropriately. New points are raised and answered. A reader, "Gee" from Zikron Yaakov, puts Israel's ownership of Samaria and Judea succinctly this way:

"First under international law for it to be 'occupied' it needs to meet two conditions. The 'occupier' has to not have a legal claim to the land. The second part is the people claim need to have said legal claim.

Gaza, Judea and Samaria meet neither condition. Our claim to the land is enshrined in the UN Charter and the Covenant of the League of Nations - so we do have legal claim to the land. Whoops that means that it ain't 'occupied' by us.

Then there is the little fact that the Arabs do not have any legal claim to the land. Nobody on this planet has managed to date to produce said legal claim. So the Arabs are the illegal 'occupiers' of our lands, not the other way around. So much for the claim of international law."



by Frank Meir Loewenberg

A Forgotten Chapter Of Jewish History

Frank Loewenberg writes of a little known story -- the conquest of Jerusalem by the Persian King Khosrau II in 614 C.E., with thousands of Jewish soldiers as part of his army. At the time, Jerusalem was the capital of the province of Palaestina Prima of the Byzantine Roman Empire, and its Jewish and Christian subjects were "the victims of heavy taxes, confiscation of property and even forced conversions." When Persia began its rule in Jerusalem, sacrificial service on the Temple Mount was reestablished and Nehemiah ben Hushiel became Jewish governor of Jerusalem. But some three years later, Nehemiah was removed from office and Jews were banned from the city. By 628 C.E., the Byzantine Emperor had regained his lost provinces of Syria, Egypt and Palestine and the Jews of Jerusalem were massacred. A decade later, the Muslims invaded. And began another chapter in Jerusalem's history.


by Jerry Klinger

In the second World War, the German General Rommel was winning the War in the Middle East. He was stopped at Tobruk in Libya by a delaying action that gave the British Army time to revamp and re-equip, so that it was able later to win at El Alamein, which was "the beginning of the end for the Germans and their Italian allies in North Africa." As Jerry Klinger writes, a chief factor in holding the Germans from moving forward at Tobruk was the incredible fighting by the outnumbered soldiers of the Palestine Brigade, a group of some 400 Jews, "a battalion of mine layers, poorly armed and provisioned, without heavy weapons, or anti-aircraft equipment but with a grim, teeth clenched determination." They withstood the continous attacks by the Germans and in the end, battered and reduced to a quarter of their original number, they were victorious.


by Mitch Ginsburg

Avraham 'Ya'ir' Stern was a most unusual terrorist. He was a poet, knowledgeable in Torah and a student of classic Greek and Latin. In the 1930s, he had persuaded the Polish government to help train Jews to wrench Palestine from the control of the British colonial government, but this ended when Poland was invaded by the Germans. He was a man desperate to save European Jewry in spite of the English Government's refusal to let more than a few Jews immigrate to Palestine. (It is bitter irony that the British were in Palestine because they had been entrusted by the League of Nations to help the Jews create a homeland.) On February 12, 1942, he was caught by the English and shot dead when found. During his life as commander of the Lehi, he was revered by a few and "widely detested by the majority of Jews in Palestine." As the years have passed, more and more people have come to his memorial service. Mitch Ginsburg describes Stern's 'rehabilitation.'


by Dr. Franck Salameh

In September 1982, Arabs living in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian Arab refugee camps in Lebanon were massacred. The Lebanese Forces (LF), a Christian militia, was said to have avenged the assassination by the Muslim Lebanese of the Christian Lebanese leader, Bashir Gemayel. The LF and Israel were allies. In the aftermath of the massacre, much of the blame was levied on Israel, which was accused of not having the foresight to realize that allowing the LF to enter the camp hunting for terrorists hiding there would lead to a massacre. The massacre put an end to the possibility of reconciliation between the Lebanese Muslims and Christians. Franck Salameh suggests that Syria had most to gain from the massacre. "[I]t scuttled the prospects of peace with Israel, it extended the Lebanese war for another decade, it maintained Syria's occupation of the country for another twenty-three years, it tightened its grip over the functioning of the Lebanese state, it continued using Lebanon as a launching pad for Syria's regional settling of scores, and it provided the Alawites with a bottomless private piggy-bank bankrolling their wars-by-proxy."




  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index.

To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

January 2012 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE
February 2012 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE



What we are talking about in the November-December 2011 issue:

Interwoven Themes In This Issue (Editor)
Fabricating Peoplehood (Meir-Levi, Greenfield, Glick)
Dealing with Muslim Assaults (Auerbach, Fjordman, Lappen, Steele, Hamid, Fawstin, Eidelberg)
A Homeland For The Palestinian Arabs (Lerner, Sherman, Faybyshenko)
It's Puzzling (Bawer, Phillips, Greenfield, Rose, Sennels, Sherman, Newell)
How Churches Reacted To The Revival Of The Jewish State (Merkley, Shapira, Lowe, Merkley)
Academia (Narvey, Lipkin, Frantzman)
Media Matters (DasMaBebi, Bawer, Maistrovoy)
History Section (Mirza, Isaac, Meotti)
Readers' Blog-Ed Pages (November-December)

Interwoven Themes In This Issue

(1) Our leaders in America, Europe and Israel have been perpetuating a hoax. They bought shares in the instant creation of a people, the Palestinians, who of course owned an Ozian country called Palestine, currently occupied by the Jooz, allies of the Wicked Witch of the West. The leaders and politicos and media knew it was a lie but they had a stake in it. How much of a share can be gauged from the aftermath of Newt Gingrich stating the obvious. Fellow politicians admitted it left-handedly but were annoyed that saying it out loud could drive a stake into the heart of the moribund peace process. And damage control has been vicious, varied and imaginative. The pent-up urge to examine the lives and motivation of our leaders, suppressed during Prez Obama's reign, has been released and every minute in Newt's life is under examination. In this issue we focus on facts. We'll spend more time on the aftermath next time.

(2) Given the voiced intent to destroy Israel and the imminent danger of Muslims taking over host nations such as England, it is puzzling that people seem so unconcerned about their self-interest. Being unselfish and protective of the enemy when he is shooting at you isn't noble, it's nutty. We haven't figured it all out. Is it conditioned political correctness? Is it a deficiency of common sense? Is it cowardice moonlighting as nobility? Is it over reliance on authority figures (night time comedians and daytime big mouths)? Don't know. But maybe we've made a dent.

(3) We add to our store of articles on how Muslims are promoting Sharia law and attempting to take over Western institutions. In the 1950s being called a Communist was in the same class of insult as being accused today of being a racist. And far more damaging to one's career. Senator Joseph McCarthy terrorized governmental and private agencies, accusing them -- usually falsely -- of being or harboring communists. At best he overstated the numbers and the danger; at worst he destroyed the lives of many who were no danger to the USA. It was observed that in his eagerness to squelch communism in America, McCarthy probably did more damage to the country than the communists. At the Army-McCarthy hearings in 1954, the army's lawyer, Joseph Welch, focusing on McCarthy's scattershot reckless accusations, asked, "Have you no sense of decency"?

We ask the same of Islamic states such as Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Muslim groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and ordinary Muslims who are diligently engaged in promoting anti-Semitism globally. Some of the Muslim clergy and many leaders of Muslim countries are quite open about killing Jews. Perhaps sensing that Judaism must be eliminated if Islam is to succeed in making America and the Western countries subservient to Islamic law, many, many others are willing to use any lie, any misrepresentation, any smokescreen. They declare themselves without bigotry, members of a peaceful religion. Yet they distribute scurrilous books about Judaism while denying the Holocaust happened and that the Jews built Temples on the Temple Mount. They take joy in co-opting ignorant Jewish college students into helping denounce Israel. We ask them and the Western churchmen and academics who aid and abet the Muslim attempt at conquest. "Is there no red line? Is there nothing you won't misrepresent or lie about? Have you no shame?"


On December 9, 2011, Newt Gingrich did something very daring: he told the truth about the so-called Palestinian people. He said they were an invented people. The earnest idiots useful to the Pro-Palestinian cause may not have known that Palestinian people is a fabrication. The politicians and media people have likely known it all along. Their immediate response was not this is a shock. Let's look into this. but let's drown this information in silence or in scoffing or in bluster and get back to where we want to be: getting the Israelis to commit suicide by suing for peace.

The articles in this segment are on how the myth of a Palestinian people was started and why we should act on the knowledge that the region is Jewish, not Palestinian Arab. As Martin Sherman has said, "Gingrich is totally correct when he observes that '... there's a lot to think about in terms of how fundamentally you want to change the terms of debate in the region.' ... The Palestinians [are] an artificial construct, [so the] notion of a Palestinian state and the 'two-state solution' [is devoid] of any validity. ... Resolving the Palestinian issue requires a paradigm shift — from the political to the humanitarian; from the collective to the individual." Read Sherman's article here.

by David Meir-Levi

  David Meir-Levi recounts some of the history of the region called Palestine, emphasizing a fact often overlooked: in Ottoman times, the area was part of the Syrian Province; there was no Syrian state. And even after the British began calling the area Palestine, the local Arabs considered themselves inhabitants of Syria; they were not Palestinian. After the Six-Day War, Yasir Arafat declared that the Arabs in Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank) as well as the Arabs who lived in Israel -- or who had lived in Israel -- were a people, and the machinery for creating a history for this "people" went into action. Now, some 40 years later, they have come to believe their own lies. And they've done an brilliant job selling this fiction to the world.

by Daniel Greenfield

  When Newt Gingrich said out loud what every political leader knows, namely, "Palestians are an invented people," there was immediate damage control by the dhimmi media. Has v halila the elaborate structure of lies supporting the Palestinian People Hoax should crack! Suppose people learned that most of the so-called Palestinians are ordinary Arabs, who didn't start coming into "Palestine" until the 20th Century? What would happen to the belief that Palestine belongs to an ancient people, the Palestinians -- the best weapon the Arabs have to attack Israel? Daniel Greenfield disposes of some of the myth of the Po' Palestinians.

by Caroline B. Glick

  Caroline Glick writes of the current types of damage control by those who have been using the claims of the pretended people as an excuse to kill off Israel or for their own purposes. Their doubletalk doesn't make for very compelling arguments, so I wonder: Will more politicians and opinion makers now come out of the woodwork and indicate that they knew all along the Palestinians were just a bunch of Arabs, much less entitled to their own state than an actual people such as the Kurds. If the trend continues, soon everyone will acknowledge that the Jews are occupying their own land, not someone else's; leaving only the brainwashed Arabs and a hardcore of Jew-haters to continue to believe nonsense.


The West seems to live comfortably with contradictory notions about Islam. On the one hand, Islam is the religion of peace. On the other, we live in fear of arousing its anger and violence. It is as if we've been psychologically lobotomized. We hold very different perceptions of Islam in our minds, but the images don't seem to have a way to confront each other. Or perhaps it's just less scary to pretend Islam is gentle and civilized than to recognize Islam's shackling of the human spirit and its contempt for human life. Meantime, Muslims are attacking us, using propaganda, rewriting history, distorting our textbooks, pressuring our courts to use sharia law, attempting to criminalize any criticism of Islam, corrupting the U.N., infiltrating governmental agencies responsible for our security and murdering people here and everywhere else. This set of essays examines some of the confrontations Islam has initiated and suggests what Israel and the West must do to stop the assault on western civilization.

by Jerold S. Auerbach

  With the connivance of the United Nations, the Palestinian Arabs have had free reign to attempt "to rob Israel of its history, heritage, and homeland." As Jerold S. Auerbach points out, "Plundering Jewish history and claiming Israeli land is, of course, the raison d'être of Palestinian existence." They have claimed Abraham was a Muslim, as was Jesus and presumably all the Jews living in Israel at the time of the Second Temple. They have claimed they have been in Palestine for eons, ignoring that most of the "Palestinians" came to what is now Israel and the Territories after 1900. The latest outrage is claiming "the Dead Sea as Palestine's own 'heritage site.'" While attempting to steal Israel's identity and history, they go well beyond the usual identity theft. They also claim Israelis have no history; Jews never had a Temple; they never had sovereignty in Israel.

by Peder Jensen, a.k.a. Fjordman

  This article is a joining of two essays by Fjordman that reject the myth that the Muslims preserved Greek-Roman culture and that is what kindled the development of European science and technology. As he points out, "Muslims have spent 1400 years trying to eradicate Greek societies all over the Eastern Mediterranean. Now they want to take the credit for saving the Greek cultural heritage." As an interesting sideline, note that the first essay was refused publication by Norway's largest newspaper, VG. It is dangerous in Norway to be critical of Islam -- outraged Muslims will try to kill you and/or firebomb your offices. Norway, however, is a strong contender for being the most antisemitic country in the West. Norwegian newspapers are as fearless in publishing antisemitic cartoons and stories as they are fearful of publishing anything negative about Islam. Rather like our own New York Times.

by Alyssa A. Lappen

  Alyssa A. Lappen reviews a book called Silenced. As she points out, had the authors written of the origins of the apostasy and blasphemy laws and how the requirement for punishment by death is permanently anchored in the immutable Koran, it could have been a "landmark study". Instead they leave the job to three Islamic clerics, who do a deft job of whitewashing the subject. But the book does serve to "catalog myriad effects of current legal codes for eight Muslim nations and regions, mostly penalties for allegedly criticizing or rejecting Islam." And it presents dozens of actual cases and the atrocious punishments that were imposed. Part 3 is important because it indicates how Islamic law could potentially affect non-Islamic countries. There have been "... efforts at the United Nations to globally bar 'defamation of religion,' a thinly veiled attempt to shield Islam alone from criticism." That gets close to home. It won't be just the FBI and Homeland Security that are barred from using negative descriptors when talking about the Religion of Peace.

by Shelby Steele

  Shelby Steele discusses the Arab war against the Jews, in which the Arab aggressors have successfully persuaded themselves and others that they are "victims of colonialism, ... victims of white supremacy." What is so thought-provoking about this essay is that Steele homes in on the power of a "poetic truth", a fantasy powerful enough to counter factual reality. As he points out, "Poetic truths ... are marvelous because no facts and no reason can ever penetrate. Supporters of Israel are up against a poetic truth," one that is supported by the West, which "lacks the moral authority" to speak the truth. We must counter the Arab narrative and Steele indicates some procedures for restating the narrative.

by Tawfik Hamid

  Tawfik Hamid reminds us that democracy doesn't happen magically by throwing a paper ballot into a box. "Dreaming about democracy without first setting its foundations is similar to dreaming about having a fruit tree without even sowing the seed." In the Arab world starting to develop the infrastructure of a democracy would translate into respecting the rights of minorities and substituting productive activities for their customary self-destructive activities. A tall order.

by Bosch Fawstin

  Bosch Fawstin was born a Muslim. He writes about the many Muslims that are indifferently religious. The non-Muslim Muslim isn't practicing a reformed version of Islam. He is not the moderate but genuinely religious Muslim that many Westerners assume exists. He's just not practicing his religion. But his ways can be imitated by the "stealth jihadists who have figured out how to say what we want to hear, while they scheme behind the scenes to further Islamize the West." The irony is that while Islam, being a religion, is assumed to be peaceful, in practice it is the jihadists who best express the values of Islam. In ten years of waging war, we haven't learned that to civilize Islam, we first will have to clobber its most dedicated practitioners. It doesn't help cultivate the right attitude toward our enemies that the American president says his role is to protect Islam. As Fawstin says, "This is war. We can't be on both sides."

by Professor Paul Eidelberg

  How does Israel create a peaceful environment in a unstable, violent area? How does Israel win the war her neighbors have been waging against the Jews since before modern Israel's inception? Professor Paul Eidelberg had some sensible advice. First, the Israeli government must start with a realistic assessment of Muslim theology, which means understanding "there are no empirical grounds to expect Muslims to renounce Jihadism," unless they are totally defeated. Eidelberg suggests some practical actions to calm the Territories. To win the war requires an understanding that "the circumstances confronting Israel are extreme — its very existence is at stake. Therefore, where each of the possible lines of action involves difficulty, the strongest line is the best." Or, as Eidelberg puts it, "Kill for Peace."


For many years, the Arabs living in the Territories and those living in Arab countries as refugees were passed off as the original inhabitants of the Land of Israel, but it's become known that most of them came into what is now Israel and its Territories starting in the 20th Century. They are not a people and they don't desire to live peacefully as neighbors of Israel. But there are practical considerations -- including the expense of maintaining millions of professional refugees -- to settling them in their own space. The first essay in the set points out that giving them a state in or next to Israel will change their tactics but not their mania for destroying Israel. They need to be transferred out of the region. The other essays suggests some solutions. Over the years, we have published different solutions that make the statement that "EITHER there is a 2-state solution OR there is a 1-state solution" a nonsensical assertion. Several solutions, including Think-Israel's article on Palestina were published here. Some other recent innovative suggestions are here. Google for others posted over the years.

by Aaron Lerner

  To understand matter, computer modeling and simulation depend on what data we have on quarks and hadrons and such. In politics, predictions depend on a deep understanding of the character of the players. Despite the fact that Iran used its own children to find bombs in a field by stepping on them, it is difficult, perhaps impossible, for a westerner to believe that any human society would be willing to sacrifice a large part of its population to kill off another society, hence its predictions of Iran's future actions will suffer. Aaron Lerner asks whether the Palestinian Arabs want a state that incorporates Israel or one that exists next to it. We don't need sophisticated techniques to know the answer. The Arab street and the Arab leaders have always said they wish to eliminate the present Jewish state and there is nothing in their actions that alters their voiced intent. Lerner lays out the social engineering the Palestinian Arabs -- or their handlers -- might practice to destroy Israel after they have a state. Lerner incorporates into his analysis an assessment of the future activity of some other Arab countries, which -- in the face of reality -- were presumed stable. In sum, Lerner suggests that after acquiring a state neighboring Israel, the continuing plans to destroy Israel are likely to be brilliant and definitely not based on the comforting notions that everyone is civilized and everyone wants only to see their children have a good life.

by Martin Sherman

  It follows that if the notion of an authentic Palestinian people is fallacious, then they are not the owners of "Palestine" and the thrust to deprive Israel of its rightfully-owned land becomes nonsensical, if not downright hostile. Nevertheless, there are the so-called Arab refugees, individuals from different clans and their descendants, who have been kept in a state of suspended animation for some 60 years. There are also the local Arabs, most of whom immigrated into the Territories in the 20th century. Martin Sherman does a masterful job in laying out a comprehensive plan to relocate these people to a suitable milieu in an Arab country or Arab countries, where they could live as citizens and be responsible for their own lives. The plan would also benefit the economy of the countries that would play host.

by Gennadiy Baruch Faybyshenko

  There is no way that Israel can allow the return of the 1948 Arab refugees and their multiple descendents and camp followers and remain a viable state. Gennadiy Baruch Faybyshenko suggests an alternative way of giving the Palestinian Arabs their own place and at the same time letting Saudi Arabia express its concern for the Palestinian Arabs in a practical way. Saudi Arabia is wealthy, very large and sparsely populated. It is an ideal place to put a Palestinian state, a state that would be located in an environment that is Arab in religion, culture and lifestyle, a state where other countries, concerned with the welfare of the Palestinians, can come help develop. Concerned Jews could help by lobbying their congressmen to help implement a Palestinian state in Saudi Arabia.


1. How are communities of people manipulated to act against their own best interests?

2. And why do they go along with it?

In European cities, as soon as they have sufficient control, Muslims set up enclaves from which non-Muslims are excluded. Yet the Europeans, particularly in Britain and Norway, do not respond appropriately. Europeans have become submissive to their enemies, the Muslims, and actively hostile to their loyal Jewish citizens. They berate Israel and are strong partisans of the Palestine Arabs.

As another example: fearful of being labeled a bigot, many Jews help Muslims fight Islamophobia. But Muslims attack Jews everywhere, the more so when they have the power, so increasing Muslim control is hardly in the best interest of the Jews. Other essays suggests possible reasons for self-harming behavior.

by Bruce Bawer

  From the point of view of self-interest, the surge in anti-semitism in Europe seems illogical. The Muslims are pushing forward to impose their culture over the native mores. Instead of resisting and making common cause with Jews, who are under Islamic attack worldwide, Europeans are allowing Muslims to encroach, while throwing their Jewish citizens to these present-day marauders. Bruce Bawer describes the situation in Norway; but he could be describing the prevailing conditions over much of Europe.

by Melanie Phillips

  Melanie Phillips clearly and factually rejects some assertions by Muslims about antisemitism; namely, that Muslims are not anti-Jewish, that factual criticism of Islam (Islamophobia) is the same as inventive fabrications against Judaism and that Jews and Muslim should be fighting Islamophobia together. She speaks specifically of these notions coming from Baroness Warsi, but many Muslim leaders say the same. The chutzpa of Muslims -- major distributors of antisemitic literature -- encouraging Jews to help Muslims demolish Israel and demote Jews to dhimmi status!

by Daniel Greenfield

  Daniel Greenfield notes that were Muslims told they were responsible for Muslim terrorism, "world opinion" would be in an uproar. Yet Jews are told they are responsible for the Muslim violence against them and the expectation is they will accept the rebuke -- they might even take it to heart. Greenfield points out that in one sense Israel is to blame for Muslim violence because Israel tolerates it. It threatens meaningless threats of retaliation. It eventually shoots up empty Arab houses. It is understanding of Arab justifications. Israelis act like saps so they're treated that way.

by Alex Rose

  Governments are often portrayed as acting coolly and sensibly, backed by objective appraisals and in accordance with the country's best interests. But in this essay, Alex Rose demonstrates that Obsessional Anti-Semitism disproportionately governed the activities of Nazi Germany and its soulmates, the Arab countries, who should have been worrying how to escape out of medievalism into modern times. The Arabs were aided and abetted and in some cases incited by the the British, who had undertaken to help the Jews develop their homeland into a State, but who found undermining the eventual and then the newly-born Jewish state irresistible. From the 1930s on, England illegally declared Jewish immigration to Palestine illegal. The Brits then devoted much of their time and effort to make sure the Jews didn't escape from the Nazis. Rose shows us how often frank antisemitism, however irrational, is the real determinant of what nations do.

by Nicolai Sennels

  The Muslims are trying on the UN and European Union level and on the Federal level in individual countries, to make it a crime to criticize Islam, where criticism is a crime whether the information is factual or not. In this essay, Nicolai Sennels elucidates some likely reasons why people deny the reality of Islamic infiltration into the West in order to remain politically correct. To his list, may I add one: for far too many "educated" people, a "heretical" opinion -- or even a conclusion easily derived from known facts -- is not accepted in polite society until it has been blessed by spilled coffee on the pages of the New York Times. This article is important in understanding how the Political Correctness Muzzle Effect can override reality. And why historians wonder years later, why people didn't see the obvious.

by Martin Sherman

  In this essay, Martin Sherman makes the point that political liberalism, a major achievement of the West, is destroying itself by attempting to apply its values and expectations to societies that do not have the environment in which it can thrive. As a major inconsistency, one can not praise diversity and then act as if diverse cultures all have the same set of values. It would be more intelligent, when dealing with a totalitarian society based on Islamic teachings, if we factored in the belief system and acceptable practices of that alien society instead of assuming we are all reading from the same page in a book written in American English.

by Waller R. Newell

  This essay by Waller Newell gives a different twist to the examination of why people act against their own self-interest: different selves have different interests. He explores what happens when people make a extraordinary attempt at bettering their lives, increasing their choices and their freedom to make choices. Using the recent uprising in Egypt and the hopes by many for an 'Arab spring', he throws cold water on the belief that their revolution will lead to democratic reform. He also counters the bland assertions of the American administration that the Muslim Brotherhood -- which will eventually gain power -- is moderate. Revolutions for the most part follow a script: "The initial reformist phase ... focusing on individual rights and opportunity is swept aside by radicals who want an egalitarian and collectivist political order." Hope turns to dust; bright beginnings rust. And the objectives of the dictatorship that finally takes over negate the good intentions of the original "good guys".


Many church groups have come to understand emotionally, not just factually, that Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew and that Christianity came out of Judaism, which is why their fundamental belief system is what it is. Their attitude is based in Scripture. These Christian Zionists are accused of being brainwashed by theories such as dispensationalism. They have had to fend off various other suspicions. They are suspected of helping Israel in order to bring about the Rapture; this is true in some cases. How many is unknown. Real numbers are hard to come by. Anecdotes abound. They are accused of having a not-so-hidden agenda to convert the Jews to Christianity in a more kindly fashion than in the Middle Ages. Again, this is true for some. But many -- quite possibly the majority - of the Christian Zionists are sincere and dedicated to Israel's welfare as a family matter.

In contrast, other churches despise the Jewish state and are dedicated to destroying it. Activist Presbyterians and Episcopalians temper their language but their actions tell all. Senior American Presbyterian Church officials meet openly with Hezbollah. They enthusiastically endorse BDS (boycotts, divestiture and sanctions against Israel). In contrast, the various Middle Eastern churches make no secret of their animosity. They have the most to lose as Muslims gain the power to destroy Christianity completely in the Middle East, yet they are the most vocal in castigating Israel for any and all crimes. This set of essays examines the views of these antagonistic churches.

by Paul Charles Merkley

  Christian Zionists -- some of Israel's staunchest and most dedicated friends -- are under attack from mainline Protestant churches and academic clerics. Paul Merkley's new book, entitled Those That Bless You I Will Bless: Christian Zionism in Historical Perspective (Mantua Books, December 5, 2011) counters their specious arguments. As David Parsons of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem says, "In recapturing core biblical truths, ordinary Christians also reawakened to the enduring Jewish hope for restoration in the Land of Israel. Out of British 'Restorationism' emerged the modern-day Christian Zionism movement with the explicit purpose of lending vital support to a reconstituted Jewish state." To provide context and a contrast to the church groups under examination, we are reprinting Merkley's 2007 paper, Christian Zionism, 101. Its introduction read:

Anti-Zionists assert that Christian Zionism derives from "dispensationalism," an off-center Biblical interpretation popular in the eighteen hundreds. Paul Merkley's essay is an effective antidote to anti-Zionist pseudo-theology. His is a very readable, very factual account of what characterizes Despisers of Zion and Defamers of Christian Zionists. These "...chatterers make no effort to get straight the facts about Christian faith. Indeed, it is considered a proof of one's qualification to speak about the biggest issues of life that one should betray no first-hand knowledge of the content of faith..." Countering their propaganda, Professor Merkley cogently explains the actual basis of Christian Zionism: it doesn't come from Dispensationism; it comes from mainstream Protestant theology and the literature of biblical commentary.
See also Victor Sharpe's article on Christian Zionism here. and an excellent overview by Edward Brotsky here.

by Chanah Shapira

  Christian Aid, a well-endowed agency of the World Council of Churches (WCC), was established to alleviate poverty in Israel and the Territories. In actual fact, it is highly-politicized and a strong no-holds-barred promoter of the same anti-Israel ideology as the WCC, using half-truths, omission of critical facts, distortions and lies ad lib as needed. It is politically important because it "determines the actual Middle East policy line" for the leadership of several major UK churches. Christian Aid (CA) provides far-left anti-Israel PR and funds far-left Pro-Palestinian political activist organizations such as the Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, which, like its patron, doesn't feel constrained to be truthful as it works to delegitimize Israel. In fact, as Dexter Van Zile wrote of Sabeel's founder, "In Ateek's writing Christian supersessionism merges with Islamic supersessionism in the Middle East to form a united front of contempt toward Jewish sovereignty." In this essay, Chanah Shapira systematically examines some of the churches in the UK whose attitude toward Israel reflect CA's strong anti-Israel bias: it's all Israel's fault. So say they all.

by Malcolm Lowe

  Many of the "facts" that influence Western Protestant churches to support the Palestinian Arabs come from Christian Arab theologians. In dhimmi fashion they have promoted the Muslim Arab cause by asserting that the Jews are responsible for Christians fleeing the Middle East, without explaining why the Christian population is decreasing drastically in the Arab countries and increasing only in Israel. In this essay, Malcolm Lowe discusses the latest theological enterprise of Lutheran Pastor Mitri Raheb and Anglican Reverend Naim Ateek. Raheb asserts, despite all contrary evidence, that all of the Bible, including the Book of Persian Queen Esther, was written in Palestine and that Jesus wasn't Jewish but Palestinian. The Jews aren't native to Palestine but the hordes of Arabs that came into the region mostly after 1900 are descendents of an ancient people, and, mirabile dictu, it is the Palestinian Arab Christians who are God's Chosen People. Essentially, Raheb and Ateek are refining the theme that the Arabs are the owners of Israel and the Territories. They give the honor of being the original people of the land to the remaining Christian Arabs Palestinians. What will they think of next?

by Paul C. Merkley

  Paul Merkley writes about the antisemitism of the non-Protestant churches which are by far the oldest and the largest churches in the Middle East: the Eastern Orthodox (Greek Orthodox, Church of Cyprus), the Oriental Orthodox (Armenian Apostolic, Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox) and the Catholic (Armenian Catholic, Chaldean Catholic, Coptic Catholic, Greek Melkite Catholic, Latin Patriarchate, Maronite Catholic and Syrian Catholic). While the Roman Catholic Church has repudiated demonizing the Jews and inventing blood libels, these Eastern churches remain theologically as much in the Middle Ages as the Muslim majority. Antisemitism is ingrained; contempt for the Jews is visceral. Unless the doer of an evil deed is immediately known and this knowledge can't be denied, the evil is attributed to the machinations of the Jews. The less likely that the Jews could possibly be involved, the more unshakably certain are they that it was somehow part of a Zionist conspiracy. As Merkley points out, this attitude persists at a time that "the Christian communities of the Arab world are being forced upon the path to extermination." And not by the Jews.


Many a university campus has become a hostile environment for the Jewish students who have come for a liberal arts education. College administrators allow Muslim students to terrorize Jewish students and control who is allowed to speak on campus, while all the time proclaiming the need for freedom of speech for all. Organizations whose titles identify them as fighting prejudice against Jews have left Jewish students to fend for themselves. Leftist professors use their classrooms to inculcate students with their political ideology, not their specialized academic knowledge. Whatever happened to the notion that being at University was a time when one could indulge in intellectual pursuits in a serene environment?

Bill Narvey

  Antisemitism is on the increase. Some 70% of the anti-religion hate crimes in America are against Jews. And what are the Biggie Jewish organizations doing? They are busy, busy, busy. Abe Foxman of the ADL is defending the penetration of Muslim Sharia law into our academic and financial institutions and law courts. He is attacking Jews for worrying. Silly us, we must be suffering from Islamophobia. He suggests, as corrective action, we should help pay to build Mosques In America. MIA. An acryonym that also describes where his brain is -- it's Missing In Action. Hillel? Hillel at Penn State is helping the Muslims denounce Israelis who are defending themselves against Muslim rockets. AJC? It's encouraging the political parties to keep Israel out of their political agendas. We wouldn't want Jews to find out what Obama has in store for Israel -- that would be awful. They might not vote for him again. AIPAC? AIPAC is still out there with lighted lantern looking for an Arab who will accept a big chunk of Israel. The sign on the lantern reads: "Wanted: an Arab who can play peace partner for a limited engagement."

Private individuals have taken on themselves the jobs the Biggies have abdicated. Bill Narvey has compiled information on the situation at University of California. The Amcha Initiative has been doing the work the major Jewish organizations should be doing: attempting to get the U. of California to stop the Muslim harassment of Jewish students. The major item is a letter to Mark Yudof, President, University of California, from Tammi Rossman-Benjamin and Leila Beckwith of the Amcha Initiative.

Bernice Lipkin

  John Mearsheimer has done damage to Jews by putting a veneer of scholarship on the gutter lie that Jews control America's foreign policy. While not everyone saw this as evidence of anti-Semitism, he proved it was by endorsing a frank anti-semitic book. He has done damage to his profession by his sloppy scholarship. And most of all he has helped enable suppressed anti-Semitism to be voiced openly as it was prior to World War 2. Students at the U of Chicago, in a well-written and well-stated brief, call for his retirement.

by Seth J. Frantzman

  Seth Frantzman examines the issue of academics who publically insult the ethnicity, politics or religion of others -- especially when the "others" may be students who can't answer back -- yet they enjoy "the presumption that their work with students remains unbiased and uninformed by their sometimes radical views." Should academics enjoy a special type of free speech that no other occupation enjoys? How do inappropriate remarks by faculty members impact the environment at their universities? Should they should be allowed to behave and to speak in a manner considered unacceptable in the general society? Considering the number of academics who preach rather than teach, these questions are seriously in need of resolution.


by Dr. Yasser DasMaBebi

  That noted linguist, Dr Yasser DasMaBebi, has graciously offered to help us understand the meaning of words and phrases used in stories and news coming from the Middle East. He makes the meaning so clear he has inspired others to add to our understanding. He also provides us with memorable examples of exquisite Arab poetry.

by Bruce Bawer

  Using a recent book of essays on Islam as a political religion as anchor, Bruce Bawer notes that "while Islamic Studies professors have continued to whitewash the religion of peace, responsible-minded men and women outside of the Islamic Studies racket have taken up the job of truth-telling, publishing a number of substantial, and in some cases encyclopedic, volumes about Islam." Nevertheless, "ignorance and outright duplicity about the basic facts of Islam still reign supreme throughout the West." And too many of the next generation of leaders, now at college, are being inculcated with an inaccurate picture of Islam.

by Alex Maistrovoy

  As Alex Maistrovoy writes, "Political commentaries about the events in the Middle East resemble mythological plots written by an experienced censor." One is the narrative that it was all Israel's fault that she lost Turkey's support because she was too rigid, she was unaccepting of Arab demands for dignity, etc., etc., etc. Maistrovoy points out that Recep Erdogan began hostilities against Israel well before any incident that could be claimed to have contributed to a change of relations. In looking for the culprit that created friction between Turkey and Israel, it would be better to look at Erdogan's goals: "the creation of the Islamic state, rejection of Kemal Atatürk's secular heritage and revival of the Ottoman Empire." With the press fixating on what Israel did wrong, it will a big surprise to them when Erdogen's hostility toward Greece and Cyprus as well as to Israel become more obvious.


by Dr. Syed Kamran Mirza

  Syed Kamran Mirza explains the particular hatred Muslims have toward Jews. At the beginning of the establishment of Islam, Mohammad praised the Jews, hoping they would certify him as a legitimate Biblical prophet but the Jews rejected his claims. Hell hath no fury like a self-proclaimed prophet scorned. As his megalomania grew, he demonized the Jews and then massacred them. His hate of Judaism is accurately reflected in the later verses of the Koran and hadith. And that is what Muslim children are taught.

by David Isaac

  David Isaac writes of two errors that should be rectified. Field Marshal Edmund Allenby has been honored by having a major thoroughfare named after him in Tel-Aviv. As Isaac points out, Allenby's hostility to Jews "set the precedent and the tone for all subsequent administrations..." Contrariwise, Israel's debt to Col. John Henry Patterson has not been acknowledged. Perhaps reversing the commission and the omission will help teach Israelis who their friends are and who are not their friends.

by Giulio Meotti

  Giulio Meotti writes about the circumstances surrounding the October 1982 terror attack on Rome's synagogue. "Qaddafi gave safe haven to the terrorist who bombed Rome's synagogue, killing a Jewish child. But Italy, as this article exposes, was a collaborator and tacit facilitator to terrorists and terrorism." "Now that Muammar Qaddafi (who protected Abu Nidal's terrorist group responsible for the massacre) has been killed in Lybia, many voices are asking Silvio Berlusconi's government to reveal the secrets of the Italian appeasement to anti-Jewish terrorism ..."


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index. To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

November 2011 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE
December 2011 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE


What we are talking about in the September-October 2011 issue:

Islamophobia (DiscoverTheNetworks, Hornick, Glick)
Creeping Sharia (Zumwalt, Gordon, Shulman)
Western Pro-Palestinian Propagandists (Sherman, Murphy, Bell&Steinberg&Balanson, Poller)
Muslim Democracy Ain't Democracy (Greenfield, Helfont)
The Shifting Sands of the Middle East (Takeyh, Al-Tamimi, Gilboa)
The Proposed Palestinian Arab State Of Palestine (Meotti, Elder of Ziyon, Meotti, Klein, Plaut)
What the Arabs Really Want (Brand, Sherman)
The Legal Basis for the Creation of Israel and Its Annexation of the Territories (Duke, Hausman, Rabinowitz)
Attacking Israel's Indecisiveness: Leaving the Wrong Path (Kahane, Marlon, Glick)
History Section (Ramati, Sobel, FresnoZionism, Sobel, Bard)
Readers' Blog-Ed Pages (September,October)


Creating a new scare-word is probably beginning to cost the Islamists almost as much as buying the presidency. But it might be worth it to them. They've come up with a beauty -- Islamophobic -- which means that you are irrationally afraid of Islam. It could be you soon will fear being labeled an Islamophobe almost as much as you avoid being called a racist. But don't worry. All you have to do is think positive about Islam.

Do you think it's ridiculous giving someone a driver's license photographed wearing a burqa? You might be an Islamophobe. Would you fire a Muslim clerk because he refuses to sell alcohol? Shame on you for interfering with him practicing his religion. Do you think it's irrational that world politicos fear a Jew building a house in Samaria more than Iran building an atomic bomb? You might be islamophobic. When you learn your children are taught how to pray like real-live Muslims by a real-live Muslim coming to their school, do you wonder why they can't pray as Jews or Christians in school? Looks like you need more positive thinking. When your kids come home from college preaching the Palestinian cause, do you remember reading about the millions the Arabs donate to our universities? Focus on other thoughts. Think cheerfully that your kid might find fame and martyrdom as a human shield in Gaza or Iran. When your church declares it is boycotting Israel because it is harming peace-loving Arabs, do you wonder why they aren't worried Christians are being murdered everywhere Muslims are dominant? You're being too cheeky. Get over it. Do you believe that Islam is a peaceful religion working for world peace? Good. Just keep thinking positive.

These next articles were written by people that Islamofools would call Islamophobes.

Submitted by Bill Levinson
to Israpundit
September 6, 2011.

See also: Pat Condell, "American Islamophobia," here.

Discover the Networks

  This article provides us with some of the history of the invention of the term Islamophobia and its usefulness as a club for frightening ordinary people as well as the news media into downplaying or ignoring Islamic terrorism. As the old joke goes, "who are you going to believe? Me or your lying eyes." If fear of being labeled an Islamophobe succeeds, Islamic terrorism won't be a crime; saying unkind things about Islam will.

by P. David Hornik

  Muslims pressuring the U.N. to declare criticism of religion (i.e., Islam) a hate crime have a peculiar definition of what constitutes a hate crime: any slur on Islam made publicly. Since Islam is perfect and without flaw, then clearly any criticism is a slur and is completely unwarranted. To use a recent neologism that betrays an ignorance of root words, the critic is considered islamophobic, (irrationally afraid of Islam) though his actual emotions are anger and disgust at -- and loathing of -- Muslim behavior and these feelings are entirely rational and reality-based. P. David Hornik makes the point subtly and humorously in this essay.

by Caroline Glick

  An important strategy in war is to keep the enemy off balance and defensive and timid about reacting strongly. Islam is waging war against the USA and Israel and is using psychological tools effectively. This isn't a good time for us to be politically correct.

When you are fighting a war, knowing the identity of the enemy usually is not a problem. But, as Caroline Glick writes, we have identified the enemy only timidly and peripherally, not smack on. And even when, as in the case of Major Hasan, who murdered fourteen of his fellow soldiers, it was obvious he was a jihadist or a jihad-groupie, yet the army ignored the problem. It is a most unusual, and in many ways, ineffective war in that the American administration encourages friendly contact with the Muslim Brotherhood, a motherlode of terrorist activities, takes timid measures against Iran and ignores the terrorism emanating from much of the Muslim world, notably from the Arab sector of that world.


The Muslim Brotherhood and their front groups emphasize the importance of some pleasing or at least reasonable aspect of Sharia Law to encourage its entry into a host country. In the last issue Andrew McCarthy wrote about the slow but steady growth of Muslims-only enclaves in Western host countries, where Sharia law, Muslim customs and the Islamic educational system with its emphasis on mastering the Koran rather than acquiring a general education or a trade are practiced. The laws and practices of the host country were ignored. The leaders of the Muslim communities chose to practice "voluntary apartheid."

In this issue we discuss the push to permit Sharia courts to handle domestic disputes in civil law cases. It seems harmless enough until you realize, for example, that it entails Sharia restrictions on women. Moreover, from experience we know the Muslims will continue to push for more restructuring of society to suit Islamic requirements.

It is ironic that in the USA, Muslim leaders spend large amounts to underwrite posters, articles, conferences, academic chairs and hate-fests, all preaching Jew hate, yet a major argument used to make Sharia courts an alternative to our courts is to point out that the Jews have Beth Din, Jewish law courts that are empowered to decide civil law cases. So why not have Sharia courts for Muslims in the same way? It sounds reasonable until you examine the details. Jewish law by its own rabbinic rulings defers to the host country's laws; it works out ways to maintain Halachic standards within the strictures of the host country. Islamic law regards its own law as the one that should be adopted by everyone and aims at that happening. It may argue that a Sharia civil court is harmless to the social structure because it would handle only domestic issues. In practise that means that Muslim women will be treated as inferiors, and the environment will need to be modified to ensure Sharia practices can be practiced.

Westerners often aid and abet Creeping Sharia. It is with no pleasure that I tell you that some of them are Jews, charged by their organizations with the mission of protecting Judaism from poisonous Jew-hate propaganda such as the anti-Jewish hate mongering that emanates from Muslim sources.

The next articles deal with the demand for Sharia courts to handle civil litigation for Muslims.

Lt. Colonel James G. Zumwalt, USMC (ret.)

  James Zumwalt points out that Muslim organizations, "by playing the Islamophobia card" seek to shift the focus away from where it should be: on dangers to our freedoms. Instead they claim bias when concerns are raised about such dangers. Sharia law, which is already being cited to a sizable degree in ordinary courts and on the appellate level, reinforces practices that are alien to the West and unacceptable under our law system. In child custody cases Sharia law automatically favors the father. Multiple wives are allowed. Sex with minors is allowed. Judging from experience in other countries: as Sharia law becomes institutionalized, individual freedoms suffer, religions other than Islam suffer, groups such as homosexuals and all women end up with restricted rights or no rights. Countries that encourage the application of Islamic law to show they are tolerant, end up being intolerant to their own people and institutions.

by Jerry Gordon

  Jerry Gordon writes about the differences between Sharia Law and Halacha. Superficially, Sharia Law sounds much like Halacha, Jewish Law. Both are prescriptive for how the individual is to behave in all aspects of his life. In practice they differ widely. A person is both himself and a member of his group. The Torah is ground and guide for shaping and sharpening a reasonable adjustment between the individual and the group, allowing the individual free will and the space in which to grow in morality and intellect, while ensuring group survival and functionality. This can take many forms and variations, subject to changing conditions and environments. Jewish Law will reformulate expressions of its way of life in accordance with the laws of the host country; it strives to maintain halachic integrity within the scope of the larger society. Muslim Law is static by design, being modeled on the behavior and commands of Muhammad; it sees no reason to adjust to any one else's set of laws, which by definition are inferior to its own. Strictures alien to the Muslim include the USA's Constitution and the laws that are given life by it.

by Richard H. Shulman

  Richard Shulman analyzes point by point an essay by Professor Aziz Huq, who argued against a law that would prohibit courts from using foreign laws, including Sharia. The case for using Sharia law in American courts and as an alternative to American law is presented as a courtesy to and a sign of tolerance of the Muslim community. It is claimed there would be little impact on American society. Shulman suggests the proper context is this: Islam declared war on us. We need to ask how does the establishment of Sharia courts aid them in their war effort?

There would be little point in letting Sharia law have legal power and then not allow its decisions to be carried out. Thus, adherence to Sharia would contribute to the subjugation of Muslim women. Would we be forced to allow everything from wife beatings to honor killer? Or would Sharia-determined decisions require review -- creating a large burden on our courts. If Sharia were given status, the next push would be to make criticism of Islam a hate crime, even if the specific allegation was accurate and objective. Were that to happen, the impact would be huge. It would in practice deprive us of the freedom to voice any criticism of Islam.

Besides minimizing the importance of the request and acting as victim, there is the implied threat. The Professor warns that rejecting the installing of Sharia would chill Muslim cooperation against terrorism. It would be difficult to see how they could cooperate less than they do. Is he threatening overt terrorism if they don't get their way?


by Martin Sherman

  As I start to write the intro to this article by Martin Sherman on Bill Clinton's Judeophobic attitude, the ticker tape reads: "3 rockets explode in Gan Yavne; morter shells fired from Gaza land in Ashdod, Gan Yavne; Egyptian Brotherhood makes first visit to Hamas-led Gaza; Islamic Jihad takes responsibility for grad rocket fire; female suicide bomber kills 3 wounds 20 in S.E. Turkey."<29oct11.> The Muslims of the Arab World continue to work at destroying Israel, when they are not killing their own countrymen. But according to our affable ex-prez, it's Netanyahu and the Jooz who are withholding peace from the world. Clinton's made a boodle speaking in the Democratic-party climate of many synagogues, but apparently the Saudis pay better.

by Paul Austin Murphy

  Israel is accused of apartheid because that worked so well to demonize South Africa. Never mind that the Arabs in Israel are a minority, not a majority. Never mind that Israeli Arabs have more freedom of expression than in any Arab state. Similarly Marxist Leftists call Israel 'racist' not because it's true but because it's been an effective way to shut up someone for a very long time. The need to destroy Israel is so strong, facts don't seem to matter. Paul Murphy uses a novel tactic to make this point -- he provides us with Leftist conspiracy-style retorts to actual facts, facts the Marxist Left has no problem ignoring.

Part 1: by Abraham Bell and Gerald M. Steinberg; Part 2: by Gerald M. Steinberg and Naftali A. Balanson

  For HRW the more things change ... doesn't apply. They don't even seem to change. This article deals with HRW fixed focus on Israel in the Lebanon War in 2006 and, now, in 2011, when Syrian abuses against human rights are rightly labeled as atrocities, HRW's coverage is scanty. One reader suggested HRW change its name. "Maybe a name like Deny Jewish Human Rights would be more appropriate."

by Nidra Poller

  Nidra Poller writes on one of the most successful hoaxes ever perpetrated -- it's right up there with the fabricated bayoneting of Belgian babies in World War 1. At the start of the second Intifada, a 12-year old was supposedly killed by Israeli soldiers. The image of the boy, Muhammad al-Dura, cowering behind his father went around the world, creating sympathy for the Palestinian cause. It was later determined that the bullet that killed the boy couldn't have come from where the IDF was positioned. The boy was in direct line with an Arab sharpshooter, who was standing near the Arab cameraman who was paid by France 2, which refused to release the 44-minutes of film that was omitted from the film distributed to the public. We now know that even the supposed IDF attack was staged in that a distraction crew of Arabs "attacked the Israeli outpost with rocks, firebombs, and burning tires, [while] fake battle scenes were filmed in another part of the junction, out of range of the Israel Defence Forces outpost." It's not even certain that the boy was killed. The dramatic description of the scene by the French commentator, Charles Enderlin, was not eye-witness; it was dubbed in later. Enderlin has stonewalled, he has sued critics, he's written endless self-justifications; he's done everything but own up to having perpetrated a hoax, and not a very well-constructed hoax at that.

Poller then asks and answers a more significant question: what were the factors that made Al-Dura a media "success", while a real massacre of a Jewish family by Arabs -- where an infant was almost completely decapitated and the murderers readily confessed and were proud of what they did - is soft-pedaled by the media as just another news item. Why indeed are news people sometimes intelligently sceptical of planted stories and at other times why do they act like lobotomized sheep? Her answer has relevance to so much that we are fed by a supposedly neutral Mainstream Media.


The first essay in this set asks whether democracy in the Muslim world is what a Westerner would call democratic. The second essay asks a more general question: does a democratic government stop terrorism by providing "an alternative outlet for the grievances of more moderate Islamists"? Can "democracy in the Middle East ... 'drain the swamps' of Islamic terrorism"?

Daniel Greenfield

  Westerners often mistakenly believe that democracy is democracy is democracy, so if the Arabs proclaim themselves democratic, they must be our kind of people. But, as Daniel Greenfield points out, "[t]he Muslim world is so enthusiastic about democracy because it allows the majority to slap around the minority -- at least more so than it's already doing." The people haven't changed. They haven't become kinder or more mature; they just have more freedom to be nasty. In consequence, minorities such as Egypt's Christian Copts are safer under a tyrannical dictator. "In the final analysis," Greenfield points out, "the trouble with Muslim democracy is the Muslims."

a book review by Samuel Helfont

  Samuel Helfont reviews a book by Katerina Dalacoura that casts doubt on the belief that "democracy is an 'antidote' to terrorism. From her studies, Dalacoura concluded that "there is no necessary causal link between authoritarianism in the Middle East and Islamist terrorism." This means that a democratized Egypt, should that ever occur, would no more stamp out terrorism than giving terrorists their own country to govern will dissolve their impulse towards waging jihad.


by Ray Takeyh

  President Obama's way of playing Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burned is to focus our military might on Libya and our political ire on Israel for building homes in the Territories or even in Jerusalem. As Ray Takeyh points out, the real problem is Iran and it needs to be dealt with. Sanctions have not and will not work and we can't afford to just let things happen. "Neither the turbulent order of the Middle East nor the partisan politics of Washington can afford an Islamic Republic armed with nuclear weapons." If this reality doesn't make the politicians understand what actions are urgently needed, try this: "An Iranian bomb is likely to unleash the most divisive partisan discord in this country since the 1949 debate about who lost China."

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

  Since President Obama and NATO picked Libya's Gaddafi as the Muslim dictator most urgently in need of downfall, there have been several disquieting and unintended results -- at least I hope they were unintended. As Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi writes, there has been an increase of instability that is spreading south. Several Libyan arms depots that we didn't strike were looted and arms and missiles are missing -- they could end up with an al Qaeda group, AQIM. The disgruntled Touareg "might forge ties with AQIM." Nigeria is already appeasing the Boko Haram, which wants Nigeria to become an Islamic state. And of course the new rulers of Libya are in favor of creating an Islamic state. Had we known that the Libyan caper would result in more hard line Islamic theocracies, we might have left bad enough alone.

by Eytan Gilboa

  A few short years ago, President Obama spoke of a new American policy in the Middle East based on diplomacy and cooperation with moderate regimes. Eytan Gilboa writes about the collapse of the two anchors of this policy. "Turkey, once an exemplar moderate Islamic democracy, and Egypt, once an exemplar stable and moderate Arab power, have become increasingly unreliable allies." "With all the whisperings over America's weakness, it is unsurprising that players like Iran and Turkey are looking to fill the vacuum left in its place — to become regional powers with global influence." Obama didn't understand the region then, and he doesn't know what to do now. Except to blame Israel, of course.


At issue is a UN-enforced 2-state solution for peace between Israel and the local Arabs, who miraculously became the Palestinian people some 40 years ago. Mahmoud Abbas, well past-his-term-of-office as President of the Thuggery known as the Palestinian Authority, has stated that in the new state, there will be no Jews. There is every reason to believe him. In the 1940s and '50s, somewhere between 800,000 to 1 million Jews -- most of whom were descendants of Jews who had lived there for hundreds of years before the Arabs came into the area -- were either murdered or were driven from some ten Arab countries without their possessions because the modern state of Israel was coming into being. Only a few Jews still live in the Arab Middle East, mainly in Morocco, and in Iraq, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen No new Jewish immigration is allowed. No Jew is allowed to live in Jordan. Arabs who sell property to Jews are routinely assassinated by the PA and Hamas as collaborators. So there go all the fanciful notions that a 2-state solution can work without forcing anyone, Arab or Jew, from his home.

If the UN grants the Arabs a state gratis, it is likely that an Arab living on land retained by Israel will stay where he is if he wishes, able to choose citizenship in Israel or declare himself a non-citizen resident. His choice, not Israel's. But the more than half a million Jews living in Samaria, Judea and eastern Jerusalem living on land that is given to the Arabs will have no choice. They will be forced out of their homes to become refugees in Israel, wards of a government that has not yet permanently settled the 10,000 Jews who were forced out of Gaza by their own Government in 2005. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose the Arabs will change their minds and allow the Jews to remain. They will have gained a country by false claims and sheer chutzpah, supported by the UN, the EU and the US. What reason have they to act reasonably?

We can ask further, were the Jewish settlers to be removed from Samaria and Judea and eastern Jerusalem, and the land given to the Arabs, would there be peace at last between Arab and Jew? Consider that the Arabs keep telling us and telling their children that their mission is to destroy Israel. Consider that they will have more area to manufacture their tools of war and train their shahids. Consider that they will be closer to Jewish population centers. Consider that they know from experience that they can massacre Israelis without serious repercussions. Churches, politicians and media people will use their influence to shield the Palestinians while blaming Israel. Israel is intimidated so she does little and stops too soon. It's obvious what we can expect. Bombings and massacres of Jewish families will increase, drive-by shootings and drive-alongside stone throwing will become routine. Arab demands will not stop. They never do. Israel will incrementally lose land, confidence and the creative productivity of some of its most outstanding citizens. We can say with confidence that what will not happen is a stable and peaceful region, with two societies living amicably side by side

by Giulio Meotti

  Giulio Meotti explores the issue of the proposed Arab state that would be carved out from much of Biblical Israel (Samaria and Judea -- AKA the West Bank). Some of the land is held by Jews, dedicated, productive Jews, civilized people who have taken the brunt of the Arab attacks on Israeli civilians. Perhaps because they represent a key element in maintaining a country that is both strong and civilized, they have been demonized by the media, pro-Palestinian NGOs and groups such as Peace Now that are Jewish in name only. In striking contrast to their actual character, they are "portrayed by the media, by entertainment icons, by governmental advisers as blood-crazed zealots, 'parasites', as the single largest danger to Israel's well-being." These present-day Jewish settlers as well as every other Jew in the world would not be permitted to live in the projected Palestinian State. They would not be allowed on land where the Jewish people became a nation; where they shaped the moral code that is the foundation of Western morality; where the first Jewish settlers of Israel were able to practice their religion according to Torah.

by Elder of Ziyon

  This is an amazing report by Elder of Ziyon. The State that the Palestinians Arabs are asking the U.N. to grant them -- the State that is to be carved out of the land that is Biblical Israel and which they claim is the Palestinian Homeland -- will not be granting citizenship to the Palestinian refugees, even those living right now in Gaza, Samaria and Judea. Yes, the very same refugees that roused the sympathy of the world to help them regain land they had left voluntarily at the behest of the Arab invaders of Israel in 1948. In effect, the Palestinian Authority will continue to collect millions of dollars from the USA and the European Union, but the UN will continue to feed, clothe, medicate and education the "refugees" and Israel will continue to supply them with electricity and water. The only difference will be that Jews will not be allowed to live in Biblical Israel. What a deal!

by Giulio Meotti

  We know that yet another Arab state will not allow Jews to live in it. We've learned that Palestinian Arab refugees -- the root reason the "world" is anxious to set up the new state -- will not be allowed to become citizens of this state, not even if they are already living there. Giulio Meotti suggests what the new state will be like -- it will be just like what the old one was. We might add that if it moves steadily towards what a good Muslim state strives for, it will be a Sharia-driven theocracy that prides itself on family purity (but practices homosexuality quietly); a male-oriented society where women are chattel and slavery exists; a death-cult society that has the mentality of the 7th century culture of Mohammed and uses 21st century weaponry to ensure the world bows down to Islam and practices Sharia law.

by Joseph Klein

  This essay says volumes about the character of the U.N. Where else would an invented people announce it wanted someone else's land and know it has a good chance of getting it?

Joseph Klein recounts the history of a disgraceful series of conference sponsored by the United Nations. The first of these in 2001, Durban 1, supposedly designed to examine racism worldwide, turned into a racist hatefest against the Jewish state, ignoring all actual racist states. "It was marked by vitriolic displays of anti-Semitism." Durban 2 didn't have the shock value of Durban 1, but again, UN members showed an unusually high degree of cooperation in ambushing and attacking Israel. Durban 3, this September, saw the same inversion of morality, where dictators and terrorists and wholesale murderers accused Israel of being evil. Klein also tells us about a counter-Durban 3 Conference, which showed real concern for human rights. One speakers had been a slave. "[He is] a living demonstration of the 'emerging forms of slavery such as human trafficking,' perpetrated within Sudan by the racist Arab government and population, which Sudan's undersecretary so piously condemned at the Durban III conference."

by Steven Plaut

  In his own inimitable way, Steven Plaut points out that there are many separatist groups with better credentials for having a state of their own. The Kurds, for example, are a legitimate people yet they are split among several Arab countries, none of whom is willing to give them their own place. What makes the Palestinians so special? Plaut suggests that, should the UN Security Council vote for a Palestinian State, Israel should recognize the particular separatist groups plaguing the particular countries that voted for a Palestinian Arab state.


Wallace Edward Brand

  During the 400 years in which the Ottomans ruled what later was known as Mandated Palestine, there was no Palestinian state, no Palestinian people and no Palestinian Arab nationalist movement among the local Arabs and other Muslims and non-Muslims. Yet some 40 years later, Yasir Arafat proclaimed there was a Palestinian people and Palestine had always been their land. Wallace Edward Brand examines whether there is evidence of a nationalist movement in the period between the end of Ottoman rule after World War 1 and the artificial creation of Palestinian peoplehood, during the time that the Jews were building the infrastructure of a State and redeeming their ancient homeland.

by Martin Sherman

  Martin Sherman provides evidence out of the mouths and writings of Arab leaders that their intent has always been to destroy Israel itself. Complaining about settlements and Israel's 'occupation' of the West Bank are red herrings -- diversionary tactics -- that should be ignored. For them 'Palestine' extends "from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea," mapping right on and over Israel. Israel needs to realize that the root cause of Arab enmity is "not about borders but about existence" and respond appropriately.


by Michael C. Duke

  Michael Duke writes about the legal foundation stone of Israel's right to Israel and the Territories -- including all of Jerusalem -- and about a lawyer who spent a quarter of a century determining precisely that the Jews are the legal owners of all of Jerusalem. The document is the San Remo Resolution of 1920; the lawyer is Jacques Gauthier, an expert in international law. San Remo did not just set the future for Mandated Palestine -- which the Jews have redeemed and partially reconstituted -- but it also mandated the future Arab states of Iraq, Lebanon and Syria. Later, other modern Arab states were carved out of the vast expanse of the Middle East by the same authority. That trust passed to the U.N. when the League of Nations was dissolved. The U.N. has not gained respect for its embarrassing embrace of the Arab attempt to delegitimize Israel but even the U.N. must realize it can not break an irrevocable trust with Israel as beneficiary by giving away Biblical Israel to the Palestinian Arabs without simultaneously destroying the basis for the Arab Middle East.

by Matthew M. Hausman

  This is an excellent reference article. Matthew M. Hausman lays out the reasons why another Arab state in Israel's heartland would be a very bad idea. As he points out, "No amount of subterfuge can change the fact that Palestinian nationalism is an artificial construct or that Judea and Samaria were never lawfully part of any sovereign Arab nation." Were Israel to annex Samaria and Judea, she would be reclaiming land that is hers "historically, geographically and legally" by international law. "Israel can rely only on herself to craft a solution that makes legal, historical and moral sense, and which assures her security and continuity as a democratic, Jewish state."

by William Rabinowitz

  This essay points out that after the Jews were defeated by the Romans and through the thousands of years of the diaspora, there was always a Jewish presence in Israel.

William Rabinowitz seems to specialize in humor-coated history, wrapping little-known historic facts in whimsy. In this essay, he writes about the Jews of Pek'in, Israel, a community where Jews have been in continual residence for the last 2 and 1/2 millenia. It is a fact that has been obscured as attention is usually focused on the immigration of Jews starting in the 19th century to redeem their ancient homeland. He also paints an searing picture of a not-too-bright current-day Jewish college student, who has absorbed a pro-Palestinian attitude from his teachers, the local Muslim students and the TV and newspapers. Rabinowitz responds with very different answers to someone who had been indoctrinated to believe that the Palestinians are indigenous to Israel and own the land.


The first two essays are particularly appropriate at this time of year. It is a time that we are encouraged to reflect on our actions over the past year and examine what went wrong. We resolve to make an effort to do better. The other essays are some of the small signs that there are stirrings of new ideas and the cracking of wrong old ones.

by Rabbi Meir Kahane

  Rabbi Meir Kahane was dismissed by many as a radical, a racist, a bigot, an ultranationalist. When the fashion was to believe in the similarity and basic goodness of everyone's goals and aspirations, his diagnosis of an implacable enemy utterly at odds with Judaism was unsettling. We were angered by his message; so we threw stones at the messenger and ignored the message. Now, twenty-one years after his murder, as events catch up to his analyses and predictions, we are beginning to appreciate the clarity of his thoughts and are beginning to agree with his solutions. Yom Kippur is a good time to reflect on his essay on the consequences of ignoring the danger we are in.

by Brandon Marlon

  As in the previous article, Brandon Marlon warns that Israeli's weak reactive responses to Arab aggression may be politically palatable, but eventually they will damage Israel. To make the point, he recounts the story of King Saul who was merciful to the Amalek when the situation dictated that he destroy them. Eventually this "almost resulted in the eradication of his own people." The bottom line is: "in dealing with an implacable, fanatical enemy - say, terrorists - the alternatives are neatly narrowed down to four: offer surrender, accept surrender, strike or be struck ... Harsh as it may seem, war is no time for mildness. One must be in it to win it."

by Caroline Glick

  Caroline Glick asks why the Israeli Government doesn't change its course of action - hoary with age and covered with disappointments -- in dealing with the Palestinian Arabs, who promise to abide by mutually-agreed-upon rules and then do whatever they damn well please, secure in the knowledge that no matter what they do, they will suffer no permanent injury and will, almost certainly, gain new support and material benefits. A major overhaul would include redefining their connection to the Land of Israel. As Glick puts it, "[w]hile Israel has been defending its right to security, the Palestinians have been on the offensive arguing that all the land that Israel took control over from Jordan in 1967 belongs to them by ancestral right." Israel's emphasis on security needs is real and necessary but emotionally unappealing. Stupidly, her spokespeople neutrally refer to Samaria and Judea -- Biblical Israel -- as 'disputed territory.' The Arabs weep dramatically about their lost land -- that's much more appealing to an outsider. It's time Israel spoke out and told the truth: the land is hers and belongs only to her.

History Section

Snapshots from the advent of Islam to the Munich Massacre.

by David Ramati

  David Ramati's essay is on perspective. We tend to think that our present problems with specific groups of Arab terrorists began on 9/11. Ramati points out that in actuality Islam as an ideology has been at war with Western civilization since Mohammad invented it; Muslims often complaining they are the victims of attack. In an amazingly short amount of time, Islam attacked and conquered the neighboring lands, attacked and conquered Christian Spain and immediately began a campaign against Europe. Meantime, they created various ways to denigrate Christians and Jews and other non-Muslims, so that they would always be conscious of the fact that they were dhimmi, beings inferior to Muslims. Dhimmis paid a poll tax; they were pressured to convert to Islam; they wore identification badges, a yellow badge for Jews, an image of a pig for Christians. Then as now, there were no limits to Muslim ruthlessness and deception in aid of Islam becoming the dominant religion in the world. It was in Europe that their conquest was stopped. But, again characteristic of Islam, they tried again, successfully, some 700 years later. Again they went into a decline. Or should we say hibernation. Now, they are at war with us again, strengthened by oil money, a strong belief in the value of their ideology and a blood-thirsty desire for revenge for defeats.

by Jerrold L. Sobel

  Jerrold Sobel writes about one of the pogroms against the Jews of Safad, Israel, then part of the Ottoman Empire. In 1834 the local Arabs revolted against Egyptian domination and were ruthlessly savaged. The rebels then scapegoated the Jews, and for 33 days devastated the Jewish community, dismembering children, raping men and women, beating them, plundering their money and slaughtering them. As Sobel writes, "...the fact that this pogrom occurred at all flies in the face of modern Arab propagandists and their sympathizers which claim, if not for Zionism and the re-creation of the state of Israel, native Jews and Palestinians existed in harmony for hundreds of years; a prevarication proven to be without merit." The Jews lived as dhimmis, "stateless in their own homeland ... easy prey to the whims of local populaces and their leaders."

by FresnoZionism

  This article at FresnoZionism reviews how differently the establishment Jewish organizations and the newly-formed innovative Bergson group worked to save the lives of European Jews during the Holocaust. The established organizations headed by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise ignored that Roosevelt was part of the problem blocking rescue operations and were concerned about protecting Roosevelt's reputation. Even the news of the ongoing concentration camp extermination of Jews did not make them change their traditional ways of dealing with a crisis. FresnoZionism makes the point that these days too many Jews -- those who support J Street and/or New Israel Fund are an egregious example -- are more protective of their standing as good liberals than of Israel's urgent need for all-out support, not lip-service and not J-Street-style sabotage.

by Jerrold L. Sobel

  Jerrold Sobel writes about an inmate of the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, who took upon herself the responsibility of keeping alive half a hundred children tossed outside the barracks into the freezing cold, their parents dead in the gas chamber. She kept them alive, scraping together food for them and stealing medicine until the war ended and rescue came.

by Mitchell Bard

  This is Mitchell Bard's account of the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics of 1972 by the PLO "Black September" terrorists sent on their mission by Yasir Arafat. My own recollection was driving the car while listening to Peter Jennings and some other newsmen reporting. The negotiations were finally over and the terrorists and their Israeli hostages were on their way to the airfield. Things had calmed down. The reporters could start treating Israel as they usually did. When talking about Israel and/or the Israeli team, Jennings' tone was supercilious, pseudo-analytic. In contrast, the terrorists were treated as human beings; in warmer tones, he absolved them, implying 'the debbil (Israel) made them do it.' Then came the news that when the German sharpshooters attacked, the terrorists killed the Jewish athletes. That silenced Peter Jennings. For a while.


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index. To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

September 2011 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE
October 2011 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE



What we are talking about in the July-August 2011 issue:

The Three Themes In This Issue. (Editor)
Practicing Islam (Al Fadi, Ibrahim, Imani, McCarthy, Steyn, Butrick, Barron)
The Race to Clobber Israel (Lopez, Fleitz, Imani, Glick, Lerner)
The Consequences of Rewarding Terrorism (Poller, Rubin, Brand, Getz)
Keeping Israel Sovereign. Keeping Israel Alive (Plaut, Auerbach, Kruger, November, Jager, Hasten, Ettinger)
History Section (Hadar-Israel, Ceren)
Readers' Blog-Ed Pages (July, August)

In this issue we present articles that discuss three themes:

1. In Islam, the behavior of the pious Muslim in all aspects of his life is modeled on the words and actions of a 7th century prophet. Marrying a child is sanctioned because Mohammed married the child Aisha. This is very different from Judaism, where customs and life styles flow from the Law. King David was reprimanded for sending Uriah to his death so that David could marry his widow. If Mohammed had behaved as had David, I suspect that today a Moslem's desire for a woman would be considered an acceptable reason for destroying her husband. Basing Islamic law on specific behavior rather than on general laws makes change almost impossible. A law will generally encompass different modes of behavioral expression. Mimicking the behavior of an individual is more specific and thus more resistant to change.

2. the outrageous bias of the U.N and the E.U. in lending their prestige and power to the attempt to destroy Israel has some unwelcome repercussions. The massacre by Anders Breivik may be an early harbinger of a new trend: disgruntled ethnic and national groups may be deciding that terrorizing people as the Palestinian Arabs do is more effective than writing letters. Also, allowing Iran to develop a nuclear bomb might set off a chain reaction of political readjustments in the area which can only contribute to its instability.

3. The U.N. is legally bound by the way the League of Nations divided the Ottoman Empire. The League created many of the current Arab states. With the same authority, it assigned a tiny portion of the Middle East -- what is now Israel, Samaria, Judea, Gaza and the Golan -- irrevocably to the Jewish people. The trust was transferred to the U.N., the successor to the League. Were the U.N. to decide to wipe out Israel by planting another Arab state in Biblical Israel, what does that do to the legality of the present-day Arab states? Such a move might finally shake Israel out of its passivity. A determined Israel would immediately annex Samaria and Judea. A long-term solution for separating Palestinian Arabs and Jews would be to create a homeland for the Arabs somewhere in the vast land holdings the Arabs own.

Read on!


In this section, we discuss the lock-and-key relationship of Islam and particular conditions that it needs in order to thrive. We start with Islam's insistence on treating women (and homosexuals, slaves and members of all other religions) as inferiors. As much as we Westerners would like to assume that Islam will outgrow its archaic ideas and come to adopt more tolerant attitudes, unfortunately, this can not happen. The core of Islam is Muhammad, that most perfect of men. His actions are to be emulated; his commands are irrevocable. So there is no way to modify attitudes and behavior yet stay within the tenets of the religion. Every other ethnic and religious group more or less modifies its behavior to conform to the laws and acceptable life styles of the host country. Muslims can not do that; they can not redefine concepts, attenuate some practices, abandon other practices, yet retain the essence of their religion. When Muslims move to non-Islamic countries, pious Muslims, bolstered by their mullahs and head men, will seek to modify their environment according to their religious requirements and the customs and practices that are the outgrowth of Islam. They will not stop their demands until they can live fully under sharia law. It is important we recognize this, because the environment under which Islam will thrive doesn't just inconvenience us; it means that we would need to surrender our way of life to it. We would then be living our lives to suit Islam, not ourselves.

by Al Fadi

  This essay discusses a subject ignored when Islam is declared a peaceful religion: the appalling way the ordinary Muslim -- even a Muslim living in modern countries -- is conditioned to treat women by the tenets of Islam. Declaring the man as the supreme arbiter of his household with unquestioned power to compel obedience may sound something between quaint and ludicrous, but it isn't funny when we finally understand this is how the Koran constructed and authorized fundamental relationships in the Muslim home. Muslim clerics continue to reinforce the idea that in a well-regulated household men are all-powerful and women totally subservient. Given that it is an integral part of Islam, "the position of women is fixed, and rulings, such as the beating of a wife, must remain in place as specified by the Quran", without hope of change within the confines of the religion.

by Raymond Ibrahim

  Thanks to Mohammad's example, child marriages to older, even elderly, men is not unusual in Moslem countries. More than half the girls in Afghanistan are married by 16, many of them as young as 9 or 10 and their husbands are old enough to be their grandfathers. In Nepal, 40% are married by age 15. Raymond Ibrahim provides us with an excellent example of how to try to turn a lemon into lemonade Muslim-style: rationalizing Muhammad's rape of a 9-year old child. The story still leaves a heavily sour taste. As Ibrahim writes, "... here we have a cleric straining to finding a positive aspect to Muhammad's pedophilia — that he was patient and indulgent of his child-bride — while ignoring the heart of it: that the man Islam is built around desired to have sex with a child in the first place." The more we learn, the less do we understand why modern-day Muslim clerics -- and we aren't talking fringe but respected authoritative mullahs and politicians -- would insist Muhammad was a perfect man and should be emulated in all respects.

by Amil Imani

  What's in a name? This essay by Amil Imani makes it clear that in this war that Islam is waging globally, words count very much and we need to know their meaning precisely. To start with, Islam does NOT mean peace; it means surrender. "When radical Muslims behave in violent barbaric ways, they are only doing so in obedience to the dictates of their creed. They are surrendering and sacrificing anything and everything in service to the will and pleasure of Allah..." Most are imperfect in their dedication most of the time, but the ideology is that "[i]f only the masses of Muslims arise and carry out the orders of Allah, then we would have the promised paradise of Islam on earth as exemplified by such rules as that of the Taliban, Saudi Arabia, the Sudan, and of course the Shiite nirvana of the Islamic Republic of Iran." It's not a mission the rest of us should want to encourage.

by Andrew C. McCarthy

  Andrew McCarthy reminds us that the Islamic takeover of Europe has usually not been dramatic -- it has come on little cat feet, slowly but steadily. And when it has dug itself into a place, in what then seems but an instant it announces that the place is a Muslim enclave, even though it is in the middle of a European city. As we saw in Israel where Palestinian Arabs took pot shots at electrical workers come to fix the grid so they could have electricity, in Europe, police, fire and ambulance workers who come to rescue people aren't allowed into Muslim-controlled areas. McCarthy tracks for us the psychotic reasoning engaged in by European politicos and media that allows them to ignore what is happening to their countries by conjuring up a fantasy woven around the notion that Islam is peaceful, therefore the Muslim violence that they are actually seeing must be unreal. And so the Muslims continue to seal off areas that are, as Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi put it, "enclaves that will grow and spread and connect," cancerous enclaves that ignore the law of the land and live by sharia.

by Mark Steyn

  Lest you think the previous article by Andrew McCarthy applies only to Europe and a dominating Islam can't possibly skip across the Atlantic, read this essay by Mark Steyn on what goes on in a public school in Toronto Canada, a public school where Muslims hold prayer services during the school day and menstruating girls are segregated from the other students. The write-up could just as easily come from a scattering of public schools across the country in the U.S.A. More to the point, the article is a snapshot at a time after Muslims became a majority at a school and before they start dictating the curriculum without interference.

by Richard Butrick

  Over the years several studies have correlated the growth of the number of Muslims in a foreign country and "the transition from conciliatory Islam to fascist Islam." See e.g. "Crossroads" in the January-February issue of Think-Israel; and it is a major theme of R.K. Ohri's book "The Long March of Islam" that we serialized from September-October 2009 to March-April 2011. This essay by Richard Butrick describes the changes in the behavior of Muslims as their numbers increase relative to the rest of the population in a non-Muslim country. While varying in some details, the general picture is the same: the Muslims don't want to 'fit in' or assimilate or just live quietly in their own way. They want to run the show and won't stop until they do.

by Babs Barron

  The previous articles in this set chronicled how Muslims restructure alien environments to conform to a life style imposed on them by Islam. This article asks if the reaction of the host culture helps the process, and, if so, how. This is a fascinating article. I have often wondered why immigrant groups who are polite and conforming and benefit their new country find acceptance difficult while immigrant Muslims who are demanding and unreasonable and tarnished by the brutal terrorism practiced by their co-religionists have no trouble gaining a foothold. They may encounter some mumbling resentment but they soon acquire a multitude of friends in various places who help them gain control of their environment. Babs Barron suggests the Westerner no longer has a strong anchor in religion to guide him in making rational judgments. Moreover, the Westerner is conflicted because his conditioned belief that all life styles are good forces him to ignore the actuality of the Muslim's blatantly bad behavior. Extremist Muslim spokesmen are shamelessly insistent, repeating over and over again that Islam is a peaceful religion -- and this is said with an intimidating undercurrent: people must concede this point, or else... the Westerner feel guilty that he can't fully agree, yet his political philosophy won't let him disagree. Many deal with the conflict by disabling their knowledge of what is actually happening and like the members of any cult end up unconditionally accepting Muslim's dominant voice -- and values.


It seems almost as if there's a race between the UN and Iran on which one can clobber Israel first. Iran is working industriously at developing a nuclear WID -- Weapon of Israeli Destruction. We have done little to counter Iran's promise of nuclear destruction effectively. We have imposed sanctions -- as Jerrold Sobel sarcastically wrote, "Persian rugs and teas can no longer be exported to the United States and word has it opium will soon be on this list." -- and we have debated among ourselves, quibbling about whether Iran can possibly be serious, even though she is spending her wealth and time and resources and proclaiming her evil intent at every opportunity. Letting Iran proceed has larger ramifications in that it encourages other medieval states to attempt to acquire nuclear weapons either because of fear of Iran or as a sign they too have reached technological puberty.

Meantime, calling it a peace plan, the U.N. plans to carve out an instant State, giving most of Biblical Israel to the hostile terrorist-controlled group of Arabs who became the Palestinian people in an instant some 50 years ago. Or as Daniel Greenfield writes: "a Palestinian state should be created the same way the Palestinian people were. By simply pretending it exists and then doing nothing to prove it. If it worked for manufacturing a Palestinian nationality, why not a state. Why not a planet or a galaxy. No one is using Mars are they?"

Ill-reasoned, inappropriate and unseemly hostility to Israel has characterized the U.N. -- controlled by a large bloc of Muslim states -- for decades. As Abba Eban put it years ago, "If Algeria introduced a UN resolution declaring that the Earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164-13 with 26 abstentions." No matter how they prettify their plan, rewarding the Arabs for their refusal to allow a Jewish state in what they regard as their territory won't lead to peace -- it will only make it easier to kill Jews.

by Clare Lopez

  Clare Lopez provides us with a clear-eyed understanding of the medieval theological underpinnings of Iran's view of its mission in this world. Its objective is nothing less than "the establishment of an Islamic state worldwide and subjugation of all people on earth to Sharia, or Islamic law." She points out that Iran's alliances, her short-term goals and her foreign policy are derived from and guided by this mission, making Iran "a serious adversary that poses a grave threat to the democratic way of life everywhere." In consequence, "U.S. policy decisions about how to deal with this Iranian regime will be among the most crucial American leadership must make in the coming months." Unfortunately, the present Administration shows little appreciation of what's at stake.

by Fred Fleitz

  Observing that the Intelligence Community has never corrected its 2007 estimate that Iran had no nuclear program, Fred Fleitz writes, "One can't underestimate the dangers posed to our country by a U.S. intelligence community that is unable to provide timely and objective analysis of such major threats to U.S. national security — or to make appropriate adjustments when it is proven wrong." Two images come to mind. One, the original Manchurian Candidate movie, which posited that a man likely to become President of the United States could be a Communist mole. As daring as this was, it was beyond imagining that the FBI would have an outreach program to the enemy or that the CIA would buy the enemy time to develop a deadly weapon. The second image is the Iraqi foreign minister, nicknamed Baghdad Bob, denying that Saddam Hussein was in trouble, even though the American troops were at the palace gate.

by Amil Imani

  The need to deal with Iran's working on a nuclear bomb has been enmeshed in denials by USA intelligence agencies, assertions that just another sanction will do the trick, trivialization, beating down straw men and blasting non-arguments. Amil Imani warns us that it is a "deadly miscalculation" to ignore what Iran continues to do in a steady and dedicated manner. As he says, "What sane person would want to take a chance to wait and see if the mad Mullahs, once they have the bomb, would use it or not?" In fact, can we be sure that only Israel is in danger? The rulers of Iran aren't exactly fond of the USA, either.

by Caroline B. Glick

  When some daft situation arose, people would say, "The loonies are running the insane asylum." Today, things are much worse as the undisciplined and corrupt U.N., aided and abetted by the European Union and the Obama administration, is moving to run the world. Last year, when Eye on the UN reported the new members of various humanitarian and human rights U.N. committees (click here), it sounded like a bad joke. Now, as Caroline Glick informs us, "... UN members elected Qatar President of the General Assembly and Iran one of the body's vice presidents," and Iran hosted its first "World Without Terrorism Conference." Dan Friedman who sent in this article notes that "no amount of 'reason' can excise the cancer of Jew-hatred from the body politic once it is allowed to spread. Jew-haters, too, always have powerful 'reasons' of their own. Today, with a big boost from Obama, we have passed the point of no return. The onslaught against the Jews will continue and intensify. That's why it's a privilege to be the first generation in history to live when the Jewish Nation has the military prowess to make the insanity of anti-Semitism an unproductive enterprise. We need to thank our Creator for that. But the drama in the coming years will be about whether or not Israel has the will to unleash its deterrence without obtaining anyone else's permission, save G-d's."

by Barbara Lerner

  Barbara Lerner summarizes the outrageous demands made of Israel in the name of peace and in full knowledge that should Israel consent to them, she would not long survive as a state. Anyone who knows the history and geography of the region understands that the projected "peace" borders would be impossible to defend; that allowing others to share control of Judaism's holy city of Jerusalem is as absurd as demanding that other religions have partial control of Islam's holy city of Mecca; and that allowing the putative descendents of the 1948 Arab refugees into Israel would make the Jews a minority in their own country overnight. In similar fashion, amputating parts of Israel to create a Palestinian state would not lead to peace but to a weakened Israel, while her "peace partners" would -- as they have in Gaza -- acquire more space and less supervision so that they can more easily train terrorists and manufacture missiles and explosives.


THE PEACE PROCESS may be encouraging the spread of Palestinian Arab terrorism because the world "understands" the need for the Po' Palestinians to resort to terror. People flock to help them. The U.N. wants to give them a State with no strings attached and no effort on their part. They don't even have to give up their obsession of destroying Israel. Other groups with a grievance take note that these terrorists are not punished but rewarded and so terror tactics become attractive. Not every would-be terrorist realizes that Europeans who approve of terror when it is directed at Israel may be less understanding when they are the target.

There's a history of course of Irish Catholic bombings. But playing hide-the-bomb has gone down considerably since the IRA gave up all/many/some of their weapons, so the politicians can claim the peace treaty is still in effect. The Basque continue to explode very small bombs and haven't killed anyone -- that's too boring to make a splash in the newspapers. The ones making news the past few years are Muslim -- a Muslim bomber with bad timing in Stockholm last Christmas, rape terror in Sweden, tire burning and arson in France, as well as kidnapping, torturing and massacring a young Jewish man, Ilan Halimi. British Muslims have been active at home bombing the subway and figuratively raising the flag of Islam over what previously were ordinary English communities, as well as traveling to Israel, Pakistan and Mumbai pour le sport. Muslims are also implicated in major disturbances fronted by people with various (virtuous) causes. As Nidra Poller wrote in the August 28, 2011 American Thinker

"Forces working behind specious liberation movements to forge a united Muslim front against the West are weakening us from within by fostering specious protest movements. Citizens of our democracies are led to identify with enraged mobs -- anarchists, altermondialistes, ecologists, striking students and workers, pro-Hamas anti-Zionists, indignados in Athens and Madrid...the list is endless. Palestinian shahid-murderers of Israeli civilians, stampeding Muslims damning 'Mohammed cartoons,' and middle-class students protesting tuition hikes are linked by a chain of sympathy in this danse macabre. People-gathered-in-a-public-square has become the emblem of virtue, and never mind what motivates them or where they are headed. "

Recently in Norway a white European created enough carnage to hit the papers. Of course, given that he was native stock European and could be described as right-wing and a Christian -- which he disclaimed -- he might have gotten publicity even if he'd only nicked a couple of kids.

Muslims who commit mayhem are never called Christianphobes or Westernphobes or Foreignerphobes. Breivik was immediately called an Islamophobe although his discursive manuscript immortalizing his thoughts include text proclaiming his admiration for Al-Qaeda because of their concern for cultural purity, their ability to acquire weaponry and their dedication to their cause. He studied their training manual and acted on the realization that Arabs don't have an exclusive on using terror as a weapon of demoralization and political change. He despised the takeover of his country by Muslims and on the morning of July 22 he put a bomb outside the Prime Minister's office in a Norwegian government administration building complex, because, he asserted, Norwegian politicians have encouraged Muslim immigration. In the afternoon, he used a gun on the some young Norwegians likely to become the next generation of advocates of multiculturalism and unrestricted Muslim immigration.

Memorial service for terror victims -- at a mosque!
Among the participants were Crown Prince Haakon, Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Store, Equality Minister Audun Lysbakken (SV), Oslo mayor Fabian Stang (H), American ambassador Barry White and the Bishop of Oslo Ole Christian Kvarme. They were welcomed by Imam Najeeb Naz.

Boy holding toy gun is carried by his father as 3000 Gazan Arabs celebrate the shooting murder of Jews, August 31, 2010 (photo: ViciousBabushka)

Muslims are usually said to have become terrorists because they are frustrated or poor or picked upon. But the media immediately decided the Norwegian mass murderer had no environmental or personal reasons for what he did. It was all the fault of the anti-Muslim writers that he read. As Nidra Poller wrote:

"While the similarity among mobs in Clapham, Benghazi, Tahrir Square, Strasbourg, etc. goes unnoticed, a churlish campaign has been launched against authors whose writings were cut and pasted into the manifesto of mass murderer Anders Breivik. (But the same censors go berserk if you say that the words of the Koran, the hadith, and the Sunna, no less than sermons in everyone's corner mosque, promote and provoke violence!) ... Conscientious thinkers who warn against the dangers of jihad conquest are assaulted because the white jihadi Anders Breivik was just smart enough to appreciate their millions of other readers...none of them murderers... and too evil to share their humanity."

Time will tell whether Anders Breivik was an aberration like Timothy McVeigh, a white Lone Wolf terrorist who chalked up a body count sufficient to compete with a lot of more or less competent Muslim terrorists and would-be terrorists. Or was Breivik the start of a new phenomenon: other ethnic and national groups acting like a bunch of Arabs, carrying out grotesque acts of violence, seeking to maximize damage, preferring easy targets like children to facing a soldier with a gun.

While we're on the subject, pro-Palestinian defenders using FBI data cleverly added apples and cockroaches and came out with the startling news that Muslims only committed 6% of the terror attacks in the USA from 1980-2005. Latinos, Jews, Communists, "Extreme Left Wing Groups" and "others" did all the rest. This is probably accurate. After all, burning the flag by Latinos counts as one incident. Destruction of the World Trade Center by suicide-murderers, all Muslims, counts as one incident.

The FBI Terrorism 1980-2005 Terrorism by Event Report actually compared the 318 incidents by type of terror -- 209 bombings, 43 arsons, 20 malicious destructions, 16 shootings, 10 hostile takeovers, 8 robberies, 4 assaults, 2 hijackings, 2 kidnappings, 2 rocket attacks, 1 assassination and 1 WMD. It understood that the fight against terrorists of the sort that destroyed the World Trade Center was a tad more significant than catching those who release animals from a research laboratory.

The propaganda that the Arabs own the Middle East because they invaded much of it in the 7th Century and controlled it for a time can even affect those Jews whose primary allegiance is to Liberalism, politically-correct free speech, and Underdoggery. They will dedicate themselves to any cause that claims to be Liberal and isn't Jewish or whines it is the underdog and needs protection. The last essay in this section talks about one such Jew.

by Nidra Poller

  Nidra Poller asks why Norwegians seem to have been mentally unprepared for a terrorist attack. The terrorist, Anders Breivik, managed to stalk and shoot victims for well over an hour before the police finally came. True, police were busy with the aftermath of his morning attack in the heart of Oslo. But distraction and confusion is what the terrorists we know most about -- Arab terrorists -- do. Shouldn't those responsible for public safety know that? None of the victims, engrossed in play acting that Israelis are terrorists and the Palestinian Arabs are innocent lambs, took the initiative in stopping him. Nor did they have security guards, who need to be prepared for a terrorist attack. Even though the Norwegians are embroiled in Middle East politics and favor unfettered Muslim immigration domestically, they acted as if they themselves were immune to attack from those unhappy with their policies. In this case, the irritant was Norway's policy of catering to Muslim immigrants, allowing them to take over neighborhoods and increasingly demanding their convenience be given consideration over the needs of Norway's native population. Breivek used the tools and techniques most used by Muslim terrorists. Will Norway be shocked into understanding they have been reassigned their role in a world-wide drama -- they have gone from the serene role of high level decision maker to that of ordinary victim -- and they can't opt out.

by Barry Rubin

  With the aid of European admirers, Arab terrorism had the best of all possible worlds. At the small cost of a few of their children, they inflicted monstrous and long-lasting physical and psychological damage on Israelis while their Western admirers rationalized their acts with the query, "How else can these defenseless people defend themselves? It's Israel that has the strong military. It's Israel that's in a position to do the right thing and make concessions." And best of all, the intellectual "neutrals" such as Norwegian politicos would sprout legalese, asserting that Israel's response must be proportional, thus neutralizing Israel's military strengths, while secure in the knowledge that Israel would never fight Arab-style - slitting throating and targeting Arab babies isn't their way. What they didn't forsee was that terrorism was made to seem a most attractive weapon, a weapon whose use was not restricted to Arabs. As Barry Rubin in this essay points out that "... terrorism is not an ideology or a movement but merely a strategy: to murder noncombatants systematically and deliberately for political ends in order to get your enemy to give up and your own side to cheer and join up." Monkey see, monkey do. The Norwegians are now in the unenviable position of seeing one of their own turn the terror weapon inward.

by Wallace Edward Brand

  The Norwegians seem to have no concept of the world-class proxy war taking place in the Middle East: the Palestinian Arabs, both those controlled by the Fatah Terror Group and those in Gaza under the thumb of the less polished Hamas, are the foot soldiers of resurgent Islam. The terrorist activities they practice in Israel are eventually emulated and exported. On the other side, Israel, not by its own choice, has been thrown into the front lines and given the role of defending Western values of fair play and 'live and let live.' Ironically, some of those who should be most grateful haven't a clue. One such is Norway's Ambassador to Israel, Svein Sevje, who condemns Norwegian terrorism against Norwegians but condones Arab terrorism against Jews. This is based, he claims, on Israel's occupation of Arab land. Wallace Brand responds in this essay with the actual facts about the so-called Israeli occupation.

by Philip Getz

  Philip Getz responds to an article called "The Romance of Birthright Israel", in which a young participant trashes the Birthright Israel program, suggesting all sorts of sinister motivations. Getz gets the response just right. He provides us with insight into the narrowed perspectives of pro-palestinian Jews and the preposterous conclusions their adopted ideology can impose. As Getz says, "the only interesting aspect of Feldman's article is how keenly it encapsulates, at its extreme, the syndrome that Birthright was created to combat." One can only hope that someday she will come out of her trance and start using her "Yiddishe kopf."


This set of articles suggest how Israel should handle the current crisis, where the U.N. plans soon to sanction the illegitimate birth of another Arab state. The terrorists who govern the Arabs in Gaza and in Samaria and Judea (what the media insists on calling the West Bank) have announced they will request the U.N. to grant them a state, carving it out of most of Biblical Israel. Inside Israel, Israeli Arabs and Jewish Marxists who would dismember their own State to satisfy a spurious Arab claim are also in favor of a Palestinian state.

An immediate solution to being besieged to give up land would be to annex Samaria and Judea. Israel has international law on its side, as well as Biblical promise, and an extraordinary history of devotion to the homeland: there were always Jews living in Israel despite having to endure dreadful hardships and Jews kept its memory alive for 2000 years when living in the Diaspora. In recent times, Israel created a modern state out of a malaria-infested, rock-strewn wasteland, a state that in a few short years has benefitted the entire world with innovative electronics and medical techniques. It has served as an instructive example of how to live civilized when barbarians want to reduce you to their level. Even demographic trends are in its favor. It also has the reality underlying the creation of most countries -- it conquered the land fair and square, regaining more of its own land each time the Arab countries invaded Israel to demolish it.

The problem is that Israel is still groggy from years of believing that it must cater to world opinion. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the luxury of deferring action. It must rid itself of Fifth-Column Arabs in Israel and curtail the growth of the Arab population so that it doesn't reach the "take-over" stage of Muslim control of a foreign host. (See Richard Butrick article above.)

Annexation is a short-term solution. A better solution and one that gives the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians their own land is to give them their own place within the vast land area the Arabs own. See e.g., Section 1 of the September-October 2010 Issue. This will require regional support -- but, after all, the Arab states were responsible for the local Arabs becoming refugees. In fact they created two sets of refugees: Arab and Jewish.

Israel solved the problem of the Jewish refugees from Arab lands -- it made them citizens and helped them reconstruct their lives as Israelis while keeping what they wanted of their old customs and traditions. They did this with no help from the U.N. The wealth and real property the Jews left behind when they were forced to flee is still in the hands of the Arab states.

The Arab countries have resources to solve the other refugee problem -- they are in position to give the Arabs who now call themselves Palestinians room to construct a state somewhere within the 99.99% of the Middle East the Arab own. It could be much larger than Israel and the Territories and still be a tiny portion of the land the Arabs have. At this point, someone is sure to say: but don't you understand, the Arab refugees want to return to their homeland, just as the Jews did over 2000 years of the Diaspora. The answer is that it is a publicist's dream but a complete lie to say that Israel belongs to the Palestinian people. There is no Palestinian People. There never was a Country or State that was called Palestine. There is no claim by the Palestinian Arabs to land that most of them came to after the Jewish Aliyah made the area economically attractive. The land was owned by the Ottomans for hundreds of years before the Europeans conquered it in WW1, not by Arabs.

It is ludicrous that so many local Arabs have kept their benefits-rich refugee status while living under Arab governance in Gaza, Samaria and Judea. It is pathetic that their pretending that their environment and culture is alien to what they had before their (great) grandparents left Israel -- a few miles down the road -- is accepted by their logic-deficient and history-ignorant sympathizers.

Admittedly, giving the "Palestinians" a state is allowing them to win the "I'm a nuisance" exploitation game, but there are practical reasons to do so. It would wipe out the UNRWA-run ponds where the malaria of terrorism is bred; it would save the ever-growing expense of keeping a large group on perpetual welfare; it would quarantine a group that is a menace not just to Israel but to any of the Arab states that have taken them in. It would eliminate a wild card in an already unstable area of the world. It would remove a distraction so Israel could deal with the very real threat coming from Iran.

For Israel, this is not the time to expel a sizable portion of the half million Jews living in the towns and villages of Samaria and Judea from their homes and businesses, forcing them to flee as refugees to what's left of Israel. It will be impossible to do so without bankrupting the country -- recall that most of the 10,000 Jews of Gaza who were expelled by the Sharon government in 2005 are not yet settled, even though it has already cost much more than even pessimistic projections estimated -- and the contributions the Gazan Jews made to the economy by the sale of their spectacular produce are no more. More to the point, we don't need demoralized Jews, refugees in their own country. Israel is in the forefront of those battling radical Islam. We should help her concentrate on that, not distract her while Iran develops a nuclear bomb.

This set of essays assumes it's o.k. that there be one Jewish state in the Middle East. The first essay is a logical projection of Israel's current conciliatory agreement to a 2-state solution. The other essays look at ways and means to avoiding death by accommodation. They look at two problems that Israel has: a growing Israeli Arabs population, many of whom are radicalized and starting to act as Muslims do in any host country as they become more numerous and see themselves soon reaching critical mass; and an appeasement mentality that is compromising Israel's ability to maintain its sovereignty. It has even infected the IDF.

by Steven Plaut

  Steven Plaut brilliantly describes how Israel can be diplomatically hounded to its own death by the combined actions of UN diplomats, the U.S. State Department, and the tutored and continued riotous demands of the Arabs, whose ranks are enlarged by useful idiots volunteering to help the Palestinians gain their rights. Their clamor is backed by support from "world" leaders and meets little resistance from the appeasement mentality of Israeli politicians. The essay is called satire. In point of fact, it is so close to how the Arabs under Arafat and Abbas have bargained -- accepting a final agreement one day, using it as starting point the next -- that the only thing Steven Plaut may have gotten wrong -- should the Israelis let themselves be snookered into giving up land -- is the date. He places it in 2013. It could happen in 2012.

by Jerold S. Auerbach

  Jerold Auerbach does what shouldn't be necessary -- he reminds the politicos of the U.N. that its creating a Palestinian State in what was Mandated Palestine would be illegal. It would violate the U.N.'s own role as guarantor that what was Mandated Palestine is held in an irrevocable trust for the Jewish people. Auerbach also explores why Israel has not made this information generally known. He writes, contrasting a secular government and more or less religious settlers: "At best ambivalent - and usually hostile - toward Jews in Judea and Samaria, government officials have resolutely maintained silence about the international guarantees for the 'close settlement' of Jews west of the Jordan River." But that doesn't do away with reality: Israeli settlements are legitimate because Samaria and Judea belong to Israel. They are legally Israel's by the same authority that gave the rest of the Ottoman Middle East to the Arabs. "The Palestinian claim, by contrast, is a contrived recent invention. ... Devised by Arabs who only recently identified themselves as 'Palestinians,' it is built on the foundation of perpetual victimization claims, the international determination to delegitimize Israel, and - perhaps most revealing - the pillaging of Jewish and Zionist history." Annexation by Israel of at least pieces of Samaria and Judea is a low-keyed but necessary solution.

by Steven Kruger

  Steven Kruger puts into perspective the bizarre notion that Jewish land can and should accommodate another state. Of interest is the emphasis given in the article to God's promise to the Jewish people, and how it is ignored by Israel's secular government. "Instead of declaring and enforcing the rights of Jews, the government of Israel continues the touchy-feely policy toward Arabs put in place by left-wing Jews in Mandatory Palestine after World War I." Conversely, Kruger puts little faith in promises made by secular organizations or in the integrity or fairness of what is euphemistically called 'the international community'. He points out that "[i]f implemented, the two-state 'solution' would find a vulnerable Land of Israel, hemmed by an irrational border, and surrounded by a post-Mubarak Egypt, a Hamas-controlled Aza, a post-Abbas 'Palestine,' an Assad-controlled Syria, and a Hezbollah-controlled Lebanon." He rejects this suicidal solution in favor of a 22-state solution, one Jewish, the others Arab.

by Zvi November

  If you visit Israel convinced that it keeps its Arabs fearful and oppressed, it will come as a shock to see Arabs walking with ease in all the parks and gardens and malls all over the country. The converse is not true. It is the Jews who are bullied. It is the Jews who are fearful of going into places they will be surrounded by an Arab crowd. Driving a car on a highway when 'prankish' Arab teenagers gather to pelt cars with rocks has become an unsolicited adventure. Jews have learned to stay out of Arab villages, where the inhabitants can suddenly become violent. Jews routinely have their cars stolen, their herds stolen, their orchards burned, their olive trees uprooted. When Israel reclaimed eastern Jerusalem in 1968 after Jordan and Egypt failed their second try at destroying Israel, Israel foolishly did not eject the Arabs who were squatting in the homes of Jews that Jordan had evicted in 1948. It now requires protracted legal battles to reclaim the Jewish houses one at a time, while the Arabs illegally take State land wholesale and built illegally without official protest. To add to the injury: the probability is that the police and the judiciary will ignore or minimize the damage that the Arabs do. Zvi November paints an accurate picture of Arabs in Israel, not forgetting to write about those -- number unknown -- who genuinely appreciate living in Israel. In general, however, the Arabs enjoy both the medical, educational and psychological benefits of living in Israel and the pleasure of playing victim to convince easily-gulled Westerners they are the suffering victims of Israeli inhumanity.

by Elliot Jager

  For many years now, the IDF has not emphasized that its primary mission is to defend Israel. It has fought wars as if a major objective was to avoid raising the ire of hostile politicians and media. In Jenin when they hunted for terrorists, they were scrupulous about not injuring Arab women and children, at the cost of 23 soldiers dying, most of them lured into booby traps by the same children they were protecting from harm. In the Gaza campaign, they avoided wholesale shooting at groups that were shielding the terrorists. They have gone to absurd lengths, including announcing they were coming, so that the most that could be accomplished was the destruction of an empty building. Given the anti-Israel feeling the Arabs have successfully generated, their scruples have bought them nothing, not even a pat on the back from a hostile press. And isn't it immoral for the IDF to have valued the lives of an enemy that started the war and will not stop warring above the lives of its own people? Elliot Jager examines the question of morality when the enemy has no scruples. This is a thoughtful examination of the Jewish concepts of fighting a war. Jager cites the political philosopher Asa Kasher who "believes that Israel has a front-line role in helping the enlightened world develop the legal and moral tools to confront the scourge of terrorism."  


by Josh Hasten

  The previous essay described how well Israeli Arabs are treated in Israel and how they have responded. This essay looks at Arab behavior from the point of view of the Israeli, who sees the Arabs grabbing land and creating enclaves that keep out Jews. Josh Hasten's writes of an interview with Nadia Matar, a remarkable woman who heads Women in Green (WIG), a group that understands that if Israel is to be Jewish, Jews must be able to go anywheres in their own land, without fear and without restriction. Specifically, WIG works to keep a presence on land that is stealthily being taken over by Arabs (who of course instantly claim they've been in that place since ancient times). As a personal anecdote, on a trip to Samaria and Judea with the AFSI group, we drove to an army base that had been evacuated without notice and without concern that letting it be taken over by the local Arabs would put the surrounding Jewish villages in jeopardy. The army's advice to the Jews was: stay out of the way of the Arabs. Avoid trouble. WIG was there, saying by their actions: this is our country and we won't give up an inch. If Israel survives its current appeasement mentality, it will in large measure be due to patriots like Nadia and the Women in Green.

by Yoram Ettinger

  In this essay, Yoram Ettinger first lays out the problem. The problem is that the problem has been misstated as one of Arab concern for the Palestinian Arab, when in point of fact the Arab states make use the Palestinian Arabs as supposed victims, but care nothing about them. Were Israel to disappear tomorrow and the Palestinian Arabs take all the land they claim as theirs, it wouldn't make a dent in the disarray and potential disasters in the Middle East. That being said, Ettinger suggests how Israel should be reacting, specifically with subduing Palestinian Arab terrorism, and, more generally, how to do the necessary and not be inhibited by fear of foreign repercussions.

History Section


  The Hadar-Israel Organization reminds us of the last time that Israel was divided. It happened just after Israel became a state in 1948. Her neighbors invaded the new-born state intent on destroying it. They didn't succeed but Jordan took over the eastern section of Jerusalem, kicked out or killed all the Jews, destroyed the synagogues and installed Arabs in the Jewish houses. It wasn't until 1967 that Israel reclaimed that part of Jerusalem the Arabs had started calling East Jerusalem and claiming they had lived there since time immemorial. The photographs speak for themselves.

by Omri Ceren

  The previous article recorded that the Jews were forced out of their homes in the Eastern part of Jerusalem in 1948. This article by Omri Ceren follows up on a major consequence. As he writes: "But because they [the Jordanians] succeeded in doing that [occupying Jerusalem] for almost 20 whole years — in contrast to 1,000 years of continuous Jewish life — the Obama administration insists that the Jewish State needs to cede portions of East Jerusalem to a future Palestinian entity on demographic grounds. Very even-handed!"


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index. To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

August 2011 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE

MAY-JUNE, 2011


What we are talking about in the May-June 2011 issue:

Osama Bin Laden Is Dead. Is Al-Qaeda? (Swami, Greenfield, Anbar, Solway, Plaut)
The Peaceful Religion Of Islam, Where Lies Are Truth And Brutality Is A Habit (Ibrahim, Imani, Bussel, Barnhardt)
The Arab Nakba/i> (Greenfield, Yemini, Hornik)
What's Happening With Israel's Previous Peace Partners? (Spengler, King)
Israel As Front Line Defense Against An Islamic Takeover. Israel As A Major Asset For The West (London, Eidelberg, Kemp)
What Will It Be? Two Distorted States In Chronic Tension Or A Single Sovereign Jewish State? (Honig, Dann, Hinderacker)
Hasbara And Public Relation (Davidson, Shulman, Eidelberg, Saperstein, Levinson)
History Section (Julius, Clifford, Loewenberg)
Readers' Blog-Ed Pages (May, June)


This set of essays speculates on what the next phase of Islamic terror will look like. One thing is certain. It isn't going away. Not when it is so effective. Acts of terror are the stick. "Moderate" Muslims and the U.N. hold out the carrot of appeasement. And many a Westerner is all too willing to bite. Some seem to crave dhimmitude, both for themselves and for us.

by Praveen Swami

  Osama bin Ladin was often portrayed as the linch pin of terrorism. Knock him out and his terror organization and his affiliates would crumble. So there was much joy when the Navy Seals assassinated him, as if all would soon be well. Unfortunately, Arab terrorism won't just disappear. Praveen Swami writes realistically about the next generation of jihadists ready and eager to perform acts of terror in Pakistan and Iraq and endanger other countries in the region.

by Daniel Greenfield

  Daniel Greenfield projects what we can expect next of al-Qaeda's in the U.S.A. He points out that "[w]hile Americans are still thinking in terms of 9/11, the terrorists themselves have already moved on to the next phase of terror." It might be another Twin-Tower size spectacular disaster but it is more likely to be "lone wolf" operations performed by insurgents bred locally. It is also likely that the strategy will be more subtle: "the 'Muslim extremists' carry out the violence, while the 'moderate Muslims'" encourage us to try harder to appease the terrorists.

by Michael Anbar

  Intimidation as a planned prelude to war, is not unique to Islam. But, as Michael Anbar points out, it is "an integral part of Islam" and an important technique in the continuing jihad against the infidel, no matter which political Muslim group, no matter how the groups differ in ideological nuances. In the USA, "while Muslims constitute about 1% of the American population, they contribute 80% of the Home Grown Terrorism." Anbar traces the de facto alliances between Islamic aggressors and Western appeasers that cut Kosovo out of Serbia and now threatens to amputate Israel and weaken America.

by David Solway

  David Solway examines why young Westerns of the liberal persuasion dote on the Palestinian Arabs. He suggests that in addition "to ancestral hostility to Jews," it is "an explosive mixture of immaturity, ignorance, and surrender of the will, leavened by the illusion of noble self-sacrifice to a higher cause." Dedicated to the Palestinian cause, they blame Israel for all the ills that beset the Arabs. It says something that they are undeterred in their ardor even though Arabs frequently rape and kill their dedicated admirers, use them as shields in dangerous situations and have radically different ideas on how to treat homosexuals and women.

by Steven Plaut

  The previous essay examined the Leftist-Muslim bonding. asking why the Leftists accept Muslim ideology, which negates their own belief system in many important ways. In this essay, Steven Plaut discusses the hazards of the relationship that the western participants willfully ignore when entering the blood-lust Arab culture, thus endangering themselves. How long can they keep blaming Israel to avoid viewing their Arab friends realistically? How long will it be before they understand they are being duped by the western Marxists such as the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), who are using them unscrupulously?


The way of life it encourages also creates some serious physical problems for its adherents.

by Raymond Ibrahim

  Raymond Ibrahim writes about Fadel Soliman, an expert who lectures non-Muslims -- churches, universities, the U.S. Dept of Defense -- about Islam. It is historical fact that the Egyptian Copts are descendents of the original Egyptians, but Soliman inverts the historical record and claims they are actually Muslims that Islam is now liberating. Soliman's reasoning is as fictitious as the Muslim claim that Jesus was a Palestinian because he was born in Judea, which the British -- centuries later, and imitating the Romans -- labeled 'Palestine' in pre-World War 1. A while later, the Arab immigrants began calling themselves Palestinian. We should heed Ibrahim's conclusion: "whether Muslims consciously deceive infidels or unconsciously deceive themselves, the goal has long been one: empowering Islam and its adherents — reality be damned."

by Amil Imani

  Amil Imani tells us about an Iranian woman, whose crime was that she was of the Baha'i religion and an agent of the Big Satan and Small Satan, the USA and Israel. Despite the seriousness of these charges, the Iranian government was compassionate. They "...didn't hang the severely-beaten incapacitated woman who was unable to walk to the gallows to be hanged. They simply dumped her in the streets to suffer a painful slow death for every day of her remaining life."

by Ari Bussel

  Ari Bussel writes about how the Palestinian arabs and their foreign friends continue to contrast Israel's water usage (as shown by their gorgeous produce) and the Arab's water deprivation. The pro-arab propagandists willfully ignore that the Jews conserve, reuse and innovate to get the most of each drop of water. They ignore that the Arabs pollute the water supply, dig illegal wells, sell the water and steal the cement used to reinforce the dams and wells. Relying on the typical reader's ignorance, they contrast the lush banana plantations and the pitiful village arabs, sluggish, dirty, and deprived of water.

by Ann Barnhardt

  I first heard of the high degree of inbreeding among Arabs from an Israeli nurse who mentioned that most of her hospital's child-care budget went on treatment for the Arab children. They required expensive treatment such as kidney dialysis. When I asked why, she said, "they marry cousins. We beg them not to, but they do anyways." But until the article by Anne Barnhardt, the societal costs hadn't occurred to me. Especially when religion, family and tribal custom encourage a high degree of sustained inbreeding over many generations. It also raises the question: why should Israel take on the costly burden of care for the hostile group of Arab immigrants who are now called "Palestinians", when the Arab countries have the money and the kinship, and bear the guilt of creating the refugee status of so many of the Palestinian Arabs.


From the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center:
( English/eng_n/html/ipc_e191.htm)

"Events for Nakba Day, the 63rd anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, climaxed on May 15, 2011. They included mass marches, rallies and propaganda demonstrations. In some locations there were also riots, stone-throwing, confrontations with IDF soldiers and a violent invasion of Israeli territory."


As far as Hamas and the others who reject the right of the State of Israel to exist were concerned, the Nakba Day events were successful. They were many and large, had a propaganda impact, and included the precedent of the forceful invasion of Palestinians into Israeli territory in the Druze village of Majdal Shams, who used it as a stage to proclaim the 'right of return.' In our assessment, such a 'success' is liable to inspire and encourage others in the territories, the Arab countries and around the world to promote similar tactics."

Brainwashing the younger generation with the "right of return:" Gazan children carrying signs reading "We will certainly return to...Acre" and "We will certainly return to...Ashdod." The key at the lower right symbolizes the so-called "right or return;" upper left, the Hamas emblem (Hamas' Palestine-info website, May 15, 2011).

by Daniel Greenfield

  When it's the end of another Nakba day of mass mourning over fictitious pasts, when the posing is over and the screamed-out throats are hoarse and the scorched tires are cooling, what's been accomplished? Daniel Greenfield says that what "these Arabs really want is to rehash grievances and sullenly plot another genocide, instead of coming to terms with the consequences of their own actions." And so they continue to respond "with obstinate treachery and violence at every turn." Labile, malleable, enjoying a good slaughter, they are type-cast to riot when told and play victim to perfection. But these aren't the qualities that make good citizens in a democratic state.

by Ben-Dror Yemini

  The official version of the relationship between the Arab countries and the local arabs that became refugees when the Arab countries invaded the new-born State of Israel is that the Arabs grieve so for their "Palestinian" cousins, they can't make peace with Israel until the Palestinian Arabs are settled. It is rarely mentioned that these self-same Arab countries have refused to assimilate the Arab refugees but, like picking on an infected sore, they keep the sore from healing. As one example, remember the Gaza Flotilla wanted to bring in cement that could be used to build bunkers but Israel only allows the import into Gaza of cement that is non-military. Some Arab countries don't allow the refugees to have any cement! Of course, all these restrictions by the Arab countries are intended to keep the refugees looking pathetic and oppressed. How do they do this? It's called apartheid -- you know, what they accuse Israel of doing. Israel, which gave the local Arabs their first schools of higher education, Israel, which keeps alive Arab children that would have previously died. Israel which gives jobs and hope to the Arabs, who are so appreciative, they celebrate whenever a Jew is massacred.

by P. David Hornik

  The dead-serious theatrics of Nakba has one virtue. As does the announcement that Hamas and Fatah have patched up their differences and are loving brothers again, the twisted logic of blaming Israel for Arab homelessness and the increased audacity of Arab attacks on Nakba day are forcing Israelis to shed their illusion that they can buy peace if they just pay enough in land and keep pumping up the Arab economy in Samaria and Judea. The local arabs have been conditioned to believe the fiction that they are 'Palestinians' and that Israel is occupying 'Palestine', their land. So it is not surprising that their solution -- typically Arab -- is to destroy Israel.


The Arab Spring seems headed for a cold winter. Israel invested a great deal in its initial peace negotiations with Arab countries, returning all of the Sinai that it had captured from Egypt after Egypt yet again invaded Israel. The peace with Egypt has always been a brittle one and now that Egypt has had a "regime change" from Mubarak's dictatorship, it might break up entirely. The new contenders for power in Egypt don't sound democratic. They spout Islamic ideas and threatens to repudiate the peace treaty. The other shiny example of a peaceful neighbor is Jordan. Though unacknowledged, Israel has been a mainstay, helping the Hashemites who rule over Jordan stay in power. The Jordanian king has shown his gratitude by trashing Israel verbally whenever he's had a chance. His survival on the throne now appears more precarious than ever.


  While most discussions of Egypt's future revolve around the question: will she or won't she be taken over by ..... (fill in the blank), Spengler asks: given that half of Egypt's million people live on less that $2 a day and given that half of her wheat is imported and given that prices will likely go up markedly, will Egypt be able to feed her populace and rein in discontent, whichever party is in power? As Spengler notes, famine kills. Big time.

by Ruth King

  Despite the ancient-sounding name, the Hashamite kingdom didn't come into being until 1922, when Great Britain pulled one of its own scams and gave most of the land that was to be held for a Jewish state to their Hashamite allies 'to administrate'. As time went on, the virtual government was accepted as real. When Jordan invaded Israel in 1948, "...east Jerusalem was restored to rubble. Jewish shrines and cemeteries were sacked, torched, and defiled." Jordan kicked out the Jews and gave their houses to Arabs, most of whom (or their descendants) still live in these house as "squatters", paying no rent, because the Israeli government made no attempt to reclaim Jewish property when it defeated Jordan yet again in 1967, when Jordan yet again invaded Israel. Whenever Jews try to reclaim their property, the sobsisterhood writes sadly how Jews are invading East Jerusalem and attempting to take over Arab property. Ruth King chronicles the fantasy history of (trans)Jordan, which ignores that "Jordan is a Palestinian Arab state, occupied and ruled by a Hashemite minority." There is no reason that the local Arabs need to steal Biblical Israel to have a state of their own. They already have one -- Jordan As for the current Jordanian King, the future doesn't look rosy.


by Herbert London

  As Herbert London points out, the upcoming vote in the U.N. "to create a Palestinian state through political mandate" has little to do with concern about the Palestinian Arabs. It has much to do with Islam's ambition to conquer the West. Tiny Israel is rightly perceived as "the bulwark in the war with jihadists." Weakening Israel weakens the West. The Palestinian issue is best perceived as a "tactical instrument" in the long-range, long-term plan to spread Sharia law throughout the world.

by Professor Paul Eidelberg

  With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the conventional wisdom was that Israel was no longer of use to the United States. Given that the USA needed Arab oil and given the propensity of the US State Dept to favor Arabs anyway, the future looked gloomy. How wrong the prediction was. Putting aside that Israel is America's only reliable friend and ally in the entire Middle East and ignoring the contributions Israel makes in general to the betterment of humanity, Israel's intelligence gathering and technological brilliance are priceless assets for the U.S.A. Professor Paul Eidelberg summarizes some of them.

by Colonel Richard Kemp

  Many remember Colonel Richard Kemp's courageous defense of Israel's fighting force during the Cast Lead operation, when they entered Gaza to weed out the terrorists that were shelling Israel's civilians. At the time, primed by the Goldstone Committee's vicious attack on the IDF, it seemed the entire media was vociferously accusing Israel of war crimes, while ignoring the real war criminals: the Arab terrorists and their state sponsors. Since then, Goldstone has admitted his assessment of the IDF was dead wrong, and Colonel Kemp's judgment is shown to be accurate. This is an amplification of his take on the IDF as a model on how to fight Islamic terrorism.


Maybe Israel should stop trying to make the unworkable work. A Two-State Solution is no solution when the Arabs have stated their goal is to kill off Israel, not to create yet another Arab state. Why should Israel continue to invest effort in a two-state solution, which, at best, will leave her crippled and at the mercy of her terrorist neighbors? Israel should, instead, put her energy in developing herself as a sovereign state. That will allow her to grow and develop her uniqueness as a Jewish state chock full of talented people, who put their energy into enterprises that benefit everyone. What happens to the Arabs in Samaria and Judea and Gaza? The Arabs have 99.99% of the Middle East. There must be some spot they can deed to the "Palestinians" from the Territories and the refugee camps as a potential homeland.

by Sarah Honig

  Sarah Honig writes about the pervasive self-deception of too many Israelis -- that they could buy peace with their implacable enemies by giving them Jewish land. The final blow came when the terrorist Arab groups inhabiting Samaria-Judea and Gaza stopped playing good terrorists and bad terrorists and made it clear that they are cut from the same cloth. They have the same objective -- to wipe out Israel. They differ only in the thickness of the decorous veneer that covers their violence.

by Moshe Dann

  Moshe Dann points out that "Sovereignty, the ability of a government to act independently and in its own interests, is the essence of statehood." As he says, "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." "It is a statement of affirmation, not apology — of commitment, not appeasement."

by John Hinderacker

  John Hinderaker points out that annexing Judea and Samaria would "entirely moot the idea of an independent Palestinian state, not just deter the U.N. from supporting one for the moment." An excellent reason for openly claiming land that actually belongs to Israel by international law. [google for "howard grief", "yoram shifftan," "wallace brand" and "san remo" on Think-Israel for the relevant information.] It is a propitious moment because the "Palestinians" are asking the U.N. to magically give them a state out of land that isn't theirs. In doing so, they acknowledge that Oslo is dead -- another experiment based on the wrong assumptions and propelled by hope rather than logic is over.


by Edward Davidson

  This article should be required reading by anyone and everyone exposed to the Main Stream Media (MSM). Using the guise of instructing the MSM how to write a story about the Jews and Arabs in the Middle East (ME), Edgar Davidson brilliantly alerts us to almost every ratty trick the MSM uses in distorting events in the ME and attempting to engender sympathy for the Arabs, no matter how obscene their behavior.

by Richard H. Shulman

  Using the history of Jihad as the particular area of inquiry. Richard Shulman writes about a general issue: how factual is history? Data are often missing when most needed. Drawing conclusions from the available data is not a routine procedure; it is, to a degree, an art influenced by personal and institutional attitudes. The growing belief in the moral equivalence of all cultures does not counter the bias introduced by personal values. When the reality of evil is denied, implications that would stem from acknowledging that a particular society is fundamentally evil are also ignored. Historic Islamic Jihad, with its current emphasis on destroying Israel, is a rich lode, where we can mine material on how Islam imbues its followers with a insatiable desire to conquer the peoples of the world -- "by arms, diplomacy, deception, enslavement, rape, castration, propaganda, infiltration, intimidation, civil disobedience, abuse of Western law and tolerance, and elections." It is also a case study in how historians sympathizing with the Arab cause have dishonored their profession by distorting the facts, and, in some instances, inventing them. The Western notion that basically we're all fair-minded and tolerant is not only not true but shields the Westerner from clearly perceiving the horrors perpetrated by the Arab invaders, directly guided by the tenets of their religion. This is an important essay, both for it general applicability and its specific analysis of jihad.

by Professor Paul Eidelberg

  Professor Paul Eidelberg boldly starts this essay this way: "Israel is trapped in the defeatist and self-effacing rhetoric of contemporary public discourse." He goes on to prove his point, and suggests some ways and means for improving Israel's Hasbara. He beautifully sums up what Israel really needs: "The one thing lacking in Israel is a goal that systematically invigorates the nation's collective memory and political creativity, that enhances her identity as the world's one and only Jewish commonwealth — the nation that gave mankind the Book of Books, the Torah. Yes, it was the Torah that liberated men and nations from idolatry and paganism. It was the Torah, by its lapidary sentence in Genesis that man is created in the Image of God that elevated humanity and proclaimed the moral unity of the human race denied by Islam. This should be Israel's message, conveyed quietly, as on cat's paws."

by Rachel Saperstein

  What the previous essay by Professor Eidelberg proposes for public information and education, many Israelis are already practicing in their own lives: they are proudly living as Torah-observant Jews in their own Land, and have no intention of voluntarily giving up an inch of it. Some of them have weathered the trauma of being kicked out by their own government from their homes and businesses in Neve Dekalim, Gaza, and receiving inadequate support from their own government to rebuild their lives. But their Faith sustains them and many are rebuilding their lives now in Samaria and Judea mainly by their own efforts. Rachel Saperstein and her husband Moshe are two of these remarkable people. As she says, "we become stronger as we produce children who are clever, decent, happy and kind. What sweet revenge!"

by Bill Levinson

  We're beginning to be able to spot a Jewish anti-Jew -- the one who uses his Jewish identity to help his real friends -- anyone who hates Israel. Professor Steven Plaut has been tracking the spoor of this creature for years, particularly in his academic lairs. In this essay, Bill Levinson describes a more subtle version of the species -- the polite member of an authentic Jewish organization, who -- were we to follow his mealy-mouth advice -- would lead us into catastrophe as quickly and thoroughly as if we followed the advice of the International Solidarity Movement. While we're at it, why does AIPAC work for yet another Arab state, this one inside/next to/around/splitting Israel? Doesn't it understand such a state, either controlled by Fatah or Hamas or directly by Iran, would be sitting on Israel's main supply of water? Shooting planes landing at Ben Gurion would be duck soup. And they wouldn't need long-range missiles to damage Israel's compact population centers. Whatever is AIPAC thinking?


by Lyn Julius

  Lyn Julius writes frequently of the violent expulsion in the 1940s-50s of Jews from Arab countries, where in many cases, the Jews had lived there long before the Arab invasion. In this essay, she writes of the farhud (violent dispossession), the pogrom against the Jews in Baghdad, Iraq, on June 1-2, 1941. The Farhad may have been for Sephardic Jews what Kristallnacht was for German and Europeans Jews -- a clear sign that Jews would be increasing targeted for expulsion and/or extinction. Both were the creation of Nazi anti-semitism. As Julius remarks, "The Farhud cemented a wartime Arab-Nazi alliance designed to rid Palestine, and the world, of the Jews." The aftermath in both cases was similar -- a Nazi pattern of victimisation - dismantlement, dispossession and expulsion. Nuremberg-style laws criminalised Zionism, freezing Jewish bank accounts, instituting quotas and restrictions on jobs and movement." Aside from the Jews killed during the years of unrest, nearly a million Jews were forced to flee from the Arab countries. Unlike the Arabs who fled Israel in 1948 and became permanent refugees, most of the Jews who fled the Arab countries were absorbed by Israel as full-fledged citizens.

by Clark Clifford with Richard Holbrooke

  In 1948, when Israel became a State, the then American President, Harry Truman, recognized it despite the opposition of the U.S. State Dep't and the Secretary of State, George Marshall. Truman was helped in coming to this decision and holding steadfast by Clark Clifford, who has written this memoir of the events at the time.

Professor F.M. Loewenberg

  Professor F.M. Loewenberg provides us with a survey of the Jewish presence on the Jerusalem Temple Mount from the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE) until the Six Day War (1967), when on June 7, 1967, Israel took possession as owner of this, its Holiest Site. It is widely believed that the Jews were driven from Jerusalem by Hadrian and didn't return until modern times. As Loewenberg shows, there was a Jewish presence throughout the centuries, no matter how brutally they were treated by whoever possessed the city at the time. It is ironic that, when in June 1967, the Jews reclaimed their inheritance, Moshe Dayan put the Arabs in charge of the Temple Mount, hence Jews still do not have free access to pray ON the Mount, as well as at the Western Wall.


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

There is a separate file that is the index for the articles on the Blog-Ed page. You can access an article immediately from this index by clicking on the item in the index. To access the Index, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.




What we are talking about in the March-April 2011 issue:

The Core of Islam -- and its impact on its practitioners (Cline, Mannheimer, Imani, Ibrahim, Greenfield, Kerwick, Jessup, Chesler)
The Jewish Core -- how Judaism hands the same realities. (Roberts, Wilder, Saperstein)
It's Gang-Up On Israel Time At The O.K. Corral ( Baker, Hertz, Hausman, Ahlert, Rose)
How Israel Can Turn Things Around (Glick, Greenfield, Feiglin, Shavit, Spengler, Tobin, Ohri)
Public Relations, Hasbara And PR (Bussel, McQuillan. Stalinsky, Lipkin)
History Section (Kanigel, Itto)
Readers' Blog-Ed Pages (March, April)

THE CORE OF ISLAM -- and its impact on its practitioners. And on us.

by Edward Cline

  Unlike Judaism, both Christianity and Islam theologically "denigrate life on earth as a mere transient form of existence on the way to an ethereal existence." Edward Cline observes that Christianity evolved over the centuries and life on earth became significant in its own right, allowing a concern for individual rights and earthly benefits to develop. In contrast, except in small heresies, Islam believes a complete and irrevocable system for living and a perfect model -- Mohammad -- for practicing the perfect system were concurrently revealed. Sharia law can not be reinterpreted. So it has no way to crack the shell or to evolve. This is too alien for the Westerner with his mental separation of Church and State for him fully to understand and therefore adequately rebut Islam's belief in its right to reign supreme.

by Michael Mannheimer

  This essay by Michael Mannheimer provides us with an excellent explanation why -- despite the systematic preaching of violence by scholarly imams who back up their harangues with deep and precise nowledge of the Koran -- many Westerners have been taught to believe Islam is a religion of peace. As a reader of the original article noted, "Islam is a form of Machiavellian schizophrenia that provides the maximum range of advantages for empowering its believers to dominate and rule the world in the name of their deity." Another reader summed it this way, "Islam is a rigged game that has no compunction about being immoral, unethical or entirely arbitrary just so long as it confers maximum advantage upon Muslims who perpetuate jihad."

by Amil Imani

  As Amil Imani points out, "Islam incorporated slavery and much of the ethos of the culture of its birthplace," "the Arabian peninsula of the seventh century AD, known for its primitive beliefs and savage practices." Slavery was not unique to Islam when the Quran was written, but because each word of the Quran is considered immutable, Islam can not reform itself as other societies that once allowed slavery have done. Actual slavery exists. And lesser degrees of lack of freedom are institutionalized. As example, "[f]reedom of assembly, expression, and worship is either denied or severely restricted in every Islamic country." Jews and Christians are more or less tolerated as dhimmis, with sporadic pogroms and institutionalized humiliation; members of other religions are treated with a complete lack of respect for their human rights aand ordinary needs. Similarly, in keeping with the Quran, women can only be considered chattel. The dismal truth is there is no hope in expecting Islam to treat other religions and cultures with respect because Muslims who genuinely practice tolerance are violating the Quran.

by Raymond Ibrahim

  The recent attacks by the Muslims in Ethiopia against the indigenous Christians has implications even --- or perhaps especially -- for secular countries where Islam is still a minority. Raymond Ibrahim writes that the rampage that destroyed Christian churches and homes started because the Koran was supposedly desecrated. Yet the continued desecration of the Bible that is sanctioned by Muslim clerics is ignored by the media and Western politicians. Ibrahim points out that Muslim violence increases when the Muslim population in the host country becomes significant, a point stressed by R.K. Ohri in his book, The Long March of Islam, which we have been serializing. The latest and last chapter is here. We might also note that Muslim rage doesn't just bring grief to the local Christians. It helps condition the leaders of the West to accept that the best way to get along with immigrant Muslims is to appease them and cater to their ever-growing list of whims, even at the cost of reducing the freedom of expression and speech guaranteed to Westerners in their own countries.

by Daniel Greenfield

  It gave Daniel Greenfield no pleasure to describe enough cases of dead Jews so that we would begin to have a glimmer of the extent of the Arab indulgence in brutality, the Arab joy in slaughtering Jewish families, the Arab love of their death cult and the Arab cowardice that makes them prefer stabbing Jewish woman and smashing in the heads of Jewish children to facing a soldier with a gun. Until recently, there have been few pictures showing the scene of a bomb explosion or the aftermath of snipers shooting at cars traveling on the highway. It wasn't respectful of the dead. It isn't. But we owe it to ourselves to begin to understand that Muslims steeped in the Koran and its teachings are not like us. They don't want what we want. They never will.

by Jack Kerwick

  So many people are angry at Terry Jones. The prevailing attitude is: had he not burned a Koran, the people who were killed by Muslims on a rampage would be alive today. Unfortunately, this ignores that desecrating a Bible leads to no retribution even though Muslim clerics encourage their flocks to use it as toilet paper. Why should we excuse Muslim violence because a Koran is burned? Isn't the burning just another pretext to increase the stranglehold of sharia law on non-Muslims? Almost certainly, Western apologists will suggest we try harder to be good neighbors, practice self-censorship, and curtail our own freedom of speech and expression so as not to rile up the Muslims. The problem with always worrying you might offend the Muslims is you become a virtual dhimmi and the Muslims are controlling your life as effectively as if you lived in a Muslim country under threat of losing a hand or your head for wrong thinking and non-Sharia-conforming behavior. Jack Kerwick explains the nuances ignored in the bald tale of an act by someone that caused death and destruction thousands of miles away. Additional material by Bill Warner and Richard Swier is also presented.

by Kathy Jessup

  Kathy Jessup provides us with various examples of how sharia law operates. What is nervous-making is that these incidences happened here in the States, not in a Muslim country. Yet our mental set that we could never be enveloped by an alien culture continues to impede our ability to take Sharia infiltration as seriously as we should. We think it too impossible. Perhaps Jessup's explanation of what sharia is and does will help dispel the illusion that we are safe from it. Perhaps we will finally acknowledge that like hungry termites, it is nibbling away at our institutions and infrastructure.

by Phyllis Chesler

  A half century ago, if you had no real facts, you could always stop your opponent cold by calling him a Communist. Later you could effect the same result by calling your opponent a racist. Over the years it's become apparent that racism isn't restricted to the white redneck; it can come angry and vicious from any group. That is starting to take the magic out of the 'you're a racist' mantra. Islamophobia seems to be in the running for the new magic weapon -- utter it and your opponent turns to stone and is left without a suitable retort. Phyllis Chesler explains that it works this way: the assertion by the newly-created people, the Palestinians, that they own the ancient land of Israel "has morphed into a belief that all Muslims — who are, themselves, the largest practitioners of religious apartheid in the world, and who persecute all non-Muslims — are, as Muslims, being persecuted in the West." Given the fact that Jews are subjected to hate crimes 8 times as often as Muslims -- and often it is the Muslim committing the hate crime against the Jew -- the Muslims are not the ones that should realistically be fearing violence against them. But they do play victim well. They act the role so well that any interpretation except theirs is automatically discredited as further evidence of a phobia directed against Muslims.

THE JEWISH CORE -- How Judaism handles the same realities.

by Ted Roberts

  There are many facets to the Jewish view of God. He is Master, we are his Servants. We don't eat pig or shellfish not because they are risky disease-wise but because He said 'Don't'. In this essay Ted Roberts writes of another important relationship: we don't just have the ability to make requests of God. We find it just fine to talk to Him, even to argue with Him, and lecture Him on what He could have done better. So next time someone starts talking Theology, where all matters are reduced to the same multisyllabic sameness that concludes that all monotheistic religions are the same, tell them about this essay. What religion except Judaism makes it a virtue to argue with God? In fact, there's one Midrash where the Sages were arguing a point among themselves and God wanted to join in. The Rabbis told Him to butt out.

by David Wilder

  That most cowardly of acts -- putting a 10-month old infant in the crosshairs of a sniper's gun and deliberately pulling the trigger. An appalling yet routine act of Arab terrorism. Did the Jews of Hebron take up arms and avenge this ugly act? Maybe they should have. But they didn't. They made Shalhavet a living presence by writing a Torah scroll in memory of her life and opening a Torah study hall. She became part of their dedication to redeem Jewish Land. Shalhavet's parents picked themselves up and reconstructed a warm and loving family, one that is haunted by bittersweet memories. The family is clear-eyed about Arab hatred of Jews but not consumed by hate themselves. David Wilder interviews Shalhavet's father ten years later.

by Rachel Saperstein

  Rachel Saperstein and her husband Moshe lived in Neve Dekalim, Gaza, until 2005, when they, together with thousands of other Jews were kicked out of their Paradise by Israeli politicos, who saw this destruction of an unique group of patriotic and productive citizens as a sure-fire way to realize peace with the Arabs. So it was that these talented Jews of Gaza, who created hothouses and grew organic vegetables that were eagerly bought in foreign markets and who invented ways to grow crops on land that had been dead for hundreds of years suddenly found themselves refugees in their own country. Many of them were traumatized, but many, like Rachel and Moshe, even though they lived in trashy trailers and suffered from the incompetence of the Government bureaucrats that were supposed to help them resettle, have taken charge of their lives and are rebuilding in the Terroritories. They may be bitter that the Government's folly has predictably brought sustained violence rather than peace, but they continue to condition their environment to make it again possible to live ordinary Jewish lives under continued wartime conditions.


In this Section, we focus on a new and upcoming piece of inventiveness by Israel's many enemies: The Palestinian Authority is crowing because, despite the fact that it has made no effort toward peaceful relations with Israel, it believes it will be given a State gratis. The U.N. is exploring tactics on how to do this. And looming over the horizon, the American administration has just dumped us into an irregular, unplanned and unnecessary war in Libya. To add to the bizarreness, we and Al-Qaeda will be fighting on the same side. Duh.

Meanwhile, the activities of the Arabs and their friends over the last years to delegitimize Israel are accelerating and in some areas are being coordinated. It's not just that Hizbollah, Hamas, Fatah, and dozens of splinter groups of terrorists have acquired huge amounts of weaponry. The years of demonizing Israel are also paying off. Here are some of the problems Israel faces.

1. Israel is condemned by the U.N. Israel is accused of being an apartheid state, despite the fact that Arab Israelis can buy housing anywhere and shop anywhere. They receive welfare and medical care well above their percent of the total Israeli population. They attend Israeli universities, often with less effort than required of Jewish children. One Arab Ph.D. candidate has the extracurricular hobby of coordinating boycotts against Israel for being apartheid. Israel is condemned for war crimes -- they unintentionally killed human shields that Hamas terrorists were using for cover, while Arab terrorists who specifically target Jewish children riding in a bus, walking to school, sleeping in their beds, are treated as heros and models for how to conduct oneself by the Arab community. Israel is condemned for invading Gaza and cautiously attempting to kill only the terrorist managers, while the U.S. bombs Libyan civilians wholesale. The U.N. appoints Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia, and other such proponents of human rights and the rights of women to its councils. And it labels Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East, racist.

2. The Obama Administration reserves its wrath for Jews putting up housing and ignores what a sorry place the Middle East will be when Iran explodes a nuclear device. One global consequence is that oil production and distribution will become disorganized and erratic, if the oil fields are even accessible.

3. Politicians, mainstream churches, universities and their resident faculty particularly those in the soft sciences, Muslim student groups, newspaper and TV media and book publishers have shown themselves to be worth every penny Radical Islam has spent on them. See as a small slice of the larger problem the video by Dr. Richard Cravatts of Boston University: here. It is entitled "The War Against Israel on Campus".

4. The Wafq has been allowed to demolish Jewish artefacts of historic value on the Temple Mount. Israel is willing to barter away some of its holy sites and historic sites and places we read about in the Bible, indicating an indifference to its roots and religion, while the recently-created Palestinian people lay claim -- erroneously but passionately -- to Mandated Palestine. Israel doesn't loudly proclaim its irrevocable right to Mandated Palestine, a right guaranteed by international law, so naturally most everyone assumes the Jews are the occupiers. Why shouldn't they when Israeli politicians sound more enthusiastic about having a Palestinian state that do the Palestinians, who mostly want welfare and the fun of slaughtering their Jewish neighbors.

5. When Israel reclaimed Samaria and Judea and Gaza in 1968, it started building the local Arabs their first ever higher-level educational institutions, and providing them with medical care, gas, electricity and water. They continued to do this even after the Hamas terrorists took over Gaza and the Fatah terrorists Samaria and Judea. They did this though the Arabs took pot shots at them while they were repairing the electric grids. In one notable PA hoax, done with the cooperation of the foreign media, they simply closed the curtains to keep out the afternoon sun and lit candles. Their claim to be without electricity was heard around the world. Israel continued to provide water even though the Arabs were destroying the water supply by stealing the cement, by digging wells and by garbaging up the entrances to the desalination plants. The Jews thought the Arabs would be grateful and this would lead to peace. Everyone naturally assumed it meant the Jews were ashamed for stealing the land in the first place.

6. Jewish settlements in the Territories are legally on Jewish land. Given the unrest in all of the Middle East and the need to be alert to changes in the neighboring countries, this doesn't seem a good time for the Israeli Government to create havoc in Israel by uprooting Jews in the Territories. Nevertheless, the Netanyahu Administration is wrongheadedly acting as if it fully intends to give away Samaria and Judea, as soon as it can find a taker.

7. Marxist Israelis defend Arab illegality and condemn Israel defending itself. I wonder if they have second homes in the West and open airplane tickets. Or do they believe the grateful Arabs will let them live if ever they can finish off Israel? It didn't work for Juliano Mer-Khamis, a Jew who lived in Jenin among the Arabs and was devoted to their cause. They killed him anyway. For the sin of being a Jew? Because women were treated with respect in his productions? Because he produced Animal Farm, in which an actor played a pig? Who knows.

8. Some helpful folk suggest Israel preempt a decision by the U.N. on Palestinian statehood by coming out first with a declaration that what is Biblical Israel is now to become [drum roll here] Palestina. Wow, that's like advising someone to commit suicide to prevent the possibility that his enemy will manage to kill him. Wouldn't it be better -- and more Jewish -- to have a gun handy and be ready to use it first?

IT IS JUST POSSIBLE THAT ISRAEL WILL WAKE and understand they can't allow West Bank Arabs to control their water supply. They might have a stroke of understanding and admit that from the West Bank you can walk into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem -- you don't need a long-distance bomber. Maybe their ability to organize for defense in a hurry will kick in on time. I sure hope they haven't let it go too long.

by Alan Baker

  This is a succinct presentation of some consequences, should the Palestinian Arabs ask the U.N. to declare (some, much, all) of Samaria and Judea and possibly Gaza an Arab state, thus abrogating the Oslo Accords. Alan Baker notes that this action would void the Palestinian Authority's legal existence. (Does that matter if they shift to being the government of a state?) It would simultaneously release Israel of its contractual agreements. (But would Israel suddenly have the will and the resources to stand up to the global community in the person of the U.N.?) Baker is also concerned that this unilateral bid for statehood would do harm to the credibility of the U.N. (I wasn't aware it had any.) What makes this essay of particular interest is that Baker helped draft the contract agreements of the Oslo Accords, which was the start of the steep gradient on which Israel slid down into the mess it is in.

by Eli E. Hertz

  In keeping with its way of never getting together in a timely fashion information that will be needed to prove or contest some point likely to be raised by its enemies, Israel seems to have just discovered General Assembly (GA) Resolution 377. #377 might be the magic mantra the GA needs to bypass the Security Council (SC) and give the Palestinian Authority a State. Currently, the international community is obliged to support SC rulings and carry out SC sanctions; resolutions passed by the GA have no legal standing. Member states not on the Security Council would like to change that. They would like the status of GA resolutions to change so that they are not recommendations but enforceable commands. Eli Hertz provides us with an understanding of how U.N. members hope to make the SC subject to the GA by using the purported power and "interpretations" of the International Court of Justice, and why this is not within their authority. Of course, it hasn't been too hard in the past for the U.N. to ignore justice, fairness, decency and legal limits when it comes to dealing with Israel. They put rogue states on the Human Rights Council and spend much of their political capital demonizing Israel.

by Matthew M. Hausman

  The repudiation by the Obama Administration and the European Union of the "Jews' right to self-determination in their ancient homeland" is disguised as concern for the rights of the indigenous people of Palestine. Matthew Hausman suggests that were they really concerned with protecting indigenous rights, they would support the Jews, whose "rights as an indigenous people were recognized historically and under international law long before the term "Palestinian" was ever used to refer to an Arab population that accreted largely through immigration during the sunset years of the Ottoman Empire." Read this article for facts. Read it for clear-headed reasoning. Read it to dissipate the fumes of irrationality through which we have been encouraged to sympathize with squatters who believe they have the right to expropriate Jewish property contrary to legitimate Jewish claims. Hausman suggests some alternative solutions.

by Arnold Ahlert

  Are we in the U.S.A. totally daft? We ignore the Iranian monomaniac pushing the development of a nuclear bomb -- an accomplishment that will totally destabilize the region and do damage to the steady flow of oil that we need for a long time to come. Moreover, in Libya we will be comrades in arms of terrorist rebels, including Al-Qaeda. We have come a full Orwellian circle since 9/11; we will now be fighting together with Al-Qaeda, not against Al-Qaeda. As a reader, James F. Davis, notes: "There were more Eastern Libyans per capita that went to Iraq to kill US forces than any other country. We should not be helping these terrorists. Gaddafi has been neutralized and as such presents a lesser threat to US national security that these jihadists terrorists." Wise words. As additions, we include Ghaddafi's letter to Obama -- a PR masterpiece and an analysis of the letter by Stephen Brown.

by Alex Rose

  Are we at a time similar to the 1930s when a fanatic dictator had two ambitions: to make his country top dog and to kill the Jews. Are we at a time when the major powers won't come to grips with the problem but invent ineffective delaying actions? Are there major differences that nullify the similarity? Or maybe these differences make matters worse? In this initial essay, Alex Rose examines some of the parameters of the pre-World War 2 Gathering Storm that we will need for comparison to conditions today.

Bottom Line: What Israel needs to do is to stop lying - to herself and to the world. No, she really doesn't want to sacrifice herself to give a bunch of death-dealers some additional space to construct explosives and launch missiles.

How to avoid the disasters that loom? How to win? The first task, Israel, is to stop lying to yourself. As Daniel Greenfield says (see below), "It is time to stop the lies and tell the truth. The call to peace is the call to death." This will free you up to admit that you can't barter your land for peace anymore than you can sell your child. Admit your passion for Israel. Realize the Jews of Samaria and Judea aren't the enemy; by securing the hilltops in Yesha, they safeguard the Jews living in Tel-Aviv. Stop trying to kick them out of their homes. Stop promoting an Arab state and start shoring up Israel.

Ari Bussel in "An Old-Fashioned Remedy" (April 3, 2011) writes:

"Israeli politicos are proud of all they are doing to improves the lives of the local Arabs. At best this might create good P.R. Actually it doesn't. What with the current milieu where demonizing Israel is acceptable, it doesn't create good-will. People assume Israel is doing it out of guilt -- so it just reinforces the Arab lie that Israel is occupying Arab land.

"[d]iverting enormous resources to the Arab minority and enabling Palestinian unprecedented growth — measured on a global scale — will prove very harmful to Israel."

"Israel has a variety of problems she faces, and she needs to prioritize them."

First: Military Preparedness

"Israel's security services and intelligence communities must seriously focus on the Iranian threat. That is the greatest long-term existential danger to the Jewish State.

"Israel's military must prepare for an eventuality similar to the 1947-1948 scenario when the Arabs converged en masse against the newly recognized Jewish State, except present day magnitudes are vastly greater in strength. It must be ready for an attack on multiple fronts, especially if the Jordanian regime falls and Israel finds herself surrounded.

"As happened not so many decades ago and throughout the last two millennia in the same neighborhood, Israel will be completely surrounded by Egyptian, Jordanian, American-trained Palestinian and Syrian forces on her borders, an Arab contingency from within and Hamas-Hezbollah snakes hissing and threatening from the North and the South. The names of the players may have changed, but the intentions from Amalek to the Palestinians remain as potent: Destroy the Jews!

"Preparations must take place quietly, internally, with constant diligence, re-evaluation and adjustments. Quite frankly, while we should be able to speculate on their scope (and hope our analysis reflects, at least in part, reality), none of these actions should be common knowledge. It is not deterrence Israel needs; it is preparedness and readiness for what the future assuredly holds."

Second: Public Diplomacy

To attend to the ongoing delegitimization and demonization attacks against her very being and to fight the currently forming country of Palestine,

"Israel must mobilize now rather than ex post facto — and seemingly might have started doing so during the past few weeks — all of its public relations bureaucracy. This must include the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of Public Diplomacy and the Diaspora and every body in between that has some overlapping interest, as tangential as it may seem.

" Unquestionably, Israel has the people and the abilities to devise plans for her survival one cannot easily envision. The main question is — does she have the mindset to engage in so doing, right now and without delay?"

Bussel's TODO list is sensible. Israel politicos need to take it to heart. And soon.

THE SILVER LININGS OF THE CLOUDS OF GLOOM hanging over Israel are two:

First, despite the ingrained negativity of the media, it is becoming more difficult to blame Israel for unwillingly killing a human shield when Arab terrorists steal into Jewish homes and slaughter Jewish families. We can also expect that the increasing turbulence in the Middle East might unhinge the monomaniacal attention the media and the U.N. pay Israel and force them to attend to the Arab implosion.

Second, the single document that most helped demonize Israel around the world, the Goldstone report, has been declared erroneous -- by Goldstone himself. As Jeffrey Goldberg writes (The Atlantic, April 2, 2011):

"... the South African Jewish judge Richard Goldstone, who excoriated Israel for allegedly committing premeditated crimes against civilians in Gaza -- contributing, more than any other individual, to the delegitimization and demonization of the Jewish state -- now says, well, Israel didn't actually set out to target Palestinian civilians, unlike Hamas, whose plainly-apparent goal was to murder Israeli civilians... Unfortunately, it is somewhat difficult to retract a blood libel, once it has been broadcast across the world."

He's right, blood libels are hard to kill. But at least Israel has been handed some good ammunition. Let's hope she understands that she is still the one to load the gun and use it. Goldstone's admission by itself won't change attitudes.

This Section is sister to the previous segment outlining some major problems Israel must confront. The essays below address some necessary actions and attitudes.

by Caroline B. Glick

  Caroline Glick draws some important lessons from Goldstone's blood libel of Israel and Israel's refusal to be intimidated or cowed by his lies. Her summation is important: "If the government remains faithful to the truth and to our rights, it will empower our supporters throughout the world to rally to our side. If we are good to our friends and bad to our enemies, we will know how to reward our friends and punish our enemies. And if we boldly assert our rights even in the face of international condemnation, we will see that in the fullness of time, the rightness of our position will carry the day."

by Daniel Greenfield

  Daniel Greenfield lays out the Arab strategy so plainly that maybe this time the high-IQ, low-comprehension community will understand: the Arabs don't want peace; they want Jews dead. Greenfield writes: "The call to peace is the call to death. To promote the creation of a Palestinian state is a violent act. The peacemakers are collaborators in genocide. Their charges are the murderers. Palestine is genocide. It is the cultivated work of an ideology that has successfully turned millions of people into born serial killers or their accomplices." This is obviously obvious but apparently not obvious to the media, politicos and presidents of major Jewish organizations. Like Goldstone doing damage control, will they bleat after the fact, "We didn't know."

by Moshe Feiglin

  Moshe Feiglin writes, "The Temple Mount is the quintessence of the Land of Israel.... Without it, our presence in Israel loses its meaning." And with it, Israel's legitimacy. When Israel captured it in 1967, the Arabs hoped, but didn't expect, to be allowed to pray in the mosques they had built on the site of the Second Temple. Instead, in a stupendously stupid move, Moshe Dayan gave them control, which they used to destroy artifacts of the Temple period and to stop Jews from praying in their own land at this most holy of sites. It's time for Jews to redeem the Temple Mount and take a firm grip on the Land.

by Moshe Dann

  Moshe Dann review some of the facts that make Israel and the Territories -- Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank), Golan and Gaza legally Jewish by international law. How can Jewish settlements that are on land that is legally Jewish be illegal? We also include several Readers' comments that discuss the critical point: Israel holds Mandated Palestine in irrevocable trust for the Jewish people by international law. The same authority that set aside a tiny piece of land for an eventual Jewish state from land previously ruled by the Ottomans (NOT by the Arabs and certainly not by the non-existent Palestinians) also carved out many of the present-day Arab countries from the remaining 99.99% of the area. Nullifying the existence of Israel will by the same stroke nullify each and every Arab state created after World War 2, will it not?

by Avi Shavit

  As one reader said of this article: "A jewel of an article... lucid, transcendental... Something to save and reflect on." Avi Shavit writes of Juliano Mer-Khamis, a well-known actor, who was recently murdered. Mer-Khamis, a Jew, was profoundly involved in the Arab cause; he even lived in Jenin. Shavit contrasts how the Left would have made him into a saint if he'd been killed by Jews; they would have insisted religious Jews are ultimately to blame. They would have demanded revenge on the Orthodox community. But Mer-Khanis was killed by an Arab. And the Left has no way to cope with such a happening -- it doesn't fit the concepts through which they understand the world. In fact, the Left saw nothing to write about. Shavit concludes that "Western enlightenment and the Israeli left cannot continue to ignore the dark side of Middle Eastern reality."

by Spengler

  The newest Peace Process -- brought to life by Obama as the most urgent of priorities -- seems to be dying yet again, thanks to the turbulence in the Arab countries. In this essay, Spengler argues that the large number of civilian casualties occasioned by the multiple revolts has reduced the precious status of the individual Arab, so that it becomes more difficult to excoriate Israel for killing a few Arabs to stop missile attacks, when Arab governments and Arab rebels continue to kill thousands of their own people. Spengler suggests "Israel's best course of action is to dig in its heels through the November 2012 US presidential elections while its prospective adversaries descend into chaos, and await the right opportunity to settle accounts with Hamas and Hezbollah." Let us hope Netanyahu doesn't snatch defeat out of the jaws of a genuine diplomatic victory in the interim.

by Jonathan S. Tobin

  In the political and military roilings in the Middle East, Syrian is almost unique in apparently being able to keep the waters calm at least on the surface. Still, many Syrians took to the streets to protest. Instead of this invoking elation in U.S. State Department breasts, it brought distress. The State Department is fixated on the notion that Bashar Assad is necessary for a Middle East peace. Syria is a very clever dissimulator but as Jonathan Tobin observes: "[t]he belief that a Syria run by one of the Assads would ever make peace with Israel was always a myth." The Assads need Israel as something to hate, not as a friend. Nevertheless, the notion that Syria can and should be involved in the peace process -- as full of holes as it is -- continues to be a much-loved comfort blanket for the Obama administration. And Assad remains attached -- to Iran.

by R. K. Ohri

  This is the last chapter of R.K. Ohri's book The Long March of Islam. Chapter 1 was in the September-October 2009 issue; subsequent chapters were posted one per issue. Ohri has pointed out that while initially a small immigrant community of Muslims was amiable and cooperative, it inevitably changed to a relentlessly demanding, unsatisfiable group as it grew in numbers. Although focusing on the conflict between Hindu and Muslim in India and Pakistan, he has emphasized that appeasement by host countries has not stopped the jihadists' announced ambition to be dominant everywhere in the world. As he puts it, "They have a highly bloated ego and a vain belief in the invincibility of radical Islam." In this final chapter, he concludes that civilized countries have no alternative but to fight back, especially now that there is a real possibility of Islamic terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons. With regard to India and Israel, who "have been on the 'hit list' of jihadi terror groups now for several decades," "[t]here is no other option available to India and Israel, except coming together for defending their people."


by Ari Bussel

  Ari Bussel examines three recent op-ed pieces, each by a Jewish writer, two found libelous after-the-fact, the third -- by David Horowitz -- discovering data that Israeli should already have dealt with in depth. The first by Neve Gordon, a marxist academic at Ben Gurion University (BGU) was actually old-hat. He has been encouraging colleagues in the West to cold-shoulder Israelis for years. While the text was the same-old, publishing it in the La.Times got the attention of some donors to BGU, who were appalled -- by definition, donors tend to like the institutions they fund -- but BGU is yet to examine the roots of its unwarranted disdain of Israel. The other op-ed is the latest episode in the bizarre and unending flaying of Israel by the U.N. and its various agencies and NGOs. Judge Goldstone and his committee issued a well-advertised report condemning Israel's conduct in Gaza when it attempted to stop Hamas from lobbing missiles at Israeli civilians. The report has bolstered any and every misrepresentation and misinterpretation of Israel since then -- the U.N. seal of approval and Goldstone's self-identification as a Jew are sufficient to guarantee acceptance of anything derogatory. This op-ed by the Judge is as close to an admission as we're going to get that his committee was rigged, the report tendentious and the conclusions a malicious lie. Again, Bussel asks: why did Israel react only after the damage was done.

by Karin McQuillan

  National Public Radio suggests it is the outlet for programs of taste and subtlety and refinement -- and that's why it isn't supported by the redneckery who prefer low-life radio. What is closer to the truth is this comment by a reader, SteveinTampa: "I cringe when I listen to NPR,and only do so to hear what they are "reporting" as news. The smarmy, condescending, yet semi hypnotic delivery is more theatre than information distribution. It is truly a biased delivery with herding the mentally lazy to the left as its intent." It is indeed time the public understood that presenting a mealy-mouth version of the truth and clearly-stated bald lies isn't "balanced" programming. Try this image: Abbas lauding PA as a democracy to counter a guest telling the truth about PA brutality. Lest the listener is not be certain who to believe, the interviewer will coo at Abbas.

by Steven Stalinsky

  Ah, the versatility of Al-Qaeda. Not only did it show itself capable of destroying the World Trade Center, but now it's gone into publishing. And in both -- while it didn't mind spending the millions needed to set up big operations -- it has the common touch. The lowly box ripper on the planes. Now it's into publishing at minimal expense. Steven Stalinsky summarizes the fifth issue of Inspire, designed to inspire the young terrorist dedicated to the goal of making Islam supreme, and to teach him some useful tricks of the trade. Potentially, the magazine has a large audience, even if the percent of Muslim literates is small -- just so long as they stick to pictures and limited text. Will they soon have advertising? Nekkid women in burqas to spice up boring material? Tee shirts reading 'I'm just mad about Al-Qaeda' you can buy in toddler size on up? We should soon hear from the Arab-lovers that now the organization has to wrestle with the hard problems in publishing, they will soon reform and stop being the bad guys -- that's the political theory that insists terrorists should be given States to govern to cure them of their murderous tendencies.

by Bernice Lipkin

  This essay by Bernice Lipkin examines several items of propaganda centered around the attention given a Pro-Palestinian propaganda film called Miral, A Palestinian Girl. Part 1 examines the construction of a fairly typical hackneyed article sympathetic to the film and its makers. The one striking piece of propaganda is a poster that asks: Is this the face of a Terrorist? Part 2 is a complete essay from Elder of Ziyon that contains excellent pictorial rebuttal material. It says effectively: yes an innocent-looking Palestinian girl can be -- and has been -- a terrorist. Part 3 compares the counter-Miral posters to those used to counter the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state.


by Judge Hadassa Ben Itto

  Hadassa Ben Itto writes about the history of the fraudulent Protocols of Zion, from its start as a fictional plan suggested by Machiavelli to Montesquieu on how to take over France to its current revised version purporting to be a plan by Jewish leaders to take over the world. The supposed conspiracy of the Jews may be a lie, but it is being used effectively by Islam to delegitimize the Jewish people -- an early component of its mission to take over the world.

by Harry Kanigel

  The current ahistoric decree by the American administration that Israel must return to its 1967 borders makes information on the 1967 period and the cease fire lines (NOT borders) a necessity. Harry Kanigel points out, "The probability of a negotiated peace is vanishingly small given the philosophical moorings of Israel's neighbors; they will only temporize as they maneuver to eliminate the stain, the 'error which must be rectified.'" as "they advance Islam geopolitically." Given Kanigel's obvious knowledge of Islam's master plan and its encouragement of lying to gain a point, his is an excellent analysis of a minimalist plan for Israel's survival -- one that has become more impractical as time goes on. Perhaps, we should instead be promulgating the essential fact: that the area know as Mandated Palestine was given to the Jews in an irrevocable trust by the League of Nations (an obligation incurred by its successor organization, the U.N.) -- the same authority that gave the other 99.99% of the Ottoman Middle East to the Arabs, thus creating many of the Arab states now in existence.


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

A Blog-Ed page has a quick list of the articles from which you can access any of the articles immediately. To go to the list, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

March 2011 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE
April 2011 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE



We apologize that due to circumstances beyond our control, we were not able to notify some of our readers when the January-February issue of Think-Israel was complete. This is the email that went out:

To receive a free index of the current issue of Think-Israel, please reply with the word SUBSCRIBE in the subject line.

If you do not wish to receive an Index of the completed current issue, please reply with the word REMOVE or UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject line.

To send comments/articles to Think-Israel, please send them to

We enjoy hearing from you. We appreciate you telling your friends about us. We thank those who take the trouble to forward this email to their own email lists. We thank those who reprint our articles on their websites.

BTW: is now on Facebook. Please join We'll be putting up an Index of the newest completed issue on it.

THINK-ISRAEL features essays, analyses and commentaries that provide context for current events in Israel. We try to make sense of what's going on. The war Islamists are waging against Israel and the West is a top priority.

This is what's in the January-February 2011 issue of the Think Israel website . You can access any article from the home page of by scrolling down to its introduction. This has the advantage of providing context for the article. Or you can go directly to the article by clicking its highlighted area in this email.


"Editorial: The Middle East in Revolt" by Editor,

Democracy and Revolution

Islam + Democracy = Islam by Edward Cline
The Great Middle Eastern Democracy Show Hits A Bump by Nidra Poller
Be Careful What We Wish For by Seth J. Frantzman
Is An Egyptian "Democracy" A Good Thing? by Raymond Ibrahim

How Revolution Is Played Out In Different Countries

The New Middle East At A Glance — Country By Country by Hillel Fendel
Anti-Semitism: The New Necessity For Arab Regimes by Mudar Zahran
Youth Uprising 2011 -- A Planetary 1968 by Andrew MacKillop
A Firsthand Account Of The Protests In Egypt by Joshua R. Goodman
Do The Protesters Want Democracy? by Andrew C. McCarthy
Evidence Of Anti-Semitism At The Egypt Protests by John Rosenthal
Sunni Wahhabism And Shiism In Saudi Arabia by Joshua Teitelbaum
Tunisia Meltdown by Marion DS Dreyfus
Jordan's Future Challenges by Juan José Escobar Stemmann
Qatar's Game by Elliot Jager

These Essays Investigate The Muslim Brotherhood

The Muslim Brotherhood Is The Enemy by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood: In Their Own Words by Jonathan D. Halevi
Qaradawi And The Treason Of The Intellectuals by Andrew G. Bostom


Loner Terrorists And Small-Boat Pirates

How Do We Deal With Terrorists That Have No Fixed Identification? by Bernice Lipkin
Somali Piracy Hits America: Some Questions In Need Of Answers by J. Peter Pham, Ph.D.
A Cruise To The Coast Of Pirate-Infested Somalia by To-The-Point Cruise Lines

Wishing For Islamic Moderation And Reform

Inside The Mind Of An Islamist by Phyllis Chesler
The Long March Of Islam: Chapter 9 by R. K. Ohri
Does Muslim Moderation Exist; Is Islamic Reform Likely? by Fjordman

Is Israel Going To Change Policy And Grow Or Grovel And Die?

In Memory Of Herbert Zweibon by Helen Freedman
Preemptive Surrender by David Isaac
Playing Israel's Good Hand by Caroline Glick

Hasbara, The War Front Where Israel Is Losing

Why Israel Loses PR War by Moshe Dann
Exposing Arab Falsehoods by Martin Sherman
Who Is Uri Avnery, And Why Does He Matter? by Aryeh Tepper
Narrative Isn't Everything by Jonathan Rosenblum
A Dozen Bad Ideas For The 21st Century by Mark Durie

History Section

The Wartime Diary Of Edmund Kessler reviewed by Omer Bartov
The Most Heinous Killers Of The Holocaust: The Muslim-Catholic Ustasha by Edwin Black
Opening Palestine's Doors by Rafael Medoff

The Reader' Blog-Eds page. The monthly Blog-Ed page is updated every few days. If you are on a Blog-Ed page, you can click on the Blog-Eds List (middle item, top Blue Banner), find any author/title posted, click and go directly to that blog-ed.
January Blog-Eds
February Blog-Eds

And we provide direct links to websites that supply accurate background information and news relating to Israel.

Do look at the web site.

And please, if you have a blog-ed piece or a comment or commentary, contact us. Write to or to

Pieces for THINK-ISRAEL should be informative and accurate. Fortunately, those of us who are pro-Israel can show our love of Israel without distorting the truth. We don't need to play by the rules laid down by the Arab-favoring media, which distort the news and omit important items of information.

Bernice Lipkin
Editor, Think-Israel



What we are talking about in the January-February 2011 issue:

Editorial: The Middle East in Revolt
Democracy and Revolution (Cline, Poller, Frantzman, Ibrahim)
How Revolution Is Played Out In Different Countries (Fendel, Zahran, MacKillop, Goodman, McCarthy, Rosenthal, Teitelbaum, Dreyfus. Stemmann, Jager)
The Muslim Brotherhood (Gaffney, Halevi, Bostom)

Loner Terrorists and Small-Boat Pirates (Lipkin, Pham, To-The-Point Cruise Line)
Wishing for islamic moderation and reform (Chesler, Ohri, Fjordman)
Is Israel Going To Change Policy And Grow Or Grovel And Die (Freedman, Glick, Isaac)
Hasbara, The War Front Where Israel Is Losing (Dann, Sherman, Tepper, Rosenblum, Durie)
History Section (Bartov, Black, Medoff)
Readers' Blog-Ed Pages (January, February)



If, in your way of thinking, the opposite of dictatorship is democracy, then what's happening in the Middle East is wonderful. The ice floe didn't crack slowly; it all melted magically. To use imagery Al Gore would believe: it was as if a zillion people suddenly vented CO2-filled breaths in synchrony.

And vent they did. In Iran. In Tunisia. In Egypt. In Libya. In Lebanon. In Yemen. In Jordan. In Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti. In Iraq. In Kuwait, Morocco and Sudan. Even in Saudi Arabia. Thanks to our media, we have learned that it is youth yearning for jobs and the poor yearning for bread and everybody yearning for democracy that caused it to happen.

It's true there are in Egypt and Iran and maybe in some of the other countries many young people who truly want to live under a western-style democracy. Considering how much Middle Eastern dictators oppress the people, everyone should be eager for democracy, freedom, tolerance and the ability to decide one's one lifestyle. We forget that in an organized Islamic political system based on sharia law, rulers and the majority of their subjects share in common certain values, similar hatreds and biases. Given the intense religious conditioning even in more secular Muslim countries, it is not surprising that as long as basic needs for food and shelter are met, dictators and mullahs can easily incite the populace against foreigners and people of other religions. But the same conditioning traps the rulers. Were they to declare they want to come to peaceful terms with those Islam sees as enemy, the people would likely shift their allegiance and the rulers would soon be replaced by an even more dedicated and brutal gang. In recent history, the people seem always to pick -- or end up with -- a government that is more wicked, more vile, most committed to monstrous acts of violence. The Iranians threw out the Shah and now we have Ahmadinejad. The Palestinian Arabs picked Hamas when given free choice. With the current imminent changes in regime in so many Middle Eastern countries, we might ask, in the immortal words of Tom Lehrer talking about countries wanting the bomb: "Who's next: Who's next?"

SOME VIEW the uprisings in the different countries as unrelated. Our current president, Barack Hussein Obama -- perhaps determined to wrench the title of "American President Most Damaging To The USA" from Jimmy Carter's jaws -- has been selective in which ones he supports. Doing a fast catch-up, he praised the Egyptian rioters whereas he sat on his hands when Iranians took to the streets desirous of regime change. He is most circumspect and hesitant about Libya but he was untroubled that Hizbollah was taking over Lebanon. He seems to believe that the source of global evil and upheaval is Israel and so his biggest worry is that a Jewish family might enlarge its living quarters to give the kiddies another bedroom.

Nevertheless, the uprisings and demonstrations happened so quickly and smoothly, there does seem to have been at least some coordination. One might think the labile hordes of the Middle East had been drummed into action by the Muslim Brotherhood's Yusuf al-Qaradawi just as he had orchestrated the riotous outrage at the Danish cartoons back in 2005. One could almost believe that the small surges and outrages these past few years have been fire drills to test how to pump up the response in different parts of the orchestra, where to send different factions to amplify the noise, how to select the soloists who would speak to the press, how to create the photo opportunities and reward trustworthy media people. And where to place the potties. Even true spontaneity can be put to use. Good ideas can come from anyone anywhere, but it takes intelligent social engineering to turn the idea to effective use.

As Joseph Farah of World Net Daily put it, "...there is a global Islamist revolution under way... "With revolts going on in Egypt, Tunisia, Pakistan, Yemen, Lebanon and Jordan, most of them clearly orchestrated from Iran, it's easy to believe these are unrelated, disconnected uprisings." [Actually,] "this is the work of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB), with the aid and encouragement of Tehran. And the ripple effect of what we're seeing is hard to overstate. As the leader of Jordan's powerful Muslim Brotherhood, Hammam Saeed, warned over the weekend [29Jan2011], the unrest in Egypt will spread across the Mideast and Arabs will topple leaders allied with the United States."

Frank Salvato, Director of Terrorism Research for, has characterized the MB this way: "The Muslim Brotherhood is a world-wide Sunni Islamist movement, which has spawned several religious and political organizations in the Middle East, including al Qaeda, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, dedicated to the jihadi credo: 'Allah is our objective, the Quran is our Constitution, the Prophet is our leader, struggle is our way, and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.'"

Do I believe the unrest is being manipulated by the Muslim Brotherhood, that beloved and benevolent group favored by our State Dept and our Director of National Intelligence, by the academics who sit on Saudi-established academic chairs and the media who now doesn't have to worry about job security? Just because the terrorists sponsored by the MB say they are out to kill off Israel and America, do I feel the MB is a menace? Do I worry just because they have been major establishers of front groups in the West? Certainly not.

I don't think it's the whole MB. I think there's a small cadre of them -- in my mind I call them the MBC, the Muslim Brotherhood Cadre. They have spent the last 90 years establishing mosques, stocking them with clerics who preach the need for Islam to be supreme and who are skillful at igniting idealists and psychopaths with the desire to join in this most worthy mission. They are the teachers, the tacticians, the trainers, the script writers, the spine stiffeners. They believe in their way-of-life and their love-of-death. They believe that to live a proper Islamic life, they need only model themselves on the thoughts and actions of that perfect man, Mohammed.

Their unswerving dedication melts resistance in those of other religions who have less zeal and dedication. Mainstream Protestants and Reform Jewry have turned their organizations away from spiritual yearning and the contemplation of how to live in social harmony in a complex society to the simpler goal of social betterment for mankind, where implementation depends on the goal of the month -- multiculturalism, achieving parity in monetary distribution, even academic and job quotas to prove we have no quotas. Islam may have very different ideas on how to achieve the Glory of a UniThink society than its Western allies but it is very strong, clad in the armor of its original, rigid 7th-Century mentation.

Make no mistake about it. The MBC isn't looking to fit into other groups. It isn't interested in tolerating alien ways of thinking or alternative life styles. It wants the world run by Sharia law. And you simply can not have a robust sharia framework within western law, any more than the sun can shine in the middle of the night. If the sun is shining, it isn't night, no matter what the clock says. There really are binary situations. Not all matters are gray.

Sharia brings with it foul-mouthed anti-semitism, an expectation that women, children and servants will be politely subservient and that dhimmi politicians and academics will continue to restructure society to convenience Muslims. There will be no reciprocation. Putting foot baths in college bathrooms and closing traffic on busy streets to accommodate Muslim prayers will not be followed by Muslims spending money on tread mills and soccer balls for all high schoolers. In fact, the dhimmis will be expected to keep a low and respectful profile towards their betters, the followers of Mohammed.

THIS SECTION presents some analyses of what's happening in general and in specific countries.

We westerners are apt to see the dynamics in simple terms: are we witnessing the start of a process that will introduce democratic regimes into the Middle East? Or not? It is assumed that if they dissolve tyrannical regimes and vote democratically, they will become like us -- reasonably tolerant of other groups and willing to live in peace with non-Muslims.

Unfortunately, the situation is trinary, not binary. The role of the Islamists needs to be factored into the tug between dictatorial regimes and democratic rule. As Barry Rubin put it: (How Many Dictators Can Stand on the Head of a Policy? February 4, 2011) "What are we going to do -- watch friendly regimes fall to become anti-American, terror-sponsoring Islamist dictatorships for the rest of eternity because we don't want to protect allies and instead watch Islamists taking over every political system in the Middle East?"

The first essays below explore the concept of democracy as applied to the demonstrations and agitation. Later ones examine activity in context of several particular countries. The final segment examines the Muslim Brotherhood, the group most likely to take control in the long run.

To ask again: are we witnessing the start of a process that will introduce democracy into the Muslim Middle East? I can sum up the general conclusion of this section in the words of the then Ass't Sec-of-State Edward Djerejian in reference to an earlier Civil War: Algeria, 1991 -- 'One Man, One Vote, One Time.'


These essays examine the relationship of the ongoing chaos, revolution and violence to democracy. In fact, they ask, what is democracy? Some use the uprising in Egypt as a point of reference -- Egypt is an influential Arab state and was prominent in getting the protests established.

by Edward Cline

  Edward Cline points out that democracy has a dark side even in the West. We rightly appreciate the freedom our political system gives us for exercising our individuality, and we ignore that democracy run wild has produced mob rule and the ghastly images of the French Revolution. Actually, the U.S.A. is a republic, with built-in checks against mob rule. When used to assess the political structures of the Arab states, the occasional "free election" is overrated as an indicator of freedom for the individual. The people of most Arab countries actually want Sharia law. So democratic elections mean the majority will not be thwarted in their wish to make their state sharia-abiding. They can then begin their inherently undemocratic mission of forcing others to accept the blessings of Sharia law, whether they want it or not.

by Nidra Poller

  For those who believe that most Arabs ache for democracy, Nidra Poller points out that "we have, in Europe, a living laboratory of Arab-Muslim citizens living in a democratic system." Some avail themselves of the privileges of citizenship to lead productive lives. Others "despise the educational system, belittle alternate job training programs, blame their failures on the host country, perpetuate tribal attitudes and retrograde cultural practices like excision (FGM), polygamy, forced marriage. They wrap women in niqab, hate infidels, attack Jews, defy law and order... and express their discontent by looting, torching, smashing, shouting hysterically..." And that's how they behave "where democratic institutions are solidly established."

by Seth J. Frantzman

  Seth Frantzman wonders if people believe that the degree of Sturm und Drang is indicative of the degree Egyptians want democracy. He points out that "[j]ust because people riot or protest for something doesn't mean they are democracy-loving moderates." And even if they were, chaotic rebellion often leads to tyranny, not democracy.

by Raymond Ibrahim

  Raymond Ibrahim makes the point that the end point of turmoil and revolution ought not to be democracy but what democracy can produce: "freedom and universal rights." In this way of thinking, the question should be: how do we achieve the desired end? Consequently, "[t]he U.S. should support whoever and whatever form of government is best positioned to provide for the overall good of a people," not necessarily the one that labels itself democratic.


The first essay in this section is a brief summary of the reactions in some of the countries in the second half of February 2011. The next two discuss some important commonalities between the separate uprisings. The rest examine some of the countries now reacting against their governments and demanding regime change. Differences in expression of dissatisfaction are often understood better when the country's history and/or degree of conformity to its interpretation of the Koran are taken into consideration.

Hillel Fendel

  As Hillel Fendel writes: "Arab countries throughout the Middle East and North Africa are experiencing unrest." Fendel briefly reviews "what's happening with the Arabs — and the Jews — in the various states."

by Mudar Zahran

  Mudar Zahran asks why the traditional Jew-hatred in Jordan that was called anti-Zionism for the 60 years of Israel's existence is now openly anti-Jewish. The Jordanian government uses anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism to distract the Palestinian Arabs who are the majority of the population. More generally, Arab regimes find ranting against an American-Jewish alliance useful as a way to redirect the people's anger. "It also helps them convince their Western allies that there is a serious trend of fundamentalism" so they should support the current Arab government. I would guess that what is happening in the Middle East is that the masses have retained their traditional hatred of non-Muslims while disengaging from their current rulers and becoming enamored of Islamic supremicists such as bin Ladin and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Andrew MacKillop

  Andrew MacKillop provides us with an economic rather than political understanding of the current unrest in the Middle East. He points out there may be similarities in political idealism between today's youth-led protests in Arab countries and the 1968 student revolts in Europe and the USA. But today's world is very different, what with its integrated communications, its huge additional population, and its much increased demand for oil. In 1968, the green revolution could solve famine, at least temporarily. It wouldn't work today. "The world had an average of nearly 1 hectare of arable land per person in 1968, but today has less than 0.25 hectares per person." Connect this with the fact that "Egypt, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Morocco ... import more than 45 percent of world total wheat export supply," you don't need political conspiracy theories to predict regional instability. In today's world, economics and food and job shortages will power anti-regime revolutions. But I suspect that political groups in the Islamic supremacist movement can be counted on to take advantage of the tumult.

by Joshua R. Goodman

  Joshua Goodman was in Cairo when the protests/demonstrations/riots broke out this January. Early on, university-educated young men and women in western clothes were prominent as were the police that kept them contained. As tension grew, the dynamics changed -- the crowd became more turbulent, the police switched to hosing the crowd with water to disperse them. Both were uncoordinated. He records the arrival of the Muslim Brotherhood (according to other sources, they are identifiable by their trim beards), but doesn't credit them with organizing the activities. Nor did he hear the anti-Semitic chanting by the crowds others have reported. Over the next days, unrest spreads, Mubarak's promises aren't believed, the crowds become more determined, more unruly. Curfews are ignored, tires are burned, shops are looted, people are shot by the police. Gradually, things simmer down, at least on the surface; the universal panacea is applied -- as Goodman puts it, "[e]veryone is finding ways to blame Israel." His take on the happenings is his own, and it's an interesting one.

by Andrew C. McCarthy

  Counter to all the hype that street demonstrations mean the people are pushing to gain freedom, Andrew C. McCarthy asks the simple question: do the protesters want democracy? Or are they after something else. Or many something elses. McCarthy deals with the complexity of diverse groups of Egyptians with major differences in life style and attitude toward Mubarak. He also discusses the probability of the Muslim Brotherhood taking control. He sees them taking over by stealth, revealing their real agenda slowly -- much as the AKP did as it gained control in Turkey.

by John Rosenthal

  John Rosenthal focuses on the large amount of visual and verbal anti-semitism expressed by Egyptian protesters. He notes wryly that "[s]uch images are to be found in video and photographic material from virtually every major Western news organization present in Egypt. This fact is all the more significant when one considers that the reports published or broadcast by these very same news organizations have as a rule outright ignored any anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli sentiment among the protesters." We include some additional information on the Latest Pew Poll on Egyptian attitudes on democracy, sharia law and terrorist groups.

by Joshua Teitelbaum

  As Joshua Teitelbaum writes, in Saudi Arabia, differences in religious practices between the minority Shiite Muslim population and the majority Sunni Muslims translate into chronic tension that occasionally breaks out into violence. As Teitelbaum points out, "[t]he Shiites are not numerous enough to constitute a threat to the regime, but they do constitute an actual and potential arm of Iranian influence." The problem is exacerbated by Iran's increased prestige in the region and its challenging the Saudis' position as leader of world Islam.

by Marion DS Dreyfus

  Marion Dreyfus recalls visiting Tunisia last year when Tunisia's longtime president, Ben Ali, seemed very popular with enlightened ideas about work for women and industrial privatization. "I was impressed in Tunisia by the level of education for even the middle class, and I was unaware of the apparent high rate of unemployment," Dreyfus writes. Now in the wake of the "Jasmine Revolution" Ben Ali has fled to Saudi Arabia, schools are closed and the tourists don't come. Modern trappings aside, Tunisia " is still Arab country."

by Juan José Escobar Stemmann

  This is a neutrally-worded examination by José Stemmann of the state of the state of Jordan, an Arab state created by Britain illegally from 78% of the land destined to be the Jewish state. Renamed the Hashemite Kingdom of (Trans)jordan, Jordan is a monarchy with a placebo parliament; a growing economy still dependent on handouts and services from U.S, the Gulf monarchies and Israel; high unemployment and unrest when subsidies are reduced; and restrictions on political openness. The Palestinian Arabs, many of who live in refugee camps, are officially some 30% of the population (50-60%, possibly even 70%, is the more likely figure). They are considered unreliable and have been excluded "from sensitive posts in the army and administration," but a younger group of Palestinians is beginning to be more active in the economy and politics. "... [T]he Islamist movement has played a key role in political life almost since independence," with Jordan's Muslim Brotherhood (IAF) having much influence and Al-Qaida associates becoming more and more active attempting to promote a radical uprising, often using food shortage and price as the issue.

Elliot Jager

  Elliot Jager describes Qatar's survival policy. On the one hand, she throws Israel a bone or two, which Israel politicians inflate all out of proportion as meaning that Qatar is becoming democratic in its outlook. On the other, she plays footsies with what are politely called extremists. She mobilized support for Hamas, when Israel finally went into Gaza to stop Hamas lobbing missiles at Israeli civilians. She helped Hizballah take over Lebanon. She has reportedly pays protection money to al-Qaeda. She reportedly has funneled money to protest leaders in Egypt. She is the home of Al-Jazeera, the pro-Islamist TV network, which has "played a critical role in setting, or codifying, the notion of contemporary pan-Arab unrest." It broadcasts the words of wisdom of al-Qaeda and of Yussuf al-Qaradawi of the Muslim Brotherhood. One reader of the original article commented that "Those who light both ends of a candle will eventually get burnt." So far, Qatar's strategy as deep-pockets silent partner to terrorists seems to be working.


Most analysis of what is happening in Egypt predict that sooner or later control of the country will be in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). This set of essays look at the Muslim Brotherhood and one of its most prominent leaders, Qarawadi. When the MB is compared to Al-Qaeda, the Brotherhood is usually viewed as moderate and reasonable. But as Frank Gaffney says in the essay below, "Al Qaeda and the MB have the same objectives. They differ only in the timing and tactics involved in realizing them."

by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

  Frank Gaffney, Jr. tells us why the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization actively promoting sharia law in countries around the globe, is our enemy. Their tactics differ according to the situation and prevailing issues, but their aim is unswerving: to establish Sharia law globally. They first develop a solid infrastructure and then they become more and more public, while establishing networks with important elements of the local society. When they feel strong enough, they become confrontational, and go all out to seize power.

Jonathan D. Halevi

  The Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is likely to be part of the transitional government. Jonathan Halevi notes that the MB does "defend the democratic process." It hasn't "accepted the principles of Western democracy," but it can exploit the process "to establish an Islamic regime which will then render democracy unnecessary." For the Brotherhood, sharia is the only true democracy. Their platform states that "the rule in [Egypt] must be republican, parliamentary, constitutional and democratic in accordance with the Islamic Sharia," and that "the Sharia ensures liberty for all." The organization does not accept the principle of the separation of church and state, and the Islamic rule they aspire to is, for them, a realization of democracy.

Andrew G. Bostom

  Andrew G. Bostom writes of the return to Cairo of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the prestigious spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). "Images and actions during his appearance ... should have shattered the delusive view that the turmoil leading to President Mubarak's resignation augured the emergence of a modern, democratic Egyptian society devoted to Western conceptions of individual liberty and equality before the law." The opposite is true. If the MB has anything to say about it -- and they likely will in Egypt -- Egypt will regress to a state where women are chattel and everyone follows sharia law. Bostom asks why the media ignores what the MB itself says and why so many Western intellectuals have abandoned objective truth and won't "acknowledge the heinous consequences of the living, corollary Islamic institutions of jihad war, and Jew/infidel hatred."



How do we deal with the terrorists who have no fixed identification? The lack of rules of engagement between the lone terrorist and a regular army often make it possible for a few irregulars to win over a large and disciplined fighting force. It is even harder for an individual -- the potential victim -- who has to deal with hit-and-run guerillas on his own. These essays discuss the issue of self-help, which isn't classic vigilantism but which might in the future become more frequent if states don't or can't or choose not to protect their citizens.

Bernice Lipkin

  Bernice Lipkin explores circumstances -- Somali piracy on the high seas and Arab terrorism in Israel -- where the potential victims are often forced to fend for themselves because the State can not, for one reason or another, fulfill its obligation to defend its citizens. This doesn't prevent the State from discouraging the potential victims from defending themselves effectively.

J. Peter Pham, Ph.D.

  Peter Pham writes that the Somali pirates "have become increasingly emboldened as they operate ever farther from their native littorals for longer periods, scoring greater successes and winning record ransoms." Just recently they murdered four Americans after hijacking their yacht. The countries that patrol the area are not able to do much to prevent this piracy and most of them prefer to pay large ransoms rather than become aggressive. At the same time, ship crews from many countries are restricted by various national and international laws from defending themselves properly.

To-The-Point Cruise Lines

  This article is satire -- it isn't a brochure for a real cruise. In the real world, we are still talking about allowing ships to 'fight back' and defend themselves from pirates on the high seas. We talk about allowing the crew to store adequate firepower but at the same time there is the urge to limit the use of the firepower by forcing the crew to observe all sorts of rules and regulations. This article is an exaggeration of a possibly effective method of wiping out piracy. We might call it "fight forward." in that it takes the fight to the pirates rather than waiting until attacked.


This section deals with Muslim sustained determination to acclimatize their host society to fit their needs and desires. They must occasionally delay showing their true colors. Chesler's essay on Muzzammil Hassa, who beheaded his wife, reminds us he was the model moderate up-to-date Muslim until then. Ohri writes of the way the Muslims in India and Pakistan talk peace but continue to bomb and terrorize Hindus to back up their demands for Indian land. Fjordman's article is a superb summary of what moderate and reform actually mean. Is it wishful thinking on my part that it might wake up an ecumenically-minded rabbi and minister or two?

by Phyllis Chesler

  Two years ago, Muzzammil Hassan, an immigrant from Pakistan and a prominent businessman who was often touted as a model of the moderate, adaptable Muslim, protested his wife's demand for a divorce by murdering her and decapitating her. From the first, savvy observers of the Muslim community such as Dr. M. Zjudi Jasser (see here) noted that the media ignored what was an incredibly dramatic story, allowing apologists to whitewash the role Islam played in conditioning Hassan's behavior. In this essay, Phyllis Chesler also sees Hassan as a model -- of the distorted view that Islamic societies instill: that men should dominate women and women must have no will of their own. Hassan views himself not as a chronic wife-beater turned murderer, but as the victim of his wife's provocation. Similarly, suicide-murderers are only doing what they do because Israel won't give up what Arabs are sure is their property. Hassan has carried over the predominant view in his native land that a man's honor is defiled if his women don't behave properly, so she must be punished for "bringing food late, for talking back or for undertaking forbidden trips." Yet, thanks to Sharia law, the same man can have sex with women he marries by the hour as well as with his multiple wives. Hassan's behavior and his views are not acceptable in our society, no matter how much the media would like to excuse them by placing the blame on environmental factors.

by R. K. Ohri

  After examining the general economic and social consequences of rapid increase in the size of the Muslim community in host countries, in Chapter 8, R.K. Ohri explored the consequences of the Muslim attitude that the only acceptable laws are those conforming to the Koran and Sharia, which are themselves considered immutable. In Chapter 9, Ohri discusses the large number of terrorist attacks in India by Muslims -- many of them Indian Muslims; many trained in Pakistan. Peace talks between India and Pakistan occur but -- in a deal breaker reminiscent of the Arab unwillingness to accept that Israel exists and is a Jewish state -- they will continue to break down unless "Pakistan accepts the Line of Actual Control (the LOC) as the international border between the Indian Kashmir and the Pakistan-occupied Kashmir." As another point of similarity, just as the Arabs are obsessed with destroying Israel, "[t]he Pakistani establishment has a single point agenda: to destabilize, debilitate and balkanize India at any cost."

by Fjordman

  Westerners involved in ecumenism or true believers in multiculturalism will occasionally admit that when a Muslim community feels strong enough -- which often translates into having enough of them in one place -- they come on a bit strong and uncompromising. As example, they decided to pray on the streets. They didn't back down because the traffic is awful enough in NYC and Paris as it is. The streets were closed. Ecumenists suggest that doesn't mean Muslims are fanatics. it's a question of life style. It's the way they are accustomed to interacting in dictatorial regime. Just give them time. In this essay, Fjordman examines two articles of faith held by Western friends, colleagues, aiders, abetters, enablers and paid flunkies of Islam: (1) there are moderate Muslims and (2) reform of Islam is possible and will solve all the problems of blending a belligerent community into Western civilized ways. The first is yet to be experienced, despite all the opportunities "moderate" Muslims have had to speak up. And as a reader said about reform, "Islamic reformation is already underway -- and it's called things like 'Hamas', 'Islamic Jihad', 'Jamaat Islamiya', 'al Qaida', 'Hezbollah', or Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Iran for short."


We'd dedicate this section to the memory of Herb Zweibon, President of Americans for a Secure Israel (AFSI). He was always clear-eyed but willing to try to reason with Israeli officials, whose compass for steering the ship of Israel was the wishful conviction that the Arabs would respond to benevolence. This section urges corrective action to prevent the Ship of State from sinking.

The more Israel tries to appease the world by declaring she is willing to share her small land, the more the world believes the Arabs who assert forcefully they are the rightful owners of the Land of Israel. Because she is willing to compromise, she is harassed by the U.N., Western politicians and much of the global media. She is being encircled by extreme Islam and terrorists. Iran is building a bomb to destroy her. Too many Israeli Arab citizens have thrown in their lot with the Palestinian Arabs. How is the Israeli government handling it? It offers to amputate some of her land and it has redefined the enemy -- it is the patriotic Jewish pioneers, the Jewish citizens who live in Biblical Israel -- Samaria and Judea. (This area is called the West Bank by the ignorant or by those with a pro-Palestinian bias.)

Israel's real enemies are gathering but with the Middle East in flux, her local enemies will likely have their hands full with more personal matters tomorrow. This is certainly not the time for preemptive moves to surrender parts of Israel. If anything, now is the time to assert Israel's legitimate claim to Mandated Palestine and annex Samaria and Judea, the Golan and Gaza.

Helen Freedman

  Herb Zweibon was unique. He didn't cut his words to fit prevailing opinions or the op-eds in the New York Times. He didn't worry that he didn't fit the mold of most Presidents of American Jewish organizations. Thank God! He was polite and friendly but rock solid in his intuitions and his arguments. It is discouraging that he has been proven correct in rejecting the notion that tiny Israel would find peace by allowing parts of her to be cut away, and yet his is still not the attitude of the majority of American Jews, who feel uneasy if they stray too far from the teachings of what passes as liberalism in America. Helen Freedman provides us with a personal portrait of Herb.

by David Isaac

  David Isaac describes precisely how Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is handling the corrosive attacks on Israel." "Netanyahu's answer to the difficult situation? Preemptive surrender." Reacting as a coward against Israel's enemies, as Isaac points out, "Perhaps because Netanyahu is not willing to fight against the erosion of Jewish sovereignty in Judea and Samaria he becomes cruel towards those who do."

by Caroline Glick

  Thanks to the American administration's ineptitude in the Middle East, we've recently seen a humiliation hierarchy among some of the major players, wherein the Palestinian Authority humiliates the Obama administration, which, in turn -- while ignoring the real problems of the region -- makes Israel cower. Caroline Glick suggests a simple way to relieve Israel's distress. Israel doesn't need American's yearly contribution. It's costing her too much politically and is inhibiting the development of some industries. I should think Israel would gain more respect and make much more money charging the USA for her intel and technological contributions to America's safety.


The articles in this section point out some major problems with Israel's ability to make her case, even though she does have truth and the facts on her side. Recent events have underscored her right to her land. They have also shown that Israel is not the core problem in the Middle East. Arab countries are concerned about Iran's bomb building, not Jewish home building.

by Moshe Dann

  This is an important article that describes Israel's flapdoodling attitude towards Judea and Samaria, flipping from encouraging Jewish development of their land, then flopping and encouraging the Arabs to create another Arab state in Biblical Israel. As Moshe Dann asks rhetorically -- in full knowledge that the Territories are Jewish legally by international law, by conquest, by history, by Bible, and by unswerving devotion over the centuries -- "If the areas of settlement in Judea and Samaria don't belong to us, what are we doing there?" Ironically, many of the readers' comments prove that Israel has not told the world in a forthright manner that the Land is hers. They accept without hesitation that only the nouveau people -- the Palestinian Arabs -- have claim to the land. They have no quarrel with a bald misstatement of the Balfour declaration.

Martin Sherman

  The previous essay focused on negating Arab false claims on owning Samaria and Judea. This essay by Martin Sherman addresses the larger issue: the Arabs have the ear of the majority of the press, which uncritically broadcasts the Arab lies and distortions. Moreover, they are protected by an egocentric use of political correctness -- it isn't polite to rebut the stories told by the Po' Palestinians, even if they are either total lies or just distortions and/or half-truths. Sherman rebuts a typical Hanan Ashrawi fantasy, and suggests that -- because Israel has historic and legal truth on its side -- it make the received wisdom authentic by rewriting it "on the basis of historical realities, not political distortions; on the basis of prevailing realities rather than fabricated fantasies; on the basis of events as they actually occurred, not as they are deceitfully contrived. "

by Aryeh Tepper

  Anchored in information in Amnon Lord's books, Aryeh Tepper has written a thoughtful essay about Uri Avnery, one of the leading lights of the extreme leftist Israeli Marxists, who are still influential in the media and in academia. Avnery helped convince Israelis to accept the Oslo Accords, because in doing so, they were supporting human rights. He is of course revered by Israel's enemies and is called a peace activist and humanitarian. In his case, as is common when Marxist praise other Marxists, being called a peace activist and humanitarian translates to being someone who tries with all his being to bring death to Israel, not peace.

by Jonathan Rosenblum

  Jonathan Rosenblum writes that the Wikileaks State Dept emails and al-Jeezeera's release of alleged P.A. documents "have done much to buttress Israel's narrative of the Middle East." They are a windfall for Israel. They confirm that while Western leftists and the American Administration may be obsessed with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the Middle East states are concerned about Iran and her increasing nuclear capability. What a wonderful opportunity to use this information to maybe make a dent in the Arab narrative --- i.e., that Israel is the core problem in the Middle East. And if she'd make peace -- on Arab terms, of course -- the Middle East would magically become stable and have no civil wars and no fights between neighbors. Israel didn't utilize this information.

by Mark Durie

  Mark Durie presents some beliefs and conditioned ways of thinking that make it difficult for us to analyze Islam's structure and objectives clearly. So many of them were designed to make us more tolerant, which is fine when we are trying to gain acceptance for groups that want to participate in our culture but haven't been allowed entry. They become dangerous when they prevent us from recognizing that Islam doesn't want in; it wants to take over.


reviewed by Omer Bartov

  Omer Bartov reviews the published diary maintained by Edmund Kessler, a Polish Jewish attorney who survived the Holocaust. A lesson for our time is how little effort it took for the Nazi conquerors and the local clergy to encourage people to manifest barbaric behavior toward the Jews -- perhaps in part because the populace was already inculcated with a strong prejudice against the Jews. A few of the local gentiles behaved nobly. For the majority, as Bartov writes, "ugly and brutish behavior was triggered by the overwhelming presence of the German occupation and the growing realization that the new rulers were determined to use, abuse, and ultimately murder the Jews. ... the specifics of how, and how quickly, this awareness translates in mob violence are described succinctly and insightfully in Kessler's terrifying text."

by Edwin Black

  We usually think of European anti-Semitism and Islamic anti-Semitism as independent of each other. In recent years, the details of the close coordination between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Hajj Amin al-Husseini and Hitler, who had the mutual desire to kill Jews, have become known. In this article Edwin Black traces the background and history of one of their creations: the Ustasha was a partnership of Bosnian Muslims and Catholic Croatians, who terrorized and murdered Jews and Gypsies in Yugoslavia. They became notorious for their brutality even among the Nazis.

by Rafael Medoff

  Rafael Medoff writes the recollections of three people now living in Jerusalem, who as students in the United States at the beginning of World War 2, participated in trying to fight Britain's disgraceful and illegal attempts to block Jewish refugees from entering Mandated Palestine. They were part of a larger effort by the Bergson group to make America aware of the Holocaust happening in Europe. Just as the media today soft pedals the extent of Islamic destructive infiltration into the U.S.A., Europe, the Middle East and India, so then they barely mentioned the growing number of reports of large scale Nazi murder of Jews. And many American Jews - just as today -- were silent. They reserved their anger for those sounding the alarm.


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

A Blog-Ed page has a quick list of the articles from which you can access any of the articles immediately. To go to the list, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

January 2011 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE
February 2011 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE



What we are talking about in the November-December 2010 issue:
Hoaxes (Lipkin, Glick, Bernstein, Lipkin, Dann, Ha'Ivri, Sharpe)
Steps on the road to adopting Islam's View of the World (Warner, Nirenstein, Phillips)
Anti-Semites from Church and State (Alexander, Bard, Hertz)
Islamic Intolerance is incompatible with Democracy (Ohri, Fjordman, Ibrahim, Greenfield, Simpson)
Prescription for Peace (Katz, Jacobs, Soloway, Isaac, Halevi, Bernstam)
History Section (Shragai, Joffe and Romirowsky)
Readers' Blog-Ed Pages (November, December)


In this Issue, we start by examining hoaxes -- the kind the Muslims play upon the rest of the world, and the ones they inflict on themselves.

There was a science fiction story a half century ago about a culture that worshipped a god-person, the Supreme Being named, if I remember rightly, Garoma -- well, something like that. As the story develops, we learn that his psychiatrist who knows everyone's secrets believes himself the real power behind the throne, while Garoma is just eye candy for the crowds. Shaggy dog past the number of people who believe they are the real power to the one who really does hold the world in his power. As the story ends, Garamo is being paraded down the street, and everyone screams enthusiastically, "Help us, Garoma." -- including the ultimate holder of power.

By analogy, the Arabs and their pro-peace marxist Pals are excellent at creating realistic hoaxes. With the help of the lackey-media, these hold up, at least until someone looks at them logically. Or until someone takes a photo of the directors setting up the hoax.

What is also becoming clear is that apparently it is as easy for the hoaxsters to fool themselves as it is to fool anyone else. They begin to believe their own lies. The world then can not be trusted. Whoever doesn't agree with them must be lying. Whoever denies Arab claims is conspiring against the Arab world. It can't possibly be that they themselves are not credible. This is not a mentality that is attuned to progress or new knowledge. It won't reject ideas that don't stand up to experience. Indeed, the opposite is true. The world and all within it must conform to the notions the Arab know to be true. There is no room for argument.

So it is that what starts out as a mild self-serving lie becomes a self-induced deception. For the lie to be maintained, the environment often needs to be restructured. The hoax is the natural medium to refit the environment to the proper shape, to provide the right context.

HOAXES, STUNTS, SETUPS, MISINTERPRETATIONS, COME IN ALL SIZES of believability. Some assertions have such shock value, their sheer impossibility is ignored. In August 2009, the Swedish journalist Donald Bostom created a blood libel against the Jews out of whole cloth. He claimed some Palestinian Arabs told him how their dead son was taken away by the IDF and returned with large stitches in his midsection. The implication was clear: the Jews were ripping the organs out of innocent terrorists for organ transfer. When you get past the shock value, this is giggle-making. Organs from bullet-riddled terrorists are not suitable for organ transfer. Extracting, preserving and inserting vital organs are tricky procedures; they aren't done under field conditions. What's interesting is that the dead terrorist's relatives initially denied that he was an involuntary organ donor. But after other families took up the charge, they came to claim it as the truth.

Way at the other end of the scale of taking a bizarre interpretation seriously has been the universal reaction to the announcement that the Saudis had captured a Mossad spy -- a vulture. The bird was equipped with a ring with "Tel Aviv University" written on it and a global positioning satellite (GPS) so the Israeli researchers could keep track of their subjects, the birds. Naturally, the Saudis suspected the bird of spying for Israel. Almost everyone treated the story with sarcasm. No one insisted that the Jews come up with evidence the vulture was not a spy. Nor did the Jews volunteer any evidence. It was a pleasant change from the pathetic way Jews explain that, gee whiz, the Temple Mount really does belong to us, honest. Don't ya read the Bible? Who but reactionary Marxists ever doubted it?



by Caroline B. Glick

  In this essay, Caroline Glick describes three recent events where Arabs set up situations that libel Israeli Jews, and Israel's military. By actions such as stoning cars as they drive by, they trap Jews into needing to fight for their lives. Then they photograph just the moment the Jews fight back. Without context, it looks like the Jews are behaving with gratuitous nastiness. In Bil'im, they blamed the death of an on-looker, Jawaher abu Rahmeh, on the tear gas the IDF used on the rioters. It was later discovered the woman was not in the riot. According to her mother, she was some distance away watching it. (click here.) And even if she had been in the thick of things, tear gas is used precisely because it doesn't kill. While these particular accusations unraveled without doing much damage, more often than not, Israel suffers political injury because the rigged situations are certified as legitimate by respected NGOs, many of them Israeli, that will stop at nothing to delegitimize Israel.

by Robert L. Bernstein

  Established as a monitor for human rights around the planet, in the last few years Human Rights Watch (HRW) has focused almost exclusively on Israel, using subjective standards, making unsubstantiated assertions and depending on unreliable sources. Its change in mission became very clear when two facts became known: (1) much of the distorted material that Judge Goldstone used to libel Israel's conduct during the Gaza campaign came from Israeli NGOs such as HRW; and (2) its funding was now coming from foreign governments and the anti-Israel New Israel Fund. This article is an edited version of the lecture, Robert Bernstein, the founder of HRW, delivered as the University of Nebraska November 10, 2010. The Jerusalem Post wrote that Bernstein lacerated "... the organization he had established for moral failures in its treatment of Israel" while simultaneously ignoring virulent and continued violation of human rights by the Arab countries. We include excerpts from an article by Gerald Steinberg on HRW's history.

by Bernice Lipkin

  Practically speaking, the olive is a food, and its oil is used for cooking. But its value as symbol is so very much more. The olive. With the grape, the pomegranate, milk and honey. it constitutes part of the ancient image of Israel. The foods -- one almost needs to express the idea in the archaic form that lends dignity -- that restoreth our souls. The olive has these days become another sort of symbol. The Marxists of the Political Left have contrived to associate it with Arabs, as if only Arabs had olive trees. It helps to give them a historic identity they don't actually have. They claim Jews are stripping and destroying their olive trees -- thereby imparting an extra degree of evil to the Jew, who obviously doesn't have an ounce of sensitivity if he is so disrespectful of the olive tree. Because of its symbolism, the olive tree is a most popular prop in the Arab repetoire of hoaxes.

Israel is definitely Jewish. Even the non-Jewish Jews, when they rebel, they rebel against rabbis, not priests or mullahs. So the normal would be that the majority Jew would be favored over the minority Arab. It ain't so. Not in the courts. Not in the police stations. Not in most of the media. I know it's hard to believe. Ordinary intelligent people assume it is the other way round. They act almost as instinctively as the illiterate neo-Nazi who has never read the New York Times but is sure it is pro-Jewish because its owners are nominally Jewish.

Thanks to the unbridled Israeli court system and its police flunkies, the Arabs can literally get away with murder. And they do. They also exploit the olive tree. They hide behind Jewish olive trees to case out the Jewish town, so later they can sniper-slaughter Jewish women and children. They steal livestock from Jewish farmers, burn Jewish orchards, destroy Jewish crops. They hack olive trees and blame it on the Jews. And they get away with it. The courts, riddled with Marxist idiots, have ruled in their favor.

The pro-Palestinian media -- and this includes most of the media -- takes the word immediately and instinctively of any Arab to anything they assert. And these wily Arabs project their activities on the Jews. They destroy olive trees and claim the Jews have destroyed the trees. Wouldn't you think that when, after the fact, we find 99.9999% of the time that the Jews spoke truthfully and the Arabs lied, just once the outside NGOs and media would hesitate before believing the Arab yet again? Nope. Never happens.

I remember an AFSI trip some years back to Samaria and Judea and Gaza. Our gun-slinging guide said you can always tell the difference between a Jewish olive tree and an Arab one. The Jews coddle their trees and they flourish. The Arab don't succor theirs. They let them fend for themselves. They simply lift the olives from the sturdy but wizened tree, a tree that often doesn't belong to them, when the olives are ripe.

I remember on that same trip, we stopped to watch some arabs picking olives in a grove of trees. They felt no fear. We were Jews, after all. They were confident we wouldn't harm them or insult them or chase them away or demand they prove the trees were theirs to pick. Truthfully, I don't think I'd have the restraint of the Israeli Jews living in Samaria and Judea and the Negev and the Galilee, who are treated as second-class citizens in their own country. If -- and I'm not sure it is -- if it is the case that occasionally they lose their cool and attack their persecutors, I can only wonder: what took them so long.

by Moshe Dann

  Moshe Dann writes about the politics of planting olive trees in Israel to assert legal claim to land. He points out that Arabs "plant olive trees in disputed areas near Jewish communities, often with help from Peace Now and pro-Palestinian NGOs, to check the growth of settlements and provide cover for terrorists who seek to infiltrate and murder." Arab land take overs in the Territories may not be legal but they are upheld by the U.N., which is alway there to condemn any proprietary act by Israel it fears might strengthen Israel's sovereignty over its land. The placement of olive tree is a weapon they yield effectively.

by David Ha'ivri

  Long age, the psalmist wrote of the relationship of Israel and God: "I [am] like a green olive tree in the house of God; I trust in the mercy of God forever and ever." Noah knew the flood was over, when the dove returned bearing an olive branch in its mouth. Much more recently, the pro-Arab non-governmental organizations have attempted to hitch the imagery of the olive tree -- deeply significant to Jews and Christians -- to the Palestinian cause. Aided by some creative grove theatre, they would have us believe that the true owners of the olive trees in Israel and the Territories are the Arabs and that the heartless Jews spend their time harassing the Arabs, who want only to tend to their crops in peace. David Ha'ivri exposes one of the cynical ways the NGOs contribute to the Arab grab of Jewish land.

by Victor Sharpe

  Palestinian Authority chief negotiator Saeb Erakat became a celebrity back in 2002 when, almost singlehandedly, he convinced an admittedly gullible media that the Joos had killed -- maybe 250, maybe 500, possibly thousands of people -- in Jenin. They had buried them in a mass grave so their evil act would remain unknown. The hoax was sloppily created -- no graves were found, nobody was missing -- and the story soon collapsed, although it has became an article of faith with pro-Palestinians that the Jenin population was massacred by the Joos. Some good would have come from Erakat's lies if the Israeli leaders had understood that they needlessly sacrificed over 20 of their soldiers -- who were cautioned not to aim at a terrorist if there was a woman or child in the vicinity. But they seemed not to have learned that kindness to Arab terrorists isn't reciprocated. Victor Sharpe summarizes some of the stories this Sherazade of the Arab Union of Liars has concocted. Amazingly, each of his lies is amplified by the press and then quietly forgotten as facts become available, but he is never ignored. Most recently, a women from the village of Bi'lin is said to have been asphyxiated by tear gas hurled at the Friday afternoon rioters. Though the circumstances are yet to be determined, he was right there to indict Israel for war crimes. Would you negotiate an agreement with this man? The Israelis did -- the infamous Oslo Accords.


This section has three snapshots on the road to accepting Islam at its own assessment: from Warner's article where access to some actual and honest facts will dispel the fog onto an intermediate stage where, as Nirenstein writes, people behave as ostriches. The implications of facts are ignored or taken as amusing trivia -- like the fact that Muhammad is now the most popular name for a boy in many European countries. It's much less disturbing than examining what is happening to them. Melanie Phillips describes the terminal stage, where people in all walks of life have become resistant to reality because they are bonded to the Arab narrative, which portrays the Palestinian Arabs as the victims of the people they murder. And all events are interpreted through a rigid filter that justifies anything the Arabs do because the Jews are demons and their hold on the land of Israel is illegitimate.

by Bill Warner

  Bill Warner cautions us against believing the expert who has been corrupted -- and the Saudis are spending billions to make just such friends. "Such apologists tend to quote a Muslim friend or establishment expert and attack those who criticize Islam." Not useful. Warner suggests going to the sources: to the Koran and Hadith, themselves. Use an translation that doesn't airbrush the original.

by Fiamma Nirenstein

  Somewhere in the middle of the road between the ability to handle the claims of Islam as we do any other investigation to the end of the road, when people are afflicted with a condition where normal investigation is not possible because it is filtered out by the adopted ideology of Islam. there is a middle area when reality is denied or minimized. The facts are there. Their implications are ignored. We minimize the significance of Iran's push for nuclear arms; we obscure the significance of Mohammed being the most popular name for a boy in many countries in Europe. We keep waiting for Syria to do the sensible thing and leave Iran; meantime Syria extends its role as happy little gofer for Iran. Reality is too frightening to deal with. But it can be done; but we need to .look for "new ways to peace, as the old ways are blocked. "

by Melanie Phillips

  Melanie Phillips writes that when it comes to public diplomacy -- hasbara -- "Israel and its defenders have been outclassed and outmanoeuvred in a war of the mind being waged on a battleground it never even acknowledged it was on." By now, the belief that the Palestinians have a just cause --- they are the natives and Israel is illegally occupying their land -- is accepted on all the social, political, religious and economic levels of British society. Islam has been successful in trivializing Israel's concerns and, at the same time, adopting as their own, any parts of the Jewish experience that can be twisted into helping their case; e.g., the Jews didn't suffer a Holocaust, but they are causing one in Gaza. "... history is turned on its head; logic is suspended; and an entirely false narrative of the conflict is now widely accepted as unchallengeable fact, from which fundamental error has been spun a global web of potentially catastrophic false conclusions." As Phillips puts it, "we are dealing with a pathology — to which we nevertheless respond as if it were rational behaviour." Israel continues to appease, when she needs strategies against the various types of Israel bashers and haters -- and the courage to use them.


This section discusses influential bodies that labor hard on behalf of the Arabs. It's long been known Archbishop Tutu is a rabid and vocal anti-Semite, reinforcing the Arab hostility to Israel and to Jews in general. Judging by its behavior, the permanent staff at the State Department is also strongly pro-Arab -- catering to Saudi Arabia and ignoring its support of jihad. This opinion has been bolstered by papers recently declassified. Given that Muslim immigration to Europe threatens to overwhelm the native populations, it is surprising that the European Union (EU) does not see Israel as a strong ally in attempting to keep the Muslims at bay. Instead, the EU is one of the strongest supporters of the Arabs' war on Israel. They provide the Palestinian Arabs with large amounts of money and construct towns for them; they run interference for them in the U.N. and echo their propaganda themes; and they lobby for them in Washington. They criticize every way Israel has sought to counter terrorism, no matter how finely targeted and limited to known terrorists. The EU has become a collegium of Judge Goldstones, whose opinions don't merit respect.

by Edward Alexander

  Israel holds an singular place in Archibishop Tutu's thinking: it sins against the Palestinian arab as once it sinned by helping apartheid in South Africa. In his mind, though not in reality, it was the country that helped the white minority oppress the black majority. Given his drive to boycott Israel, Edward Alexander's essay on Tutu's spiteful rants about Israel is worth pondering. It is clear Tutu is as intent on destroying Israel's economy as he is in showing his hatred of Jews. It is a fact that Israel doesn't practice apartheid but there definitely is a real problem -- the Arabs are trying hard to destroy the Jewish state. I suspect the Archbishop knows the facts but in his Marxist view they don't signify.

by Mitchell Bard

  We've become accustomed to hearing that the mighty USA is at the mercy of the Israel Lobby, but a more realistic assessment is that it is the Arab Lobby that influences governmental policy. It predates the Israel Lobby. It's not grass roots; its members are people of position and clout; they include oil company executives, career diplomats at the State Department, Christian missionaries and educators who from the beginning wanted to "build ties with the Arab world and, following the discovery of oil in the region, to secure access to that resource." [italics added] Their sympathies are a carryover from the days when Britain controlled "Palestine" and aided and abetted the Arabs while disarming the Jews. It will likely continue to be pro-Arab when the power of Arab oil wanes. Mitchell Bard points out that no matter what the views of the elected administration, the United States State Department has traditionally been in tune with the views of the Arabs, particular with the wishes of Saudi Arabia, which has a strong antipathy to a Jewish state in the Middle East. The U.S.A. may have a ideological commitment to promote democracy, but in practice, the State Department runs interference for the Saudis, and this is not necessarily in the best interests of the USA. Saudi Arabia, in addition to its dismal record on human rights is "one of the principal sponsors of jihadists." And the jihadists see the USA as their enemy -- and act on that perception.

by Eli E. Hertz

  Eli E. Hertz demolishes the fancy that the European Union (EU) has taken the high road in the Middle East conflict. As he puts it, "Europe's claim that it can be an even-handed mediator does not hold water. Besides a poor record in solving problems as colonial powers, member states of the EU would make poor facilitators in the Middle East for several reasons, including their dependence on Arab trade and Arab oil." They also seem to believe that by sacrificing Israel, they will save Europe from Arab terrorism and the Arab demographic takeover of Europe. Their strategy is about as likely to work as Chamberlain's sellout of Czechoslovakia saved Europe from Hitler and World War 2.


For many of us, what started as amusing stories of how piggy banks were banned in an English town because Muslims don't eat pork or how Muslim taxi drivers have refused to transport passengers carrying liquor have become less and less amusing. Demanding that woman wear burqas when their pictures are taken for a driver's license was not funny. Muslims have progressed from getting time off every couple of hours for prayers to where they take over streets in major cities for prayers. In small matters and in large matters, there seems to be no stopping point, no time when they are content with the concessions won. And never any sense of shame -- can you image a Jew or a Hindu insisting on building a house of worship at the site demolished by their fellow religionists? They don't seem to get along even with each other. This set of essays ask whether the Islamic drive for supremacy is compatible with Western democracy.

by R. K. Ohri

  In the previous two chapters, R.K. Ohri examined the socio-economic and cultural consequences of the rapid increase in the size of the Muslim community in host countries around the world. The immigrant Muslims invariably rapidly outbreed the natives and invariably demand changes that suit themselves, even if it damages or marginalizes the native population. In Chapter 8, he discourses on the unfortunate fact that unlike other religions, Islam has -- and wants -- no mechanisms to encourage better ways to govern and restructure society or to develop human rights for previously-deprived social groups. The only acceptable laws and social mores are those conforming to the Koran and Sharia, which are themselves considered immutable. Every aspect of a woman's life is controlled by the Koranic view that the male should dominate society and his household. Madrassas teach hatred of non-Muslims and encourages their students to wage war to promote the supremacy of Islam. Islam's goal is "converting every Muslim country into a rigid 'Sharia-based Islamic state'" and converting every non-Muslim country to Islam. And thanks to their oil-wealth, countries like Saudi Arabia have the resources as well as the commitment to carry out these aims.

by Fjordman

  Recently, a suicide bomber, an Iraqi-born Muslim, struck at a shopping mall in downtown Stockholm. Fjordman points out that this contradicts all the reasons we've been given to explain what motivates these murderous acts. Sweden can hardly be accused of favoring Israel. And at home, Sweden favors the Muslim immigrant above its native stock. The best the bomber could come up with was that Sweden, as part of NATO, was in Afghanistan and that some cartoonist had mocked Muhammad -- hardly an explosive matter to a non-Muslim.. Fjordman concludes that Islamists may blame their violence on any handy excuse, but their real intent is to replace democracy with their totalitarian ideology, which preaches Islam uber alles. and believes the personal habits of a crude, ignorant, vicious, egotistical pedophile are the best guide to how we should conduct ourselves. Once we arrive at this summation: "As long as they remain in our countries, they will work to subvert and destroy us. It is quite literally a religious duty for them to do so," the solution becomes obvious.

by Raymond Ibrahim

  Muslim have made it an art form attributing their grotesque ways to those they persecute. As Raymond Ibrahim writes, they project their evil behavior on the Christian Copts of Egypt. He provides us with instructive examples. They are at their vituperative best claiming Israel is occupying Palestinians land, when, truth be known, it occupies land legally and morally and historically belonging to Israel. Inverting the truth, Muslims accuse minority groups in the Middle East of practicing what is well-known as basic Radical Islam.

by Daniel Greenfield

  The title of this article is not hyperbole. As Daniel Greenfield points out it was the marriage of the child Aishe to Mohammed that gave him his first real power base. "In Islam, [child abuse] is an organic part of the religion itself." Given that Mohammed and his activities and behavior are considered the perfect model to be imitated, there doesn't seem to be any way to conform to Islam but disallow child marriage. Similarly, the suicide bombers and snipers who shoot children held in the arms of their parents are in conformity to Mohammed's instructions to his followers. As Greenfield puts it, "Mohammed had a vastly inflated ego completely out of proportion to his actual abilities. And like them, he knew that cunning and ruthlessness would take him further, than righteousness and hard work ever would. He saw his opponents as weak because they were unwilling to do what he did. And that made them easy prey." Our current unwillingness to fight back effectively continues to make the West easy prey.

by Steven Simpson

  When Persia, now known as Iran, was conquered by Muhammed's Arab hoard, many of these Arabs and some already in Persia settled in large part in the Iranian province of Khuzistan. Despite the fact that these Ahwazi Arabs are Arabs and certainly Muslim, they suffer the indignities and massacres inflicted on other Middle Eastern minorities such as the Copts. As Steven Simpson points out, the suffering of these minorities is ignored, while the world squanders its sympathy and good deeds on the "Palestinian" Arabs, who, compared to the poor of the Arab world, live well. The Arabs In Israel and the Territories are not subjected to massacres and terror; in point of fact, it is these Arabs that do the massacring and terrorizing. Why does the world scream when a Palestinian Arab is stopped at a checkpoint, but says nothing when an Ahwazi Arab or a Christian Copt has his throat slit?


It can be said in two words: get real. Stop pretending we can sweet talk into normal, peaceful behavior a bunch of people taught by their holy books and their holy men and scholars that they are destined to reign over the planet; and they must never stop working towards that goal. To change the odds, we first need to change ourselves. We need education, knowledge, new attitudes and firmness of purpose. And we need to figure out how to give up the intruders, not our land. Doesn't seem too much to do when the alternative is oblivion at the hands of a determined group of death cultists aided by Western friends with other reasons for eliminating the Jew.

by Shmuel Katz

  This essay -- a chapter from Shmuel Katz' Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine -- makes the point that the Jews didn't create a homeland in recent times. Israel has been their homeland for thousands of years. They needed to regain it and redeem it. And that too took thousands of years, though during that time, no matter how hard the local conditions and how oppressive the rulers, there were always some Jews living in the Jewish homeland. By the mid-1800s while still under Ottoman rule, the entire region that was to become Mandated Palestine after World War 1 was Darfur-poor, economically a derelict and practically empty of people. The total population -- Jews and non-Jews -- is reasonably estimated at 100,000 people. The millions of Arabs currently in Israel and the territories are mostly 20th century immigrants and their descendents. Katz makes it clear that the "historic ownership [of Palestine] by the Arab people or by a 'Palestinian entity' is a fiction fabricated in our own day." It is about time the Arab propaganda that claims the Palestinians/Arabs are the natives and/or a "Palestinian/Arab nation" who have been dispossessed by the invasion of the Jews is recognized to be the fantasy that it is.

by Charles Jacobs

  Charles Jacobs examines the Jewish reaction to an accusation. Perhaps it's the thousands of years of conditioning in the diaspora where the follow-up to being accused of something, rightly or wrongly, was almost always death or torture, expulsion or heavy taxation. It didn't matter how absurd the accusation. Jews who routinely soaked and salted meat to rid it of blood before they ate it were accused of killing Christian children to use their blood in matzo. And they were killed for it. Whatever the reason, it seems the more outrageous and libelous the accusation, the greater the Jewish need to explain, to justify, to become acutely defensive. As Jacobs reminds us, "Jabotinsky had it perfectly right. 'Every accusation causes among us such a commotion that people unwittingly think, 'why are they so afraid of everything? Apparently their conscience is not clear.'" I think Jacobs is on to something significant. What but our acute concern for being targeted by an accusation -- in this case dual loyalty -- has made most of us timid about insisting Jonathan Pollard is long overdue for release from an abnormally long jailing? Against all precedent, why do our enemies feel they could keep Pollard jailed for an eternity? Why do we always go on the defensive, not the offensive? Why don't we firmly point out that the Land of Israel is ours. Period. Why, instead, do our spokesmen pretend we can't wait for a bunch of murderers to set up house in Biblical Israel. Why don't we understand, as Melanie Phillips has put it, "the animus against Israel can only be understood if it is set in a far wider context. It is part of a wholesale denigration of and onslaught upon the West and its values by the media, progressive intelligentsia and political class." Why do we let a bunch of Marxists and Muslims with hate in their hearts deter us from defending our turf and the culture we share with the West? Why oh why don't we answer the Thomas Friedman-style fools with sarcasm as Prowisor does here. or with some great satire as Caroline Glick does here? Why, when UNESCO decides that the tomb of our ancestor Rachel, wife of Abraham, is really a Arab mosque, why doesn't we send UNESCO a bunch of bananas as we'd do for any ape, instead of attempting to reason with the knowingly unreasonable?

by Alan Soloway

  Dr Alan Soloway uses the controversery surrounding the Ground Zero mosque to provide insight into what's wrong with a 2-state solution that would carve a Palestinian state out of Biblical Israel. The Mosque must be build only at Ground Zero so that it will serve as a sign that the bombing of the World Trade Center was an important step on the road to Islam Triumphant. The same "Jihadist religious political mindset ... will not allow Israel to exist and is resolved to restore Arab Muslim influence, prestige, control and power to their glory of ages past." Dr. Soloway argues from history, international law and "Arab Muslim political theology" that a 2-state solution is not the way to peace but to the destruction of Israel, the destabilization of the Middle East and a weakening of the power of the USA to protect itself from Islamic Jihad.

by David Isaac

  Jewish settlements in Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank) are legal by international law. How could they not be, when that entire area is Jewish by an irrevocable trust created by the same International Authority that created many of the Arab states? Yet, as David Isaac writes, a great deal of the anti-Israel propaganda by the European Union and the American administration inter alia has been focused on claiming that Jewish settlers are fanatics, their settlements illegal. On the other hand, Arab settlements, built on private land not their own -- or even on public land -- are never considered illegal. What's going on is that propagandists want to turn over the land to the Palestinian Arabs, without the problem of having to expel a lot of Jews. And why would the Jews have to leave, when, after all, Arabs are 20% of Israel's population? Well, except for the remnants of ancient Jewish communities, Jews aren't allowed to live in Arab countries. But that's another story.

by Jonathan D. Halevi

  Hard statistics are hard to come by. But In 1948, what would become the new State of Israel (and not including Gaza, Judea and Samaria) had somewhat less or much less (depending on the estimate) than 690,000 to 736,000 permanent Arab residents. (See MidEastWeb.) After the Arab invasion of the new-born State of Israel in May 1948, subtracting the couple of hundred thousand Arabs that remained, and ignoring the artificial inflation due to double ration cards, not reporting the dead, registration of Arabs who'd never been in Israel, and poor Arabs in the Arab host countries -- there were at the very most -- 595,000 refugees, well below the number of Jews who were forced to flee the Arab lands. In August 1948, the U.N. estimated the number of Arab refugees needing help at 330,000. The U.N. now supports around 5 million people, the original refugees and their putative descendants. Jonathan D. Halevi points out the Arabs have locked themselves into a refusal to accept anything but an uncompromised right of return. The creation of a Palestinian state is envisioned as a way station in which to collect Palestinians -- including the refugees residing in the different Arab states -- and get them ready to go back to their old homes in Israel. For those that understand that letting in some or all of this hostile population is a way to destroy Israel -- and think this is a good thing -- give this a thought: After World War Two there were millions and millions of refugees [see above and Yemini, "Addendum."] and most of them were resettled in new places. What if these refugees and their children and their grandchildren and their great grandchildren began retroactively to demand the right of return?

by Michael S. Bernstam

  Michael Bernstam describes Gaza, with its eight UNRWA refugee camps as "a totalitarian paramilitary camp at war with its neighbors and other Palestinians." Typically, refugees are helped over an immediate crises and encouraged to resettle somewhere or other in a timely fashion. In contrast, UNRWA, the agency established in 1949 exclusively for the Arab refugees, has continued to provide generous handouts, medical care, education and social services to the children and grandchildren and great grandchildren of the original refugees. UNRWA, with its complete welfare program for an ever-expanding clientele living in 59 refugee camps scattered over several Arab countries and in the Territories, has thwarted economic development, destroyed opportunities for peace in the Middle East, and created, along the way — both metaphorically and literally — a breeding ground for international terrorism." Keeping these professional refugees on the dole has prevented them from developing a nation-state. It follows that the best way to improve their lot would be to abolish UNRWA.


by Nadav Shragai

  Rachel, our Matriarch, died on the 11th of Heshvan 3,564 years ago and to commemorate her yahrzeit, Jews travel to her grave every year. Nadav Shragai recounts the history of the Kever. Over the centuries. Muslims recognized the tomb was Jewish -- which didn't prevent them from extorting money to allow Jews to visit the tomb and robbing the visitors. Jordan prevented Jewish access during the 19 years it was in control of eastern Jerusalem, Samaria and Judea. But it wasn't until 1996 that the Arabs began to claim the site wasn't Jewish but was a mosque named after a Muslim, Bilal ibn Rabah, who is buried in Damascus. And now they have the jokers at UNESCO agreeing with them.

A TALE OF TWO GALLOWAYS: Notes on the Early History of UNRWA and Zionist Historiography
by Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky

  Structured as a biohistory of the career of a British military colonel during WW2, this essay by Alexander H. Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky is an insightful examination of the early days of UNRWA. This was well before the time that the local arabs who fled Israel when the Arab states invaded were transmogrified into the "Palestinian" people. The authors document the politics and interactions between UNRWA and its wards, during the time the Arab countries openly rejected the care and feeding of the refugees and before the Muslim gained sufficient power to corrupt the mission of the U.N., while creating such monstrosities as the UN Civil Rights Council. The article is particularly pertinent in that Galloway's remarks that UNRWA wasn't helping the Arab refugees was reiterated recently by Andrew Whitely, Director of the UNRWA New York office. He too suffered from an angry bureaucracy.


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

A Blog-Ed page has a quick list of the articles from which you can access any of the articles immediately. To go to the list, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

November 2010 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE
December 2010 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE



What we are talking about in the September-October 2010 issue:

Positive Proposals To Resolve The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict (Lipkins, Shulman, Sherman, Meltzer, Lipkin )
International Acknowledgment of Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish people (Grief, Teitelbaum, Zebulon)
The Unworkable:The Last Four Decades of Peace Babble (Glick, Isaac, Sherman, Sharpe, Dann, Karsh, Silverberg)
Muslims, Moderate and Immoderate (Editorial, McCarthy, Fjordman, Goldberg, Think-Israel Staff, Imani, Ibrahim)
The Muslim Brotherhood in the West (Dann, Emerson, Rubin, Dry Bones, Kilpatrick)
Assymetrical Warfare (Beres, Perdue, Norwitz, Ohri)
Academics and Media that Favor Arabs and Malign Jews (Murphy, Berdichevsky)
History Section (Laskin, Dykes)
Readers' Blog-Ed Pages (September, October)



More and more people have come to realize that creating a Palestinian Arab state from Biblical Israel will go a long way towards destroying Israel. Creating a single state of Arabs and Jews would destroy the only Jewish state in the world even faster. What the three proposals in this section have in common is that they they go beyond simply rejecting the current solutions that are on the table. They make suggestions that may have a better chance of succeeding. Independent of each other, they examine different aspects of the problem.

The Lipkins suggest a 2-state solution, where the state housing the Arabs from the refugee camps and the Arabs from the Territories is located within the Arab land holdings. Seemingly drastic, it is actually an example of a routine 2-stage population transfer, where the first stage occurred in the 1940s and '50s when the Jews were forced to flee from the Arab countries. It suggests that given current political events, the time for establishing such a viable Palestinian State is propitious. It would solve many current and potential problems at one fell swoop. Martin Sherman's essay suggests working with individual Arab families rather than with their political leaders, gifting each family with a "dowry" that would make it attractive to some Muslim country. Richard Shulman takes a stepwise approach to attacking the problem and emphasizes that much of the solution lies in Israel's changing many of the ways it does things. He also identifies factors and concepts that have dominated the peace process but that are mostly irrelevent, immoral or just plain wrong. These should not be considered in a solution.

Any workable plan will need to factor in annexing the Territories as Yoel Meltzer observes. We also reprint "The Case for Population Exchange" of the Jewish and Arab populations, basic reading for a clear understanding of the issues involved. Additional thoughtful suggestions for solving the Palestinian arab problem can be found by searching in the Google box above. For a previous collection of ideas, see here.

by Bernice Sacks Lipkin and Lewis Edward Lipkin;
appendix by Richard H. Shulman

  It would be suicidal for Israel to allow a Palestinian state to be carved out of Biblical Israel, particularly one that would control a major component of her water supply and is capable of shooting missiles everywhere in Israel. But there remains the festering problem of a growing Palestinian refugee population living on cradle-to-coffin debilitating welfare, taught to hate Israel and the West and used as pawns to make claim to Jewish land. The Editors of Think-Israel propose that the Palestinian Arabs -- those from the refugee camps and those residing in the Territories -- be helped to establish a viable state within the land given to the Arabs by the League of Nations when the Ottoman Empire was dissolved. The state would be physically well-separted from Arab population centers and legally independent of the Arab country that previously owned the land. Within their state, the Palestinian Arabs would have complete control of their politics, education, culture and living style. Given recent political developments in the Middle East where Israel's military and technological strength is a major asset, the strengthening of Israel's appreciation of its own religious roots and a growing disbelief in the reliability of supposedly impartial external organizations, this is a propitious time to create such a state.

by Richard H. Shulman

  Richard Shulman's plan for resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict takes into consideration Israeli Arabs as well as the Arabs living in the Territories. The plan lays down a sequence of feasible steps that are primarily Israel's responsibility: beginning with changing Israel's attitude and policy of doing anything and everything for a peace that can't come about under prevailing conditions. Israelis need to start thinking with their heads and start basing their actions on their own interests and their actual experience with the Arabs, not on the wishful thinking or the frank anti-Zionism of ignorant foreign diplomats, politicians and media. Some changes are obvious: favoring the Arabs no matter what the merits of their case in police actions and in the judiciary needs to stop; Arab sedition in Israel and in the Territories is no longer to be tolerated; the Oslo Accords are to be nullified and Jewish areas in the Territories are to be annexed. It is much less clear whether eventually expulsion will be required. Discussions before hand should consider that it would violate Israel's concept of civil rights as well as creating much opposition. On the other hand, "[e]xperience shows that a large Muslim minority is not compatible with majority survival." (See e.g. here and here.) It does not help resolve the conflict for the U.S.A. to pressure Israel to make peace while ignoring islam's goal of destroying Israel. In fact, America herself needs to make changes in how she reacts internally to Muslim demands and infiltration. She needs to recognize that the fight against global Islamic jihad must be fought globally.

by Martin Sherman

  For political reasons, UNRWA has provided the Arab refugees of 1948 and their descendants with life-time welfare when the goal -- as it is for all other refugees -- should have been (re)settling them permanently as soon as possible. To rehabilitate the Arab refugees, Martin Sherman advocates (1) eliminating UNRWA and (2) removing the anti-refugee discrimination in citizenship, employment and housing practiced by the Arab states that currently host the refugee camps. For those Palestinian Arabs living in the Israeli Territories -- Samaria and Judea (the West Bank) and Gaza -- he recommends that Israel and such international donors that wish to participate give them generous financial help to relocate to Muslim countries as individuals, not under the control of their leaders. A 2004 poll indicated over 70% would take such a deal. It would also financially benefit the countries that accept them. It would be cheaper than the enormous military costs to Israel to defend itself from a neighboring Palestinian state and for the international community to relocate a large "refugee" population to this Palestinian state.

by Yoel Meltzer

  Yoel Meltzer writes that most Israeli Jews understand that allowing "another Arab State west of the Jordan river is nothing short of national suicide." Transferring the Arabs would eliminate the effort expended in trying to cope with the security issues and the demographics of the current situation. But if that's not possible, Meltzer urges Israel at least "to take the bold and long-overdue step of formally annexing Judea and Samaria," thus acknowledging that "the land of Israel is a gift given by God to the Jewish people." Annexation will present Israel with a host of problems. Such problems are difficult but solvable. Allowing an Arab state to intrude into Israel is certain death.

by Lewis Lipkin

  This is a reprint of Lewis Lipkin's 2002 article. The introduction read: "Population exchange is not a new idea. Sometimes a complete separation is the only way that two groups unable to live together can get on with their lives. It might be time to complete the separation of the Jews and the Arabs. The Jews were evacuated from Arab countries when Israel was born. Maybe it's time to do the second half of the transfer: move the Palestinian Arabs to Arab countries"


by Howard Grief

  We are reprinting the article from the July-August 2005 Issue. The introduction read: "In this essay, Howard Grief brilliantly fulfills his objective 'to set down in a brief, yet clear and precise manner the legal rights and title of sovereignty of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and Palestine under international law.' This paper should be part of your armamentarium for the next time you are told that Resolution XXX of the U.N. guarantees the rights of the Palestinian Arabs to YYY." You can read more about Israel's right to all of Jerusalem and Biblical Israel (AKA West Bank) by reading Howard Grief's articles such as this one. For other essays on international law that state that biblical Israel is a trust in perpetuity for the Jewish people and can not be given away, read Part I of Yoram Shifftan's "A Legal Challenge." and his essay on Gifting. Read Wallace Brand on Israeli Sovereignty over Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria here. Use the Google box at the top of this page to search on keywords such as Howard Grief, Yoram Shifftan, Ted Belman, legal, mandate and population transfer.

by Joshua Teitelbaum

  Joshua Teitelbaum describes the San Remo Conference of 1920 and its importance in the legal infrastructure underlying the eventual international confirmation of the modern state of Israel as a Jewish state, as a state for the Jewish people. In assigning the area -- some 1% of the Middle East -- that had been part of the Syrian province for some 400 years during the Ottoman rule to the Jews, the participants of the Conference recognized the unbreakable bond between the Jewish people and its ancient roots in the land of Israel. Ironically, considering the present-day ill-considered slandering of Israel by calling it a colonial power, "Jewish self-determination was part of a process that ended up decolonizing the Middle East in an effort that led to Arab as well as Jewish independence.' [emphasis added]

by Michael Zebulon

  Michael Zebulon provides us with a lively exposition of a serious topic: the legality of the Jewish settlements in Samaria and Judea. It is written in the form of a rebuttal to Pres. Obama who has questioned their legitimacy. Zebulon delves deeply into the concept of legitimacy and why the term is not twin to legality This essay provides a well-rounded description of the commitment in international law to the all-member ruling by the League of Nation that what was called Mandated Palestine is in an irrevocable trust for the Jewish people for all time. The trust was given over with no changes or exceptions to the U.N. Read this. It will sharpen your understanding of why settlements are legal. And legitimate.


Has anyone scraped away the Arab fantasies to examine whether there is any substance at the core of their assertions? Has anyone asked why the Palestinians, whose "peoplehood" hasn't reached the half-century mark, are entitled to any land they claim, while the Kurds, a legitimate people, are given no opportunity to control their own lives? Has anyone thought through the consequences of the off-and-on peace offensive, should it -- has v'halila -- be put into motion? Has anyone examined the attitudes of the groups involved? Has anyone considered that maybe a new approach is needed?

by Caroline B. Glick

  The emphasis on stopping Israel from building in Samaria and Judea -- while igoring the large amount of illegal building by the Palestinian arabs -- is motivated by the desire to make Biblical Israel so strongly arab, there will be no problem giving it over to the Arabs. This assumes ahead of time that Israel has no claim to the land. Israel has a strong, indeed indisputable, claim, but this apparently weighs nothing against the current politics dominating the E.U., the U.N., the U.S. Administration -- and the Israeli administration. That the Israeli government has allowed a moratorium on Jewish building is indicative of a general and frightening development. As Caroline Glick tells us, the Jews of Israel are losing their civil rights, not just in Samaria and Judea, but in the Negev, the Galilee, the Golan Heights and Jerusalem -- in any place in Israel that the Arabs assert a flimsy claim. The passive, non-punitive attitude to Arab marauders and arsonists by Israeli politicians, police and courts doesn't encourage the Arabs to adopt a peaceful attitude. It encourages them -- and this includes the Israeli Arabs -- to continue destroying Jewish property, crops, livestock and lives.

by David Isaac

  As if the dreadful consequences of the Oslo Accords weren't enough, David Isaac makes us aware of a little-known fact: that the instigators gave no thought to final outcomes or where such a momentous step would lead. It would seem that little has changed; worrying about ultimates isn't Israel's leadership's forte. Israel prefers to tread water, while its enemy grows stronger. Meantimes, the Arabs are selling the idea of the peace-less creation of a Palestinian arab state, with Jewish stooges such as Yossi Beilin assuring "Israelis that the Arabs, despite all evidence to the contrary, really want peace." David Isaac's website is called because, in each essay, he seamlessly stitches together a current concern with a telling analysis by the prescient Shmuel Katz, who lived through much of the early history of Modern Israel.

by Martin Sherman

  Put together an Israeli Prime Minister who sings about his "commitment to implement a policy that he has [rightly] repeatedly repudiated and ridiculed," a grumpy Palestinian Arab Prime Minister whose term of office has expired but who continues to reject the internationally-authorized Jewish state, a chorus of Hamas terrorists doing their war thing, and an inexperienced, floundering American president who proclaims that things couldn't be sweller and who desperately needs something that can be portrayed as a successful achievement; and you have, as Martin Sherman calls it, theater of the absurd. To add to the humor noire, Abbas, the man with no authority or power, has been stage center, dictating the future characteristics of both the unborn Palestinian state and the flourishing Jewish state, neither one of which does he control. I can't wait for the world's critics to pontificate that it's a wonderful play, but the Israeli ruined it.

by Victor Sharpe

  Victor Sharpe devotes this essay to pointing out that Israel is both the ancient and the modern owner of Israel. It is time to assert herself instead of helping her enemies. He points out that labels count. Their clever choice of terms accounts for some of the success the Arabs and their friends have had swaying the opinion of the world that -- despite, what the Bible, history, geography, morality and international law say -- they have title to Jewish land. The Jewish settlers are cast as the evil embodiment of the rapacious Jews, who have taken so much of the land, leaving the poor victimized Arabs only 99.99% of the Middle East. We Include the text of an article by Stan Goodenough, that reinforces the take-home message: stop using labels that distort reality in favor of Arab claims.

by Moshe Dann

  Moshe Dann describes why the Palestinians -- a very recent people -- were invented. From the beginning, the Arab refugee was useful in putting a sympathy-grabbing face on the Arab grab of Jewish land and their intent to destroy the Jewish state. It was later realized that the refugees could do more. Arafat decreed the "Palestinian People" into instant existence in 1964. And it was in the refugee camps that the concept of Palestinian nationalism was developed. Thanks to the cooperation of the U.N. and much of the western media, the lack of a factual history and geography has not been a hindrance as the Palestinians evolved a "narrative" and inculcated their children that Jerusalem was theirs and the Jews were occupying their land. Now they have not only a cause but a political-military identity that Israel and the Arab countries have to deal with.

by Efraim Karsh

  Professor Efraim Karsh points out that the majority of the Palestinian arabs are indifferent to the "Peace Process" and the majority of the Arabs are indifferent to the welfare of the "Palestinians". This runs counter to the assertion of Arab propagandists that Palestinian Arabs, all other Arabs and Muslims in general are passionately concerned about the "Israeli-Palestinian stalemate [so it] feeds regional anger and despair." Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict, they claim, is the key to peace and stability in the Middle East, perhaps even for the entire planet. In this essay, Karsh again counters fantasy with fact. He provides us with an excellent summary of the modern history of internecine conflict in Middle East, pointing out that the rejection of Israel by the Arabs/Muslims has not been out of concern for the Palestinian arabs.

by Mark Silverberg

  With all their enthusiasm for promoting a peace accord by negotiations based on fair play and fairmindedness, few of the West's politicians have asked themselves whether their simplistic notions are helpful, given the mindset of the Arabs and other Muslims. A honor and shame culture understands murdering a virgin who is raped; it doesn't understand the Western notion of giving up land and power to gain consensus agreement. Concessions we see as contributing to the cause for peace, they view as a sign of weakness. This insightful essay by Mark Silverberg makes clear that attempting to deal with the Muslim on the basis of Judeo-Christian tenets won't work. We need to understand they have a very different way of interpreting what we do. How do we make them understand us? He suggests borrowing a working idea from our history: it is only by inflicting complete defeat on them will we get them to listen. Then we can introduce them to ideas of fairmindedness, equality for woman and the nice idea of dialogue.



Isn't it odd that almost a decade after 9/11 we don't have a specific term for the enemy that declared war on Israel and the West? We know them, even if we haven't yet settled on a name for them. Should we call them islamofascists? Islamocists? Islamic extremists? Muslim freedom fighters? Islamists? Are they a handful of criminals not in touch with their religion? Are they Muslims driven mad by western hostility? Are they Muslims driven to retaliation for something or other perpetrated by Israel and/or the West against Islam or against the founder of Islam or against some Muslims somewhere? Or are they simply ordinary run-of-the mill Muslims conforming to the tenets of their religion, living a life style sanctioned by their religion, with the attitudes instilled by their religion? Is the enemy Islam itself? If so, perhaps we should call it Resurgent Islam, now that Islam has the money to carry out a sustained and well-planned attack to make Islam become the dominant religion world-wide?

Then there's a category we can name readily -- we're just not sure it exists. Define for me, if you will, a moderate muslim? Is it your neighbor who grills hot dogs at his fancy backyard chef station? You don't discuss politics or religion with him -- it would be rude. Sometimes you wonder what would happen if you offend him -- and uneasily stifle that thought. Is it the girl wearing a head scarf and smart jeans, shopping at the mall? Is it, as is claimed, all but a very few, the criminal few we have a problem naming.


by Andrew C. McCarthy

  A notion promoted by many is that Islam is peaceful and there's a few extremists disconnected from their religion that cause all the trouble. At its most simplistic: 911 was caused by just a handful of bad Muslims -- as if it didn't take long-range planning, a huge organization and lots of money to make it happen. That Muslims are not trusted has somehow become our fault. They aren't the intolerant racists. We are. Even respected members of the media peddle this view. In this essay Andrew C. McCarthy rebuts this distortion with some hard facts and analyses. That Islam is indeed totalitarian and is the basis of Muslim violence is confirmed by none other than the grand daddy of Islamic mischief -- the Muslim Brotherhood.

by Fjordman

  This is a tremendously signficant essay by Fjordman, driving home the message that moderate Muslims and immoderate Muslims are not members of two different species. They are more likely the different faces that Muslims don under different conditions. We see the immoderate face when they feel triumphant or at least on the ascendent; they act more temperate when times are against them. Some moderate Muslims may genuinely be decent, civilized and tolerant human beings, but to date there is no moderate Islam. Until the moderate Muslim lobbies his clerics to abrogate the commands to be violent in the Koran and ancillary sacred books, his impact on the thrust of Islam will be nil.

by Steven Goldberg

  We don't often have impressionistic articles -- first-hand subjective essays, carved out painstakingly and over time from personal experiences -- rather than conclusions gained from broad knowledge, quite often, from an examination of the primary sources of others. Steven Goldberg's essay is very much his own thinking, constructed from many personal experiences while working in Arab countries. He emphasizes the lack of symmetry: "Israel may desire peace, Palestine does not." He discusses the influence of Russia and China and the treachery of the Palestinian arabs in Kuwait during the Gulf War. His retort to Islamophobia -- which in practice refers even to the most minimal and/or the most documented complaint against islam -- is: "If Islam could stand on its own merit, it would not need extraordinary protection in order to survive." He has come to see Islam as the furthest thing from a religion of peace. What is most depressing in his analysis is: "The silent majority while they may disagree, because of their lack of objection, basically rubber stamp Islam's bad behavior. "

Material from FreeRepublic Blog; revised by Think-Israel Staff

  As the Free Republic website recalls for us: October 12, 2010 marks the 10th anniversary of the butchering in Ramallah of two Israeli reservists who drove by mistake into Ramallah. Just as 9/11 — which occurred just 11 months later — shocked Americans out of their complacency and ignorance of what global jihad means, the lynching shocked Israelis into a recognition that they were dealing with a folk that had irreconciliable differences. Unfortunately, for too many Israelis, the message didn't sink in. Had it been seen as emblematic of the nature of the enemy, the Gaza expulsion might not have happened; the progressive appeasement policy by Israeli politicians might not have happened; and the minimalist response to terror that strengthened the confidence of Israel's enemies might not have happened. We recall this particular massacre, precisely because it is emblematic of the nature of those who confront Israel by violence.

by Amil Imani

  In a forthright and knowledgeable article from someone who has seen Islam as an insider and finally objectively, Amil Imani tells us precisely what Islam is: "Islam is a comprehensive totalitarian form of slavery. It is the opposite of freedom. Its very name, Islam means submission or surrender. True to its name, Islam strives for nothing short of enslavement of the body of humanity as well as the bondage of its mind. This non-negotiable surrender to Islam requires the individual, as well as the society, to disenfranchise themselves of many of the fundamental and deeply cherished human rights." Read this whenever the sirens of today -- politicians and media -- sing that "Islam is a religion of peace."

by Raymond Ibrahim

  Raymond Ibrahim points out that in the interest of peace perhaps we could accept that a culture may do what it will to its own people as long as it doesn't inflict its ideas on other cultures. The problem with this solution is that Islam, stripped of its many grievances that create so much of the friction between Islam and the West, nevertheless has a core issue that does not allow it to live in harmony with a non-Muslim culture. As Osama bin Laden put it, with reference to jihad: "Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam ... . Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die." Definitely a deal breaker.


by Moshe Dann

  The Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in Egypt in 1928 is noted for long-term planning to inflict Sharia law globally. Using reliable sources, Moshe Dann has written an excellent summary of the machinations of the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly in the U.S.A. We stress reliable because there is currently an active campaign to paint the MB as a benign group of Muslims, just practicing their religion. Come to think of it, that just might be the case: the MB is carrying out the mission Muhammed imposed on his followers.

by Steve Emerson

  The Muslim Brotherhood (MB) has been in business for some 90 years, carefully developing various infrastructures for infiltrating different countries with one goal: to spread sharia law around the globe to make Islam dominant everywhere. As Steve Emerson points out, it collaborated with Nazi German; it gave rise to Hamas; and it calls for the destruction of Israel, America's ally. Given the information available on its tactics and ambitions, isn't it more than peculiar that the current administration in Washington has extended its outreach-to-the-Muslims to MB affiliates, lending legitimacy to organizations actively hostile to the U.S.A. Worse yet, our intelligence agencies such as the FBI haven't sounded the alarm but hide behind the "it's above my pay grade" excuse. Aren't they supposed to root out organizations that plot to subvert our country?

by Barry Rubin

  Barry Rubin does not exaggerate the importance of a recent sermon by the Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide, Muhammad Badi', in which he endorses an anti-American and anti-Zionist Jihad. As Rubin notes, this is a signal to the Muslim Brotherhood's hundreds of thousands of followers that "the Muslim Brotherhood is ready to move from the era of propaganda and base-building to one of revolutionary action." Badi' chides the Muslim and Arab regimes "for disregarding Allah's commandment to wage jihad." Because "America does not champion moral and human values," it "cannot lead humanity, and its wealth will not avail it once Allah has had His say." With Mohammad serving as role model and the Koran as guide book, Badi is certain "Islam is capable of confronting oppression and tyranny, and that the outcome of the confrontation has been predetermined by Allah." The outcome may not be predetermined but it does sound as if we can expect much bloody action in the near future from troops directed by the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization with excellent credentials in planning, organizing and implementing projects that further the imposition of sharia law everywhere.

by William Kilpatrick

  Proponents of building the Ground Zero mosque tend to emphasize the importance of the Second Amendment right of religious freedom. But religious practices are but one aspect of Sharia law, which dictates all aspects of a Muslim's life: his religion, his politics, his friendships, his life style, his treatment of women. And, as William Kilpatrick points out, "U.S.A. law already prohibits the free exercise of Islam" -- in that much of Sharia law is in violation of USA law, which doesn't allow polygamy, child marriage, wife beating, killing people because they are homosexuals, amputating hands and other cruel punishments, killing people for leaving their birth religion, or favoring one group above all others. If, however, stealth jihad by groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood is able to persuade businesses and the educational institutions and the media and the law to make exceptions to allow Sharia practices and/or not to enforce USA law, Muslims could then freely observe their religion. But the rest of us would soon not be able to practice ours.


These essays examine aspects of assymetrical warfare, which usually refers to methods by which a weak military force can control events and immobilize or at least weaken a more powerful but conventional military force. Less familiar is lawfare as practiced by Judge Goldstone and the U.N. Human RIghts Council (UNHRC), where a supposedly respectable group is both judge, jury and arbiter of what evidence is admissible. Goldstone and the UNHRC misused international law against a legitimate state to support terrorists, who played the role of weak innocents, but who do not see themselves as bound by international law. We also suggest that overpopulating a host country to hog the country's welfare resources is using the country's benevolence against itself.

by Louis Reneé Beres

  Louis Beres ranks Iranian nuclearization and the creation of a Palestinian state as top "critical hazards on Israel's strategic horizon." Israel has begun using the modeling methodology known as "Correlation of forces" (COF) in non-traditional ways. But given the complexity of the forces it must consider, Israel will need "much higher levels of grand strategy," even sacrificing on occasion precision for intuitive understanding of critical measures hard to quantify; e.g., "the enemy's consuming dedication to certain presumed religious expectations, his utterly uncompromising strength of will." Israel's enemies may be psychologically stuck in the Seventh Century but it wll take a high order of planning to develop effective strategic solutions for dealing with them. As example, Israel will need both to settle on the image(s) it wishes to project and to develop methods for distinguishing "between authentic enemy irrationality, and pretended enemy irrationality." Beres details some features of a more holistic COF.

by Jon B. Perdue

  We've become all too familiar with asymmetrical warfare where a conventional army is stymied by innocent "children" innocently slinging stones and the concomitant outcry of the media. Jon Perdue writes about other tactics used to trip a superior force, harassing them and blocking them from their supplies but avoiding direct confrontation. The trick is to maintain the annoyance at a level that weakens and distracts the enemy without arousing him to military reaction. Perdue calls this technique Preclusionary Engagement. Working through its proxies -- Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad et al -- Iran has skillfully used "hit and run" tactics in Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan and Venezuela. Perdue includes advice on how to subvert the subversives.

by Trevor S. Norwitz

  This graceful essay by Trevor Norwitz is a brilliant description of Lawfare as practiced by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations, which recently determined to its own satisfaction that Israel's blockade of Gaza was inflicting disproportionate harm to the Gazan civilians. Hence it was illegal for Israel to stop the Gaza Flotilla from entering blockaded waters. Norwitz writes that "[t]he Flotilla Report is the 'Son of Goldstone.' Cut from the same cloth, it is a political manifesto masquerading as a fact-finding report." Personally, I think they have more chutzpah than did Goldstone -- they were willing to produce their laughable report, knowing that people would visualize the photos from the flotilla showing the Flotilla humanitarians armed with knifes and metal clubs attacking the IDF sailors, who came armed with paint guns. But what else can we could expect from a human rights council, whose membership includes China, Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Uganda and Zambia -- countries that are noted for their record of human rights violations. As they say, crocadile courts produce a croc of it.

by R. K. Ohri

  We are serializing R.K. Ohri's book entitled The Long March of Islam. In Chapter 6, he examined the socio-economic and cultural consequences of the rapid increase in the size of the Muslim community in host countries around the world; the immigrant Muslims invariably rapidly outbreed the natives and invariably demand changes that suit themselves, even if it damages or marginalizes the native population. In Chapter 7, he focusses on how these demographic changes play out in India, where Muslims outbreed the other religious groups. Patterns aren't obvious when individual countries are examined separately but they become obvious when Ohri highlights common factors in the civil-religious conflicts in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Lebanon, Nigeria and India. His descriptions of the back-breaking burden of caring for the huge number of illegal aliens from Bangladesh is eerily similar to the drain on the U.S.A providing welfare benefits, health care and education for illegal aliens. Ohri should be read by anyone who believes that giving Muslims more welfare, more space or installing footbaths will satisfy their aggressive disruptions.


by Paul Austin Murphy

  Edward Said proclaimed that the West had exploited the Middle East (ME) and was responsible for its problems but only a Middle Easterner could understand the ME. In doing so he set the tone for the majority of Middle East Studies departments at universities across the country. Paul Austin Murphy suggests Said was actually an old-fashioned Marxist, whose Marxist and Muslim prejudices were thinly based in reality and readily apparent. Nevertheless, he got away with his easily-refutable decrees. He dismissed anti-semitism in Hamas and Hezbollah, when they themselves said their mission was to detroy the Jewish state. Despite the extraordinary hard work the early Zionists themselves put into clearing the unused, dead and forsaken land of Israel and making it live again, he called them colonialists. But then, for Said, Jews could do little that was right. Muslims, who were by definition 'oppressed' were not racist, because an oppressed people can not be racist. Period. End of argument. Looking now at his ideas, stripped of academic jargon and no longer shielded by his power, one wonders how Said's wrong-headed views could be sustained as long as they were.

by Norman Berdichevsky

  Norman Berdichevsky recounts his growing disillusion with the New York Times and BBC, once regarded by many as "the final court of opinion on any subject under the sun." He found they were guilty of "callous omissions and violations of essential journalistic ethics." Berdichevsky recalls some appalling examples of shoddy journalism in Times' stories and attributes them to "the profound arrogance and blind narcissism that has seriously infected both the New York Times and the BBC." Then, too, the Times' fear of being thought "biased in favor of Jewish causes" led to their minimizing the Holocaust and other manifestations of anti-Semitism. (It is ironic that many anti-semitic websites continue to assume the Times is pro-Jewish because the Sulzberger family, its publishers, were nominally Jewish -- clearly, they don't read the paper.) Conversely, the Times argues for extreme tolerance for Muslims, "who may be suspected of either being illegal immigrants or sympathetic to terrorism and Muslim extremism." The BBC is, if anything, even more outlandish and has helped perpetuate the myth that during WW2, King Christian X of Denmark wore the Star of David in sympathy with the Jews of his country.


by David Laskin

  In 1924, 18-year old Chaim Kahanovich came to Israel from Poland. He worked on settlements, married Sonia, raised children, lost a child who was defending his country when Syria invaded Israel -- an ordinary Israeli living through historic events. Many years later David Laskin, the author of this essay, came to Israel, "tracking 25 years of Chaim's life." Laskin also met Chaim's living legacy -- Chaims children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, "all of them living in Israel, all of them living, because two starry-eyed halutzim had left Poland some 80 years before to make a new life in the Holy Land."

by Brett Michael Dykes

  Brett Dykes reviews a new book by Keith Jeffery that includes a shameful episode in Britain's long history of abandonment of its legal obligation to help the Jews create a state from Mandated Palestine. This post-World War 2 plot was to rig bombs in five boats that were getting ready to bring Holocaust survivors from Europe to Israel. As Dykes writes, "One ship was destroyed, two damaged; the explosives were discovered on the other two ships before they were detonated." They also put effort into a campaign of lies, innuendo and misinformation to smear the effort of the Jews to resettle the land of Israel.


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

A Blog-Ed page has a quick list of the articles from which you can access any of the articles immediately. To go to the list, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

September 2010 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE
October 2010 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE



What we are talking about in the July-August 2010 issue:

Editorial: Israel's Exceptionalism
Distorted Morality. Double Standards. Beinart-Style Lies
The Ubiquitous Muslim Brotherhood
The Ground Zero Mosque and Promoting Sharia (McCarthy, Kumar, Sharpe, Ramelah)
Fallout from the Flotilla (Gross, Meir-Levi, Ahmed)
Intellectuals, politicians and NGOs (Sherman, Adams, Beker, Fredman, Sieff,Gilligan, Landes, McQuaid, Suseelan, Rubin, Smith)
Media Anti-semitism (Greenfield, McQuillan)
Destabilzation of the Middle East (Greenwald, Phares, Lerner, Shapira, McKillop)
The Wrong Priority: A New Round of Peace Talks (FSM, Stern, Lademain, Aumann, Simpson, Belman, Grief)
The Right Priority: Countering Sharia and Resurgent Islam (Warner, Miller, Joe Settler, Greenfield, Ohri)
Israeli Society (Berdichevsky, Glick, Yemini)
5th Year Commeration of the Gush Katif Expulsion (Saperstein, Fendel, Vanunu, Dann)
History Section (Pollack, Price, Shragai )
Readers' Blog-Ed Pages (July, August)


If this issue has a theme, it's Israel's exceptionalism. There's the double standard - for Israel, one standard; for all other countries, another.

Or perhaps it's that Israel is held to a higher standard. But, as in producing Hebrew National hotdogs, it's one thing if Israel itself sets its goals high; it's another when the gang-up of the EU and UN and American State Dept sets an unobtainable standard and faults Israel for not meeting it.

And there's the double talk. When triumphalist Muslims want to mark their 9/11 victory over the west, the bray is "Religous Freedom." When Israel want to build for its expanding population on land that is their own, the tune changes.

Pathological joy in death, murder for trivia, wholesale killing of civilians, subjugation of women and minorities, no protection of individualism are so common in Muslim countries, they are ignored. Genocidal Arabs deliberately target Jewish cars, babies held in their parent's arms, children walking to school in the early morning, and the moralists of the West defend these murderers. After all, the Po' Palestinians have so few ways of defending themselves; and no one asks: against what? Let Israelis be forced to defend themselves, as when the IDF sailors finally fought back against the Gaza flotilla's Turkish mercernaries, and it's deemed a war crime.

Why the hostility to Israel? A modern miracle. A celebration of life. An ancient people have redeemed their own land and in developing the modern reincarnation of their state, have made life better for everyone with their creative innovations in science, engineering, medicine and art. But -- putting aside the purchasing of hate propaganda by the Arabs against Israel -- Israel's exceptionalism does contribute to making people uneasy. Israel does things that are just too different. It makes folks suspicious. They start figuring there must be a really dark and nasty reason for what Israel is doing. Who else puts its own soldiers at risk to save the lives of enemy civilians who respond by juryrigging bombs and leading the soldiers to their deaths? What other court system won't allow the destruction of abandonned houses used by Arab snipers to shoot at Jewish cars?? Who else waits years to respond to missiles lobbed at its civilian population? To go from no response to even minimal response -- no wonder the U.N. called it a war crime. It was just too steep a gradient.

What other state wouldn't mention that it is the most legitimate of states -- and owns its land by Biblical promise, by history, by international law, by overcoming invaders in wars it didn't start. Israel knows that the only land it is occupying is its own. It knows that there never was a Arab Palestine. It knows that the "Palestinians" are immigrants; some 95% of them came after 1900. Yet it makes desperate attempts to share the land, as if by giving up what is most dear to it, it will win peace from monomaniacal neighbors whose goal is its destruction. Who else would supply the hostile Arabs in the Territories with food and medicine, water and electricity, especially when the Arabs take pop shots at the men who come to repair the electricity lines? Who else bolsters the throne of a neighboring monarch who shows his gratitude by trashing Israel whenever he can? Who else would continue to provide Jordan with water and security? Jordan is hosting an international conference on chemical sciences -- another area where Israelis are topnotch -- and didn't invite any Israeli speakers. Prominent chemists complained about this discrimination, but the President of the Israel Chemical Society subverted the protest by writing to some thousand chemical society members suggesting they still attend the conference.

Even Israeli Marxists are pecular. The universities are filled with Marxists who advocate that the academics of the world boycott Israeli universities and forgo collaborations with Israeli academics. If their international comrades act on their plea, they will be the ones that suffer.

Years ago during the horrors of the second intifada -- when after a bombing they were scraping exploded brain tissue off pavements and doctors were removing rusty nails coated in rat poison from little Jewish children -- I asked a waitress why Israel didn't just bomb the terrorists and their families. "Oh no, she said, 'we're not like them."

To paraphrase Hillel, if you don't stand up for yourself, who will stand up for you? If you have no self-respect, why shouldn't the world dump on you?


The contrast between the insistence that the Ground Zero Mosque is for peace and brotherhood and the images of Arabs celebrating murder -- from their joyous dancing on 9/11 and now as they celebrate their latest massacre, a drive-past shooting of Jews riding in an automobile -- has sharpened the disparity between the belief in the nobility of the "Palestinian" cause and the reality of their barbaric cult of murder. The pretentiousness of the Gaza flotilla's putative aims versus its cold-blood actual goals is also percolating through people's consciousness.

3,000 Hamas Supporters Celebrate the Cold-Blooded Murder of Four Jews and a Fetus (Additional photos available at VIciousBabushka.)

This set of articles examines some of the new questioning about the morality of not holding the Arabs to any standard of civilization while insisting that however careful Israel is, that's isn't good enough. The initial reference is to the Muslim Brotherhood, the glue that holds all these together: the Mosque promoters; the Flotilla; the Arab-aiders from academia, government, and the media. The many-tentacled Muslim Brotherhood wants to reestablish the supremacy of Islam globally. And it has the patience and resources to have a real chance.

The first set discusses the increasing understanding that the Mosque symbolizes Islamic triumphalism and will become a new center for introducing Sharia law. The next set points to some new thinking inspired by the flotilla fiasco. The next set examines attacks on Israel by those who purport to be objective academics, compassionate humanitarians or fair-minded politicians; and finally we look at routine attacks by the media.


From: Steven Merley, "The Muslim Brotherhood in the United States," Series No 2, Paper No 3, April, 2009, Hudson Institute.
To download the monograph, click here.

The Ground Zero Mosque and Promoting Sharia

by Andrew C. McCarthy

  This morning I listened to a vapid press sitcom on TV discussing why whitebread America has taken an aversion to Islam. Different reasons, none of them having much to do with Islam's own behavior, or with its single-minded mission to convert the whole world to Sharia. The Ft. Hood massacre was done by a crazy, we are told; not a word about Major Nidal Hasan's attendance at a mosque that preached hate or about a military too timid to confront obvious signs of treasonable behavior, All in all, the Press and this administration seem to be the last to know that Americans are concerned with each new manifestation of resurgent Islam because they don't want to be enveloped in sharia law. As Andrew McCarthy makes clear, the politicians have received a forceful push from Newt Gingrich toward having to take a position: are you for or against sharia? That is the question. The only important question. When or if the Press will wean themselves away from their 20th century concerns is anyone's guess.

by Vijay Kumar

  When resistence to the Ground Zero Mosque became vocal, damage control was instituted. The name of the mosque was changed. With no change in architecture the mosque became a cultural center. And the word went out that mosques were necessary for Muslims to practice their religion, just as every other religious group has its type of religious housing. That seems reasonable enough. But as Vijay Kumar demonstrates, the mosque isn't primarily for religious practice. it has had political significance ever since Mohammed, when he conquered Mecca, took over an ancient temple, the Kabah, which had been used by many faiths, and declared it exclusively Muslim. As Kumar points out, "A mosque in the United States is a command and control center of a foreign political and military state that seeks the overthrow of our government, and an Imam in a mosque is a political and military representative of a foreign state that calls for the overthrow of the United States." Islam demands tolerance for itself in host countries but will not tolerate other religions in countries it controls.

by Victor Sharpe

  As Victor Sharpe notes in this essay, both of Judaism's theological children have much to answer for in how, over the centuries, they treated the mother religion. "When not slaughtering each other, they both often turned upon the hapless and stateless Jews, who, for the most part, had no allies and were unable to defend themselves." But today there are two facts of major importance: (1) "... many Christians — not all — have come to the realization that biblical Jewish roots are inextricable from their own and that their faith is fatefully incomplete without an acknowledgment of those roots." and (2) Both daughter religions strive to convert the non-believer but in Islam it is an integral part of the credo — the "Moslem is required to subdue the infidel." To mark a triumphal takeover, Islam inevitably converts what is significant to the infidel into a mosque. There is only one way to read the projected building of the Cordoba mosque. It is "a flagrant insult to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died at the hands of Moslem fanatics and believers"

by Ashraf Ramelah

  The word Copt means Egyptian. The Copts are the "real" Egyptians, the natives. They converted to Christianity sometime in the first century A.D. They predate the Arab invasion, tracing their ancestry back to the days of the pyramids. They are against intermarriage but their numbers have been reduced because of forced conversions to Islam. Today they constitute some 10% of the Egyptian population. Ashraf Ramelah is a Copt. He uses his experience as a Copt to make us understand the danger of allowing the erection of the Ground Zero mosque that is intended by its builders to be a symbol of Islamic triumph. It is not a symbol of shame or contrition; it is not intended to honor the victims or 9/11 or to show ecumenical brotherhood. In Egypt the Copts are subjected to active hostility and fear-inducing brutality by the Muslim clergy and the Egyptian government. Ramelah spells out some of the restrictions forced on the Copts living in Egypt, a relatively secular country as Arab countries go. To prevent Sharia tyranny in America, we should nip the initial attacks — such as the erection of the Ground Zero mosque — in the bud.

Fallout from the Flotilla

by Tom Gross

  The pictures of Gazans living well have gone around the internet. The counter attack is to admit there are a couple of expensive places in Gaza but these say nothing about the acute starvation and wretched poverty in Gaza. So here are some photos from where the ordinary people of Gaza shop. These are notes and photos taken in Gaza this summer. Tom Gross makes the point that there are rich and poor in Gaza as there are everywhere -- but there is not Darfur-level starvation. The ordinary Gazan has teeming markets stock full of foods and the new shopping mall is filled with ordinary people shopping. And for those dedicating their lives to bring cement to Gaza, we hate to break it to you, but they already have a big supply. Just take a look at some of their many buildings. For those who think Gaza is starving, we include a pointer to an article on some undisputed cases of starvation.

by David Meir-Levi

  David Meir-Levi provides us with an excellent summation of the facts about the Mavi Marmara, the Gaza flotilla ship that was outfitted with mercenaries and weaponry and prepped to do battle. In addition, as he points out, Hamas refused to take the rather cruddy "humanitarian" aid and out-of-date medication unless they had control of its distribution and non-distribution. Curiously, it is a bunch of pro-Palestinian academics who deny facts so obvious that even the U.N. has acknowledged them. As Meir-Levi says, "... it is reasonable to ask: why are these professors so obsessed with Israel even as they ignore egregious crimes of other states and non-state actors? This is an important question, because it seems clear that that obsession is what has driven their misleading assessment of the Mavi Marmara attack, and their consequent condemnation of Israel."

by Qanta Ahmed, MD

  Qanta Ahmed is a thoughtful Muslim who quietly contemplates moral issues and doesn't exude hate. This may not mean much when weighed against the number of Arabs who smash the skulls of Jewish babies or the mullahs who preach bizarre sex and approve massacres. She may be invisible among ordinary Muslims who applaud terrorism and hate everyone. But it is good to know that a mind such as Qanta Ahmed's exists. She describes a modern-day (im)morality play in which muslims and media rage at "Israel as monolithic villain devoid of conscience". This obsessive rage is misdirected; Muslims should be examining their own actions and the depravity in the Arab world. But in today's skewed visualization, a handful of deaths on the Gaza flotilla are reason enough to label Israel's blockade a war crime, while the massacre of Muslims by Muslims isn't worth newsprint. She suggests that the hate propelling the Muslims will eventually harm them. But I fear that before that happens, too many other people will suffer.

The immoral lies of intellectuals, politicians and the NGOs who aid and abet the Muslim cause, either because they sympathize with it or because they hate Israel and Judaism.

by Martin Sherman

  Martin Sherman examines Peter Beinart's assertion that "American Jews, especially the younger generation, is turning their backs on Israel." For Beinert, this is praiseworthy, for he sees Israel as "violent and inhuman." Since so many of Beinert's statements are contrary to fact, it is possible he is just ignorant and surprisingly shallow. As example, he portrays the expulsion of the Arab squatters living in Jewish houses and paying no rent as nasty — the Jews were kicked out or killed when Jordan invaded eastern Jerusalem in 1948. He ignores that the real victims — the Jews who want their houses back — have been forced to go through expensive and prolonged lawsuits in Israeli courts that — contrary to what you might assume — make a practice of favoring the Arabs. This is hardly the way to further the reader's understanding of what's going on. In the tradition of other anti-Israel writers, Jew and non-Jew, a pimple on Israel's face is viewed as much more ugly than a pus-filled carbuncle on the face of any other country and the prescription for removing the pimple is to slice off most of Israel's face. Perhaps, as Sherman suggests, Beinart's real problem is not ignorance but malevolence. And if American Jews accept evaluations of Israel such as Beinart's, it is no wonder they become unsympathetic to the Jewish state.

by D.L. Adams

  Leftists Utopians condemn Israel's minimalist military responses while they excuse sustained and ugly aggression by the Arabs, the putative victims of the designated villain, the Jewish state. Topsy has become turvy, and turvy topsy. In this essay, D.L. Adams asks why this is so. Factual ignorance and emotional denial certainly play strong roles. The idealogues of the Left have cast their lot with the 'Palestinian underdog' and just don't hear what the jihadists plainly say, no matter how loudly and how often the Muslims reassure us they plan on destroying Israel as first stage in the conquest of the West in order that the Caliphate be reestablished. Hence. as Adams points out, "American liberalism in its present form is not compatible with Zionism." This has led to pretzelated reasoning to condemn Israel by the ordinary Leftist, which is bad enough. When it comes from Jews -- especially Jews who claim exemption from attack for maligning Israel because their grandparents were Holocaust survivers — it is obscene. To make his case, Adams examines Peter Beinert's distorted and confused bluster, deconstructions that rise above earthly facts and are not to be questioned. As such, they can serve — and this says much about today's academic intellectual — as a crib sheet chock full of authoritative arguments for Leftist anti-zionists, who, with no sense of irony, condemn Jews for supporting the Jewish state instead of giving all their devotion to liberalism's ideology, just as the early Marxists condemned Jews making aliyah to create a particularistic workers' paradise instead of concentrating on global revolution.

by Avi Beker

  Ever read a book or a gang-up of books, proving something you know in your bones is wrong? The arguments dazzle and seem too weighty to push aside. It is only later that you have that 'hey-wait-a-minute' moment, when you notice a gap, an inconsistency, a puzzling omission. This is roughly what has happened to the history of newly-reborn Israel and its 1948 war of survival, when it was attacked by its arab neighbors, intent on destroying the non-Arab state. The story was told accurately at first. Then the New Historians revised the interpretation of these events and announced that the original version was a myth. The issue was not, they declared, Israel's remarkable accomplishment: redeeming Jewish land and constructing a free and democratic Jewish state in a relatively short amount of time. The issue was that through no fault of their own, the local Arabs suffered severely in 1948 and it was all because of what Israel did intentionally. Using the New Historian Benny Morris as both focus and foil, Avi Becker recounts distortions, misinterpretations and down-right lies told by the New Historians. What made these whoppers so pernicious is that Israel was cast as a figure of evil, which needed to atone for its sins. It was put on the defensive in political negotiations. These accusations were eventually used to try to delegitimize Israel. Benny Morris was a key figure in framing the features of the New History; he fashioned a strong base on which others constructed ever more-outlandish interpetations. It is ironic that it would be Morris who later put a stop to this nonsense by supplying the information the New Historians had omitted — namely, the unswerving hatred of the Arab toward other religions and that the Arabs saw the 1948 War as just another battle in their religious Jihad over the centuries to become top dog. Ironic. And tragic. For the truth is just beginning to crack the cement of lies cast around the historic events. It doesn't help that many readers, who were, for their own reasons, so eager to accept the New Historians' lies, will be just as motivated to ignore the truth.

by Asher Fredman

  In this seminal investigation, Asher Fredman asks: how accurate are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in their conclusions when judged by objective standards? The Daily Alert website (9Jul10) describes the study this way: "This monograph analyzes the factual and legal claims of two of the most powerful NGOs, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, regarding the 2009 conflict in Gaza, particularly relating to Israel's use of white phosphorus and UAVs. The analysis demonstrates that many of the factual claims made by the NGOs are contradicted by military sources, weapons experts, and media reports, and their presentation of key aspects of international law is inaccurate or incomplete." As Fredkin notes, "The NGOs may be engaged in 'standard setting' rather than in objective evaluations." Contrary to their public image, many NGOs are heavily politicized, promoting a particular agenda rather than doing the impartial monitoring they claim to do.

by Michelle Sieff

  Michelle Sieff discusses another double standard. She notes that Human Rights groups and other pro-Palestinian groups focus solely on the Laws of War when judging Israel during battle. (Even here, they ignore Arab aggressive behavior or smear it over with pitiful stories of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.) But this is too narrow a context. Israel's behavior is understandable when Hamas' announced goals are "[v]iewed through the lens of the Genocide Convention." For Human Rights groups to ignore Hamas's determined effort at genocide is to endanger their own credibility.

by Andrew Gilligan

  We knew England is half way into the crocodile's mouth. We knew that Hizb-ut-tahrir is a well-organized and formidable organization somewhere to the right of Hamas. It has a rapidly-growing membership in some 40 countries. Its mission is to restore the Caliphate. It advocates killing Jews (that's de rigueur) and any other infidels that thwart its mission. We knew that like the Tablighi Jamaat (See here). it is a start-into-terror organization -- inciting the excitable to brave deeds for Islam, while not, itself, committing terrorist acts. We didn't know that the British Government was pimping for them. Andrew Gilligan reports on Whitehall's defense of Hizb-ut-tahrir.

by Richard Landes

  As Muslims take over London, demanding special treatment, forcing the local communities to conform to their requirements, expanding territory that they alone control and where they determine "dress and behavior codes", it is curious that the English — journalists, academics, jurors — show little overt concern or protest. Instead, they displace their anger on the Jews, perhaps because there is no penalty for baiting Jews, no danger to themselves in demonizing Israel. Conversely they are careful how they behave towards the Muslims and rarely criticize them openly. There is both fear of physical harm and fear of being called islamaphobic by their peers. As Landes notes, "By failing to denounce toxic Muslim communitarianism and instead adopting its shrill discourse of demonization about Jews, Brits feed the monster that devours them." The Jews may be the first victims of the Muslim takeover; they won't be the last.

an interview by Elwood McQuaid

  In this interview, Daniel Pipes comments on several aspects of Muslim global activity: the large and aggressive immigration of Muslims into Europe; Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons; and Arab harrassment of Jews, Christians and non-conformist Muslims. A serious problem is that there is no common ground in interpreting Muslim behavior. Explanations range from the optimistic belief that terrorism is due a few bad guys who are atypical of Islam to the assertion that "Islam itself is the problem. ..., with jihad, honor killings, and the like. Islam is itself evil and problematic." It certainly doesn't encourage Muslims to conform to the mores of their host countries when academics and even governments ignore radical Muslim behavior and, instead, persecute those who fight for Western values.

by Babu Suseelan

  It's an odd couple. Islam with its dysfunctional belief system, its severe punishment of any behavior it considers deviant and its rigid control of all aspects of life has a political liason with Western far-left liberalism, which finds excuses for whatever the Muslims do, despite the fact that in theory liberal ideology espouses non-judgmental acceptance of all sorts of life styles. Babu Suseelan notes that to defend Islam, secular liberals ignore gruesome murders by Muslims, Islamic terrorism and the Koranic basis of that terrorism, even though they themselves would be at risk in an Islamic society. It's the wrong strategy for ensuring our society stays democratic.

by Barry Rubin

  Barry Rubin makes a strong case that "... nowadays, the most common way of dealing with radicalism, repression, terrorism, and such things in the Third World is to blame it on democratic states so often victimized by such issues." Rubin points out this view ignores the reality: no matter how conciliatory Israel and the West are, "incitement and indoctrination will continue at the same level from those who hate Israel because it exists." To blame the West is actually to patronize the other side. It implies we believe the Muslim world "is merely a blank screen or mirror, reflecting back what we do." It implies that the other side is incapable of setting its own goals. Muslims are often brutally and viciously evil because of their culture and upbringing. They need to change their world view. We don't need to accept responsibility for it.

by Lee Smith

  Lee Smith inquires why so many Western intellectuals admire terrorist organizations. The 'he loved his mother' defense is often used: Hezbollah and Hamas provide social services; Mullah Fadlalah was sort of pro-feminist, so let's forget he loved suicide-bombers and hated Israel. What is worrisome is not just that they despise Israel but that their ideas could go mainstream. As Smith notes, "all the massive and popular evil of the last century started among a small ideological elite." Their attitude is surprising given that intellectuals provided much of the manpower of the early settlers. Hebrew owes its ability to deal with the modern world because an intellectual created new labels and definitions from it. The miracle of rebirth of the Jewish nation-state has grandeur, even if it isn't the violent, gothic, irrational, swashbuckling sort the intellectuals appear to crave. Lee Smith suggests that what these Western intellectuals really hate isn't Israel; it's themselves.

Media anti-semitism

by Daniel Greenfield

  Daniel Greenfield explains how the many in the media justify anti-semitism, despite the fact that the Arabs are the ones waging the war against Israel: "by linking Islamic terrorism to some form of Israeli provocation, and from there to the support for Israel by American Jews — the same media which would commit seppuku rather than blame Muslims for Islamic terrorism, instead blames Jews for Islamic terrorism." The amazing thing is that this brain-dead logic works, as it has in previous periods of anti-semitic media attack. We can't have the Arabs humiliated — the poor dears were terribly frustrated when they wanted to kill off the new-born state of Israel and couldn't hack it. Curious, the fact that the Jews had a kingdom in the ME in ancient time — that's too long ago. The fact that in the last 60 years, the Jews have fought back the Arab invaders and taken back land that was theirs anyways by international law is unacceptable because conquest in modern times is unacceptable. The Arabs came and conquered the land in the 7th Century A.D. — ah, that's just right. "The media's Anti-Semitic hate machine does for the far left, what Der Sturmer once did for the far right. It makes their hatred and bigotry mainstream."

by Karin McQuillan

  It's pointless urging the ignorant to get the facts when their resources are tainted from the getgo. We've discovered MacMillan's encyclopedia is unreliable. Wikipedia is not actually acceptable as a certified source, but it has the advantage of being free, so it is popular. But, as the saying goes, there really aren't any free lunches. The cost is that the unscrupulous can as easily write the "facts" as the conscientous and unbiased. And civility isn't a requirement. This is fertile ground for pro-palestinians with a political agenda and little concern for accuracy. Karin McQuillan shares with us her personal experience attempting to insert her very accurate article recounting how the New York Times handled news of the Holocaust during World War 2 so badly that one can only call it willful negligance, if not outright cooperation with the Nazi killing machine. They knew about the camps, the killings, the horrors. They barely wrote of it as news or editorialized it. McQuillan discovered her article was not considered worthy of inclusion in Wiki by some very hostile editors. As one reader commented, "so basically Wikipedia functions like the UN."


It is the announced policy of the American administration to downplay independently promoting democracy and individualism by military means. In fact, in matters that affect the world, we are to become one among a group of equals, all involved in making global decisions. It apparently has not occured to President Obama that we are not just abdicating protecting democracy elsewhere, but that we are exposing ourselves to increased aggression by triumphant Islam. Speaking kind and peaceful words to a mentality that understands only a binary of topdog and underdog doesn't encouraging them to leave us alone. We encourage them to make us minor players in their new world order.

by Abe Greenwald

  As Iran increases its power, reaping the rewards of years of physical and verbal attack, the American president advocates reducing use of military force and becoming one among many who in concert share power, make decisions and maintain order. Undaunted by the inadequacies shown whenever the U.N. has had political responsibilities such as monitoring Iran's nuclear power, he has become a proponent of what Abe Greenwald terms soft power, where we will fight brutal aggression with polite debate and sluggish response. Iran's use of its own children to explode mines in the Iraq-Iran war in the 1980s should give us some idea of how determined Iran is to gain power and promulgate its ideology, no matter what the cost. As Greenwald says: "The American idea has allowed the American people to build a nation of unparalleled military might and served as a beacon for those in far-off lands who 'want what we want.' For those who want something else, the idea is anathema. They will not be converted by soft power. Instead, they will take advantage of its softness for their own malignant ends."

by Walid Phares

  Walid Phares presents us with a full and frightening picture of Iran's expanding global reach, a process that has been going on for many years by different means: weapons distribution, developing terrorist groups such as Hezbollah, and weaving a network of new political friendships. It's more deadly than al-Qaeda, yet the American administration, while correctly treating al-Qaeda as an enemy, is considering making friends with Iran. As Phares writes, "From a U.S. counterterrorism perspective, the threats posed by Iran, Hezbollah, and its global terrorist network are considerable. But the addition of nuclear weapons into this global network of Khomeinists may well prove as dangerous if not more so than nuclear weapons in the hands of al-Qaeda."

by Barbara Lerner

  Since the Turkish P.M.Recep Tayyip Erdogan took power in 2002, his AKP party has been turning Turkey from a secular society into an anti-Western Islamic state, whose ambition is to become the leader of the Islamic world. Nevertheless, the EU and the American administration have the fantasy that the Turkish military — Turkey's strongest proponent of secularism — is the threat to the West, not the AKP. Western leadership considers the new Turkey neo-Ottoman. Barbara Lerner demolishes this notion, pointing out that the AKP has adopted the standard Islamic cliches for showing animosity to the West and Israel and is encouraging the Turks to adopt a more uniform Islamic way of life, one more in conformity with the general hate-filled Islamic ideology pervasive in the Middle East. In contrast, under the Ottomans, providing the subject people — Muslim, Christian, Jew -- paid the required tribute, they pretty much governed their own communities. This led to multiple patterns of governance, multiple ways to express the various cultures, different living conditions and some opportunity for upward mobility. Turkey was relatively open under the Ottomans and in this way the Ottomans served as a model for Atatürk, not Erdogan.

by Shimon Shapira

  Shimon Shapira provides us with an analytical perspective on the life of the recently-deceased Shiite religious leader, Sayyed Muhammed Hussein Fadlallah. He is praised in the West as a peaceful scholar, moral and progressive. In actuality, "[h]e played a leading role in the increasing Islamic radicalization of Lebanese Shiites and laid the foundations for Hizbullah's ideology of violent struggle against the West and Israel." True, he did speak out against wife-beating and rejected the authority of Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on religious grounds, but these hardly nullify his commitment to jihad against Israel and the West and his condonning the murder of Jewish youngsters massacred as they sat studying in their Yeshiva. He was both dedicated and persuasive doing psych-ops among the Shi'ites in Southern Lebanon on behalf of Iran-owned Hizbollah. Without irony, we can say he was as peaceful as his religion; the word "peaceful" no more fitted him than it fits his religion.

by Andrew McKillop

  There's little argument that it is important to find alternative sources of energy to reduce dependency on fossil fuel, particularly when the major suppliers are the unstable theocracies of the Middle East -- an unstable part of the world. From that point of view, nuclear energy has many advantages. And indeed non-military nuclear reactors are beginning to proliferate. Andrew McKillop explores some of the less pleasant possibilities that deserve serious thought before we commit to an extreme makeover. What happens if a reactor is attacked with conventional weapons during a convential war? How are nuclear products maintained and stored? What about the interdependence of civil and military nuclear installations? Given the finite amount of initial material, the solution is usually to advocate building Fast Breeder Reactors, which can create more fuel than is consumed in the process of making the fuel. But this creates another set of problems. As the waste plutonium accumulates, it becomes harder to keep it safe and out of the hands of terrorists; and it is increasingly susceptible to outside attack. How do we define national security under these new conditions?


As the Arab Middle East grows increasingly divided by incompatible ideologies and civil wars, the solution by the American administration is to dredge up another peace conference on how to squeeze two incompatible groups on the same tiny bit of land. If it succeeds at all, it will be at the cost of compromising Israel's security, weakening American's only ally in the Middle East. This set of articles reminds us of some basic facts that are important for the negotiations.

by Editor, Family Security Matters

  Washington is again taking another shot at peace between Arabs and Jews. The editor of Family Security Matters recalls previous attempts at brokering a deal and reminds us that it is hard to find reasonable solutions in a setting of religious or racial conflict. This is particularly true this round, given that the split between the more religious Hamas and the more secular Fatah has deepened, and their life styles have grown increasingly different. They both, however, continue to share the same objective: destroy Israel. The maps in the article are of additional interest. They show how the land that was allocated to a Jewish state has been nibbled away over the years while Israel vainly pursues peace with her neighbors.

by Sol Stern

  Why are the Arab refugees different from all other refugees? Why do all refugees have one U.N. agency (UNHCR) to help them survive the crisis and resettle them after a brief time — and these Arab refugees have their own dedicated U.N. agency (UNRWA) that has fed, educated and medicated them and their descendents and discouraged resettlement? Why have all other refugees fled from countries that include all the religions but Jewish — and the Arab refugees are the only ones that ran from the Jewish state? Is the explanation that these Arab refugees (now declared to be the Palestinian people) are the only weapon Islam has to try to deny the Jews their homeland? Is that why — compared to true refugees — they live high off the hog (oops, make that lamb) not just in the refugee camps scattered in the Arab countries but in Gaza and the West Bank, foot soldiers in a campaign conducted by a wide number of disparate groups that can not admit in their politically-correct milieu that they hate Jews. In this essay, Sol Stern discusses the Nakba — the Ur-legend that bolsters the fantasy that the innocent Palestinians were forceably cast out from their garden of Eden into wretchedness by that foreign force, (twirl the mustache, here) international Zionism.

by Paul Lademain

  This essay by Paul Lademain could have been entitled: how to grow a spine — advice for Israeli diplomats. In the next round of that interminable game called 'Let's make peace' OR 'Chop another piece out of Israel', he suggests putting Israel's interests first and worrying about Israelis instead of wanting to show an indifferent world how cooperative Israel can be. I find it hard to believe that Israel, which by international law holds Samaria and Judea in trust for all Jews, allows itself to be put into a position where it is negotiating the future of Biblical Israel (Samaria and Judea). And to make this a real farce, the term of office for their single peace partner, Abbas, expired early in 2009; he isn't legally in office any more. He doesn't speak for Hamas. He doesn't control Fatah, which runs the P.A. So who does he represent? Why are his demands taken seriously? Why are the demands of that phony people, the Palestinians, taken seriously?

by Prof. Yisrael Aumann

  Professor Yisrael Aumann applies game theory to how to negotiate with Arabs. In the Blackmailer's Paradox, it is the side that doesn't flinch, that makes unreasonable demands and doesn't compromise, that walks home with the goodies. To date the Arabs have played the game better, convincing Israel to be the one that must compromise. Aumann suggests some necessary changes in Israel's negotiating stance. Of course in real life, the problem is more complex. Negotiation implies a willingness to compromise. Unfortunately, the Arabs aren't just unreasonable — the goal of Islam's leaders is to destroy Israel, no matter what the costs. But Aumann is certainly right that the Israelis need some street smarts.

by Steven Simpson

  Nowadays many a propagandist talks about Palestine as if such a sovereign political entity exists anywhere except in the fancy-filled illogic of Jew-haters. It doesn't exist. What's more — it never did. The fallback position of these Jew-haters when forced to admit the facts is: but the land belongs to the natives that were driven out or marginalized when Israel became a state. Again, this is wrong. Some 90-95% of these natives started coming into the land after the Jews and the Brits started created economic opportunities. Steven Simpson provides us with an excellent history of the development of the "Palestine" myth, which has become one of the more important ways to attack the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Unlike Palestine, the legitimacy of Israel is warranted by history, morality, international law and the rules of conquest.

by Ted Belman

  As Ted Belman writes, "The pro-Palestinian propaganda machine has succeeded in stigmatizing the Israeli occupation and the settlements. Time and again we hear about the 'brutal occupation' and the 'illegal settlements'. We rarely hear the truth in opposition to these lies." He provides us with a clear statement of the facts. (Additional discussions can be found by googling for "Yoran Shifftan" "Howard Grief" "Wallace Brand" in Think-Israel.) To the fact that the land is Jewish by international law -- meaning that the U.N. is supposed to be helping the Jewish settlements to expand -- add the fact that some 95% of the supposed indigenous "Palestinians" came in after 1900, and it becomes Ph.D. thesis-level puzzlement how the Arabs and Arab-aiders have managed to make everyone believe lies that invert the truth.

by Howard Grief

  Howard Grief asks "what would happen if, instead of incorporation or annexation, the Israeli Government decides to abandon or cede Judea, Samaria to the Arabs as indicated by the Road Map Peace Plan and the Two-State Solution." He concludes the Jewish residents would be well within their rights "to take the necessary steps to govern themselves in an independent State of Judea and Samaria."


Each issue we explore ways and means of counterattacking Islam on some of the many fronts on which it is advancing. In this issue, we collected some more information that is fundamental to understanding what we are up against.

by Bill Warner

  In the May-June 2010 issue, we presented the first three chapters of Bill Warner's Sharia Law for Non-Muslims. The books is short, understandable, well-organized and clarifies important issues. It is good to have available to counter the incomplete information promulgated by many Islamic sources and sources that have accepted Arab money. For example, when you are told that sharia banking is fine because some of its profits go to charity, check with Warner's book. You will find that the statement is true, but a Muslim is forbidden to spend any of it on a Kafir. A Kafir is anyone who is not a Muslim. When the text speaks well of Jews or Christians, check whether it is a earlier verse or a later verse. Later verses nullify earlier verses. The entire book is now available.

by John Miller

  The reduction of the traditional authority of the Church and the scientist, the attraction of western academia fo Marxism and environmentalism, the catering to the public's desire for simple and comforting slogans to understand a society that was increasingly complex, "the unintended consequences of well-meaning democratic policy" and Russia's continued desire even after the collapse of the Soviet Union for a place at the table of power — these all lay the groundwork in which Islamic fundamentalist terrorism could thrive. John Miller describes some early history — the fighting, the rise of the Taliban, the adherence to strict Sharia law and the changing loyalties in Afghanistan and Pakistan — which shaped the development of the current global jihad against the west. The 1980's war in Afghanistan helped mold the charismatic Osama Bin-Ladin and by the 1990s, "Al Qaeda had declared war on the US and Israel and by extension, Western society." The first bombing of the World Trade Center was in 1993. And there's no end in sight.

by Joe Settler

  As Joe Settler asks. "With the exception of Iran (established 1935, but was previously Persia) and Egypt, what Arab state even existed as an identifiably unique entity 100 years ago? None. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, were all part of the Ottoman Empire, with local names but they were not sovereign entities. They were made states by the same authority -- the League of Nations -- that authorized the State of Israel. "Until then, they were just a bunch of different clans and tribes under the fist of ever-changing rulers, often external ones, with no real individually unique national identity beyond Islam and Arabia." Hamas and Fatah have the same desire to replace Israel by an Arab state. The battles between them are as battles have been in the Middle East for hundreds of years -- clan wars for control and loot.

by Daniel Greenfield

  Daniel Greenfield's essay advises Israel on improving its relations with a currently-hostile media. He suggests copying Arab terrorist tactics, such as banning all reporters who refuse to write favorably about them -- the reporters will figure out rationalizations when their own jobs are on the line. Currently, Israel suffers because it kills only when it can no longer avoid killing -- and damage is minimized. It forgets that man bites dog is news, dog bites man isn't. So if Israel were to make killing as commonplace as the Arabs do, their press would improve. Israel's publicity also suffers because Israelis don't look like victims should. They should take a lesson from the Arabs, who may have fancy houses and cars, but they wear smattahs, have picturesque garbage and lots of flies. Even worse, Israelis aren't inclined to blame the world for whatever goes wrong. How do they expect the press to like them? Come to think of it, when the Government mismanaged the resettlement of the Jews expelled from their homes in Gaza, why didn't they apply to the U.N. for refugee status and lots of cash? Greenfield calls this essay satire; I call it insightful.

by R.K. Ohri

  We are serializing R.K. Ohri's book entitled The Long March of Islam. In Chapter 6, he examines the importance of demography in promoting Islamic and jihadi ideology. The large growth of the Muslim population -- natural and by conversion -- has given Islam the power to force a high rate of population displacement, instability in many countries and marginalization of the native population, as in Lebanon. The Muslim birthrate is increasing while European, Russian and even Asian rates decrease. The decline of the indigenous populations has economic and defense consequences -- lowered production of goods and services; less defence preparedness; and mass migration of foreign groups into the sparely populated areas. The social consequences of the rapid change in the size of a Muslim community from minority to majority status by legal/illegal entry and natural growth are tremendous, with the indigenous population losing its ability to practice its own cultural values and life style, while sharia law is enforced. Eventually, "...a sizeable increase in the proportion of Muslims in any country or region leads to a loud clamour, often culminating in a violent struggle, for a separate homeland by dividing that nation, even before Muslims attain the near majority status."


These essays begin with Israel's current demographic structure. In terms of ideology, the left and far left, though reduced in size, still control the administration, news media, academia and the army. The other essays look at cracks in the power structure in the government and in academia.

by Norman Berdichevsky

  This seemingly simple essay condenses a large amount of information on the demographic characteristics of Israeli society. Norman Berdichevsky provides a framework for the interactions and history of some of the major components of Israeli society. He tracks the ongoing integration of the groups — the "Zionist ideal of Kibbutz uMizug haGaluyot (Ingathering and Mixing of the Exiles)" He points out that much of the bad-mouthing of Israel comes from Marxists, "at a loss to explain the survival of the Jewish people and their reconstitution as a nation." According to Marxist doctrine, this wasn't supposed to happen. More generally, national differences everywhere were supposed to disappear, and a working class with solidly working-class concerns emerge. Israel's non-conformity to theory apparently is particularly galling.

by Caroline Glick

  In a recent article Angelo Codevilla pointed out that America's elitist ruling class — politicians, bureaucrats and the policy establishment — thinks much the same despite surface differences in politics and is committed to gaining still more power. It doesn't much like the rest of America, which prefers smaller government and more individualism. In this essay Caroline Glick applies Codevilla's thesis to the ruling class in Israel, which perverts the will of the majority on behalf of "world opinion" and sometimes in actual collusion with foreign governments. Some have committed treason, as in the recent example where a trio of far left ex-IDF officers conspired with Obama's agent so that USA could know and have arguments ready to counter Netanyahu's arguments. They "and their leader Yossi Beilin are always working with the Americans and Europeans to force Israel to maintain allegiance to the failed land for peace paradigm." Israel has little margin for error. It is a small country surrounded by hostile neighbors that have the support of the U.N., the E.U. and the American administration. Hence, the mischief-making of this unpatriotic internal elite leadership could have dire consequences.

by Ben Dror Yemini

  Several Israeli universities -- Ben Gurion U. is a particularly egregious example -- have been notorious for years for having a large number of professors who enforced Marxist ideology, allowed no dissenting opinions and encouraged no reading in alternative points of view. There was an obvious pattern that conforming to Marxist ideology was necessary for career advancement. Some of what was taught goes beyond even extremist criticism of the state into sedition, denying Israel's right to exist. Information they provided their classes was incomplete and designed to appear to confirm the professor's ideology --- advocating the elimination of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state. Recently, the matter came to a head. Conservative students revolted against this intimidation and enforced uniformity; they demanded intellectual pluralism and freedom of expression. Organizations that monitored dictatorial anti-Zionism in the universities were given a hearing. The upshot of course was that the professors that had muzzled criticism of their opinions started shouting that they were entitled to complete freedom of expression and were not to be criticized. Ben Dror Yemini provides a picture of the situation that still exists, particularly in the soft sciences.


The summer of 2005 was a disaster, when Israel shot itself in the head. It expelled the Jewish pioneers from Gaza. It left behind greenhouses, which the Arabs vandalized; it left behind buildings which the Arabs destroyed or used to train others in the art of terror. It left a group of Arabs who had made a living working for the Jews to the mercies of a thugocracy. It exposed more of Israel to more attacks by the arabs. It made the arabs more confident that they would prevail. It demoralized a productive group of Jews that had made innovations in growing organic crops and was turning a wasteland into a garden. It turned Israeli citizens into refugees in their own land. GIven the Government's incompetence and lack of resources for resettling these 10,000 citizens, one wonders at its blind optimism in even considering the insane idea of kicking out another 250,000 to 500,000 Jews from their established homes and businesses, schools and synagogues, in Samaria and Judea. How can they even consider giving control of Israel's drinking water to the Arabs, who have already mucked up the Gaza aquifer? The only bright spot is that the Gaza expulsion was so clearly stupid, it did convince some Israelis that parting with Jewish land is not the way to peace.

by Rachel Saperstein

  These two essays by Rachel Saperstein could have been entitled A Tragedy In Two Simultaneous Acts. Five years after the Government unilaterally took it upon itself to kick the Jews out of their homes in Gush Katif, Gaza, many of these once productive Israelis have been reduced to poverty. They have been traumatized. They are emotionally scarred; they have health problems and are depressed. But some, slowly, and with little help from a government that is more interested in the impression it makes "on the world", they are starting to rebuild permanent communities. The other essay points out the effect of the "Disengagement" on the Gazan arabs, once employed productively in the Jewish greenhouses and metal works, in the building trades and in factories. They are under Hamas' rule, used as human shields and deprived of human dignity.

by Hillel Fendel

  August 15, 2010 marks 5 years since the expulsion. In this article, Hillel Fendel presents us with an brief summary of the history of Gush Katif and the fate of the Jews of Gush Katif who were expelled from their homes and farms. The Government's stated reasons for the withdrawal were to pave the way to peace, to inprove the PA's economy, to not be responsible for the Gaza arab population and to gain international appreciation. Instead, Gaza has become a terrorist state. It does have an enormous budget, but most of this comes from outside charitable sources such as the EU and the American Administration. Israel is still saddled with supplying Gaza. It has demoralized some of its most patriotic and energetic citizens, lost the substantial income that came from the export of Gazan vegetables and flowers, spent a huge amount of money to uproot the Jews and done very little to resettle them permanently. In sum, this enterprise has been a disaster. Or as the recent Commission of Inquiry into the rehabilitation of the evacuees put it: "The state failed, and its failure was absolute and abysmal."

by Dror Vanunu

  This is the more detailed and original analysis of the consequences of the Gaza expulsion on the Jews who were expelled, and the impact the disengagement had on Israel itself.

by Moshe Dann

  In this essay, Moshe Dann expresses the emotions that the expulsion from Gaza aroused and still arouses. As Dann writes, "It caused enormous physical, psychological, social, cultural, military and strategic damage to the entire nation — and it still does. Like an ecological disaster, its foulness still seeps through our foundations, and continues to poison us." Perhaps the most awful fact is that Israel did it to itself. As David Wilder of Hebron said of this destruction of Gush Katif: "...we experienced a Churban, a destruction, an expulsion. Not implemented by the Greeks or the Romans or any foreign power; rather by our own people; an act voted on in the Knesset, initiated by the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, approved by the national Supreme Court and carried out by Jewish soldiers and police."


Two stories from the First World War and one about an ancient Jewish synagogue the Arabs covet.

by Shalom Pollack

  Avshalom Feinberg and Sarah Aaronsohn and their families were early settlers in the part of the Ottoman Empire that became the State of Israel. In World War 1, they were spies for the British against the Ottoman Turks. The work was important but dangerous. They died for their dedication to the future state of Israel. Shalom Pollack helps us visualize the times.

by Matthew Price

  This is a review by Matthew Price of a book by Sean McMeekin about the relationship of the Ottoman Empire and Germany before and during World War 1. The Ottomans were an ally of Germany in the first World War. McMeekin hangs his account of the events of the time on the decision by the German Kaiser, Wilhelm ii, to build a railway between Berlin, Germany and Baghdad, Iraq to link Germany and the Persian Gulf physically. He also hoped to use these Muslims as a weapon against the British, harnessing their religious fervour as jihadists. The British played a similar game, associating themselves with Muslims who were also itching to restore Muslim supremacy -- only they wooed the Saudis and Mecca. Then as now, a little knowledge of Islam went a long way, but, then as now, not far enough. As McMeekin explains, "Shia clerics were never going to fall in behind a Sunni Caliphate, whose authority they would never recognise. And, besides, the Caliphate was a nearly moribund institution in 1914."

by Nadav Shragai

  This is a very sad article. It is sad because the Jews don't automatically react with passion and fury at attempts to take away parts of their inheritance. There is no dramatic surge of anger -- the kind that politicians respond to -- when the Arabs demand control of Jewish historic sites. It is sad that Jews have so quickly forgotten how Arabs destroyed Joseph's Tomb right after they gained possession -- while Arab policemen stood by. It is sad because someone has to point out what should be obvious, but isn't to the Jews nurtured on globalism and secularism. It is sad that the Jewish owners of the land need to beg for access to their own shrines and holy places. It is sad that thanks to the laxness of the Jews -- and indeed to the pro-Palestinian propanda creatively designed by some Marxist Jews -- the Arabs has increased confidence to up their demands to lord it over the Jewish inhabitants of the Jewish state. Nadav Shragai writes the future consequences of Jewish ignorance and indifference in a specific case: the Mount of Olives, Jerusalem's ancient and historic burial ground. Have we forgotten that Jordan used the gravestones as stepping stones to the latrines when they invaded Jerusalem right after Israel was established?


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

A Blog-Ed page has a quick list of the articles from which you can access any of the articles immediately. To go to the list, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

August 2010 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE

MAY-JUNE, 2010


What we are talking about in the May-June 2010 issue:

In-Your-Face "Activism" (Sarke, Ceren, Spengler, Choudhury, AllahPundit, Ibrahim, Emerson, Joscelyn)
Global Jihad (Brand, Ohri, Swamy, Suseelan, Blankley, Murinson, Smith, Shapira, Smith)
Anti-Israel Institutions Based in USA (Eye on the UN, Muravchik, Van Zile, Spotts, Burchell)
Israel's Daunting Task (Greenfield, Glick, Haetzni, Saperstein, Glick)
Language and the Media (Murphy, Ibrahim, Miller)
Sharia in High Places in Government and in the Universities (Warner, Rothstein and Seid, Levy and Poller)
History Section (Fishman-Duker, Rose)
Readers' Blog-Ed Pages (May, June)


This issue we look first at a feast of in-your-face activism.

  1. The appetizer: The Witch from the Middle East, Helen Thomas, who had successfully hopped away from so many outrageous statements, was felled by a fellow liberal, an amateur with a video camera, asking friendly conversational questions.

  2. The entrée: two independent but compatible groups of political humanitarians using floating floats for a carnival-like show on water. The International Solidarity Movement (ISM) — in its new guise as the Free Gaza Movement (FGM) — acted as 'humanitarian' shields for a large group of Turkish terrorists, whose objective was to get to Gaza or die trying. Or do some of each. Praise be to Allah, much of their year-long planning and work was rewarded — some of the wannabe Shaheeds (martyrs) got their wish. And Israel was made to look bad. Unfortunately, the supplies they were bringing to the starving Armenians Arabs of Gaza will get there a bit late — Hamas didn't accept them. But what the heck. The medicines had expired anyways even before they left. And the bunkers concrete they brought might not be appetizing but it won't spoil.

  3. The dessert: This comes closer to home. In the guise of honoring the 911 victims of Arab terrorism, some well-funded Arabs are building a mosque — or is it two mosques? — as close as they can get to Ground Zero. An interesting fact is that the main man in the Mosque project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, is a member of the Perdana Global Peace Organization, the biggest funder (on record, anyways) of the Gaza Flotilla. Now that's a real linkage, not like the wet noodling that believes the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the key arch of the wall of political instability in the Middle East.
Maybe you thought humanitarianism and peace were ideas resistant to being distorted by evil-doers. Thanks to the many NGOs and organizations and institutions professing peace and humanitarian ideals while doing all they can to destroy Israel and Western civilization, peace and humanitarian are fast becoming dirty words.

by Sarke

  As Naomi Ragen put it: "If you've been thinking about a response to Helen Thomas tell-the-Jews-to-get-the Hell-out-of Palestine-and-go-back to -Germany and Poland-, think no more! The best rant on the subject can be found on Jewlicious by Sara K Eisen, who signs herself Sarke." This is it.

by Omri Ceren


A non-violent Gaza flotilla activist:
Sheikh Mohammed al-Hazimi, a member of the Yemeni Parliament and of Al-Islah, aboard the Mavi Marmara.

In this article Omri Ceren publishes a "Guide to Gaza" — the real Gaza is very different than what's painted by our "reliable" news sources. There was, as CNN noted, violence. They forgot to mention the violence was coming from the humanitarians, who assaulted the Israelis -- even throwing them overboard. The Israelis, of course, were forbidden by their politicians from doing bodily harm, if at all avoidable. The only questionable item in Ceren's article is the notion that the people Israel hires to do its hasbara would be effective. And so it is, because Israel's responses were weak and delayed and thanks to the major TV and newspaper media stretching the truth till it broke, the world now knows that the brutal Jews wouldn't allow some brave humanitarians to bring in food to the starving Gazans. If they were serious, why didn't they send the material by truck? That's how the Gazans get their freebies week by week. Come to think of it, if they were serious, why didn't they go to Darfur, where the people really are starving?

by Spengler

  Did you know that just this week, in mid-June, Muslims from Kyrgzstan killed a couple hundred Muslims from Uzbekistan? Tortured hundreds of others? Caused some 200,000 resident Uzbeks to flee the country? Did you know that Yemen was blockading South Yemen? It's a real blockade — no supplies are let in — no water, no food, no medicine. Did you know that Hamas won't let the "Humanitarian suppplies" in anyways unless they take charge of the goodies? With regard to the Gaza flotilla story, it is true that the Jews were in the right in international law, showed saintly forbearance before they were forced either to fight back intelligently or lose their lives. It is true that this was a stunt cooked up by terror groups to show Israel as either weak or heartless. But the main point is that when Jewish Israel kills a Muslim that is news worthy — it will even be declared a war crime when managed by a Goldstone-cur hired by the U.N. But when a multitude of Muslims are killed by other muslims, it doesn't make the news. Moral of the story: if Israel is to be castigated even for minimal killings, she might as well do what needs doing. The decibel level can't get any higher than it is. As Spengler points out in this essay, "The Gaza flotilla affair should teach Jerusalem that no matter how gingerly it approaches the threats on its borders, and how gently it responds, it ends up holding the bag for the region's problems. It might as well get down to the business of war."

Sent by Doron921

by Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury

  We have been forced to become frighteningly familiar with some Islamic groups directly involved in terrorism. Starter groups that introduce Islamic ideology into new territory appear less menacing. Salah Choudhury writes of the jihadist organization, Tablighi Jamaat (TJ), which works out of mosques in some 80 countries. preaching "a creed that is hardly distinguishable from the radical Wahhabi-Salafi jihadist ideology that so many terrorists share." TJ has become "a major recruiting agency for terrorist causes worldwide." High-profile terrorists such as John Lindh, the Lackawanna Six, the Oregon cell, "shoe bomber" Richard Reid, etc., were members of TJ at one time or another. Members that "outgrow" TJ are quickly and expertly picked up by more overtly virulent 'activist' groups. (See also Chapter 5 of RK Ohri's book.) Choudhury also writes of Feisal Rauf of the American Society for Muslim Advancement (ASMA), which has bought the land next to the site of the 9/11 terror attack to erect a mosque supposedly to honor the victims of 9/11. Rauf's ideology, network and connections to the Muslim Brotherhood are summarized by Choudhury, who has himself experienced what happens to freedom of expression when Islam feels itself in the ascendency. Would that the New York Times had his courage! In addition, we publish an appeal by Salah Choudhury for funds to continue the publishing of his newspaper, the Weekly Blitz. It is indeed a brave effort, worthy of our support.

by AllahPundit

  Imam Rauf is truly a renaissance man. Unfortunately, his idea of renaissance appears to be recreating the medieval Caliphate. AllahPundit makes some connections the Main Stream Media has largely chosen to ignore. Rauf is, for example, a member of the Perdana Global Peace Organization. Perdana, which is based in Malaysia, is the largest contributor to the Gaza Flotilla on record. Rauf is a man that can win Westerns with his charming manner and intellectual discourse. But as Walid Shoebat inter alia has often pointed out, it's what they say to their own people in their own language that counts. And Muslims don't hear ecumenism and tolerance from him.

by Raymond Ibrahim

  Raymond Ibrahim starts this essay by informing us that justice in western terms conveys a very different meaning than it does for a Muslim. Muslims can often take advantage of this, knowing a western audience will, for example, interpret "We seek Justice" in a benign way, whereas the speaker is extolling conquest of the infidel West. As another example, a Muslim group has bought land close to Ground Zero and proposes to build a Mosque/Center there, claiming they wish to honor the victims of 9/11. Their true intent may be gleamed from the fact they are calling this the Cordoba Initiative. Raymond Ibrahim explains why ecumenical tolerance and peace are not their intent. Included are links to several videos about the mosque.

by Steven Emerson

  The Muslim Brotherhood is back in the spotlight. It is implicated in the Ground Zero mosque grotesquerie. And the Gaza Flotilla. In the usual news item, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) is whitewashed so effectively that people can be forgiven for thinking it's somewhat like the Elks or the Lions Club — doing good deeds, giving charity, just nice decent folk. The reality is that the Brotherhood is in business to foster Sharia Law globally. Founded almost a century ago, they are patient and plan well. Hamas is one of their creations but they prefer to emphasize their "moderate" intellectual side, downplaying that their chief intellectual, Yousef Al-Qaradawi, was behind the riots and demonstrations that belatedly protested the Muhammed cartoons around the world. (See Danish Cartoons.) Qaradawi "has made statements praising Hitler, defending organizations like Hamas, and supporting suicide attacks." Another of their intellectuals, Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the MB, is an admirer of Qaradawi. The grandfather admired Hitler, and worked with the notorious Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini. The grandson is no better ideologically than his grandfather but on the surface he sounds open-minded and is touted as a moderate by a media that refuses to probe beneath the surface. (See also Murphy's article below or here.) Steven Emerson provides us with information about the Brotherhood over the generations, using Paul Berman's book Flight of the Intellectuals as a major reference.

by Thomas Joscelyn

  Thomas Joscelyn writes of the ubiquitous Muslim Brotherhood (MB), which seems increasingly to be stripping off its mask of moderation and showing its true face. Were the Flotilla structured like Facebook, the MB could claim to have the mostest friends and relations both on board the flagship Marmara and behind the scene among the workers that ensured the flotilla's success. The show was a benefit performance for Hamas, one of the MB's creations. The Turkish contingent was honchoed by the IHH, which paid for the mercenaries, after it had generously contributed ships. The IHH is part of a Saudi-sponsored group called The Union of Good (UG), which has been designated a terror group. Sheik Qaradawi, who triggered the Danish cartoon riots and is a top man in the MB just happens to be a UG leader. These are just some of the best-known linkages. More connections of the MB to top terror players are likely to emerge.


Israel does get an inordinate amount of attention over minor matters and necessary security matters, when major matters in other countries with global implications are underreported. Aside from routine terror attacks by Muslims on Christians, Jews and Hindus, more than 100 muslims were murdered May 28th in Pakistan by Islamic terrorists in two Achmedi mosques. In the same month, 82 Muslim Kurds were murdered in Turkey and Iran. Russia continues to press Kyrgyzstan, an important American ally in Central Asia, to close the American air base we keep there in readiness. Unsurprisingly, in mid-June, Kyrzgyzstan "civilians" "spontaneously" attacked Uzbek civilians living in Kyrzgyzstan, leaving hundreds dead and hundreds of thousands fleeing as refugees. Even these murders don't get much attention, because it's only one muslim sectarian faction killing another — it's not as horrible, has v' halila, as the Jewish IDF killing 9 blockade runners with their terror-affiliated handlers on board, This section looks at some important political happenings in some other countries. In the first article of the set, Wallace Brand points out that the Islamists have again begun a religious war around the world, aiming at world dominance. "Terror in the West is not caused by US support for Israel; terror all over the world is the result of Islamist imperialism."

by Wallace Edward Brand

  Muslim leaders have persuaded the current American administration that their jihad against the West is America's fault because it supports Israel. The Arab jihad against Israel is Israel's fault because it inhibits Arab nationalism. Blaming Islamist violence in Afghanistan and Iraq and the nuclear threat in Iran on Israel's supposed occupation of Arab land conveniently forgets that the Arabs were massacring Jews in the Holy Land well before Israel was a state -- "Palestine" was never a state — during the time when Jew and Arab lived equally in squalid conditions under the Ottoman rule. As Wallace Brand makes clear in this essay, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is just another manifestation of the Third Wave of jihad by a resurgent Islam. The Islamists have again begun a religious war around the world, aiming at world dominance. "Terror in the West is not caused by US support for Israel; terror all over the world is the result of Islamist imperialism."

by R. K. Ohri

  We are serializing R.K. Ohri's book entitled The Long March of Islam. In Chapter 5, Ohri writes about the revival of militant Islam in the first half of the 20th Century. It had a large jolt forward in 1947 with the creation of Muslim Pakistan, which was supposed to end religious conflict in India. Instead, almost immediately, the Pakistani invaded Jammu and Kashmir. The matter was taken to the U.N. This resulted — as it did when Israel fought back Arab aggression around the same time — in making a relatively simple situation almost unsolvable. Ohri also expands on the role a government with strong resources and determined Muslims — in this case, Pakistan — can have in promoting jihad, especially when Saudi Arabia is willing to pay for the madrassas that "become factories for producing terrorists and suicide bombers." The goal of the Muslim jihadists — whether they be Arab or Pakistani — may be to pull the world down into their medieval notions of an ideal social structure, but they don't hesitate to make use of Western communication technology and Western freedom of speech to rouse the troops to slaughter.

by Subramanian Swamy

  RK Ohri's article (see above) was a general review, including how India split off Muslim-majority Pakistan in an effort to create peaceful relations between Hindus and Muslims. Instead, it led to renewed aggression, with Pakistan claiming Kashmir. In this essay, Subramanian Swamy writes out a specific plan to fight the terrorism emanating from Pakistan. A major consideration is the potential 5th column of muslims resident in India. Caroline Glick has written of similar radicalization and treasonable activity among Israeli Arabs, with Arab towns in Israel storing weaponry to be used in a future insurrection. ("Hizbullah on the homefront" click here.) As does Glick, Swammy recommends a crackdown -- action, not words. It is eerie how similar terrorism is in both countries and how pusillanimous the response of both Governments. Swarmy recommends some specific measures to stop terrorism. It is a recipe Israel should also consider.

by Babu Suseelan

  Babu Suseelan's essay on Pakistan deals primarily with Pakistan's global impact. Terrorists live there. Terrorists are conditioned there. Terrorists train there. Terrorists travel from there to commit acts of terror all over the world. They kill people indiscriminately, because of the "collective guilt" of their victims or because of some recent events of which they disapprove. This is done with active outside financial support from Islamic governments. There is no world institution acting to stop them. The U.N. doesn't condemn them — the U.N. saves its condemnations for Israel engaged in a legitimate fight against terrorism. America needs to monitor the huge amount of money it gives Pakistan to ensure money is not diverted to the terrorists. We need to act firmly with a strong will to remove a clear and present evil from the world.

by Tony Blankley

  As Tony Blankley writes, "President Obama has publicly doubted whether Afghan President Hamid Karzai's corruption and incompetence make him a fit partner for our policy goals in Afghanistan." Obama's public condemnation has not improved relations with President Karzai, who, on his part, has lost confidence in America's ability to make a difference in Afghanistan. Blankley suggests that since we aren't going to do anything effective in Afghanistan — and the present American administration has no such intention — we might as well leave. All we are doing is allowing the Afghan struggle to kill off the soldiers of America and its allies needlessly. He might also have said that Afghanistan is a distraction, when our resources would be put to better use stabilizing the Middle East and dampening down the nuclear arms race that Iran's nuclear ambitions has set off among the Arab countries. Bowing to the Saudis, appeasing Iran and stomping on Israel is on Jimmy Carter's level of ineptitude.

by Alexander Murinson

  Aside from pointing out that Israel is developing a strong alliance with a Muslim country, this article is a case study in how hidebound Islam infiltrates a relatively open state. As Alexander Murinson writes, Azerbaijan was one of the Central Asian states where Iran "launched a comprehensive program for the export of its 'Islamic Revolution'." aimed at an "Islamic revival." To this end, it attempted to staff mosques in Azerbaijan with its own mullahs — a technique the Saudis practice in the U.S.A. It is praiseworthy that they helped feed and house many of the poor. What is less advertised is that they trained rioters and organized riots. It is equally educational to read how Azerbaijan is rebuffing the Iranian efforts at ideological takeover.

by Lee Smith

  While we fritter away our diplomatic resources in the Middle East counting how many houses Israel builds in eastern Jerusalem, alliances between the neighboring states are being reconstructed, and seldom to America's benefit. Lee Smith explains the changing dynamics of this volatile region in response to Iran's bid for domination of the region, followed by Turkey's apparent decision to challenge her. Turkey has become cold, even hostile, to her one-time friend, Israel, while she pleases the Arabs — as in the Gaza flotilla venture — by dramatically taking up their purported cause: Palestinian nationalism. This in itself is curious, because, as Smith notes, "Long before Arab nationalism identified Israel and the United States (and before that the European powers) as the enemy, it was the Ottomans who were called to account for everything that was wrong in the Arabic-speaking regions."

by Brig.-Gen. (ret.) Dr. Shimon Shapira

  John Brennan speaking for the Obama administration wants to strengthen the "moderate element" within Hizbullah, Shimon Shapira in this essay explains why this is most unrealistic. Hizbullah isn't a Lebanese nationalist movement. It began as a way for Iran to export the Islamic Revolution and it remains subservient to Iran, even though it has become "the real ruler of Lebanon." Washington's hopes and wishes won't change matters.

by Lee Smith

  It is conventional wisdom among our politicians, diplomats and many of our military that, in Lee Smith's words, "the Arab-Israeli arena is the region's defining issue." Were the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be settled and were the Arabs to see we weren't favoring Israel, the Arabs would support us in Iraq and Afghanistan. The diplomat's corollary of course is since we can't make the Arabs listen to reason, we should pressure Israel. Like much conventional wisdom, the proposition that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is linked to the major problems in the Middle East is dead wrong. The civil war between Hamas and Fatah, Hezbollah's taking over Lebanon, the conflicts between the Sunni and the Shi'ites, the proxy war in Yemen, Turkey's regression to Muslim orthodoxy and the potential race to acquire nuclear devices won't go away. In this fascinating article, Lee Smith explores where the idea of linkage comes from, why the myth was invented and why it persists. And why it will begin to work against the Arabs.


For an institution conceived as a safe haven in which squabbling states could come together to patch up differences in a polite, non-threatening way, the United Nations has suffered profound deterioration. Its monolithic Arab-Muslim bloc — backed by oil-needy countries — has turned the U.N. into an instrument to amplify and implement Islam's hatred of Israel, even as the countries that side with the Muslims recognize that after Israel, the Muslims are intent on conquering the West. We also witness grotesque behavior from the leaders of some major Protestant churches, who manifest moral shallowness in chastizing Israel for inconveniencing Arabs living in the Territories by delaying them at checkpoints while ignoring the barbarous behavior of these same Palestinians, who venerate as heroes Arabs who murder Jewish toddlers sleeping in their beds and Jewish babies held in the arms of their parents. Church leaders have so often asserted — with no valid evidence, usually just vague generalities — that the Palestinians are suffering from Israel's treatment of them, it has become an article of faith, mouthed even by some pro-Israel Christians. The false notion that Israel is occupying Arab land allows some churchmen to excuse anything the Palestinian arabs do — shoot Jews, shoot rockets at Jews, knife Jews, run Jews over with bulldozers, stone Jews, steal their animals, burn their orchards. All is excused.

by Eye on the UN

  This is not a hoax. This is not a spoof. The basic information comes from official documents of the United Nations. So it is straight from the horse's — well, from some part of the horse. Who wouldn't want Iran on a committee devoted to the status of women? And sending its own children out to the fields to identify hidden explosives by stepping on them is Iran's unique qualification for UNICEF, one that few other countries can better. Who knows more about economic development than the Saudis, who happened to land on a pile of oil and never had to do anything themselves to extract it and distribute it? If anyone knows how to create refugees, certainly Sudan and Somalia are qualified to be on the Commission for Refugees. And bully for China on the Human Rights Council. It knows exactly how to handle a desire for Human Rights. Yessir. And who is better for Social Development than Egypt, which continues to treat its Copt minority to such fun activities as murder, torture and enforced conversions. Eye on the UN provides us with additional information on the membership composition of several of the U.N. committees.

by Joshua Muravchik

  The previous article by Eye on the U.N. showed that the composition of many U.N. committees is part of what has made the U.N. a sick joke. Using the Human Rights Commission as example, this essay by Joshua Muravchik provides context in how the U.N. has failed as an institution. Bowing to pressure, the Commission changed its name but not its practice of rigging the voting procedure for committee membership so that those nominated will be elected. When the various countries, often en bloc, make their complicated deals on who will be nominated, considerations of merit and suitability are not allowed to muddy the process. The end result is what we get. And should get rid of.

by Dexter Van Zile

  In this well-documented yet readable article, Dexter Van Zile reviews the sorry history of the Presbyterian Church's efforts to divest itself and others from investments in Israel, using attacks on Israel, partial withdrawal, and then renewed attacks. The point of view of the activists who control official reports is solidly in sympathy with the Palestinians, who are visualized as the suffering victims of a harsh and illegal occupation by Israel. As VanZile writes, "Leveling chimerical accusations at Israel in the name of peace, these activists seek to enlist their fellow Presbyterians — and the church's bureaucracy — into their efforts to banish the modern state of Israel from the community of civilized nations and portray it as uniquely worthy of criticism and condemnation." With each swing of the pendulum, the Church — by backing these activists — makes more obvious a more basic agenda: the delegimization of the State of Israel. How long will it be before crude anti-Jewish statements -- not clothed in pseudo theology or in a view of Middle East history that ignores most of the facts — become acceptable?

An Interview with Will Spotts by Bernice Lipkin

  Anticipatory stories of the 2010 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church were filled with reports that there were to be motions for divestiture/boycott of Israel that would position the Presbyterian Church more strongly and intemperately in the ranks of the Palestinian sympathizers. I had some specific questions. I asked Will Spotts for clarification. We also include an addendum: Spotts's analysis after the ball was over, the General Assembly ended.

by David Burchell

  In this account, David Burchell goes well beyond the facts of the gaza flotilla into a more profound explanation of why the P and H (Peaceniker and Humanitarian) squad has the compulsive need to demonize Israel. Burchell suggests that the early Christian activists couldn't get far with a turn-the-other-cheek approach. Their politics did better chastizing the sinner. In the 1960s, the image of the Palestinian as the innocent injured was in place but was somewhat tarnished by the behavior of the more radical PLO terrorists. "It followed that Israel's motivations had to be made even blacker, as if in moral compensation." Viewing "Israel as a kind of devil-state, the spirit of evil made incarnate in the world" excused any behavior by their Palestinian 'victims', no matter how outrageous. What still needs explaining is why the PLO became the victim to be succoured in the first place. Surely, it wasn't Arafat's blubbery lips, ugly face and unattractive smile. Could it be that the Terror Cheer Leaders deep down don't like Jews any more than the Arabs do?


Israel is beset on all sides by active terrorists and their supporters in the media, and by emboldened hostile neighbors, the U.N., mainline churches, and now the American administration. Her appeasement policies have endangered her. To maintain the pretense that there's an ongoing peace process, she has not asserted her legal, moral and historic rights to her land, so that propagandists are free to create fictions about the rights of the "Palestinians", knowing these won't be challenged. In Caroline Glick's words, Israel has a "daunting task" ahead of her. These next papers essentially argue that appeasement must stop. Israel must apply effective counterpressure to her enemy's actions. Israel must proclaim its intent to remain and grow as a Jewish state. It must proclaim its ownership of Jewish land and give up pointless and self-defeating attempts to share with Muslims, who don't want the land — they want Israel dead. The required changes are no longer 'wouldn't it be nice if ..'. They are necessary if Israel is to survive the well-designed machinations of her enemies.

by Daniel Greenfield

  Daniel Greenfield makes the point that Israel's international enemies are tightening the noose around Israel's neck, while Israel tries to live up to the promises she made for the "peace process" called the Oslo Agreement. The Arabs have felt no such compunction. They've never gotten to step 1: to cease violence. Every one of Israel's concessions has brought her closer to the gallows. Israel is now faced with stark options: continue her suicidal course of accomodation to "world opinion" or do what she must: resist the pressure to cave in piecewise and start fighting to survive.

by Caroline B. Glick

  The non-Arab states of Iran, Pakistan and Turkey — Israel's one time major Muslim friend — are competing with the Arabs for leadership of the Muslim world. To show its qualifications for the job, Turkey has even taken the lead in attacking Israel — the Gaza flotilla the most recent example. Simultaneously, the U.S.A. administration is abandonning its allies, ignoring man-made disasters (aka Islamic terrorism) and cuddling up to the Muslims. Because Obama believes the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the root of all evil in the Arab world (or maybe in the whole world) he is particularly hard on Israel, Israel justifiably feels she is under siege from all sides. Caroline Glick points out Israel can "do nothing to change American behavior," (which would imply that it is pointless for Israel to make life threatening concessions.) It is time for an internal examination of Israel's diplomatic and tactical blunders. It is time for Israel to put the U.N. on the defensive. It is time for Israel to fight back. Intelligently.

by Boaz Haetzni

  The Palestinians arabs are in the odd position of demanding a state — which they never had and were never part of and never really wanted — and have people like Prez Obama take them seriously. Their demand for Israeli land was a ploy to further their mission of destroying Israel in stages. To date, any land where they've gained control has been used to develop military capability, store war material and train fighters and terrorists. Would they be different in Judea and Samaria than they are in Gaza? Boaz Haetzni points out that if Israel withdraws and eliminates the Jewish settlement towns, Hamas would soon take over Judea-Samaria — they have more popular support than Abu Maazen — and they would settle down in expanded quarters to carry out their mission of destruction, not to form a state. "They are a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is against individual Arab states." They believe in what Arafat said, "our real nation is the Arab nation which ranges from the Atlantic to the Red Sea and beyond..." This is why "Hamas did not declare a state in Gaza although it is the only force in charge there and could do so."

by Rachel Saperstein

  Rachel Saperstein writes three essays: her 3-year old grandchild has his first haircut near the tomb of Samson; Her husband celebrates a birthday, surrounded by family; she confers with the other families — Ashkenazim, Sephardim, Yemenites, Ethiopians, Bnai Menashe from India — who are founding a new town: Bnai Dekalim in Lachish. From these snapshots, would you guess she was one of the Jews traumatized by being forced out of her home in Gaza by her own government? Her husband Moshe and she survived the trauma and the depression that followed and now they are again rebuilding their lives.

by Caroline B. Glick

  A major reason for Israel's poor showing in the propaganda wars is that the Arabs come across as passionate about their land, Israel and the territories. Arab leaders. Arab clerics. Arab academics. And the Arab schlub in the street. All of them are passionate as they claim land that is not theirs. In contrast, Israeli spokesmen and consular representatives are rightly perceived as lukewarm about Jewish ownership — if not actively delighted at the prospect of another Arab state in Biblical Israel, with its capitol in Jerusalem. Caroline Glick insists "[t]he government must stop trying to play both sides of the aisle. Instead it should follow the lead of its extraordinary citizens and of Jews throughout the world in asserting the rights of the Jewish people to our capital and our country."


Media people are often content to use the dictionary translation of a word and ignore its actual meaning. Use an English-arabic dictionary, and you immediately have the word for justice in arabic. The differing meanings of justice in the West and in Muslim countries are harder to discover because language is filtered through cultural concepts. Thus, as Raymond Ibrahim writes in his essay on the Ground Zero mosque (see above or click here) a speaker can use justice in English to suggest one idea and the exact translation of the word in Arabic to mean something very different. This section looks at other examples of the effect the differences in Western versus Islamic cultures have on understanding the meaning of some common words. It also looks at how the media distorts the meaning of events by how they present them.

by Paul Austin Murphy

  Defending sharia law usually involves some variant of the civic value of diversity, but it can be a hard sell, because some major brutalities — chopping heads and hands for minor crimes and treating women as chattel — are a non-negotiable part of sharia. In this essay, Paul Murphy equips us with ways to read obfuscating pro-Islam propaganda as he points out the fallacies in a recent defense of Sharia. He also examines some ends-justify-the-means lies and misdirection spun by Tariq Ramadan, grandson of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood. Murphy makes the major point that once Sharia drives out civil law, all of it becomes law, not just its laws and customs that seem to fit into modern practices.

by Raymond Ibrahim

  Though it is contrary to commonsense, Raymond Ibrahim points out that apparently Muslims found the South Park cartoons of Muhammad more infuriating than very ugly statements about Muhammed broadcast to millions of Muslims on Life T.V. Life T.V. stood its ground, ignoring initial threats, continuing to discuss Muhammad in unflattering terms — and doing so safely. The South Park producers reacted by appeasement. Ibrahim suggests that it may well have been this appeasement that acted as the stimulus to increase Muslim ire. As he notes, "if you voluntarily act like a dhimmi — a subjugated non-Muslim who must live in debased humility — you will be treated like a dhimmi."

by Yvette Alt Miller

  Short, direct, informative. This essay by Yvette Alt Miller lays out common ways the media avoid telling the truth. Presenting it in such a way that is easily dismissed. Or telling it partially. Her examples are actual instances of bias against Israel. Miller suggests readers practice finding instances of these tricks, to better understand what they are being fed by the media. My prime example would be the New York Times, which managed to downplay the ongoing Holocaust in World War 2. Most newspapers may not be as clever hiding such a big story but the omission and trivialization of Prez Obama's close friendships with a slew of Marxists before he was nominated come close. This is a very useful reference.


We have previously examined various areas where Sharia Law is being accepted. Sharia banking, which is based on sharia law, is being incorporated by banking groups. Government agencies teach Sharia law procedures. Textbooks used in our schools tell our children how benign Islam and its basic laws are. In this issue, we describe student shock troops promoting hate of Jews on campuses and the invasion of Muslim consultants into the higher eschelons of the military, We include the first chapters of a forthcominhg book that defines Sharia Law for the non-Muslim.

by Bill Warner

  Bill Warner has written a book that compactly explains sharia law to the non-muslim. It offers a compact summary of Sharia Law. It is useful as a starting pointer for the ignorant, to start exploring. It is a summarization for those who have acquired a good understanding of Sharia law. Mark this in your reference directory.

by Roz Rothstein and Roberta R. Seid

  The campuses are infested by student hate groups, whose leaders make their efforts at demonizing Israel their main job, one that takes priority over classes and ordinary school activities. They are dedicated, single-mindeded, possessed of religious fervor and will stop at nothing. Their activities suggest their handlers have a big budget, clever scenario writers and have spent considerable time and effort making longterm plans before this attack was launched. Group leaders have learned how to create dramatic props and creative events, inveigle and indoctrinate other students, flummox the administration and paralyze the Jewish groups on campus so they don't fight back. Roz Rothstein and Roberta Seid have observed that these groups maintain continuity, groom replacement leaders; develop networks with other like-minded campus groups; and orchestrate demonstrations, cheering crowds and disruptive hecklers. They don't miss opportunities to promote their ideas and they are good at creating opportunities. Lucky for them, the Jewish students, faculty and groups haven't adjusted to the fact that they are under sustained attack and have to fight back. The Jews are hamstrung by their belief that freedom of speech is always a good thing and that everyone has built-in limits to incivility.

by Janet Levy and Nidra Poller

  Some Muslim encroachment in America — such as the projected mosque at Ground Zero — is high profile, but most of their activities are not well known. Nevertheless, they are successfully buying friends and chairs at universities; buying some in the media and frightening others into self-censorship; and subsidizing books friendly to Islam. Now with a Commander-in-Chief who sees making friends with the Muslims as a noble undertaking, they have reached into high levels of Homeland Security and the military, where they have the clout to get hostile patriots fired. Janet Levy and Nidra Poller describe how different this is from the way we behaved in World War 2. "Placing a Nazi in a high-level Pentagon position with access to top-secret war data and giving him the ability to control military strategists and censor vital information would have been punishable by death for treason." I wonder what good our expensive war equipment will do us, if, as Levy and Poller note, "Our citizens at home and our troops on the battlefield are disarmed by a narrative that imposes respect for a political-religious system that seeks their subjugation and death."


There seems no end to the misinformation coming from pro-Palestinian sources claiming that Jews have no history in Jerusalem. One essay in this section makes a useful source for rebuttal arguments. It presents a superb summary of references to Jews in Jerusalem in ancient Greek and Roman sources. The other essay looks at the 1920 San Remo Conference and the 1958 speech by Abba Eban from the viewpoint of their consequences.

by Rivkah Fishman-Duker

  As Rivkah Fishman-Duker writes, by the early second century CE, when Tacitus wrote his history, it is clear that the narrative of the circumstances of Jerusalem's foundation had become standardized among Greeks and Roman writers. Descriptions of the Temple are always part of the accounts of Jerusalem and Judaism. In addition to physical descriptions, Fishman-Duker describes the religious aspect of the Temple, which differed radically from Greek and Roman paganism. Their accounts range from the factual to the libelous and bizarre. As Fishman-Duker writes, "The references to Jerusalem in these classical texts not only demonstrate the historical attachment of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, but also contribute to our knowledge of Jews and Judaism in the ancient world."

by Alex Rose

  Alex Rose writes about two notable events of of historical importance. The first was the San Remo Conference of 1920. "It recognized the exclusive national Jewish rights to the Land of Israel under international law, on the strength of the historical connection of the Jewish people to the territory previously known as Palestine." The San Remo Resolution "remains irrevocable, legally binding and valid to this day." The second was Abba Eban's speech to the UN General Assembly's Special Political Committee in 1958 suggesting transfer of the Arab refugees to the states responsible for the problem — the Arab states that had invaded Israel in 1948 and 1967. Actually, these states were responsible for two sets of refugees: the Arabs from Israel and the Jews from the different Arab countries. Israel, with few resources, took in the Jews. The Arabs had huge resources but have reneged. It's time they faced up to their responsibility.


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

A Blog-Ed page has a quick list of the articles from which you can access any of the articles immediately. To go to the list, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.




What we are talking about in the March-April 2010 issue:

Myths Can Kill You (Brand, Chweidan, Rubin, Salvato, Sheridan)
A Religious War (Eidelberg, Wilder, Simmons, Maistrovoy, Ohri)
How Friendly is the Current American Administration? (Haselkorn, Prelutsky, Poller, Sharpe)
Europe's Treatment of Muslims and Jews (Gur, Alexander, Landen, Legger, Glick, Bat Ye'or)
Solutions For A Genuine Arab-Israeli Peace. Cutting The Gordian Knot. (Mansdorf, Bialkin, Sharpe, Think-Israel Staff, Kogan, November, Bussel)
Is There A Linkage Between Islam And Terror? (Stakelbeck, Poole, Spencer, Emerson, Greenfield, Imani)
Anti-Semitism, Anti-Zionism And Muslim-Purchased Propaganda (Cravetts, Plaut, Rubin, Frantzman, Erlich)
History Section (Raizman, Rigler)
Readers' Blog-Ed Pages (March, April)


Melanie Phillips in "A Revolutionary Proposal" (Spectator, 19Mar10) suggested that "it is time for Israel to stop going along with the diplomatic lies told for so long by Britain, America and the west about the Arab war against Israel. Lies that have twisted so many people's minds into the belief that Israel is the historic usurper and aggressor in the Middle East, whereas in fact the Jews and the Jews alone are the rightful heirs to the land, in historical, legal and moral terms, and a monstrous injustice has been and is still being done to them." Excellent advise. Myths can be real killers. Like the ones that persuade that Israel is a rogue nation and Iran a rational one.

by Wallace Edward Brand

  Wallace Brand discusses the diplomatic foundation documents underlying the creation of the modern state of Israel. It is also very readable. Store this with your stack of reference material to use when Arab propagandists assert that Israel is occupying Palestinian/Arab land. The State of Israel was carved out with international approval from a sliver of the Middle East holding of the Ottoman Empire. If it is not legitimate, then what happens to the legality of the modern Arab states of Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Oman, Yemen and United Arab Emirates? (Iran, Egypt and modern Turkey were also part of the Ottoman Empire but Iran and Turkey aren't Arab, and Egypt had been under de facto British rule for many years by the time the Ottomans lost out.) These constructed states were given more than 99% of the Middle East segment of the Ottoman Empire by the same international authority that established Israel.

by Roy Chweidan

  This was written to counter the pernicious and widespread myth that the Arabs pre-date the Jews in Israel. Depending on the gullibility of the audience they claim to be the early Canaanites; or Philistines; or they claim that in Temple times it was a Palestinian state filled with Palestinians like Jesus and his mother Mary; or they claim they intermarried with the natives when they conquered the land in Mohammed's time, and this is the next best thing to being native themselves. They ignore that 90-95% of them came after 1900 into what is now Israel and the Territories. Roy Chweidan presents a short summary of the actual history of Israel starting in the period of the Judges. The appendices contain additional useful information.

by Barry Rubin

  We don't have to go the National Inquirer to find weird and unreal. It's right there in the Oval Office in the Big White Building in the District of Columbia. Barry Rubin writes how Obama is sticking like velcro to the notion that au fond Iran is reasonable and can be persuaded to be nice, no matter what it does and what it says and how many of its own citizens it tortures because they don't agree with the Mullahs. And Iran, filled with confidence by how well everyone is treating her, is seeking a seat on the Human Rights Council.

by Frank Salvato

  Like a child learning to play pick-up sticks, tangling them, ignoring the good moves, fixated on poor choices, ignoring gravity, ignoring his lack of coordination, President Obama deals with situations with a child's knowledge of foreign policy. Frank Salvato recounts some of his moves. Obama pulls together a bunch of nations to deal with the problem of nuclear weapons falling into terrorist hands, and they flip up with a non-binding "agreement." which is meaningless. He weaves and waves his hand around Iran but, of course, nothing happens. He spends times picking on Israel — and that's an easy move. But it won't change the fact that to get at the terrorists means also, and perhaps first, dealing with the clump of terror states that shield them and support them. As Salvato points out: he needs to "accept the truth that should Iran become a nuclear capable nation, so, too, would terrorist organizations become nuclear capable."

by Greg Sheridan

  Greg Sheridan has written a sensible article integrating the facts including Obama's manufactured irritation with Israel and drawn the obvious conclusion: that Obama is willing to live with an Iran that has nuclear power. Maintaining a steady supply of oil has for long controlled much of our foreign policy. Yet Obama seems indifferent to Iran's obtaining nuclear power that, at best, will destabilize the Middle East, making our oil supply uncertain. At worst, Iran could destroy vital connections in the stream or make the area radioactive, use the bomb to blackmail the region and/or share their supply with peripatetic terrorists. What is nervous making, when dealing with "world opinion," is how successful anti-Israeli propaganda has been. History, geography and international law are disregarded and too many are sure Israel is sitting on Arab Palestinian land. Most of the readers' comments to this article see Iran as a sovereign state that can do what it wants and, inconsistently, it isn't near to a nuclear bomb anyways, so why worry. Nor do they differentiate between a trustworthy nuclear power and one controlled — by our standards — by a bunch of fanatics with a mission to aggrandize Islam.


Cal Thomas has written, "What part of annihilation does the State Department not understand? What State is blind to is that the 'Israeli-Palestinian conflict,' as it is erroneously labeled, is part of a worldwide religious war against all things Jewish, Christian, secular, modern and Western" (March 18, 2010). These essays examine how Judaism and Islam differ and how Islam fuels the Arab hostility towards Judaism. The final ones look at Islam's global hostility towards all other religions.

by Professor Paul Eidelberg

  Muslim leaders have bragged how Muslims love death and this gives them the edge in fighting the "infidel" who is attached to life. Paul Eidelberg makes the surprising suggestion that this love of death is rooted in a fear of life that started in pre-Islamic times when inter-tribal warfare was chronic and brutal. Survival depended on tribal loyalty, engendering a herd mentality, rather than the development of the individual, as in Western culture. Eidelberg credits Judaic monotheism for making possible the Western trust in a meaningful universe. In Part I, he develops implications of the idea that in the Arab culture, paganism was "never fully transcended." In Part 2, he writes about Israel's repetitive retreats from land that is hers, noting that Israel will "continue to shrink so long as its government betrays the God of Israel."

by David Wilder

  The Ma'arat HaMachpela (the Machpela cave) in the city of Hebron is a Jewish holy site; it is Judaism's second most holy site. It is where the Patriachs and Matriachs are buried: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah. Nevertheless, for hundreds of years when the site was under Muslim control, Jews were not allowed to enter the cave. They were allowed to climb as far as the seventh step, while Muslims were permitted to climb past and enter the caves. The Arabs deny that the Machpela is a Jewish legacy. To do so would mean acknowledging the profound relationship of the Jews of Israel to the Land of Israel.

by Rabbi Shraga Simmons

  There is a growing world-wide group called Noachides. They aren't Christian; but they aren't Jewish either. As individuals they more or less follow Torah law, but they are all follow the Seven Laws of Noah. — Judaism considers that the basic civilizing ideas from the Torah — the laws of Noah — are for everyone. This essay is Rabbi Shraga Simmons interview with one of these Noachides. In the context of our examining difference resulting from basic differences between Judaism and Islam, it should be noted that Judaism doesn't feel compelled to convert everyone to Judaism. Islam does. Unless, you'd rather live as a dhimmi; or be beheaded.

by Alex Maistrovoy

  Alex Maistrovoy puts in context the Arab strategy of denying that Israel has any historic connection to the Land of Israel. Theirs is "...simply the genocidal approach that is characteristic of Islam. Power and possession are inherent parts of religious attitude in Islam. This approach extends to all other religions, not only to Judaism. The idea consists in depriving other cultures of their spiritual base to achieve total physical domination over them." Given that Islam is intrinsically hostile to all other religions. Judaism's fight against Islam's brutal hostility may be unwilling but it has become a major player in what eventually may be a global response to Islam — if the world wakes up in time. Meantime, Israel needs to protect its holy places from the Muslim ambition to eradicate a Jewish presence in Israel.

by R.K. Ohri

  We are serializing R.K. Ohri's book entitled The Long March of Islam. Previously, Ohri first laid out Islam's structure and its major directive to wage jihad against the infidal. In Chapter 4, he reviews some of Islam's early history to explain how it is that Islam acquired both its dedication to the Islamic ummah (nation) and its appetite for conquering and looting non-Islamic communities. Within a 100 year after Muhammad, the Arabs had "destroyed almost all old civilizations of the [Middle East] region" and invaded Christian Europe for booty, slaves and involuntary converts and where they suffered their first defeat by a coalition of Christian countries. But now again "the contagion of militant Islam has already spread to scores of Muslim countries"; they are obsessed with regaining Islam's lost grandeur.


America has been gifting the P.A. with multimillions for this and megabucks for that. Add to this that Israel's purchases of military equipment has been blocked while America trains and equips Egypt with the latest missiles, sells Saudi Arabia sophisticated arms well beyond its capacity to handle and significantly increases missile defense in the Gulf States. Add to it the fact that the U.S. is training PLO "policemen", in theory to fight Hamas. Add to it that the American President has been effective in trampling on Israel's right as a sovereign nation to build houses for its people while doing squat nothing to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons. Add to it — this one is likely fallout rather than nefarious intent — American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan limit Israel's maneuverability. This is all in addition to Iran's equipping Hamas, Hezbollah, the Taliban and itself with weaponry and ammunition. Makes you wonder who President Obama views as his major enemy that must be destroyed. David Pryce-Jones in the Wall Street Journal put it this way: "Mr. Obama's foreign policy pattern to date: Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze." Obams seems to be doing more openly what Israel's supposedly friendly neighbor, the Jordanian king, with less power, does in a sneaky way.

by Avigdor Haselkorn

  The obama administration appears to believe that the long arm of Israel-Arab discord reaches Iran and Afghanistan, to the detriment of American goals. In this bizarre view, if only Israel would make the Arabs happy, the Muslim world would fall all over itself to be friendly to us Americans. Israel, in a word, is a liability. Judging from Muslim behavior over the centuries, this proposition is nonsense. Rephrasing the sentence as America is a liability to Israel is, on the other hand, a legitimate observation, based on evidence. Avigdor Haselkorn makes the case that the America's presence limits Israel's freedom of action. In brief, American enemies do what they want and ignore overtures and shows of force. "By threatening to target [American] regional bases, Iran is in effect keeping these contingents hostage and acting to dissuade any military undertaking against its nuclear facilities." "...The U.S. deployment has become a handicap for Israel," denying it "the strategic initiative that is vital for preserving its national security."

by Burt Prelutsky

  E.W. Jackson Sr. wrote about the source of Obama's anti-Israel policy this way: "Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of joining the unrelentingly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President's truest — albeit undeclared — sensibilities." Certainly, once elected, Obama discarded the ambiguity that surrounded the question of whether he is Muslim. He confirmed he was born Muslim (which in Islam is for life — if you expect to live long) and has Muslim sympathies. As Burt Prelusky notes in this essay, his recent behavior to Netanyahu and Israel is convincing evidence "that in his heart, at least, Obama is an Islamic." Prelutsky's bottom line: "there must be something terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with Muslims building a nuclear bomb in Iran."

by Nidra Poller

  We are used to being told — and it is true — how important Jerusalem is to the Jews. Nidra Poller points out another important truth about the relationship of Jerusalem and the Jews: Jerusalem is important to the West because of the Jews. There would be little interest in the chief city of the Jews were it not that Christianity is based in large part on Judaism and because Judaism created the moral foundation of Western civilization. Because of that and because Israel is a democracy — the only one in the Middle East -- there is a closeness between America and Israel. It is ironic, therefore, that Obama is taking advantage of that closeness to pressure Israel to a peace that would not resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict. Instead, if carried out, it would replace Judaism with Islam in Judaism's birthplace.

by Victor Sharpe

  Israel needs to watch its back not just from the Arab countries obviously out to destroy her, but even from Jordan, her peace partner, which is kept secure by Israel, is given water by Israel and whose economy has been helped to develop by Israel. Victor Sharpe writes about Jordan's King Abdullah, who shows his gratitude by undermining Israel whenever and whereever he can, with straight-faced disregard of facts. His father killed off thousands of "Palestinians" for threatening his throne; Abdullah is outraged by the IDF killing some people who were acting as human shields for terrorists. Abdullah is appalled that Israel has jurisdiction over Jerusalem and its Muslim holy places. How easily he ignores that when Jordan conquered eastern Jerusalem in 1948, it destroyed Jewish synagogues in Jerusalem and wouldn't allow Jews access to their holy sites. The king of inversion. Truly a Lewis Carroll character.


We commemorate Yom Hashoah and discuss the profound changes in the social and political structure of Europe since World War 2. Despite the wishes of a large part of its citizenry, Europe slides to an accomodation with Islam and plays out the end game of multiculturalism — a strong socialism that bankrupts the country and resurrects feudalism — with the people in hock to the government that can regulate them and tax them into powerlessness. Logically, one would expect that a country under siege by a rising Muslim population would side with Israel, one of the few countries effectively opposing Islamic domination. Instead, as Islam gains control with the apparent cooperation of a country's academic and business elites, anti-Semitism rises. This set of essays contrasts the treatment of Muslims versus the treatment of Jews in England, Holland and Germany.

by Jacob Gur

  Europe destroyed Jewish culture and six million Jews. The space has been filling with muslim immigrants, impatient to inflict their laws and customs over the subjugated natives. And ironically, while the Jews tried so hard to fit in and were, for the most part, rejected, the Muslims don't give a damn and ignore what resistance there is to their take-over. Jacob Gur writes of a particular victim of the Holocaust of the Jews: Pninah. She was twelve. She was murdered. He asks that Israel not forget her and the other victims of the Shoah but that it strengthen its Judaism and rebuild.

by Edward Alexander

  Edward Alexander reviews Anthony Julius' recent book that addresses the literary roots of English antisemitism from Chaucer to Dickens, connecting the historic blood libel against the Jews that is embedded in English culture to the modern-day anti-semitic rants by academics and dramatists, which also are not weighted down by facts. Julius writes also of Jewish anti-semitism. As Jewish converts to Christianity in the Middle Ages were glad to confirm Christian theological allegations against Jews, no matter how false and/or absurd, so modern-day Jewish anti-semites loathe Israel and can see only evil in her every motive and action.

by Thomas Landen

  Baptist immigrants to Germany from the Soviet Union, where they had been persecuted for their religious beliefs, were subjected to vicious attacks by the German authorities when they wished to homeschool their children. Germany's Supreme Court ruled that German tradition trumped Baptist desires. The State was in charge of children's education, not their parents. In contrast, schools cater to Muslim eating and clothing requirements, even when these infringe or nullify German traditions and practices. As Thomas Landen writes, "While Christians are prosecuted and fined, Muslims are appeased." There are other differences that explain the behavior of the German establishment: "Saying 'No' to Baptist demands is not a security risk for a school; saying 'No' to Muslim demands is." Baptists don't become violent when their requests aren't granted; Muslims do.

by Artur Legger

  Holland has such a reputation for liberal drug laws and a nonchalant attitude for outre activity that it is puzzling that it has put Geert Wilders on trial for producing a documentary that is scrupulously factual — if not flattering — about Islam (see below.) In this essay, Artur Legger clears up the inconsistency. Fearing reprisal, Government officials and the media tried to block the documentary from being shown. Unable to censure the film beforehand, they resorted to slandering Wilders and withholding protection — despite the fact that there's a history in Holland of Muslims killing off 'offenders'. Holland's attitude is not new. Throughout the centuries, the goal has been on preventing social disruption and maintaining control by the governing elites by whatever means were needed, not ensuring freedom — not even in the time of Spinoza.

by Caroline Glick

  The initial hysterical reaction by European diplomats to the assassination of the terrorist, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, in Dubai, was to blame Israel. This didn't abate until it was learned the assassins went from Dubai to Iran, not exactly a Jew-friendly haven. Using this as example, Caroline Glick points out that "blaming Israel has become Europe's default foreign policy," dictated by the European Union (EU). The Lisbon Treaty which gave power to the EU "...effectively bars EU member states from adopting independent foreign policies..." so they focus on rhetoric and don't act to safeguard their best interests. In part to placate Europe — and the present American administration -- Israel has not been pursuing her own best interests either. At the moment what is important is to disarm Iran and to exert its legitimate claim to Samaria and Judea. Urgently.

by Bat Ye'or

  Robert Spencer presents some highlights from Bat Yeor's speech at the recent Conference on Antisemitism, Multiculturalism and Ethnic Identity at Hebrew University. Bat Yeor coined the term Eurabia to describe the ideological alliance since the 1970's of European leaders and Arabs. It promotes anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism, while catering to Muslim concerns under the guise of multiculturalism. To the Europeans, supporting Arab politics and ideology seemed a clever way to ensure an uninterupted supply of oil while avoiding Arab terrorism. "The countries of the Arab League and the Islamic Conference saw in this alliance with Europe the means to separate Europe from America; to divide and weaken the Western camp; to destroy Israel; to achieve technological parity with Europe; and, through the Mediterranean Partnership, to set up a vast Euro-Arab demographic, political, economic and cultural zone. In this way, with multiculturalism and immigration, Islam and Arab culture could be introduced as a force toward the Islamization on the European continent."


The first step, obviously, would be to remove the noose of the belief that the Arabs and the Jews can somehow share the tiny space allocated to Israel by international mandate — space that has already been largely nibbled away. Discard the unworkable notion of sharing space and more reasonable possibilities can be explored. A sensible one would be to give the Arabs who go by the name "Palestinian" a portion of the Ottoman Land gifted to the Arabs. This set of articles presents some steps — some ideological, some practical — that can be taken in preparation to that task.

by Irwin J. Mansdorf

  Irwin Mansdorf suggests that the negative and misleading and often false language used to describe Israel's motives and activities be abandoned and replaced by descriptions that conform to actual history and applicable international law. He delves into the modern history of Arab-Jewish relations, and points out the surprising fact -- surprising only because of the wide subcription to the constantly-repeated myth that the Arabs had always ruled the Middle East and the Jews are occupying some of this Arab land illegally -- that the Balfour Declaration, a foundation document in the establishment of the Jewish State, was of great benefit in also "advancing Arab independence and nationalist goals." During the first part of the 20th century, while the land still belonged to the Ottomans, before there was a modern state of Israel, or states called Jordan or Syria or Yemen or Kuwait or Oman or the United Arab Emirates — before the time that the Arabs were gifted with 99.9% of the Middle East — the Arab leader, Emir Feisel, recognized this fact. It was later that Arab leaders and academics, in order to defend their assertion that Israel was colonialist, began denying Jewish roots in Mandated Palestine, forcing them into the ludicrous position of denying Israel's ancient connection to its holy sites such as the Machpela Cave and the Temple Mount and its holy cities of Hebron and Jerusalem. In promoting this canard, they blithely ignored that "[m]any of the Arab states, in contrast, were modern fabrications of the British and the French," with no historic roots.

by Kenneth J. Bialkin

  THE 'peace process' — it seems always to apply only to the Arab Israeli conflict — certainly hasn't lacked high-level presidential involvement, from the Elder Bush to Obama, plus the presence of the U.N., the E.U. and their cohort of diplomats and politicians. Nevertheless, as Kenneth J. Bialkin puts it: "A peace process which rests upon Israel's unilateral concessions is doomed to fail — unless and until the world also demands that the Arab states (including the Palestinians) recognize Israel's legitimacy and sovereignty, explicitly and openly. ... This is the most important prerequisite for peace."

by Victor Sharpe

  Victor Sharpe points out that the fatal flaw in the succession of peace plans is that "[f]or Muslims, no non-Muslim state or nation that is on land once conquered by Muslim armies in the name of Allah will ever be tolerated." This cuts down the number of intelligent options for Israel to 1. "Unpalatable as it must be, the only solution for Israel is to make not one additional concession but resolve to face the entire world if need be rather than deny Jewish history, Jewish faith, and the Zionist cause." It must ignore "the siren calls of a fraudulent, beguiling and deceptive peace."

by Staff, Think-Israel

  The Israeli government appears to be revving up to gift the Palestinian Arabs land in Samaria and Judea. To diplomats, politicians and sundry pro-Palestinians who have been nibbling away at Israeli land, this is a good start to eating up all of Israel. It would of course be a disaster, should Israel give up the land where the Jews first took root and where they developed the way of life that eventually became the basis of Western morality. It would also mean making some half-million or more citizens homeless, jobless and demoralized. In this essay, we examine how well the government did resettling the 10 thousand Jews they expelled from their homes and synagogues and orchards and businesses in Gaza in 2005 in a cockamamie bid for "peace" with Arabs lusting after Jewish blood. The only good that has come out of this stupid action is that many people are reconsidering their attitudes and questioning whether giving up land can bring peace. They really don't have that much more with which to experiment.

by Shulamit Kogan

  The Arab refugees — hold-overs from the 1948 invasion of Israel by the neighboring Arab countries — continue to be a festering sore, a major factor guaranteeing there will not be a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The Arab leaders of the countries where the refugee camps are located never actually help their Arab Palestinian cousins; in fact, they deny them citizenship. Nevertheless, they claim they can't make peace with Israel until the refugee problem is resolved by Israel letting in a group of Arabs that could be almost as large as the number of Jews currently living in Israel to return to what they claim as their homes. In this way, the Arab refugees act as a piteous mask for the real intent of these Arab leaders — to wipe out Israel, which has had the temerity to defeat Muslim countries and won't accept dhimmi status. Shulmit Kogan examines why it would be foolhardy to make concessions for peace until the Arab refugees are rehabilitated and not allowed to become another ploy for land concessions by Israel. She also suggests that it's time Israel talked about the other group of refugees: the Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Many of these families had lived in the Arab countries longer than the Arabs. These Jewish refugees did not voluntarily leave. They fled for their lives. Those who came to Israel were given a new start as ordinary citizens. They were not left to fester in refugee camps.

by Tzvi November

  Tzvi November's has a number of recommendations for improving Israel's standing in world opinion. His essay reminds us once again that Israel should not put its trust in princes — this time on American administrations, Democrats or Republicans. What Israel should do is proclaim its own stance, its own ideology, its rejection of an Arab state in Israel's heartland. And stick to it. Calling Judea, Samaria and Gaza "disputed territories" as Shimon Peres does is plain stupid. The Arabs are savvy and "always refer to these areas as Arab land or Palestinian land but never as disputed land." It makes a better claim and is better PR. That it isn't Arab land doesn't bother them at all. So they are more effective than Israel, which does own the land, but is too timid to say so directly.

by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager

  Ari Bussel and Norma Zager write of activist projects in public diplomacy developed by individuals, projects that should be done by the Government but aren't. So people follow the injunction: where there are no men, strive to be a man (pirkei-avos/chapter2- 6.html). The Muslims have long since recognized that America is a battleground and have fought to win support with whatever weapons work -- lectures, bribes, raucous demonstrations, breaking up meetings, ecumenical sing-alongs with gullible Jews, convincing mainstream Churches that the Muslim arabs that drove the Christian arabs out of Bethleham are the good guys and it was all Israel's fault, working with Marxists because they and the Muslims have a common hatred of Judaism, rewriting K12 textbooks with puff pieces about the Religion of Peace, persuading the government they must reach out to the Muslims, introducing shari'a banking with only a few strings attached. Israelis, on the other hand, are just beginning to recognize the necessity of fighting the propaganda war effectively. For example, IDF officers — authentic ones — have come to explain the IDF to Americans. One of them bemoans the fact that "Muslims speak in one voice, with one narrative, and are therefore more powerful. We, on the other hand, are fragmented to the point where our position suffers." The joke about the 3-Jew town that needed 2 synagogues isn't always funny.


It became fashionable almost immediately after 9/11 to blame America's attitude towards Islam for the bombing. Fareed Zakaria, an early proponent of 'it's America's fault' wrote a book reassuring us that terror and islam were not intrinsically linked. As people examined the Quran more carefully instead of citing a couple of nice-sounding suras and as we followed the careers of known terrorists and would-be murderers who were converts to Islam, that explanation grew thin. This set of articles paints a more accurate picture of the linkage.

by Erick Stakelbeck

  Erick Stakelbeck frequently reports on home-grown terrorists -- Americans who convert to Islam and then turn to terror activities against America. Many are recruited where there is active and sustained proselytizing: in prison or at a neighboring mosque. Now that the Obama administration is removing such alarmist words as Islamic terrorism and jihad from its vocabulary, it is easier to ignore what might otherwise be an obvious connection: someone goes off to Pakistan or another terrorist training area, illegally keeps an extensive arsenal at home, and is a new recruit for Islam. Given the present Administration's reluctance to see a pattern -- and to use this knowledge to stop terrorists before they do harm -- it may be some time before the larger issue is addressed: do violent people seek out Islam, or does converting to Islam encourage one to become violent? And, in either case, isn't labeling Islam 'the religion of peace' way off the mark?

by Patrick S. Poole

  The previous article was an instantiation of what is likely a wide-spread phenomenon. Muslim terrorists operating in America are trained directly in the Middle East or by dedicated Islamisists in the West. And the number of attacks on American soil has begun to increase markedly — 2009 was a banner year. Patrick S. Poole points out that even when the convert terrorist appears to have been self-radicalized, he was usually exposed to foreign recruitment videos and often was trained abroad. By noting that the same Middle Eastern mechanisms are operative in Africa, Canada and Britain as in the U.S.A., we can conclude that there are active, well-funded, well-organized, wide-spread and effective programs that convince new and born-again Muslim converts that Allah wants them to commit obscene violence. It is not a case of, as Daniel Pipes put it, 'sudden jihad syndrome.' Poole provides us with convincing details about many plots that have been uncovered. Now all we have to worry about are those that are still unidentified.

by Robert Spencer

  The Obama administration has separated the connection between Islam and terrorism — at least in National Security documents, Robert Spencer provides us with examples from the Qur'an, as well as quotes from Muslim leaders and scholars that indicate that Islam and Islamic terrorism are justifiably linked. He discusses the New Mardin Declaration, composed by Muslim scholars, which superficially seems to promote peaceful behavior towards non-Muslims; but it doesn't really warrant optimism. As Spencer points out, "the conceptual apparatus establishing a peaceful Islam has never been presented." Hence, "[t]he intersection of Islam and Terrorism is not coincidental or the result of specific political moves made by non-Muslim nations, as the conventional narrative claims. It is the inevitable result of Islamic theology which is supremacist and materialist, which when combined with the honor-shame code of a tribal culture, drives it compulsively toward war and conquest."

by Steve Emerson

  Practice may not make perfect, but most tasks can be bettered, given experience and practice. This apparently even holds for improvements in delivering and aiming terrorist weapons. As Steve Emerson writes, delivery has been made more reliable as terrorists have begun using women. Women have carried their share of the burden, so to speak, for years — most have good education and they can use loose, concealing clothes as handy props. But only recently has it been recognized how well they avoid detection, being a group that is not profiled as terrorist. Which may acount for their popularity. Steve Emerson notes they have been used by Shi'ite and Sunni, Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood, secular Fatah and religious Hamas. Now that they have hit the big times — bombing the Moscow metro — they should get the respect they deserve.

by Daniel Greenfield

  In this essay, Daniel Greenfield points out that Islam is "constantly a source of war, violence and discord" "[because]Islam is a religion of physical supremacy, and anything that challenges that supremacy is a direct attack on their beliefs." He concludes that "[t]he intersection of Islam and Terrorism is not coincidental or the result of specific political moves made by non-Muslim nations, as the conventional narrative claims. It is the inevitable result of Islamic theology which is supremacist and materialist, which when combined with the honor-shame code of a tribal culture, drives it compulsively toward war and conquest."

by Amil Imani

  Mohammed conquered Persia — modern-day Iran — some 1400 years ago. As usual, this was accompanied by looting, enslavement and enforced conversion. In our time, by analogy, because of its Constitution, America is tolerant as was ancient Persia, and the Islamists are still the Islamists. Amil Imani points out that longstanding Islamic practice is to be meek while weak and assume despotic intolerant power as it gains strength." "Mild Islamism" is already in America -- special facilities and perks for Muslims only; appeasement by American leaders, who ignore Iran's increased power to build a nuclear weapon; and "for-purchase politicians who keep endlessly broadcasting the false mantra that Islam is a religion of peace." "The barbarians have made it inside our fortress." We need to fight them.


Islam's long arm reaches into our educational institutions and our media. Muslims pay for some of the PR; but some propaganda is generated by Marxist sources that recognize Sharia law will destroy the American way of life. Some media self-censor thus distorting the news to avoid Muslim retaliation. Some stories are intended to counter the negative images of women as chattel and honor killings, endemic in Islam. Much of both the visual and text propaganda is anti-Jewish. It was initially phrased as anti-Zionism but, increasing, it has become frank anti-Semitism.

by Richard L. Cravatts, Ph.D.

  The insistence that Israel is the evil witch of the West is acquiring a coating of academic scholarship of poor quality but strong conviction. Richard Cravatts writes about the findings of a Italian group that the health of Gaza children was jeopardized by the Israeli invasion last year — the group found high concentrations of metal in the hair of the study's subjects. As indication of the quality of the experimental design, Cravatts reports an earlier study by NIEHS that also found high lead levels in Gazan children — they lived near a battery factory. The wall Israel erected to keep out terrorists has of course been blamed for a variety of psychological symptoms by various 'scientists.' Other pseudo-scientists attribute the abusive treatment by Palestinian husbands of their wives to the emotional stress engendered by the Israeli occupation. If we add the poor quality of articles that once prestigious journals such as Lancet will accept providing they tar Israel [see here and here.], these degraded journals will soon need to sport a label: read with caution.

by Steven Plaut

  It is common to see a Marxist take up the cause of Muslims, though ideologically they don't have much in common, except in identifying Israel and America as the enemy. Judith Butler of UC Berkeley is a Jew, an anti-Zionist and a Marxist, involved in doing her bit to destroy Israel, America and capitalism. She knows Israel is an oppressor country, just as she is certain that Hamas and Hizbullah don't deserve their bad reputation. To hear her talk, you'd think homosexuals and women are much better off in Arab countries than in Israel.We have Steven Plaut to thank for peeling away some of her incomprehensible prose to expose her vacuous ideas.

by Barry Rubin

  In examining a particular article in the New York Times, Barry Rubin provides us with an excellent analysis of the distortions in an article whose subject matter, one would think, was 'human interest' rather than politics, hence more likely to be reported without major distortions. It wasn't. In reporting on the restoration of a Cairo synagogue — Jews were in Egypt much earlier and longer than Muslims, as the Haggadah would attest — the Times whitewashes the Egyptian government's hostility towards Jews and ignores the hate-filled statements issued by Egyptian officials. As on any hate-spewing anti-semitic website, the aura around the Times article affirms that 'it's all the fault of the Jooz.'

by Seth J. Frantzman

  Saudi Arabia (SA) can pay for the best. And when she sets out to show how modern, how reformed, the country is becoming, she can afford the best. Seth J. Frantzman writes how SA has recruited Westerns, particularly western woman, to handle the campaign. Maureen Dowd of the New York Times have made her mark in clobbering Israel. Now she is using her talent for whole-cloth imagery to paint a picture of the Saudi King as a "social revolutionary" and a kingdom hell-bent on modernization. Other Times columnists have also celebrated each micrometer of progress and ignored the continuation of slavery and beheadings, crippling social customs and harsh punishments for attempts to gain a modicum of independence. SA is betting that rhetoric will top reality — it has, after all, worked in the Arab world.

by Dr. Reuven Erlich

  While the Saudi reform offense is aimed at Westerners (see above), much of the Arab media for Muslims is "a venue for blatant anti-Semitism." Reuven Erlich writes of the Al-Jazeera March 15 TV show starring Muhammad Yussuf al-Qardawi, an influential and respected scholar of Islam, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of Hamas and al Qaeda) and the man who ignited the Muhammed cartoon riots — what he called "a day for worldwide Muslim protests over the insulting campaigns against Allah and His Prophet Mohammed." Erlich points out that al-Qardawi is "a dominant figure in shaping the anti-Israeli worldview in the Muslim and Arab world." Al-Jazeera broadcast his authoritative opinion to a receptive audience of millions: "the war against the Jews was not only for the Palestinians to fight, but rather a war of all the Muslims."


by Dmeetry Raizman

  Dmeetry Raizman describes some cogent similarities between the Peace Process just preceding World War 2 and the current Israeli appeasement policy. In 1939, while the Germans were gaining strength and confidence to attack and when France's army was one of the strongest in the world, she disengaged from Saarland, "a location of strategic importance, unilaterally, without a fight, without a shot, and then for months the French forces sat in idleness..." on the front facing Germany. French leadership had been persuaded by Marshal Pétain that their objective should be defensive — 'to minimize losses', and to strive for peace — a policy enthusiastically seconded by the French Left and foreign peace groups. The consequences of this policy were seen when World War 2 began in earnest.

by Sara Yoheved Rigler

  Considering how touchy Muslims are about anyone even drawing an image of Mohammed, one wouldn't think they'd be so unfeeling about sites important to other people. But they are. They have a dismal record for not respecting other people's religions. In 1973, they attacked Israel on Yom Kippur. Given control of Joseph's tomb, they vandelized it, ripped up the Torah scrolls and defecated everywhere. They used the Avraham Avinu Synagogue in Hebron as a goat sty. Constant sniper fire forces visitors to Rachel's tomb to arrive in armored trucks that park behind concrete road blocks. When Jordan invaded and conquered the eastern part of Jerusalem, it destroyed the synagogues and used headstones from the Mount of Olives cemetary as stepping stones to the latrines. One of these was the Hurva Shul. Sara Yoheved Rigler recounts the history of the Hurva Synagogue, which has just been rebuilt.


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

A Blog-Ed page has a quick list of the articles from which you can access any of the articles immediately. To go to the list, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

March 2010 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE
April 2010 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE



What we are talking about in the January-February 2010 issue:
(Ohri, Ibrahim, Rubin, Warner, Sidman, Frantzman, Glazov, Averick, Suseelan, Adams)
GEERT WILDERS' TRIAL (Fjordman, Wilders, NRO Symposium)
GUSH KATIF REMEMBERED (Saperstein, Ronen and Kempinski, Wilder)
DIDDLING IN IRAN (Imani, Glassman and Doran, Timmerman)
ISRAELI PROBLEMS AND HOW SOME OF THEM BEGAN (Rose, Gordon, Kaplan, Greenfield, Glick)
(Darwish, Schwartz, Ashery, IDF Soldier, Tossavainen, Rosenbluth, Jacobs, Marano)
HISTORY SECTION (Sharpe, Duke, Ostroff)
READERS' BLOG-ED PAGES (January, February)


It's the start of another year and a traditional time for stock-taking. In the January-February 2009 issue, we presented the Stages of Global Muslim Takeover. We would like to repeat them now.

  1. Infiltrate quietly, settling in small numbers near or among the locals' towns and villages.

  2. Establish friendly relations, and convince others of the virtues of Islam.

  3. Participate in community activities and provide charity for the poor and generosity to all, while encouraging the immigration of other Muslims.

  4. Get converts and supporters from the rank and file of the local population, particularly from the poor and disenfranchised of the host society, via the multiple mosques and madrasas and charitable and human rights groups. (Today, in the case of the US and EU, converts come in great numbers from the ranks of criminals, especially imprisoned African-Americans.)

  5. Agitate for greater and broader rights and considerations for Muslims, and for protection against real or imagined "Islamophobia".

  6. Organize a political party to push for changes in law to permit Muslim-only enclaves and for laws that formalize the host society's accommodation of Muslim religious needs.

  7. Institute the divide-and-conquer strategy of making pacts with some anti-establishment or minority government groups, legal (as has been done in the USA with Green Party, National Lawyers Guild) or illegal (KKK, Aryan Nation) so they will help in the following stages.

  8. Once you have the power base (some 10-15 percent of the population), then use violence, strikes, street riots, assassination, intimidation and bribery of government officials to destabilize the government.

  9. If the host country's government response to the violence is not effective, then there is a de facto green light to start full-blown terrorism which will topple the government and allow Muslim leaders to move up the power ladder with the help of the anti-establishment groups. Once in power, Muslim leaders can use their influence over the agitating Muslim population to quell the violence, thus pretending that they are helping restore order even as they themselves orchestrate the violence.

  10. Abandon the erstwhile anti-establishment allies and reign supreme; establish Shari'a, and declare the state to be a new Muslim nation where Shari'a is law and non-Moslems are dhimmi.

Terrorizing the populace is a much-used technique of global jihad. As the Strategy Page blog of January 11, 2010 writes: "In the last few months, Moslems have attacked Buddhists in Thailand, Jews everywhere, Baha'is in Iran and Christians in Egypt, Iraq, the Philippines, Pakistan, Malaysia and elsewhere. This is not a sudden and unexpected outburst of Moslem violence against non-Moslems. It is normal, and at the root of Islamic terrorism." Below we examine some features of Islamic terrorism and suggestions for fighting the terrorists.

This issue contains essays on what's happening in Europe, Israel and the U.S.A. The driving force in all cases is — depending on your views — Islam itself or an aberrant and marginal bunch of Muslims, variously called Fascist Islamists, Islamofascists, Islamists, Radical Islamists or extremists.

Judge for yourself how much more — or less — safe the world has become in this past year.


We start with characterizing the Islamic terrorist. We ask: How do you tell when you are dealing with a terrorist — i.e., someone who genuinely hungers to kill you. His reasons change. His aim doesn't.

This set of essays explore some of the features to look for. And what to do about it.

by R.K. Ohri

  We are serializing R.K. Ohri's book entitled The Long March of Islam. Previously, Ohri first laid out Islam's grand ideas for its global future and then discussed Islam's foundation tenets. In Chapter 3, he examines in detail a directive that towers above all others: to wage jihad against the infidel until he accepts "Allah as his Lord, Islam as his religion and Muhammad as his Apostle." Jihad is not an occasional act. "It is a holy war to be waged throughout the ages till the Day of Judgment." Current apologists of Islam make jihad sound like a fuzzy finding oneself spiritually. In reality, jihad calls for slaughter in the land; i.e., putting infidels to the slaughter. Which may be why jihad — better described as terrorism — has become so soul-satisfying in recent years with the Muslim youth and clergy. It is interesting that in India, jihad is justified because the British supposedly abolished the Caliphate; in the Middle East, the reason given is that the Jews are "occupying" Arab land; Osama bin Ladin cited the insult that westerners were in Saudi Arabia as the reason to destroy the World Trade Center and try to knock out the White House and Pentagon. The reasons vary; jihad slaughter is a constant.

by Raymond Ibrahim

  Raymond Ibrahim has previously written about taqiyya (unabashed lying to the infidel), a practice highly praised in Islam as a superior way to win a battle or an argument. Feigning apostasy — and not just under threat of death — is another aspect of taqiyya that is encouraged. The Qu'ran may itself be viewed as a study in taqiyya. Admonitions for peace in the earlier verses — written when Islam was still weak and outnumbered — are later replaced by calls for sustained jihad to convert the infidels. It is the later verses that are to be obeyed. In another context, a peace treaty can be made only for a fixed period of time, ten years at most; open-ended truces are illegitimate. Lies that further the spread of Islam are legitimate. "Yet", Ibrahim notes, "most Westerners continue to think that Muslim mores, laws, and ethical constraints are near identical to those of the Judeo-Christian tradition." For us in the West to continue to believe the Muslim is programmed in the same way as a Christian or Jew is dangerous folly.

by Barry Rubin

  Barry Rubin makes an important distinction. Jihadism and Terrorism are not equivalent; "Revolutionary Islamism is the main strategic problem in the world today. Terrorism is the main tactical problem." This suggests we stop limiting ourselves to the notion that we are fighting — or we were, pre-Obama — terrorism and acknowledge the enemy is the jihadist who uses terror. The Jihadist is fighting to inflict the rule of Islam everywhere in the world. As do many, Rubin takes comfort in separating political-theological Islamism from theological Islam. As he points out, "Islamism is an interpretation of Islam and not the only one possible. Indeed, for centuries there have been different interpretations." True, but from the start Islam was political as well as theological; jihad spread the word more efficiently than persuasion. We need to identify our enemies before we see the whites of their eyes. It will be too late, then.

by Bill Warner

  Bill Warner starts with the proposition that it a binary situation: one is either a muslim OR a kafir (a non-believer). There are no religious gradations in degree of belief in the fundamental Muslim credo. If an individual follows Muslim doctrine, he is a Muslim. Otherwise he is a kafir. And the two are treated differently. As Warner notes, "The Koran says that kafirs may be hated, plotted against, deceived, murdered, raped, enslaved, mocked and tortured. All of those actions are Islam and perfect doctrine." "So how do you tell if a nice Muslim is good or bad? From the kafir point-of-view, there is only the fact that a Muslim is following Mohammed's example. And that is bad, very bad."

by Fern Sidman

  One view of Islam asserts it is a warm religion of peace. Asked why almost all terrorists are Muslims, the response is: Well, a few marginal people — deprived, uneducated, frustrated — are terrorists, but they aren't authentic Muslims. The other view of Islam makes do with the facts: in practice, Islam is violent. Its practitioners are taught that violence and dishonesty as well as beheading and sneak attacks are acceptable weapons in fighting the infidel. Considering that the Muslim global population is estimated at 1.6 to 1.8 billion, even if only 15% of Muslims are pro-terror in that they will at least riot and burn tires to bolster suicide-bombers and snipers, we are talking about more than 250 million people, (which is getting mighty close to the population of the U.S.A.) Fern Sidman reviews a book by Wafa Sultan, an ex-Muslim, who has seen the religion from the inside and the outside and who has the training to assess it analytically — an ability few of its propagandists have.

by Seth J. Frantzman

  Seth Frantzman suggests a practical test of how advanced a Muslim country is. Ignore what it says it is. Look at the way women are treated in the country. Look specifically how the Muslim male treats the women in his own family. Nothing dramatic. Just the ordinary things. How much freedom of action does she have? How much control does she have over choosing her friends? How is she allowed to dress in public? Forget the official PR. It is a sad fact that most Muslim countries, including the Arab ones, have become ever more regressive.

by Jamie Glazov

  The new morality is that jihadists aren't responsible for their crimes for they are the victims of society, poverty, neglect and other social causes. So the attempted destruction of a planeload of people by a rich, nice, educated Muslim is puzzling to those who won't believe "what Islamic terrorists like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab themselves insist motivated them: ... following Islam and reading the Koran." Jamie Glazov argues that the causes of Umar's hate aren't to be found in Marxist economics and politics but in the "life-hating teaching of a religion that demonizes earthly happiness, joy, and pleasure." As Ayatollah Khomeini said, "there is no fun in Islam." There is too much hate — more than too many Muslims can cope with in a rational way.

by Lori Averick

  Hostile activity by Arabs and other Muslims often takes the form of maligning non-Muslims, writing poorly-spelled but brutally ugly comments on the internet, disrupting public meetings organized by non-Muslims, and randomly attacking Jews physically on the street. There are also intra-Muslim hate crimes, such as the honor killings by even "moderate" Arabs — Muzammil H. Hassan beheaded his wife because she was uppity — and these are feebly reported by the press. What is becoming more frequent, as Lori Averick reports, is the western or westernized born-Muslim or convert, who wakes up one day and takes it upon himself suddenly to shoot up a Jewish community center, a group of fellow soldiers or — trying for the brass ring — to explode a planeful of people. An early example was Sayyid Nosair, Rabbi Meir Kahane's murderer, who came from Egypt and became a member of the notorious al-Farouq Mosque in Brooklyn. Whenever we have a single-person attack, the sob sisters of the FBI immediately reassure us that there is no conspiracy; the murderers were not radicalized by their religious leaders. It was simply that they were hurt, harrassed, insulted, ignored, picked upon, slighted, scorned, forced to this, forced into that, etc., etc., by the insensitive majority society. Yah, right.

by Dr. Babu Suseelan

  Dr. Babu Suseelen writes about the impact of random terrorism on the lives of the citizens where the attack occurred. Security officers and political leaders warn against attack, but are silent about the jihad ideology that motivates the jihadists. In time, "citizens have become inoculated against the terrorists. And these habituated citizens who are inoculated and who are hiding behind a thick wall of denial no longer react." We need to fight back to preserve our future — for example, to demand that "hatred from the Koran be expunged." "Commonsense suggests that citizens have the right to identify people trying to ferment violence, spread hatred and terror in our country."

by D. L. Adams

  This comes as close as any article I know to articulating that we are at a crossroads — "a crossroads where denial and ignorance meet rationality and common sense." A reader, Christopher Ward, commented: "D.L. Adams lays out for us the dangers of fundamentalist Islam and the way we are reacting or rather not reacting."

We are currently militarily engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both these countries and both sides in both countries are ideologically governed by Sharia law. Sharia law with its lack of tolerance to any other religion and its refusal to allow woman freedom of action is intrinsically "contrary to our concepts of justice and human rights." As Adams points out, "We fight against jihad at the same time we create states that will mandate it and support it — we will always be its victims; this is folly." More recently, in Iran, we've again sided with an ideological Islamic regime, not with those who want lessened state control.

Adams asks, "What is our purpose in supporting the creation and growth of societies and governments that are fundamentally opposed to our existence." How do we define victory? Whatever the outcome, it can hardly be called democracy?

Aside from the larger issues that need examination, we need to rethink some of our prejudices. We have rejecting profiling in airports, though profiling is a sensible way to pick out potential terrorists. We fear giving offense to Islam to the point that we have weakened our security. It is ludicrous but significant that the Dep't of Homeland Security has eliminated the word terrorist from its vocabulary. We need to understand that those who think of us as the Great Satan will not love us, no matter what we do. "The adherents of Islamic doctrine attack us because they hate us; they hate us simply because we exist."


If democracy is defined as freedom for the individual within a context of a single language and single sense of "countryhood", then Great Britain — indeed most of Europe — continues to fritter away its freedom under the seductive sway of multiculturalism. The current trial of Geert Wilders, a member of the Dutch parliament, is on. It is clearly emblematic of the struggle between democracy, which provides freedom for all groups, and a form of multiculturalism that favors Islam. It eventually leads to the most determined group taking control.


Geert Wilders, a Dutch parlimentarian, made a documentary, Fitna. He showed actual footage of Muslims behaving in their own interpretation of "peaceful" with voice-overs reading relevent portions of the Koran condoning this behavior. This infuriated Muslims and the Muslims so frightened the usually 'anything-is-OK' Dutch authorities, that Wilders was treated as a criminal. He was not even allowed into England a year ago. He was put on trial by the Dutch in early 2010, in the words of Pat Condell ( a must read. click here. ) for the "crime of embarrassing them with the truth." The judges have rejected all but 3 of Wilders' 18 witnesses — experts in Islam, social cohesion, and practioners such as Mohammed Bouyen, the Koran-believer who slaughtered Theo van Gogh in 2004, and Sheikh al-Qaradawi, enthusiast of the healing power of camel urine. The trial has been postponed until at least next summer. It's still a cliff-hanger.

by Fjordman

  It is trite to say that many a time we don't recognize when our civilization is at a major crossroad at the time when it happens. Bringing that strong advocate of freedom for the individual, Member of the Dutch Parliament Geert Wilders, to trial on January 20, 2010, for insulting Islam, may be one of those epochal events. Fjordman makes us understand this by comparing Wilders' persecution to that of Galileo, who was forced to recant his conclusion that the earth traveled around the sun, and not, as was commonly believed and enforced by the Catholic Church, that the sun traveled around the earth.

by Geert Wilders

  This was the Address given by Geert Wilders, Chairman of the Party for Freedom (Netherlands), at the Four Seasons, New York City, September 25, 2008, introducing an Alliance of Patriots and announcing the Facing Jihad Conference in Jerusalem.

by National Review Online (NRO) Symposium

  NRO asks a group of experts about the start of Geert Wilders trial: (1) Is there any legitimate reason he's in court? (2) What are the implications of such a trial being held, nevermind its outcome? These are the thoughtful and analytic responses by Bat Ye'or, a leading authority on the islamization of Europe, Paul Marshall and Nina Shea of the Hudson Institute Center for Religious Freedom, Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch, and Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum.


by Paul Austin Murphy

  As in America, the left ideologues and the Muslim fundamentalists in Britain find common cause in anti-war and anti-zionism activities. Paul Austin Murphy writes about Salma Yaqoob, a leader of the Respect Party, whose membership comes from Socialists and Communists on the left and Muslims on the right. Ideologic differences on gay and women's rights have caused the Party problems, but there is one area of perfect harmony among the members — they all hate Zionists (pronounced: Jews) and are for Palestinian rights. Murphy challenges some of Yaqoob's arguments, including her downplaying terror in Britain and complaining that Muslims are demonized. He also questions her claim to be of the "working class". He points out that her type of defamation of Judaism is responsible for much of the recent rise of anti-Semitism in England.

by Melanie Phillips

  Christian churchmen, such as Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, are warning against uncontrolled Islamic immigration that threatens Britain's "very ethos or DNA." As Muslim immigration has increased, rather than leading to a multifaceted but integrated community anchored in a single language and democratic goals, it has led to increased outlay in welfare expenses, demands that England give way to Muslim culture by adopting sharia law and a radicalization of the younger generation of Muslims. In this article, Melanie Phillips points out that Muslim immigration didn't just happen — it was encouraged in the name of "multiculturalism." Ironically, Muslim immigration is leading to a bizarre monolithic society where Islam is topdog and the other groups subservient.

by Reuven Erlich

  Britain has shown great concern for Muslim sensitivities. It has been extremely accomodating to what Muslims claim they need to perform their religious duties — to the point of stamping on the religious and social sensitivities of everyone else: not allowing non-Muslim employees to eat in the lunch room during Ramadan; not allowing Christian religious icons to be displayed publically, not allowing mixed bathing in swimming pools, not teaching the Holocaust, etc. One result has been that Muslims dedicated to violence have made London the base of their political, propaganda and lawfare activities. Hamas is on the European Union's list of terrorist organizations. Yet, camouflaged as a supporter of the Palestinian cause, it has turned "Britain into a center for extensive anti-Israeli activity." Hamas and its ideology has infiltrated "British politics, media and universities." Reuven Erlich provides us examples of their activities.

by Bruce Bawer

  When a believer in the basic goodness and fair-mindedness of mankind come up against guys who seem to be maniacally driven to kill people, something has to give. When the disparity is in the mind of a politicized intellectual expert, he often will sneer away the hard facts to preserve his political integrity. As Bruce Bawer describes so vividly, using Justin Vaïsse, as a case in point, he will ignore "the draining of European welfare systems by Muslim families, the explosion in rapes and gay-bashings and Jew-baitings, the proliferation of honor killings and forced marriages and no-go zones..." Curiously, the supercilious know-it-all is often not even concerned about fellow experts and professionals, who haven't denied reality but forthrightly fight against the ugliness and brutality that the entry of a large number of colonizing Muslims has brought to Europe. Calling those who fight to preserve European culture Islamophobes won't make the problems go away.

by Fjordman

  Fjordman comments on a book by Christopher Caldwell emphasize that while it is a lucid presentation of the major problem confronting Europe — namely, that Europeis being inundated by colonizing Muslims — the book does not come to grips with the likely consequence that Europe may soon lose its identity and be absorbed into the world of Islam. As example of the tenor of the book, Caldwell states that "Europeans can only hope that newcomers, especially Muslim newcomers, will assimilate peaceably." Fjordman points out that "Muslims have never 'assimilated peaceably' anywhere." He is justifiably annoyed that by downplaying the problem now, Caldwell contributes to a bloody future when and if Europe wakes up.


Isaac Asimov, in writing his Foundation series talked about a Seldon crisis, where problems that had perhaps been building for years suddenly come to a boil and there is no escape from dealing with them. Israel may be at that point.

Most urgent is Iran, which is run by Mullahs whose ambition is to build a spectacular nuclear device to act as a silver bullet to kill off Israel, a major obstacle in their pursuit of dominion over the Middle East.

The real issue is: will the region — not just Israel — survive? If Iran is allowed to carry out its nuclear program, an Iranian strike would devastate the entire Middle East. Some of it will be demolished; the rest will be too crippled to maintain delivery of the oil on which much of our transportation and manufacturing industries depend.

The Obama administration's response to this possibility is to ignore it. Instead, it treats Israel as a pesky dependent that needs taming and downsizing. The Administration has finally found an enemy it is prepared to fight. Israel. Not Iran. It seems to be doing all it can to paralyze Israel (or at least distract it from concentrating on how to handle Iran) without arousing the ire of the American people, the majority of which favor Israel, not the Arabs. Other countries treat Iran's threats as Israel's headache. The U.N. and the E.U. are useless.

As a second component in the crisis, terrorist gangs that have harassed Israel for years are consolidating. And the U.N. has declared -- using the Goldstone Report as certification — that attempts by Israel to fight the terrorists are war crimes. To prepare to face this combined hostility, Israel must not only prepare militarily but it must also become less lackadaisical about her internal enemies, the Jewish Marxist ideologues who fight for the Palestinian cause.

In addition, there is the long-standing factor that the Palestinian arabs ignore history, geography and international law by claiming that they are a people and that the Land of Israel belongs to them. Appeasement by Israel has proven a failure, and the mistake continues to paid for in Jewish dead bodies.

By not asserting her rights to her land, Israel has lost the propaganda war by default. The American Administration acts as if the way to peace in the Middle East — even with a belligerent Iran, an aggressive assortment of terror groups controlled by resurgent Islam and a regional war taking place by proxy in Yemen — is to give the Palestinian arabs a good chunk of Israel. It refuses to allow normal and quite legal growth of the Jewish towns in Samaria and Judea as part of its irrational push for a Palestinian state. It is more committed to this goal than are the Arabs who are to become the citizens of this new state.

Israel might continue to give aways pieces of her tiny land, hoping to appease the local Arabs and foreign powers who are intent on destroying Israel. Or she will stiffen her spine and use her brain to solve the Palestinian problem by (1) annexing Samaria and Judea and Gaza, which are rightfully hers; and (2) urging regional and world groups to grant the "Palestinians" — including the Arab refugees -- an area carved out of the enormous amount of the Middle East land the League of Nations allocated to the Arabs. That will be the real beginning of peace.


by Moshe and Rachel Saperstein

  Moshe Saperstein relieves himself of his opinon of a Chanukah obscenity -- inviting an enemy of Israel to light the Chanukah menorah in Washington, D.C. But he also writes of three small miracles, all of which happened at Chanukah time. Rachel posts an essay by Paula R. Stern, a moving story of how she salvaged stones from the synagogues that were left behind by the Jews forced out of Gaza. They were desecrated by the new Arab inhabitants.

by Gil Ronen and Yoni Kempinski

  As a reader commented, "just too bad that a tragedy such as this one at Gush Katif was the spark that ignited their tremendous creative spirits. Here's hoping that these talented women continue to bring beauty in to the world. Theirs is a great example of tikun olum."

by David Wilder

  Ugly punishments were meted out to teenagers who stood and protested — without stones or guns or any weapons — that expelling the Jews from Gush Katif was dreadfully wrong. They were treated much more harshly than Arab prisoners in Israel who have been found guilty of killing Israelis. The Arab prisoners even study for degrees while in jail; the teenagers were locked up "pre-trial" for indefinite amounts of time. That has now been judged by the courts to be excessive. The expulsion from Gaza has also been judged wrong. David Wilder is perhaps looking at a possible future when the Israeli leadership fearful of 'them' — America, the media, "world opinion" — might commit the crime of expelling some 200,000 to 300,000 Jews from Biblical Israel. This would be so outrageous as to make the suffering and demoralization caused by the Gush Katif expulsion seem mild in comparison. So he suggests that now that the Judiciary has come to its senses, it pass a law recognizing all the expellees as national heroes and making the leaders promise that this will Never Again Happen. It follows, for the law to have teeth, that the leaders responsible of the Gush Katif evil pay for their crime.


Undeniably, the best way to stop the development of Iran's doomsday bomb would be to let the Iranian people handle it themselves. Two of this set of articles discuss how angry the Iranian populace is at the government and ways we could assist them to bring about regime change. Unfortunately, as Timmerman's article shows, the American administration is — looking at its actions and lack of action — pro-Mullah. The U.N. is unworried — it's too busy calling Israel's scrupulous military action in Gaza a year ago a war crime and the EU doesn't seem to understand that any disruption of the fragile stability of the Middle East will affect them in many unpleasant ways. Given that none of the major groups that could possibly rein in Iran are doing anything, it is unlikely that the best way to stop bomb building in the Middle East will have time to succeed.

For those who are convinced Iran doesn't mean what it says about nuclear-bombing Israel, we suggest you read Joshua Teitelbaum's monograph, "What Iranian Leaders Really Say about Doing Away with Israel," available from JCPA.

by Amil Imani

  Amil Imani suggests that "all signs point to an early demise of the Islamic Republic — and the establishment of a secular democracy." In response to the public's unrest, the Iranian government has become more repressive and brutal, and in doing so, it becomes yet more unpopular. Imani estimates it has at best the support of some 10-15% of the population. "[T]he opposition movement is massive and determined, capable of exploiting any opportunity to disempower the regime." It includes labor and teacher unions, student groups, religious and ethnic minorities and journalists. They should be backed up by the world's nations imposing immediate sanctions. Whether the revolution or the bomb will come in first is still to be answered.

by James K. Glassman and Michael Doran

  James K. Glassman and Michael Doran provide us with ABB — All But the Bomb --- ideas on dealing with Iran's as yet unstopped program to build nuclear bombs. They suggest ideas for a regime change in Iran, following up on the obvious dissatisfaction among the Iranians due to the fraudulent reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last summer. Should Iran be allowed to continue her nuclear plans, even if she doesn't immediately blast Israel, she becomes the more powerful state in the Middle East, or, as more likely, starts a race among the group of equally-unstable barely-civilized Arab states of the region to secure their own nuclear weapons.

by Kenneth Timmerman

  Kenneth Timmerman describes his interview with Rahman Haj Ahmadi, leader of the outlawed Free Life Party of Iranian Kurdistan (PJAK) in Europe. As Timmerman writes, "Far from being a terrorist group, PJAK is dedicated to the overthrow of the Islamic Republic regime in Iran and its replacement by a pro-Western, secular, united Iran that recognizes the rights of all its citizens." Instead of encouraging this dissident group, the American Administration has, under the media radar, labeled the group as terrorist and frozen its assets, thus ensuring that other groups would avoid working with it.


Let's first consider some bad political decisions Israel has made. It has sacrificed its own needs and damaged its image and its self-respect in the vain hope of gaining peaceful accomodation with its Arab neighbors. As Evelyn Gordon points out below, "The Oslo process [instituted in 1993] led Israel to sideline its own claim to the West Bank and Gaza, which all Israeli governments (and international Jewish leaders) had stressed to some extent before 1993. The argument in favor of Israel's right to sovereignty there was simple: these territories are the historic Jewish homeland, the heart of the biblical Jewish kingdom. They were explicitly allotted to the future Jewish state by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate, which was never legally superseded." Instead of leading to peace, the concessions made to the local arabs increased their appetites for further encroachment and renewed terrorism, not for peace.

by Alex Rose

  Alex Rose describes some bad decisions Israel has made in its short lifetime, sometimes for noble reasons, sometimes from timidity and fear of asserting its legitimate rights. These decisions have led to some almost insolvable present-day problems. Moreover, her continued concessionary attitude and preoccupation with peace and peace partners and the peace process are giving her enemies a better shot at her destruction. She has not, however, been responsible for one of the most stupid decisions in the recent history of the Middle East, namely, Jimmy Carter's undermining the Shah of Iran. We can thank him for Iran's present-day rulers, the tyrannical Mullahs.

by Evelyn Gordon

  The conventional wisdom is that Israel's international standing depends on its willingness to advance the "peace process." If so, why, Evelyn Gordon asks, "has Israel's reputation fallen so low despite its numerous concessions for peace since 1993?" She points out that "among anti-Israel radicals, Israel's increasingly frantic pursuit of peace has aroused not admiration but rather the instincts of a predator scenting blood." To the terrorists, a concessionary Israel signals that Israel is in panic, so it's a good time to step up terror. Israel should attend to some truisms. First: Diplomats pressure the pressurable. Second: Terrorists expand their terror activities whenever possible. The Arabs in control of the Territories are terrorists. As Gordon points out, "the desperate pursuit of peace is not the solution but the problem."

by Lee Kaplan

  The term McCarthyism — describing unfair accusations reminiscent of the pronouncements of the late unlamented Senator Joseph McCarthy — is a favorite retort of Marxist academics, especially when they are accused of disloyalty. They proclaim loudly and angrily that they are being deprived of their right to free speech, no matter how sloppy or non-factual or treasonous their speech. They never call it McCarthyism when they don't allow their students or colleagues the same right to free speech. Lee Kaplan explains the origin of the term McCarthyism, and suggests that the spectacle of Israeli Marxists becoming offended when their pseudo-scholarship, inaccuracies and political ideology are called into question is more Charlie McCarthy than Joseph.

by Daniel Greenfield

  A particularly damaging action by the Israeli left has been to insert "appeasement [touted as peace] into the culture and the educational system of the State of Israel." This is while the government knows Arab kiddies are inculcated from the time they can crawl to celebrate murder of Jews. One consequence has been a fall in IDF recruitment from the Israeli Left — when once almost all Israelis aspired to join the army — while more Arab youth are recruited as suicide-murderers. An unforeseen paradox has been that Israel must rely on the religious Jew in the army, but the religious soldiers are put into the position of being commanded to crush their own religious Zionist communities at the behest of the Leftist politicians. How long can Israel function while violating the deepest patriotic values of the majority of its citizenry?

by Caroline Glick

  Caroline Glick points out that Israel is being hemmed in by different groups of Muslim terrorists, which suggests that a regional war is imminent. To prepare for it, Israel of course needs to examine the potential military aspects. It also needs to neutralize the political-social items that would prevent Israel from responding effectively: the 5th column some Israeli arabs have shown themselves to be; "the ideological dependence on the far left and its central contention that it is Israel's presence in contested areas rather than our enemies' commitment to Israel's destruction that causes wars"; and the support given by a single source — the New Israel Fund — to all of the 16 anti-Zionist NGOs which wrote the war crimes charges made official by the Goldstone Committee in its attempt to prevent the IDF from fighting effectively in future engagements. NIF's motto might as well be: 'we'll do anything to undermine Israel: we support riots, terrorize Israeli officials, and amplify the voices of radicalized Islam.' Israel needs to make it clear that "the political open season on Israel is over." Israel must never again sue for peace after winning the war.


Why the Palestinian people was invented and the corruption of their handlers.

by Wallace Edward Brand

  If Yasser Arafat was the father of the Palestinian People, Russia was its mother. Wallace Edward Brand writes about the role Soviet Russia played in literally creating the Palestinian People in 1964 and in establishing Yassir Arafat as its leader. He bases much of this on the revelations of Major General Ion Mihai Pacepa, who has been vetted and certified as a credible source. Creating the "Palestinian" people as a propaganda weapon to counter Israel's ownership of Mandated Palestine has also been confirmed by many Arab sources (cf. here.)

by Assaf Wohl

  This essay by Assaf Wohl is written as replies to assertions by prominent Arabs who insist the Land of Israel belongs to them, past, present and future. That they say so would ordinarily be their own business — and error — but unfortunately, their words have incited Arabs to riot. Would that Assaf Wohl's essay motivates them to substitute Israel's real history for their fantasy version. As he has pointed out, "in every Arab village where you dig a little, you will find a synagogue."

by Hana Levi Julian

  Mahmoud Abbas is quite a guy. He has two faces — the smiley one he turns toward Westerners when he asserts that he abjures violence and the dedicated look of the good Muslim when he honors Arabs terrorists. Two faces and no elected position — his term of office as President expired January 9, 2009. So they just extended it — with new elections sometime in 2010. Maybe. And yet, the American administration spends more effort worrying about how to get Israel to gift him with Samaria and Judea than it does worrying about the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah-Hamas alliance. I'm guessing the USA administration figures it would complicate things if Hamas wins in Samaria and Judea in a new election before the U.S.A. can "peace-process" Israel into giving its land away.

by Khaled Abu Toameh

  Abbas may not be as colorful a murderer as Arafat, but his heart is in the right place: he too believes in the Arab version of the work ethic: take home whatever you can steal. The longer he stays in office, the more likely it is that he and his buddies will live like Arafat's widow does. Arafat died in 2004, but widowlady Sufa still keeps dress boutiques and fancy food stores in business, all by her little self. Wot a benefactress. Of course, Hamas also takes big chunks of the money coming in to welfare the po' Palestinians in Gaza. No difference.


by Mark Steyn

  In writing this article about the U.N. Mark Steyn is as usually witty, incisive and right on the mark. It is a bit depressing to ponder that this description of the U.N.'s corruption is five years old. And it is still accurate.

by Yoav Sorek

  Yoav Sorek presents a brief synopsis of the Israeli Initiative for solving the Palestinian refugee problem. He argues that "the Palestinian refugee issue [is] the key to real change in the Middle East. Contrary to popular understanding, this issue could be solved in a relatively simple way: treating the Palestinian refugees like all other refugees. A fair humanitarian solution to this problem is of interest to all who seek stability and peace — Israel, the US, moderate Arab regimes, and of course, the Palestinian refugees themselves. The main obstacle for rehabilitation of the Palestinian refugees has always been the Palestinian National Movement, which takes advantage of the refugee issue, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the body responsible for the perpetuation of the refugee situation over six decades. The fact that UNRWA is financed by western countries with the US as its largest sole donor, gives us an opportunity to make a change." Something needs to be done soon. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, the U.N estimated the number of Arab refugees at 472,000, of which 360,000 needed help. The number has grown so that UNRWA, whose only clients are these Arab refugees, feeds, houses, educates, provides health care and propagandizes for more than 4.5 million people who claim to be the original refugees and/or their descendants. And the number continues to grow.

by Mark Delmar

  Mark Delmar supplies references for facts that have been submerged by the fraudulent claim of the "Palestinians" that they are the original occupants of the Land of Israel and that the Jews invaded their land and are occupying it. There never was a country or state called Palestine. It is a fantasy that owes little to history and geography. Quite the reverse is true. When the Jews returned in numbers to their ancient land of Israel at the end of the 19th Century, the land was a poverty-striken, unfertile, unsanitary part of the Ottoman Empire. The Jews revitalized the land and the Arabs came in because of the renewed economic opportunities. The truth has often been told. It is time it was accepted.


The Obama administration, whether through design or ignorance, appears to be operating consistently to aid the growth of Islam in America and abroad. In this country, terrorist acts that can't be attributed to al-Qaeda are seen as random and individual. Islam continues to infiltrate our educational and political systems. A growing network of mosques manufactures the manpower to promote sharia law by terror and by persuasion — whichever works in the particular situation. The Jewish community has unwillingly become a major target for Islamic activism.

Many have forgotten that not that long ago American Jews were subjected to restrictions and quotas, some crude, others more low-keyed, but all hurtful and damaging. Too many American Jews are too young to realize how important Israel is for them personally, if only as an escape hatch, should the rising anti-semitism — compliments of Arab money and influence working with Marxists and religious anti-semites — reach the heights it has in Britain and France. Unlike the old prejudice that seldom spoke loudly — except for the neo-nazis and Father Coughlins — the new anti-semitism announces itself openly.

On campuses, while Jewish students march and chant for peace and ecumenism, arab students hang posters showing Jews dripping blood as they eat arab babies. They boldly disrupt meetings they don't like. College administrators may prefer that these vulgar demonstrations didn't happen, but too often they do exactly nothing to stop them,

It is easy for Jews to take quiet pride in Israel's accomplishments in medicine, in computers, in technology. But most Jews are not equipped to handle bad press in the media and condemnations from their fellow students and coworkers. The political manipulations in the U.N. are way beyond them.

Jewish hasbara is poor. The U.N.-staged Goldstone report and malicious blood-libel stories in the media have been countered intelligently and decidedly by thoughtful and analytic articles. But the defamation of Israel is not a topic the majority of Jews are passionate about. It isn't something they bring up with coworkers at lunch. The typical reaction to accusations against Israel is embarrassment; Jews too often blame Israel for causing them distress. They are light years away from even thinking of refuting the libel effectively.

Things are not getting any better. Thanks to Saudi money and an organized network of hate-spewing mosques, Arabs have cornered the market on profiling the players in the Middle East: Islam is peaceful, Israel is evil. Somali muslims have killed hundreds of thousands of blacks who are their co-religionists in Darfur; Sunnis kill Shi'ites and Shi'ites kill Sunnis; Iran crushes its election protesters; Fatah shoots Hamas and Hamas throws Fatah off roof tops; Rwanda, Bosnia, Sri Lanka have seen indiscriminate massacres. But the only 'crime' that excites the media and the leftist humanitarian peacenikers is Israel's tempered attempt to stop Arab terrorists from aiming missiles at Israel.

Calls for academic boycotts of Israel began in 2002 and continue. Jewish academics do rebuff such calls. Sadly, their response is often a whine that there's lots of Israelis that care about human rights for the arab. How pathetic. They haven't the guts to say that if the punishment for inconveniencing Arabs at a checkpoint is an academic boycott, the punishment for the same group of arabs killing Jews should be death or, at the very least, a complete quarantine.

Why are defenders of Israel apologizing? Geert Wilders (see above) has pointed out that "the war against Israel is not a war against Israel. It is a war against the West. It is jihad. Israel is simply receiving the blows that are meant for all of us." Why aren't we educating European academics that it is daft to undermine Israel when it is one of the few places not willing to commit suicide so that Islam can take over the world?

A cheery note. American Jews are beginning to ask: why aren't our leaders out there in the front lines yelling at the Arab propagandists? Why is Bnai Brith helping Muslims condemn Israel? Why is JNF letting the Arabs take over Jewish land? Why is AIPAC promoting an Arab state in Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank), Judaism's birthplace? Why are they so eager to give the Arabs the Biblical land of Israel, with its many towns whose names are obviously from Biblical times, including Seilun (Shiloh), where Joshua brought the Ark of the Covenant, and Hebron, where Abraham and Sarah are buried and David was crowned King? Jews aren't happy to discover that most prestigious Jewish organizations are doing very little to fight Arab bigotry and hate. Or, like the ADL, they are actually going in the wrong direction. We'd be better off without the ADL defaming our Christian friends and preaching tolerance for those who hate us.

Most of the articles in this set examine our weak leadership and ineffective hasbara. Even when Israel behaves magnificently, moving an entire area — aid after a natural disaster — to a new and higher standard of care, we can still expect people will decide Israel is doing it for ugly motives. On the other hand, there's nothing easier to sell than a story that Israel is doing something nefarious — like cutting up Arabs for their bullet-shattered organs. With the help of a cooperative media and a compliant educational system, the Muslims are making great strides in getting their bizarre version of reality out to the public. They are using our openness and respect for other people's points of view to convince us to take on their medieval ideas.

Like it or not, Jews in America and Jews in Israel are bonded. We need to support each other without equivocation. Israel has had to take the brunt of Islamic hate for America as well as for the insult she inflicted on Arab sensibilities by staying alive when her Arab neighbors tried to kill off the brand new modern state. Jews in America have to learn to defend Israel as if it is for themselves. For it is.

by Nonie Darwish

  Nonie Darwish describes yet another way that Islamic attitudes and values are infiltrating our educational system and affecting the values of young students. They send around speakers to schools, who, under the guise of explaining Islam, mispresent Islam, excusing its violence and spouting misinformation. These tactics are also designed to create an attitude of hate against Israel and America in the next generation. As Yuval Zaliouf has said of this essay, "Here is a clear example of the infestation of barbarism into our civilization." The unfortunate fact is that so many in the "civilized" world, particularly in academia and in the media, side with those barbarians. See for example the uncivilized tactics at UC Irvine here.

by Michael W. Schwartz

  Michael W. Schwartz makes a novel distinction between American religious institutions and foreign ones, specifically, Saudi-funded and staffed mosques in America. The reason is that the political aspects of what is taught in Wahhabi mosques have been implicated in several massacres by American Muslim terrorists. As one reader of the original article wrote: "The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Citizens have not only rights but responsibilities ..." Another reader noted that if Islam is a religion and not a political invasion, then we should go by the principle of mutuality: "They get as many mosques [here in America] as we get Churches/synagogues — Houses of Worship [in Saudi Arabia.]."

by Avrum I. Ashery

  Avrum I. Ashery reminds us that there are many effective and creative ways of letting people know about "Israel's exciting accomplishments in health, science technology and agriculture." And Israel's fast and brilliant response when disaster strikes. And its religious tolerance despite the fact that it lives in a region of widespread religious intolerance. Use the included list of some of Israel's accomplishments to start you off.

An IDF Soldier

  Israel's immediate response to the earthquake in Haiti was dazzling; it set a new standard for dealing with a disaster by integrating high-tech and well-trained and dedicated professionals. As Emanuel Winston put it: "Israel's contribution became the focal point for other doctors from all over the world. Regrettably, the International Media worked very hard to insure that Israel's contribution was either not mentioned or only minimally, at best." And many internet crazies were sure Israel was there to harvest organs. The article is an IDF soldier's eyewitness account of the Israeli field hospital personnel and the reaction of the Haitians whose lives were saved.

by Mikael Tossavainen

  Not long before the totally unwarrented and monstrous attack on Israel by the United Nation's Goldstone Report, Israel suffered another undeserved kick in the ribs. A Swedish paper, the Aftonbladet, skillfully mixed rumors, distortions, suggestions, lies and irrelevent information to accuse Israel of harvesting organs from dead Palestinians. Tossavainen does an excellent wrap-up of the story and its aftermath. Or some of the aftermath. It takes but a moment to realize that organs for transplant need meticulous handling and the organs of a bullet-riddled terrorist are hardly likely to be suitable. Nevertheless, such malicious and blatently dishonest stories about Israel are readily believed by those happy to accept any negative story about Jews.

by Susan L. Rosenbluth

  Abe Foxman and the ADL are long-time institutions in the American Jewish community. Politically, like Merlin in the King Arthur legend, Foxman seems to be traveling backward in time. Half a century out of date, he thinks his enemies are right winger who love Israel like Rush Limbaugh and Christian evangelicals. He rants against right wing Nazis, whose impact is somewhere around minus zero but he pursues ecumenical ties with the Muslims, who spend time, money and human resources in promoting antisemitism in America. Foxman continues to use his position to side with the political Left, apparently believing the Left is still philo-semitic and the Right anti-semitic. What is most disturbing is that Foxman doesn't seem to recognize the extent that Arab targetting of Jews has influenced American campuses and churches. In this essay, Susan L. Rosenbluth examines Foxman's record, particularly his protection of those, like Bishop Tutu, who defame Israel. It's not clear we can any longer afford an ADL that defames our friends and ignores the danger posed by Arabs suffering from Judeophobia.

by Charles Jacobs

  The ADL is an outstanding example of an important Jewish organization that is inadequately responding "to the threats posed by Islamist antisemitism." Unfortunately, it isn't the only one that is passive in the face of Muslim in-your-face hostility. Other major Jewish organizations have not forthrightly warned their membership about the extent of Muslim planning and infiltration into America's educational, religious and political institutions. These groups certainly know that the Muslims have geared up to isolate Jews and demonize them in the U.S.A, Canada and several South American states. Charles Jacobs may have figured out the main reason why they haven't — they just don't know how to explain it to the Jewish community. I have news for them. All they have to do is say it. Plainly. In plain English. The facts. The unvarnished facts. The worst that can happen is some ostriches will resign from the groups. But that's better than being accused later of knowing what was going on and pretending that things would get better. To put it another way, NOT to shout in a theatre when there's a fire is criminal.

by Lou Marano

  As Lou Marano writes, "Contrary to the received wisdom and official U.S. policy, a Palestinian state is not necessary, desirable or inevitable." For those committed to a Jewish State in the otherwise monopolistic Muslim Middle East, he argues it is time for proactive support. Why? Because there is evidence that the military means used to impose the current Washington-requested 10-month freeze on new Jewish construction in Samaria and Judea may portend an expulsion of these same Israeli Jews from their homes and businesses. A government that hasn't yet resettled the 8000 to 10,000 Jews it hounded out of their homes in Gaza in 2005 may be about to repeat this act of terror against another 200,000 to 300,000 of its citizens. If eastern Jerusalem is included, the number would go up to 500-600,000 Jews made refugees by their own government in their own country.


The articles range from the First Liberation — the Great Liberation of the land destined to be our homeland — to the Crusades and to the more recent massacre of Deir Yassin, which — like so many Arab tales — turned out to be a hoax.

by Victor Janice Sharpe

  Victor Sharpe says of his article, "At this time when the international community, including the Obama Administration and the State Department, is applying unbearable pressure upon the Jewish state to give away its Biblical and ancestral heartland of Judea and Samaria to the Arabs, who call themselves Palestinians, it is vital to return to the biblical passages in the Book of Joshua. Joshua was the great military leader of the Jewish people. It was he who first freed the Promised Land in what I call the Great Liberation. The article/essay is replete with biblical passages that list the liberated territories on both banks of the River Jordan and which we ignore today at our peril." How foolish it would be to give away our patrimony for a bowl of promises that the Arabs have no intention of honoring.

by Selwyn Duke

  Selwyn Duke asks: "Were the Crusades really expansionist ventures by an imperialist Europe? Or were they something else entirely?" He reminds us that by 732 A.D, when Islam was little more than 100 years old, Muslims had already taken over many of the Christian countries of the Middle East and North Africa, Iberia (Spain and Portugal) and were nearing Paris before they were stopped. But Islam didn't stop trying to take over Europe. The Crusades, begun some four centuries later, were attempts by Christianity to take back territory once theirs and to stop further encroachment. Duke suggests we need to understand the Crusaders in the context of their time. Muslims were relentlessly invading and occupying large swatches of Europe, The Crusaders fought back — perhaps not brilliantly and with dark episodes. But they fought for the survival of their lands and religion.

by Maurice Ostroff

  History sometimes has a way of repeating the same elements of the same story over and over again. In Jenin and again in Gaza last year, Israel put its own soldiers at risk to prevent the killing of Arab women and children, whose own families callously put them at risk to shield the terrorists that Israel was targetting. The same thing happened when the new state of Israel was just born and immediately invaded. Deir Yassin was not a peaceful village; it was fortified and well-equipped with a large supply of arms being used by a large number of native and foreign fighters, shooting down into Jewish areas. Strategically placed high up in the hills, it was blocking the road to Jerusalem. Rather than a surprise attack — which would have saved Jewish lives — the Jews, using a loudspeaker, offered the town the opportunity to send away the women and children before they attacked. What the Jews got for their scrupulous behavior was the Deir Yassin myth, which asserted the Jews had raped the women and massacred the town. And this was years before Judge Goldstone with solemn face falsely certified that Jews committed war crimes in Gaza.


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

A Blog-Ed page has a quick list of the articles from which you can access any of the articles immediately. To go to the list, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

January 2010 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE
February 2010 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE


What we are talking about in the November-December 2009 issue:
TO BRING ISRAELI POLITICS UP TO THE QUALITY OF ITS TECHNOLOGY (Schecter, November, Lademain, Sharpe, Freund, Belman, Shapiro)
OTHER MIDDLE EAST CONFLICTS (Erlich, Rubin, Spyer, Silverberg)
ACADEMIC ANTISEMITES (Shifftan and Lipkin, Plaut, Waltzer, Plaut)
AMERICAN PERCEPTION OF TERRORISM (Spengler, Lerner, Emerson and Himelfarb, Jonas, Dzubow)
BLOG-ED PAGES (November, December)


We discuss the one and only really salient point. It is International Law and yet no one seems to know about it, including the U.N. and U.S.A. administrations: namely, Israel is the sole owner of Israel and the territories. That is international law. That is irrevocable. It means that Israel isn't occupying Arab land; the reverse is true. It means that every time the U.S.A. wheedles more of Israel's land for the "Palestinians", it is breaking its own law. So why doesn't Israel blare this from every media source? Beats me. Aside from the fact that Israel would be giving over its holy places and birthplace to the Arabs, the major reasons for not allowing an Arab state in Samaria and Judea (aka the West Bank) are (1) the Arabs would be sitting on the mountain tops looking down at Israeli cities in the plain; and (2) they would have control of Israel's major water supply. A Palestinian state in, on, around, through or next to Israel is a very bad idea.

by Ted Belman

  Ted Belman summarizes the unbroken series of treaties and resolutions, laid out by the San Remo Resolution, the League of Nations and the United Nations, that give the Jewish People title to Mandatory Palestine and the city of Jerusalem. Ownership of the Land went from the defunct Ottoman Empire to the present State of Israel. The Arabs were never involved. The "Palestinians" had never owned the land; they had never had a state on the land. Considering that during the same period and by the same mechanisms, the Arabs acquired title to over 99% of the Middle East, the Arabs can hardly be considered to be deprived of land.

by Eli E. Hertz

  Eli Hertz presents the pertinent information about two U.N. Resolutions — 181 and 242 — that are often used inaccurately to 'prove' that Israel needs to give up yet more of its tiny country to the Arabs. Resolution 187 was adopted by the General Assembly in 1947 and would have partitioned mandated Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. It was never adopted by the Security Council, so it was never a binding resolution. In any event, the Arabs rejected it. It became null and void when the Arab states invaded the new-born state of Israel in 1948. U.N. Resolution 242 was adopted after the 6-day war by the Security Council. It said that Israel was to return some of the land it conquered when the Arab states formally agreed to allow Israel to live in peace with secure and recognized borders. It did not mention Palestinian arabs.

by Martin Sherman

  Palestinian Arabs should have a contest on who can invent the most awful thing to blame on Israel, especially when they have highly partial NGOs like Amnesty International to help them. Water is so basic, everyone can sympathize with the po' Palestinians being deprived of water by the evil Israel. Unfortunately, the figures don't support their claim. Their problems — as usual — are self-inflicted: their leaders are not the most ept in maintaining distribution and they have allowed "untreated effluents to endanger 'downstream' Israeli supplies." Martin Sherman is discussing the Mountain Aquifer in Samaria and Judea (the West Bank). Imagine the disaster if they plonk an Arab state there — the aquifer would go the way of the Coastal Aquifer that the Gaza arabs have ruined.


The 2005 expulsion of the Jews of Gaza from their homes and businesses was made possible by a government that was ruthless against its own people and craven before "world opinion." The Sharon-Olmert Government acted as if the "settlers" were the enemy, not the Arab terrorists. (Kind of reminds us of the Obama government worrying about "rightwing" soldiers and refusing even to call Muslim terrorists terrorists.) In preparing for the expulsion, it practiced psychological warfare and made solemn promises of resettling the Gush Katif communities as communities, and not scattering them around. The Government coopted some Jewish settlement leaders who helped to psychologically disarm the settlers as well as encouraging them to engage in pointless and exhausting marches rather than in preparing for resistance. Soldiers were actually hardened ("brainwashed") so they would act against innocent fellow-Jews instead of the confirmed enemies of Israel. Moreover, many Jews, not just those in Gush Katif, Gaza, deep down didn't believe Jews would do such harm to other Jews. The Jewish farmers of Gaza were hard-working, innovative, productive and patriotic citizens of Israel, whose very presence helped protect the rest of Israel from surprise attacks by terrorists.

Given that experience, the Jews who oppose giving up their land now are much less sanguine. They see the current settlement freeze in Samaria and Judea (aka West Bank) and part of Jerusalem as preparatory to expelling Jews again and giving land to the Arabs again and to increased terrorism against Israel again. They understand that the Government and the Judiciary favor Arabs because they fear Arabs might riot and they are not at all worried by how Jews typically complain: letters to Government officials and polite protest marches and demonstrations. The current resistance to the housing freeze in Sameria and Judea and parts of Jerusalem is starting to take a more effective approach.

The Government took no action when some soldiers refused to serve in the West Bank to carry out military action against what they saw as innocent Arabs, even though these innocents were shielding in their midst friends and relatives who had murdered innocent Israelis and planned to continue to murder Jews. Now, when religious Jews are 40% of the army and eagerly request the most dangerous jobs, the Government has chosen to be stupidly confrontational against rabbis who have trained these soldiers to be patriotic Israelis, because defending Jewish land is part of being strong in devotion to Torah Judaism.

In this section, we present an essay about famous Jewish musicians forced to flee their Arab homeland in 1950; stories of rebuilding by Jews made into refugees in 2005 by their own government, which expelled them from their homes and farms in Gaza; and a story about a young couple whose farm was recently destroyed by a capricious government that hired Arabs to carry out the job.

by Lyn Julius

  Lyn Julius tells the story of the al-Kuwaity brothers, Saleh and Daoud, who became famous in the Arab world as composers and performers. They were born in Kuwait of Iraqi Jewish parents a century ago. When Iraq and the other Arab countries began terrorizing their Jewish communities, the brothers fled to Israel along with most of the other Iraqi Jews. As is usual in totalitarian countries, they became unpersons in the Arab countries that had acclaimed their compositions. Their music was still played, but "attributed to Muslim musicians or labeled 'of folk origin'". Julius writes, "The Arab world needs to acknowledge its debt and to accept that uprooting their Jews exacted a heavy price. The day that a street in Baghdad is named after the al-Kuwaity brothers would be a day for celebration, indeed."

by Moshe and Rachel Saperstein

  This issue, we learn from Moshe Saperstein the reality on the ground while little-boy politicians play Real Politiks with people's lives. And Rachel Saperstein gives us the grown-up version of the story for children about the little red hen that grew the wheat and eventually baked the bread. Her neighbors came around when the bread was baked, not before. In the grown-up version, some of the Jews expelled from Gush Katif, Gaza, shook off despair and set down a new community in Lachish. The bureaucrats that have mucked up their resettlement of the Gaza Jews came to the opening ceremonies to take the credit.

by Anita Tucker

  Over the years, we've posted letters from Anita Tucker, starting from when she was a farmer in Gaza. Like the Sapersteins (see above), she and her family were expelled from Gush Katif, Gaza, in August 2005, by a government that put a lot of effort in destroying the lives of some of their best citizens and then all but abandonned them. Like the Sapersteins, she found the courage to build again, a community they will call Netzer Hazani, named after the community destroyed in Gaza, She writes how the Obama-inspired 'building freeze' is affecting the community.

by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz

  Standard English Slander for Jewish villages and towns in the territories and parts of Jerusalem: an outpost is a few trailers, usually on a hilltop and preventing Arab settlers seizing the land illegally; a settlement is any Jewish village, town or city smaller than Tel-Aviv.

Just a few months after Defense Minister Ehud Barak approved new housing in Samaria and Judea, he's back destroying "illegal" Jewish homes and farms such as the Botzer farm in Mevo Dotan West. These acts are barely reported in the media. I don't know what is more horrifying about this latest — that the Israeli government destroyed the home of a young industrious couple that is part of a community dedicated to keeping Israel Jewish or that the Israeli government hired neighboring Arabs, many of whom are themselves living in illegal housing, to carry out the destruction. How would we feel if men like the would-be airplane bomber were hired to smash up the home of a family of a soldier on duty in Iraq? As Ellie Katz ( wrote, "This farm was dismantled with the assistance of local Arabs! What is the Israeli government doing? This is giving the Arabs an appetite for this sort of thing."

by Hillel Fendel

  The settlers have a deserved reputation of taking a lot of insult and physical abuse from the Israeli authorities, with minimal response. The police, judiciary and government have been blatently supportive of Arab settlers and hostile to Jewish settlers. Some of the settlers experienced being expelled from their homes in Gush Katif in 2005 only to find their Government had made a pointless gesture that had no impact on the world except that it demanded further concessions. They understand that a settlement freeze is likely to become permanent and be the start of yet another expulsion. This time they know from experience the government will act against patriotic Jews instead of the Arabs that want to destroy Israel. As Hillel Fendel shows us, the Jews are planning with more perspicacity.


Israel's politicians are generally not outstanding, but its technical and scientific people are world-class. And they put their innovative skills to practical use. It is a sad irony that while Israel in the last few years has proven the wisdom of rejecting its socialist past and going to market capitalism, America appears to be going in the opposite direction — it is starting to adopt a socialist leveling philosophy, to our economy's detriment.

by Dan Senor and Saul Singer

  "Israel has more companies on the tech-oriented NASDAQ than any country outside the United States — more than all of Europe, Japan, Korea, India, and China combined." Dan Senor and Saul Singer suggest that the U.S. could learn lessons from Israel's vital economy and high concentration of innovation and entrepreneurship. They attribute Israel's success in part to the experience young people gain in the army taking responsibility and making vital decisions on the basis of incomplete information and inadequate resources. Other factors are important. Israel is open to new immigrants — dynamic capitalists from America, engineers and scientists from Russia — and has sensible banking practices. And it was a major boost when they abandoned their socialist-based financial structure.

by George Gilder

  Israel blossomed as a powerhouse of technological developments when it rejected its early socialist economic philosophy and adopted market capitalism. George Gilder points out that in a very short time, Israel has "become a center of innovation, second in absolute achievement only to the United States, and on a per-capita basis dwarfing the contributions of all other nations, America included." It is a world leader "in launching new companies and technologies." Some of Israel's technology achievements have millitary application, which "makes Israel one of America's most important economic allies."


Israel must take control of the land that is its by Bible, by history, by international law and by conquest. And she can't possibly allow the Arabs to control Israel's water supply. Without a strong stance, she is always kept off balance, defending herself from blood libels by the media and the U.N. For example, she was accused of war crimes in Gaza when she killed some 1200 — the majority of whom were terrorists and their human shields. In Yemen, they haven't counted the many thousands that have been killed and/or displaced in the Saudi-Iran proxy war, and the U.N. says nothing. This section looks at what Israel needs to do to inprove its political position -- from casting off its 'court Jew' persona to taking control of land that it owns legally, morally, and by right of conquest.

by Stephen Schecter

  Stephen Schechter speaks bluntly of the unremitting hatred of the Arabs to Israel — a hatred that makes them insist, ignoring both history and law, that Jews have no connection with the land; a hatred they satisfy "by Jew hatred, terror, violence and blood lust." Jews, in contrast, continue to believe (oh so unrealistically) that there has to be a peaceful solution, even though every Israeli concession — including stripping itself of bits of its tiny land — inspires the Arab world to greater monstrosity. Shechter, ever the realist, argues that the Jews need to forsake the Court Jew mentality, defeat the Palestinians "militarily, a goal perfectly within Israel's capability" and reassert "sovereignty over the land promised to the Jews by God and the Balfour Declaration." From his lips to Israel's ears.

by Tsvi November

  In Orwellian Newspeak, doublethink is the ability to believe wholeheartedly and simultaneously in two contradictory statements or in a conclusion that flies in the face of the plain known facts. Tsvi November describes Israel's own version of Newspeak: the media and the leadership praise appeasement and abasement as furthering peace, when experience continues to demonstrate that catering to the Arabs make them ever more violent and demanding. Israel grows more prosperous and self-sufficient while the social, economic, political and demographic problems in the Arab countries worsen, yet the appeasers insist time is working against Israel. Some Israelis believe there will be real peace if only the "Palestinians" sign an agreement even though when they themselves shop in a souk, they don't believe anything the Arab owner says without verifying it for themselves. In Newspeak, "disputed territories" meant land not held permanently by one of the Superstates; "disputed territories" is how Israel's diplomats describe land they own by international law but are afraid to say so. It's time the media stopped feeding the public "the peace in our time' fantasy" and let common sense come to the fore.

by Paul Lademain

  It is Paul Lademain's contention that Israel's leaders — he doesn't think highly of them — are not dealing correctly with the Arabs encroaching on Jewish land. Israel makes stupid gestures of goodwill "bargaining away its right to assert control over lands in its possession," whereas the Arabs understand — as Israel's leadership apparently does not — that, practically speaking, possession is 90% of the law. "Nations who agree to relinquish their land or their power in exchange for air-kisses are correctly perceived as 'losers.'" He recommends that "[t]o perfect control over YOUR land you must first resolve that the land is YOURS--and shall always be yours--and to do so without any qualms and with absolutely no guilt." Sensible advice.

by Victor Sharpe

  Victor Sharpe points out that Israel jeopardizes its future by not asserting its rights. Even if it were foolish enough to allow a Palestinian State in Biblical Israel, the Palestinians would still attempt to grab more land. The Arabs would yell for Israel to move to the 1949 Armistice Lines as now they yell for Israel to withdraw to the 1968 lines. And in whatever territory they take over, they allow no Jews. So there is actually a very stark option. Either Israel take control of its land or the Arabs will. Sharing is not in the cards.

by Michael Freund

  Since Oslo — or perhaps since 1968 when Israel regained Biblical Israel — Israel has kept the future of the thriving Jewish communities of Samaria and Judea ambiguous, hoping to use them as a bargaining token, where many of them would be swapped for peace with Israel's Arab neighbors. Over the years, Israel's ambition shrunk to a hope for peace with the local Arabs, who had started to call themselves "Palestinians"; and now even the putative head of some of these arabs mocks them. It has been a foolish policy that has destroyed the lives of some of her best citizens and gained Israel nothing except condemnation, whatever it does or doesn't do. Michael Freund suggests a different course, one based on Israel's legal ownership of the land, when he writes, "For far too long, Israel has been overly vulnerable to Palestinian machinations and games by leaving the status of the settlements unresolved. Now is the time to send a clear message to our foes, and there is no better place to start than with our own unilateral measures, chief among them the annexation of all the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria." An Addendum from The Israeli Initiative suggests a somewhat different way to regain what belongs to Israel. A good start to doing what Israel should have done in 1968.

by Ted Belman

  Many arabs were settled into Biblical Israel — eastern Jerusalem, Samaria and Judea — by Jordan after 1967 when she occupied the area and many have come in legally and illegally since then. Ted Belman reviews his way of regaining Biblical Israel and also variations suggested by others. As does Michael Freund (see above), these plans deal with the human rights of the Arab population in the Territories; they were not granted political rights (voting) in Mandated Palestine. The ultimate objective is to do what should have been done in 1968 — take back control of Samaria and Judea, land that legally belongs to the State of Israel in the name of the Jewish people.

by Bernard J. Shapiro

  The Maccabees had to fight both their Greek rulers and Hellenized Jews, whose goal was for Israel to reject Judaism and be like everyone else — assimilated into the Greek culture of their time. Bernard J. Shapiro suggests that Israel can strengthen its "political and strategic situation" by annexing land that is rightfully theirs "from the Mediterranean to the Jordan, from the Golan to Gaza" and otherwise focus on making Israel Jewish instead of favoring the Arab. He advocates a "loyalty oath and national service for all citizens of Israel, including Arabs" and letting the IDF stop terrorists, even when they use their civilian population as shields.


These essays discuss the plight of the Christian minority living in the Territories under Muslim Arab rule. The facts are not hidden, so it is curious that so many theologians in the West and locally in Biblical Israel ignore the violence that Palestinian Arabs display to the Christians in Gaza and Samaria/Judea (West Bank) and blame Israel for everything. The attitude of the local Christians is understandable -- there isn't much distance between their throats and the knives the Muslims hold close by. But why do Western clerics blame Israel?

by Alex Grobman

  Christian Arabs are molested, sexually harassed, raped, murdered, terrorized, forceably converted to Islam, forced to pay extortion money and have their cemeteries desecrated in areas controlled by Muslim Arabs. Yet some of their church leaders "[a]gainst all evidence claim that the Christians Arabs are living comfortable and prosperous lives." Out of fear and intimidation by the Muslims in control, Christians are leaving cities where they used to be in the majority and Muslims are taking over. In 1990, Christians were 60% of Bethleham's population; by 2001, they were down to 20%. Yet prominent Christian clerics blame Israel for Christian flight. Alex Grobman provides us with some accurate information.

by Dexter Van Zile

  This is a well-documented and thorough study of five prestigious Protestant churches that have taken a hard anti-Israel stance and are unswervingly pro-Palestinian. They portray Israel as almost solely responsible for Arab hostility and violence towards Israel and for not trying hard enough to achieve a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Actual facts — e.g., the Arabs speak proudly of their genocidal acts against innocent civilians because they have the seal of Islamic approval — are waved aside. The leaders of these churches promulgate anti-Israel propaganda and engage in boycott and divestment activity against Israel, with the hope they will "help transform bipartisan American support for Israel into an artifact of the hard Right." Resistance to this myopic view has been growing within the Church membership, but there are still unanswered questions: why the initial instinct of the Protestant leadership to blame just Jewish Israel? What motivates a bishop such as Rev. Margaret Payne to lie blatantly about easily-checked facts when propagandizing for the Palestinian arabs? What makes a Christian Arab like Naim Ateek whitewash the Muslims who are destroying his community? What makes an ordained minister like Gary Burge distort the plain meaning of the Torah to flay modern Zionism? What makes him insist that Jews don't own Israel because they have rejected Jesus as the Messiah? Is it that being anti-Israel is really a way to express Jew-hate, an attitude that is not exactly politically correct?


There is a widely-held belief, a widely-held hallucinatory belief, that yet another Palestinian state — in addition to Jordan and Israel that are already states carved out of Mandatory Palestine -- would bring peace to the Middle East. This ignores that the Middle East is an unstable area where Sunni fights Shi'ite and Iran fights Saudi Arabia and the latest splinter terror group fights the previously most rabid terrorist group. These quarrels have little or nothing to do with Israel; they have much to do with competing versions of Islam and competition for which country will be top dog in the Arab Middle East.

by Dr. Reuven Erlich

  Iran and Saudi Arabia are fighting a proxy war in Yemen, with Saudi Arabia aiding the Yemen government, Iran sending supplies and men to the Houthi Shi'ite rebels fighting the Yemini army in the north. The rebels are trying to bring down a government they say is too pro-Western. Thousands have died on both sides and some 150,000 people have been displaced. All this has taken place with little media attention and no action by the U.N. except to help create a refugee camp. This article by Dr. Reuven Erlich is about the capture of an Iranian arms shipment on its way to Yemen. Iran has similarly shipped weaponry by sea to Hezbollah to fight Israel.
by Michael Rubin

  Syria isn't strong enough to be a major power but it does well for itself acting as a major node in the distribution of weaponry from Iran to Hezbollah. Over the years, Hezbollah has conducted suicide attacks against Israel as the active arm of Iran and Syria — states that are not in a position to wage war openly. Hezbollah has its own power base — it controls Lebanon. When Syria was forced out of the Bekaa Valley, which is noted for its opium poppy fields and marijuana production, Hezbollah took control. Michael Rubin points out that Iran (operating from its embassy in Damascus) and Syria have bonded; they work well together and have common goals and outlook. They have unified the Shia in the region — in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and even Bahrain — and are a steady source of support for other regional terrorist groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad. This network would be united in a confrontation with Sunni Saudi Arabia. The U.S. State Department continues to believe it can woo Syria from its power-conferring relationship with Iran.

by Jonathan Spyer

  Jonathan Spyer makes the point that Hezbollah's victories in Lebanon are a miniature version of "larger regional developments." After its election victory, Hezbollah is now pushing to force Shi'ite rule on everyone. A similar push to a more orthodox Islam can be seen in Turkey, Iran and Gaza. As part of this, of course, the United States is demonized and Israel is targetted for destruction. "But at the core of the strategic thinking of Hezbollah and its patrons lie a series of delusions, which are likely to bring about the defeat of the movement over time." Especially if the West starts to understand that this political ideology can not be ignored or accomodated.

by Mark Silverberg

  Mark Silverberg chronicles the gradual evolution of an Islamic mini-state in Gaza under Hamas rule and Shari'a law. A dress code for women is enforced "on the street, in schools and in the courts"; mixed-gender classes in schools are discouraged; gender separation in public is encouraged; religious studies have been expanded; and more mosques and madrasses and Shari'a courts are being constructed. Nevertheless, Hamas has not satisfied some still more religiously stringent groups, who now consider Hamas offices legitimate targets to attack. On the other hand, other Gazans may find increased conformity to Shari'a law too restrictive.


Chapter 2 of R.K. Ohri's book on the tenets of Islam sets the stage for the other articles in this set on how muslims treat fellow muslims and infidels, anybody and everybody, as prescribed by the Muslim religion.

by R. K. Ohri

  In the previous issue, R.K. Ohri discussed the "geo-political implications of the long reach of radical Islam and the consequences of their global designs for the civil society of 'tomorrow and the day after.'" In the current essay, Ohri describes Islam's foundation tenets: the 'Shahada', its declaration of faith; namaz (prayers); zakat, (giving charity); roza (fasting, as used in India); and Haj (pilgramage to Mecca). These are unexceptionable in a religion. However, a Muslim's life is prescribed by Sharia, "the collectivity of laws that govern the lives of Muslims"; sharia allows for no individual interpretation. In addition, there is "'Ummah' ... a grand idea that binds Muslims all over the world into a common brotherhood or one single fraternity." In practice it means that allegiance to Islam comes before loyalty to country — as we saw recently when Major Hasan massacred his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood. If there is a fight between foreign Muslims and the Muslim's country, a Muslim has no choice but to fight for the foreigner. This is continously preached from mosques around the world and confirmed by Islamic scholars.

by Kenneth Roberts

  It is the crime of fitna if one says something publically that would "cause controversy, testing, fragmentation, scandal, chaos, or discord, disturbing social peace and order within the Muslim community,.." The punishment is death, which any Muslim can administer to the perpetrator, his family or his whole community. Kenneth Roberts points out that violence against critics of Islam applies to everyone, Muslim and infidel. Even "[t]o analyze Mohammed's ethical inconsistencies is fitna." Official dogma of mainstream Sunni Islam, who number almost a billion, it is an effective technique for controlling public information sources and inducing self-censorship. The Danish cartoon riots were to teach infidels not to disagree with Mohammed in public. Even five years later, a Somali man was caught breaking into the cartoonist's home, armed with a knife and hatchet. It is easy nowadays to spot newspapers that snipe and sneer at Jewish and Christian practices but are mealy-mouthed about Muslims; they are practicing self-censorship to avoid trouble.

by Alex Alexiev

  The FBI has arrested some 20 homegrown Muslims planning terrorist attacks in just the last 6 months alone. They were radicalized in mosques in America by imams preaching an ideology that demonizes "the West as a subhuman civilization that must be destroyed if Islam is to survive and triumph," starting with America. As Alex Alexiev explains, "[P]eaceful coexistence between Islam and any other religion or ideology is rejected." Their enemy is anyone, Muslim and non-Muslim, that doesn't accept sharia law. They began building infrastructure back in 1960s — a well-funded, active and growing network of student and professional associations, publishing houses, schools, mosques and charities. The Fort Hood massacre was dramatic, but their preferred methods are those that arouse less antagonism: "taking over moderate Muslim institutions, radicalizing mainstream believers, indoctrinating the young, aggressively proselytizing among the infidels, infiltrating government institutions and the political establishment, and organizing support for extremist causes and jihad overseas." The U.S. Government needs to start connecting the dots.

by Barry Rubin

  Before he massacred army personnel at Fort Hood, Major Hasan had given a Power Point lecture explaining how the Koran framed his view of how a Muslim in the U.S. Army should behave when forced into a situation where he might have to kill brother Muslims in Afghanistan and Iran. He concluded he couldn't fight in an infidel army — the army of his own country, America — against other Muslims. Barry Rubin points out that, having examined alternative ways of handling the situation, Hasan "clearly did see himself as a Jihad warrior" with limited options of what to do.


The number of the polite and respectable sources of attack on Jews — the ones that mask their agenda — have increased over the years; and they add new areas and inventive arguments all the time. Moreover, they make possible the advent of American blogs that openly spout anti-semitic hate and assert the truth of nonsensical non-facts. The more openly hateful opinions are becoming more prevalent on blogs and comments to blog articles. They are not as virulent as Arab propaganda but they are closer than they were after World War 2, when shock as the details of the Holocaust came out had a temporary paralyzing effect on the customary anti-jew statements.

by Bruce Kesler

  Bruce Kesler provides us with an superb summary of how much of anti-semitic propaganda is spread in America using a variety of smoke screens to mask the hate-the-Jews message. The number of attacks from polite and respectable sources have increased over the years. Modern anti-semitism "wraps up old canards in purposely cute circumlocutions, to deceive and forward its deadly goal, the death of the civilized West so that backwardness, tyranny and barbarities can continue or prevail in greater safety from exposure, comparison or challenge. "

by Adam Levick

  For years even after World War 2, hate was expected from the Right, not from the liberals, the democrats, the "good guys." Since then, it is the Left that has become the major home of anti-semitism and anti-zionism. Adam Levick chronicles the temperment of some on the "respectable" Left, where anti-semitism, pro-Palestinian, globalism and share-the-wealth live comfortably together.

by Reuven Erlich

  The Arab media maintains a steady stream of anti-Jewish T.V. and radio shows. Unlike in the West, there is nothing to inhibit the Religion of Peace from spouting hate.

by Jeffrey Herf

  In this essay, Jeffrey Herf deals with the contribution Nazi anti-semitism made to the Muslim's religious obligation to be globally superior to all other groups. He writes, "The founding charter of Hamas, the militant Palestinian group, recapitulates conspiracy theories about Jews that were popular in Europe in the 20th century. Al Qaeda's war against 'the Zionist-Crusader Alliance' and the anti-Zionist rants of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran also display a blend of anti-Semitic themes rooted in Nazi and fascist, as well as Islamist, traditions. To be sure, each of these movements and ideologies have non-European, local, and regional causes and inspirations. But the formulation of Nazi propaganda during World War II and its dissemination stand as a decisive episode in the development of radical Islamism."


In a recent paper in Front Page Magazine entitled "Auto-Genocide, Jewish Style," Kenneth Levin wrote that many Jews "support those openly calling for the Jews' annihilation, and still more ...downplay the threat and caricature concerned voices. Hardly less unsavory are the myriad Jews who attack Israel's policies as the source of all the nation's difficulties, insist that 'peace' can be had if only Israel would reform itself and make sufficient concessions, militantly advocate such a course and say nothing of the genocidal agenda of the nation's enemies or of their aggressive indoctrinating of additional cadres dedicated to enacting that agenda."

Levin notes that many are children of Holocaust survivors. "In their twisted thinking, they trumpet their parents' history as though it somehow confers on them a special right to back forces that aspire to another Holocaust."

Auto-genociders ignore significant facts. The illogic of their 'if-thens' is particularly blatent when manifested in Jewish academics. With the exception of Allison Weir, everyone on the group discussed below is Jewish. Sad to say, they are not unique — they are just part of a large herd of academic Jewish Jew haters in the West and in Israel.

by Yoram Shifftan and Bernice Lipkin

  Shlomo Sand has written a book denying that present day Jews are connected to the ancient Land of Israel; instead, they are descended from relatively recent converts to Judaism. It is a popular book, already translated into several languages. If nothing else, it is a testament to how many people are delighted by the idea that Jews may be neither authentic nor ancient. There is a lovely bit of sleight-of-hand associated with written reviews — the emphasis is on the outrage the orthodox Jewish community must be feeling because the book destroys some of its "myths." This helps to authenticate Sand's arguments; it frames the issue as a joust between two points of view. In this essay, Yoram Shifftan and Bernice Lipkin suggest that the problems with the book are intrinsic. It's not just the what and where. It's the impossibility of the how.

by Steven Plaut

  Steven Plaut labels Richard Falk "America's leading practitioner of the Orwellian inversion. "For Falk, "America is a fascist monstrosity, while the world's fascist and totalitarian monstrosities are democratic enclaves of freedom. For him, Israel is a terrorist aggressor, while the Arab terrorist aggressors are innocent victims and peace-loving progressives. For him, Israel is a Nazi-like country seeking genocide, while the genocidal Islamofascists of the Hamas and their backers are merely protesters against social inequality inside Israel. For him, terrorist aggression against Jews is really the pursuit of peace, while self-defense by Israel is criminal, terrorist aggression and genocide." So it is not at all surprising that the U.N. appointed him as "Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories."

by Ken Waltzer

  Alison Weir is representative of the latest model journalists that wave academic credentials to support their virulent chants of hate against Israel. They make no bones about their desire to erase the Jewish state and countenance any violence that will make this possible. They are not at all uneasy that their claims have no factual basis. They assert — ignoring factual history — that the land really belongs to the Arabs calling themselves Palestinians, and the Jews are occupying it illegally. No libel is too outré for them to mouth. The latest lurid assertion by Weir and her fellow Jew-haters — that Israelis harvest Palestinian organs for transplant — is just too juicy to be squashed by the fact that conditions during a military operation — or in any situation that impedes the complex procedure for a successful transfer — make it impossible to salvage usable organs.

by Steven Plaut

  Steven Plaut writes about Sara Roy, a foot soldier in the War Against the Jews. In most ways, she is a very ordinary Jew-hating Jew. She is an academic who claims expertise in areas where she has no credentials. She is the child of Holocaust survivors who preaches about the evils of the Jewish state. Billed as an intellectual, her publications are heavy with anger but light on facts. She stands out in the crowd of Jew-haters only in that she specializes in whitewashing Hamas, painting them as seekers of peace and chock full of concern for the Palestinian Arabs. She has argued that Fatah has probably killed more Israells than Hamas. In that, she may be right.


What a difference a few million Muslims make! In 60 years, the number of European Muslims went from some two hundred thousand to over 50 million and is climbing rapidly. This set of articles estimate where we are on the graph charting Islam's take over of the Christian nations of Europe. Jews in Europe are particularly hard-hit. Together with insisting on universalizing Shari'a, Muslims are openly and viciously anti-Jewish -- there are hundreds of incidents of Muslim youth attacking Jews in France, Sweden, etc. — making it easier for the more politically correct natives to join the choir.

by Bruce Bawer

  In this benchmark article written a year ago, Bruce Bawer argues that Europe is in a more parlous state than the USA, when it comes to denying the inroads Islam has made into cracking up Western culture. A year later, Europe has had two bits of good luck: the Swiss referendum against minarets and the revelation that the CRU group in England so manipulated its weather station data, it might as well have started with random numbers — and in some cases, did. Meantimes, in America, Prez Obama won't let these revelations prevent him from trying to make a cap and trade deal in Copenhagen that will further improvish America. Clearly, there are opposing trends — globalization versus concern for the individual's freedom of action. Which will dominate?

by Fjordman

  In this essay Fjordman points out a reality most of the media ignore; e.g., that "European Union (EU) has forced through the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty and in essence ... [has] dissolved dozens of nation states, while making "legal opposition to their rule" impossible. Meantime, the staggering debt the USA has incurred has so weakened the dollar that it is unlikely the USA will long keep its leadership position. If the breakdown of western democracies was planned and staged, Fjordman is inclined to blame groups advocating a global oligarchy. Factor in that there are documented plans to include Muslim North Africa and Middle East in the EU. Factor in that it is de rigeur for teachers and the media to disparage or minimize the contributions of white culture. Factor in that, as the Muslim population in Europe expands, some European leaders seem comfortable with the idea that the natives in white majority Western countries will soon be a minority in their own countries. Fjordman is clear that Europe's external problems will never be solved unless Marxists are stopped from destroying the European structure and character of the Western countries. As he puts it, "We must switch from a 'save the world' to a 'save ourselves' mode."

by Jim O'Neill

  Jim O'Neil writes a clear summary of some of the changes in Europe since Muslims started to arrive in sufficient numbers to make a difference. They didn't just soak up welfare funds and have babies. The Left promoting globalization and share-the-wealth and Islam promoting Islam have made common cause — at least for the while — which ensures that Muslim violence is mostly ignored. In France, Muslims initiated a marked increase in anti-Jewish crimes — beatings, harassment, vandalism — without government action. Only when a young Jew was kidnapped and slaughtered were the Muslim murderers put on trial. In England, Sharia law is now the law for Muslims and people are becoming used to having their values and feelings take second place while sensitivity to Muslim concerns is emphasized. Resistance against Muslim rule has started to grow in Switzerland and Denmark, and poll after poll indicates the people approve curtailing Islamic growth, even if their leaders don't. In America, Islamic activity has todate been mostly operating under the radar, and the administration tamps down calls for awareness and alertness between the periods of so-called lone wolf terror acts.


In America, perhaps because terrorist acts have been isolated and minimized both by the press and the government, there is not the understanding how the sustained work of the Islamists is slowly changing America. Previous issues have dealt with Muslim infiltration into mainline churches, law courts, the media, text book publishing and education, with Marxist professors openly hostile to democracy. This set of articles suggest that America needs to face the fact that the Islamists are fighting us in many ways. Many of these attacks create dry rot termite-style and do not confront us with a locust swarm of devastation. We don't even seem to recognize friend from foe. We don't comprehend how fear of terrorist retaliation has already created self-censorship in the media. We ignore that Islamic preaching of hatred of America may prefigure Mumbai-style attacks in the U.S.A. And pro-Palestinian 'grass roots' groups continue to promote boycotts of Israeli products — not, of course, the cell phone and computer and medical equipment developed in Israel, but the stuff they personally don't need. Given that the major Jewish organizations are ineffective in seriously fighting the multi-front attack on Judaism and Jews, we end with a story how one organization is fighting the boycott with a buycott of Israeli goods.

by Spengler

  Trust Spengler to come up with the perfect telegraph-length assessment of a morass of wrongheaded opinions. He notes that "[a] widely shared fantasy ... doesn't qualify as reality" and proceeds to demolish opinions that sound "realistic" but are based on facts that are not significant. Thus, a multitude of friends of Islam think Mearsheimer and Walt are realists because they want America to break its alliance with Israel, which has only 7 million population, when the Muslims number well over a billion. All that proves is that they can compare two numbers and pick out the larger one. Spengler highlights the significant information: given Israel's advanced technological skills, its "contribution might be decisive in a number of fields, for example avionics and especially drone technology." America needs that edge.

by Barbara Lerner

  "Islamists are fighting for control of the world." Their power increases; their alliances multiply; Iran serves as their model — "the world's first Islamist nuclear power." We are at war, Barbara Lerner writes, "a long-dormant, 14-century-old religious war against the Christian West," a war we must win, if we are to retain our religious freedom, our fundamental freedoms, including "the right to disbelieve." Yet here it is 8 years after 9/11. Neither Bush and now Obama faced the fact that we are at war with resurgent Islamists, a war we didn't chose and still try to deny. Iran has been on the offensive since 1979, and our leadership still ignores its attacks, believing we can work things out by negotiation and friendliness. Fortunately, Lerner points out, we "have two great trump cards: the fundamental honesty and good sense of the American people, and the back-against-the wall courage of the Israeli people." Given the right leadership, that might do.

by Steven Emerson and Joel Himelfarb

  Given the number of supposedly lone-wolf terrorists attacking army bases, air planes, synagogues and Jewish community centers, there is growing concern that an Iran with nuclear weapons might decide to share these weapons with terror organizations. Steven Emerson and Joel Himelfarb ask whether such a concern is reasonable. We know there has been informal cooperation between al-Qaeda, al-Jihad, Iran and Hezbollah, including supplying weapons and training in explosives. Moreover, attacking the United States is a publically stated ambition of these groups. We know al-Qaeda continues to seek nuclear weapons, components and information in Europe and Pakistan. There is evidence that Iran is "uncomfortable at the prospect of terrorists acquiring such weapons" because our retaliation would include Iran. But conditions might change. And meantime, while some supplies from Iran have been seized, it is also likely that other shipments have succeeded in making it to Middle East terror organizations.

by George Jonas

  An amazing story that will make you understand the real scariness of terrorism. As George Jonas writes, "The bomb is just the beginning." The act of terrorism causes you to distort your thinking to keep yourself from recognizing that you are terrified. You feel like a coward for feeling that way. The real awfulness is that you then1 not fear. It makes understandable the behavior of newspapers like the New York Times that worry about injuring the "sensitivity" of Moslems — who show their anger violently — but will print nasties about Christian and Jews — who politely complain.

by Roberta E. Dzubow

  Roberta Dzubow suggests a way the ordinary citizen can fight the Islamic campaign to lash out at Israel in as many ways as possible. A major tactic is to boycott Israeli products in the grocery. Or to attempt to destroy them. The Buy Israel Steering Committee has organized to counter their efforts by buying Israeli products. The basic strategy can be supplemented by having a camera handy and making a movie to post on You Tube. Talk to the other shoppers about the unfairness of the boycott campaign. Buy some of the products and hand out samples to people walking by. Just start. You'll figure out what to do next. Don't be shy.


  This is where our readers get a chance to write opinions and editorials and share articles they find informative. The Blog-Eds page for the month is updated every few days.

A Blog-Ed page has a quick list of the articles from which you can access any of the articles immediately. To go to the list, click the "Blog-Eds List" box in the Blue Strip on the top of the Blog-Ed page.

November 2009 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE
December 2009 BLOG-EDS    READ MORE

My aunt, Elaine Cutler, made aliyah yesterday, Thursday, November 12, 2009. She is excited about beginning this new adventure.

She was born between 1908 and 1910. So if she isn't already 100, she likely will be on her birthday, come next month.

Here she is being greeted by two of her grandchildren, Natan and Liat, at the airport.


What we are talking abo