HOME Featured Stories August 2006 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Susie Dym, August 31, 2006.
Don't let terrorists create a third front endangering millions in Tel-Aviv, BG Airport and Jerusalem:

Help settle Judea & Samaria

Here are 5 Israeli organizations which are working toward increasing Jewish presence in, and sympathy for, Judea and Samaria. One-seventh of the population of Judea and Samaria is already Jewish. These organizations, with alot of help, are going to have to persuade another million Israelis to move to Judea and Samaria.

Why? Because Judea and Samaria are just a bike-ride away from all of Israel's population centers - from Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion airport. If Judea and Samaria are settled by Jews, they will not be taken over by terrorists -- it's as simple as that.

Israel just barely survived a two-front war launched by terrorists in the South and in the North.

Israel might not survive a three-front war in which the war on the third front, Judea and Samaria, is being waged minutes away from 70% of Israel's population.

Please prevent war on Israel's third front BY HELPING THE JEWISH PEOPLE SETTLE JUDEA & SAMARIA.

The organizations we wish to bring to your attention:

Viyrashtem Ota: Israeli organization for settling empty, "up-for-grabs" land in Judea and Samaria -- founded by the late, fantastically popular Arutz Sheva broadcaster, Adir Zik, who was a stalwart friend of Judea and Samaria.

Honenu and Zchuyot Adam beYesha: These two Israeli organizations are chipping away at the mountain of legal obstacles ("criminal", constitutional, etc.) that the pro-Palestinian left have piled up over the years to harrass Jews in Judea & Samaria.

Women in Green: pro-Zionist Israeli organization with a women's orientation.

Professors for a Strong Israel: pro-Zionist Israeli organization with an academic orientation.

More details -- including how to make a gift to the organization/s of your choice:

Vyrashtem Otah:

Organization for settling empty, "up-for-grabs" land in Judea and Samaria -- founded by Adir Zik z"l, famous Arutz Sheva broadcaster. No website -- most activists in this organization are very young farmers and shepherds who build the farming "outposts" you may have read about in Judea and Samaria. As one of them once told the undersigned, "We know how to use hoes -- not keyboards".

Write your cheque out to Amutat Vyrashtem Otah and mail to POB 1588 Rehovot, ISRAEL.

US tax payers contributing $100 dollars or more (in US dollars): For US tax deductibility, write out your US $ cheque (one hundred dollars and up) to Central Fund For Israel. Earmark for "Amutat Vyrashtem Otah" by filling in the "memo" field of the cheque accordingly. Mail to POB 1588Rehovot. For questions, contact sddym@bezeqint.net.

Zchuyot Adam beYesha

Human rights for Yesha (the Jews of Judea & Samaria), www.zechuyot.org including abolishment of police brutality, equalizing the Jewish right to build homes with the Palestinian right to build homes, etc. To donate money or video cameras kindly contact Orit Struck (orit@hebron.com 972-524-295558).


http://www.honenu.org.il/english1.htm Tel: 972-(0)2-9605558 or 972-(0)58-693999 (Shmuel) Legal defense fund for Judea & Samaria families, activists and soldiers undergoing legal harrassment usually instigated by radical left groups (imprisonment - sometimes without trial, fines, confiscation of arms for self-defense against local terrorists, false arrests, etc.).

For US tax deductibility, send your US$ cheque to: Honenu, 8204 Lefferts Blvd, Suite 381, Kew Gardens, NY 11415 USA. Contributions are recognized by the US Tax Authorities (Tax ID: 30-0198003)

Women in Green:

Pro-Israel activism with a women's orientation. www.womeningreen.org michaele@netvision.net.il Tel: 972-2-624-9887 Fax: 972-2-624-5380

For US tax deductibility on donations of US$100 and up: Make out a US dollar cheque ($100 and up) to "Central Fund for Israel". Mail to POB 7352, Jerusalem, Israel US tax-deductible contribution ($100 and over) directly through your computer: https://host5.apollohosting.com/womeningreen/donation.html

Israelis and other Non-US citizens: Make out your cheque to "Women In Green" and mail to: Women In Green, P.O. Box 7352, Jerusalem, Israel

Professors For A Strong Israel:

www.professors.org.il Pro-Israel activism with an academic orientation.

Small donations don't require tax deductibility. Simply mail your cheque to:
POB 7010, Jerusalem 91070, Israel,

or donate by telephone by simply calling our secretary, Mr. Naor Ashkenazi, at +972-8-946 0834 (have your credit card handy).

For US text deductibility: Write a US$ cheque for one hundred dollars or more, made out to the

PEF Israel Endowment Funds Inc.

Add a note: "Enclosed is my contribution of xxx US$. I recommend to your Trustees that it be sent to Professors for a Strong Israel in Jerusalem."

Mail to
PEF Israel Endowment Funds, Inc.,
317 Madison Avenue, Suite 607, New York, NY 10017, USA. Email the information to chug-psi@zahav.net.il so Professors for a Strong Israel can track your contribution.

If you do make a generous gift as a result of this simple email, you are saving the hard-working Israeli organizations above, a huge amount of money. This is because, when these organizations raise money by phone and by mail, hundreds of thousands of shekels get spent just on making all those phonecalls and sending all those letters. This email, on the other hand, costs the Israeli organizations nothing. So THANKS IN ADVANCE for taking heed of this email.

Susie Dym is spokesperson for for Mattot Arim a network of Israeli activists working toward peace-for-peace since 1992. Contact her at sddym@bezeqint.net If you live outside of Israel, join our foreign list by contacting mattot.arim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Zack Lieberberg, August 31, 2006.
by Zack Lieberberg

I would like to bring to your attention just two of the huge number of readers' responses to The Disproportionate Nation. [Editor's note: To read it, click here.] Both were found on blogs where Yashiko's article was reproduced. The first one came from a Russian lady who signed only her first name, Yulia:

You are the smartest nation on earth. You mustn't behave like barbarians. You should find a better, more effective and humane method to fight against those who wish to destroy you.

The other was written by Mr. Walter Murray from Palo Alto:

The death of any child should be regretted by Jews just as much as that of a Jewish child. If you don't hold that view maybe that is part of the problem.

The reason I chose these two comments, out of many, is because I found depth in them that may be overlooked at first reading. Yulia, for example, despite (or because of?) her self-proclaimed intellectual inferiority, expresses an interesting belief. She thinks that Jews have an obligation to be more humane than the rest of the species. On the other hand, Mr. Murray's attempt to analyze Jewish emotions and stir them into a proper direction implies a perception of superiority, both moral and intellectual, which he chose not to express explicitly, whether out of modesty or, probably, due to the common aversion among the members of Mensa to stating the obvious.

Let us first talk about humanism. You have probably noticed that in the unfolding Iranian nuclear crisis, Russia and China are doing everything they can to impede American attempts to curb the danger coming from the rabid mullahs. This is not surprising, since the obvious American inability to handle this crisis efficiently erodes whatever little is left of our superpower status and, therefore, serves the interests of our adversaries. But isn't nuclear Iran as dangerous for Russia and China as it is for the United States?

No, it is not, and here is why. The ayatollahs know perfectly well that the moment Russia or China feels really threatened by Iran, they will survive exactly as long as it takes for the first salvo of Russian or, respectively, Chinese nuclear missiles to reach Iranian territory, which is somewhere between 12 and 37 minutes, depending on where the rockets would be launched from. After that, the land we call Iran today, will be forever known as the Great Persian Desert and populated exclusively by mutant cockroaches.

The United States, on the other hand, will do everything in its power to avoid any such extremes by adhering to the letter and spirit of international law. It will, most probably, once again bring the problem of an imminent Iranian threat to the UN Security Council, which is not really famous for the efficiency of either producing or implementing solutions to international crises. Considering that the United Nations are mostly united in their hatred of Israel and the United States, there is no reason to be optimistic about the probable outcome of such measure, which means that sooner or later an Iranian nuclear device will be successfully tested on our soil.

It's bad enough that the US government will never have the courage to strike Iran before it has a chance to kill a few hundred thousand Americans. Judging from our 9/11 experience, the United States will not respond adequately after the attack either. The best we can expect from the most hawkish administration imaginable is an attempt to liberate the proud Iranian people from the tyranny of the ayatollahs -- provided the United Nations endorses such a drastic step. If we are lucky, we will manage to eventually plunge Iran into a civil war, like we did with Iraq. If not, we will just suffer yet another unmitigated embarrassment, which isn't really such a big deal, because even a superpower can only lose face once, and we are about to mark the fifth anniversary of that event. In either case, we will give the Muslims proof, once again, that they can attack the United States and get away with it.

Thus, utterly inhumane regimes like Russia and China brilliantly succeed in achieving virtually impenetrable security for themselves without wasting a single life on either side of their border. This proves beyond any doubt that readiness to reduce the enemy to radioactive ashes at the slightest provocation guarantees peace much better than successful efforts of seventy-seven generations of pacifists.

Such is the price of our misguided humanism. If Peace Now had really wanted to achieve sustainable peace in the foreseeable future, they would have achieved more by infiltrating and militarizing the Kach movement.

Let us now address the concerns of Mr. Walter Murray of Palo Alto. He certainly deserves a carefully considered answer. However, I am reluctant to dive into the murky depths of a Jewish emotional response to the murder of children, Jewish or otherwise. Instead, I would like to point out the following:

First, Mr. Murray, has failed to tell us why he expects the Jews to relate to dead children in a different way than, let's say, Ukrainians, Arabs, or, for the sake of argument, Irish Americans. To me, such an assumption of inherent distinctions between Jews and normal people, just like Yulia's assertion of the superiority of Jewish intellect, reeks of anti-Semitism. Obviously, Mr. Murray has nothing against kikes -- as long as they behave according to his expectations. Mr. Murray's granddaddy, most probably, had nothing against niggers -- as long as they kept their proper place.

Please, Mr. Murray, don't protest; don't tell us that some of your closest friends are Jewish. If you don't trust my diagnosis, ask some of your closest friends who are black (I'm sure you have some) if they have ever run into a white racist who didn't even suspect he was a racist.

Second, I strongly advise you, Mr. Murray, not to mourn dead children indiscriminately. You will most probably find what I am about to say monstrously cynical, but I am nevertheless going to say it.

You see, the probability that an Arab child will grow up and becomes an Albert Einstein, or Sigmund Freud, or even Alan Greenspan, is equal to the twelfth digit after the decimal point, to the probability that a Jewish child will grow up to become a jihad fighter. Of course, not every Jewish child becomes an Einstein, and not every Arab child chooses a brief but spectacular career of a shahid. However, Jewish children, if you don't kill them before it's too late, form Jewish communities, and Jewish communities, in addition to producing Einsteins from time to time, are known throughout the entire history of the Diaspora for bringing prosperity to every society that allows them to prosper.

"I will bless those who bless you."

Unlike Jews, Arabs do not form communities; instead, they form the "Arab street". The "Arab street" has never produced an Einstein and, I am sure never will. Instead, it is producing an abundance of mass murderers.

The way I see it, the problem does not arise because of the way Jews discriminate between dead children. The problem arises because of the way you discriminate between them. More specifically, had you mourned dead Jewish children the way you would (God forbid!) mourn your own children, there would have been no problem whatsoever. But you don't, and this creates an enormous problem, to which you are oblivious, because, in your mind, that problem exists only for the Jews. Let me outline the problem for you.

Seventy years ago, the world idly watched Hitler preparing the Holocaust. When it was well under way; when thousands of European Jews, including children, were dying in the gas chambers of German camps every hour, people like you feigned ignorance and pretended that it had nothing to do with them. Like good Christians, you were busy loving your enemies while your enemies were exterminating us at the full power of their industrial capacity.

You are doing exactly the same thing today. Your enemy is openly declaring its intentions to exterminate the Jews. Your enemy has been openly waging a war of annihilation against Israel since the day Israel was reinstated on a small portion of its historic homeland. Your enemy kills Jews every year -- dozens of them during a lull; hundreds during an intifada. Most of those Jews are civilians. Many of them are the elderly. Many are children. All of them are targeted deliberately. What do you do in response? Do you invoke Geneva conventions? Do you express moral outrage? No. You berate Israel for a disproportionate response; for needlessly killing innocent civilians; for the ongoing occupation; and label Israel, as a result, as the main enemy of the humankind. And, of course, every Jew in the world automatically becomes complicit in the Israeli crimes against humanity.

What innocent civilians? After 9/11, even you should understand that no one is innocent any longer -- not you, not me, and, definitely, not those who are trying to destroy us. Look at yourself in the mirror -- you are not innocent; you are defenseless. In this war of civilizations, you are a perfectly legitimate target, no matter what the Geneva Conventions tell you, because your enemies do not concern themselves with infidel laws.

What crimes? Since when has it been a crime to defend oneself against aggression? What international law demands that the victim of aggression stop the war when the enemy body exceeds the level at which you still feel comfortable?

What occupation? What "Palestinian people"? Learn some real history. The "Palestinian people" is a blood libel, next to which the infamous Protocols of the Elders of Zion look almost inoffensive. I challenge you to produce a single pre-1967 reference to the "Palestinian people". I challenge you to name at least one document that gives the terrorist organization you call the "Palestinian people" the legal right to one square inch of territory in Israel or anywhere else in the world.

If you believe -- like I do -- that innocent people should have a right to live where they have always lived without UN approval, I will have to ask you why you have never protested against the eviction of almost a million Jews from their homes in Arab countries where they had lived for centuries before those lands fell to Arab occupation. I will also ask you what happens to the right of an innocent person to live in the place of his choice after that innocent person blows up a school bus with neighbor's children.

Where was your concern for dead children when Arabs, year after year, decade after decade, kept deliberately murdering Jewish children? Where was your concern for Jewish children when Hezbollah attacked Israel?

Seventy years ago, you were killing us at the hands of the Germans. Today, you are killing us at the hands of the Arabs. Today, like on the eve of World War II, you feel comfortably safe and superior to both the aggressors and their victims. You shouldn't. After all, you must know that the 6 million Jews killed by Nazi Germany constituted less that 10% of all casualties of that war. But Germans were across the ocean, while today your enemies -- uncounted millions of them -- have already landed on your shores. How far is your comfortable home from the nearest mosque?

And yet, you continue to confuse non-resistance to aggression with peace. You and your kind, Mr. Murray, are the reason World War II and the world war that officially came to the United States on September 11, 2001, became possible. You are a stupid, immoral, cowardly monster.

How dare you tell Jews how they should feel about their murdered children?

Contact Zack Lieberberg at yashiko.sagamori@gmail.com. More of his articles can be read at

This article was translated by Yashiko Sagamori August 29, 2006

To Go To Top

Posted by Tom Carew, August 31, 2006.

The Nazi "Doodlebug" campaign against London and Antwerp was not at all as intensive as what [a] Northern Israel suffered in the Hezb-ALLAH 34-day aggression from 12 July to 14 Aug, 2006, or [b] what Kiryat Shmona alone has suffered from 31 Dec, 1968.

Northern Israel saw 3,970 rockets fired against her Arab and Jewish civilian population by Hezb-ALLAH, which averages 117 daily, but Hitler hit Antwerp with only 1,610 weapons, and another 1,358 V-2 against London, preceded by 2,419 V-1 on the UK capital.

That combined London figure is thus 3,777, which is not only smaller than the barrage on Israel, but was also spread over a 9-month period from 12 June, 1944 to 27 March, 1945, and so averaged 13.35 daily over those 283 days, while Hezb-ALLAH averaged 117 daily over 34 days, or 8.76 times worse.

Kiryat Shmona had seen 4,321 rockets fired at it since Hezb-ALLAH first began these attacks on 31 Dec, 1968, with 1,012 in the recent latest phase of the unending Hezb-ALLAH war on the people of Israel. This small area in Israel, with 24,000 people, has suffered much more than London in 1944-45. The 4 worst-hit London districts, Croydon with 145, Wandsworth with 128, Lewisham with 126 hits, and Woolwich with 110, suffered a total of 509 attacks, which is only half of what Kiryat Shmons suffered recently.

An estimated 1.5m to 2m Londoners were forced to flee during this Nazi onslaught, which also resembles the many Israelis forced to seek safety in the South from Hezb-ALLAH rockets.

The UK estimated that the total cost to them of the Nazi V-1 and V-2 bombardment was 3.8 times the cost to the Nazi regime of the production and launch of these weapons of mass terror. Since Israel estimates the Hezb-ALLAH War costs as $5.2bn, the ratio of economic loss must be similar, or probably much greater. It has thus been possible for Iran, in supplying these weapons to its South Lebanese proxy, to cause massive loss and terror in Israel at very little cost, in either human or financial terms, to their own resources or population.

It seems impossible to envisage any reasons why Iran would abandon such a cheap and effective terror trategy - unless and until compelled to do so, such as by experiencing, or at least facing the certainty of, similar or greater negative costs itself.

The Allies in WW II were able to halt this Nazi onslaught on 4 occasions.

Firstly, they delayed its start by heavy Royal Air Force bombing of the Peenemunds site in Aug, 1943, long before a single weapon had been fired against any Allied city.

Secondly, their RAF 617 Squadron attacked stores in France on 4 July, 1944, which again interrupoted the attacks.

Thirdly, the very costly airborne operations at Arnhem from 17-26 Sept, 1944 also disrupted the attacks. These operations, the largest airborne ones in history, involved 34,876 Allied airborne forces, along with 3 British Divisions on the ground in XXX Corps, who had 5,534 killed, and also cost the 10,600-strong UK 1 Airborne Div 1,130 dead, along with 3,542 US 82nd and 101st Airborne dead, and 102 Ist Polish Ind Para Bde dead. A further 851 British were missing, and 6,450 captured. The heavy Allied casualty rate was partly due to failing to deploy RAF/US Close Air Support against the Nazi forces.

Fourthly, the attacks finally ended when the Allied Land Forces had overrun the remaining Nazi launch-sites. The last victim was Mrs. Ivy Millichamp, 34, in Orpington, on 27 March, 1945.

You do not need to be an advanced graduate of any military Command and Staff College to infer certain rather obvious lessons.

Tom Carew lives in Ranelagh, Dublin, Ireland. Contact him at tmcarew@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by No Membership Required, August 31, 2006.


For High Holiday services in over 50 cities nationwide, Click here.

Not a member, Not a problem!

Check with

To Go To Top

Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, August 31, 2006.

"The Zionists are in horror, fear, confusion... [hiding] like mice and rabbits" - Palestinian Authority TV - Palestinian Authority TV


During the Israel -Hezbollah war in Lebanon, Palestinian society expressed three recurring reactions to the war:

A. Profound identification with Hezbollah
B. Celebration of both the perceived Hezbollah victory and the humiliation of Israel
C. Seeing Hezbollah tactics as a role model for the Palestinians

This in-depth report documents this phenomenon, and includes a representative sample of the statements of Palestinian officials and the Palestinian media that reflect the atmosphere in the Palestinian society regarding Israel's war with Hezbollah.


A. Nasrallah Superman: Profound identification with Hezbollah

From the beginning of the war, the Palestinians expressed complete identification, not only with the Lebanese people but with Hezbollah in particular. Hassan Nasrallah, the Hezbollah leader, was seen as a hero who restored the honor to the Arab nation and the Islamic religion. A cartoon in the Palestinian Authority daily newspaper Al Ayyam showed Nasrallah taking off his religious cloak, in Clark Kent fashion, revealing his "Superman" costume underneath.

Another striking item indicated the degree of Palestinians' veneration of Hezbollah: 66.3% of the Palestinians wanted "Hezbollah alone to handle the negotiations over the [three Israeli] soldiers," even though one was kidnapped by Palestinians and is being held in Gaza. The Palestinians put more trust in Nasrallah to succeed in negotiations on their behalf than their own leaders.

B. Celebration of perceived Hezbollah victory and humiliation of Israel

From the Palestinian perspective, the war was a glorious victory for Hezbollah, and a humiliating defeat for Israel. "I am telling you that the Zionists are in horror, fear, confusion, and that their political and military leaders are in disagreement... They are living in shelters in fear. They are living like mice and rabbits [in shelters], unable to go out. Their people screamed and yelled, by the thousands, [they are] interested in leaving, interested in going to America, to Europe and Britain..." celebrated a religious leader on official Palestinian TV [August 4, 2006]. Palestinians see the war as a turning point in which the "resistance" to Israel -- their term for terror organizations such as Hezbollah -- proved its ability to defeat Israel, from which the Palestinians will now learn.

C. Hezbollah tactics as a role model for the Palestinians

There has been much detailed discussion in the Palestinian media about tactics and strategies that the Palestinians must implement as a result of the Hezbollah successes, including analyses of Hezbollah's fighting methods.

In Depth Report:

A. Nasrallah Superman: Profound identification with Hezbollah
B. Celebration of perceived Hezbollah victory and humiliation of Israel
C. Hezbollah tactics as a role model for the Palestinians

A. Identification with Hezbollah

All segments of Palestinian society, from senior officials to children in street demonstrations, expressed empathy and unqualified admiration for Hezbollah during the war, viewing them as brothers-in-arms in their war against Israel. Though the Palestinians themselves are experiencing a severe economic crisis, they organized a "National campaign for support for the Lebanese People," under the patronage of President Mahmud Abbas, to raise money for Lebanon [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 31, 2006].

Opinion polls showed that 96% of the Palestinians had a "good appreciation" for Hezbollah, and 91% supported Hezbollah's demand for a prisoner exchange deal. A striking 66.3% of Palestinians preferred "that Hezbollah alone will handle the negotiation over the fate of the [three kidnapped Israeli] soldiers," which shows that the Palestinians trust Nasrallah to succeed more than their own leaders. [Al-Najah poll http://www.najah.edu/arabic/news/show.asp?key=709, Al-Ayyam, July 27, 2006].

During the war, the official Palestinian media repeated and reinforced this support for Hezbollah. Palestinian TV aired hours of video clips that declared the unity between the fates of the Palestinians and the Lebanese. These included special broadcasts of support and fundraising appeals for the Lebanese, and a clip called "Your wound is our wound," which aired repeatedly -- including three times during a period of less than two hours -- on August 2, 2006.

The PA media were actively raising awareness and support for Hezbollah through continuous declarations of solidarity and publicity of rallies for the Lebanese and Hezbollah. A cartoon in the PA daily Al Ayyam showed Nasrallah taking off his religious cloak, in Clark Kent fashion, revealing his "Superman" costume underneath. This reflects an accurate appraisal of the total admiration that PA society had for Nasrallah -- to the point of seeing him as a super hero -- during and immediately after the war.

The following are representative examples from the media. Note that throughout these texts the PA uses the same term "resistance" to refer to the Hezbollah attacks on civilians and soldiers, as they use it to define Palestinian Authority terror against civilians and soldiers.

"Yesterday dozens of residents participated in a procession in the streets of Ramallah, in order to show solidarity with the Lebanese people" The participants praised the heroism of the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters, who took two Israeli soldiers captive, and expressed their joy over the continuing falling of resistance missiles on the Israeli cities and settlements." [Al-Ayyam, July 17, 2006]

"Imad Abu-Hamad, commander of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades: ...'Regarding our ties with Hezbollah, we are proud and boastful of our good relationship with them... Whether the victory will be achieved here or there, it is a victory of both peoples against the common enemy... To Mr. Hassan Nasrallah, leader of the resistance we say... And you, Oh master of the resistance! Oh Abu-Hadi [Nasrallah nickname], we tell you that we in the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are all your brothers and your sons, we are all soldiers in the same battle you direct..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 14, 2006]

"Poet and journalist Ahmad Dahbor said: 'Palestine shows solidarity with itself, while showing solidarity with Lebanon, since the Lebanese resistance stands tall to protect the Arab Nation. [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 11, 2006]

"During a Gaza convention organized by the Ministry of Culture under the name 'No to Israeli terror in Lebanon and in Palestine,' Abbas Zaki, member of the Fatah movement Central Committee and Palestinian Ambassador in Lebanon, said: "...It is an honor for the Palestinians that sister Lebanon will win, because she [Lebanon] always supports Palestine..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 11, 2006]

"The National and Islamic Forces organized a mass rally yesterday in the Jenin district to condemn Israeli aggression against the Gaza strip and Lebanon and in support of Palestinian and Lebanese resistance... the children carried many placards with slogans written on them, such as: 'Yes to resistance, no to submission'. Shiek Mahmmod Al-Saa'di, the political leader of the Islamic Jihad movement in the Jenin district, said that the resistance is a legitimate right of the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples. He called all the military wings of the resistance factions to announce a general mobilization..." [Al-Ayyam, July 17, 2006]

On July 10, 2006, Palestinian TV aired a new clip called "From the land of Palestine to Lebanon," portraying solidarity between the two regions that "suffer from the Israeli cruelty" and a message of the unity of blood. The clip included pictures from demonstrations in the Palestinian Authority in support of Lebanon.

During the same week a clip expressing solidarity with the Lebanese, called "One Wound," was aired many times. In its beginning, the clip tells a "story" about Israel bombing little children in Lebanon and Palestine. The clip also included a photo hinting that Israeli children wrote messages to children on shells destined to kill Palestinian and Lebanese children who wanted only to celebrate a birthday and be happy. The song has English subtitles.

Hamas demonstrations in Gaza and Nablus for solidarity with Hezbollah, received wide coverage. The Al-Manar TV broadcasts from August 13, 2006, aired demonstrations by Palestinian children. A boy, about eight years old, was seen talking about the children of Palestine identifying with the children of Lebanon. Afterwards pictures were included of many people in Gaza flying flags of Hamas and Hezbollah, and Palestinian children stomping on burning flags of Israel, the United States and Britain. Afterwards, the Al-Manar reporter in "Occupied Palestine" reported from a summer-camp in Ramallah. A girl who was interviewed advised the children of Lebanon to hold strong, as did the Palestinian children who endured the same actions. Another youth said [to the children of Lebanon]: "We are all with you, and if we have to give our blood, our kids, our families, and our homes for your sake -- we are ready to do so."

B. Victory of Hezbollah in contrast to humiliation of Israel

For the Palestinian society, the war was a complete and admirable victory of Hezbollah, and a crushing and humiliating defeat for Israel. The following are a few examples from the media:

Nasser Al-Laham, chairman of the independent news agency Ma'an: "Hezbollah has killed 120 Israelis, while during the Intifada the Palestinians killed over one-thousand Israelis, but what makes the difference is that against Hezbollah, Israel felt the defeat." [Palestinian TV open-wave broadcasts "Good Morning Palestine", August 17, 2006]

"Secretary General of the [Palestinian Liberation] Front" demanded from the masses of our people... to strengthen national unity... following the complete failure and the disgraceful defeat which the occupation army took at the hands of the resistance in Lebanon..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 22, 2006]

"The Ministry for Prisoner Affairs... said that the abduction [by Israel of Nasser Al-Din Al-Sha'er, Palestinian deputy Prime-Minister] is a failed attempt on behalf of the occupation government... to improve its image in local public opinion, after the Lebanese resistance humiliated them... and caused them a very sound defeat..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 20, 2006]

"If Israel succeeded during the cursed Six-Day War to defeat three Arab armies... and to end the war within six days, well now starts the fourth week [of the war in Lebanon], and they are not capable of finishing the war... The Jews have experienced five wars. We have never seen such disgrace, shame, and fear among their ranks, as in this war." [From a religious sermon by Shiek Dr. Ahmad Bahar, a Hamas member of the Palestinian Legislative Council -- Palestinian TV, August 4, 2006]

"Head of the 'Palestinian Religious Teachers Society' in the Gaza strip said in a press release: 'Following a whole month of wild and barbaric aggression against our people in sister Lebanon, Israel walks out defeated in the face of relentless Jihad fighters, which shattered the myth of 'the unbeatable army' and taught the leaders of the occupation lessons in the arts of warfare and conflict..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 20, 2006]

"Yesterday in the town of Salfit, the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine held its third party convention... The participants congratulated the heroes of resistance in Lebanon and Palestine, and sent messages of solidarity and support for the resistance and the Lebanese people for their great victory and the strong stance of Hezbollah fighters against the Israeli military demolition machine..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 20, 2006]

"Israel is capable of destroying everything, but she will not be able to get a victory and defeat the resistance... because the resistance... is a cultural, mental, and ideological stat among the peoples of the region... and here we witness, after more than a month, the defeat of the Israeli occupation army..." [Dr. Hasan Abu-Hashish, aid to the deputy of the information minister, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 20, 2006].

During the Palestinian TV news broadcast on August 10, 2006, a false Hezbollah report was quoted according to which "today the 'resistance' destroyed over eight tanks." Israeli soldiers were shown wounded and taking cover. Nasrallah was quoted regarding the shelling of Israeli "colonies" such as Nahariya.

"Oh dear brothers, we are under a vicious attack by the enemies of humanity and religion, by the Zionist criminals... We emphasize that the Zionist military structure has been defeated! They are not able to win the military battle, not in Palestine, nor in Lebanon. They are however interested in justifying their defeat by killing children, wrecking homes, cutting off electricity, wrecking hospitals and institutions, but this is indeed a defeat in itself... They are the defeated, they are the ones who lost, and we -- in God's will -- are winning because the flag of Islam will continue to fly in Palestine and in Lebanon despite their anger and wrath..." [Friday sermon Palestinian TV, August 4, 2006, Shiek Dr. Ahmad Bahar, Hamas member of Palestinian Legislative Council]

C. Hezbollah tactics as a role model for the Palestinians

The Palestinian media are actively reviewing the lessons of the Hezbollah war in Lebanon, and the ways in which the Palestinians should learn from Hezbollah. This message is repeated often in the words of official and unofficial spokespeople, and columnists increasingly analyze the successes of Hezbollah. Additionally, there are some who view the victory as a precedent that proves that if only they persist, Israel will be defeated and eventually disappear.

"I call the Palestinians to make maximum use of the Lebanese model for handling a crisis and for the united and non-compromising stand ... I warn against the policy of weakening the aims that any move towards normalization... is attempting to spread." [Dr. Hasan Abu-Hashish, aid to the deputy of the information minister, AL-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 20, 2006].

"Imad Abu-Hamad, commander of the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Gaza: "...We increased the shelling of the colonies surrounding the Gaza Strip, and we also escalated the military activity in the [West] Bank, in coordination with Hezbollah's brave resistance, so that the enemy will be between two jaws of resistance in the south and the north. Yesterday the occupation retreated from southern Lebanon and afterwards from the Gaza Strip. And tomorrow, by Allah's will, they will retreat from the [West] bank and hence become prisoners of their own racist fence..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 14, 2006]

"Dr. Attallah Abu-Al-Soboh, Minister of Culture, said: 'The Lebanese and Palestinian experience should be studied and benefited from. This proved that the Israeli army is defeated in the face of desire and good planning. Especially note the Israeli [civilian] evacuation and flight from the North [of Israel due to Hezbollah shelling of cities] proves that these are Palestinian cities and not Israeli ...' " [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 11, 2006]

"Marwan Abu-Al-Ras, head of the Palestinian Religious Teachers Society in the Gaza Strip... saw the heavy defeat of the occupation army [in Lebanon]... as the first step towards the disappearance of the thieving occupation from our occupied land... he emphasized that the path of resistance should be continued until the Israeli occupation will be driven out of the entire Palestinian territory..." [Note: "thieving occupation" is a term the PA uses to refer to all of Israel.] [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 20, 2006]

PA analyst Hani Al-Masri took pride on PA TV in Hezbollah's achievements, and specified:

"Brave battles of Hezbollah against the elite [Israeli] unit 51 of Golani... Breaking Israel's war conception of quick resolution, talking initiative ... A small organization [Hezbollah] succeeded in beating Israel... If Hezbollah was a state, their achievements regarding Israel would have been great... Because they [Hezbollah] are like a lightweight boxer competing against a heavyweight boxer, and managing to reach the 15th round..." Palestinian TV on August 2, 2006]

TV program "Religion and Society" --

Sheik Hian Idrisi: "The Zionist project is currently in retreat due to the reality in which we live. They hoped for a completely Jewish state, but now, we are a thorn in their throats. They hoped, following their unilateral retreat from Gaza, that the [PA] missile [attacks] would cease and that the attacks against them would stop, and they would be satisfied with the West Bank. But the brothers in Gaza, who were under siege after this withdrawal, finding themselves in an enclave, did not stand arms folded, but continued [to fight].

Host Sheik Jamal Bawatna says that if this is about Jihad and resistance, one should note the origins. He mentions an episode from Muslim tradition, when Fatima was attacked and Mohammad was patient and didn't react with Jihad, until gathering a large army... 'This proves that the resistance against the enemies must be done with wisdom. Before we open a front, we must study the situation carefully...'

Sheik Idrisi: "The fighting creates many worries for the enemy. Many regions [in Israel] which are near Lebanon and Gaza have been paralyzed, and the people disappeared. We pray to Allah that they will not return ... Eventually Allah, may he be praised and glorified, will bring the Muslims the victory, and bring defeat to the infidels... The enemy stole our land, stole the historic land of Palestine." Palestinian TV, July 23, 2006:

Sermon of Sheik Dr. Ahmad Bahar, Hamas member of Palestinian Legislative Council:

"The fighting brothers" we tell the monster entity state that by Allah's will, they will not be able to accomplish their goals... I tell you that the Zionist people are in horror, fear, confusion, their political and military leaders are in disagreement. I tell you that they are horrified. More than two million Zionists are not able to leave their shelters. They live in fear inside the shelters. They live like mice and rabbits, they can not leave. Their people screamed and yelled, by the thousands. They are interested in leaving [Israel]. One is interested in going over there, to America, to Europe and Britain. Negative migration has started... We have not witnessed the destruction of Jaffa, Haifa, and in Allah's will [soon], Tel-Aviv -- except during this fifth war, this war, in which the noble, the believers, and the loyal fight in Palestine and in Lebanon." Palestinian TV on August 4, 2006:

"Parliament member Bassam Al-Salhi, general secretary of Al-Shaa'b ['the people's] party... called to carry on the struggle and the resistance. He [also] called the people in power to [show] unity and learn from the Hezbollah experience in Lebanon in order to face the challenges..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 13, 2006]

"Parliament member Dr. Marwan Abu-Al-Ras, head of the Palestinian Religious Teachers Society in the Gaza strip, emphasized that the way of resistance should be continued until the expulsion of the Israeli occupation from the entire Palestinian territory. He also said: 'Despite the military arsenal that the forces of occupation hold, and despite the USA support and the international silence, they did not mange to achieve their goals and their aspirations, due to the strong-standing of our people in sister Lebanon, and due to the brave Islamic resistance'. He called to learn from the lessons of the confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel, in a way that will strengthen the Palestinian capability to inflict casualties among the forces of the occupation." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, August 20, 2006]

Itamar Marcus is director of PMW - Palestinian Media Watch - (http://www.pmw.org.il). PMW is based in Jerusalem. Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative.

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matters Organization, August 31, 2006.

Because the English language is always adapting to changing circumstances, Jim Guirard of the TrueSpeak Institute argues, in the first of a two-part series, that it is time for some of those changes to reflect the political realities that affect American life, security, and prosperity.

A Washington DC-area writer, public speaker and anti-Terrorism strategist, Jim Guirard was longtime Chief of Staff to former US Senators Allen Ellender and Russell Long. His new TrueSpeak Institute is devoted to truth-in-language and truth-in-history in public discourse. Justcauses@aol.com 703-768-0957

Each year at about this time, several major dictionaries and assorted lexicographers and word-smiths identify and define new words and phrases which have achieved -- or may soon be achieving -- "dictionary status."

Looking forward to next year's list of such new semantic tools which "make it" into Merriam-Webster's, the Oxford English Dictionary and others, here are a number of candidates from the TrueSpeak Institute -- a center-right initiative devoted to truth-in-language and truth-in-history in public discourse, founded and led by the author of this article.

This first article of a two-part series presents fifteen useful new English language terms -- some geo-political, some socio-political, some environmental, some economic -- which do not currently appear in any major dictionary.

Its sequel will be focused on the War on al Qaeda-style Terrorism and will present a similar number of Arabic and Islamic terms which usually do appear (albeit often mis-defined) in various Arab language dictionaries and glossaries and which should now be entered into and correctly defined for anti-Terrorism purposes, as well.

Here is the first assortment -- several of which will help to pull down some of the ancient Cold War euphemisms and semantic masks behind which many supposedly "progressive" (codeword for steadily moving toward socialism) people and political movements have long hidden their real nature:

communiods - so-called "former" communists who have never formally and convincingly denounced Marxism-Leninism and who may still be communists at heart, but are no longer called that. Clearly, Russia's increasingly autocratic Vladimir Putin (who as late as four years ago was still toasting "the memory of Zhugashvili," a.k.a. Josep Stalin!) is a prime case in point.

Cubazuela - a short-hand new name for modern-day Venezuela, a former South American democracy which is now "another Cuba" -- led by another Comandante-for-life tyrant, Hugo Chavez. In the same vein, "Cubaragua" might be another new label in Central America if the oil-rich Castro-Chavez conspiracy is able to wedge the "Sandinistas" - President Reagan called them "Stalinistas," instead - back into power in Managua.

diplunacy - UN-style diplomacy which is so "loony" as to have concocted at various times (a) the infamous "Oil For Food" conspiracy in Iraq, (b) the selection of Fidel Castro's Cuba as Chair of the so-called "Non-aligned Movement," (c) the selection of Muammar Qaddafi's Libya as Chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights and (d) the selection of Saddam Hussein's Iraq as Chair of the UN Commission on Disarmament.

eeekology - scare-tactics environmentalism of the Greenpeace and Al Gore variety, with an emphasis on environmental bad news and a deliberate, pseudo-scientific black-out of all environmental good news and of any serious challenge to the "global warming" scam.

eeekonomics -- scare-tactics socio-economics, as in the left-wing Democrats' and the media's practice of deliberately and repeatedly frightening the elderly about Social Security, the poor about food stamps or school lunches, the general public about jobs and about the steadily growing but always "headed in the wrong direction" economy as a whole.

fascist-left - the single-party, police-state socialist Left -- namely, individuals or regimes of Marxist, Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist, Castroite and "Islamo-fascist" persuasions. (Although the "fascist" label is always regarded as right-wing, both Mussolini and Hitler were socialists and, therefore, leftists to the core.) This is actually a logical extension of reactionary-Left and ultra-"progressive" tendencies of most Big Government liberals.

outforcing - a corollary to the current "outsourcing" of jobs to foreign lower priced labor, with "outforcing" being traceable to many of the high-taxation, over-regulation, anti-profits, anti-corporate, anti-drilling, not-in-my-backyard policies and practices which tend to cause outsourcing.

properganda -- proactively disseminated information which, although selectively pro-America and pro-Democracy in total content, meets the basic standards of truthfulness and accuracy, as contrasted to "propaganda's" implications of deliberate untruth, spin, deceit and disinformation.

Theology of Liberty - a civil-libertarian, Judeo-Christian alternative to the Marxist-inspired, pseudo-religious scam of so-called Liberation Theology, eventually condemned by the late, great John Paul II as a communoid heresy. This new freedom-for-all "theology" consists of twenty-two (22) very specific human rights and civil liberties, all of which are either ignored or suppressed by the communists, the communoids, the fascist-left progressives and the Islamo-fascists alike.

AWOL - a new acronym meaning Always Weak On Liberty, rather than the traditional "away without leave." (Examples: AWOL in Vietnam, Cuba, Cambodia, Tibet, Angola, Mozambique, Yemen, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Chile, Panama, Kuwait, the Reagan-induced collapse of the Soviet Empire, the ongoing liberation and democratization of Iraq, etc.).

"ACE" Agitators - Aid and Comfort to the Enemy politicians, journalists, academics and assorted Hollywood personalities who even in wartime have said far more vicious things about President Bush, VP Cheney and SecDef Rumsfeld than about the "Death to America" likes of Hussein, bin Laden, Castro or Chavez -- in ways which do, indeed, give great aid and comfort to the enemy.

Quondam Fi - the Latin language antithesis of the US Marine Corps' slogan of "Semper Fi" (Semper Fidelis or Always Faithful) and meaning "Formerly" or "No Longer" Faithful to the Corps, as is clearly the case with Pennsylvania's "ACE" Congressman John Murtha.

Zellocrats - lifelong Democrats who are no longer loyal to the Party but have not become either Independents or Republicans, and who now share many of the center-right sentiments expressed in the 2004 Presidential campaign by former Democratic US Senator Zell Miller of Georgia. (And might there now be found in a center-left subset of "Liebercrats" or Lieberublicans as well?)

As Mark Twain once said about the importance of selecting just the right word, "The difference between exactly the right word and one which slightly misses the mark is akin to the difference between lightning and a lightning bug" -- or words very much to that effect.

Hopefully, all of these proposed new words and labels will serve in due course as lightning strikes against the misguided policies and practices of those leftist ideologues which they are designed to unmask and to set right.

In the FSM sequel to follow, there will be a similar number of Arabic and Islamic words -- most of them religious in nature -- which we should take time to define correctly, to learn and to use in ways which belatedly begin to demonize Osama bin Laden and his kind as effectively as they are currently demonizing us.

Contact the Family Security Matters Org at their website

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 31, 2006.


The IDF had said that if it knew that civilians had remained in a Kfar Qana building in which Hizbullah stocked arms, it would not have bombed it. IMRA asked that if civilians ring a Hizbullah rocket launcher being used, would IDF refrain from striking the launcher. Yes, replied the IDF officially, the IDF does not target civilians (IMRA, 8/3).

That would not be targeting civilians. The IDF is crippling its war capability, encouraging Hizbullah to employ human shields, and enabling Hizbullah to target Israeli civilians.

I think that IDF reply is one of the most stupid and immoral boasts of being ethical that I have every heard.


Israel had bombed near the building hours before it collapsed. Why would residents have stayed there? Residents seem to have died in their sleep, despite there having been bombing nearby. Lebanese rescue efforts did not begin until camera crews arrived. There was little blood. Crews kept cameras away but when they showed the bodies, the grey faces looked to have been dead for days. Different rescue workers were shown in distributed photographs carrying the same corpse, probably over different days, as if posed. This seems to be another case of the Arabs staging a massacre (Arutz-7, 8/3).


The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs shows videos of Hizbullah firing missiles from the village and from behind civilian buildings and using human shields (IMRA, 8/22).


HRW ignored Israel's photographic evidence of Hizbullah military activity in KFAR Qana. It relied on local testimony of people under Hizbullah control. Residents and rescue workers claimed not to have seen any Hizbullah military activity. HRW failed to condemn Hizbullah use of human shields. This fits a pattern of HRW bias (Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor, IMRA, 8/3).

The Arabs are engaged in a holy war without scruples. They cannot be relied upon.


Hizbullah rockets have struck two Israeli hospitals. There is a pattern of rockets falling around one of the hospitals, which is not near any military facilities. A doctor wonders whether Hizbullah is aiming for hospitals (IMRA, 8/2).


He said a withdrawal would mean separation (Arutz-7, 8/3).

He expelled fellow Jews from Gaza, but it didn't separate the Gaza Arabs from Israel. Rather, it enabled them to come close to the border and fire rockets at Israel. The rockets landed in Israel. It separated some Israelis' souls from their bodies.


He said there must be Israeli withdrawals and a peaceful solution, or there would be terrorism. He said the moderates are losing face (IMRA, 8/3).

He condemned Israel solely and vehemently for massacres. He did not sound moderate, himself.

Arab terrorism preceded the establishment of Israel. The Arabs are waging jihad all over. It has little to do with what Israel does but with intolerance of other religions and of Western civilization. As if he didn't know that!


A Jewish holiday centering on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, Israel, brought petitioners to the Supreme Court of Israel, to get permission to visit the Mount. The Supreme Court granted it for normal hours and if not turned into a demonstration.

Muslim leaders denied Supreme Court jurisdiction and sovereignty. One called on Muslims to flock to the Mount to confront the Jews. Israeli police then barred all non-Muslims and young Muslims from the Mount (sorry, forgot which source).

Thus judges and laws do not decide the issue in Israel, Muslim extremists impose their demands. The government is more sympathetic to the enemies of the State than it is to the patriots. It punishes the innocent instead of enforcing the laws against the guilty.


The videos of the air attacks show how Hamas makes use of the Gaza youth; they are sent to collect Qassam rocket launchers, after they have been used, and the IDF holds back from targeting them."

"With intelligence that Hamas is planning to dig tunnels and carry out at least two major attacks, similar to the one at Kerem Shalem, IDF officers are curious about the failure to include known tunnelers on the hit lists. This is going to change in the near future." (IMRA, 8/4.)

The irony is that while the Arabs complain that Israel is brutal towards their civilians, and much of the media reflexively accepts the complaint as valid, the Palestinian Arabs cynically exploit Israeli decency towards their civilians to brutally fire rockets at Israeli civilians.

In my understanding of international law and equity, however, the youth have forfeited civilian status. They are participating in Hamas' military effort. I think that the IDF has a duty to its own people and to the international defense against jihad to consider the youth part of the rocket crews and to destroy those crews and the rocket launchers.


The war in Lebanon has demonstrated that the IDF still can improvise brilliantly. Unfortunately, the government of Israel makes every decision that turns victory into stalemate or defeat.

PM Olmert started by stating Israel's purpose and resolve. Then the US announced a 48-hour Israeli ceasefire and that in a few days it must halt its offensive. Olmert declared victory and lied that he never promised that Israel would not have to suffer Hizbullah rocketry again. He claimed to have destroyed Hizbullah's infrastructure, changed the balance of power, and regained deterrence, this said just before Hizbullah's heaviest day of bombardment of Israel -- 231 rockets. He was lying. By seeming to halt the war, and by rededicating himself to abandonment of Judea-Samaria, that most Israelis saw was discredited by the two wars, Israel lost more deterrence. Thus the US turned on Israel, and Olmert reverted to phony appeasement.

His statements also were demoralizing to the troops. Almost half of them are religious and many live in Judea-Samaria. Olmert was telling them in effect that their heroism in Lebanon convinced him to throw them out of their homes in Judea-Samaria.

"He tells (i.e., hints) the US that it doesn't have to take us seriously as a client. Since we're willing to pretend that we've already won, we tell America that we will accede to any settlement the State Dept. carves out with the French and the Russians - even if it involves a total Israeli capitulation replete with land giveaways to Hizbullah and the surrender of Israel's right to defend itself to some UN mandated multinational force made up of French dhimmis and Indonesian jihadists."

"Olmert tells our enemies that they do not have to be concerned that Israel will defeat them because the prime minister of Israel is not planning on doing anything that would involve their actual defeat. This of course emboldens them to widen their attacks."

Syria is acting bolder, because Israel refrains from bombing Hizbullah supply lines in Syria. Israel asked the EU anti-Israel point man, Moratinos, to negotiate with Syria. He ended Syria's diplomatic isolation with praise as being constructive. Syria may get rewarded for aggression.

Olmert is letting the lazy US see the war as a local matter and a territorial problem, rather than Hizbullah as an extension of the Iranian army of jihad (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 8/4).


Israel finds that Syria still is supplying rockets to Hizbullah. Israel strikes many of them in Lebanon, but won't strike them while they still are in Syria (IMRA, 8/3). Syria, which enabled Hizbullah to start the war, talks about Israeli aggression. The Turkish leader praised Syria as a force for stability (IMRA, 8/4). Force or farce for stability?


The IDF sent troops into Lebanon with obsolete vests and rifles for the first day or days and without night-vision equipment, sniper-rifles, and anti-tank weapons (IMRA, 8/2). Imagine what good fighters they were, to have mostly won, despite inferior arms!

They were sent out in the sweltering summer without water and food. They had to take the canteens of slain Hizbullah men and scrounge for food in Lebanese towns.

Reservists released under the ceasefire are demanding that military and political officials resign over two types of incompetence. Those troops were eager to tackle any mission. They found that the government had no strategy and their commanders were so indecisive that every mission was retracted. Imagine a long stay in hostile territory without a plan!

The Olmert regime offers an excuse. It was not in power for long (NY Sun, 8/22, p.7 from Tim Butcher of the Daily Telegraph and Eli Lake).

Olmert's excuse is specious. He and the other officials all were in power before and for years. They kept cutting military spending. First thing on taking power, an Israeli regime should inspect military readiness. If not ready, prepare. Then strike when ready to sweep through. I would suggest military deception in the interim, appearing indecisive, so the enemy does not look to its defenses.

The regime is losing popularity over its diplomatic incompetence (or is it treason), over launching a war without a strategy or without sticking to a strategy, and over its reaffirmation of its policy of withdrawal that the war demonstrates is dangerous. It was the withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza that has led to the two current wars launched against Israel from there.


Hizbullah claims that a part of northern Israel was seized from Lebanon. Actually, that area and its villages were in that part of Mandatory Palestine that later became Israel. The villages were largely Shiite, one was half Christian, and there were Jews there, too. One of the villages was known for its Taggart fort, build by the British Mandatory government. Lebanon was a French Mandate (IMRA, 8/5 from Danny Rubenstein).


"At least 16 Lebanese were killed in the raid on what authorities in the Bekaa Valley city said was in (sic) Iranian-built hospital. Israel said the building was a Hizbullah hospital." (Eli Lake, NY Sun, 8/22, p.7.)

Not being there, reporters are left to recite what they are told. This report at least recited both sides. Many state primarily the Arab side. How can we gauge what is true?

I think we should judge by general reliability and any relevant specific circumstances. Israel generally reports accurately, though it accepts guilt for certain civilian casualties before investigating and finding that it did not commit them.

The Muslims generally report falsely, to make propaganda. The Arabs are in a total war. Their ideology and culture elevate deceit against the enemy as if a virtue. They often have staged events and lied about battles. The Muslim method of warfare largely is by war crime. One such war crime is to build an arms storage depot below ground, and erect a hospital or school above it. The hospital may disguise the military facility, deter attack because Israelis dislike killing civilians, or enable the media to criticize Israel if it does strike the depot and kill civilians incidentally, even though such a strike is ethical as explained under international law. The media criticism amounts to collaboration with war criminals to injure the victims of Islamic aggression.

Often the media reports Israeli strikes on buildings, trucks, roads, and bridges, and Lebanese criticism of them, without stating or including the IDF daily report of its suspicion (as its 8/5 report via IMRA) that the truck was carrying arms to the building. An 8/5 report stated that IDF squad found terrorists in a Tyre apartment, who opened fire upon them; more gunmen attacked them on the way out. The Israelis got wounded, not from civilians! Here is an 8/5 summary of IDF activity in Lebanon overnight:

"The IDF carried out over 70 aerial attacks in Lebanon overnight, among the targets, two missile launchers and a number of Hezbollah targets in the Dahiya area of Beirut:

A Hezbollah operations base
An underground Hezbollah operations center
Hezbollah offices and command posts
A Hezbollah weapons storage facility
A Hezbollah assembly area
The offices of a Hezbollah newspaper used to spread propaganda and incitement for terror?
A recruiting location for 'Amal' operatives."

"In addition, during the night the IDF demolished a Hezbollah post opposite of the 'Tziporen\ IDF post. Forces uncovered weapons stores (including anti-tank missiles) in Yaroun, and in Rajamin soldiers identified armed gunmen, fired at them and identified hitting them."

"In order to avoid unintentional harm to civilians during the operations, the IDF has called upon the Lebanese population in the areas close to the targets mentioned above to vacate their houses, via media announcements and leaflets dropped from the air" (IMRA). The warnings show good faith but may have compromised the missions. How successful the missions were, was not stated.


A military attack is legal if its anticipated civilian casualties are not great in proportion to the military objective. In other words, killing a lot of civilians in order to attain a minor military gain would be a war crime.

Israel is fighting against foes who strive to annihilate it. Its military gain is major.

On proportionality, contrast Israel with Russia, a critic of Israel and a supporter of Hizbullah. Hizbullah seeks to murder civilians without discernable military gain, just genocide. Russia has killed a fifth of the Chechens, who do not threaten Russian survival. NATO bombed largely civilian facilities in Serbia, to force Serbia to stop fighting in Kosovo. If anything were a war crime and disproportionate, NATO's action was (Prof. Kittrie of Arizona U., IMRA, 8/5).


Azerbaijan and Israel share intelligence, trade, and regional alliances.

At war with Armenia over territory, Azerbaijan had been losing. It requested Israeli military aid. Israel sold it weapons, helps guard it, and improved its economy. Dozens of Israeli companies started providing goods and services, when the country privatized. Israel has used its influence to keep pipelines secure and available to the West. The Israel lobby enabled the country to receive US economic aid. Having gained US involvement, Azerbaijan is less eager for Israeli help and more sensitive to Islamic states' criticism of it. The US focus on democracy may destabilize the country, which is corrupt.

Azerbaijan is a country of the Azeris, but Iran has twice as many Azeris. Iran has tried to destabilize Azerbaijan, as does Russia. (Same old Russia.) Thousands of Islamist terrorists are in the area. The government had to take control of mosques, ban extremist imams and literature, and make arrests.

Israel has tried to gain friendships with Muslim states just beyond the Arab areas. It hopes to enable the 20,000 Jews of Azerbaijan to return to the Jewish homeland. It has in Azerbaijan posts for monitoring Iran. It does not have an Azeri ambassador in Israel (MEFnews, 8/6). For Azerbaijan, it is a begrudging alliance, not friendship.

I sympathize with Armenia in its dispute, but not with Russian exploitation of it.


Every week, Israeli soldiers eliminate a few dozen terrorists in Gaza, some attempting to launch rockets at Israel (IMRA, 8/6).


The Times editorialized: "No Place for Cluster Bombs" in the Lebanon War. Since cluster bombs cause casualties, and since Hizbullah fights in civilian areas, Israel's use of such bombs produces civilian casualties. Therefore, the US should insist that Israel not use the US-made ones, in this war (8/26).

The article seems innocuous. It has a self-contained logic and ostensibly a humanitarian motive. Sometimes a Times editorial presents as its motive concern for Israel.

Concern for Israel? Were the Times a judge, it would recuse itself for anti-Zionist bias. It hides that bias and feigns lofty motives. It proceeds by deception and rationalization.

If it were so humanitarian, where are its editorials against the Arabs' constant inhumane practices against both their own and other civilian populations. The Times' feature articles on Islam give the impression of prevailing decency by it and its followers.

Its editorial is self-contained, because it criticizes Israel without presenting Israel's reasons for using the controversial weapon. It fails to note Israel's right to use the weapon because the terrorists fight amongst civilians, a war crime, and the civilians do not object. The only protection those supposed civilians have under international law is that Israel try not to kill too many, in proportion to the military objective. Israel does try.

Israel has made many sacrifices in behalf of enemy civilians. Nevertheless, the Times makes Israel out to seem the brutal side, although the Muslim side fights largely by war crimes. It cites principle, but its real impetus is its century-old anti-Zionism. In its subtle propaganda against Israel, it fails to rally Americans against the common Islamist enemy. It lets America down, by trying to down Israel. Like its comrades in the State Dept., the Times seems to have a policy of "Saturday's people first, then Friday's people." (First Jews, then Muslim jihadists.) That is foolish, because the Muslims have a saying, "First Saturday's people, then Sunday's people." (First conquer the Jews, then the Christians.) Were the Times rational, it would encourage Israel to destroy as many Islamists as possible, leaving fewer against our own troops.


At a wedding celebration in Jenin, several men were firing automatic rifles into the air. Losing control of his weapon, one man shot three children to death. This is a common problem that concerns the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (IMRA, 8/6).

Does it concern the NY Times? Among the various human rights stories about the Arabs featured by the NY Times, I have never seen any showing their barbarism. Does the Times reserve its criticism over the deaths of Palestinian Arab children for Israel, as about cluster bombs, or does it lament Arab callousness in those editions that I miss?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 31, 2006.


Go the Bush administration Go! Finally taking effective measures with Hezballah. With evidence that Hezballah has fundraising network that extends from Detroit to Buenos Aires (has large Arab community) and no doubt beyond, the Administration has ordered a freeze on its assets. The picture (if ever there was any doubt) of the Islamists eternal commitment and struggle to destroy Israel, all modeled after the life of Mohammad, is clear. Do not for one moment forget that getting rid of Israel would be but the Islamic world's first step to their world domination goal.


This article was written by Glenn Kessler, Washington Post Staff Writer, and it appeared yesterday in the Washington Post.
(www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/ 2006/08/29/AR2006082901286_pf.html)

Donations to Militant Group Banned

The Bush administration moved yesterday against a key fundraising arm of Hezbollah, the militant Shiite Muslim movement that is part of Lebanon's government, ordering a freeze on its assets in the United States and making it illegal for Americans to contribute to the organization.

Hezbollah seized two Israeli solders last month, sparking a war between Israel and the organization that left large parts of southern Lebanon devastated. The United States regards Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, but the European Union has refused to join in that designation, in part because of the group's vast array of social services.

Yesterday's action against the Islamic Resistance Support Organization was intended in part to demonstrate the link between Hezbollah and terrorist activities. The Treasury Department released copies of a receipt issued by the group to a donor, which on the back listed projects such as "collection box project for the children and homes," "contribution to the cost of a rocket " and "contribution to the cost of bullets." The donor, whose name was redacted, used ink to signal his interest in helping fund a rocket.

During the conflict with Israel, Hezbollah launched about 4,000 rockets, killing more than three dozen civilians.

"Hezbollah projects an image as a humanitarian organization," said Stuart Levey, Treasury's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. "This puts the lie to that image. This shows there is no separation, and they raise money for social services and also raise money for terrorism."

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, an Israeli Web site that tracks militant groups, last week posted brochures from the group, also known as the Islamic Resistance Support Association. The materials were obtained during the conflict in Lebanon.

One brochure depicted coins going into a mosque, similar to the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and emerging as rockets aimed at a battered Star of David. The Web site said that the group primarily raises money from Shiite communities in the Persian Gulf but has also raised money in the Detroit area. Congressional testimony last year cited an unclassified Israeli intelligence report that said the group raised funds in Detroit.

Levey said the group also solicits funds through Hezbollah's al-Manar television station.

Since the war in Lebanon began, U.S. officials have tried to fashion ways to cut off Hezbollah's financing, which is central to its ability to build up its stockpile of weapons. Under a U.N. Security Council resolution passed this month that called for a halt to the conflict, Hezbollah is required to give up its weapons.

But Levey acknowledged that a financial crackdown on Hezbollah is more difficult than the Treasury's successful efforts to thwart North Korean counterfeiting and preventing financial aid for the Hamas-led Palestinian government. In part, that is because Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, not the government itself. The European refusal to designate Hezbollah as a terrorist organization has also been a problem.

"We believe that Hezbollah meets the definition of a terrorism organization, and we have long advocated that to our colleagues in Europe," Levey said.

Iran--which Levey called the "central banker of terrorism"--is regarded as the biggest financial backer of Hezbollah, providing an estimated $100 million a year. The Treasury Department has been coordinating an effort to find ways to cut off Iran's support for a host of militant groups, including Hezbollah and the Islamic Resistance Movement, as Hamas is formally known.

Jews angry at Argentine Hizbollah funding claims
by Jude Webber in Buenos Aires
August 26 2006
Financial Times, UK

Allegations that Argentina's Arab community is sending money to Hizbollah have incensed Jewish groups, in a country where memories are still raw of two deadly bomb attacks on Jewish targets in the 1990s blamed on the Lebanese militia.

"There is a bank account, opened by the Lebanese embassy, and anyone who can is collaborating, with both cash and humanitarian aid," Yaoudat Brahim, president of the Federation of Argentine Arabic Groups in Buenos Aires, told the Financial Times.

(http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/ article_1195976.php/Analysis_Hezbollah`s_indoctrination)

TEL AVIV, Israel (UPI) -- Israeli soldiers who searched Hezbollah homes and bunkers in the south Lebanese village of Maroun el-Ras found a booklet that provided a glimpse into that movement`s religious indoctrination.

It extolled holy war and martyrdom and provided examples from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards` experience.

Soldiers found four copies of that booklet in Maroun el-Ras that has seen some heavy fighting with Hezbollah.

Israeli intelligence experts reckoned that since several copies were found in Hezbollah`s front lines, the 60-page booklet must be an authorized Islamic guidance manual.

It is written like a Muslim-Shiite ideological treatise with quotes from the Koran and Shiite traditions. It presents the Jihad, or Holy War, as a way in which a Muslim may sacrifice his life for Allah and reach heaven. The Shahada, or martyrdom on the battlefield, is a prize for a Muslim warrior, the document says.

There are several gates to Heaven and the most prestigious of all is the one for those involved in a Jihad. That is why every Muslim should strive to take part in a holy war. Victory in a Jihad, or martyrdom, are tops.

Israel`s Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, which the intelligence community uses to release declassified materials, analyzed Hezbollah`s booklet. Its deputy director, Yoram Kahati, noted that Hezbollah considers its fighters as being not only Lebanese but, 'Mainly Muslim-Shiite Jihad fighters who fulfill a most important religious commitment.' That sense increases their motivation to fight Israel, he maintained.

No Arab state has made Jihad its strategy, Kahati noted. Only radical Sunni-Muslims, such as al-Qaida, give Jihad that much importance. However Iran, which is Muslim-Shiite, has been trying to export its ideas to the Shiites in Lebanon and set an example to the other, Muslim-Sunni world, Kahati wrote.

The booklet says that preserving military hierarchy is a religious matter and the report noted that Hezbollah is, indeed, a disciplined organization.

War zones should be turned into sites of religious worship, and fighters must be imbued with a 'revolutionary spirit' that does not accept surrender, the booklet notes.

Such indoctrination explains Hezbollah`s good fighting capabilities, said intelligence Col. in the reserves Reuven Ehrlich, who is the center`s director and Head of the Intelligence and Counter-Terrorism Studies Program at the Interdisciplinary Institute in Herzliya.

Bearing arms and fighting a holy war is not just a military profession for them but part of a religious belief, he told United Press International. These principles are taught at a very young age, he added.

Israeli troops are holding on to some 30 Lebanese arrested during the war and an authoritative military source told UPI he believed some 20 to 24 of them are Hezbollah members.

One of them is Hussein Ali Sliman, 20, who told an interrogator his training included courses on Mohammad`s life, Islam`s main principles and rules.

The Israeli officer said that copies of the Koran and religious slogans were found on the bodies of dead Hezbollah guerrillas and with prisoners.

The Hezbollah men are not as extreme as the Palestinian suicide bombers 'and no one came up to an armored personnel carrier and blew himself up. They fought like guerrillas,' the source officer noted. To keep it up they must be highly motivated, he noted.

Guerrillas` lines of communications are not that good and fighters are often on their own. That is why they need a strong spirit to continue fighting, he said. Some Hezbollah men fought to the bitter end and some kept returning to Bint Jbail, for example, even though the Israelis controlled that area with fire, the officer noted.

Fighters must have advanced weapons the book said citing a verse in the Koran that requires Muslim fighters to be ready with full force to instill fear in the enemy.

That is why disarmament and cease-fire with Israel are not long-term options, the document indicates. Such moves would seem to break religious principles.

Hence Hezbollah in both northern and southern Lebanon will persistently refuse to disarm, and Iran is going to back it, the report said.

Kahati told UPI Israel can expect, at the most, a 'kind of a hudna,' a cease fire that is permitted for a maximum of 10 years in case the Muslim side feels it is militarily inferior.

Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon have agreed to maintain a low profile and not display their arms, but they will not surrender those arms to the authorities.

'They are going to rebuild and strengthen themselves and if they feel they can carry out (operations)... they have a right to abrogate the hudna...That is why this is a temporary situation and you cannot know what will happen,' Kahati cautioned.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Louis Rene Beres, August 31, 2006.

From the start, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been perfectly clear about one thing: He has absolutely no plans to comply with international law and stop the rush to arm his country with nuclear weapons. The UN Security Council has given Iran until Thursday - tomorrow - to suspend uranium enrichment. Completely ignoring this mandate at every turn, Ahmadinejad's latest response has been to call for a debate with President Bush on world affairs.

The silliness of that offer is trumped only by the weakness, to date, of the United Nations' reaction. The toughest proposal before the UN is to force serious sanctions upon Iran. But anyone who understands the Iranian regime knows that sanctions will have no real effect on the pace of Iranian nuclearization. Sanctions won't work on this oil-rich nation that obviously has no need for peaceful nuclear energy and that still displays an all-consuming drive to acquire nuclear weapons.

This leads to an unavoidable conclusion: if Iran stalls instead of dealing - and all indications are that this is exactly what they are going to do - the world is wasting time with anything short of a military strike aimed at Iran's growing nuclear infrastructure.

Otherwise, we will be complicit in welcoming Ahmadinejad's regime into the nuclear club. Exactly how soon that will happen, no one knows - but no one who cares about the region's security should be content to wait and find out.

Why? Because a nuclear Iran would pose a genuinely apocalyptic hazard to the world. In Washington today, it is fashionable to pay this notion lip service - but few people seem to genuinely believe it.

Deterrence worked during the Cold War because both the United States and the Soviet Union were governed by common assumptions of rationality. Iran, to the contrary, flatly calls for "wiping Israel off the map" - a call that itself is a violation of the Genocide Convention of 1948. Given Iran's recent actions - arming Hezbollah and fomenting sectarian murder in Iraq - we can only imagine how they would throw their weight around the region with a nuclear weapon in their arsenal.

Let's stop kidding ourselves. Iran must be stopped immediately from acquiring atomic arms, and this can only be accomplished through what international law calls "anticipatory self-defense."

Yes, it's true that, given the terrible mess in Iraq, many are queasy about such terms. But we must not shy away from tomorrow's threat because of mistakes we may have made yesterday.

I acknowledge that even the most successful act of military preemption against Iran would result in large numbers of civilian casualties (because of the deliberate Iranian policy of placing military assets in the midst of civilian populations). But further postponements will only multiply the number of casualties from any future preemption, or - in the worst-case scenario - even permit Iran to become fully nuclear. In that eventuality, a vast region could then face the prospect of literally millions of fatalities.

In the best-of-all-possible worlds, diplomacy could be taken seriously, and discussions of military solutions would be premature. But we don't live in such a world. All available options are going to be costly. Putting our heads in the sand will only make us blind as well as dead.

Louis Rene Beres is professor of political science at Purdue University and is chair of Project Daniel, a group advising Israel's prime minister on nuclear matters. This article appeared today in New York Daily News

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, August 30, 2006.

To: Editor, Jerusalem Post

David, I watch with incomprehension how a chief editor can combine "Horror" and "Wit"z in order to publish such an absurd article -- "Make Damascus an Offer" (see below), while ignoring the other -- "Uzi Landau Blames Media" -- which attacks the very business he represents.

I'm not so far gone to pretend that I don't understand that the system of government in Israel leads to anomalies beyond itself, such as cozy and long term relationships between the "democracy" and the press. Given the perpetuity in power enjoyed by Israeli politicians, it is a great mutually beneficial relationship.

But is the brainwashing of the population, including the military, worth it, over the long term? What if the press had called a spade a spade, demanded real changes in government, and spent as much time and effort on it as it does pushing for Israel's capitulation, disguised as convergence, disengagement, prisoners' letter, Pereism, whatever?

I think Landau forgot to say that if not for the media more Israelis would be alive today. And the standard of living would be higher, not only among the naive general population, but among the media, too.

So, if a powerful Israel is not what the media wants, a Jewish Israel is not what the media wants, a safe Israel is not what the media wants, a less corrupt country is not what the media wants, competent people in power is not what the media wants, and even a higher standard of living is not what the media wants for itself, then what does the media want?

Maybe you can tell me.


P.S. Not to mention that the shock of reading the Israeli media makes me feel more normal and well balanced than I really am. On the one hand it is a good feeling, but on the other hand it prevents me from improving.

"Make Damascus an offer"
Aug 30, 2006
By Elmar Brok, Jana Hybaskova & Charles Tannock
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525969606&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Powerful countries know that it is dangerous to be seen to flinch, because enemies take heart and allies' knees begin to knock. A great power also knows that if it sets out on a military adventure without setting achievable goals, it can get into bad trouble. What's true for great powers is doubly true for beleaguered Israel, which failed to dismantle Hizbullah's power over Lebanon. But the Lebanon war's failure may yet provide an opening to peace if Israel is bold enough to seize it.

The world has two chief aims in the area between Cairo and Teheran: to maintain peace in the wider Middle East so that oil flows freely through the Persian Gulf; to steer the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians toward a settlement that guarantees the safety of Israel in its internationally recognized borders, while meeting the Palestinian people's legitimate national aspirations for their own state. The two issues have long been connected, but the main link is now President Bashar Assad's Syria.

Isolated, desperate for allies, Syria has been helping Iran in its quest for regional hegemony. Since Lebanon's Cedar Revolution evicted Syria last year, the Syrians have sought to haul Lebanon back within their sphere of influence. They back Hizbollah - and help Iran send it weapons - because Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's shock troops keep the government in Beirut weak. The Syrians also like to present themselves as the last real Arab defenders of the Palestinian cause.

In short, Syria, with its geographical position, its Iranian links and weapons, and its brutal Ba'athist regime, has become the linchpin of developments between the Mediterranean and the Gulf. To secure Lebanon, and to bring Hamas to the bargaining table with Israel, it is Syria that Israel and the United States must deal with, one way or another.

SYRIA'S POSITION and interests should make it amenable to a deal. Of course, Syria still believes in a "Greater Syria" and never fully accepted Lebanon's sovereignty. Syrian intelligence and troops - present in Lebanon since 1976 - were forced out in 2005 only under enormous international pressure and $1 billion were lost in smuggling revenue last year much of which previously flowed to the Syrian military. Many of the Hizbullah rockets that rained on Israel bore the markings of Syria's Defense Ministry.

Yet Syria has one redeeming feature: it is a secular country that traditionally recoils from Islamic fundamentalism. Indeed, President Hafez Assad, Bashar's father, massacred up to 38,000 mainly Sunni fundamentalist Muslim Brotherhood insurgents in Hama in 1982. Today, parts of the ruling Ba'ath elite worry about Syria's deepening alliance with theocratic Iran and Islamist Hizbullah.

That alliance reflects fear, not commitment. The moderate Sunni Gulf Arab emirates, suspicious of growing Shi'ite ascendancy and of Iranian irredentism in the region, have stopped propping up Syria's economy due to its alliance with the ayatollahs of Iran. Labelled by the US as part of the "axis of evil," Syria has also seen Saudi financial aid dry up and fears that the trade benefits that would come with ratification of its Association Agreement with the EU will never materialize.

Both Syria's reluctant alliance with Iran, and its economic desperation, provide openings that Israel and the West should test. But what might Syria want? Like most Arabs, Bashar Assad views Israel from the perspective of pan-Arab anguish at Palestinian dispossession, but also sees a chance to use the Palestinians to strengthen his regime's power by putting his own imprint on any settlement. Like his father, Assad is cautious. So long as Egypt remains neutral, he is unlikely to risk another war with Israel, let alone a war with America or with America and Israel combined. The big puzzle is what Assad wants with Lebanon. If his aim is a government in Beirut that takes into account Syria's genuine security concerns, Israel can live with that. Besides, widespread revulsion against Syria for its alleged role in the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, particularly among Lebanon's Maronites, Sunnis, and Druse, means that Lebanon is unlikely to ever become totally subservient again - that is, unless Hizbollah gets to call the shots. ISRAEL NOW faces three options. It can flinch while pretending not to; it can carry on more or less as before, hoping for some positive new development; or it can try to decouple Syria from Iran and Hizbollah. The latter option is the only scenario that could stop the Islamist drift in the Middle East. But prying Syria from Iran's embrace means, eventually, reopening the Golan Heights question.

A deal with Syria is not impossible, given the ambiguities in Assad's position. On the Israeli/American side, it would include recognition that Syria has security interests in Lebanon. If Syria in turn accepts Lebanon's sovereignty, and if it helps force Hizbullah into becoming a political force shorn of its military power, Israel and America ought to persuade Lebanon's government to accept that Syria and Lebanon need to consult each other in security matters. For Syria, a peace deal would also include an understanding that Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights is to be settled by serious negotiation, not war.

Such a diplomatic opening may be hard for Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to accept, let alone to sell to Israelis. So America and Europe must help him reach this conclusion.

America and Israel must drop their refusal to talk to Syria. Indeed, the time is ripe to offer assurances to the isolated Syrian regime that blocking Hizbullah's rearmament, stopping Islamist fighters' passage into Iraq, and improving the country's appalling human rights record would bring valuable diplomatic and economic benefits, including a strengthened association agreement with the EU.

Israel would gain much by talking to its enemy. Conscious of its vulnerability to rocket attacks, Israel knows that needs a defensible state, safe from external aggression. Removing Syria as a threat is a key element in achieving this strategic objective.

Brok is Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament. Hybaskova is Chairman of the Delegation for Relations with Israel of the European Parliament. And Tannock is Vice-Chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the European Parliament. - www.project-syndicate.org [Editor's Note: One TalkBack comment suggested Israel's offer to Syria be: "behave or face annihilation." Another pointed out that "With some people, decency, negotiation and discussion is wasted; you can shake a fascist dictator's hand as many times as you want, the result is always another Munich. Still another said that far from "recoiling" from radical Islam, Syria "hosts one of the most dangerous radical terrorists in the world, Imad Mugniyeh."]

"Dr. Uzi Landau Blames the Media, Calls For Inquiry"
Aug 30, 2006
by Ezra HaLevi

Amid calls for a commission of inquiry into the actions of the government in recent weeks -- Dr. Uzi Landau says it is the media who are culpable for the current situation and should be investigated.

"Who will investigate the media"? former Likud MK Landau asked, speaking with Israel National Radio's Yishai Fleisher and Alex Traimain Wednesday. "They shaped the perceptions and brainwashed the minds of the people of Israel. And these same people continue to write in the papers and appear on TV and invite to their programs the very same people who for the past ten or fifteen years have been responsible for dragging Israel into the swamp we find ourselves in."

"The leaders of the country -- Kadima and [Labor Party Chairman Amir] Peretz and the like -- they have come to their positions because of the media. The media did everything they could to promote the [Sharon] government and Disengagement and conducted a purposeful delegitimization campaign toward everyone who was against it -- the settlers, the religious and the entire national camp."

Landau says that more than the government, most journalists in Israel's media betrayed their profession, allowing their affinity for the political philosophy of concessions to interfere with the presentation of an informed discussion of the pros and cons of that policy. "We all knew and said loudly that this unilateral withdrawal under terror will bring much more terror in the north and in the south -- that more weapons would be smuggled and that Hamas and the Hizbullah would politically gain tremendously. This was not brought to the attention of the people. Instead of presenting the debate to Tel Aviv, Haifa and Afula -- to the entire State of Israel - they shaped the debate as between 8,000 settlers, who will pay a price but be compensated, and the rest of the six or seven million Israelis, who will enjoy peace and prosperity because of the Disengagement.

"They mocked people warning of rockets on Ashkelon. They downplayed all the alerts from military intelligence."

Asked whether the media have not always leaned to the left, dismissing the dangers of the Oslo accords, Landau said that whereas the liberal bent of Israel's media is deeply entrenched, the willingness to disregard blatant corruption to advance their causes personified the hypocrisy that led him to issue his call for an inquiry among Israel's journalists and editors. "They not only promoted the Disengagement agenda, but kept Ariel Sharon and his regime from any possible investigation. Israel in the past two years has surpassed all the norms of conduct with its corruption, but the media downplayed that in order not to interfere with the Disengagement process."

Touching upon the subject of the lack of coverage during Hizbullah's six years of open preparation for battle against Israel, Landau said the focus was shifted to a new enemy: the settlers. "During the withdrawals of the past two years, the attention was diverted by the media toward the subject of how the national camp is the enemy of the people instead of covering how the terrorists are making military preparations to attack. They focused on combating the settlers instead of defending the State of Israel."

Concluding his indictment, Landau summed up his charges: "Israel's media behaved toward the national camp in the same manner that the anti-Semitic world media behave toward Israel in general."

Landau is not the first public figure to blame Israel's media for recent events. Just after Israel re-entered Gaza, former Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon accused Israel's media of blinding and drugging the public. "The Israeli public backed the Disengagement because it was blinded and drugged," Yaalon said in a July interview. "The Disengagement was mainly a media spin. Those who initiated it and led it lacked the strategic, security, political and historical background. They were image counselors and spin doctors. These people put Israel into a virtual spin, disconnected from reality, using a media spin campaign which is imploding before our eyes."

Contact Boris Celser at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoni Tidi, August 30, 2006.

Yesterday a Muslim named Omeed A. Popal aged 29 used his SUV as a weapon to kill one man and injure 14 more people in an incident that spanned more than an hour in time and covered many miles.

His attack started in the East Bay area, he then drove into what is identified as a Jewish neighborhood and ran over 14 more people.

I spent some time this morning in an attempt to find the identity of the man that was murdered and I can find no mention of his name or anything identifying him.

But we do know that the suspect targeted two people in front of the Jewish Community Center of San Francisco located on California Street.

We also know that Popal had just returned from a trip to Afghanistan, where he had met his bride to be as part of an arranged marriage. We also know that Popal was born in America according to what I have read.

Popal at the time of his arrest declared himself to be a terrorist.

This is the second major terror attack against targets identified as Jewish in America in about a month's time.

Both attacks were carried out by Muslims.

But both the authorities and the Jewish community want to deny the truth of what these attacks are terrorism.

Terrorism against Jews for the crime of being Jewish.

I have the sad duty to inform my fellow Jews that you as a whole, have learned nothing from our history and that we are following in the same pattern of the Jews of Europe 70 years ago.

We want to pretend that everything is normal and the only problem is that a few people have had some incidents of mental instability that has caused them to engage in criminal behavior.

Or as one of the victim's of the Seattle attacks has identified the real root of the Seattle attack it was the lack of gun control. She is just one more stupid liberal that wants to ignore the past history of the Jewish people. Jews without guns die like sheep led to the slaughter.

This is not a Jewish value; it is 100% against the Torah.

But what can one really want from self hating Jews that have cast away the finest gift ever given to man, the Torah and exchange it for a value system that will make these idiots feel good as they watch more incidents of Jews being murdered.

The Jewish leadership in America is letting both the press and elected officials white wash these attacks and it goes back even beyond these two attacks. The El Al attack in LA a few years ago, and before that a former member of Israel's Knesset was murdered in the USA and of course you guessed it the attacker had mental problems.

Wake Up, and tell it like it is.

Demand from the press and the authorities the truth that any attack on Jew or Jewish institutions is not the act of a mad man but the act of an Anti Semitic Jew hating terrorist.

These attacks are no different in their motive, than Kristallnacht was. Plan and simple hatred of Jews.

There are a number of things in this world that I hate. First is terrorism. Second is Jews being murdered and I hate even more when Jews dying stupid.

The time has come to grow up and first thank G-D that you were born in America a country that is free and has a Second Amendment which allows you to own guns.

Yes I said it, own guns.

I know that for many of you owning a gun ranks up there with the idea of eating pork.

But if you were on island and the only source of food were wild swine the Torah demands of you to hold your nose and survive by eating.

The same holds true today with owning a firearm.

Hold your nose and go buy a gun and then go to a gun range and learn to use it.

If not for you, then for your children.

Contact Yoni Tidi at his website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Isaac Judah, August 30, 2006.

To: National Post

Dear Editor:

Your newspaper has done a yeoman service to the readership by publishing the article by Alan W. Dershowitz 'Arbour must go' (July 21).

The language of the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection Of Civilian Persons in Time of War has significant relevance to Mr. Dershowitz's report.

Those fighting the war are not considered protected persons. Civilians are protected persons. Part III, Section 1, Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention reads: "The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."

The State of Israel is at war with Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah and Hamas are at war with Israel. Instead of separating themselves from the general population and wearing uniforms as required by international law, Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists use civilians i.e. the 'protected person' mentioned in III:1:28 as human shields. Read III:1:28 again.

There were plenty of protected persons around the home of the Hezbollah leader Nasrallah. He wanted it that way so that thay could serve as living camouflage and because he did that, he is responsible for what happens to them.

The next sentence, Article 29, of the Fourth Geneva Convention reads: "The party to the conflict (read Hezbollah) in whose hands protected persons may be, is responsible for the treatment accorded to them by its agents, irrespective of any individual responsibility which may be incurred."

And because Nasrallah and Hezbollah chose to live in a civilian environment, the 'protected persons' are deemed to be in his/their hands and therefore, he/they is/are responsible for the treatment accorded to them.

Terrorism, by definition in the present context, is collective punishment! Random and indiscriminate firing of rockets and missiles by Hezbollah and Hamas on civilan populations of Israel is collective punishment. It has been going on for a many years.

Israel has made strong efforts to inform the civilian population of Lebanon by leaflets and radio to move out of specific areas that would be targeted by the Israel Air Force.

Louise Arbour should, especially having been a judge in the Supreme Court of Canada, have taken greater pains to interpret the Fourth Geneva Convention correctly. She needs to direct her energies on the very dictatorships that form part of the UN Human Rights Commission. I understand that Iran is also one of them. That is where the problems originate. It is now time to 'bell the cat'!

Contact Isaac Judah at isaacjudah@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 30, 2006.
Don Morris appeal to his friends and family,

I invite you to read and consider the attached piece. I have chosen to share it with many of my friends and family members -- some of whom disagree. The beauty of this is precisely what we are fighting for: our values allow us to agree to disagree, to accept that multiple positions held for every proposition. We have learned to tolerate and coexist with those possessing different points of view. The result is that we can respect one another, appreciate one another and live in a pluralistic society.

However, I have born witness to a significant in action erosion of these precious values and this is most disturbing. I have asked myself the very serious question: "what is worth dying for on the hill"? "Why? and what would you be willing to die for"?

Until I lived abroad for a number of years, I visited many places of different cultures, and I realized I took for granted what we have in America.

I have come to have verified my love of country and especially for the values we support. Until you don't have the joy of argument without the fear of retribution you do not value it; or have the belief that hard work produces results, or demonstration of honest debate, or the ability to practice your religion of choice without fear of attack, a curse words being sent your way or worse yet, death threat or being allowed to express your freewill -- until when these values are taken away from you, you hardly have the appreciation or your appreciation is limited.

It is this background that I associate with the attached piece.

My concern is for my children and grandchildren. I realize it is up to me as much as up to you and the generation to come to ensure that they enjoy the same freedoms we sometimes take so much for granted.

The battle is in full force; we must gather our collective courage and stand up for what we have and what we value.

The enemy, the opposition, will present itself in many forms: friends may resort to name calling such as racist, bigot and worse. STAND FIRM. Colleagues and leaders here and abroad will try to demean your point of view. STAND FIRM. Those enrolled in Islamo-Fascism will use all the above tools and a great deal more. STAND TALL.

We should remember that these Islamic extremists are not concerned about political correctness, nor they are concerned if they offend us. They use our humanistic values against us with the hope we will end up giving up the fight or, at least, appease them enough to be victorious over us.

For those of you who read to the end, thank you; I am doing what I think is best -- the only way! If you no longer want me to share with you this kind of message, simply tell me and I will honor your request.

I do wish that we can still sit and have a cup of coffee together and talk about other than these very important issues, for example, what happened to the Red Sox the last two week.

All the best,
Don Morris

To Don Morris

Muslims who do not acknowledge the threat to civilization from within the Muslim world at least have two excuses -- fear for their lives or group solidarity. What excuses do non-Muslims have who deny this threat? The choice is yours: to remain living free or live in an Islamo Fascism dark, death culture world. Fight to leave a free world for generations to come or have your grandchildren born into Islamo - Fascism world! The choice is yours. I made my choice already!

Nurit Greenger

This article is by Dennis Prager. It appeared on www.TownHall.com yesterday.

August 29, 2006 -- Last year at UCLA, I debated a professor who argued that Israel and the Palestinians were moral equivalents. He is not alone (especially on college campuses) in his lack of understanding of the immoral nature of the Islamic enemies of America and Israel. Thus it is important to remind people once again about the moral world inhabited by the people we are fighting, whom President George W. Bush calls the Islamic Fascists.

Societal examples:

The Islamic Republic of Sudan, in its attempt to force Arab/Muslim rule on the largely non-Arab and non-Muslim population of southern Sudan, has led to the killing of well above 1 million Christians and animists and black (i.e., non-Arab) Muslims, in addition to the widespread enslavement, rape and torture of those people.

No major international Arab or Muslim organization has condemned the Sudanese government's mass murders that border on genocide.

The leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran has repeatedly denied the Holocaust and repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel. As the 6 million Jews of Israel do not plan a mass exodus from their ancient and modern homeland, such annihilation would in fact mean another Holocaust.

The holy center of Islam, the Muslim country where the holiest Muslim sites are situated, is Saudi Arabia. That country bans the practice of any religion other than Islam, amputates hands of thieves, does not allow women to drive a car, mandates what women wear outside of their homes and is the only country in the world to feature a weapon on its national flag. Women were treated considerably better and had more civil rights in ancient Rome, not to mention ancient Israel, than women living in the holiest cities of Islam today.

Virtually every Islam-based country decrees the death penalty for any Muslim who converts to another religion.

In other words, every country that calls itself "Islamic" is morally inferior to just about every country in North America, South America, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, almost every Asian country and many African countries.

No Muslim country treats non-Muslims and their religions anywhere nearly as decently as any Western non-Muslim country (including Israel) treats Muslims. That is why tens of millions of Muslims immigrate to non-Muslim societies and virtually no non-Muslim immigrates to any Muslim society. In every Muslim country, non-Muslims are either systematically persecuted at worst or treated as inferiors at best.

Individual examples (in just the last five months): "A German court sentenced a Turkish man to more than nine years in jail yesterday for the 'honour killing' of his sister. The murder of Hatun Surucu, 23, who was shot several times at a bus stop in a Berlin suburb last year, shocked Germany. Forced to marry a cousin in Turkey as a young girl, Ms. Surucu later broke with her Turkish-Kurdish family in Berlin and was living independently with her 5-year-old son, to the intense disapproval of her relatives. Public outrage at the murder was exacerbated when some teenage boys at a school with many pupils from immigrant families ... reportedly openly applauded the killing, condemning the victim for having lived 'like a German.'" (The Guardian, UK, April 14, 2006)

"Men using machetes attacked worshipers in three Coptic [Christian] churches in the port city of Alexandria [Egypt] on Friday morning, killing an 80-year-old man and wounding at least six other people, the police there said." (International Herald Tribune, April 15, 2006) "An Egyptian state-controlled newspaper praised Monday's suicide attack in Tel Aviv, which killed nine people and wounded dozens, calling it an act of sacrifice and martyrdom." (Jerusalem Post, April 18, 2006)

In Britain, Abdula Ahmed Ali, 25, and his wife Cossor, 23, were arrested in connection with the plot to blow up airplanes flying across the Atlantic. According to Scotland Yard, the Muslim couple planned to take their 6-month-old baby on the suicide mission, using their baby's bottle to hide a liquid bomb. (Daily Telegraph, UK, Aug. 14, 2006)

"We've got Hezbollah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the [Israelis]." -- Words of a Canadian UN observer written days before he was killed by Israeli bombs (Ottawa Citizen, July 27, 2006)

"Canadian authorities rounded up a group of 17 Muslim men and boys suspected of plotting to bomb major buildings in the Toronto area..." (CNN, June 5, 2006)

In Australia, "[Islamist] propaganda has convinced many residents their suburbs are being overrun by Islamic extremists. The Saturday Daily Telegraph revealed an escalation of anti-Semitic behaviour. Jewish university students were targeted and forced to hide their traditional skullcaps beneath baseball caps to avoid abuse, while attacks on synagogues have increased." (Daily Telegraph, Australia, Aug. 26, 2006)

"A third suspect detained in a failed attempt to blow up two German trains is a Syrian national ... German and Lebanese authorities are each holding one of two young Lebanese men accused of carrying the suitcase bombs onto trains in Cologne station on July 31. Officials say they could have caused many casualties and set the trains on fire." (Newsday, Aug. 26, 2006)

Does all this suggest that we are fighting a billion Muslims? Of course not! Does all this suggest that all or even most Muslims are bad people? Of course not! It does suggest, however, that the dominant forces within Islam are bad at this time; that Muslims who see this evil in their midst have not mobilized any counterforce either out of fear for their lives or for some other reason; and that decent men and women around the world -- Hindu, Christian, Jewish, atheist, Buddhist and Muslim -- are threatened by this powerful, death-loving force.

Muslims who do not acknowledge the threat to civilization from within the Muslim world at least have two excuses -- fear for their lives or group solidarity. What excuses do non-Muslims have who deny this threat?

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nurit@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jared Israel, August 30, 2006.

This is the BBC translation of interview published in Corriere della Sera

Comments by Jared Israel

Comment: "Latest from the Insulting-Our-Intelligence Department: Hezbollah promises Lebanon will prevent Syrian and Iranian weapons from reaching...Hezbollah."

Source: Lexis-Nexis. "Lebanese minister says Hezbollah 'has no intention' of disarming, BBC Monitoring Middle East - Political Supplied by BBC Worldwide Monitoring, August 28, 2006 Monday, 642 words

The following interview, published by the prominent Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera on 27 August, and translated by BBC Monitoring, which distributes to every major media outlet in the world, was picked up by no media archived by Lexis-Nexis, whether in English, French, Italian, German, Dutch or Spanish, except Emperor's Clothes.

Other than Corriere della Sera's unsupported and false assertion that Lebanese Minister of Labor Trad Hamadah is part of some "moderate" wing of Hezbollah - will we soon learn of moderate leaders of Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Egyptian group that cut ears and noses off foreign tourists in 1997? - the interview is straight forward.

-- Jared Israel
Editor, Emperor's Clothes

Lebanese Minister/Hezbollah Leader: Hezbollah Won't Disarm, Prefers Italy to Run International Force but France is Fine Too

Note from BBC: Text of interview with Lebanese Trade [sic! should be Labor - JI] Minister Tarad Hamadah, a member of Hezbollah, by Lorenzo Cremonesi in Beirut; date not given: "Hezbollah minister: 'We will not lay down our weapons, but we will hide them well", published by Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera on 27 August

Beirut - He said that he would prefer Italian command [of UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) troops] to French. He repeated that Hezbollah "has no intention of disarming for the time being, not even in the areas of south Lebanon that will be subject to the new UNIFIL force's control". But he promised that no soldier in the international contingent "will ever see our weapons; we will hide them well." All in all, [Lebanese] Labour Minister Tarad Kanj Hamadah [commonly called Trad Hamadah - JI], who controls two ministries - his own, and the Energy Ministry - but who is known above all for being the moderate face of "God's Party [Hezbollah]", is satisfied.

In his view, the meeting in Brussels two days ago achieved "an excellent result". And he expects to meet UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan tomorrow, to reiterate "the hope that the UNIFIL troops will arrive soon; they will help to prevent Israeli aggression".

[Cremonesi] Is the expansion of the UNIFIL force not designed also to prevent your strikes against Israel?

[Hamadah] For us, they will facilitate the liberation of our lands in the Shab'a [Farms] area, and our prisoners' release.

[Cremonesi] What do you think of the formula involving alternate command of the UNIFIL contingent between Italy and France?

[Hamadah] I have to confess that we have a slight preference for Italy. We do not like France's traditional policy of interfering in Lebanon's domestic affairs. In addition, Italy does not have a colonial past in this region. But the situation is fine like this: Italy and France are two friendly countries today. There will be no difficulties.

[Cremonesi] Do you think that the UNIFIL force will be able to deploy also on the border with Syria?

[Hamadah] We are opposed to that. It would be a serious attempt on our country's sovereignty.

[Cremonesi] Israel argues that it would prevent weapons from reaching Hezbollah.

[Hamadah] Our army will take care of patrolling that border.

[Comment: "Latest from the Insulting-Our-Intelligence Department" starts here]

So, a Lebanese government spokesman, who just happens to be a leader of Hezbollah, promises that his (that's the Lebanese government's) army will prevent Syria from shipping heavy weapons to his (that's Hezbollah's) terrorist army. Got that, children?

It is noteworthy that while the so-called ceasefire agreement:

"15. Decides further that all states shall take the necessary measures to prevent, by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft;

* a. the sale or supply to any entity or individual in Lebanon of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, whether or not originating in their territories, and;

* b. the provision to any entity or individual in Lebanon of any technical training or assistance related to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of the items listed in subparagraph (a) above, except that these prohibitions shall not apply to arms, related material, training or assistance authorised by the government of Lebanon or by Unifil as authorised in paragraph 11; ---http://www.mideastweb.org/1701.htm

-- the agreement says exactly nothing about how arms importation is to be prevented if the Lebanese government does not want to stop arms from being imported. And Kofi Annan has stated that a) the proposed multinational force will not deploy at the Syrian-Lebanese border and b) Israel must lift its embargo, aimed at preventing the influx of weapons. But not to worry: Hezbollah (I mean, Lebanon) is on the job.

[Comment: "Latest from the Insulting-Our-Intelligence Department" ends here]

[Cremonesi] What would happen if UNIFIL troops were to open fire in order to stop a blitz against Israel on your part, or to confiscate one of your arms depots?

[Hamadah] That will not happen. The UNIFIL force has an observer mission. It can report any fact to our army. But it cannot intervene militarily; that is not its task. Our military alone has a monopoly on the use of force in Lebanon.

[Cremonesi] It has not had that for the past 30 years. What has changed?

[Hamadah] What has changed is that a political accord has now been reached within our government. Hezbollah agrees to cede its place to the regular army. The long-term prospect is that, once Israel has withdrawn from the Shab'a area and released our prisoners, our armed militiamen can be integrated into the army.

[Cremonesi] [UN Security Council] Resolution 1701 provides for your disarmament in the south.

[Hamadah] That is not accurate: It only says that the army alone may bear arms. That is a very subtle distinction. Our arms will not be seen, but that does not mean that they will not be there. Hezbollah remains, in any case, a defence force at its country's service.

[Cremonesi] If Israel were to withdraw from Shab'a and to exchange prisoners, do you think that peace is possible?

[Hamadah] Absolutely not. I have always been opposed also to the Oslo accord between the PLO and Israel. First and foremost, it is necessary for the Palestinian question to be resolved once and for all. And in any case, I am against the separate existence of Israel. The best formula would be a single state for Muslims, Jews and Christians.

Footnotes [1] Every day there is more evidence of the correctness of our argument, first published on 22 July, that "A Multinational Force is Deadly for Israel"


Contact Jared Israel at his website: www.emperors-clothes.com or at www.tenc.net This interview is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 30, 2006.

1.One of the best columns around:
"In praise of abnormality"
by Elisha Haas
(Professor, Lide Sciences, Bar-Ilan University)

Many years ago, residents of Mishmar HaEmek held a meeting to discuss why the sons who left the kibbutz were not returning. The elderly Yaakov Hazan rejected the argument that the community's physical state needed improvement and summed his views with one sentence: "We failed in the effort to establish a secular Jewish society."

I recall Hazan when Israelis start asking what happened to us and how did we reach a situation where even minor war objectives are not achieved. The leadership failure by the statesmen who directed the army is a result of a public consciousness rupture we should be discussing.

The process of returning to Zion marks the reversing of history and cannot be driven by bio-economic processes we're familiar with. The only thing those who returned to Zion from all across the world shared was their Jewish identity. Jews who come to the Land of Israel through free choice did so and are still doing so in order to fulfill a mission that has no material advantage. The West offers much more. Common mission The mission was and remains the establishment of a state where the people of Israel can realize its identity by maintaining a modern society according to its values in the most complete way. Therefore, the basic conditions for the maintenances of the Zionist enterprise are the maintenance of Jewish identity.

This common mission allowed for solidarity and the ability to engage in a joint struggle to realize the mission despite the existence of deep ideological rivalries.

In his well-known book "Man's search for ultimate meaning," Viennese psychiatrist Victor Frankel addressed the question regarding the difference between those who collapsed after two or three weeks in Auschwitz and those who under the same conditions survived to see liberation. His answer can be summed up in one word: Mission.

Those who direct their lives according to a mission that is not part of the bio-economic needs find the mental strength to overcome terrible difficulties. Without the mission, every difficulty turns into an obstacle that cannot be overcome.

2. Nomination for stupidest politician in Israel:
Uzi Baram, left wing of the Labor Party, for this article:
"The Left was Correct"
(not available in English)

Basic theme: the Left was right all along. The only way Israel can "win" is to surrender to all Palestinian demands. That will disarm all the other Arab and Moslem fascist states.

No matter how many times these people are proven wrong, they come back and insist that the only problem is that their "approach" was not "tried" far enough.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard Z. Chesnoff, August 27, 2006.

Tel Aviv: The fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah is holding - more or less. But full-scale political war has broken out in Israel. Before it's over, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, an able politician with little military background but a well-earned reputation for arrogance, his inexperienced defense minister, Am ir Peretz, and his army chief of staff, Dan Halutz, could find themselves out of their jobs.

A recent poll in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper shows 63% want Olmert to go. Peretz appears even more vulnerable, with 74% calling for his resignation, while 54% want Halutz to resign.

While Olmert deserves to be run out of office, it is a dangerous time for internal jousting in the Knesset. There are also few viable or worthy candidates to succeed Olmert. His chief rival, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was hardly a major success in the job.

Even graffiti on an air raid shelter in northern Israel shouts the citizenry's discontent: "ARIK WAKE UP, OLMERT'S IN A COMA!"

"Arik," of course, is Israel's stroke-stricken ex-premier, Ariel Sharon - the once-decisive military genius. His successor, Olmert, is accused by many Israelis of having hesitated and mismanaged the recent war in Lebanon.

There's no doubt the Israel Defense Forces dealt a heavy blow to Iran's Lebanese-based stooge army, Hezbollah.

Israelis are right when they say air and sea bombardments weren't enough to rout the terrorists, and Olmert's hesitation before sending in massive Israeli ground forces could have proved disastrous.

Angered and confused, a growing number of Israelis now demand an official state investigation into the way the war was waged. Some Israelis charge Israel's legendary army - especially its reserve forces, which provided a full 50% of the troops who fought in Lebanon and suffered a high percentage of the casualti es - was often badly led and poorly supplied.

"It was a catastrophe," says reserve officer Jack Silverman, part of a small group of reservists who have set up a protest camp outside the Knesset, Israel's parliament, demanding the resignation of Olmert & Co. Other reservists say they were sent into battle missing pieces of equipment and with so little food and water that "we had to break into grocery stores."

The postwar debate coincides with a flurry of nasty political scandals. Labor Party luminary Haim Ramon has been forced to resign his post as justice minister over charges he forced his attentions on a young female soldier. And Israel's President Moshe Katzav is facing charges he not only sexually harassed two women on his office staff, but also sold pardons - charges he vehemently denies.

Richard Z. Chesnoff is op-ed columnist for the NY Daily News. Contact him at rzc@att.net This article appeared as a New York Daily News Opinion Page August 27, 2006

To Go To Top

Posted by Yisrael Medad, August 30, 2006.

News is what people want to keep hidden; everything else is publicity. - Bill Moyers

For four weeks this summer during the second Lebanon War, Israel's media provided consumers with more publicity and spin than hard news.

True electronic media consumers did not lack for breaking news. The three main television stations - Channels 1, 2 and 10 - all provided live continuous coverage of the war.

Studios were filled with commentators, politicians and reports from the field. Reporters, many of them women, went north to face the missiles. And who can forget Yoav Limor dodging an incoming Katyusha in Safed?

Reporters Itai Engel, Mukki Hadar and Amir Bar-Chen all accompanied front-line troops into battle and returned with outstanding reports and footage.

Israel Radio (Reshet Bet) and Army Radio provided a wealth of news, opinions and updates, even as broadcasts were often interrupted by announcements from the Home Command urging citizens in the North to enter their bomb shelters,

WITH THE war over, however, recriminations are being openly voiced about media partisanship and recklessness. Letters to the editor columns are full of complaints about how the media handled itself. Oversight authorities have received hundreds of complaints from consumers about television coverage particularly.

People are mostly angry that television stations seemingly provided information that could have been helpful to the enemy, and that too much time was spent airing personal opinions cloaked as news. I share many of these concerns.

There have even been suggestions from within the media that true soul-searching demanded the appointment of a media-specific commission of inquiry.

IN TIME of war the media is not only an objective information provider; it must also not assume the role of cheerleader. The media's role is to seek the story behind the story and try to explain the "why" behind the "what."

The media is an instrument of democracy and civil society. While some in the media correctly refused to take on the role of mobilizing society for the war effort, many more took advantage of the opportunity to advance personal agendas.

It's indisputable that, both prior to and during the four weeks of battle, there was a lack of investigative reporting on the central political, diplomatic and security failures that only came out afterwards.

Why should we, ex post facto, be demanding a commission of inquiry? Where was the press for the past six years while events were allowed to deteriorate?

Could it be that they were smitten by the mirage of a quiet northern border? Did they adopt Amnon Abramovitz's "etrog" paradigm of swathing favored politicians with fawning protection? Or did the press sound the alarm only to be ignored by politicos and the public?

Why did IDF Spokeswoman Miri Regev take advice from Reuven Adler, Eyal Arad and Leor Chorev, the triumvirate spinmasters who guided Ariel Sharon and Kadima? Was there a partisan agenda afoot? Did the IDF allow itself to become the agency of a political party?

JUST A week before the war Haaretz reporter Aluf Benn wrote that Hassan Nasrallah had been behaving responsibly, and that a balance of deterrence had been created on both sides of the Lebanon border. "Hizbullah is preserving quiet in the Galilee better than did the pro-Israeli South Lebanese Army," he had written.

Only on July 20 did Benn admit that "the mistake in my assessment stemmed, as always, from the idee fixe that what was is what will be."

There certainly was a recurring theme, but it was rooted in the ideological mind-set of Israel's liberal/progressive media elite. It hadn't stopped applauding Ehud Barak's run-in-the-night withdrawal from Lebanon, and was not about to admit the error in his move - certainly not in advance of Sharon's trade of land-for-nothing.

Asked, in a Ynet interview, if he felt frustrated that his prewar calls about the rocket threat facing Israel had been ignored, former Likud MK Uzi Landau responded, "I was made to look delusional, because part and parcel of the [media's] campaign against the disengagement opposition was a nonsensical discourse. They said I was a warmonger."

WHEN THE war began, elements in the media spent the first fortnight warning the government and the IDF not to send ground troops into Lebanon. The media also let Hizbullah know, in real time, exactly where the rockets were falling, and even the unit numbers of the battalions and divisions crossing the northern border.

Many in the media also covered up for the lapses of Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz, whose declarations during the fighting were mostly bluster.

There were exceptions, such as Haaretz's Ari Shavit, who was devastating: "Political correctness and the illusion-of-normalcy spread first and foremost among the Israeli elites... the media... have blinded Israel and deprived it of its spirit... Instead of being constructive elites [they] have become dismantling elites."

Yediot columnist Yair Lapid admitted the media was irresponsible, unrestrained, unfair and confused opinions with fact. In a Globes op-ed, Prof. Gabriel Ben-Simchon of Tel Aviv University's Cinema Department accused Haaretz of being a "newspaper in Hizbullah's service."

Israel's media has much to make up for. One step that should be taken is editors and media stars distancing themselves from relationships with the politicians and generals they cover.

One of the many lessons of the war is that the public needs a "free press," in every sense.

Contact Yisrael Medad at ymedad@begincenter.org.il This article appeared Aug. 28, 2006 in the Jerusalem Post (www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 3D1154525961849&pagename=3DJPo=st%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

To Go To Top

Posted by Gary Fitleberg, August 30, 2006.

While it is a terrible tragedy that the war in Lebanon and Israel caused the loss of civilian casualties, on both sides of the border, the blame and responsibility rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the terrorist Hezbollah organization as well as its two state-sponsors, suppliers and supporters of terrorism: Iran and Syria -- both the root cause of the conflict.

Hezbollah, an Iranian, Syrian and Lebanese state-supported terror organization does its dirty work through its proxy army and militia in an attempt to annihilate, destroy and eliminate Israel and the Jewish people. Not just in the Middle East but also throughout the world internationally. The Medieval, or Mid-EVIL Middle East is a very bad neighborhood consisting of ONLY ONE democracy and freedom and loving Jewish State of Israel amongst 22 Arab/Islamist corrupt dictatorships, evil extremists, fanatical fundamentalists, hate-mongerers, human rights violators, ruthless repressive regimes, state supporters of terrorism, and tyrannies. These terrorist nations, collectively as well as individually, are all bent on the intent of carnage, destruction and evil. Not only against Israel and the Jewish people but against the entire Western civilization. It is a battle and war of good vs. evil Hezbollah, under the state-sponsored tutelage of these two terror states, Iran and Syria, have amassed an annihilation arsenal known to include some 15,000 missiles including, but not limited to Katyushas, Fahr, Raad, Shihab and Zilzal weapons of mass destruction. There are undoubtedly many more than those originally known prior to the war according to intelligence sources. Many can carry warheads.

Hezbollah has launched an average of between 100-200 rockets landing on Israel daily, including the third largest city of Haifa; a city where Arabs and Jews normally live together in co-existence, peace, and prosperity. Let's put things in perspective now. Imagine the "disproportionate" response by the U.S. if this happened on America's third largest city Chicago. Imagine what would happen if Al Qaeda launched a barrage of missiles from Canada and Mexico on northern and southern cities in the country.

No nation would stand for this type of terrorism. Every sovereign state has a right to safety, security and stability. All have a duty to protect citizens from daily attack.

Hezbollah is no independent "orphan of terror" acting alone in this conflict. Hezbollah receives financial, logistical, operational and political support from all three countries, Iran, Syria, and last but not least also Lebanon. Lebanon is an alleged and self-proclaimed "victim" in the catastrophe. Yet all segments of the Arab population seem to support Hezbollah. Shiites, Sunnis and even some Christians such as the Lebanese Prime Minister have expressed feelings against Israel and its defensive incursion prompted by an attack on its sovereign borders and soldiers.

Lebanon and its entire population has expressed feelings of animosity towards Israel and support of the terrorists Hezbollah. Openly. Publicly. The President is a proxy of the Syrian President. The Prime Minister is a sympathizer. The cabinet and legislature, a democratically elected institution, is infiltrated with members of Hezbollah's so-called political wing.

Members of the Hezbollah, who prey on the defenseless and weak Lebanese population have cleverly, through its so-called "charitable' institutions managed to infiltrate the Lebanese culture and society to such an extent that it even managed to gain a substantial political influence in the Lebanese government. They sway public opinion to their side and terror tactics each and every day. In other word, Iran, Syria, and Lebanon are one.

A U.N. resolution caused Israel to leave Lebanon and end its so-called "occupation " while another U.N. resolution to end a real occupation of Lebanon and the disarming of Hezbollah has basically been ignored by the international community. Syria remains entrenched in every aspect of Lebanon. Economically. Militarily. Politically. Strategic ally. Make no mistake about it. It did no end with the assassination of former Lebanese leader Hariri.

Lebanon, whether intentionally or unintentionally, allowed Iran and Syria to "occupy" a once sovereign state. Now Lebanon is the slave and staging ground for Iran and Syria's goals. Both civilian and soldier alike are under their dominance and influence in all aspects.

Iran's agenda is crystal clear. It wants to dominate and spread it's influence in the region with fear. Iran wants to create a Shiite arc of civil unrest, extremism, fundamentalism, and hatred not only against Israel and the Jewish people, Western civilization, but ultimately democracy and freedom. Anyone truly for democracy and freedom must support Israel in it's war on terrorism because if not this will spread eventually throughout the world to all apologists and sympathizers.

One must clearly heed and listen to the broadcast message of so-called "moderate " Iranian President Mamoud Ahmadinejad to "Wipe Israel off the face of the Map. " This is Iran's ultimate aim and goal. A prophecy which shall never ever be allowed to become a reality.

No different from Adolph Hitler whose aim was the same to wipe Jews off the face of the earth.

Last December, in an address to a Mecca summit comprised of nearly 50 Muslim heads of state, the Iranian mouthpiece actually denied the existence of the Holocaust. Mahmoud falsely proclaimed "Some European countries insist on saying Hitler killed millions of innocent Jews in furnaces. We don't accept the claim." Just two months earlier, in a speech to a Tehran conference aptly named "A World Without Zionism" he declared Israel should be <91>wiped off the map." With moderates like these we do not need extremist fanatical fundamentalists.

Should we take him seriously? Absolutely. Yes. Although actions speak louder than words, both the actions and words of Iran and its President are crystal clear in intent. Let us not take any chance. His wish and words come directly from his heart and mind.

Iran is a cancer of terrorism. One that needs to be surgically removed. Forever and ever. Iran as the CEO/CFO in the "Axis of Evil" is the international community's Public Enemy No. 1. Make no mistake about it. Iran acts like and behaves like a mad animal frothing at the mouth or an attack dog without a leash.

There is an absolute clear and present danger in dealing with Iran diplomatically while it prepares itself for an all out conflagration with all those who oppose it.

There is clearly danger in allowing Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon armed with an arsenal of long-range missiles capable of carrying warheads that can already reach several towns in northern and southern Israel, neighboring Arab nations, European cities and countries, as well as America's east coast. Iran is working around the clock 24-7 towards the capability that will prove deadly eventually for the international community. Iran remains defiant. Iran makes an "Axis of Evil" Iraq, led formerly by the defiant dictator and insane Saddam Hussein, look lame and tame by comparison.

Diplomacy with a defiant Iran will only forestall the inevitable. Hopefully not with a much more dangerous and technologically advanced and capable Iran. One who is control led by an army of Ayatollahs and their moderate "mouthpiece" Mahmoud. Do the math. Iran armed with nuclear power and long-range missiles and warheads. You need not be a rocket scientist to figure this one out.

Syria should also be taken seriously. Dead seriously.

Its Syrian manufactured Raad missile rockets also fell on Israeli cities. Despite the evidence and facts on the ground, Syria's Ambassador to the U.S. lied openly and publicly regarding Syria's sponsorship of Hezbollah and illegal occupation of Lebanon. With a straight face and three piece suit he stated Syria did not support Hezbollah. He flatly denied any involvement with Hezbollah on Meet the Press. Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Daniel Ayalon countered that Israel has planty of evidence and proof of Syria's connection and involvement, including but not limited to manufacturers of missiles and serial numbers. Nasrallah also made a special guest appearance and visit to Bashar Assad during the conflict for assistance and guidance with strategy during the conflict. Syria's role is no secret. It is clearly the conduit between Iran and Lebanon for Hezbollah.

Syria also seeks to be a regional power broker. It's leaders and advisors, especially its former marginalized "moderate" President Basher Assad thought he could neg otiate a peace agreement. Assad proposed he could do a deal to get the captives kidnapped by the terrorist Hezbollah group in exchange for the strategically important Golan Heights. This was lost by Syria to Israel during the June 1967 "Six Day War" in which five Arab armies aggressively attacked with the intent to annihilate Israel. Seriously. Syria believes it can negotiate and hold Israel hostage for Hezbollah's Israeli hostages.

Syria, the very same Syria who sent its soldiers to stop a civil war in Lebanon between the Christian and Muslim populations, overstayed their welcome, illegally occupied the sovereign state, integrated itself into the infrastructure in all aspects, and now uses it as a staging ground for its state supported terrorism.

Syria still gives safe haven and sanctuary to terrorist training camps for the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad amongst many others. "Axis of Evil" Wannabe Syria is responsible for the onslaught of so-called "suicide bombers" (actually homicide bombers who do not only want to self-destruct but cause as much murder and mayhem as inhumanly possible) in Israel and its disputed territories as well as in the Syrian still-occupied former "sovereign state" and strategic base of terror of Lebanon.

Syria, despite the exaggerated false claims it provides intelligence to the U.S. valua ble to the war on terror, actually allows a porous border for its Arab brethren for an influx of insurgents and weapons to be used against America in its war on terrorism in Iraq.

"Axis of Evil" Wannabe Syria relishes its self-proclaimed role in the conflict and region as well its partnership with Iran for regional dominance to promote instabilit y and power through a Shiite arc of evil extremists and fanatical fundamentalists bent on the intent of chaos and destruction.

The U.S. could and should take Syria seriously. A bi-partisan Congress, in both houses, overwhelmingly and unanimously passed legislation to hold Syria accountable. Yet U.S. President George W. Bush, has used his discretion each and every year since the legislation's passing supposedly in the interest and name and of "national security" to waive all sanction terms of the Syria Accountability Act. It is now time to enforce and utilize this terrorism tool and all its terms to its full extent to hold this state- supporter of terrorism accountable for all its actions.

A terrorist is a terrorist. All those who harbor terrorists and give them safe haven and sanctuary will be held accountable as well. The war on terrorism is one that should be supported by all who truly believe in democracy and freedom. A war in which the win ner must be Western civilization.

Gary Fitleberg is a Political Analyst specialzing in International Relations with emphasis on Middle East Affairs. Contact him at jewsinthenews10@yahoo.com>

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, August 30, 2006.

I am not a movie reviewer although for some reason film studios seem to think I am. They must really value my opinion, because they keep sending me trailers of their upcoming movies. If I thought they were listening at all, a few careers would be in jeopardy! Starting with Mel Gibson!

However, I just returned from seeing, "The World Trade Center" and in my opinion, this is the one that Spielberg should have made. Instead of taking a shocking human tragedy, such as the murders of Israeli athletes at Munich and the total barbarism the Palestinians brought to the usual sanguinity of the Olympics, Spielberg felt the compulsion to be politically correct. Spielberg's spin on history doesn't bother with truth.

No apology from Oliver Stone! Instead of humanizing and glorifying the terrorists, by showing their "human side", as Spielberg did, "Trade Center" director Stone centered on the result of the destruction, the pain and suffering these animals caused the victims of their cruelty. Maybe it's because Stone, unlike Spielberg, didn't feel the need to hire an avowed self-hater like Tony Kushner to write the script. The man has obviously never known what is best in the American spirit and just as obvious, is a terrorist supporter.

There is no "other side" or any such thing as disproportionate response when it comes to killing the "bad guys". Recently, it seemed like every time I'd turn on the news, I'd see or read something about how the "poor downtrodden Lebanese" were being killed at a far greater rate than the Israelis. Good! When it comes to a cancer, all of it has to come out. The Lebanese may be nice people but the inescapable reality is that they allowed a hostile, war-like entity to grow within their country and even voted them into the government. They must be held accountable for their government and its actions of aggression. The people in Dresden, Germany may have been hospitable and nice as well, but it took the destruction of that city by the USA and British to get the point across in the last world war!

In fact, even though the Japanese never bombed cities in the United States, the horrors of Pearl Harbour were enough for Truman to go after them. He didn't let up until the atom bomb levelled Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only when faced with the ultimate deterrent did Japan sue for peace and begin to behave like a civilized nation. The Japanese were an advanced culture. I have no hope that the seventh century mentality we are dealing will ever comprehend the difference between right and wrong.. good and evil. All they understand is POWER!

What's all this about "disproportionate" anyway? You have a bully on the school yard terrorizing children for their lunch money; you don't give it to him. You don't negotiate how much of your allowance you will turn over each week or give them a hug. You get together with some of your friends and beat the hell out of him the next time he goes after one of the weaker kids. Hezbollah, Hamas and the vipers' nest of global Islamic fundamentalists, who are waging dozens of wars around the world now, are the world's bullies. They understand power! Power! War against savage bullies who have pushed us into a defensive position is not nice. Doesn't matter...nice doesn't come into it, doing what is necessary does!

Frankly, folks, faced with so much sympathy for the Islamists and having to appease them at every turn, I have often felt like throwing my hands up in the air and giving up. The good news is that, unlike a couple of years ago, when all I heard on radio and television talk shows was empathy for the plight of the "poor Arab and Palestinian people", America and much of the civilized world now seems to have had enough! The Lebanese fiasco seems to have been the last straw for a lot of us. The airwaves have been filled with anger and disgust for the Muslim culture. At last, the people flooding the airwaves seem to have seen through the lies and deceit.

We must come to this understanding: We, who live in the 21st century, are simply incapable of comprehending the mindset of the Muslim world. Our modern way of life and culture, whether in the US, Canada, Australia or Europe, DOES NOT prepare us to think like people with a seventh century outlook where be-headings are the norm. We cannot afford to overlook "Ccontemporary education" in places like Palestine. MEMRI (http://www.memri.org/) offers many videos where you can see how they are "training their children". Americans, by and large, cannot comprehend this. There is no dialogue possible with this mentality. These people, and there are 1.6 BILLION of them, are out to destroy the rest of us because the Koran tells them to. It's really that simple.

Ironically, though, columns that I wrote four or five years ago about the need for "transfer" are now being received as a new 'solution' and revelation. I remember having many long talks about this very topic years ago with Rabbi Meir Kahane. When he wrote of this mperative in the mid-70s and was called a radical for his honest perspective. I, too, was called a radical (and worse), by some, and many of my left-leaning self-hater friends and readers wrote to tell me how wrong I was about this peaceful culture. Now? Letters are coming in thick and fast wanting to read more about this idea of removing the evil from the midst of the Jewish state.

New thought? Naw...Maybe people are finally coming to the realization that, just as Hezbollah should not survive as a country within a country, so too Israel cannot bear the consequences of Arabs living in their midst bent on the destruction of that very state. Damn! The entire country is the size of a peanut. When the Jews left Gaza, they allowed a terrorist state to be established. Once the terrorist HAMAS government was elected, the obvious was going to happen. Now, the question is what to do about it. And now, not years down the road.

Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Mort Reichek, August 30, 2006.

I am impelled to respond to a comment from blog reader Tony Flaig, who severely criticizes Israel's defense against Hezbollah. Mr. Flaig, who lives in Great Britain, charges that Israel is a "keen abuser of innocents" in Lebanon.

He appears to see a moral equivalency between Israel's attacks on Hezbollah, which uses civilians as human shields while deliberately firing rockets at Israeli civilians, with Israel's effort to specifically attack Hezbollah military targets. Because of Hezbollah's tactics, innocent Lebanese civilians sadly die. But while Israelis agonize and weep in grief over the tragic loss of Lebanese children and other civilians, Hezbollah and its supporters celebrate the loss of Israeli lives.

As Harvard law professor Alan M. Dershowitz writes: "When it comes to Israel, a lot of usually smart people stop thinking with their heads and start thinking with their guts. Most smart people know that when an armed criminal takes a hostage and fires from behind him, it is the criminal, not the policeman, who is guilty of murder, if the policeman, in a reasonable effort to stop the criminal from firing, accidentally kills the innocent hostage. The same should be true during wartime. But you wouldn't know it if you listened only to the singular condemnations of Israel by so many in the international community."

Mr. Flaig complains that Israel "bullies and controls its neighbors." That is an extraordinary claim for a tiny country like Israel with a population less than half the city of Cairo's, outnumbered and surrounded by more than a billion Muslims in 22 Arab countries and other Islamic states--most of whom would like to see Israel destroyed. In a perverse role reversal, Israel has become Goliath to the Islamic world's David.

I don't mean to bestow such prominence to Mr. Flaig's personal views. But his criticism reflects the increasing level of Israel-bashing in the world at large. It has been aggravated by Israel's fierce defense--regarded as "disproportionate" by Israel's kneejerk critics--against terrorism from both Hezbollah, supported by Syria and Iran, and the Palestinian Hamas militia.

On the surface, it's puzzling that Hezbollah and Iran are so obsessed with wiping out Israel. Until the current war began, Israel did not occupy any territory in Lebanon, and Iran has no territorial claims against distant Israel. At the risk of sounding jocular about a very serious matter, perhaps the Iranians resent the fact that Israel's president and its former defense minister and armed forces chief of staff, who is now the transportation minister, are both Jewish natives of Iran.

The major focus of Israel-bashing is Israel's so-called occupation of Arab territory. Mr. Flaig makes a peculiar reference to "Israel farming land that does not belong to them." Actually, virtually all the land that constituted the state of Israel when it gained independence in 1948 had been purchased from Arab feudal landowners or had belonged to the former Ottoman Turkish empire. (I remember as a boy in New York during the 1930s soliciting pennies, dimes and quarters for the Jewish National Fund to buy land for Jews in Palestine; I was proud to be awarded the Ussishkin medal--named for a Zionist pioneer leader--for collecting the most money in my Sunday school class.)

Israel acquired additional territory after becoming an independent nation only by successfully defending itself against invasion by neighboring Arab states intent on its destruction. And unlike other countries which acquired and absorbed territory in defensive wars (Russia, e.g., retaining East Prussia and converting it into a Russianized Kaliningrad), Israel has unsuccessfully offered to negotiate the return of land to the Palestinians.

In Gaza, from which Israel unilaterally withdrew last year, the Palestinians demonstrated how meaningless it could be to return land in the hopeful belief that the result might be peace. Instead of devoting themselves to job creation by bolstering their economy and rebuilding their infrastructure, the Palestinians quickly destroyed state-of-the art greenhouses, vandalized synagogues and other structures, and started launching rockets at neighboring Israeli communities.

I often think that the Arab world's primary grievance against Israel derives from sheer envy of Israeli economic achievements during its brief existence as a Jewish state. It introduced modernity in a region where much of the local society was still living in the dark ages. The Israelis drained malarial swamps, tamed the desert with advanced agricultural methods, and created a high-tech, Westernized democracy that was alien to the culture of its neighbors.

These accomplishments may have been hard for the Arabs to tolerate because traces of the philosophy of "dhimmitude" still persist in parts of the Islamic world. Until very recently, Jews--and in some cases Christians--in many Arab lands were treated as "dhimmis." They were identified as infidels who, while called "protected people," were actually treated as second-class citizens. They were subject to special taxes, barred from certain occupations, often required to wear special clothing, and exposed to other humiliating social restrictions. In Yemen, e.g., Jews were not allowed to sit on donkeys so that they would not tower over walking Arabs.

The Israel/Palestine conflict, which is at the heart of the prolonged Middle East crisis, boils down to this: If the Palestinians and their activist allies would abandon their goal of destroying Israel and would lay down their arms, there would be peace. If the Israelis, however, laid down their arms, an independent and secure Jewish state would be wiped out.

Mort Reichek is a former Washington correspondent and senior editor, Business Week; former Washington correspondent, Newhouse Newspapers; former associate editor, Forbes. Contributed to New York Times Magazine, New York Times Book Review, The New Republic, The New Leader, Columbia Journalism Review, Midstream, etc. Contact him at iankev@att.net or go to his website
http://www.octogenarian.blogspot.com. This article appeared there August 5, 2006.

To Go To Top

Posted by Resa LaRu Kirkland, August 30, 2006.

This was written last year. and it is archived at
http://www.warchick.com/2005/020705.htm When do we start doing something about this situation?

My dad was a Federal Parole and Probation officer in El Paso, Texas, 30 years ago. Because he dealt with Federal cases, it was his responsibility to handle illegal immigrants. I was only about 8 years old when I overheard him saying that 10,000 Mexicans a day crossed the border between America and Mexico. Of course, they didn't all stay... much of it was just daily traffic back and forth.

But many of them did stay, and I knew why. We would often go into Juarez for fun--gorgeous pottery, inexpensive trinkets, another world to peruse and study. I grew to despise those trips, however, because I couldn't bear the suffering I saw. Old people, children, crippled lying on the sidewalks begging for change, half-starved creatures barely resembling human beings, stripped of clothing, flesh, and dignity. Children sleeping under blankets on dusty sidewalks, an old woman with no legs or teeth, smiling sweetly at the offer of a quarter--such images plague me to this day, and eventually caused me to abandon our regular trips. I had taken to changing the money my parents would give me for the trip into quarters, and giving it to those who lined the sidewalks. It was never enough, and my helplessness in the face of such overwhelming need left me disheartened. I mentioned this to my dad one day, and to my utter surprise, this man--whose job it was to stop illegal immigration--looked at me and said, "It breaks my heart too. If I lived there under those conditions, I would do anything, break any law to get my family to America."

This display of understanding touched me then, and still does. But my father would also caution that America could simply not take in the entire world, and that those who obeyed the laws could not and should not be made to pay for those who broke them. He taught me what illegal immigration was costing this nation, and what it would end up costing me and my children someday if it was allowed to go on, unchecked, unfettered, unregulated. The picture he painted was even more repugnant than the streets of Juarez, and I knew then and there that illegal immigration was wrong--evil, in fact, because it would destroy the life of the land it was seeking.

Let's face it, our borders are swiss cheese. Our futile attempts to pretend we're doing something about it are pointless. We need a new form of attack--offense, not defense. But the attack needs to be full force--that is, we need to watch the airports too, because America's greatest threat is coming from within these everyday locations in our heartland.

Illegal Mexican immigrants have caused our taxes to get out of control, this is for sure. But let's analyze them as opposed to some others I will mention in a minute. Those who come to America from Mexico come here not to destroy us, but to better themselves. These aren't people being embedded into America to bring her down from the inside, but those who see our beauty, and want to be part of it. They come here and work hard for a piece of the American dream, and the warrior in me can't help but respect that.

But now for the rest of the story...

Recently I was approached by a man who sent me something far more alarming. People, there are groups of Middle Eastern men in this country who are determined to bring us down, alright, but not by toppling buildings. These men are members of groups of organized criminals, and they are running companies in this country--companies that are not just defrauding customers, but are making millions of dollars for men who aren't citizens, and who are using the funds to support terrorism and destroy our land and those of our allies.

I have hard evidence: names, places, Social Security numbers, bank accounts, addresses, phone numbers, etc., all sent to me by one man who infiltrated one of their businesses. He has seen their arrogance, their dismissal of "Stupid Americans" and our inability--or lack of ambition--to stop them from their entrenched havoc and menace. These people refuse to claim the true dollars involved, leaving the rest of us to pick up the tax slack. They believe that anything they can do in business, in the courts, in the community to divide and conquer is the right thing to do.

My "mole" friend has done all of this, on his own, at great personal risk, for one reason and one reason only: he loves this land, and loathes those who would destroy it. He has seen their wretchedness first hand, lived within a large nest of the monsters, and documented how wide-spread they are... all across the nation. These aren't people desperate for a better way of life, working at any job, anywhere, just to have enough to eat, nor are they angry young militants taking flying lessons. No, these are young men in Mercedes and expensive clothes, who take our money and laugh at our gullibility. They plan this carefully, recruiting illegals in the Middle East and exploiting "dual nationals" with hellish contemplation, and choose warily those they can use to abuse us here in America. Companies range from "Home improvement", "Moving" (very notorious), "Real Estate", "Air Conditioning", "Toys", "Cosmetics", various Kiosks in major shopping malls across the United States. If caught, they close up shop, go back to the Middle East, and in a few months open up the same business under a different name. Their actions are deliberate, their motive is evil, and their success is horrifying. Their works include marriage scams and workers who don't dare squeal for fear of being deported. It is madness, it is mind-boggling, and it is happening.

It is obvious that our government agencies have failed miserably. This fact is what motivated my "mole" to do this on his own--that magnificent American method of finding a way to accomplish something, and if you can't find it, then by God, you forge it. People are allowed to fly into our airports and simply disappear from the radar, only to torment and eat away at the fabric of America, and to get rich while doing it. Riches which, by the way, go to support terrorism's more obvious face of violence. Someone has to stop this.

So I'm taking up the standard of my "mole," and I'm going to do this myself. I call upon all of you who say "Enough" to join me. I am rallying those who will help me put together a documentary, articles, and a book about this shadowy enemy in our midst. Everything is ready, in hard format, even those on the inside who will be interviewed. People, these are not men who love America so much they'll do anything to be a part of it, who work away their youth and health to make a better life for their families. No, this is the vile face of the enemy, and he's already here. Our worst "border" is the airport, where these men arrive from first class, and marvel at the "Stupid Americans" while they plan, execute, and evade. This is real, it is deadly, and it is now. Join me, fellow Americans... if we fail this, there is no future.

I think my dad would have approved.

Keep the faith, bros, and in all things courage.

Contact Resa LaRu Kirkland at her website http://www.warchick.com or write her at resalaru@warchick.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Burt Prelutsky, August 30, 2006.

Pat Buchanan, not satisfied merely looking like a Herblock depiction of a bigot, a man who never allows an opportunity to slam Israel slip through his fingers, has been on a rampage because Israel has finally gone after the murderous thugs and sadists of Hezbollah.

The fact that the terrorists don't wear uniforms means that every time the Israelis kill one of them, Buchanan and his ilk get to insist that Israel is targeting civilians. Buchanan's concern for civilians isn't nearly so evident when it's Jews who are targeted by Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO's suicide bombers.

One of the sillier things Israel has done in recent years was to fall for the land for peace con game. They surrendered territory and any number of settlements as a gesture of good will. Good will gestures made to terrorists and tyrants are the height of folly and cowardice, and it doesn't matter whether it's the Arabs or Adolf Hitler. Offer your hand to the tiger and don't expect him to stop nibbling when he gets to your wrist.

Because Israel plays such a prominent role in the news and because it's managed, against all odds, to survive for 58 years, one can easily over-estimate its actual place in the world. The fact of the matter is that unless you were at the top of your geography class, you'd be hard-pressed to find it on your globe. To give you a clear idea of what Israel is up against, keep in mind that there are 22 countries in the Arab League. The League encompasses 5,200,000 square miles; Israel was 8,000 square miles before giving up the aforementioned turf. What's more, there are 312 million people living in those 22 countries. Israel's population is six million, more than a million of whom are Arabs.

So far as Buchanan and his friends are concerned, it would seem that the only thing that's required to make Israel the jewel of the Middle East is for those five million Jews to disappear.

You have to wonder what it is about those 8,000 square miles that the Arabs covet. It's not as if Israel sits on huge oil deposits. Why aren't five million square miles enough? I mean, if you had five million dollars, would you cry yourself to sleep every night because you didn't have $5,008,000?

Let's face it -- before the Jews built universities, hospitals and concert halls, and planted trees and crops, the place was nothing but 8,000 square miles of kitty litter.

So many people are happy to trumpet "No blood for oil." How is it that we never hear them, or Mr. Buchanan, telling the Arabs, "No blood for sand"?

Burt Prelutsky is author of "Conservatives Are From Mars, Liberals Are From San Francisco (A Hollywood Right-Winger Comes Out of the Closet)." He has been a humor columnist (L.A. Times), a movie reviewer (Los Angeles magazine), a freelancer (NY Times, TV Guide, Modern Maturity, Sports Illustrated, Washington Times, etc.) and written for TV (several movies, plus episodes of MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, McMillan & Wife, Dragnet, Diagnosis Murder, etc., etc.) Contact him by email at burtprelutsky@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by American 1627, August 30, 2006.

This article was written by Robert Spencer. It appeared today on Front Page Magazine (www.frontpagemag.com).

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of six books, seven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions About the World's Fastest Growing Faith and the New York Times Bestseller The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades). His latest book, The Truth About Muhammad, is coming October 9 from Regnery Publishing.

The most bizarre element of the two weeks of captivity suffered by Fox News reporter Steve Centanni and photographer Olaf Wiig at the hands of Gaza's Holy Jihad Brigade was the video that surfaced depicting their conversion to Islam. Even before the journalists revealed that their conversions had been coerced, there were disturbing indications that they were not acting freely. While reading a statement he himself had ostensibly written, Centanni stumbled over words, appeared to puzzle over the handwriting, and seemed to grimace after pronouncing the words "peace be upon him" after the name of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.

Their messages as new converts to Islam were predictable denunciations of the United States and Israel, combined with emphasis on Islam's universal call as the solution to the world's problems. But most jarring was the video editor's invocation of the favorite Qur'an verse of Western analysts of Islam and terrorism, "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256). The irony of featuring this verse in a video depicting two forced conversions has been widely noted. In fact, however, the juxtaposition of this verse with the video of Centanni and Wiig was probably not simply transparent deception, as strange as that may seem, and has far-reaching implications.

Islamic law forbids forced conversion, but as Andrew Bostom documented in a FrontPage article yesterday, this is a law that throughout Islamic history has all too often been honored in the breach. Nor is this yet another case of a "twisting" or "hijacking" of Islam; in fact, Islamic law regarding the presentation of Islam to non-Muslims manifests a quite different understanding of what constitutes freedom from coercion and freedom of conscience from that which prevails among non-Muslims.

Muhammad instructed his followers to call people to Islam before waging war against them -- the warfare would follow from their refusal to accept Islam or to enter the Islamic social order as inferiors, required to pay a special tax:

Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them...If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [the tax on non-Muslims specified in Qur'an 9:29]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)

There is therefore an inescapable threat in this "invitation" to accept Islam. Would one who converted to Islam under the threat of war be considered to have converted under duress? By non-Muslim standards, yes, but not according to the view of this Islamic tradition. From the standpoint of the traditional schools of Islamic jurisprudence such a conversion would have resulted from "no compulsion."

Muhammad reinforced these instructions on many occasions during his prophetic career. Late in his career, he wrote to Heraclius, the Eastern Roman Emperor in Constantinople:

Now then, I invite you to Islam (i.e., surrender to Allah), embrace Islam and you will be safe; embrace Islam and Allah will bestow on you a double reward. But if you reject this invitation of Islam, you shall be responsible for misguiding the peasants (i.e., your nation). (Bukhari, 4.52.191).

Heraclius did not accept Islam, and soon the Byzantines would know well that the warriors of jihad indeed granted no safety to those who rejected their "invitation."

Muhammad did not get a satisfactory answer either from Chosroes, ruler of the Persians. After reading the letter of the Prophet of Islam, Chosroes contemptuously tore it to pieces. When news of this reached Muhammad, he called upon Allah to tear the Persian emperor and his followers to pieces (Bukhari, 5.59.708). He told the Muslims that they would conquer both empires: "When Khosrau [Chosroes] perishes, there will be no (more) Khosrau after him, and when Caesar perishes, there will be no more Caesar after him. By Him in Whose hands Muhammad's life is, you will spend the treasures of both of them in Allah's Cause" (Bukhari 4.53.349).

Muhammad did not limit his veiled threat only to rulers. Another hadith records that on one occasion he emerged from a mosque and told his men, "Let us go to the Jews." Upon arriving at a nearby Arabian Jewish community, Muhammad told them: "If you embrace Islam, you will be safe. You should know that the earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle, and I want to expel you from this land. So, if anyone amongst you owns some property, he is permitted to sell it, otherwise you should know that the Earth belongs to Allah and His Apostle" (Bukhari, 4.53.392). In other words, if you accept Islam, you may keep your land and property, but if not, Muhammad and the Muslims would confiscate it.

Bostom notes: "Orders for conversion were decreed under all the early Islamic dynasties -- Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Mamluks. Additional extensive examples of forced conversion were recorded under both Seljuk and Ottoman Turkish rule (the latter until its collapse in the 20th century), the Shi'ite Safavid and Qajar dynasties of Persia/Iran, and during the jihad ravages on the Indian subcontinent, beginning with the early 11th century campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni, and recurring under the Delhi Sultanate, and Moghul dynasty until the collapse of Muslim suzerainty in the 18th century following the British conquest of India." Since these Muslim rulers and armies all revered Muhammad as an "excellent example of conduct" (Qur'an 33:21), this is not surprising.

After being freed, Centanni said: "We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint. Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it, but it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what ... was going on."

Indeed, few in the West know what's going on regarding the example of Muhammad and the stance of traditional Islam on conversion. The human rights should have the courage to recognize and denounce this conversion-or-else directive, and to recognize the plight of those who even today suffer from its scourge. Moreover, with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad operating according to Muhammad's instructions, this now has geopolitical implications. In his letter to President Bush, Ahmadinejad invited him to accept Islam, and then echoed the Prophet of Islam in delivering a threat to Bush through Mike Wallace: "We are all free to choose. But please give him this message, sir: Those who refuse to accept an invitation will not have a good ending or fate."

Ahmadinejad's threat, as well as the ordeal of Centanni and Wiig, epitomizes the threat that the global jihad represents to the freedom of conscience. Analysts are increasingly beginning to note that the conflict has ideological dimensions, but these dimensions are still imperfectly understood in the public sphere. Were Western leaders courageous enough to speak forthrightly about the threat we face as an Islamic jihad, they could use the "conversions" of Centanni and Wiig to illustrate one of the elements of Western civilization that is being challenged and that we are resolved to defend. Unfortunately, mired as they are in denial about the nature of the "terror" threat itself, they have made as yet no such resolution.

Contact American 1627 at american1627@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, August 30, 2006.

This was written by Tom Gross. [Editor's note: Click here for descriptions and photos of the Red Cross ambulance hoax and the rescue worker who was photographed in a "Jesus after the crucifixion" pose. The first caption said he was a civilian killed by guess who and then, when bloggers yelled "hoax", the caption was revised to say he was just unconscious.]

While politicians in most countries, particularly in Europe, continue to swallow the frauds and fabrications of the mainstream western media about Israel, at least one leading politician elsewhere, Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer, has spoken out.

Addressing the conference of Australian newspaper publishers in Brisbane earlier this week, Downer criticized the media for the now numerous documented instances of misreporting of the recent conflict between Israel and Hizbullah.

These included the claim that Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles that hit two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations. Respected news outlets giving widespread credence to this piece of Hizbullah propaganda included The New York Times, Time Magazine, NBC News, the BBC, ITV News, The Guardian, The Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, The Age (Australia), Le Monde, and newspapers and TV stations throughout Europe and Asia.

For extra measure, Britain's ITV news added in its report on the fabricated incident that Israel had "committed war crimes."

The New York Times ran a shot of a supposedly dead Lebanese civilian, only for later pictures to show him back on his feet.

Kofi Annan was among those that condemned Israel based on these misguided press reports.


Australian foreign minister Downer told the conference:

"What concerns me greatly is the evidence of dishonesty in the reporting out of Lebanon. For example, a Reuters photographer was forced to resign after doctoring images to exaggerate the impact of Israeli air attacks. There were the widely-reported claims that Israel had bombed deliberately a Red Cross ambulance."

"In subsequent weeks, the world has discovered those allegations do not stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny. After closer study of the images of the damage to the ambulance, it is beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax. Yet some of the world's most prestigious media outlets, including some of those represented here today, ran that story as fact - unchallenged, unquestioned. Similarly, there has been the tendency to report every casualty on the Lebanese side of the conflict as if a civilian casualty, when it was indisputable that a great many of those injured or killed in Israeli offensives were armed Hizbullah combatants."

"My point is this: in a grown-up society such as our own, the media cannot expect to get away with parading falsehoods as truths, or ignoring salient facts because they happen to be inconvenient to the line of argument - or narrative - that particular journalists, or media organizations, might choose to adopt on any given controversy or issue."

For more on Downer, see this article from today's "Herald-Sun," Australia's biggest-selling daily newspaper:

It seems that Hizbullah have learned much from Palestinian terror groups, who have a long successful track record of taking in sympathetic or gullible western journalists. See, for example, www.tomgrossmedia.com/Jeningrad.html.

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Join the Boycott, August 30, 2006.

This article discusses some of the techniques of bias as exhibited by the Los Angeles Times' anti-Israel campaign.

Don't get mad - get even

Join the Boycott of the LA Times today
call 1-800 252-9141 to cancel your subscription

1) Agenda Bias

The principal form of bias is the editorial choice of subject matter which, when viewed over time, reflects the agenda of the editors. For sixteen years the LA Times has controlled the agenda in favor of the PLO. This bias is achieved by:

(a) Focusing On Issues That Aid The PLO/Arab Cause

The LA Times focuses public attention on those issues that aid the PLO cause, the key one being constant criticism of the conduct of the IDF and Israeli defensive measures in general. An example of this was the allegations stemming from the battle of Jenin. Public attention was riveted on the conduct of Israeli soldiers, and a torrent of criticism was unleashed against Israel, while the more obvious criminal actions of the PLO terrorists, using civilians as human shields, were ignored.

Recently public attention has been obsessively focused on Israel's construction of a Security Fence to keep out suicide bombers. The ongoing terrorist activities of the PLO, planning and preparing more inhuman acts of violence, are largely ignored.

Even in times when the coverage of Israel has lessened there has been a constant flow of articles criticizing Israel's methods of self-defense such as house demolitions, deportations, curfews, even the killing of terrorists who are armed combatants at war with Israel, etc., and articles portraying the Palestinians as the victims exaggerating their suffering out of all proportions while ignoring Israeli suffering. The subject of so-called "Palestinian refugees" living in Arab countries is another item on the PLO agenda the LA Times likes to promote.

Agenda bias is magnified by the constancy, and the often saturation volume of coverage.

(b) Ignoring Issues That Harm The PLO/Arab Cause

Ignoring i.e. censoring and/or failing to undertake any significant investigative reporting into subjects which may cast a negative light on the PLO such as the documentary proof of their terror activities, the intimidation of journalists, the personal involvement of Arafat in terrorist activities, the misuse of funds to buy weapons, the contrary statements in Arabic which call for violence against Israel, the concealment of the PLO plan to destroy Israel, the desecration of Jewish and Christian holy sites, the indoctrination of Palestinian children with hatred of Israel, the misuse of ambulances to aid terrorist activities, the cooperation of Arab States in terrorist activities and their financial support of suicide bombers, the Lebanese provocations, etc.

The effect of this biased reporting is to increase the pressure on Israel not to retaliate and to make concessions, while little or no pressure is applied to Arafat and the PLO to stop the terrorism and compromise their demands.

2) Using Quotes as Accusations

A reporter may choose any quote that supports his or her political position making this practice ripe for abuse - the PLO propagandists of the LA Times use this method extensively. By repeating the PLO's unsubstantiated allegations over and over again, the LA Times gives credence to them and is able to say about Israel what it cannot state as fact. This technique was used to its fullest regarding the battle of Jenin, but is an ongoing and pervasive form of abuse.

3) Blaming Israel

Consistently placing the blame on Israel. For example, when Israel retaliates against a terrorist act it is blamed for dealing a blow to the "peace process" or for overreacting or most recently, for complicating America's potential war with Iraq. This is contrary to the truth for if the world would leave Israel alone to defeat the terrorists there would be peace.

On the other hand, the PLO is not held to blame. Their atrocities are excused as the acts of "militants" or "activists" belonging to other groups even though the terror reaches right into Arafat's own Fatah faction. The LA Times' failure to hold Arafat and the PLO responsible, despite extensive Israeli evidence of their being so, works contrary to the interests of peace.

4) The Immoral Equation

Referring to a "cycle of violence" or a "round of violence" - a device to equate the PLO terrorists who intentionally kill innocent civilians with the Israelis who are forced to battle armed terrorist combatants in self-defense to prevent their horrendous acts of murder. The comparison is morally wrong. Every civilized country in the world recognizes the right to kill in self-defense he or she who comes to kill you.

5) Biased Terminology

Use of biased terminology - constant use of terms of Arab propaganda such as "the occupation", "the occupied territories", "assassination", and terms carrying an opinion such as "ferocious response", "hardliners", and misnomers such as "militants", "gunmen", and "activists" - one gets the sense the LA Times justifies every atrocity of the PLO because of "the occupation".

The term "occupation" as used by the Arabs is short for "occupied Arab lands" and anyone who uses it has already labeled themselves a supporter of Arab claims and is therefore biased. There is little recognition of, or respect for, the Jewish claim to what is, our 3,700 year old heritage.

6) Biased Headlines

Slanted headlines - when Israel retaliates it is "Israel kills" or "Israel invades" or "Israel defies" - when the PLO does something it is "Bomb kills" or "Gunmen kill" or "Israelis killed by bomb". The LA Times cannot bring itself to blame the PLO terrorists. This is a tacit form of justification of PLO violence.

7) Biased Photographs

Suggestively anti-Israel photographs - such as showing the Israelis as persecutors or "invaders" or generally as the guilty party.

8) Biased "Human" Stories

Long, often multiple-paged articles on the lives of suicide bombers - stories and vignettes of their lives meant to "humanize" them and explain their actions, create sympathy for them, even glamorize their "martyrdom" - while the victims of their bloody massacres are largely ignored.

9) Quantitative and Qualitative Bias

Sometimes the anti-Israel bias is seen in the positioning of a story, or the amount of column inches devoted to it, or an imbalance in the number of quotes favoring the PLO side, etc. Media watchdog groups such as CAMERA do a good job in monitoring this more subtle form of bias.

10) Tokenism

There are occasional interest stories which superficially seem to be supportive of Jewish issues - an example was an article on the controversy surrounding Egypt's decision to screen a series of programs which contained material based on the anti-semitic work "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" (10/30/02) though these stories often reveal anti-Jewish flaws. We call this tokenism - a once in a while article that gives the LA Times a certain "plausible deniability" of bias - it is reminiscent of a practice occurring in country clubs across the US.

Ongoing examples of these different forms of bias can be seen by following the Anti-Israel Propaganda Watch
Join the Boycott can be reached at jointheboycott@lycos.com or go to the website:


To Go To Top

Posted by Fern Sidman, August 30, 2006.

In the aftermath of Israel's worst military defeat since the beginning of the creation of the modern Jewish state, we stand humiliated and denigrated in the eyes of the world. On the home front, their are calls for commissions of inquiry into the mismanagement of the war. The media, reservists, the left wing and right wing are demanding the resignation of the Olmert government. The defense ministry is under attack as is the foreign ministry.

There is no question that Israel gained nothing and lost much in this recent military conflict in Lebanon. Hezbollah and its Syrian and Iranian sponsors are basking in glory as is the entire Arab world. As they celebrate their victory and the defeat of the "invincible" Israeli army, the global criticism and condemnations of Israel's actions in Lebanon keep mounting at a furious pace. The threats of a nuclear attack on Israel from Iranian President Ahmadinejad are very real, as he defies world pressure and vows to continue developing the country's uranium enrichment program. If this kind of humiliation were not enough, we have just learned that Rev. Jesse Jackson is engaged in shuttle diplomacy to seek the release of the three Israeli soldiers still held hostage by Hamas and Hizbollah. According to Arutz Sheva news service, (8/29/06) "Jackson met with the Damascus-based leader of the Hamas terror organization (Khaled Meshaal) as well as with Syrian President Bashar Assad before leaving for Lebanon, the second stop in his regional diplomacy tour.

The American cleric is expected to meet with Lebanon's President Emile Lahoud, Prime Minister Fuad Siniora and Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. Jackson said he is also hoping to meet with Hizbullah chief terrorist Hassan Nasrallah to discuss a prisoner exchange deal to free Goldwasser and Regev. Jackson is slated to visit Israel after talks in Lebanon." Rev. Jackson's track record is far from stellar when it comes to negotiating on behalf of Jews. Jackson's record of embracing terrorists of all stripes is legendary. He embraced Yassir Arafat, praised him as "urbane, educated and reasonable" and was a vocal supporter of his philosophies and actions. In 1984, Jackson ran for the presidency of the United States, garnering 3.5 million votes, enough to make him a kingmaker, a power broker in the Democratic party. His candidacy was riddled with viciously anti-semitic statements, as he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and New York City as "Hymietown". Jesse Jackson was known as an anti-Semite long before Hymietown. He had a record of making disgusting and vicious remarks about Jews, including calling Zionism the poisoned weed of Judaism and saying that he's sick and tired of hearing about the Holocaust.

It is also noteworthy to mention that Rev. Jackson may be flagrantly violating United States laws by negotiating with organizations and leaders that are currently on the State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. These organizations include Hamas and Hezbollah. It is clear that Israel should have demanded the release of the three soldiers as a pre-condition to any agreement of a cease fire, however due to the ineptitude of the leadership of the government of Israel, this was not included in the deal. And so, we now have Jesse Jackson brokering a prisoner exchange deal that will surely require Israel to release thousands of Arab terrorists, thereby ensuring future kidnappings of Israeli soldiers, and even more pronounced acts of terrorism directed at Israel.

According to an article entitled, "View from Haifa: The September 10th Syndrome" by Steven Plaut (Jewish Press, 7/19/06), he gives a concise chronology of the effects of Israeli prisoner exchanges. It is as follows:

In 1985, the Likud-led government of Yitzhak Shamir carried out a prisoner exchange with the "Jibril" terrorists. Israel agreed to release more than a thousand Arabs incarcerated for terrorist activities in exchange for three Israeli soldiers. Just three days after the trade, one of those released Arabs was brought into an Israeli hospital. He had accidentally blown himself up while preparing a bomb intended for Israeli shoppers. Others among the released terrorists would, in the months and years to come, participate in a number of attacks and murders.

On October 16, 1986, while on a mission over southern Lebanon, Israeli air force navigator Lieutenant Colonel Ron Arad and his pilot were forced by a technical problem to parachute out of their plane. The pilot was rescued by an Israeli chopper, but Arad fell captive to terrorists belonging to the Lebanese Shi'ite Amal militia. All trace of Arad was lost. Since 1986, Israel has engaged in feeble and pointless attempts at "quiet diplomacy" in order to win the release of Arad or at least learn of his fate. The efforts have produced nothing.

In 1992, Yitzhak Rabin launched his "peace plan" of legitimizing and recognizing the PLO and at the same time ordered the expulsion of 400 Hamas terrorists from the West Bank and Gaza to Lebanon. The expulsion had near-universal support in Israel. Shortly thereafter, however, Israel permitted almost all the expelled terrorists return to the West Bank and Gaza Strip, where they resumed their leadership roles in terror organizations. It was yet another goodwill gesture for which Israel got nothing in exchange. Not even information on Ron Arad.

In 1994, in the middle of Rabin's "peace initiative," Palestinian terrorists kidnapped Israeli soldier Nachshon Wachsman. The kidnappers held him hostage in the West Bank village of Bir Naballah, which had long been a hotbed of terror.

On October 7, 1994, villagers violently attacked Israeli soldiers who were trying to storm the Bir Naballah home in which Wachsman was being held. The terrorists had enough time to murder Wachsman before his would-be rescuers got into the house. Israel did not bulldoze the village in retaliation, just as it has not bulldozed other West Bank villages in which soldiers and civilians have been murdered. These days, Israeli leftists are busy assisting the residents of Bir Naballah in sabotaging the security wall Israel is constructing, because it offends the sensitivities of the Arab villagers.

In July 2003 the Israeli cabinet decided in a 14-9 vote to buy Ariel Sharon a Kodak moment in Washington by releasing more than 500 Palestinian prisoners, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Fatah terrorists, again as a "goodwill gesture." Few of the released terrorists took up quilting.

In January 2004, Israel agreed to an exchange with Hizbullah. More than 400 Arab prisoners, many accused of killing civilians, were released in return for a single Israeli civilian hostage and the bodies of the three soldiers who had been murdered in cold blood by Hizbullah.

The prisoner exchange was widely opposed in Israel, and passed the Israeli cabinet by a single vote. Afterward, Israel never avenged the three soldiers murdered by Hizbullah. A suicide bombing that killed 10 Israelis took place the very day of the prisoners' release, but Israel went ahead with it anyway.

Two of those set free had been high-ranking Lebanese terrorists, directly involved in the kidnapping, torture, and reported "sale" of Ron Arad to Iran. Israel did not even demand information on the whereabouts of Arad in exchange, just an empty promise of some information in the future, which, needless to say, has never materialized.

At the time, the Arab media crowed in smug satisfaction at Israel's humiliation in the prisoner release. Al-Ahram called it a "new notch in Hizbullah's belt!" In Israel it was seen as a debacle. Even Yoel Marcus at Israel's far-left daily Haaretz called it a "License to Kidnap." It is clear that Jackson's motive is to curry favor in Arab world. It is also clear the the Israeli public has a right to demand that the government of Israel secure the release of the three Israeli soldiers. We cannot, however, allow a Jew hater of the likes of Jesse Jackson to pressure Israel into a prisoner exchange agreement that would endanger future Jewish lives.

The nation of Israel must loudly proclaim, "Enough Humiliation". It is not realistic to believe that the government of Israel will not entertain the notion of a prisoner exchanqge. It has already indicated that it would consider such a plan. If the government of Israel wishes to be a pawn in Jackson's nefarious scheme, and to facilitate a scenario that would elevate him to a hero status around the world, then it is incumbent on Jews worldwide to express their outrage and indignation at a government that seeks to invite even further humiliation to a country that has endured more than its share.

At this precarious time, we must seek Divine help and assistance. We must appeal to the Almighty G-d of Israel through the power of prayer. We must storm the gates of Heaven with our supplications. Let us remember the words of King David (Psalm 70) - "Shamed and disgraced be those who seek my soul. Repulsed and humiliated be those who desire my harm. Let them be turned back in consequence of their shaming me, those who say, Aha!, Aha!. Let rejoice and be glad in You all who seek You, and let them say always, 'may G-d be exalted, those who love Your salvation'".

Contact Fern Sidman at AriellaH@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Buddy Macy, August 30, 2006.

To our American Jewish "leaders," and to the rest of us who must hold them accountable:

It is an extremely sad reality that the UJC, AJC, ADL and all but two or three of the other 52 groups that comprise the Conference of Presidents of Majo American Jewish Organizations are "powerless" to save the Jewish People, because they are afraid to criticize or contradict the Israeli Government -- a government whose leader had announced his refusal last night to appoint an independent state commission of inquiry into the management of the war with Hezbollah. (Instead, Prime Minister Olmert said the government would appoint two investigative committees. In other words, the people to be investigated by the committees are also those who will have appointed them.)

I implore you to support Israel and the Jewish People by calling publicly and loudly for the immediate resignations of Olmert, Peretz, Peres, Livni and Halutz. The Jewish State finds itself in a perilous situation, while Israelis from across the political spectrum continue to speak out against the current government's handling of the war:

  • about its indecisiveness that placed thousands of heroic soldiers at great risk;

  • about its micro-management of the war that ignored and contradicted years of planning by the nation's top military strategists;

  • about its policy of appeasement of the media, foreign governments and the United Nations by its acceptance of a self-destructive ceasefire that empowers Hezbollah and all of Israel's enemies, that enables the terrorist organization to regroup and re-arm with even more technologically-advanced weaponry and that brings a questionable (at best) force of soldiers smack against Israel's northern border;

  • about its encouragement of disunity among its soldiers and citizens by continuing its calls for withdrawals from Judea and Samaria while the fighting was ongoing;
  • about its lack of preparation in caring for the victims of rocket attacks in the North -- in general, about its total lack of leadership.

The American Jewish leadership's silence in the aftermath of the Olmert-led Government's pitiful, life-jeopardizing performance during the war, at a time when the threat to Israel's very survival has never been more real, is beyond abhorrent -- it is criminal. If, G-d forbid, Israel were to suffer a devastating attack while Mr. Olmert were still in office, I would hold the American Jewish organizations and their representatives responsible to a significant degree for the death and injuries of our fellow Jews in Israel, and destruction of Jewish land and property.

Ten days ago, in New York City, a memorial service was held for Ze'ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky, the heroic Jew who tried desperately to save the lives of Poland's Jews before it was too late. In the 1930's, Mr. Jabotinsky traveled to Poland on numerous occasions, imploring the Jewish organization heads to lead a mass exodus from the country. He saw the signs of impending devastation quite clearly; yet, his impassioned pleas were ignored time and time again.

The signs today are SO MUCH CLEARER than they were when 3,000,000 Polish Jews could have been saved from their unthinkable suffering and ultimate death. Israel's enemies have consistently and blatantly called for her destruction. Iran has imported huge caches of sophisticated weaponry and is rapidly approaching nuclear capability. Moshe Yaalon, the chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces from 2002 to 2005, says that we are IN World War III. The Israel haters of the Middle East are now empowered more than ever by Hezbollah's perceived victory in Lebanon over the once mighty Israeli military And, it is SO CLEAR that Mr. Olmert, Mr. Peres, Mr. Peretz, Ms. Livni and Lt. Gen. Halutz are incapable of preventing, even slowing down, the driving force of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah (not forgetting, Hamas) from achieving their ultimate goal.

In this most serious of times, the Jewish leadership must break from its timeless policy of not speaking out against the Government of Israel. Is there not one executive director, chairman or president of a major Federation or one of the more influential members of the Conference of Presidents who will have the courage and sense to speak out and help save the Jewish People? The major American Jewish leader who would call publicly and loudly for the resignation of Olmert, Peres, Peretz, Livni and Halutz would be viewed as a Jew hero, for time immemorial -- the rest of the lot, as cowards and appeasers.

This is the opportunity of our generation -- perhaps the final opportunity for the Jewish People. We need at least one of you to be a true leader; we need a Ze'ev Jabotinsky. This time, we will all listen...and act accordingly!

The following is the text of a petition signed by IDF reservists who served in the Spearhead Brigade in Lebanon, in protest of the handling of the war by the government and senior military officials:

We, fighters and commanders at the Spearhead [Hod Hachanit] Brigade, were called up to enlist under an emergency mobilization order [Tzav 8] on July 30, 2006. Our attendance was complete in all battalions.

As we were signing on the battle equipment and weapons, we knew that we were signing for much more. We left behind wives and children, girlfriends and families. We put aside our jobs and livelihoods; we were prepared to carry out our mission under the most difficult of conditions, in heat, thirst or hunger.

At the back of his mind, each and every one of us knew, that for the just cause of protecting the citizens of Israel, we would even put our lives on the line.

But there was one thing we were not and would not be willing to accept: We were unwilling to accept indecisiveness. The war's aim, which was not defined clearly, was even changed in the course of the fighting.

The indecisiveness manifested itself in inaction, in not carrying out operational plans, and in canceling all the missions we were given during the fighting. This led to prolonged stays in hostile territory, without an operational purpose and out of unprofessional considerations, without seeking to engage in combat with the enemy.

The "cold feet" of the decision-makers were evident everywhere. To us the indecisiveness expressed deep disrespect for our willingness to join the ranks and fight and made us feel as though we had been spat on, since it contradicts the principles and values of warfare upon which we were trained at the Israel Defense Forces.

The heavy feeling that in the echelons above us there is nothing but under-preparation, insincerity, lack of foresight and inability to make rational decisions, leads to the question - were we called up for nothing?

We are now on the day after, and it seems that the immorality and the absence of any shame are the fig-leaves to be used in order to cover up for the blunders. The blunders of the past six years and the under-preparation of the army have been carried on our backs - the backs of the fighters. In order to face the next battle prepared - and this may happen soon - a thorough and fundamental change must take place.

The crisis of confidence between us as fighters and the higher echelons will not be resolved without a thorough and worthy investigative commission under the auspices of the state. When the commission completes its task, conclusions must be drawn both on the level of strategic planning and national security, and on the personal level of the parties involved.

We paid a heavy price in order to fight and come out of the battle victorious, and we feel this has been denied of us. We will all attend calls to enlist in the future for any mission we will be required to complete, but we would like to know that these missions will be part of a clear objective and will be carried out by striving to engage in combat.

As soldiers and citizens we expect a response at your earliest convenience,

We the undersigned
Fighters and officers of the Spearhead Brigade

Contact Buddy Macy at vegibud@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 30, 2006.


Sometimes I'm in town but out of operation. It's the computer industry. Ironically, I used to be a computer systems analyst, but that was with mainframe computers. There were rules and conventions, now the systems are dispersed and disorganized. I designed menus that left no doubt about what were the users' choices and what they meant. Now the menus are confused. On the other hand, I am not adept at this, since I put my time into writing rather than playing with the computer. If there were manuals, users might know what to do. The ones I wrote were clear, but most others were dense. Nevertheless, they offered some guide. Now they are skimpy and disappearing. The vendors suppose that their help screens provide enough information.

There are two problems with help screens. They: (1) Often don't satisfactorily explain what you want to know, if you can even find it; and (2) Are of no use, when your computer is not working. Recently I attempted to install DSL on my own. Verizon's CD-Rom was clear, until half-way through. It's instructions about disabling the firewall described a screen unlike the one in my operating system. Instructions for computers are like those for assembling things they sometimes use different terms in the diagram from those in the text. I got through that, only to falter on the next one. Couldn't open Windows Explorer. Verizon Tech Support was nice, but couldn't solve it, after a couple of calls. They offered to transfer me to the manufacturer, HP. Reached the HP message machine, and it switched me back to Verizon. My frustration was rising and the night was fleeting. HP, like many big corporations, takes a long time welcoming callers but wasted my time with computer-voice inquiries that almost never fit my situation.

Here I was, seething with frustration, while the computer voice was telling: me how concerned the company was with providing good customer service that I was not getting. HP Tech Support tried to be helpful. They (it takes more than one call) had me try different things, to no avail. They changed the mode in which the computer operates. Before I hung up, I asked how to restore the computer to normal operation, including the disabled firewall. The technician assured me that when I turn the computer on, his suggestions for temporary changes would be reversed. He said I should consult AOL about how to fix Windows Explorer.

Next morning, not only were his changes still there, Microsoft Word had slowed so much, it was not usable. HP Tech Support told me to back up the computer and he would tell me how to restore it to its shipped condition. How does one back it up? I didn't know. The store didn't know. HP Tech Support told me that for that advice, I would have to pay another department. I wanted to tell that other department that I ought to get this advice free, because it was for overcoming a problem that its company had imposed upon me. However, I couldn't speak with anyone, unless I had a PIN, which I didn't. I could have had the store send someone over to fix my problems. I chose not to, because the folks there seemed to have a compartmentalized notion of the computer and therefore higher fees. I hired my own consultant. This consultant had programmed computer software. He laughed at my story of each vendor creating a problem and passing responsibility on to the next.

He said that in his experience, a high proportion of problems are caused by incompatibility between the main anti-virus packages, such as Norton and McAfee, and other systems. In less than half an hour, he resolved the problems. My consultant explained that the Tech Support departments hire a mass of people who do not know much about computer software. They read a text about what to do, and recite it to consumers. They often fail to solve the problem, but get one off the phone to find that out, later. I asked him to show me how to do two other tasks. One was to use the scanner. That worked as he said it would. The other was to back up my data files. That did not work. The error message was that there was no disk in the Cd-Rom reader. But there was. He claims that stores sometimes sell CD-Rom disks that are not compatible with the operating system. The store exchanged the disks for another type. We'll see if they work.


A Hizbullah Katyusha landed on the Syrian side of the Golan Heights (IMRA, 8/4).

Did the journalists and Europeans denounce this as Israeli brutality towards the Arabs? Probably not. They would recognize it as the fortunes of war.

They do not recognize any Israeli killings of Arab civilians as misfiring or as misinformation about targets. Every week, Arabs assassinate or blow themselves up in Gaza.


PM Olmert and Justice Min. Ramon assert that the war reinforces the policy of withdrawal. He says Israel has sent the world a message that if Hezbollah made war from an area it left, Israel would hit back hard. One of the saving graces was that the current range of enemy rockets left the center of the country as a haven for those from the north. If Israel withdrew from Judea-Samaria, and if the enemy keeps lengthening the rockets' range, there would be no such haven and millions of Israelis would be subject to close-range firing.

MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) disputes the government. "Just yesterday," Eldad said, "Olmert admitted that Israel is unable to uproot Hizbullah from Lebanon and remove the threat of Katyushas -- and then without reaching the logical conclusion, he now says he wants to turn Judea and Samaria into an Iranian base as well." The government's remarks encourage Hizbullah to fight on, in anticipation of further Israeli withdrawals, which they attribute to intimidation by the terrorists (IMRA, 8/2 & Arutz-7, 8/2).

If it weren't for the withdrawals, the terrorists would not have been able to build up their rocket and other forces, and make war. The Arabs don't care much what happens to their proxies. All they care about is how many casualties they can inflict upon their enemies. So long as they aren't harshly put down, they keep fighting. By withdrawing again without having fulfilled its mission, Israel failed to put Hamas down. It was doing so, but tepidly. Remember that the government sent in small forces and initially not far, and fought with more concern to minimize enemy civilian casualties than its own casualties, civilian and military. Israel thinks it sends one message, but it sends another, one of weakness.

The IDF already is withdrawing from Lebanon and largely is not present in Gaza. The rockets keep coming. The Left keeps concluding contrary to experience and logic that its failed policies are effective. Why withdraw? Leftist appeasement, leaders' treason, US antipathy, EU and Vatican grasping.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Bruce Brill, August 29, 2006.

A large segment of Israeli society has believed that the "root cause" of the Middle East conflict derives from Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and that Jewish settlements there are "illegal obstacles to peace." This is also the position both of the US State Department and the White House. In New Republic one week into the present war in Lebanon Moshe Yaalon, IDF Chief of Staff until 2005, writes that this root cause, "never has it looked quite so naive and simplistic as it does this week."

Ask a Hizbullah fighter what impels him to fight Israel with such passion. His answer would be that Israel caused hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs to become homeless in 1949. 1949, long before there was one Jewish village in Judea, Samaria or Gaza.

Not one Palestinian Arab family was made homeless in order for a Jewish family to build their home in Judea, Samaria or Gaza. The war Hizbullah is waging against Israel is not against Jews living in Judea, Samaria or Gaza, but against "Israel Proper." To the Arab mind, the Israel that ousted hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs is, in fact, "Israel Improper."

The Jewish settlers of Judea and Samaria are not the main target of Hizbullah; Hizbullah is gunning for "Israel Improper": wherever their missiles have been landing over the past several weeks and the Tel-Aviv-Gush-Dan area of Israel that they've been threatening to hit.

Last week Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that victory in Lebanon will strengthen his determination to execute his party's "Convergence Plan" to expel many tens of thousands of Jewish residents from their homes in Judea and Samaria. A natural question such a resident may ask himself is: "Why should I risk my life to achieve victory in Lebanon which will result in making me, my family and my neighbors homeless?" The IDF will revert from the 'Israel Defense Forces,' to the 'Israel Deportation Forces.' Subsequently, he apologized for the timing of the pronouncement.

Many were baffled by the untimely nature of Olmert's remarks. Why lower the morale of settler-soldiers by politicizing the war effort? So now the childish subterfuge is to keep your plan to evict settlers from their homes quiet until AFTER they've sent their husbands, fathers and sons to fight Hizbullah. After the victory they've risked their lives to attain, only then spring your deportation scheme on them. Of course, this approach is disingenuous to say the least.

TV viewers saw Shoshi Greenfeld, sister of settler-soldier Yehudah Greenfeld, who was killed with a dozen other reserve soldiers at Kfar Giladi. She shouted a plea to other uniformed settlers to refuse to serve and to "return home before you're returned home in a casket." There would be no such plea were there no Convergence Plan in the offing. Most settlers, including Yehudah Greenfeld, serve with enthusiasm when called in spite of eviction from their homes, past or pending.

Gadi Yodvata, the head of security of Kfar Eldad, commented: "Of course Yehudah served. Refusing to serve is not something the Right does. That's what the Left does."

Yet, there are biblical grounds for not serving. In Deuteronomy Chapter 20, reasons are given for a soldier not to serve. These are not "excuses" not to serve, but commandments. Verses 5, 6 and 7 cite the soldier's own personal benefit as the reason for the soldier returning home; verse 8, by contrast offers war-effort rationale.

Verse 8 notes that the "tender hearted," often translated "fainthearted," should return home. In present-day terminology, this could easily be understood to mean "demoralized." The war effort demands that this soldier's demoralization should not infect the other soldiers, lest they, too, become demoralized. In spite of the near-universal willingness of settler-soldiers to fight, there has to be some measure of demoralization inside the settler after Olmert's Convergence pronouncement.

Tekoa's Rabbi Menachem Fruman disagrees. In his opinion "tender hearted"means "cowardly," not "demoralized." The present war falls under the category of "Milchemet Mitsvah," an obligatory war, in which, according to rabbinic understanding, there are no exemptions, including those listed in Deuteronomy 20:5-8. Yet, the present draft is not close to a 100% callup of reserves.

Olmert has succeeded in demoralizing some of the most zealous and patriotic of the IDF's fighters, the settler-soldiers. The logic of this thread leads to an ironic question: For the sake of the success of the war effort, should not settler-soldiers be sent home?

It also leads to an absurd observation: No Israeli has ever succeeded in uniting the Jews of Israel like Nasrallah has; whereas, the Israeli Prime Minister is doing the opposite.

Bruce Brill is a Middle East security analyst. Contact him at brucebr@zahav.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by IMRA, August 29, 2006.

This is a very disturbing article and difficult to read. This was written by Matthias Kuntzel and appeared in The New Republic on Iran's suicide indoctrination. Matthias Kuntzel is a political scientist in Hamburg, Germany, and author of Djihad und Judenhass (or Jihad and Jew-Hatred).

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck.

It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.

At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. "In the past," wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettelaat as the war raged on, "we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone." Such scenes would henceforth be avoided, Ettelaat assured its readers. "Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."

These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army.The Basij Mostazafan--or "mobilization of the oppressed"--was essentially a volunteer militia, most of whose members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."

The sacrifice of the Basiji was ghastly. And yet, today, it is a source not of national shame, but of growing pride. Since the end of hostilities against Iraq in 1988, the Basiji have grown both in numbers and influence. They have been deployed, above all, as a vice squad to enforce religious law in Iran, and their elite "special units" have been used as shock troops against anti-government forces. In both 1999 and 2003, for instance, the Basiji were used to suppress student unrest. And, last year, they formed the potent core of the political base that propelled Mahmoud Ahmadinejad--a man who reportedly served as a Basij instructor during the Iran-Iraq War--to the presidency.

Ahmadinejad revels in his alliance with the Basiji. He regularly appears in public wearing a black-and-white Basij scarf, and, in his speeches, he routinely praises "Basij culture" and "Basij power," with which he says "Iran today makes its presence felt on the international and diplomatic stage." Ahmadinejad's ascendance on the shoulders of the Basiji means that the Iranian Revolution, launched almost three decades ago, has entered a new and disturbing phase. A younger generation of Iranians, whose worldviews were forged in the atrocities of the Iran-Iraq War, have come to power, wielding a more fervently ideological approach to politics than their predecessors. The children of the Revolution are now its leaders.

In 1980, the Ayatollah Khomeini called the Iraqi invasion of Iran a "divine blessing," because the war provided him the perfect opportunity to Islamize both Iranian society and the institutions of the Iranian state. As Saddam's troops pushed into Iran, Khomeini's fanatically devoted Revolutionary Guard moved rapidly to mobilize and prepare their air and sea forces. At the same time, the regime hastened to develop the Basiji as a popular militia.

Whereas the Revolutionary Guard consisted of professionally trained adult soldiers, the Basiji was essentially composed of boys between twelve and 17 and men over 45. They received only a few weeks of training--less in weapons and tactics than in theology. Most Basiji came from the countryside and were often illiterate. When their training was done, each Basiji received a blood-red headband that designated him a volunteer for martyrdom. According to Sepehr Zabih's The Iranian Military in Revolution and War, such volunteers made up nearly one-third of the Iranian army--and the majority of its infantry.

The chief combat tactic employed by the Basiji was the human wave attack, whereby barely armed children and teenagers would move continuously toward the enemy in perfectly straight rows. It did not matter whether they fell to enemy fire or detonated the mines with their bodies: The important thing was that the Basiji continue to move forward over the torn and mutilated remains of their fallen comrades, going to their deaths in wave after wave. Once a path to the Iraqi forces had been opened up, Iranian commanders would send in their more valuable and skilled Revolutionary Guard troops.

This approach produced some undeniable successes. "They come toward our positions in huge hordes with their fists swinging," one Iraqi officer complained in the summer of 1982. "You can shoot down the first wave and then the second. But at some point the corpses are piling up in front of you, and all you want to do is scream and throw away your weapon. Those are human beings, after all!" By the spring of 1983, some 450,000 Basiji had been sent to the front. After three months, those who survived deployment were sent back to their schools or workplaces.

But three months was a long time on the front lines. In 1982, during the retaking of the city of Khorramshahr, 10,000 Iranians died. Following "Operation Kheiber," in February 1984, the corpses of some 20,000 fallen Iranians were left on the battlefield. The "Karbala Four" offensive in 1986 cost the lives of more than 10,000 Iranians. All told, some 100,000 men and boys are said to have been killed during Basiji operations. Why did the Basiji volunteer for such duty?

Most of them were recruited by members of the Revolutionary Guards, which commanded the Basiji. These "special educators" would visit schools and handpick their martyrs from the paramilitary exercises in which all Iranian youth were required to participate. Propaganda films -- like the 1986 TV film A Contribution to the War -- praised this alliance between students and the regime and undermined those parents who tried to save their children's lives. (At the time, Iranian law allowed children to serve even if their families objected.) Some parents, however, were lured by incentives. In a campaign called "Sacrifice a Child for the Imam," every family that lost a child on the battlefield was offered interest-free credit and other generous benefits. Moreover, enrollment in the Basiji gave the poorest of the poor a chance for social advancement.

Still others were coerced into "volunteering." In 1982, the German weekly Der Spiegel documented the story of a twelve-year-old boy named Hossein, who enlisted with the Basiji despite having polio: One day, some unknown imams turned up in the village. They called the whole population to the plaza in front of the police station, and they announced that they came with good news from Imam Khomeini: The Islamic Army of Iran had been chosen to liberate the holy city Al Quds--Jerusalem--from the infidels. ... The local mullah had decided that every family with children would have to furnish one soldier of God. Because Hossein was the most easily expendable for his family, and because, in light of his illness, he could in any case not expect much happiness in this life, he was chosen by his father to represent the family in the struggle against the infidel devils.

Of the 20 children that went into battle with Hossein, only he and two others survived.

But, if such methods explained some of why they volunteered, it did not explain the fervor with which they rushed to their destruction. That can only be elucidated by the Iranian Revolution's peculiar brand of Islam.

At the beginning of the war, Iran's ruling mullahs did not send human beings into the minefields, but rather animals: donkeys, horses, and dogs. But the tactic proved useless: "After a few donkeys had been blown up, the rest ran off in terror," Mostafa Arki reports in his book Eight Years of War in the Middle East. The donkeys reacted normally--fear of death is natural. The Basiji, on the other hand, marched fearlessly and without complaint to their deaths. The curious slogans that they chanted while entering the battlefields are of note: "Against the Yazid of our time!"; "Hussein's caravan is moving on!"; "A new Karbala awaits us!"

Yazid, Hussein, Karbala--these are all references to the founding myth of Shia Islam. In the late seventh century, Islam was split between those loyal to the Caliph Yazid--the predecessors of Sunni Islam--and the founders of Shia Islam, who thought that the Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, should govern the Muslims. In 680, Hussein led an uprising against the "illegitimate" caliph, but he was betrayed. On the plain of Karbala, on the tenth day of the month of Muharram, Yazid's forces attacked Hussein and his entourage and killed them. Hussein's corpse bore the marks of 33 lance punctures and 34 blows of the sword.

His head was cut off and his body was trampled by horses. Ever since, the martyrdom of Hussein has formed the core of Shia theology, and the Ashura Festival that commemorates his death is Shiism's holiest day. On that day, men beat themselves with their fists or flagellate themselves with iron chains to approximate Hussein's sufferings. At times throughout the centuries, the ritual has grown obscenely violent. In his study Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti recounts a firsthand report of the Ashura Festival as it occurred in mid-nineteenth-century Tehran:

500,000 people, in the grip of delirium, cover their heads with ashes and beat their foreheads against the ground. They want to subject themselves voluntarily to torments: to commit suicide en masse, to mutilate themselves with refinement. ... Hundreds of men in white shirts come by, their faces ecstatically raised toward the sky. Of these, several will be dead this evening, many will be maimed and mutilated, and the white shirts, dyed red, will be burial shrouds. ... There is no more beautiful destiny than to die on the Festival of Ashura. The gates of the eight Paradises are wide open for the holy and everyone tries to get through them.

Bloody excesses of this sort are prohibited in contemporary Iran, but, during the Iran-Iraq War, Khomeini appropriated the essence of the ritual as asymbolic act and politicized it. He took the inward-directed fervor and channeled it toward the external enemy. He transformed the passive lamentation into active protest. He made the Battle of Karbala the prototype of any fight against tyranny. Indeed, this technique had been used during political demonstrations in 1978, when many Iranian protestors wore funeral shrouds in order to tie the battle of 680 to the contemporary struggle against the shah. In the war against Iraq, the allusions to Karbala were given still greater significance: On the one hand, the scoundrel Yazid, now in the form of Saddam Hussein; on the other, the Prophet's grandson, Hussein, for whose suffering the time of Shia revenge had finally come.

The power of this story was further reinforced by a theological twist that Khomeini gave it. According to Khomeini, life is worthless and death is the beginning of genuine existence. "The natural world," he explained in October

1980, "is the lowest element, the scum of creation. "What is decisive is the beyond: The "divine world, that is eternal." This latter world is accessible to martyrs. Their death is no death, but merely the transition from this world to the world beyond, where they will live on eternally and in splendor. Whether the warrior wins the battle or loses it and dies a Martyr--in both cases, his victory is assured: either a mundane or a spiritual one.

This attitude had a fatal implication for the Basiji: Whether they survived or not was irrelevant. Not even the tactical utility of their sacrifice mattered. Military victories are secondary, Khomeini explained in September

1980.The Basiji must "understand that he is a 'soldier of God' for whom it is not so much the outcome of the conflict as the mere participation in it that provides fulfillment and gratification." Could Khomeini's antipathy for life have had as much effect in the war against Iraq without the Karbala myth? Probably not. With the word "Karbala" on their lips, the Basiji went elatedly into battle.

For those whose courage still waned in the face of death, the regime put on a show. A mysterious horseman on a magnificent steed would suddenly appear on the front lines. His face--covered in phosphorous--would shine. His costume was that of a medieval prince. A child soldier, Reza Behrouzi, whose story was documented in 1985 by French writer Freidoune Sehabjam, reported that the soldiers reacted with a mixture of panic and rapture.

Everyone wanted to run toward the horseman. But he drove them away. "Don't come to me!" he shouted, "Charge into battle against the infidels! ... Revenge the death of our Imam Hussein and strike down the progeny of Yazid!" As the figure disappears, the soldiers cry: "Oh, Imam Zaman, where are you?" They throw themselves on their knees, and pray and wail. When the figure appears again, they get to their feet as a single man. Those whose forces are not yet exhausted charge the enemy lines.

The mysterious apparition who was able to trigger such emotions is the "hidden imam," a mythical figure who influences the thought and action of Ahmadinejad to this day. The Shia call all the male descendants of the Prophet Muhammad "imams" and ascribe to them a quasidivine status. Hussein, who was killed at Karbala by Yazid, was the third Imam. His son and grandson were the fourth and fifth. At the end of this line, there is the "Twelfth Imam,"who is named Muhammad. Some call him the Mahdi (the "divinely guided one"), though others say imam Zaman (from sahib-e zaman: "the ruler of time"). He was born in 869, the only son of the eleventh Imam. In 874, he disappeared without a trace, thereby bringing Muhammad's lineage to a close. In Shia mythology, however, the Twelfth Imam survived. The Shia believe that he merely withdrew from public view when he was five and that he will sooner or later emerge from his "occultation" in order to liberate the world from evil.

Writing in the early '80s, V. S. Naipaul showed how deeply rooted the belief in the coming of the Shia messiah is among the Iranian population. In Among the Believers: An Islamic Journey, he described seeing posters in post-Revolutionary Tehran bearing motifs similar to those of Maoist China: crowds, for instance, with rifles and machine guns raised in the air as if in greeting. The posters always bore the same phrase: twelfth imam, we are waiting for you. Naipaul writes that he could grasp intellectually the veneration for Khomeini. "But the idea of the revolution as something more, as an offering to the Twelfth Imam, the man who had vanished ... and remained 'in occultation,' was harder to seize." According to Shia tradition, legitimate Islamic rule can only be established following the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. Until that time, the Shia have only to wait, to keep their peace with illegitimate rule, and to remember the Prophet's grandson, Hussein, insorrow.

Khomeini, however, had no intention of waiting. He vested the myth with an entirely new sense: The Twelfth Imam will only emerge when the believers have vanquished evil. To speed up the Mahdi's return, Muslims had to shake off their torpor and fight.

This activism had more in common with the revolutionary ideas of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood than with Shia traditions. Khomeini had been familiar with the texts of the Muslim Brothers since the 1930s, and he agreed with the Brothers' conception of what had to be considered "evil": namely, all the achievements of modernity that replaced divine providence with individual self-determination, blind faith with doubt, and the stern morality of sharia with sensual pleasures. According to legend, Yazid was the embodiment of everything that was forbidden: He drank wine, enjoyed music and song, and played with dogs and monkeys. And was not Saddam just the same? In the war against Iraq, "evil" was clearly defined, and vanquishing evil was the precondition for hastening the return of the beloved Twelfth Imam. When he let himself be seen for a few minutes riding his white steed, the readiness to die a martyr's death increased considerably.

It was this culture that nurtured Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's worldview. Born outside Tehran in 1956, the son of blacksmith, he trained as a civil engineer, and, during the Iran-Iraq War, he joined the Revolutionary Guards. His biography remains strangely elliptical. Did he play a role in the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy, as some charge? What exactly did he do during the war? These are questions for which we have no definite answers. His presidential website says simply that he was "on active service as a Basij volunteer up to the end of the holy defense [the war against Iraq] and served as a combat engineer in different spheres of duty."

We do know that, after the war's end, he served as the governor of Ardebil Province and as an organizer of Ansar-e Hezbollah, a radical gang of violent Islamic vigilantes. After becoming mayor of Tehran in April 2003, Ahmadinejad used his position to build up a strong network of radical Islamic fundamentalists known as Abadgaran-e Iran-e Islami, or Developers of an Islamic Iran. It was in that role that he won his reputation--and popularity--as a hardliner devoted to rolling back the liberal reforms of then-President Muhammad Khatami. Ahmadinejad positioned himself as the leader of a "second revolution" to eradicate corruption and Western influences from Iranian society. And the Basiji, whose numbers had grown dramatically since the end of the Iran-Iraq War, embraced him. Recruited from the more conservative and impoverished parts of the population, the Basiji fall under the direction of--and swear absolute loyalty to--the Supreme Leader Ali Khameini, Khomeini's successor.

During Ahmadinejad's run for the presidency in 2005, the millions of Basiji--in every Iranian town, neighborhood, and mosque--became his unofficial campaign workers.

Since Ahmadinejad became president, the influence of the Basiji has grown. In November, the new Iranian president opened the annual "Basiji Week," which commemorates the martyrs of the Iran-Iraq War. According to a report in Kayan, a publication loyal to Khameini, some nine million Basiji--12 percent of the Iranian population--turned out to demonstrate in favor of Ahmadinejad's anti-liberal platform. The article claimed that the demonstrators "form[ed] a human chain some 8,700 kilometers long. ... In Tehran alone, some 1,250,000 people turned out." Barely noticed by the Western media, this mobilization attests to Ahmadinejad's determination to impose his "second revolution" and to extinguish the few sparks of freedom in Iran.

At the end of July 2005, the Basij movement announced plans to increase its membership from ten million to 15 million by 2010. The elite special units are supposed to comprise some 150,000 people by then. Accordingly, the Basiji have received new powers in their function as an unofficial division of the police. What this means in practice became clear in February 2006, when the Basiji attacked the leader of the bus-drivers' union, Massoud Osanlou. They held Osanlou prisoner in his apartment, and they cut off the tip of his tongue in order to convince him to keep quiet. No Basiji needs to fear prosecution for such terrorists tactics before a court of law.

As Basij ideology and influence enjoy a renaissance under Ahmadinejad, the movement's belief in the virtues of violent self-sacrifice remains intact.

There is no "truth commission" in Iran to investigate the state-planned collective suicide that took place from 1980 to 1988. Instead, every Iranian is taught the virtues of martyrdom from childhood. Obviously, many of them reject the Basij teachings. Still, everyone knows the name of Hossein Fahmideh, who, as a 13-year-old boy during the war, blew himself up in front of an Iraqi tank. His image follows Iranians throughout their day: whether on postage stamps or the currency. If you hold up a 500 Rial bill to the light, it is his face you will see in the watermark. The self-destruction of Fahmideh is depicted as a model of profound faith by the Iranian press. It has been the subject of both an animated film and an episode of the TV series "Children of Paradise." As a symbol of their readiness to die for the Revolution, Basij groups wear white funeral shrouds over their uniforms during public appearances.

During this year's Ashura Festival, school classes were taken on excursions to a "Martyrs' Cemetery." "They wear headbands painted with the name Hussein," The New York Times reported, "and march beneath banners that read: 'Remembering the Martyrs today is as important as becoming a Martyr' and 'The Nation for whom Martyrdom means happiness, will always be Victorious.' " Since 2004, the mobilization of Iranians for suicide brigades has intensified, with recruits being trained for foreign missions. Thus, a special military unit has been created bearing the name "Commando of Voluntary Martyrs. "According to its own statistics, this force has so far recruited some 52,000 Iranians to the suicidal cause. It aims to form a "martyrdom unit" in every Iranian province.

The Basiji's cult of self-destruction would be chilling in any country. In the context of the Iranian nuclear program, however, its obsession with martyrdom amounts to a lit fuse. Nowadays, Basiji are sent not into the desert, but rather into the laboratory. Basij students are encouraged to enroll in technical and scientific disciplines. According to a spokesperson for the Revolutionary Guard, the aim is to use the "technical factor" in order to augment "national security."

What exactly does that mean? Consider that, in December 2001, former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani explained that "the use of even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything." On the other hand, if Israel responded with its own nuclear weapons, it "will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality." Rafsanjani thus spelled out a macabre cost-benefit analysis. It might not be possible to destroy Israel without suffering retaliation. But, for Islam, the level of damage Israel could inflict is bearable--only 100,000 or so additional martyrs for Islam.

And Rafsanjani is a member of the moderate, pragmatic wing of the Iranian Revolution; he believes that any conflict ought to have a "worthwhile" outcome. Ahmadinejad, by contrast, is predisposed toward apocalyptic thinking. In one of his first TV interviews after being elected president, he enthused: "Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr's death?" In September 2005, he concluded his first speech before the United Nations by imploring God to bring about the return of the Twelfth Imam. He finances a research institute in Tehran whose sole purpose is to study, and, if possible, accelerate the coming of the imam. And, at a theology conference in November 2005, he stressed, "The most important task of our Revolution is to prepare the way for the return of the Twelfth Imam."

A politics pursued in alliance with a supernatural force is necessarily unpredictable.Why should an Iranian president engage in pragmatic politics when his assumption is that, in three or four years, the savior will appear? If the messiah is coming, why compromise? That is why, up to now, Ahmadinejad has pursued confrontational policies with evident pleasure.

The history of the Basiji shows that we must expect monstrosities from the current Iranian regime. Already, what began in the early '80s with the clearing of minefields by human detonators has spread throughout the Middle East, as suicide bombing has become the terrorist tactic of choice. The motivational shows in the desert--with hired actors in the role of the hidden imam--have evolved into a showdown between a zealous Iranian president and the Western world. And the Basiji who once upon a time wandered the desert armed only with a walking stick is today working as a chemist in a uranium enrichment facility.

Contact IMRA at imra@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Rachel Kapen, August 29, 2006.

When referring to the date of Dec. 7, 19041, when the Japanese attacked the American Navy in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, a sudden and unprovoked attack, President Roosevelt said that this day will live in infamy and the same goes for Sept. 11, 2001, when the unprecedented terror attack on the United States occurred. Both proved to be watershed events in the history of the United States, for as the Pearl Harbor attack catapulted the United States into joining World War II, so the attack of 9/11 caused a rude awakening in the United States who hitherto was under the notion that terror effects other countries, such as Israel, for instance, and not the greatest power on earth which is the United States of America. Thus, the war against the scourge of terror began in earnest which turned out to be the most excruciatingly daunting war the United States had to fight, indeed a never ending war.

The shocking events of 9/11 changed us all, but, personally, I don't need this grim anniversary to relive it. Each and every time I enter our family room I do so. Among the many family pictures there is the one taking me back to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center in New York, a picture of my husband and myself seated at a table in the company of our sons and their lovely significant others, as we celebrated our 40th wedding anniversary two years before the 9/11 catastrophe. So what does this happy scene have to do with reminding me of the still shocking and incredible events of 9/11? plenty. The restaurant where this happy photograph was taken was called: Windows on the World" which was situated up high in one of the twin towers. It was a unique and very beautiful place whence you perhaps couldn't see the world as its name connotes, but you could see the entirety of the Island of Manhattan with its stunning skyline.

I saw the twin towers again a mere two weeks before 9/11 as we came to New York again to celebrate the 40th Birthday of our son, Alon. It was a surprise party given him on the roof of a friend's apartment across from the U.N. building. I remember feasting my eues again on the New York fascinating skyline with the twin towers powerfully yet gracefully towering over it, and if anybody would have told me then that in less than 2 weeks these powerful structures will turn into ruins with the thousands of innocent people buried under them I would have told him that he is mad and should see a shrink.

In his autobiographical recent book: A Tale of Love and Darkness renowned Israeli author Amos Oz recounts how he as a child growing up in Jerusalem used to like to replay famous Jewish wars while changing their outcome as he pleased, obviously to favor the Jews. Similarly, each time I look at that happy picture again and again I imagine that somehow this beautiful picture is frozen in time and everything is still there and the chilling date of 9/11 would never arrive. And although intellectually I know that it isn't possible, I still play this comforting game every time I look at the picture.

Contact Rachel Kapen at skapen285466MI@comcast.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bill Simpson, August 29, 2006.

How interesting that you should send me this Announcement email! I do not often have opportunity to preach anymore -- perhaps two or three times per year -- but I did on this Sunday past. "Think Israel" was the theme of my sermon.

I am ordinarily a quiet person, teaching much more than preaching, but on Sunday, I burned with the anger of God as expressed in Joel 3:1-3, and for forty-five minutes I shouted and banged on the pulpit, a thing I've never done before in all my years of preaching and teaching. I spelled out clearly how the United States, which claims to be Israel's greatest friend in the world, has joined with the other nations of the world in partitioning the Holy Land and giving Israel only a tiny sliver of land on the Mediterranean coast.

We are indeed her greatest friend, and we coerce her to give up more land for a peace with a hateful people, which peace cannot work. Israel has no friends but God; but God is sufficient for Israel, and will yet prove Himself to be more than sufficient. I was shocked by my delivery of that sermon, as was the entire church, which knows me to be quiet-spoken and non-assertive.

Bill Simpson is Editor of Christian Chronicles (cc@christianchronicles.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, August 29, 2006.

We would be a lot safer, and be doing a much better job of making both the USA and Israel more secure, if we could rid our political vocabulary of some pernicious, and potentially lethal, mytho-mendacious fantasies.

Fantasy #1) Islam is a religion of peace which respects other religions and does not force conversions.

Fantasy #2) The "Occupation" is the Problem (Toameh re Gaza chaos, and Karsh re the world-wide "big lie" that all middle east problems can be solved by solving the Palestinian Israeli conflict)

Fantasy #3) The FBI does not need to tape phone conversations of terrorists and track their emails because our government (aka George Bush) has exagerated the threat posed to us by our local Moslem-American citizens.

Fantasy #4) The American (and Canadian and UK) Moslem PACs are lobbying for the civil rights and well being of Moslem citizens

The articles below address each of these fantasies. My comments are in italics.

1. Islam is a religion of peace which respects other religions and does not force conversions.

No one except Andrew Bostom seems to have noticed the irony in the forced conversions of the two kidnapped Fox news journalists in Gaza. Some will argue that "true Islam" is indeed a religion of peace and does not force conversions. This may be true. But it is completely irrelevant for us in the West who are engaged in world war 4 against Islamofascist Terroirst Jihadists.

What counts is how THESE Moslem terrorists behave, and how THEY interpret their religion. As Bostom shows, not only have the Gazan terrorist kidnappers interpreted Islam as a religion that requires conversion at the point of the sword, but so have just about every major ruling Islamic power since Mohammed.

Reciting the Shehada in Gaza
By Andrew G. Bostom


Fox News journalists Steve Centanni and his accompanying cameraman Olaf Wiig were released on Sunday, August 27, 2006, following almost two weeks of captivity. While both men appeared to be in good physical health, the prognosis for their psychological state, and future journalistic contributions, is less sanguine. As depicted in this disturbing video -- http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/27/centanni-wiig-freed -- Centanni and Wiig were forced to convert to Islam, and recite an anti-Western diatribe, complemented by treacly Islamic apologetics.

During the brief press conference held almost immediately after their release
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525949296&pagename=JPost/ %2FJPArticle%2FShowFull), both men preferred to focus on the plight of the kind and benevolent denizens of Gaza. Momentarily acknowledging the coercive nature of their "conversion", Centanni admitted off camera, "We were forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint".

But he felt compelled to add this bizarre disclaimer, "Don't get me wrong here. I have the highest respect for Islam, and I learned a lot of good things about it", before concluding candidly ".it was something we felt we had to do because they had the guns, and we didn't know what the hell was going on." Centanni expressed his primary concern to the reporters gathered at the Gaza City Beach Hotel press conference as follows: "I hope that this never scares a single journalist.

Within moments of making these effusively conciliatory statements-despite having been held captive and forcibly converted to Islam-the freed kidnapping victims were whisked off to Israel.

Notwithstanding their pious ecumenical pronouncements, Centanni and the Wiigs failed to linger and socialize with the "very beautiful and kind hearted" local Muslim residents of Gaza, even those Gazan women who had shown them such "solidarity."

Forced conversions in Islamic history are not exceptional-they have been the norm, across three continents-Asia, Africa, and Europe-for over 13 centuries
(http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591023076/qid=1131832267/ sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9932358-7831836?n=507846&s=books&v=glance).

Orders for conversion were decreed under all the early Islamic dynasties-Umayyads, Abbasids, Fatimids, and Mamluks. Additional extensive examples of forced conversion were recorded under both Seljuk and Ottoman Turkish rule (the latter until its collapse in the 20th century), the Shi'ite Safavid and Qajar dynasties of Persia/Iran, and during the jihad ravages on the Indian subcontinent, beginning with the early 11th century campaigns of Mahmud of Ghazni, and recurring under the Delhi Sultanate, and Moghul dynasty until the collapse of Muslim suzerainty in the 18th century following the British conquest of India.

Moreover, during jihad-even the jihad campaigns of the 20th century [i.e., the jihad genocide of the Armenians during World War I, the Moplah jihad in Southern India [1921], the jihad against the Assyrians of Iraq [early 1930s], the jihads against the Chinese of Indonesia and the Christian Ibo of southern Nigeria in the 1960s, and the jihad against the Christians and Animists of the southern Sudan from 1983 to 2001], the (dubious) concept of "no compulsion" (Koran 2:256; which was cited with tragic irony during the Fox reporters "confessional"!
(http://hotair.com/archives/2006/08/27/centanni-wiig-freed/) has always been meaningless.

A consistent practice was to enslave populations taken from outside the boundaries of the "Dar al Islam", where Islamic rule (and Law) prevailed. Inevitably fresh non-Muslim slaves, including children, were Islamized within a generation, their ethnic and linguistic origins erased.

Given this enduring (and ignoble) historical legacy, it remains to be seen whether contemporary Muslim religious authorities-particularly those within Palestinian society, and affiliated with Hamas or Fatah-will condemn publicly the forced conversions of the kidnapped Fox reporters. Moreover, will they be joined by a chorus of authoritative voices representing the entire Muslim clerical hierarchy-Sunni and Shi'ite alike-from Mecca and Cairo, Qom and Najaf, to the Muslim advocacy groups in the West (such as CAIR in the United States, and the Muslim Council of Britain in England)-unanimous in their condemnation of this hideous practice, and formalized by a fatwa stating as much?

Will such Muslim authorities at least recognize the acute predicament of Centanni and Wiig by issuing a fatwa stating that their "conversion", being under duress, was not bona fide, condemning in advance any Muslim who might now attack these journalists for what should be gleaned from this harrowing Gazan spectacle of non-Muslim journalists being kidnapped, imprisoned for nearly two weeks, and coerced at gunpoint into converting to Islam, while condemning their own societies?

We must avoid indulging fantasies (such as those already expressed by the kidnapped Fox reporters upon their release
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/755262.html -- triggered by understandable Stockholm Syndrome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome -- reactions, or learned, fearful dhimmitude

2.) The "Occupation" is the problem.

Not according to a leading Palestinian government official -- stop blaming Israel for all of our problems. face the fact that we are destroying ourselves.

A.) JP and NY Times, Khaled abu Toameh.
'Gaza caught in anarchy and thuggery'
Khaled Abu Toameh,
The Jerusalem Post
Aug. 28, 2006
(also appeared in NYTimes 8.29.06)
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525954624& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"When you walk in the streets of Gaza City, you cannot but close your eyes because of what you see there: unimaginable chaos, careless policemen, young men carrying guns and strutting with pride and families receiving condolences for their dead in the middle of the street."

This is how Ghazi Hamad, spokesman for the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority government and a former newspaper editor, described the situation in the Gaza Strip in an article he published on Sunday on some Palestinian news Web sites.

The article, the first of its kind by a senior Hamas official, also questioned the effectiveness of the Kassam rocket attacks and noted that since Israel evacuated the Gaza Strip, the situation there has deteriorated on all levels. It holds the armed groups responsible for the crisis and calls on them to reconsider their tactics and to stop blaming Israel for their mistakes.

"Gaza is suffering under the yoke of anarchy and the swords of thugs," Hamad wrote. "I remember the day when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and wrote. "I remember the day when Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip and closed the gates behind. Then, Palestinians across the political spectrum took to the streets to celebrate what many of us regarded as the Israeli defeat or retreat. We heard a lot about a promising future in the Gaza Strip and about turning the area into a trade and industrial zone."

Hamad said the "culture of life" that prevailed in the Strip has since been replaced with a nightmare. "Life became a nightmare and an intolerable burden," he said. "Today I ask myself a daring and frightening question: 'Why did the occupation return to Gaza?' The normal reply: 'The occupation is the reason.'"

Dismissing Israel's responsibility for the growing state of anarchy and lawlessness in the Gaza Strip, Hamad said it was time for the Palestinians to embark on a soul-searching process to see where they erred. "We're always afraid to talk about our mistakes," he added. "We're used to blaming our mistakes on others. What is the relationship between the chaos, anarchy, lawlessness, indiscriminate murders, theft of land, family rivalries, transgression on public lands and unorganized traffic and the occupation? We are still trapped by the mentality of conspiracy theories - one that has limited our capability to think."

Hamad admitted that the Palestinians have failed in developing the Gaza Strip following the Israeli withdrawal and in imposing law and order. He said about 500 Palestinians have been killed and 3,000 wounded since the Israeli pullout, in addition to the destruction of much of the infrastructure in the area.

By comparison, he said, only three or four Israelis have been killed by the rockets fired from the Gaza Strip over the same period. "Some will argue that it's not a matter of profit or loss, but that this has an accumulating effect" he said. "This may be true. But isn't there a possibility of decreasing the number of casualties and increasing our gains by using our brains and making the proper calculations away from demagogic statements?"

The Hamas official said that while his government was unable to change the situation, the opposition was sitting on the side and watching and PA President Mahmoud Abbas was as weak as ever. "We have all been attacked by the bacteria of stupidity," he remarked. "We have lost our sense of direction and we don't know where we're headed." Addressing the various armed groups in the Gaza Strip, Hamad concluded: "Please have mercy on Gaza. Have mercy on us from your demagogy, chaos, guns, thugs, infighting. Let Gaza breathe a bit. Let it live."


.....and not according to an even very short survey of the history of modern Arab/Moslem violence in the middle east.

B) Efraim Karsh
Pan-Muslim Fiction
New York Sun
By Efraim Karsh
August 29, 2006

Professor Karsh is head of Mediterranean Studies at King's College, University of London, and author most recently of "Islamic Imperialism: A History," available from Yale University Press.

In discussions of the contemporary Middle East, few arguments have resonated more widely, or among a more diverse set of observers, than the claim that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict constitutes the source of all evil and that its resolution will lead to regional peace and stability. No sooner had the guns fallen silent on the Israel-Lebanon border than Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, fresh from his summer vacation in the Caribbean island of Barbados, announced his intention to embark on a mission to the Middle East next month in an attempt to both stabilize the situation in Lebanon and to resuscitate the stalled peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

This sense of urgency was echoed by the American former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who claimed that "Today, it's becoming increasingly difficult to separate the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the Iraq problem and Iran from each other." And the Jordanian commentator Rami Khouri put it in even stronger terms: "Every major tough issue in the Middle East is somehow linked to the consequences of the festering Israeli-Palestinian conflict... Its bitterness kept seeping out from its Palestine-Israel core to corrode many other dimensions of the region."

While there is no denying the argument's widespread appeal, there is also no way around the fact that, in almost every particular, it is demonstratively, even invidiously, wrong. For one thing, violence was an integral part of Middle Eastern political culture long before the advent of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and physical force remains today the main if not the sole instrument of regional political discourse. At the domestic level, these circumstances have resulted in the world's most illiberal polities. Political dissent is dealt with by repression, and ethnic and religious differences are settled by internecine strife and murder.

One need only mention, among many instances, Syria's massacre of 20,000 of its Muslim activists in the early 1980s, or the brutal treatment of Iraq's Shiite and Kurdish communities until the 2003 war, or the genocidal campaign now being conducted in Darfur by the government of Sudan and its allied militias, not to mention the ongoing bloodbath in Iraq. As for foreign policy in the Middle East, it too has been pursued by means of crude force, ranging from terrorism and subversion to outright aggression. In the Yemenite, Lebanese, and Algerian civil wars, hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians perished; the Iran-Iraq war claimed nearly a million lives.

Nor have the Arab states have ever had any real stake in the "liberation of Palestine." Though anti-Zionism has been the core principle of pan-Arab solidarity since the mid-1930s -- it is easier, after all, to unite people through a common hatred than through a shared loyalty -- pan-Arabism has almost always served as an instrument for achieving the self-interested ends of those who proclaim it. Consider, for example, the pan-Arab invasion of the newly proclaimed state of Israel in 1948.This, on its face, was a shining demonstration of solidarity with the Palestinian people.

But the invasion had far less to do with winning independence for the indigenous population than with the desire of the Arab regimes for territorial aggrandizement. Transjordan's King Abdullah wanted to incorporate substantial parts of mandatory Palestine into the greater Syrian empire he coveted; Egypt wanted to prevent that eventuality by laying its hands on southern Palestine. Syria and Lebanon sought to annex the Galilee, while Iraq viewed the 1948 war as a stepping stone in its long-standing ambition to bring the entire Fertile Crescent under its rule. Had the Jewish state lost the war, its territory would not have fallen to the Palestinians but would have been divided among the invading Arab forces.

During the decades following the 1948 war, the Arab states manipulated the Palestinian national cause to their own ends. Neither Egypt nor Jordan allowed Palestinian self-determination in the parts of Palestine they had occupied during the 1948 war (respectively, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip). Palestinian refugees were kept in squalid camps for decades as a means of whipping Israel and stirring pan-Arab sentiments. "The Palestinians are useful to the Arab states as they are," Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser candidly responded to an inquiring Western reporter in 1956. "We will always see that they do not become too powerful." As late as 1974, Syria's Hafez al-Assad referred to Palestine as being "not only a part of the Arab homeland but a basic part of southern Syria."

If the Arab states have shown little empathy for the plight of ordinary Palestinians, the Islamic connection to the Palestinian problem is even more tenuous. It is not out of concern for a Palestinian right to national self-determination but as part of a holy war to prevent the loss of a part of the "House of Islam" that Islamists inveigh against the Jewish state of Israel. In the words of the covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, better known by its Arabic acronym Hamas: "The land of Palestine has been an Islamic trust (waqf) throughout the generations and until the day of resurrection.... When our enemies usurp some Islamic lands, jihad becomes a duty binding on all Muslims."

In this respect, there is no difference between Palestine and other parts of the world conquered by the forces of Islam throughout history. To this very day, for example, Arabs and many Muslims unabashedly pine for the restoration of Spain, and look upon their expulsion from that country in 1492 as a grave historical injustice, as if they were Spain's rightful owners and not former colonial occupiers of a remote foreign land, thousands of miles from their ancestral homeland. Edward Said applauded Andalusia's colonialist legacy as "the ideal that should be moving our efforts now," while Osama bin Laden noted "the tragedy of Andalusia" after the 9/11 attacks, and the perpetrators of the March 2004 Madrid bombings, in which hundreds of people were murdered, mentioned revenge for the loss of Spain as one of the atrocity's "root causes." Within this grand scheme, the struggle between Israel and the Palestinians is but a single element, and one whose supposed centrality looms far greater in Western than in Islamic eyes.

This is not to deny that resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is a pressing issue. But the regional ramifications of any settlement will be far narrower than is widely assumed. Quite to the contrary, the best hope of peace between Arabs and Israelis lies in the rejection of the spurious "link" between this dispute and other regional and global problems.

The pretense of pan-Arab or pan-Islamic solidarity has long served as a dangerous elixir in Palestinian political circles, stirring unrealistic hopes and expectations and, at key junctures, inciting widespread and horrifically destructive violence. Self-serving interventionism under these false pretenses had the effect of transforming the bilateral Palestinian-Israeli dispute into a multilateral Arab-Israeli conflict, thereby prolonging its duration, increasing its intensity, and making its resolution far more complex and tortuous. Only when the local political elites reconcile themselves to the reality of state nationalism and forswear the false notions of pan-Arab and pan-Muslim solidarity, let alone the imperialist chimera of a unified "Arab nation" or a worldwide Islamic umma, will the long overdue regional stability will be finally attained and the Arab-Israeli conflict resolved. Not the other way round.

3.) The FBI does not need to tape phone conversations of terrorists and track their emails because our government (aka George Bush) has exagerated the threat posed to us by our local Moslem-American citizens.

How do you think they caught the UK terrorists who were going to blow up 12 USA planes leaving Heathrow? How do you thin they caught these guys who were going to blow up Sears Tower.?

Aug 24, 2006 10:00 pm US/Central
Video Discloses Alleged Plot To Target Sears Tower
Federal Judge Denies Request To Ban Video
Video Library: Sears Tower Plot Suspects
SLIDESHOW: Terror Suspects

(CBS) MIAMI Undercover video acquired by CBS 2's Miami sister station, WFOR-TV CBS 4, reveals an inside look at a suspected terror group leader accused in a plot to target U.S. landmarks, including the Sears Tower.

The suspected group was based in Miami and was allegedly led by a former Chicagoan.

As CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine reports, that Chicago suspect was apparently trying to recruit help with his mission when he was busted.

The "Liberty City 7", as they have been dubbed, face terrorism charges after government agents uncovered an alleged plot to blow up buildings, including the Sears Tower, the Miami Federal Courthouse, and the Miami FBI offices, as well as other structures.

The undercover video shows Narseal Batiste, and others taking, what prosecutors claim, is an oath to the al Qaeda terrorist organization, as well as conversations in which Batiste tells and FBI undercover agent his plans for blowing up buildings.

It was a classic FBI sting, with hidden cameras rolling in a hotel room. The key players are the government informant, whose face is obscured, and the alleged ringleader of the terrorist plot. FBI surveillance photos show Batiste, the former Chicago FedEx delivery driver, allegedly checking out Miami's federal courthouse as a possible target.

The videotape of the front and side doors of that courthouse was to be given to the man they thought represented al Qaeda, a man Batiste first met when he entered a Miami hotel room hoping to make his dream of Islamic jihad a reality.

"My name is Brother Mohammed ali Hussein," the informant said on tape.

"Ali Hussein," Batiste asked.

"Yes," said the informant. "My job is to determine if its worth it or not. My job is to say if these people are serious or not."

Batiste tries to convince him that he and seven other members of his so-called Moorish Science Temple, their mosque housed in a rundown warehouse in Miami, are very serious.

"What's the plan?" asked the informant.

"To build this army," Batiste replied.

"Army? To build an army?" the informant asked.

"An Islamic army for Islamic jihad," Batiste said.

"Jihad? To wage jihad?" the informant said.

"Yes," confirmed Batiste.

Eventually, the others are introduced to the informant. On the tape, one by one, each pledges his allegiance. In another taped meeting, Batiste asks for money for boots and uniforms and more.

"Hand pistol machine guns," Batiste said.

"Pistols? Machine guns. Pistol or machine guns? Two different," the informant said.

"They make them in hand pistols. They make pistol machine guns. They're like pistols but they're also machine guns," Batiste said.

At another meeting, also taped by the government, Batiste got down to specifics.

"We got to make a plan of attack," Batiste said.

They talk about waging war with an army of street gang members and two specific targets.

93>I'm gonna tell you there's two major buildings that you gotta blow up. The Empire State Building and ... the uh, and the uh, Sears Tower. With those two buildings down, all radio communication is out," Batiste said.

The video has been the subject of reports by WFOR-TV reporter Brian Andrews, and its broadcast has apparently upset some of the attorneys involved in the case.

The material shown on television and on the Internet was provided by prosecutors as part of the discovery process, and is part of the public record of the case. It includes hundreds of hours of CDs and DVDs, which CBS 4 has been examining for the material which was broadcast.

A federal judge denied a request for a temporary injunction that would have prevented CBS 2 sister station WFOR-TV CBS 4 in Miami and their Web site, CBS4.com, from showing undercover surveillance video of seven men implicated in a terrorism scheme that involved a plot to blow up the Sears Tower.

Attorney Ana Jhones had filed the request with Federal Court Judge Joan Lenard at the U.S. Courthouse in Miami, asking that CBS, and any other media outlet, be prevented from showing the undercover video showing her client, Narseal Batiste, the alleged ringleader of what prosecutors claim was a terrorist cell based in Liberty City.

The request was denied following a teleconference between Jhones, the judge, and attorneys for CBS.

Jhones argued in her motion that the audio and video tapes have not yet been published in the court file and are not available to the general public. She asked that the media be prevented from showing the material "in all media" until it could be determined if a "local rule" was violated in the sharing of the material with WFOR.

WFOR-TV has reported that the material was legally obtained from a source involved with the case, but has not disclosed the source.

WFOR-TV News has attempted to contact Jhones regarding the court action, but she has not returned repeated telephone calls.

Video Library
EXCLUSIVE: Video Shows Terror Suspect Talking To Informant
EXCLUSIVE: Video Discloses Alleged Plot To Target Sears Tower
Alleged Liberty City 7 Leader Asks For al-Qaeda Help On Tape
Judge Won't Block CBS 4 Liberty City 7 Reports
Court Rules In Favor Of CBS 4 In Case Of "Liberty City 7"
Miami Terror Suspect Talks Building Explosions On Tape
Video Released By Feds Shows Liberty City 7 In Action

Related Stories
Defendant In Sears Tower Plot Denies Involvement (Aug. 8, 2006)
Sears Tower Terror Suspect Admits al-Qaeda Tie (July 21, 2006)
Bond Denied For Men Accused In Sears Tower Plot (July 5, 2006)
Tunnels Part Of Terror Plot Against Sears Tower (June 29, 2006)
Father: Terror Suspect Not In His Right Mind (June 24, 2006)
Officials On Terror Plot: No Need To Worry (June 23, 2006)
Officials: Sears Tower Plot Was Only "Aspiration" (June 23, 2006)
Families, Neighbors Shocked By Terror Arrests (June 23, 2006)
Sears Tower Conducts Mostly Business As Usual (June 23, 2006)
Officials: Sears Tower Plot Was Only 'Aspiration' (June 23, 2006)
Daley Reassures Chicagoans Of Their Safety (June 23, 2006)
City Authorities: Sears Tower Was Never In Danger (June 23, 2006)
Terrorism Expert Discusses Alleged Plot (June 23, 2006)
Local Muslim Leaders Condemn Alleged Terror Plot (June 23, 2006)
Seven Arrested In Sears Tower Plot (June 22, 2006)
Sears Tower Statement

4.) The American (and Canadian and UK) Moslem PACs are lobbying for the civil rights and well being of Moslem citizens

Well, not according to Daniel Pipes and his analysis of the behaviors of the US (CAIR) and Canadian (CCAIR) and UK most powerful and vocal Moslem PACs....which are all trying to exploit the acts of terror (successful or unsuccessful) as a way to blackmail their governments in to enacting legislation that supports Arab -Moslem Middle East and Jihad agendas.

"Piggybacking on Terror in Britain"
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun
August 29, 2006

Two days after British authorities broke up an alleged plot to blow up multiple aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean, the "moderate" Muslim establishment in Britain published an aggressive open letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair.

It suggested that Mr. Blair could better fight terrorism if he recognized that the current British government policy, especially on "the debacle of Iraq," provides "ammunition to extremists." The letter writers demanded that the prime minister change his foreign policy to "make us all safer." One prominent signatory, the Labour member of Parliament Sadiq Khan, added that Mr. Blair's reluctance to criticize Israel increased the pool of people whom terrorists can recruit.

In other words, Islamists working within the system exploited the thwarted Islamist terror plot to pressure the British government to implement their joint wishes and reverse British policy in the Middle East. Lawful Islamists shamelessly leveraged the near death of thousands to forward their agenda.

Despite its reported fears of Muslim street unrest, the Blair government heatedly rejected the letter. Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett called it "the gravest possible error." The Foreign Office minister Kim Howells dismissed it as "facile." Home Secretary John Reid deemed it a "dreadful misjudgment" to think that the "foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorism activity." Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander rejected the letter as "dangerous andfoolish."

Undaunted, the "moderate" Muslim establishment pushed even harder on the domestic front. In an August 14 meeting with high government representatives, including the deputy prime minister, it made two further demands: that a pair of Islamic religious festivals become official holidays and that Islamic laws pertaining to marriage and family life be applied in Britain. A Muslim present at the meeting later warned the government against any plans to profile airport passengers, lest this step radicalize Muslim youths further.

Why these ultimata and why at this time? According to the Daily Mail, the leader of the August 14 Muslim delegation, Syed Aziz Pasha, explained his group's logic: "if you give us religious rights, we will be in a better position to convince young people that they are being treated equally along with other citizens." More ominously, Mr. Pasha threatened the government leaders. "We are willing to cooperate, but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems. Then we will understand their problems."

The press reacted furiously to these demands. The Guardian's Polly Toynbee condemned the open letter as "perilously close to suggesting the government had it coming." The Daily Mirror's Sue Carroll portrayed Mr. Pasha's position as "perilously close to blackmail."

This was not the first such attempt by "moderate" British Muslim leaders at political jujitsu, to translate Islamist violence into political clout. The same happened, if less aggressively, in the aftermath of the July 2005 London bombings, when they piggybacked on the death of 52 innocents to demand that British forces leave Iraq.

That pressure did succeed, and in two major ways. First, the Home Office subsequently issued a report produced by "moderate" Muslims, "Preventing Extremism Together," that formally accepted this appeasing approach. As Dean Godson of Policy Exchange summarizes the document, Islamist terror "provided a wonderful, unexpected opportunity for these moderates to demand more power and money from the State."

Second, 72% of British subjects now accept the Islamist view that Mr. Blair's "backing for action in Iraq and Afghanistan" has made Britain more of a target for terrorists, while a negligible 1% say the policies have improved the country's safety, according to a recent poll. The public solidly backs the Islamists, not the prime minister.

I have argued that terrorism generally obstructs the progress of radical Islam in the West by stimulating hostility to Muslims and bringing Islamic organizations under unwanted scrutiny. I must admit, however, that the evidence from Britain -- where the July 7 terrorism inspired more can also strengthen lawful Islamism.

And here's another reconsideration: While I maintain that the future of Europe -- whether continuing in its historic Christian identity or becoming an adjunct of Muslim North Africa -- is still an open question, the behavior of the British public, that weakest link in the Western chain, suggests that it, at least, may be too confused to resist its Londonistan destiny.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by JINSA, August 29, 2006.

Westerners, Americans in particular, often ask what we did to engender the violent hatred of Islamic terrorists. [Not us, by the way. Well aware of Western shortcomings and always interested in national self-improvement, we nevertheless believe nothing we have done or are likely to do justifies 9-11, the Sbarro pizzeria bombing in Jerusalem, or the perversion of Muslim children to believe that their lives are best spent preparing for a violent death.] Others wonder why, even though the USSR invaded and decimated Afghanistan, the particular fury of Islamists is directed at the U.S. and Israel.

Regnar Rasmussen, a former military interpreter and interrogation specialist trained at the Danish Armed Forces' Specialist School, worked as a Farsi translator in the immigration department of Danish Central Police. In the mid-1980s, he interviewed Iranians fleeing the Islamic Revolution and discovered that many had been communists in the time of the Shah and received guerrilla/explosives/terrorism training in the USSR. In an interview with Insight Magazine, Rasmussen described them: "After I had been face to face with a number of these, it dawned upon me that the step from being a glowing red communist to becoming a bloodthirsty Muslim fundamentalist is actually a distance equal to zero." Since then, I have seen these two categories as the two sides of the same coin. Communism and Islamic fundamentalism have more in common than what meets the eye. They share the same fundamental hatred against individualism and against individuals who wish to be happy and just enjoy life.

Romanian Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer to have defected from the Soviet bloc, provided details in a recent article in the National Review.

"In 1972, the Kremlin decided to turn the whole Islamic world against Israel and the U.S". ... Andropov told me ..."The Islamic world was a waiting petri dish in which we could nurture a virulent strain of America-hatred, grown from the bacterium of Marxist-Leninist thought." Islamic anti-Semitism ran deep... Terrorism and violence against Israel and her master, American Zionism, would flow naturally from the Muslims' religious fervor," Andropov sermonized. "We had only to keep repeating our themes - that the United States and Israel were "fascist, imperial-Zionist countries bankrolled by rich Jews. Islam was obsessed with preventing the infidels' occupation of its territory."

What to do with the information? Ramussen notes: "The Soviet system had a solid tradition of registering everything. We saw all the details meticulously noted down in every STASI report that came out after the fall of communism in 1989. I know that all the files of each and every single foreign student ever trained in the Soviet Union are still intact... If the new Russia wants to show her good intentions in the war against terror she should brush the dust off these old archives. If you trace down each and every single graduate you will also be able to see who in turn became his students or followers. The entire network that was set up by that generation in those days would become clearly visible.

It is crucial for the West to sever the relationship between terrorists and the states that harbor and support them. A road map provided by the Russian government would make it a lot easier.

The JINSA Reports are published by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (http://www.jinsa.org). To subscribe, email jinsareports-www@lists.jinsa.org This is JINSA Report #598. To view this JINSA Report online, go to http://www.jinsa.org/JINSAReports/3522

To Go To Top

Posted by Palestinian Facts Org, August 29, 2006.

Arabs claim that today's Jews aren't really descendants of ancient Israelites and are really converts WITHOUT EVER SHOWING ANY PROOF.

Here's GENETIC PROOF that not only are Jews descendants of the Jews who were exiled from Israel by Romans, but Jews of today have more Israelite genes than Arabs have genes of ancient Arabs. Furthermore, SO-CALLED "palestinians" are originally from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Go back wherever the hell you came from!

University of Baltimore Study: Jews are originally from northern Middle East (where Israel is located), while SO-CALLED "palestinians" are originally from Saudi Arabia.

The study also says that while Jews are partially the product of mixed-marriages and converts, Jews have about 70% to 80% blood of ancient Israelites, while Arabs have only 50% blood of ancient Arabs. (www.ubalt.edu/kulanu/jewishdna.html), National Academy of Sciences: Several lines of evidence support the hypothesis that Diaspora Jews from Europe, Northwest Africa, and the Near East resemble each other more closely than they resemble their non-Jewish neighbors.

Second, despite their high degree of geographic dispersion, Jewish populations from Europe, North Africa, and the Near East were less diverged genetically from each other than any other group of populations in this study (meaning that Jews have more Israelite genes than Arabs have genes of ancient Arabs). Our results indicated a relatively minor contribution of European Y chromosomes to the Ashkenazim. If we assume 80 generations since the founding of the Ashkenazi population, then the rate of admixture would be <0.5% per generation.

Stanford University: If you made a genetic map of Europe and the Middle East and you put Ashkenazi Jews on it, they would not end up in Turkey or in the middle of Europe, but in the Mediterranean.

University of Arizona: We saw such a strong signal of a Middle-Eastern origin in Jews. Jews really are a single ethnic group coming from the Middle East. Even if you look like another European with blue eyes and light skin, your genes are telling that you're from the Middle East.

NY Times: The analysis provides genetic witness that these communities have, to a remarkable extent, retained their biological identity separate from their host populations, evidence of relatively little intermarriage or conversion into Judaism over the centuries.

Reuters (on Yahoo web site): A study shows that Jews suffer from the same illnesses. If Jews were mere French, Polish, etc. converts, they would not share the same genetic makeup with each other.

ABC News: "Jews have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000 years. Very few non-Jewish European genes have gotten into the Ashkenazi (European and American) Jewish populations. The comparison, published Monday, of groups of Semites also shows that Jews have successfully resisted having their gene pool diluted, despite having lived among non-Jews for thousands of years in what is commonly known as the Diaspora
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/ DailyNews/geneticbrothers000509.html

Hebrew University: Jews are from Middle East.

BBC on another genetic study proving that Jews descended from Israel. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_742000/742430.stm

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 29, 2006.


France's Foreign Min. Douste-Blazy urged Israel to halt its blockade of Lebanon. On what grounds? He said the ceasefire was holding (NY Sun, 8/17, p.6). Hizbullah agreed to a ceasefire because it was losing and Israel was capturing its ammunition. It would try to rearm when Israel is not firing= at it, so it can resume its war of Islamic aggression. A UNO blockade could prevent most of that rearming. The UNO is not blockading arms shipments to Hizbullah. Indeed, Hizbullah bases in the Bekaa Valley near Syria still can receive arms shipments via Syria. Israel was thought, by bombing such a base, to be drawing attention to that hole in the UNO plan. Thus the rationale given by the Foreign Minister is irrational. The French used to pride themselves on Gallic logic. It is not evident in France's foreign policy statements.


Sec. Rice let the press ask her questions, most of which I'm not going to get into. Did Hizbullah use human shields? (It's common= practice.) She wouldn't be surprised if it did, but she did not acknowledge whether it did at Kfar Qana. (She's not pro-Israel.) She did dispute the assertion by Douste-Blazy that Iran is a force for stability. One reporter said he saw Hizbullah initiate the war, and the world blame Israel for it. The world, including many US newspapers, also condemns Israel as fighting too hard.

He doesn't understand how the world could take such an unjust stance. Another reporter said he had not known that Hizbullah has amassed 14,000 rockets and that apparently the Mossad had not known. He wondered why UNIFIL did not enforce the UNO resolution to disarm Hizbullah. A reporter looked forward to the influx of UNO peacekeepers (IMRA, 8/2). How come that reporter had not known the Hizbullah has amassed 14,000 rockets. Israeli sources had been warning about that for months. Apparently, he covers the Mideast but does not deign to check Israeli sources.

Why didn't UNIFIL enforce the UNO resolution to disarm Hizbullah? UNIFIL units are afraid to or wouldn't want to. That reporter needs a seminar on the Mideast. Peacekeepers are for keeping the peace. There is no peace in Lebanon. First the terrorists must be pacified. That requires combat troops. Just as US forces sometimes get sent into areas without their mission having been defined carefully, so, too, this ceasefire was declared without the practical considerations having been defined. For the reporter who wondered why the world blames Israel, it's simple -- Israel is a Jewish state.


Canadians and Europeans have been demonstrating in the streets in behalf of Hizbullah, which is banned in Canada. B'nai B'rith Canada suggests not tolerating demonstrations in behalf of a banned terrorist organization (IMRA, 8/2). Put that way, the issue becomes one of free speech. A better way to put it is that Muslims are easily roused to violence and their advocacy of terrorist organizations is part of their campaign against Western civilization. Since it is part of their war on their own countries, of course such demonstrations should be banned. Muslim populations as a whole are hostile, radicalizing, and growing. The broader question is why allow within the country an enemy population. There is no excuse for bringing in what is like a transparent Trojan horse.


The ancient Babylonians, German Nazis, Islamo-fascists, and Muslim regimes have in common hatred of Jews. There also are those in any society who blame the victims, Jews, instead of the tyrants. Contemporary anti-Semitism comes from the Left (and Islam) and from people thought to be mainstream -- actors, journalists, documentary film makers, and Ivy League professors. "Anti-war" rallies condemn Zionists, Israel, or the Lobby. Old story. People talk about the Jews controlling our society, while oil wealth is bankrolling a growing fascist army determined to destroy Western democracy.

Westerners didn't mind Hitler's picking on the Jews. He then turned on the rest of them. He hated everybody but his own. He the more easily got started by liquidating Jews. Now the Muslims are talking not only about the Jews. Iran threatens to destroy the US. Muslims in Europe talk about taking over and repressing everybody else (Warren Kozak, NY Sun, 8/21, Op.-Ed.). "Anti-war rallies" are not against war. They are against the US or Israel defending itself after having been attacked. Those supposedly mainstream professionals largely are leftists or radicals, often ignorant and naive about the subject.


The Palestinian Center for Human Rights protested to Israel against the IDF giving civilians less than an hour to leave their houses, before the houses would be bombed. This is not sufficient time to remove belongings or appeal to an Israeli court against the decision. The Center cites the Geneva Convention prohibition of destruction of civilian property except for immediate military necessity. The Center does not know what was immediately necessary militarily to destroy those houses, which it claims posed no threat. It cites ten houses destroyed under the recent warnings, and thousands destroyed all told. It asserts that the decision to destroy may be based on stale intelligence (IMRA, 7/31).

P.A. statistics and claims usually are false or misleading. They attribute to Israel deaths and demolitions caused by Arabs. They count as destroyed houses abandoned buildings used by terrorists for ambush. They complain about illegally built buildings having been destroyed. There may have been thousands of buildings destroyed, but there are thousands of illegal buildings that weren't and should have been.

By asserting that intelligence may be stale, the Center implies that when fresh, the house should have been destroyed earlier. In that case, it presented a military threat. That means it was used by terrorists for weapons, planning, or hiding. The Arabs abuse civilian facilities like that, a warcrime. The Center fails to complain about the Arabs' war crimes and the resulting loss of innocent Israeli lives. It should be disregarded. The Center disingenuously misses the point of the warnings. The IDF has to destroy the houses promptly. However, the IDF doesn't want to kill the residents, so it gives them just sufficient warning to escape with their lives.

Some of them don't deserve that, having cooperated with the terrorists, thereby turning themselves into combatants. If the decision were subject to adjudication, the terrorists would remove If the decision were subject to adjudication, the terrorists would remove their weaponry during the course of the hearings. That would give war criminals an advantage. The decision must be up to the Israeli military. Imagine if every act of war by one side were subject to judicial review! Ridiculous, isn't it? What kind of judicial review has the Center demanded of the P.A., which, itself, or via the PLO, executed people on suspicion of having cooperated in some way with Israel? The Geneva Convention does not apply to the Territories and was designed for a different purpose from that which the Center proposes.

In addition, the Center seeks to exploit the rules and ethics of war and of human rights in behalf of a population that flouts the rules and ethics of war and of human rights. The Center thus collaborates with terrorism. We should not let it recruit the rules of civilization in behalf of the Islamist attempt to destroy civilization. This Islamist attempt to adjudicate the war is one of the Islamist tactics. The enemy is using the Western legal systems to thwart Western self-defense. In reaction, the West should review its rules and keep warfare further from the courts.


Sacrificing military surprise to humanitarian policy, Israel dropped warning leaflets on Kfar Kana, a Hizbullah stronghold. Hizbullah illegally emplaced rocket launchers between civilian buildings, there. It often stores weapons in civilian buildings. The terrorists fired more than 150 rockets from the village, and the terrorists hide there after firing the rockets. PM Olmert emphasized that the residents had often been warned to leave. Israel attacked. It did not know that civilians remained behind, or it would have desisted. An explosion killed 57 residents, half of whom were children. Most of the world's press condemned Israel. Israel took responsibility, and then investigated. Israeli commanders noted a half-hour lag between its bombing and the fatal explosion. Israel may not have caused it (Arutz-7, 7/31). Yes, Israel may not have caused the explosion. The Arabs have plenty of explosives around, and are careless with them.

If Israel won't attack when civilians are around, then enemy civilians won't leave, and Israel will lose. It should attack anyway. It did more than its duty in sacrificing military surprise in order to warn civilians to leave. It is the responsibility of adults to take care of their families and of warned civilians to evacuate. What warning do Arabs give Israelis? Once again, the Army takes responsibility and then investigates and begins finding that it was not responsible after all. Too late, as usual. Israel's public relations are further damaged. The IDF should have told the rest of the world that an accusation before investigation is a hostile act, andthe world's unconcern about the Arabs' constant, deliberate attacks on civilians proves hypocrisy.


At a press conference. with the whole world his stage, Foreign Min. Douse-Blazy called Iran a "stabilizing force in the Middle East." No, Iran armed Hizbullah and prodded it to start the current war and to destabilize Lebanon and Israel. Iran is developing nuclear technology illegally and deceitfully. It threatens other countries with a war of aggression using nuclear weapons (Arutz-7, 7/31). Iran keeps the US off balance in Iraq. It now finances Hamas terrorism against Israel. The French tend to call Pres. Bush a wild fool. But Iran is wild and the French leaders are fools. Douse-Blazy's statement is so wrong and wrongful as to be almost insane.


She said that Hizbullah should disarm "voluntarily" (Benny Avni, NY Sun, 8/17, p.1). So should the Nazis and Communists have disarmed voluntarily. People out to conquer the world don't disarm voluntarily. Does she take us for fools? I think she got her way, which was to stop the Israeli juggernaut, and the disarming part is lip service.


After the recent plot by British Muslims to bomb several airliners, terrorist profiling was proposed. It would focus on young Muslim men, who, after all, are the usual culprits. The most senior Muslim British policeman called that discriminatory (when it really is to the point). Muslims also object to suggestions that Britain should do more to prevent Muslim youth's radicalization and to improve Muslim cooperation with police. Islam is imperialist, but the Muslims act as if nothing is their fault or responsibility.

Far from being apologetic, British Muslim leaders try to shift the blame from their radicals to PM Blair, for helping fight terrorism abroad. They pretend that his foreign policy "drives them to terrorism." (It may, but that is no excuse and reveals their policy of collective punishment and what kind of threat they pose to British society.)

The Muslim leaders go on to warn Britain to pull out or face more terrorism. They don't say that they would exhort to terrorism, but their warning is a threat. It is implied blackmail. To sum up, some of their people plot a heinous crime, and upon its discovery, their leaders try to excuse them and intimidate British foreign policymakers over it. The problem with the Muslims is that they do not care about their own casualties, in a nuclear war. They do not see nuclear war as mutually assured destruction. They accuse the West of not caring about Muslim casualties, in war.

However, "It is not the West that retards the spilling of Muslim blood as of little importance, but the Muslims themselves." (Daniel Johnson, NY Sun, 8/17, Op.-Ed..) Yes, when their bombs meant for Jews ikill Muslims, the terrorists simply call those Muslims "martyrs." The world doesn't care about slain Muslim if not slain by Jews.


Just as the P.A. issues false accusations of Israeli atrocities, so, too, Hizbullah falsely claims combat victories against Israel. It claimed to have sunk a second Israeli ship, without evidence. The first ship already is back in service. It claimed to have shot down an Israeli plane, whereas the Israeli plane bombed a rocket launcher. It even claimed to have driven the advancing Israelis out (IMRA, 8/1 from Michael Widlanski).


When Israeli policy was not to accept a ceasefire, Vice PM Peres declared, contrary to policy, that Israel would accept it as soon as Hizbullah adhered to it (IMRA, 8/1). This is the second time Olmert's policy has been contradicted by a Cabinet member. This has happened in other administrations, too. Usually, the appeasement-minded contradiction wins out. I think it is a franker view of actual, long-range policy.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Harry W. Gluckman, August 28, 2006.

I often mention in my posts a little Mexican restaurant that I frequent here in San Diego that goes by the name of Las Quatro Milpas, which serves the best authentic Mexican food in San Diego. I mention it today, because of what has changed when I stand in that long line in the heat down on Logan Avenue waiting for those 5 dear Mexican woman to serve the hundreds of us who show up before I melt in the hot sun.

The line outside of Quatro Milpas is a place to meet new friends, reunite with people you have not seen in weeks or months, but happen to get that same desire for that Chorizo at the same time you did, so that every time you show up again, you can restart your friendship as if it never stopped. Everyone has a story about how long they have been coming to Quatro Milpas or how they discovered it, or how long was the longest line they have stood in waiting to get to their food.

What has changed, is that this week, instead of the jovial mood in the line, I was struck with the thought of what would happen to this place if someone were to walk into the line, and get into the restaurant, around say 1300 hours, at the height of the lunch rush and blow about 100 people to hell in the name of Allah.

As I thought about this, I wondered what it must be like for the people in Israel, who, no matter where they go, have to consider the possibility of terrorism, and that their next steps out into society might be their last. I thought about what it must be like for a little Israeli schoolchild on a bus heading from school when someone gets on the bus in the middle of summer wearing a large overcoat.

I have an anger that will not go away this morning, as I watch the media try to tell me that Israel is the aggressor, that they are wantonly killing civilians, and that they must agree to a cease-fire with people who have sworn to kill them. I wish I could say I cannot imagine how we got to this point in society, where a portion of our society would side with the very monsters that have killed both Israelis and Americans, because of a fear of violence, but the reason is all too clear.

The free world has been too tolerant of the non-free world. We have allowed them to be portrayed as victims, and to assume the moral high ground at the same time that they cut the heads off innocent people and film it for worldwide consumption. Okay, that is the nice way to put it. The honest way to put it is that we have lost our nerve. When a society of radicals can drag a dead American through the streets of their towns, and hang their bodies from a bridge as a collective finger flashed at America, and our response is "patience" we have lost not only our nerves, but our balls as well.

I get a sense from the older veteran friends of mine in this city that our problem is that we have it too good, and do not remember what was done on our behalf to make things this good. Have we forgotten that for every time we can leave our homes, go stand in line at our favorite restaurant, and NOT think about the possibility of someone bombing the place, which someone many years ago gave their very life for that freedom we enjoy? I think the young people in line at Quatro Milpas and wonder how many of them would have volunteered to fly with along side General Doolittle on his way to Tokyo, knowing they had not the gas to get home? Omaha Beach, anyone? I understand that these days, in Marine Corps boot camp, a recruit can call a "time out" if he is feeling too much stress. Is our State Dept. running the Marines now? This, I find disgusting.

But no more disgusting then those who seek a cease-fire in Lebanon this morning after civilians were killed after their building collapsed from the concussion of a bomb dropped near them that was targeting the site of where rockets were launched into Israel resulting in the deaths of 18 Israeli civilians. It is as though these Israeli deaths do not matter at all. Especially when you stop to consider that this conflict began with Hezbollah coming across the Israeli border, ambushing and killing 8 Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two more.

Cease-fire, my ass!

To every person who believes that you can reason with these animals, I must ask you where your mind went. It is the weakness of the free-world's NON-response that has allowed the terrorist threat to grow into a movement that threatens our very existence. When a U.S. soldier can be dragged through the streets of Somalia and our response is to LEAVE, when 280 Marines can be bombed in their sleep and our response is to LEAVE, when after terrorists kill Spanish civilians on a train, and their nation's response is to elect capitulating socialists who order the immediate retreat of their soldiers from Iraq, and so on, and so on, what are the terrorists to think, but that the free world has become a pussy?

The fact that a majority of Americans think this nation needs AN EXCUSE for going after terrorism after 911 scares the hell out of me. It suggests that we as a nation will eventually fail to produce the men and women who every day, stand between freedom and tyranny. Yesterday, San Diego had its Gay Pride Parade. Oh, the joy.. It was billed as the largest 'celebration' in the city's history. THIS city. The very city where sailors came home to after fighting in Midway. The city that trains half of this nations Marines, hosts the USS Ronald Reagan, the USS Nimitz, the former Fightertown USA...our largest celebration is for the GAY...PRIDE..PARADE. Ponder that with me, will you?

We are at war.

I want Israel to continue, even escalate their attacks on Lebanon. I want them to ignore the media, ignore the pundits, and ignore even the weak among them who want to find a peaceful way out of this current conflict. History teaches us that until a bully is beaten, the bully keeps coming. The free world paid for our freedom in blood, and if blood is what it will take to keep it, then lets just have at it now, shall we?

Let Iran and Syria attempt to aid Hezbollah. Let Israel attack them. Let it escalate until we are forced to fight at Israel's side. Then, can we for the last time, just kick some ass until it is over? Every generation must pay this price, as long as there are those who seek to force us to follow a dictatorial ideology. Radical Islam says, "Agree or die." In response, we should stop asking them, if there is a middle ground to be reached. We should be saying, "Fine, but it is YOU that will die."

Israel, I see you fighting not just for your freedoms, but also for the world's. I trust that if you continue, the free world will be forced to side with you, even if it means that a few of us die in the process. The time is now. It is time for THIS generation to prove itself worthy of those that came before us. It is time for us to say NO MORE to the terrorist threat, to find them and kill them.

Do not stop fighting, Israel. Make the free world help you put an end to this madness. In doing so, you might help us find the courage and moral convictions that made us free to begin with, so that one day, little Jewish children, and old lovers of Mexican food in America can go about our daily lives with the freedom that others died to give us.

Contact Harry Gluckman at harry@gluckman.com>

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, August 28, 2006.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525961870&pa gename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) today.

What are we seeing when we watch events from the Middle East on our television screens? Is it news or is it terrorist theater?

Let us observe two media events which occurred on Sunday in Gaza. Sunday afternoon released hostages and Fox News journalists Steven Centanni and Olaf Wiig spoke before the cameras. The fact of their release and their statements were reported by more than 1,000 news organizations throughout the world.

At the press conference, Centanni and Wiig, who were forced by their Palestinian captors to convert to Islam, praised the Palestinians. Centanni said, "I just hope this never scares a single journalist away from coming to Gaza to cover this story because the Palestinian people are a very beautiful, kind-hearted and caring people that the world need[s] to know more about." Wiig similarly praised the Palestinians.

While their remarks were covered extensively, no one seemed to think that the fact that their first post-release statements were made at a Palestinian Authority sponsored media extravaganza in Gaza was significant. No one noted that the men were flanked by Palestinian "security forces," and stood next to Hamas terrorist leader and Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. No mention was made of the fact that the two were initially kidnapped by just such PA "security officials," or that Haniyeh is one of the leaders of one of the most fanatical jihadist organizations in the world, an organization that the majority of the "beautiful, kind-hearted and caring" Palestinians voted into office last January.

That is, no mention was made of the fact that until the two men left Gaza, they remained unfree. No one asked whether they had been given the option of not giving a press conference in Gaza. And now that they have spoken, there can be little doubt that a second press conference by the two men, in Israel or the US where no one will force them to convert to Judaism or Christianity or threaten to kill them, will draw far less media interest. After their press conference, the two men became yesterday's news.

Conveniently, the same day the PA released the men who its own forces had kidnapped, Reuters reported that the IDF had shot a missile at its press vehicle and wounded two cameramen - one from Reuters and one from Iranian World TV network - while they were en route to a battle taking place between IDF forces and Palestinian terrorists. Reuters, which is demanding an independent investigation into the attack, is portraying its cameraman Fadel Shada as an embattled hero who would do anything to bring the truth to the world.

Yet it is unclear why anyone should believe either Shana or Reuters. Shana told Reuters that as he was driving to the battle scene, "I suddenly saw fire and the doors of the jeep flew open." He claims to have been wounded by shrapnel in his hand and leg. These are minor injuries for someone whose vehicle was just hit by a missile.

But then, the photographs taken of his vehicle after the purported missile attack give no indication that the car was hit by anything. There is a gash on the roof. The hood is bent out of shape. But nothing seems to have been burned. Cars hit by missiles do not look like they have just been in a nasty accident. Cars hit by missiles are destroyed. Yet the glass on the windshield and the windows of Shana's vehicle isn't even shattered. In the photographs taken of Shana on the way to the hospital in Gaza, he lies on a stretcher, eyes closed, arm extended in full pieta mode. He is not visibly bleeding although there are some blood stains on his shirt, but then his undershirt is completely white.

I did not see these pictures in the media coverage of the purported IDF attack on the Reuters and Iranian cameramen. I saw them on Powerlineblog Web site. I did not see any questions raised from either the Israeli or the international media on the veracity of Shana's tale, which of course, provides a nice balance to the Centanni-Wiig hostage story.

AS IS the case with the Palestinian war against Israel, one of the most notable aspects of Hizbullah's latest campaign against Israel has been the active collaboration of news organizations and international NGO's in Hizbullah's information war against Israel. Like their rogue state sponsors, subversive sub-national groups like Hizbullah, Fatah and Hamas, see information operations as an integral part of their war for the annihilation of Israel and defeat of the West. And their information operations are more advanced than any the world has seen. As becomes more evident with each passing day, they have successfully corrupted both the world media and the community of NGOs that purportedly operate in a neutral manner in war zones.

It is not a coincidence that I saw the pictures of the Reuters' vehicle on Powerline and not in the media coverage of the purported attack. Both the global media and the international NGO community abjectly refuse to investigate themselves. As democratic governments and their militaries have proven incapable of dealing with the phenomenon (in part because they seek to curry favor with the media and the international NGO community), the blogosphere has taken upon itself the role of media watchdog.

BLOGGERS HAVE become a critical component of the free world's defense in the current war. During the Hizbullah campaign in Lebanon, bloggers scrutinized coverage of the war in a way that has never been done before. Their work has exposed the dirty secret of the Middle East that the media has hidden for so many years: The global media and the international NGO community, which profess to be neutral observers, are in fact colluding with terrorist organizations.

The blogosphere, and particularly Little Green Footballs, Powerline, Zombietime, Michelle Malkin, and EU Referendum, have relentlessly exposed the systematic staging of news events, fabrication of attacks against relief workers, and doctoring of photographic images by Hizbullah with the active assistance of international organizations and the global media.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, with its internationally mandated status as a protected organization, is particularly culpable. The blogoshere - and specifically EU Referendum and Zombietime Web sites - have shown that Red Cross employees in Tyre and Kana fabricated from whole cloth a tale of an Israeli airstrike against Red Cross ambulances a tale of an Israeli airstrike against Red Cross ambulances in Kana on July 23. In an exhaustively documented report, "How the Media Legitimized an Anti-Israel Hoax and Changed the Course of a War," Zombietime showed how Red Cross employees took an old, rusty ambulance and alleged that the IAF had attacked it with a missile that blew a hole straight through the middle of the red cross on the ambulance's roof.

The Red Cross allegation was reported as fact by such "credible" news organizations as Associated Press, Time magazine, the BBC, ITV, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Age, MSNBC, The Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch both published accounts of the attack as evidence of Israeli "war crimes" in Lebanon.

Zombietime clearly proved from simple scrutiny of the photographs taken of the ambulance, that the hole in the cross was not the result of a missile attack but the work of the ambulance manufacturer. It was the hole for an air vent. The pock marks on the roof were the result of age and decay. There had been no fire in the ambulance. There was no attack. It was a complete fabrication, concocted by Red Cross employees who enjoy their protected status because their organization has pledged its neutral status in this and all wars.

ONE WEEK later, as EU Referendum reports in a similarly detailed investigation of the much condemned IAF bombing of Kana on July 30, (which actually happened a mile north of Kana at Khuraybah village), Red Cross relief workers actively participated in the staging of a perverted media extravaganza where the bodies of dead children were paraded about before the waiting camera crews for hours and hours.

Rather than demand that the ICRC account for the clear breach of its binding commitment to neutrality, and rather than attack the Lebanese Red Cross for its active collaboration with Hizbullah, the international media has attacked the bloggers. They are brushed off as "Israel supporters," and "right-wing extremists." The aim of these brush-offs is to convince "right thinking" citizens that they oughtn't have anything to do with these champions of truth and human decency.

As each day passes, the governments, formal and informal legal apparatuses, and media of free societies show themselves to be less and less capable of contending with he information operations conducted against their societies by subversive forces seeking their destruction. As each day passes it becomes clear that the responsibility of protecting our nations and societies from internal disintegration has passed to the hands of individuals, often working alone, who refuse to accept the degradation of their societies and so fight with the innovative tools of liberty to protect our way of life. The vigilance of just a handful of bloggers brought us the knowledge of the corruption of our media and the network of global NGOs that we have come to rely on to tell us the "objective" truth.

It is up to all citizens of the free world, who value our freedom to recognize this corruption, applaud the bloggers and join them in refusing to allow these corrupt institutions to cloud our commitment to freedom.

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah 15, August 28, 2006.

This was written by Dennis Prager and it appeared in Jewish World Review (www.JewishWorldReview.com). Dennis Prager hosts a national daily radio show based in Los Angeles.

If you are ever morally confused about a major world issue, here is a rule that is almost never violated: Whenever you hear that "world opinion" holds a view, assume it is morally wrong.

And here is a related rule if your religious or national or ethnic group ever suffers horrific persecution: "World opinion" will never do a thing for you. Never.

"World opinion" has little or nothing to say about the world's greatest evils and regularly condemns those who fight evil.

The history of "world opinion" regarding the greatest mass murders and cruelties on the planet is one of relentless apathy.

Ask the 1.5 million Armenians massacred by the Ottoman Turks;

or the 6 million Ukrainians slaughtered by Stalin;
or the tens of millions of other Soviet citizens killed by Stalin's Soviet Union;
or the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their helpers throughout Europe;
or the 60 million Chinese butchered by Mao;
or the 2 million Cambodians murdered by Pol Pot;
or the millions killed and enslaved in Sudan;
or the Tutsis murdered in Rwanda's genocide;
or the millions starved to death and enslaved in North Korea;
or the million Tibetans killed by the Chinese;
or the million-plus Afghans put to death by Brezhnev's Soviet Union.

Ask any of these poor souls, or the hundreds of millions of others slaughtered, tortured, raped and enslaved in the last 100 years, if "world opinion" did anything for them.

On the other hand, we learn that "world opinion" is quite exercised over Israel's unintentional killing of a few hundred Lebanese civilians behind whom hides Hezbollah -- a terror group that intentionally sends missiles at Israeli cities and whose announced goals are the annihilation of Israel and the Islamicization of Lebanon. And, of course, "world opinion" was just livid at American: abuses of some Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. In fact, "world opinion" is constantly upset with America and Israel, two of the most decent countries on earth, yet silent about the world's cruelest countries.

Why is this?

Here are four reasons:

First, television news. It is difficult to overstate the damage done to the world by television news. Even when not driven by political bias -- an exceedingly rare occurrence globally -- television news presents a thoroughly distorted picture of the world. Because it is almost entirely dependent upon pictures, TV news is only capable of showing human suffering in, or caused by, free countries. So even if the BBC or CNN were interested in showing the suffering of millions of Sudanese blacks or North Koreans -- and they are not interested in so doing -- they cannot do it because reporters cannot visit Sudan or North Korea and video freely. Likewise, China's decimation and annexation of Tibet, one of the world's oldest ongoing civilizations, never made it to television.

Second, "world opinion" is shaped by the same lack of courage that shapes most individual human beings' behavior. This is another aspect of the problem of the distorted way news is presented. It takes courage to report the evil of evil regimes; it takes no courage to report on the flaws of decent societies. Reporters who went into Afghanistan without the Soviet Union's permission were killed. Reporters would risk their lives to get critical stories out of Tibet, North Korea and other areas where vicious regimes rule. But to report on America's bad deeds in Iraq (not to mention at home) or Israel's is relatively effortless, and you surely won't get killed. Indeed, you may well win a Pulitzer Prize.

Third, "world opinion" bends toward power. To cite the Israel example, "world opinion" far more fears alienating the largest producers of oil and 1 billion Muslims than it fears alienating tiny Israel and the world's 13 million Jews. And not only because of oil and numbers. When you offend Muslims, you risk getting a fatwa, having your editorial offices burned down or receiving death threats. Jews don't burn down their critics' offices, issue fatwas or send death threats, let alone act on such threats.

Fourth, those who don't fight evil condemn those who do. "World opinion" doesn't confront real evils, but it has a particular animus toward those who do -- most notably today America and Israel.

The moment one recognizes "world opinion" for what it is -- a statement of moral cowardice, one is longer enthralled by the term. That "world opinion"at this moment allegedly loathes America and Israel is a badge of honor to be worn proudly by those countries. It is when "world opinion" and its news media start liking you that you should wonder if you've lost your way.

Contact Avodah 15 avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, August 28, 2006.

Nassan Nasrallah suggests if he had anticipated Israel's reaction to Hizbullah's cross border raid, murders, and kidnappings he would not have committed the crimes. Hmmm! No doubt, many Arabs in southern Lebanon are correctly beginning to blame Hizbullah for misery inflicted; indeed for cowardly behavior in starting a war with Israel, then hiding their combative hides and deadly weapons within civilian enclaves, most egregiously behind the skirts of women, and yet to be developed small bodies of young children. Such a strategy does not befit Hizbullah's heroic image, unfortunately still strongly maintained by a naive majority of Lebanese citizens, as well as the vast majority of ego-deflated Middle East Muslims, selectively foraging for any scraps of information they can twist into victory against hated Jews/Israel. Yet, Nasrallah's admission, true or false, must be analyzed carefully. Did something go wrong? Is Hizbullah's direct patron Iran not happy having to now shell out duffle bags of petrocurrency to rearm its fanatical fighting force as well as rebuild much of Lebanon? How much bang did Iran get for its buck? Furthermore, an international force is now forming between Israel and Lebanon, minimizing any chance of near future mischief.

Israeli leaders would be wise to exploit any such favorable ramifications, from Israel's perspective, by mobilizing effective Arabic and Farsi communication networks throughout the Middle East, dissolving Hizbullah and Nasrallah's armor plated veneer, replacing it with a deserved yellow cloth, branded with capital 'C', befitting such craven extremists who surely besmirch the warrior image of their holy prophet Mohammad, behaving like forked-tongue snakes slithering through villages of presumed civilian brethren to shield their own contemptible biological substance from an Israeli military juggernaut. Imagery is everything in this violent chess game, where from Israel's perspective, a self-assured in your face Jewish warrior trumps one that is dispirited, and a cowering Hizbullah pseudo-soldier trumps one exuding an aura of 'God-willing' triumph. Israel's battle against Hizbullah must not be manipulated to rescue Middle Eastern Muslims from self-inflicted humiliation born of an inability to cope with modern secular century twenty-one. A collective Israeli swagger becomes a dagger in the hearts of sworn enemies possessed by psychological baggage bearing the term 'loser'. Indeed, Israel must attain first place in a mind game marathon of immense importance; second place will bring nothing but tsuris to this beleaguered nation.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 28, 2006.


US diplomacy needs people who know Arabic. The best foreign language training for it is in Middlebury, Vermont. The courses, however, insinuate an anti-American, Arab nationalism. That was not Congress' intent when it subsidized attempts to understand the Arabs. Here are examples of the biased indoctrination there?

Maps did not label Israel but showed "Palestine" as one country. Lebanon was shown having a temporary border with Syria -- the School was taking Syria's position that Lebanon is not an independent country but belongs to Syria. "Persian Gulf," the official name designated by the UNO and recognized by the Arabs, is called "Arab Gulf." After the grades were in, an Israeli student complained about the maps. The maps were taken down. The Arabic School Administration didn't just notify students of Muslim and Christian prayer groups, it encouraged them to join them. When asked why the many Jewish students weren't offered a Jewish prayer group, the director said he would allow it, but the students would have to apply through him. In the atmosphere created by the extremist maps, they felt too intimidated to. They formed their own group.

The other schools of foreign language at Middlebury celebrated the Fourth of July, not the Arabic School. "Visiting faculty from the Middle East treated with noticeable coolness older students sporting closely cropped hair, courteous manners, and discipline suggesting membership in the U.S. armed forces. Students eager to curry favor with Arabist professors would contribute their own suspicions, snide remarks, and cynicism. As if beholden to the Arabist atmosphere, most students and faculty avoided contact altogether with those dubbed hukuma (government) or jaysh (army). While it was an Arabic school policy not to allow faculty and students to bunch up in permanent cliques and faculty had an obligation to engage those who remained aloof, these "suspect" students were, like the Jewish students and self-effacing dhimmi faculty, forced to huddle together during mealtimes and breaks."

The School banned alcoholic beverages during school events and student parties. The director claimed the ban was College policy, but the other Schools had no such ban, just as at parties in Lebanon, Tunisia, and Bahrain don't.

The School was imposing a strict Islamic interpretation.

Likewise, Middlebury instructed the Arabic School dining services to conform to the halal dietary restrictions of Islam. This implied all Arabic speakers to be Muslim and all Muslims to be observant. But less than 20 percent of the Arabic school community was Muslim. No such accommodations were made for the Jewish students who kept kosher, even though their numbers exceeded those of the Muslims.

The Wednesday lecture series encouraged disdain for minor ities and constantly condemned the "Orientalists" and non-Arabs. No visiting lecturer portrayed Arabs or Muslims as masters of their own destiny. Not once was the notion entertained that Arabs and Muslims could be oppressors and victimizers as well as victims. Indeed, both the lectures and a weekly Arabic movie series billed as part of the program's curriculum took pains to depict Arabs and Muslims as powerless and abused victims of Western imperialism, Zionist rapacity, modern-day Crusaderism, and a medley of foreign interventions and conspiracies. From the Orientalist bent of an insidious Hollywood, to the wickedness of the U.S. war on terrorism, to the vilification of Middle Eastern minoritiesas imperialist agents and Western moles bent on the destruction of the Arabs and their culture, these lectures and films went to great lengths to malign outsiders and dismiss dissent as product of local quislings.

In one lecture, the Lebanese were derided as denying their Arabness. In another, they were mocked for celebrating their mountains rather than, like other Arabs, their desert scenery. Although "Millions of Assyrians, Berbers, Copts, Chaldaeans, Jews, Kurds, and Maronites both in the Middle East and in the diaspora object to unqualified Arab nationalism," the School director insisted that an instructor delete the phrase, "according to Arab nationalists," before "the Arab world (stretches) from the Gulf to the Ocean." He gave an excuse about it being poor grammar.

Ironically, Arabs have become less nationalist. Nor should a school language program incorporate ideological propaganda. That does not prepare Americans for dealing with the Mideast properly. Neither is it scholarly (Middle East Forum, 7/30). The West has no intent of destroying the Arabs or of doing more than allowing them to make their own decisions. The West hopes they won't decide to ratify the jihadist vow to destroy our culture.


Hizbullah warned that it was getting more effective means of fighting. And it did. It launched an imported rocket that can reach Netanya, well past Haifa (Arutz-7, 7/30). This news further exposes the folly of the retreat from Lebanon that entrenched Hizbullah on the border with Israel and allowed it to build up its forces and import arms from Iran via Syria.


One expects the news columns to be informative, and the Op.-Ed. Columns to be judgmental. In the 8/18 NY Sun, however, facts were put into evidence that I had not encountered in the news columns. Seth Gitell reported that the Pakistani troops, a major part of the international UNO force in Somalia, shirked combat. Italian members thwarted US to capture of the offending warlord. The warlord had an understanding with UN contingents that neither side would attack the other. Some of the Italians apparently flashed their headlights towards the city, when US helicopters took off. If the US had liquidated that warlord, the 18 Yanks might not have been lynched. Later, the US tried to protect ethnic Albanian Muslims in Kosovo, after the Europeans let thousands be slain. French officers in NATO informed Serbia of part of the NATO operations plan. The Europeans objected to Gen. Wesley Clark's desire to use ground troops and Apache helicopters and bomb a troublesome Serb airbase in Montenegro. When he ordered air strikes, France protested. (The US specialized in bombing civilian Serbs.) UNO troops in the Congo are having sex with young girls.

Mr. Gitell wonders what success UNO forces would have in Lebanon, especially since France, Italy, and some Muslim states, all hostile to Israel, would make up those forces? John Batchelor wrote that Saudi King Abdullah tried to bribe Turkey to abandon its treaties with the US and Israel, if the war widens and Iran enters it. He was trying to buy protection from Iran. The Kurds have sold out to Iran, for protection against the Turkish Army, which would pursue them if they persecuted ethnic Turks in the Kurdish area. If the war widens, the Palestinian Arab refugees in Jordan, armed by Syria, probably would join Syria. The Bedouin, who saved the monarchy before, have been bribed or radicalized by S. Arabia. (Since Jordan is part of Palestine, they aren't refugees.) A previously unstated motive for Iranian interference in Iraq is to neutralize the Shiite holy cities there, so as to leave the Iranian Shiite holy city predominant. It seems as if the whole Mideast is about to go up in flames. What is the US trying to do? Let Hizbullah escape and Iran suffer no defeat.


Hizbullah was found to possess Israeli uniforms (IMRA, 7/31). Hizbullah violates the rules of war, but demands the status of prisoners of war.


Iran has trained, armed, and directed Hizbullah fighters and sent hundreds of technicians, trained suicide bombers, and other volunteers and built underground depots for Hizbullah. N. Korea sent technicians, too. When Hizbullah claims to have surprises in store for Israel, believe it (IMRA, 7-30 from MEMRI). We are in a world war, not just fighting terrorist organizations. It isn't right that Iran's military escapes retaliation for its role in the war.


Beneath the civilian buildings that Israel bombed in Lebanon were bunkers and arms depots. The UNO and journalists rarely mention that and that Iran and Syria are behind the Hizbullah war. Europeans and Asians are left with the false impression that Israel is attacking civilians and that the war is a local matter, In the spread of anti-Zionist bias, Human Rights Watch is instrumental. HRW issued seven statements falsely accusing Israel of civil rights violations, and only one against Hizbullah, which commits many.

HRW sometimes has a slight statement against the Arab side, in answer to critics. Journalists usually accept what the biased NGOs claim, without investigating for themselves. When the claims are checked, they are found false or unsupportable. HRW and Amnesty Intl. use millions of dollars for self-promotion rather than research. The EU promotes NGOs that falsely accuse Israel of aggression (IMRA, 7/30 from Gerald Steinberg). If only there were enough integrity in the major media to expose "human rights" NGOs!


The Olmert administration has agreed to suspend Israel Air Force sorties for 48 hours, ostensibly to give investigators more opportunity to check a bombing error. The IAF would forestall actively prepared attacks, but would deny ground troops air support unless they are under attack. In those 48 hours, Hizbullah could rearm and maneuver without worrying about helicopter gunships. The result may be to get Israelis killed. This was agreed to just to please Pres. Bush (IMRA, 7/30) or should we say, Emperor Bush? Governments must learn to put their national security first. That means Israel must say no to the US, and the President must say no to the antisemites in the State Dept.. There are too many casual accusations against Israel and too many investigations of Israeli military maneuvers. Too much second-guessing of Israeli and US military moves. Investigations can be useful, if done in good faith, but they should not be allowed to impede the fight against Islamist aggression.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaron Brook, August 28, 2006.

Irvine, CA--"President Bush's decision to give a quarter of a billion dollars in 'humanitarian aid' to the Lebanese people is a moral obscenity," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

Given that Hezbollah controls much of Lebanon, and given that most of the destruction inflicted by Israel was done to neighborhoods heavily supportive of Hezbollah, any U.S. assistance to the Lebanese will benefit Hezbollah and the population that supports it.

Moreover, the Lebanese people do not deserve any help -- since Israel left Lebanon in 2000, the Lebanese elected Hezbollah to the parliament, gave them two cabinet seats, and permitted the Islamic terror group to arm itself and launch unprovoked attacks on Israel's civilian population.

If the goal of President Bush is to win over the Arab street, he will not succeed. No amount of American aid will buy the hearts and minds of those who hate us and want to see us dead. Aid will, however, earn their contempt--by showing them that they can support anti-American terrorism without reprisal.

It is bad enough that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are still funding Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers. "It is unconscionable that the United States would decide to join them, and help a terror group that has murdered hundreds of Americans in the past," said Dr. Brook.

Yaron Brook is executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute (www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, CA. He is a recognized Middle-East expert who has written and lectured on a variety of Middle-East issues. Dr. Brook served in Israeli Army Intelligence and has discussed the Israeli-Arab conflict and the war on Islamic totalitarianism on hundreds of radio and TV programs, The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 27, 2006.

This was sent by Ed Threlkeld (Ed.Threlkeld@dts.ca.gov). It was written by Yoni Tidi today and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525953897& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull) and Tidi's website

One should ask; how did the UN observers NOT see this bunker being built? It was 40 yards wide and a mile long. That's a lot of dirt and cement trucks moving around.

IDF forces from the Golani Brigade blasted open a Hizbullah bunker overnight Saturday some 400 meters from the security fence near Rosh Hanikra, it was reported on Sunday. The bunker was discovered a mere stone's throw from a UN post.

According to Lt.-Col. Jassem Elian, a senior officer in the Golani Brigade, "Hizbullah dug a 40-meter by two-kilometer pit, in which they built dozens of outposts."

Elian added that the bunker had "shooting positions of poured concrete," and that the combat posts inside were equipped with phone lines, showers, toilets, air ducts, and emergency exits, as well as logistical paraphernalia for Hizbullah.

A Golani officer told the Jerusalem Post that among the force's findings was a Katyusha rocket launcher, most likely used in rocket attacks against northern Israel during the war.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nurit@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by zalmi, August 28, 2006.

Olmert and his motley crew should have been out by now. But he is playing for time, prevaricating on the make-up of the enquiry commission.

Netanyahu and Lieberman of the Right should not make the same mistakes with Kadima as Olmert made with Nasrallah. They must now mobilise all forces, without mercy, to oust Kadima in the Knesset.

Just as Nasrallah kidnapped our young heroes, Kadima kidnapped the security of our state in its blind adherence to the principles of surrender for peace. There is no peace. There will never be peace.

Even if the Palestinian Arabs will it with all their hearts, the Jihadists in Iran and Arabia will never ever permit a peace treaty with Israel. That is implicit in their mission to totally subjugate the Infidels to the will of their God and their prophet. It is also the means of their survival as despotic leaders for as long as the conflict= can be stoked and Israel cast as the external enemy.

A faraway conflict far more important than stable homes and education for Palestinian kids, more important than jobs for Iranian school-leavers, more important than womens' rights in Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Why do our leaders and leader-writers not understand this?

Israel is not Ireland.
The Koran is no Blarney Stone.
It is their law.
Their abiding belief.

Time is a wasting.
The infamous administration of Kadima must be brought down in the Knesset - and as soon as possible. Commissions and tribunals may follow. But, for now, the people's Knesset must rid us of this rotten, incompetent and corrupt leadership.

Let Olmert smoke his Havanas in opposition.

Israel needs strong and brave leadership committed to the secure future of our nation in the fullness of its homeland.

Contact zalmi at www.zalmi.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Happy Harry, August 27, 2006.

This was written by Yair Lapid.

Hundreds of years of fighting, six and a half wars, billions of dollars gone with the wind, tens of thousands of victims, not including the boy who laid down next to me on the rocky beach of lake Karon in 1982 and we both watched his guts spilling out. The helicopter took him and until this day I do not know whether he is dead or survived. All this, and one cannot figure it out.

And its not only what happened but all that did not happen - hospitals that were never built, universities that were never opened, roads that were never paved, the three years that were taken from millions of teenagers for the sake of the army. And despite all the above, we still do not have the beginning of a clue to the mystery of where it all started:

Why do they hate us so much?

I am not talking about the Palestinians this time. Their dispute with us is intimate, focused, and it has a direct effect on their lives. Without getting into the "which side is right" question, it is obvious that they have very personal reasons not to stand our presence here. We all know that eventually this is how it will be solved: in a personal way, between them and us, with blood sweat and tears that will stain the pages of the agreement. Until then, it is a war that could at least be understood, even if no sane person is willing to accept the means that are used to run it by.

It is the others. Those I cannot understand. Why does Hassan Nasralla, along with tens of thousands of his supporters, dedicate his life, his visible talents, his country's destiny, to fight a country he has never even seen, people he has never really met and an army that he has no reason to fight?

Why do children in Iran, who can not even locate Israel on the map (especially because it is so small), burn its flag in the city center and offer to commit suicide for its elimination? Why do Egyptian and Jordanian intellectuals agitate the innocent and helpless against the peace agreements, even though they know that their failure will push their countries 20 years back? Why are the Syrians willing to stay a pathetic and depressed third world country, for the dubious right to finance terror organizations that will eventually threaten their own country's existence?

Why do they hate us so much in Saudi-Arabia? In Iraq? In Sudan? What have we done to them? How are we even relevant to their lives? What do they know about us? Why do they hate us so much in Afghanistan?

They don't have anything to eat there, where do they get the energy to hate?

This question has so many answers and yet it is a mystery. It is true that it is a religious matter but even religious people make their choices. The Koran (along with the Shariaa - the Muslim parallel to the Jewish Halacha) consists of thousands of laws, why is it that we occupy them so much?

There are so many countries who gave them much better reasons to be angry. We did not start the crusades, we did not rule them during the colonial period, we never tried to convert them. The Mongolians, the Seljuk, the Greeks, the Romans, the Crusaders, the Ottomans, the British, they all conquered, ruined and plundered the whole region. We did not even try, so how come we are the enemy?

And if it is identification with their Palestinians brothers then where are the Saudi Arabian tractors building up the territories that were evacuated? What happened to the Indonesian delegation building a school in Gaza strip? Where are the Kuwaiti doctors with their modern surgical equipment? There are so many ways to love your brothers, why do they all prefer to help their brothers with hating?

Is it something that we do? Fifteen hundreds years of anti-Semitism taught us - in the most painful way possible - that there is something about us that irritates the world. So, we did the thing everyone wanted: we got up and left. We have established our own tiny little country, where we can irritate ourselves without interrupting others. We didn't even ask a lot for it. Israel is spread on a smaller territory than 1% of the territory of Saudi-Arabia, with no oil, no minerals, without settling on another existing state's territory. Most of the cities that were bombed this week were not plundered from anyone. Nahariya, Afula, and Karmiel did not even exist until we established them. The other katyusas landed on territories over which no one ever questioned our right with regards to them. In Haifa there were Jews already in the 3rd century BC and Tiberias was the place where the last Sanhedrin sat, so no one can claim we plundered them from anyone.

However, the hatred continues. As if no other destiny is possible. Active hatred, poisoned, unstoppable. Last Saturday the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called again "to act for the vanishing of Israel"` as if we were bacteria. We got used to it so much that we don't even ask why.

Israel does not hope and never did for Iran to vanish. As long as they wanted, we had diplomatic relations with them. We do not have a common border with them or even any bad memories. And still, they are willing to confront the whole western world, to risk a commercial boycott, to hurt their own quality of life, to crush what's left of their economy and all that for the right to passionately hate us.

I am trying to remember and cannot: have we ever done something to them? When? How? Why did he say in his speech that "Israel is the main problem of the Muslim world"? more than a billion people living in the Muslim world, most of them in horrible conditions. They suffer from hunger, poverty, ignorance, bloodshed that spreads from Kashmir to Kurdistan, from dying Darfur to injured Bangladesh. How come we are the main problem? How exactly are we in their way?

I refuse to accept the argument that claims "that is just the way they are". They said it about us so many times that we have learned to accept this __expression. There must be another reason, some dark secret that because of it, the citizens of South Lebanon allow to rouse the quiet border, to kidnap the soldiers of an army that has already retreated from their territory, to turn their country into a wasteland exactly at the time they finally escaped twenty years of disasters.

We got used to telling ourselves worn expressions - "it's the Iranian influence", or "Syria is stirring behind the scenes" - but it is just too easy explanation. Because what about them? What about their thoughts? What about their hopes, loves, ambitions and their dreams? What about their children? When they send their children to die, does it seem enough for them to say that it was all worth while just because they hate us so much?

Contact the poster at happyharry613@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaaqov Ben-Yehudah, August 27, 2006.

This comes from http://orangeprisonersofzion.blogspot.com. It is a letter from Marilyn Cytryn to Hamodia (www.hamodia.com).

Dear Sir,

In your August 27th editorial in Hamodia you cited that there was a definite bias against AIPAC. One does not have to go very far to experience biases which are prevalent in this fair country.

Our grandson, Shimshon Cytryn, has been accused by the media and prosecution of severely injuring an Arab (from the Muwassi group) before the expulsion of Gush Katif. In an interview with the same Arab on Reshet Bet, he denies being hurt by a "settler" but states that his injury was incurred by the butt of a soldier's rifle. This Arab inflicted injuries on several of Shimshon's friends (there are pictures to prove this.)

This same Arab is part of the Muwassi crew that was battling with our soldiers during the recent war in Gaza where the air force was used to protect the ground forces. Despite all this, our grandson still lingers in jail with criminals and druggies while the Arab has never been convicted of any transgression.

Shimshon's appeal for house arrest was due to take place on August 28th. It has been postponed a week as the prosecutor claimed not to be ready. Our concerns should primarily be with the unfairness of our own legal system.

Marilyn Cytryn

Contact Yaaqov Ben-Yehuday and yaaqov.ben.yehudah@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 27, 2006.

Are the British finally waking up? Like Americans, our brothers, the British, may need one of two more whacks to really wake up and take stance and proper measures.

This article is by Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor The Daily Telegraph (UK). It appeared August 25, 2006 in The Daily Telegram

The alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners and last year's terrorist attacks on London have made more people fear Islam as a religion, not merely its extremist elements, a poll for The Daily Telegraph has found.

A growing number of people fear that the country faces "a Muslim problem" and more than half of the respondents to the YouGov survey said that Islam posed a threat to Western liberal democracy. That compares with less than a third after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America five years ago.

The findings were revealed as Ruth Kelly, the Communities Secretary, conceded that the multi-culturalist approach encouraged by the Left for two decades had probably been a mistake and could have contributed to the alienation that many young Muslims said they felt and experienced.

Figures published yesterday by the Office for National Statistics also showed that immigration was now the driving force behind population growth. Last year the number of people living in Britain rose by 375,000 on the previous year to more than 60 million. That was the biggest annual rise since 1962 at the height of the post-war baby boom. Most of the rise was the result of record levels of immigration, which also produced the highest birth rate for 30 years.

The YouGov survey confirms ministers' fears that the country is becoming polarised between Muslims and the rest of the population, which is suspicious of them, and that a belief in "a clash of civilisations" has taken root.

Since a similar poll was conducted after the July 7 bombings in London last year, there has been a significant increase in the number of people worried about some of their Muslim compatriots.

The proportion of those who believe that "a large proportion of British Muslims feel no sense of loyalty to this country and are prepared to condone or even carry out acts of terrorism" has nearly doubled from 10 per cent a year ago to 18 per cent now. The number who believe that "practically all British Muslims are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who deplore terrorist acts as much as any-one else" has fallen from 23 per cent in July last year to 16 per cent. However, there remains strong opposition to the security profiling of airline passengers based on their ethnicity or religion.

A higher proportion than last year now feels that the police and MI5 should focus their counter-terrorism efforts on Muslims and far fewer people are worried that such an approach risks dividing the country or offending law-abiding Muslims.

Most strikingly, there has been a substantial increase over the past five years in the numbers who appear to subscribe to a belief in a clash of civilisations. When YouGov asked in 2001 whether people felt threatened by Islam, as distinct from fundamentalist Islamists, only 32 per cent said they did. That figure has risen to 53 per cent.

Five years ago, a majority of two to one thought that Islam posed no threat, or only a negligible one, to democracy. Now, by a similar ratio, people think it is a serious threat.

The findings illustrate the huge task facing the Government's new "cohesion and integration commission," which was formally launched yesterday, charged with finding out whether the multi-cultural experiment has failed and, if so, why.

Miss Kelly said that "difficult questions" had to be posed and answered by the commission, which was promised by the Government more than 12 months ago in its response to the July 7 atrocities on the London transport system that killed 52 passengers and four Muslim suicide bombers.

"In our attempt to avoid imposing a single British identity and culture, have we ended up with some communities living in isolation from each other with no common bonds between them?" she asked. Miss Kelly said that diversity had been "a huge asset" but she acknowledged that the wave of immigration, the highest in British history, had brought fresh challenges. These included the importation of "global tensions" and the growing alienation of white Britons worried by the pace of social and cultural change.

After years when many on the Left have either shut down the debate on cultural diversity or sought to avoid it, Miss Kelly said: "We must not be censored by political correctness and we cannot tiptoe around the issues."

She said: "Our ideas and policies should not be based on special treatment for minority ethnic faith communities. That would only exacerbate division rather than help build cohesion."

The commission will be chaired by Darra Singh, the head of Ealing council, in west London. He called for "a vigorous and open debate about diversity based on facts, not scaremongering". He said: "The commission is a real opportunity to get to grips with this challenge."

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "To be truly effective, any attempt to reach out to disaffected members of Muslim communities must incorporate honest debate about Government foreign policy and some counter-terrorism measures."

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nurit@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 27, 2006.
This was written by Alan M. Dershowitz and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post August 24, 2006.

When it comes to Israel and its enemies, Human Rights Watch cooks the books about facts, cheats on interviews, and puts out predetermined conclusions that are driven more by their ideology than by evidence. These are serious accusations, and they are demonstrably true.

Consider the following highly publicized "conclusion" reached by Human Rights Watch about the recent war in Lebanon between Hizbullah and Israel:

"Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hizbullah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack."

No cases!

Anyone who watched even a smattering of TV during the war saw with their own eyes direct evidence of rockets being launched from civilian areas. But not Human Rights Watch. How could an organization, which claims to be objective, have been so demonstrably wrong about so central a point in so important a war? Could it have been an honest mistake? I don't think so.

Despite its boast that "Human Rights Watch has interviewed victims and witnesses of attacks in one-on-one settings, conducted on-site inspections and collected information from hospitals, humanitarian groups, and government agencies," it didn't find one instance in which Hizbullah failed to segregate its fighters from civilians. Nor apparently did HRW even ask the Israelis for proof of its claim that Hizbullah rockets were being fired from behind civilians, and that Hizbullah fighters were hiding among civilians. Its investigators interviewed Arab "eyewitnesses" and monitored "information from public sources including the Israeli government statements." Human Rights Watch ignored credible news sources, such as The New York Times and The New Yorker.

"Hizbullah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets," said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. "They are shooting from between our houses."

Mr. Amar said Hizbullah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back.
- Sabrina Tavernise, "Christians Fleeing Lebanon Denounce Hizbullah," The New York Times, July 28, 2006.

Near the hospital, a mosque lay in ruins.

A man approached and told me that he was a teacher at the Hariri school. I asked him why he thought the Israelis had hit a mosque, and he said, simply, "It was a Hizbullah mosque."

A younger man came up to me and, when we were out of earshot of others, said that Hizbullah had kept bombs in the basement of the mosque, but that two days earlier a truck had taken the cache away.
- Jon Lee Anderson, "The Battle for Lebanon," The New Yorker, August 8, 2006.

Even if the location of UN posts were known to Israeli commanders, that doesn't rule out the possibility that Hizbullah fighters used one as a shield from which to unleash fire. They've done so in the past, says Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie (ret'd.), who witnessed the technique while on peacekeeping assignments in the area. " It's the same as if you set up you=r weapons systems beside a mosque or a church or a hospital."
- Carlie Gillis, "Diplomacy Under Fire," MacLean's, August 7, 2006.

The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell.

"Look what they did to this place," Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. "Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?"

The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.

Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel.
- Sonia Verma, "Hizbullah's Deadly Hold on Heartland," National Post, August 5, 2006.

[Samira] Abbas said, she heard from relatives that her house in Bint Jbeil had been destroyed. She said Hizbullah fighters had gathered in citrus groves about 500 yards from her home.
- Mohamad Bazzi, "Mideast Crisis - Farewell to a Soldier; Reporting from Lebanon; Running Out of Places to Run," Newsday, July 28, 2006

"What that means is, in plain English, 'We've got Hizbullah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defense Forces)," said [Lewis] MacKenzie, who led Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia.
- Steven Edwards, "UN contradicts itself over Israeli attack," CanWest News Service, July 27, 2006.

It was also reported that Hizbullah fired from the vicinity of five UN positions at Alma Ash Shab, At Tiri, Bayt Yahoun, Brashit, and Tibnin.
- United Nations interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Naqoura, July 28, 2006 (Press Release).

While these pictures have escaped the ravaged country, other images and footage taken by local newspaper and television teams are routinely seized by armed Hizbullah fighters at road blocks.

In one image a group of fighters, including youths, are preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun just metres from an apartment block with laundry sheets drying on a balcony.

Others show a Hizbullah fighter armed with a nickel-plated AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes.

Another depicts the remnants of a Hizbullah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block, blown up in an Israeli air attack.

The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut told yesterday how he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated.

"Hizbullah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets," he said.

"Until the Hizbullah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was devastated.

"After the attacks they didn't even allow the ambulances or the Lebanese Army to come in until they had cleaned the area, removing their rockets andhiding other evidence."

The fighters used trucks, driven into residential areas, as launch pads for the rockets, he said.

Another image shows a line of decimated trucks sitting behind a 5m crater. The tourist who smuggled the images back to Melbourne said the trucks had been carrying rockets.

The release of the images comes as Hizbullah fighters face increasing censure for using innocent civilians as "human shields."
- Chris Tinkler, "Revealed: How Hizbullah puts the innocent at risk; They don't care," Sunday Mail (Australia), July 30, 2006.

HOW COULD Human Rights Watch have ignored--or more likely suppressed--this evidence from so many different sources? The only reasonable explanation is that they wanted there to be no evidence of Hizbullah's tactic of hiding behind civilians. So they cooked the books to make it come out that way.

Even after the fighting ended and all the reports of Hizbullah hiding among civilians were published, HRW chief Kenneth Roth essentially repeated the demonstrably false conclusions that "in none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack." So committed is Human Rights Watch to its predetermined conclusions that it refused to let the facts, as reported by objective sources, get in its way.

Many former supporters of Human Rights Watch have become alienated from the organization, because of, in the words of one early supporter, "their obsessive focus on Israel."

Within the last month, virtually every component of the organized Jewish community, from secular to religious, liberal to conservative, has condemned Human Rights Watch for its bias . Roth and his organization's willful blindness when it comes to Israel and its enemies have completely undermined the credibility of a once important human rights organization. Human Rights Watch no longer deserves the support of real human rights advocates. Nor should its so-called reporting be credited by objective news organizations.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nurit@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, August 26, 2006.
This was written by Sarah Honig and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post.

On Friday night, July 14, the conflict in Israel's north was already a few days old. Some folks in battered Nahariya decided to leave town. Among them were the Pesachovs, who sought safety at Grandma Yehudit Itzkowitz's home in Moshav Meron.

That evening they gathered there for a family meal to welcome the Sabbath. But a Katyusha rocket slammed into the farmhouse and killed seven-year-old Omer and his grandmother. Other members of the family were wounded - some badly.
None of this merited so much as a footnote in the world's media.

It's hard to deny that the victims were civilians unless by international standards very young Jews - who might grow to become bigger Jews - cannot be judged as wholly innocent. Likewise, elderly Jews were once of fighting age and hence cannot be regarded as entirely guiltless either. Perhaps that's why grandmother Yehudit and little Omer failed to tug otherwise compassionate heartstrings.

Then there was the element of refugee status. The Pesachovs had escaped the rocketing of their home to the apparent safety of the grandmother's farm community. The compassion generally showered upon those displaced by indiscriminate aggression should have applied to them as well.

But perhaps, in the world's deepest atavistic perception, Jews are wandering Jews. The rootless cannot be uprooted. Jews can be moved around without evoking the same outrage as the removal under similar circumstances of similar populations. So Omer's search for safety at Grandma's house failed to tug otherwise compassionate heartstrings.

Perhaps no one bothered to bewail Omer's and his grandmother's fates because they remained nameless. No one showed pictures of them, of the wrecked house, abandoned Sabbath table, wounded siblings or weeping survivors. The videos were available from Israeli TV. But perhaps otherwise enterprising foreign reporters didn't bother, since they astutely suspected that such visuals would fail to jerk their bosses' otherwise compassionate heartstrings.

LITTLE OMER and his grandmother were counted without specification among the "Israeli dead" - without age, identity or anything to set them apart from other anonymous Jewish victims of Arab terror. So even if they might have conceivably wrenched compassionate heartstrings somewhere, nothing was even remotely allowed to vibrate those compassionate chords.

Perhaps rescuers should have been filmed removing Omer's mangled corpse from the rubble, accompanied by macabre close-ups of the lifeless grandmother lifted onto a stretcher. Grotesque twisted remains and oozing wounds inevitably boost ratings.

But alas, squeamish Jews undermine their PR with their inexpedient "respect-for-the-dead" scruples. Their excessive circumspection and uncommon morality abet the impression that Jews don't bleed. Is this why the Sabbath-eve murder of grandmother and grandson failed to tug at otherwise compassionate heartstrings?

It could presumably also have been argued that these ordinary Israelis had it coming to them or that their state is culpable for their misfortune because it had already begun returning some of the fire directed at Omer's home in Nahariya. What compassionate hearts call "the spiral of violence" had been uncoiled. Who serially triggers hostilities doesn't matter to the compassionate ones.

So because Israel's army set out to defend families like the Pesachovs, there was nothing terribly outrageous in deliberately targeting them. That was possibly why the carnage in Meron didn't tug otherwise compassionate heartstrings.

Or it may be just a numbers game. The dead in Meron weren't sufficiently numerous to yank those otherwise compassionate heartstrings. The IDF by then already warned residents of Beirut's Hizbullah suburbs to get out lest they be hurt. In its subsequent pounding of Hizbullah's nerve center, Israel inflicted more damage than incurred at Meron. That was unforgivably "disproportionate." The Israel Air Force should have sought out one set of Lebanese grandparents, at a placid farming community, one which never hosted armed terrorist militia and didn't tolerate Katyusha launchers in the barnyard. The IAF should have made sure the grandparents had refugee offspring with them - exactly the same number as sheltered in the Itzkowitz household - and it should have lobbed a payload not exceeding that of a Katyusha at them as they sat for a family meal, preferably one with religious significance.

IAF pilots should have made sure that only one grandmother and one seven-year-old grandson would be slain. That would have been proportionate and would have then justified mention of Omer and Yehudit because they'd no longer be dismissible as statistics on the less-weighty side of the equation. That might have entitled them to equal time and side of the equation. That might have entitled them to equal time and equal tugging of those otherwise compassionate heartstrings.

Alternatively, Israel could have evened the score by forcibly preventing families like the Pesachovs from seeking safety - just as Hizbullah had done for its population. Israel could have considerately made sure that more Jews would die and thereby produce a more favorable casualty ratio to satisfy overseas sensibilities.

Lack of proportionality may indeed be pivotal in explaining lack of sympathy for Omer. Too few dead Jewish children can't pull those otherwise compassionate heartstrings.

But would lots more dead Jewish kids have finally tweaked compassionate heartstrings? They didn't in the past - not at Ma'alot, Avivim, the Dolphinarium, Sbarro, Maxim's, the Hatuel family car and in all-too-many buses and shopping malls. Pretexts are always conjured to blame the victims' anyway much-vilified country.

Hitting one Shi'ite family would have constituted verboten state premeditation. So would anything else Israel could have done - short of capitulating to extortion as per the disproportionate terrorist rate.

Even had we exhibited Omer's bashed body, it too would have failed to tug those heartstrings because maybe Jews aren't photogenic enough. Let's face it - otherwise compassionate heartstrings simply don't respond to Jewish stimuli.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Lori Lowenthal Marcus, August 26, 2006.

DURING THE RECENT month-long war between Hezbollah and Israel, U.N. "peacekeeping" forces made a startling contribution: They openly published dail real-time intelligence, of obvious usefulness to Hezbollah, on the location, equipment, and force structure of Israeli troops in Lebanon.

UNIFIL--the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, a nearly 2,000-man blue-helmet contingent that has been present on the Lebanon-Israel border since 1978--is officially neutral. Yet, throughout the recent war, it posted on its website for all to see precise information about the movements of Israeli Defense Forces soldiers and the nature of their weaponry and materiel, even specifying the placement of IDF safety structures within hours of their construction. New information was sometimes only 30 minutes old when it was posted, and never more than 24 hours old.

Meanwhile, UNIFIL posted not a single item of specific intelligence regarding Hezbollah forces. Statements on the order of Hezbollah "fired rockets in large numbers from various locations" and Hezbollah's rockets "were fired in significantly larger numbers from various locations" are as precise as its cover of the other side ever got.

This war was fought on cable television and the Internet, and a lot of official information was available in real time. But the specific military intelligence UNIFIL posted could not be had from any non-U.N. source. The Israeli press--always eager to push the envelope--did not publish the details of troop movements and logistics. Neither the European press nor the rest of the world media, though hardly bastions of concern for the safety of Israeli troops, provided the IDF intelligence details that UNIFIL did. A search of Israeli government websites failed to turn up the details published to the world each day by the U.N.

Inquiries made of various Israeli military and government representatives and analysts yielded near unanimous agreement that at least some of UNIFIL's postings, in the words of one retired senior military analyst, "could have exposed Israeli soldiers to grave danger." These analysts, including a current high ranking military official, noted that the same intelligence would not have been provided by the U.N. about Israel's enemies.

Sure enough, a review of every single UNIFIL web posting during the war shows that, while UNIFIL was daily revealing the towns where Israeli soldiers were located, the positions from which they were firing, and when and how they had entered Lebanese territory, it never described Hezbollah movements or locations with any specificity whatsoever.

Compare the vague "various locations" language with this UNIFIL posting from July 25:

Yesterday and during last night, the IDF moved significant reinforcements, including a number of tanks, armored personnel carriers, bulldozers and infantry, to the area of Marun Al Ras inside Lebanese territory. The IDF advanced from that area north toward Bint Jubayl, and south towards Yarun.

Or with the posting on July 24, in which UNIFIL revealed that the IDF stationed between Marun Al Ras and Bint Jubayl were "significantly reinforced during the night and this morning with a number of tanks and armored personnel carriers."

This partiality is inconsistent not only with UNIFIL's mission but also with its own stated policies. In a telling incident just a few years back, UNIFIL vigorously insisted on its "neutrality"--at Israel's expense.

On October 7, 2000, three IDF soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah just yards from a UNIFIL shelter and dragged across the border into Lebanon, where they disappeared. The U.N. was thought to have videotaped the incident or its immediate aftermath. Rather than help Israel rescue its kidnapped soldiers by providing this evidence, however, the U.N. obstructed the Israeli investigation.

For months the Israeli government pleaded with the U.N. to turn over any videotape that might shed light on the location and condition of its missing men. And for nine months the U.N. stonewalled, insisting first that no such tape existed, then that just one tape existed, and eventually conceding that there were two more tapes. During those nine months, clips from the videotapes were shown on Syrian and Lebanese television.

Explaining their eventual about-face, U.N. officials said the decision had been made by the on-site commanders that it was not their responsibility to provide the material to Israel; indeed, that to do so would violate the peacekeeping mandate, which required "full impartiality and objectivity." The U report on the incident was adamant that its force had "to ensure that military and other sensitive information remains in their domain and is not passed to parties to a conflict."

Stymied in its efforts to recover the men while they were still alive, Israel ultimately agreed to an exchange in January 2004: It released 429 Arab prisoners and detainees, among them convicted terrorists, and the bodies of 60 Lebanese decedents and members of Hezbollah, in exchange for the bodies of the three soldiers. Blame for the deaths of those three Israelis can be laid, at least in part, at the feet of the U.N., which went to the wall defending its inviolable pledge never to share military intelligence about one party with another.

UNIFIL has just done what it then vowed it could never do. Once again, it has acted to shield one side in the conflict and to harm the other. Why is this permitted? For that matter, how did the U.N. obtain such detailed and timely military intelligence in the first place, before broadcasting it for Israel's enemies to see?

Lori Lowenthal Marcus is a lawyer and President of the Zionist Organization of America, Greater Philadelphia District.

This article appeared in The Weekly Standard, Volume 011. Issue 47. September 4, 2006.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Nathan, August 26, 2006.

What it means to be a Jew
-- by an Israeli woman.

I am not the least afraid to go any place,
By bus or to a mall.

I didn't change or stop doing anything I used to do before this mess began!

People tend to forget that twice the casualties From terror
get killed on the roads!

More people still die from heart attack, cancer, And other things,
They just don't show them on TV.

Don't misunderstand me,
There IS a war going on,
It's not pleasant,
But, lets face it:


It's only TV and the media
that make people think
That the end of the world is coming.

Only 60 years ago,
they were leading Jews to their death
Like sheep to the slaughter!

No Country,
No Army.
55 years ago!!
Seven Arab countries declared war
On the little Jewish State, Only a few hours old!!

We were then 650,000 Jews!
Against the rest of the Arab world!
No IDF [Israel Defense Force].
No mighty Air Force, Just tough people With nowhere to go.

Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, attacked all at once.

The country the UN "gave us"
Was 65% desert.

The country started from scratch!
35 years ago!!
We fought The three strongest armies
in the Middle East,
And wiped them out in six days.

We fought against
Different coalitions of Arab countries,
With modern armies,
And masses of Soviet Russian weapons,
And we still won!!!

We have today
A country,
An army,
A strong Air Force,
A Hi-Tech Economy,
exporting millions.

Intel - Microsoft - IBM develop their stuff here.

Our doctors win world prizes For medical developments.

We made the desert flourish, Selling oranges and vegetables to the world.

Israel has sent its own satellite into Space!!
Three satellites all together!!.

We sit proudly,
With the US, with 250 million people,
With Russia, with 200 million people,
With China, with 1.1 billion people,
With the Europeans -- France, England, Germany,
with 350 million people,

The only countries in the world
To shoot something into space!!
Israel is today In the world nuclear power family
With the US, Russia, China, India, France, and England.
[We don't admit it, but every one knows...]

To think that only 60 years ago,
We were led, Shameful,
With no hope, To our death!!

We crawled out of the burning ashes of Europe,
We won our wars here with less than nothing in our hands,
We built an "empire" out of nothing.

Who the hell was Mr. Arafat To make me Scared?
To make me be Terrified?

You make me laugh!

Passover was celebrated;
Let's not forget what the story is all about.
We overcame Pharaoh,
We overcame the Greeks,
We overcame the Romans,
We overcame the Inquisition in Spain,
We overcame the Pogroms in Russia,
We overcame Hitler,
We overcame the Germans,
We overcame the Holocaust,
We overcame the armies of the seven Arab countries,
We overcame Saddam.

Take it easy, folks, We will overcome The present enemies too.

No matter Which part of human history you try!

Think of it, For us, The Jewish people, Our situation has never been better!!!

So, Let's Lift our Heads High,
Let's Remember:

Any nation or culture That tried to mess around with us Was destroyed -
while we kept going!!!

Anyone know where their empire disappeared to?

The Greeks?
Alexander of Macedonia?

The Romans?
Does anyone today speak Latin?

The Third Reich?
Anyone heard any news about it lately?

And look at us,
The Nation from the Bible,
From Slavery in Egypt,
We are still here, Speaking the same language!!
Right here, right now.
The Arabs don't know it yet,
But, they will learn that there is one God.

As long as we keep our identity,
We are eternal.

So, sorry for not worrying,

Not bitching, Not crying, Not being scared.

Things are O.K. here.

They surely can be better,

But still:

Don't fall for the media junk,
They won't tell you That there are Festivals going on,
That people keep on living,
That people are going out,
That people are seeing friends.

Yes, our morale is low, So what?

It's only because we weep for our dead While they enjoy the blood.

This is the same reason why, We will win, after all.

You can forward this e-mail If you choose. To the whole Jewish community, And to people throughout the world.

They are part of our strength. It might help some of them To keep their heads up high.

Tell them That there is nothing to worry about.

Tell them to think BIG, and To see the whole picture.

"See You Next Year in Jerusalem."

Contact the author at davenathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, August 26, 2006.

As this is being written, in late August 2006, news wires around the world are running a story that Machmud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority, has launched a new peace initiative with Israel.

However, the new school books that this same Machmud Abbas has now introduced in the Palestinian Authority school system - run independently of Hamas - represent a curriculum that prepares a new generation of Palestinians to destroy Israel. Following fervent support given to Hizbullah's total war on Israel by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority this summer, this raises the question as to whether the new school year in the Palestinian Authority, opening next week, will simply ad fuel to the fire of the Palestinian Authority's war against Israel, instead of a new peace initiative with the Jewish State.

Since these PA school books have also been incorporated in the Arab schools in Jerusalem, which raises cause for further concern, while a movement is afoot in the Israeli Arab schools in the rest of Israel to adopt the PA curriculum in their schools.

Indeed, the latest study of PA textbooks, (ww.intelligence.org.il/eng/default.htm), commisioned by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Herzelia, www.intelligence.org.il, an agency that had been consistently supportive of the Oslo Peace Process, speaks for itself.

Here are some pearls of wisdom that Palestinian children will learn from the new school books of the Palestinian Authority this year: 1. Israel does not appear on any maps of the world in the new PA texbooks, while maps of Israel replace the name Israel with Palestine in all of the new Palestinian Authority school books. (p. 4) Tarikh al-Hadarat al-Qadima (History of Ancient Civilizations), 5th grade textbook, p. 53. Al-Iqstisad al-Manzili (Home Economy), 10th grade textbook, p. 42, Tarikh al-'Alam al-Hadith wal-Mu'asir (History of the New Modern World) 10th grade textbook, p. 86. 2. The new Palestinian School Books "annex" sites in Israel to Palestine: "Haifa is a Palestinian seaport", (p. 7) (Lughatuna al-Jamila (Our Beautiful Language) Vol. 2, 5th grade textbook, p. 86). "Galilee, Nazareth and Beit She'an are regions in Palestine" (p. 7) (Al-Iqtisad al-Manzili (Home Economy), 10th grade textbook, pp. 36-37).

3. The new Palestinian school books mention Israel only as an enemy, in reference to "occupation of lands" in 1948 and 1967. Ex: "there is no doubt that the Israeli occupation has a negative impact on [Palestinian] agriculture and its export" (p. 8) (Lughatuna al-Jamila (Our Beautiful Language) Vol. 1, 10th grade textbook, p. 102).

4. The new Palestinian school books present Zionism only as an enemy movement.

a. "the Palestinian people are under an oppressive siege, limiting their movement and way of life" ( p. 9) (Al-Tarbiyah al-Islamiyyah (Islamic Education), Vol. 1, 5th grade textbook, p. 49).

b. Accusation against settlements [from 1948!] of damaging water sources "the influence of settlement on sources of water in Palestine" (p. 9) (Ulum al-Sihha wal-B'ia (Health and Environmental Sciences), 10th grade textbook, p. 122)

c. "the Palestinian family has problems...stemming from the occupation...it loses father, mother or son to death or imprisonment...endures the difficulties of life... (p. 11) (Al-Tarbiyah al-Wataniyya (National Education), 5th grade textbook, p. 23)

5. The new Palestinian School Books make the false claim that an "extremist Zionist" set fire to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in 1969 (p. 12) (Tarikh al'Alam al-Hadith wal-Mu'asir (History of the new Modern World), 10th grade textbook, p. 106) when it was really a mentally unstable fundamentalist Christian Australian

6. The new Palestinian School Books teach that the 1st Zionist Congress at Basel fostered the Zionist State based on a secret decision of what came came to be known as the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". (p. 13) (Tarikh al-'Alam al-Hadith wal Mu-'asir (History of the News Modern World), 10th grade textbook, pp. 60-64).

7. The new Palestinian School books teach that the only ancient inhabitants of Israel were Arabs, ignoring any ancient Jewish presence. "Concentrated...in the land of Al-Sham {Greater Syria}...was the culture of the Canaanite and Aramaic peoples who migrated there from the Arab peninsula" (p.14-15) (Tarikh al- Hadarat al-Qadima (History of Ancient Civilizations), 5th grade textbook, Foreward).

8. The new Palestinian school books teach that Palestinians must use war and violence to accomplish their goals, especially martyrdom. (p.18) The heroic mother, "who incessantly presents one sacrifice [fida'] after another" (Lughatuna al-Jamila (Our Beautiful Language), Vol 2, 5th grade textbook, p. 31). The warrior goes to war faced with one of the good options: victory or martyrdom in battle for the sake of Allah. (Ibid. Vol. 1, 5th grade textbook, p. 70). (p.19) "Allah designated the people of this land (Al-Sham and Palestine) to an important task: they must stand on the forefront of the Muslim campaign against their enemies, and only if they fulfill their duy to their religion, nation, and land will they be rewarded as stated in the scriptures." (Al-Tarbiya al-Islamiyyah (Islamic Education), Vol 2, 10th grade textbook, p. 50). 9. The new Palestinian school books feature children with names such as Jihad (holy war) and Nidal (struggle). (p.22) (Tarikh al-Hadarat al-Qadima (History of Ancient Civilizations), 5th grade textbook, p.6). 10. The new Palestinian school books stress the importance of "return" of refugees to all of Palestine - by violence. (p. 22) "The wrong must be made right by returning them to their homes: we returned to the homeland after a long absence". (Lughatuna al-Jamila (Our Beautiful Language), Vol 2, 5th grade textbook, p. 43). "Returning to the homes, the plains and the mountains, under the banners of glory, jihad [holy war] and struggle" (Lughatuna al-Jamila (Our Beautiful anguage), Vol 1, 5th grade textbook, p.88).

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il or go to www.ibtn.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 26, 2006.
As background -- this comes from yesterday's Jerusalem Post.
The State Department's Office of Defense Trade Controls launched an investigation into Israel's use of three types of American weapons, anti-personnel munitions that spray bomblets over a wide area, The New York Times reported.

The newspaper quoted several current and former US officials as saying they doubted the probe would lead to sanctions against Israel, but that it might be an effort by the Bush administration to ease Arab criticism of its military support for Israel.

The US has also "postponed" a shipment of M-26 artillery rockets, another cluster weapon, to Israel, the paper said.

United Nations demining experts refused to comment on the reported US investigation into whether Israel's use of such weapons might violate American rules, but suggested it violated some aspects of international law.

"It's not illegal to use against soldiers or your enemy, but according to Geneva Conventions it's illegal to use them (cluster bombs) in civilian areas, " said Dalya Farran, spokeswoman for the UN Mine Action Coordination Center, which has an office in the southern port city of Tyre. "But it's not up to us to decide if it's illegal -- I'm just giving facts and letting others do analysis."

The Los Angeles Times interpreted it as you'd expect. I wrote this letter to the LA Times.

Dear LATimes editor:

Trying to accuse Israel of illegal use of cluster type bombs is egregious. One cannot be bias as to the parameters of the use of such bombs.

Where is the outcry and condemnations about Hezbollah's many, way too many to count, war crimes and illegal actions? It is fast becoming clear that Hezbollah is the victim and Israel is the war criminal. The world has lost all its moral values and moral compass!

Starting a war just because I wanted to and got the urge to do so is illegal, inexcusable and unacceptable;

Crossing borders, killing eight and kidnapping two soldiers from sovereign nation's land are illegal;

Not allowing the International Red Cross to visit and report on the condition of the kidnapped soldiers is illegal, inexcusable and unacceptable;

Shooting 4,000 missiles loaded with thousands of lethal ball bearings on sovereign country's civilians and civilian residence is inexcusable and unacceptable;

Damaging the entire northern Israel, just because I wanted to start a war is illegal, inexcusable and unacceptable; Using [Lebanese] people as human shields in warfare acts is inexcusable and unacceptable war crimes;

Using fabricated propaganda is most insightful, inexcusable and unacceptable; such propaganda only taints and misleads the mind of the, not so elite, masses;

Allowing Iran and its proxy Hezbollah to call to wipe out the population living in Israel and nobody in the international community reacts, except with polite words is illegal, inexcusable and unacceptable and a crime against humanity.

So how legal it is for a responsible newspaper not to point all the above motioned out?

Why there is always such a rush, whether justified or not, to accuse Israel and Jews of whatever possible? What is it with the world? Where have the moral compass gone?

What makes Amnesty International a bit credible when this organization's record is stained and marked with lies, deceit and immoral victimization of the victims?

If I can have an explanation to the above points then there is room to discuss whether Israel was justified to drop cluster type bombs on Hezbollah positions or not.

As far as I am concerned Israel was way to gentle in its attempt to bring Hezbollah to its final demise. Other countries, including the USA, would have acted by far more vigorously and would have used by far more lethal, than cluster type, bombs and NO ONE would have said a word or started an investigation.

The world is fast sinking into no moral compass abyss.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, August 26, 2006.

This article was wrtten by Caroline Glick and appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525943815 &pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull).

Today two groups of protesters are gathered outside the Prime Minister's Office. The Movement for Quality Government is demanding the establishment of an official commission of inquiry, headed by a Supreme Court justice to investigate the handling of the war in Lebanon. Down the road, IDF reservists are demanding that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz resign.

The critical question arising from the separate protests is whether or not the country's current political and military leadership are capable of drawing the proper lessons from the war. If Israel's national and military leaders are incapable of drawing the appropriate lessons, then there is an urgent need to embrace the reservists' demand that both the political and military leaders of the country resign.

Currently, the Israeli public is referring to the latest war as the Second Lebanon War. Yet this is untrue. The latest war was fought on two fronts - Lebanon and Gaza. It was precipitated by Palestinian aggression against Israel from Gaza. By referring to the war as the Lebanon War, the regional nature of the war is ignored. The name does more to confuse than to clarify what just befell us.

In many respects, the ability of the Olmert government and the IDF to learn from their experience can be assessed by how they are reacting to events in the Palestinian Authority as they have unfolded against the backdrop of Hizbullah's perceived victory in Lebanon. Specifically, their refusal to acknowledge the role Fatah and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas are playing in the current situation is a cause for alarm. This refusal manifests itself in Israel's reaction to both the abduction of Fox News journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig a week and a half ago in Gaza and the continued captivity of IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit.

Centanni and Wiig were kidnapped by PA security forces associated with Fatah. When their demand that Abbas pay them money in exchange for Centanni and Wiig was refused, the kidnappers sold their hostages to a Fatah terror cell that currently holds them. That is, Abbas's security forces and his Fatah movement rather than Hamas are responsible for the two men's fate.

Moreover, knowledgeable Palestinian sources state with certainty that Shalit has been held since his abduction in June in Khan Yunis by Fatah and Hamas terrorists. Khan Yunis is controlled by forces loyal to Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan.

If Abbas were interested in seeing Shalit released, his forces would be able to free Shalit at any time. But Abbas is not interested in releasing Shalit. Rather, he is demanding that the Hamas government order Shalit be transferred to his control to enable him to negotiate his exchange for hundreds of terrorists imprisoned in Israel. Abbas's dispute with Hamas is over who will get the credit for springing Palestinian terrorists from prison. Hamas is unwilling to give up the glory, and so is Abbas. So Shalit remains in captivity.

Abbas's handling of both hostage situations leads to one conclusion: He is part of the problem. If the government wanted to bring about Shalit's release, it would be placing all the responsibility for his capture and captivity on Abbas. It would have isolated Abbas in the infamous Mukata in Ramallah, just as it isolated Yasser Arafat there during Operation Defensive Shield in 2002. But the government is doing none of these things.

The government is not acting against Abbas and Fatah because it is ideologically unable to define Abbas or Fatah or the Palestinian Authority as Israel's enemy. Olmert and his colleagues require the fiction of Abbas as a moderate leader and the fiction of Fatah as a moderate counterweight to Hamas to justify their planned policy of retreating from Judea and Samaria and their current policy of continuing construction of the security fence and removing scattered outpost communities. Both these policies involve Israeli relinquishment of control over the territorial expanse of Judea and Samaria.

THE STRATEGIC logic that stands at the core of the government's policies is that territory is a liability, that static defenses like the security fence, augmented by the air force and commando units, will be able to defend Israel's cities and towns from attack.

Unfortunately, the IDF shares this strategic logic. This fact was made clear Monday by Division Commander Brig.-Gen. Guy Tzur in remarks before reserve officers about the results of the war in Lebanon. According to officers who participated in the closed meeting, Tzur told them that Israel was better off for not achieving its strategic objective of dismantling Hizbullah in Lebanon.

We won the war in 1967 and since then we have been paying the price of that victory, he said. We won the war in 1982 and for 18 years we were forced to remain in the Lebanese quagmire, he continued. That is - according to Tzur, who claimed that he was repeating a statement made by OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Yair Naveh - it is not in Israel's interest to conquer and control territory used by its enemies to attack it. Victory, which requires us to hold territory, is by this reasoning, not in Israel's interest.

This was the strategic logic that directed both the government and the IDF in the war in Lebanon. This was the logic that brought the General Staff, Olmert and Peretz to believe that it was possible to win the war with air power and special forces alone. This was the logic that informed the IDF's decision to concentrate the belated ground offensive in the condensed territory of the villages along the northern border and not order the forces to take over the territorial expanses around the villages, which controlled the villages, while quickly advancing to the Litani River. This was the logic that caused the IDF to fight against Hizbullah as if it were fighting terror cells in Jenin.

The IDF reservists who have set up camp across from the Prime Minister's Office and demand the resignation of Israel's top political and military leaders are united in their deep sense of frustration. They share the view that their fighting methods in Lebanon were unsuited to the enemy they faced in battle. They are correct.

The IDF's campaign did not permanently diminish Hizbullah's abilities as a fighting force. It did not stop the missile attacks on northern Israel. It did not bring IDF hostages Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev home. The campaign failed to achieve its stated objectives because it lacked a guiding strategy regarding the control of territory. Olmert, Peretz and Halutz based the war effort on a view that Israel must not control territory. And so they adopted the notion that it would be possible to destroy Hizbullah from the air. When that concept was proven false, it was replaced with the idea that special forces augmented by small numbers of regular combat forces could clean out the villages along the border and so deal a heavy blow to Hizbullah. When that concept roved false in Maroun Aras and Bint Jbail, it was replaced first by paralysis and then by an intellectual breakdown.

THIS BREAKDOWN led to the belated decision to send in three divisions. This was the right decision, but rather than let the troops advance as a massed force and so overrun Hizbullah positions and take control over the heights surrounding the villages before being sent in to clear out the bunkers, the massive forces were deployed as if they were a small force.

The men were concentrated in condensed areas of the villages and not fanned out along the surrounding heights. Their high concentration turned them into easy targets for Hizbullah's anti-tank missiles. The way the troops were deployed suited all of Hizbullah's comparative advantages while bringing neither the IDF's advantage of mass nor its advantage of firepower to bear.

As became clear after the first several days of engagements, Hizbullah fought neither an offensive nor a defensive war. It did not attack IDF formations nor did it defend its battle stations. Its doctrine is simple: bleed Israeli civilians and IDF units to break Israel's will and humiliate it.

Its success in achieving its aim was manifested by the government's decision to sue for a cease-fire. UN Security Council Resolution 1701 not only cancelled out any tactical advantage the IDF had managed to gain, it paved the way for Hizbullah's rearmament and for the deployment of the UNIFIL force that will act not to dismantle Hizbullah but to prevent Israel from taking any further action to win the war decisively. Yet, still clinging to the view that territory is bad, neither the General Staff, which insists that Israel won, nor the government, which is begging anti-Israel governments in Europe to send their forces to Lebanon, is capable of understanding what just happened.

This brings us back to the demand for the formation of a judicial commission of inquiry. There is no doubt that it is necessary to conduct a serious review of the war in Lebanon and Gaza. But there is no way that such a review can be accomplished by a Supreme Court justice. There are two principal reasons for this. First, an official commission is a legal body and its proceedings are legal proceedings. But the issue of why Israel failed to achieve any of its objectives in the war is not an issue of law. It is an issue of policy and military operations. Judges are no more qualified than the average citizen to investigate these issues.

Secondly, and more importantly, for the past decade and a half, the Supreme Court has been leading the offensive against the notion that Israel should either identify its enemies or defeat them. For the past 15 years the Supreme Court has been constricting the tactical freedom of the IDF in Lebanon, Judea, Samaria and Gaza. It has inserted itself into military planning and political initiatives in a manner that has undermined the IDF's ability to adequately protect Israeli citizens and territory from assault by outlawing tactics that contradict the liberal justices' multicultural and post-nationalist sensibilities. Indeed, it is just these sensibilities, and the fear of Supreme Court intervention, that has tied the hands of successive governments and General Staffs in attempting to confront the growing unconventional threats to Israel emanating from Hizbullah and Palestinian terrorist groups.

From all this it becomes self-evident that both the demand for Olmert, Peretz and Halutz to resign and the demand that an accounting be made of the mistakes that led Israel to its strategic defeat in Lebanon are necessary. It is also clear that the only way that the proper lessons can be drawn is for the current military and political leadership to be replaced by alternative leaders capable of understanding the nature of the threats that surround us. For both objectives to be achieved, the only commission of inquiry that should be established is the inquiry of the citizens of the state that takes place in general elections.

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, August 26, 2006.

For over three decades now, I have admired and staunchly defended you -- at times, at great cost to myself.

As a doctoral student in the '70s--whose career was nipped in the bud by a tenured anti-Israel professor at Ohio State University, whose only mention of Kurds in any of his courses was when he mocked their cause while telling tales about his travels through Turkey--I, alone, had to bring the plight of your people up in the midst of ceaseless discussions centered around creating a 22nd state for Arabs at the expense of the Jews' sole, resurrected one. The most advanced doctoral student in the program never got a dissertation advisor.

Today, I take pride in the wonderful progress you have made in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Stay united, my friends--your divisions have repeatedly played into the hands of your surrounding enemies in the past, and many will work to resurrect them in the future.

My country's overthrow of Saddam was commendable. But with Saddam gone, it was somewhat like the loss of Marshall Tito for Yugoslavia.

As the latter was an artificial country that was really never meant to be, consisting of age-old enemies pieced and glued together, for others' interests, with the collapse of an empire after World War I, so too was Iraq.

You were promised independence back then, when folks were proclaiming Arabia for the Arabians, Judea for the Jews, Armenia for the Armenians, and so forth. President Woodrow Wilson supported your cause. But that was not to be British petroleum politics acted in collusion with Arab nationalism to abort your aspirations.

You see, many of the same forces at work to deny your rights--the rights of some thirty million Kurds who are still stateless today, never knowing what the morrow will bring, while Arabs proclaim over six million square miles of territory as purely Arab patrimony--have been at work to deny the same to your ancient neighbors, the Jews. The Hebrew Bible speaks of the Hurrians -- your ancestors. And those forces include powerful ones right in my own country.

While our histories are not exactly analogous, there is still much that is in deed too often tragically similar.

There were times when you joined the Pan Islamic movement to subjugate your Christian and Jewish neighbors, holding them as virtual slaves as my friend and scholar, Dr. Andrew Bostom, recently reminded me. And Salah al-Din became Islam's hero against the Crusaders.

But what would the latter have said had he lived today, in the very Syria where his statue is now featured, or in Iraq, where Saddam, on trial for Anfal, sees himself as the modern day Salah-al-Din?

My dear Kurdish friends, do you not see a similarity between how Arabs have viewed your aspirations and rights in the age of nationalism and how they view that of the Jews? Recall that one-half of Israel's Jewish population are refugee families from that allegedly -- purely Arab patrimony, -- and another million of these folks fled to France, the Americas, and elsewhere.

Like the Kurdish child forced to sing songs in Syria praising his Arab identity, Jews also had to consent to a forced Arabization in order to just survive.

While there was no Holocaust per se in the -- Arab -- East (though in modern times the Mufti of Jerusalem was Hitler's good buddy), the Jew also frequently never knew what to expect from day to day -- and there were plenty of massacres, pogroms, forced conversions, and such to go around. Not to mention the expected state of dhimmitude and forced Arabization that was simply expected to be accepted. And any of whom the Arabs call kilab yahud--Jew dogs--who dared dream the same dream Arabs proclaim solely for themselves--a life of dignity and political self expression--paid the ultimate price -- that same price hundreds of thousands of your own people have paid for also dreaming that same exclusively Arab dream.

Long ago I predicted the obvious, while hoping I would be wrong.

As Yugoslavia imploded and exploded with Tito gone, Iraq's days were numbered as well with the overthrow of the Saddam. Whatever else he was, he was also the temporary glue. And without him, the age-old blood feuds were bound to erupt -- especially with the Big Brother Shi'a Ayatollahs to the east.

Call it a civil war or not as of yet, a unified Iraq's days are numbered. It's a matter of just how much longer America is willing to bleed its economy and its blood.

And, my Kurdish friends, if you believe the Shi'a have your own best interests close to their hearts, guess again. But you are not that foolish. And we already know quite well what Sunni Arabs think about your cause. We've had close to a century of those lessons.

I guess I can understand some of you distancing yourselves from Israel, the Jew of the Nations.

You have to live, after all, amongst those who have already proclaimed that the birth of Kurdistan would be viewed as that of another Israel.

And Israel, at times, has also distanced itself from you--largely in order to appease its powerful on again, off again Muslim friends, the Turks. I 'm not thrilled about that. While the Turks have no trouble demanding a 22 nd state for Arabs--and second one for them in -- Palestine -- (Jordan already created in 1922 from the bulk of the original 1920 mandate), they expect everyone, including Israel, to oppose Kurdish aspirations for a sole state of their own.

Now, when the Arabs' Anfal campaign to eradicate your people a few decades past is again at least being mentioned (but certainly not showcased as it should), the gassed Kurdish children of Anfal and those of the Jews at Auschwitz share this other nasty thing in common. They were both targeted for genocide because of who they were.

Think of the charges that have been brought against Israel because of its war against Hizbullah--an organization which hijacked a nation and which is dedicated to Israel's destruction.

Disproportionate force we have constantly heard.

Truth be told, if killing Arabs was all that Israel wanted to do, with the amount of bombs and such dropped, there would not be one Arab left by now in the targeted areas. Israel tried as hard as possible--given the fact that Hizbullah, like Hamas & Co., habitually uses their own people as human shields--to limit the loss of innocent life. But I believe you already know this.

So, what's next?

Demand your rights when the inevitable comes. Do not settle for less this time.

The hard-won autonomy you have must be solidified.

Hopefully, my own country will come to its senses--despite the Arabists too often in control at the State Department--and realize that the one best shot at furthering American values in the region lies with the creation of a strong Kurdish state, willing to live in peace with its neighbors, but also able to deflect their aggression. As Israel has been a haven for Jews seeking freedom and safety, open your even larger doors to your own oppressed brethren elsewhere.

Don't foment turmoil amid Kurdish populations in Iran, Turkey, and Syria, for this will backfire both on yourselves in Iraq and your brothers across the borders. Having said this, you should not shy away for demanding civil rights for those folks. Those who seek to live in an independent Kurdish state will have-- like Jews with Israel--a place to go to.

While Ahmadinejad sets up cartoon exhibitions denying the Holocaust and deman ding Israel's destruction allegedly for Arab rights, he continues to butcher Azeris, Kurds, Baluchis, and Arabs in his own country for the crime of demanding their own rights in Iran.

I dare dream a dream -- Are you ready? Here it goes.

America sets up bases in the Kurdish north--with your consent, of course. Like Incerlik in Turkey.

It trains and equips a powerful Kurdish military, equipped with the same state of the art weapons it supplies to Arab despots.

While the Arabs blow each other apart to the south and Iran plots its long-awaited revenge, an economically, politically, and militarily secure Kurdish state emerges in the only area in Iraq that has any real chance at stability -- your own.

I see a future alliance between the forces of peace and tolerance -- Israel and Free Kurdistan.

While I would like to include others in this as well, the sad fact is that even in the so-called moderate Arab countries, most are still just biding their time and have still not reconciled to the fact that other peoples, besides Arabs, are entitled to a slice of national dignity in the region -- especially since those folks have suffered under Arab rule. And for those who claim that all was well for Jews until they dared dream that dream spoken of earlier, I have not one but two bridges to sell you. The Sorbonne's Tunisian Jewish professor, Albert Memmi, and the Egyptian Jewess, Bat Ye'or (dhimmitude), are essential reading on this topic. As with Kurds, Jews were simply expected to submit and accept Arab subjugation and Arabization.

Together our peoples hold the promise for a better future for all in the region. Hopefully, others will eventually join us in building that better tomorrow for all.

Impossible, you say? The Jew's King Solomon had an alliance with Hiram from Phoenicia--Lebanon--millennia before the Arabs' Caliphal imperialist armies conquered both lands (around the same time they took yours as well). The Temple of Jerusalem was built from Hiram's cedars.

An Israeli child is born with the expectation that he or she will help heal and bring good to the world -- including to those who seek only to destroy. I wish I could say the same for the Arab child. Too often the latter is seen as a potential human bomb to blow up those who simply want a small slice of the same rights Arabs demand so much of for themselves. Arafat loved to call the Arab mother his best weapon.

Sadly, for the Arab, there are too many Darfurs, Anfals, and such--in both th e past and the present--for this self-centered, subjugating, intolerant behavior to be mere coincidence.

And, my dear Kurdish friends, both of our peoples deserve something better.

Think of the potential in the days, months, and years which lie ahead.

Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php

To Go To Top

Posted by David Nathan, August 26, 2006.

This article comes fro World Net Daily (WND) August 18, 2006.

Feds show CAIR latest screening steps, sensitive counterterrorism procedures

The Department of Homeland Security took a Muslim group with known past ties to terror organizations on a VIP tour of security operations at the nation's busiest airportat the same time British authorities were working to break up a plot to blow up U.S. airlines.

On June 21, a senior DHS official from Washington personally guided Muslim officials from the Council on American-Islamic Relations on a behind-the-scenes tour of Customs screening operations at O'Hare International Airport in response to CAIR complaints that Muslim travelers were being unfairly delayed as they entered the U.S. from abroad.

CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, identified by two former FBI counterterrorism chiefs as a "front group" for the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Several CAIR leaders have been convicted on terror-related charges.

During the airport tour, CAIR was taken on a walk through the point-of-entry, Customs stations, secondary screening and interview rooms. In addition, U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents were asked to describe for CAIR representatives various features of the high-risk passenger lookout system.

In a meeting, Brian Humphrey, Customs and Border Patrol's executive director of field operations, assured CAIR officials that agents do not single out Muslim passengers for special screening and that they must undergo a mandatory course in Muslim sensitivity training. The course teaches agents that Muslims believe jihad is an "internal struggle against sin" and not holy warfare.

Customs agents involved in the CAIR tour at O'Hare tell WorldNetDaily they were outraged that headquarters would reveal sensitive counterterrorism procedures to an organization that has seen several of its own officials convicted of terror-related charges since 9-11.

"Isn't that nice of CBP," one agent said, to provide a "group like CAIR with a guided, behind-the-scenes tour of our customs facilities, explaining how programs designed to catch Muslim terrorists work."

CAIR says the tour allayed its concerns about profiling and that it "looks forward to continuing the relationship with U.S. Customs and Border Protection offices in the region, and to furthering understanding between the organizations as well as facilitating future communication in order to eliminate problems for Muslim travelers before they even arise."

The Muslim-sensitivity training course at O'Hare is taught by Margaret Nydell, an Arabic professor at Georgetown University, home to a large Saudi-financed center on Islamic studies.

A Customs and Border Protection supervisor described Nydell's instruction, along with CBP's companion training manual and video, as "politically correct drivel."

"It's all about how Islam means peace and tolerance," he told WorldNetDaily. "We're told how to deal with Arabs and Muslims, that they are loving people and not terrorists. That jihad is struggle with sin and has nothing to do with violence."

The Department of Homeland Security invites CAIR itself to conduct sensitivity training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers and supervisors (CBP's counterparts) in Chicago. The course is taught by local CAIR officials Christina Abraham and Mariyam Hussain. More than 30 ICE staffers have gone through the CAIR awareness program so far.

CAIR -- which is bankrolled by the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates, two countries that formally recognized the Taliban -- also offers religious and cultural sensitivity training about Islam and Muslims to the military. In June, for example, CAIR trained more than 300 military personnel at the Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma, Ariz. Also in June, CAIR was invited by the Pentagon to a ceremony dedicating the first Islamic center in Marine Corps history at Quantico headquarters outside of Washington.

Washington-based CAIR also has regular meetings with the FBI and Justice Department. In fact, FBI case agents complain the bureau rarely can make a move in the Muslim community without first consulting with CAIR, which sits on its advisory board. CAIR in the past has cried racism and bigotry when the bureau has moved unilaterally with investigations and raids in the community.

Contact David Nathan at davenathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, August 25, 2006.

Shalom everyone.

Please see the 3 articles below, each of which describes something absolutely despicable in the State of Israel. The case against Danny and Itzik Halamish is just another in a series of witch hunts conducted by the government and judicial system against good Jews who don't fit in with the way in which they envision the country. Please try to help with their legal expenses as described below. The issue of administrative detention is another manifestation of this witch hunt. Baruch Hashem, there are some efforts being made within the country to put a stop to this despicable process, but there needs to be more of an outcry against this horrible administrative detention.

The issue of Jews vs. Israelis described so poignantly by David Wilder in the 3rd article is an absolute disgrace, and his analysis of the war is right on the mark. Finally, once again the Israeli leadership takes an irresponsible action which puts our brethren at increased risk by re-opening the Rafah crossing. We must fax and call our Israeli consulates, as well as the Israeli leadership, and loudly protest these outrages.

We must let them know in no uncertain terms that we can not and will not support a country that perpetrates these outrages against its people. They ask us to organize demonstrations in support of Israel and to counter the media perversion against Israel, and these are very important to do. We have a right to ask them to clean up their act and thereby earn our support, and we have an obligation to our brethren who are endangered by their irresponsible actions and who are suffering under their persecution to demand that they clean up their act!

Tizku lemitzvos. Gut Shabbos and kesiva vachasima tova.

From Women in Green
"Help Danny And Itzik Halamish"

Dear Friends,

Many things have changed since the war in Lebanon. But one thing has not yet changed in our country: the legal persecution of loyal Jews whose only crime is wanting to live in the Land of Israel and trying to defend themselves when attacked by Arabs.

We call upon all of you to read the kakfaesque story of Danny and Itzik Halamish, two brothers who live in Maaleh Rehavam (a small community of 30 residents, in the Judean desert not far from Tekoa). Danny and Itzik are dear personal friends of ours and we will do all we can to prevent them from going to jail. Itzik and Danny are two out of 5 sons of the Halamish family. The Halamish parents were among the founders of the community of Ofra. They have raised 5 wonderful sons, all proud and loyal Jews. Four of them decided to follow in the footsteps of their parents and be the second generation of Halamishes that would found a new community in the land of Israel. Together with friends, the Halamish boys founded Maaleh Rehavam 4 years ago.

Itzik is 27 years old and works as a builder of homes and as a carpenter. Women in Green leaders and members met Itzik in Kfar Yam,Gush Katif, where he spent the last few months helping to build tent cities for those outsiders who came to support GK. They have stayed in close contact since then. Danny is 36 years old, married to Limor and they have a one year old baby girl, Naama.

If we do not intervene, those 2 wonderful Jews might end up in jail for months- accused and found guilty of things they never did. We must help them gather the funds to cover the expenses for an appeal. Please help them by:

1) taking the few minutes necessary to read the story
2) forward the story to all of your different lists-
3) if you can, help them financially. For details as to how to send tax deductible donations, see at the end of the story.

With love from Israel, Ruth and Nadia Matar, Women in Green

Danny and Itzik Halamish: trial summary

Background: A number of incidents have occurred in Gush Etzion in which Jews have been attacked by, or with the aid of, Arab shepherds: Dov Driben was murdered by Arab shepherds; two children, Kobi Mandel and Yossi Ashram, were murdered in the Haritun Cave by Arab shepherds; prior to the murderous attack on the settlement of Carmei Zur, Arab shepherds observed the settlement for 30 days and constructed a model of it on a sand table in an orchard near the settlement; About two months ago, Arab shepherds stabbed a Jewish couple near a spring close to the settlement of Bat Ayin. The IDF regards the shepherds as a threat, and consequently refers to them as such in briefings given to guards, and also drives them a way from the proximity of Jewish settlements. At the beginning of 2004 Arab shepherds began approaching the region of Ma'aleh Rehavam and Sdeh Bar. The IDF, in cooperation with the security officer of Sdeh Bar, drove them off on several occasions.

The Incident: On February 21, 2004, Arab shepherds again approached the settlement of Ma'aleh Rehavam, in a place that was not the usual one for grazing. The Sdeh Bar Security Officer, Baruch Feldbaum, attempted unsuccessfully to drive them away. Feldbaum requested help from Ma'aleh Rehavam. Two members of the Ma'aleh Rehavam Fast Response Team, Danny and Itzik Halamish, joined him and drove with him to the place, to which in the meantime additional Arab shepherds had arrived. The Arabs refused to leave the place. More and more Arabs arrived, and their level of hostility increased as their numbers grew. When there were about 20 Arabs near the Jews, with even more Arabs approaching, the Arabs close to the Jews threatened them with stones and sticks, and began surrounding Danny and Itzik.

Baruch was standing a few dozen yards further back. At this stage Itzik fired a single warning shot in the air from his pistol, but this had no effect. Baruch Feldbaum fired a few shots aimed at the ground, and thus enabled Danny and Itzik to withdraw. The Jews retreated and drove away from the place. One Arab received a superficial wound from ricochets of stones. The Arabs contacted the police and filed a complaint about being attacked.

The Treatment of the Complaint: The police arrested Baruch, Danny and Itzik. They were interrogated for three days using a variety of methods, that included lies, threats, and false accusations. (The police attempted to accuse them of the murder of an Arab who had been in the region of the Arab village of Tekoa.) The Jews maintained that the Arabs had in fact attacked them, but the police ignored this claim and refused to check it out. The police have impounded the Jews' weapons in order to examine them. The weapons were taken from them and were not returned, but neither were they examined. Near the duty officer's desk in the Etzion police station, there was attached to the wall a notice issued by the police general staff stating that the residents of the Jewish hill settlements are problematic and that one of the aims of the police in 2004 was to submit 20 charges against them. During the interrogation the chief interrogator told Baruch that the police intended to submit a charge sheet against the Jews regardless of the results of the interrogation. The Jews were charged with assault and injury under aggravating circumstances, as well as acts of recklessness and negligence. The Arabs were not summonsed for an interrogation or even a clarification, and the police admitted in court that they did not intend to interrogate the Arabs at all.

The Judicial Process: According to the Hebrew judicial process as laid down in the Bible, the function of the judge is to investigate and question and thus arrive at the truth. The State of Israel does not use the Hebrew judicial process but employs instead the adversary legal system, which is based on the method of rivalry. In this method the prosecution attacks and the accused defends himself. The judge does not interfere in the discussion but gives a ruling based only on the material presented to him. This method originated in Europe and is based on the principle of a duel between knights. (Each party hires a knight to fight on his behalf and the judge decides the winner.) In this method the personal opinion of the judge can be decisive regarding the result of the trial. In Britain and the US this method is balanced by means of a jury -- a group of ordinary people (not lawyers) whose function is to determine if the accused is guilty or not. This method prevents a person being found guilty or innocent, as the case may be, in circumstances that an ordinary person would consider unreasonable. In Israel there is no jury and the judge gives a ruling as he sees fit. In Israel the judges are appointed by other judges, and cannot be dismissed. A judge approaching retirement or who otherwise does not expect a promotion is not under any form of supervision or criticism.

The Trial: The prosecution claimed that the Jews came to the place with the intention of harming the Arabs, and that the Arabs were grazing their flocks innocently. The prosecution claimed that the IDF does not regards the shepherds as a threat, even though the prosecution witness from the regional brigade HQ gave evidence to the contrary. Four Arab prosecution witnesses gave contradictory evidence: their evidence conflicted with their statements in the police station on the day of the incident; and their evidence contradicted that of each other, regarding important details, such as who fired, and whether the shots were fired before or after the arguments between the Jews and the Arabs. The Arabs gave evidence, and the prosecution claimed, that an Arab child aged 4 was injured in his head from the shots fired. The army paramedic who accompanied the soldiers who met the Arabs making the complaint, gave evidence that he was shown an Arab child aged 8 with no injuries. The defense argued that it was the Security Officer's function to look after the security of the settlers and to drive off the Arabs from places near the residenti al areas, and that Danny and Itzik acted under the orders of the Security Officer. Even if Baruch acted in excess of his authority, they were still supposed to conform with his instructions. The defense claimed that the Arabs were the attackers, and that the Jews acted in self defense.

The Court Ruling: The accused were found guilty of all the charges. All their arguments were rejected. The conviction was based on two principles: Firstly, the judge ruled that the evidence of the Arabs was reliable, in contrast to the evidence of the Jews that was not, because the Arabs gave evidence without contradictions while the Jews contradicted themselves. The judge did not indicate what were the contradictions in the evidence of the Jews, and ignored the obvious contradictions in the evidence of the Arabs, including those indicated specifically by the defense. Secondly, the judge ruled that the situation in which the Jews were surrounded by dozens of Arabs armed with stones and sticks, with additional Arabs approaching, was not dangerous, nor was there any reason to think that it was dangerous. The judge ignored the arguments of the defense mentioned here, as well as additional arguments. It should also be mentioned that during the hearings regarding extension of the period of detention, even before the Jews had made any statement, the evidence was examined by Justice of the Peace Shimoni and District Judge Ravid. Both judges wrote that the evidence indicated that the claim of self defense put forward by the defense could not be rejected out of hand. The Security Officer, Baruch, was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, that was later reduced to six months after two appeals. Danny and Itzik are likely to receive a similar sentence.

This is not an exceptional case. Settlers are being brought to trial in a systematic way. For example, ten years ago an Arab terrorist ran down Jewish hitch-hikers at the Giva Tzarfatit junction in Jerusalem. The terrorist was shot and killed by several people who were present at the time. The police arrested one of the Jews who had shot the terrorist and confiscated his pistol. The police issued a press statement saying that the investigation had indicated that this was a road accident and not a terrorist attack. On the very same day an Arab terrorist organization announced that they were responsible for the attack, and the police were forced to rescind their statement. The person who shot the Arab terrorist received a commendation from the IDF, but the police refused to return his gun to him. Danny and Itzik were part of the Rapid Response Team of Ma'aleh Rehavam, but they are now not permitted to possess a gun. The defense of their settlement has been gravely harmed as a result of this incident. This is not the only case in which the police have damaged the security of the settlers.

Danny and Itzik Halamish intend to appeal against their conviction. The appeal will cost a lot of money (tens of thousands of dollars). If you wish to help, you can send a contribution to HONENU.

The HONENU Non Profit organization provides legal aid to hundreds of Jews who are participating in the struggle for Eretz Israel. Contributions to Honenu are recognized for tax purposes in Israel (Regd. non profit organization No. 580386571, according to section 46B of the income tax law); and in the USA (Tax ID: 30-0198003). Honenu will transfer the money to Danny and Itzik without deducting a fee. Should any money remain after the appeal, it will be given to Honenu. www.honenu.org.il

Please mail Shekel checks to Halamish, Ofra 90627, Israel.

For Tax-deductible dollar checks please write check to "HONENU".

Do not forget to earmark it: "for Danny and Itzik Halamish" and send it to: HONENU, 8204 Lefferts Blvd, Suite 381 Kew Gardens, New York 11415, USA.

Backlash Against Administrative Orders as Mother-of-6 Arrested
By Ezra HaLevi

The issue of administrative detention -- the imprisonment or restriction of citizens' movement without trial -- is the subject of a new campaign by Knesset and extra-parliamentary efforts.

Administrative detention, a legal remnant from the British Mandate period, allows security forces to hold citizens in prison without allowing them to meet with a lawyer, stand before a judge or even be informed of the allegations against them. At this time, at least fifteen Jewish activists are being held by the government in such a manner.

The Shas Party will raise the issue of the use of administrative detention again st Land of Israel activists at Sunday's cabinet meeting, according to MK Yaakov Margi.

"This is a tool that must not be used so readily, and certainly not against Jews," Margi told Arutz-7. He says he will discuss the matter personally with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and Public Security Minister Avi Dichter.

One of those being held without trial is Ariel Groener, who works for the Honenu Legal Aid organization, which has been a leading proponent of doing away with administrative detention.

Groener has been imprisoned for a month and a half and is due to be released on August 31st. Honenu officials are weary that a pretext may be created to keep him imprisoned even longer.

The Mattot Arim Land of Israel activist movement embarked Thursday on a campaign combating the use of administrative orders against residents of Judea and Samaria. The movement terms the policy, "political oppression of the settlers by way of the legal system."

Mattot Arim spokeswoman Suzy Dym says the result of the administrative orders -- not just imprisonment, but often restraining orders and house arrests far from activists' homes -- create an intolerable situation, which is implemented without a trial.

Dym suggests detentions are now the tool of choice for pushing through the forced expulsion of Jews from places in Judea and Samaria. The campaign, she says, will focus on the fact that, "the settlers are not the enemy and are not terrorists."

Dym says the campaign includes calling upon MKs and government ministers to ensure that a resident of Judea and Samaria, like any other resident of the State of Israel, if suspected of any crime, would be treated by the police and prosecuti on in a reasonable manner, without the use of administrative orders and other extra-judicial loopholes.

"We are asking for adherence to equal enforcement," Dym says. "The law must be enforced equally for an Arab and a city-dweller suspected of similar crimes."

Referring to the lack of punitive measures for illegal Arab and Bedouin building, Dym says, "If, to our great embarrassment, there is not the capability" or "there is insufficient budget" to enforce the law in an effective manner in Holon and Ramle, in [the Bedouin Negev village of] Rahat and in [the Galilee Arab village of] Taibeh -- and of course within the police force itself -- then the law must be applied equally for all."

"It is not possible that at the same time the law should be applied specifically in [the Samaria communities of] Tapuah and Yitzhar," Dym added.

"They Send Enough Police to Arrest a Mafia Crime Boss"

Dozens of police entered the community of Tel Menashe Thursday afternoon to arrest Miriam Adler, a mother-of-six who was forcibly expelled from her home in Sa-Nur last summer -- a month before the rest of the community was evicted.

Adler, a vocal leader of the struggle against the destruction of four communities in northern Samaria, was arrested and placed in administrative detention together with her husband shortly before the implementation of the Disengagement just over one year ago.

Police used considerable force in apprehending the couple while they were visiti ng family in Gush Etzion. Their six children were left alone to face the riot police who arrived at their home to force them to leave.

Adler filed a police complaint against the arresting officers, but she says the case was closed without any investigation of the matter.

Adler was forcibly arrested Thursday following a court order dealing with her refusal to appear before a Jerusalem court on charges that she attacked the four arresting police officers.

"I refused to dignify the indictment with any response and so they sent enough officers to arrest a mafia crime-boss to bring me to court by force," she said.

Israelis or Jews?
by David Wilder
August 24, 2006
The Jewish Community of Hebron

IDF reservists are petitioning a demand for answers. Why weren't they allowed to win? Why were the decision-makers indecisive? IDF officers have started confessing: "We are arrogant."

Blame is flying every which way and finger-pointing is at its peak. Yet, the real point has yet to be addressed.

A few days ago, following Olmert's statements that the next planned expulsion of some 100,00 Jews from Judea and Samaria is no longer on the top of his priority list, I received an email dealing with 'convergence.' In my words, the letter said, 'It's not enough to see expulsion dropped from 'number-one' priority. We have to make sure it is dead and buried, never again to be resurrected.'

Very true. How can we make sure that happens?

Why did we lose the Hizballah war? Because the Israeli army, rather than prepa re for battle with the enemy, prepared for war with its brethren. The government spent millions of dollars and immeasurable man-hours training the troops, not how to win a guerilla war against terrorist-barbarians, rather, how to expel men, women and children from their homes, 'b'regishut' -- sensitively, but with 'nechishut' but with resolve. The brainwashing involved was unparalleled: One example: Participants were told to close their eyes and imagine the most beautiful scene they could think of -- where they would most like to be. That accomplished, they were then told to imagine that a wall now divides between their utopia and themselves.

Following the imaging, with eyes wide open, they were then told: The dream is peace, and the wall is the 'settlers.' The one must be removed in order to reach the other.

Who were those brainwashed? Not only the man on the street, the privates and the corporals. Rather, the cream of the crop, officers in the standing army and the reserves, of all ranks. They were forced to listen, breath, and then implement, the crime of all crimes: evicting brothers and sisters from their homes and then abandoning the land to the enemy -- an act never ever done before by any people in the world.

From the moment Sharon, together with Olmert, and later with the backing of Mufaz, decided to eradicate Gush Katif from the map, the IDF was transformed into a WMD -- a weapon of mass destruction -- or perhaps better put, a weapon of mass self-destruction. The physical and psychological demands upon the officers and soldiers, as well as the time lost preparing for a civil war rather than a real war, there were major factors in the recent lack of victory.

However, the decision-makers who forced Gush Katif down the collective throat of the Israeli public, how can we possibly expect them to have the necessary int ellect to reach the proper and necessary conclusions concerning authentic warfa re, upon which the survival of the country may be at stake?

What is guiding light of these decision-makers?

I recently heard a true, hair-raising story: A high-level delegation from Israel met with the French minister of war. The goal: to achieve French support for the 'convergence-expulsion' plan. The minister asked the group: How can a country perpetrate such an act against its own people? The answer: "We are Israelis. Those being expelled are Jews."

In other words, we are two peoples, two nations, two seemingly mutually exclusive sects: Israelis and Jews.

All well and good until it comes time for dying. When called upon to put your life on the line, it seems those lines get blurred. Then we are all ---- what? Jews? Israelis? What are we then? Who are the soldiers dying for, for Jews, for Israelis, for whom?

We lost the war in the north because we forgot who we are -- what we are, and why we are here, why we are fighting. The IDF -- the Israeli Defense Forces, perhaps should change its name to the JDF -- to the Jewish Defense Forces, be cause that is the root of our legitimate right to wear uniforms, carry weapons, and if need be, die for our land and our country. Because we are Jews, fighting for our land and our people, not fighting against our land and against our people.

As we begin the month of Elul, with Rosh HaShana just around the corner, it would be wise to do a little soul-searching in hopes of mending the tremendous rifts in our society. A good place to begin would be at our roots, at the source of our being, remembering that we are one people, in one land, under one G-d.

Chodesh Tov -- a good month.

With blessings from Hebron. Following posting of this article on Arutz 7, I received the following newspap er clipping from a reader:

On the day following his defeat by Benjamin Netanyahu in the 1996 election for prime minister, Peres had this exchange with a journalist:

Interviewer: What happened in these elections? Peres: We lost.
Interviewer: Who is we? Peres: We, the Israelis.
Interviewer: And who won? Peres: All those who do not have an Israeli mentality.
Interviewer: And who are they? Peres: Call it the Jews.
(Available in 'What Shimon Says' -- Published by AFSI)

"Rafiah Crossing Reopens"
By Hana Levi Julian

The Rafiah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt reopened for the first time since the kidnapping of IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit by Hamas terrorists two months ago. His whereabouts remain unknown.

European Union observers returned to operate the site, Friday, though it was initially unclear how long the crossing will remain open. The issue of keeping the site open is to be discussed between representatives of the EU and the Palestinian Authority (PA).

PA officials say the Rafiah Crossing between Gaza and Egypt will be opened from 8am to 6pm on Friday.

The international gateway was closed immediately following the June 25th kidnapping of IDF Corporal Gilad Shalit near the Israeli Kerem Shalom border crossing with Gaza and Egypt.

Following the kidnapping, Rafiah was subsequently closed to prevent the terrorists from smuggling Shalit out of Gaza, but his whereabouts are still unknown.

Arab terrorists detonated a landmine next to the security wall separating Egypt and Gaza on Thursday. It was part of an ongoing effort by smugglers and terrorists to find ways to pressure Israel into opening the crossing through which smugglers and terrorists routinely made their way between Egypt and Gaza.

Security at the international gateway was transferred from Israeli control to the PA in September 2005 as part of the Israeli government's expulsion of the Jewish presence in Gaza.

EU observers monitor the site on the Gaza side of the crossing while Israeli security personnel observe people who pass through the crossing by means of a video camera. Identification of those who pass, however, does not reach the Israeli security team until 8 minutes later, by which time it is too late to prevent the passage of anyone Israel deems a threat.

The crossing has been closed numerous times as a result of this flaw and the fre quent security alerts posted by Israeli and other intelligence in the area. PA border official Nazmi Muhana said the crossing would be open as a result of intensive efforts by European monitors in negotiations with Egypt and Israel. The crossing has been closed since the kidnapping of IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit, out of concern that he would be smuggled out of Gaza through it.

Shabak (General Security Service) Chief Yuval Diskin decried the opening of Rafiah, as tons of explosives and weapons have been smuggled through the crossing in to Gaza, turning the terror haven into another Lebanon.

Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 25, 2006.


The public does not know what level of government sets policy on Arab human shields. Defense Min. Peretz has stated contradictory policies on it. The IDF has warned civilians near military targets to evacuate, so Israel can attack them without harming civilians. Many civilians refuse to evacuate. Israel generally withholds attack, IMRA has suggested, because then an attack and the ensuing civilian casualties would create poorer public relations for Israel. But refraining from attack then permits an Arab attack, with ensuing Israeli civilian or military casualties. Dr. Aaron Lerner thinks that Israel should not give priority to Arab civilians (IMRA, 8/3) especially since they often are complicit with the terrorists. We are not discussing ordinary and legal concern for civilians, but Israel's extraordinary and legally unnecessary concern. Israel should try harder to win.

Victory would reduce casualties, especially its own. Its government has a duty to its own people. It also should not feel guilty about enemy civilian casualties, inasmuch as the enemy strategy is to wear Israel down by attrition. A heavier penalty for the enemy would wear the enemy down.


UNIFIL never kept the peace. By holding monitoring posts next to Hezbollah positions, UNIFIL gave effective shelter to Nasrallah's terrorists, as it had done before for the PLO. For years, Hezbollah fired Katyusha rockets at Israeli civilians with impunity, under the watchful eyes of their blue-helmeted neighbours, while frustrating Israel's response through their proximity to the UN blue flags. Only in the context of the current war to defend its major cities did Israel feel obliged to take out Hezbollah firing positions even at the risk of hurting bystanders, which resulted in the errant shells yesterday that claimed four monitors as victims (albeit from UNTSO, a similar but different mission).

UNIFIL's presence provided the international community with a false sense of confidence while a terrorist organization methodically built up an arsenal of deadly rockets-imported from Iran with Syrian help - and stored them in arms caches in civilian homes, mosques and hospitals.

When Hezbollah disguised themselves as UNIFIL personnel to attack and kidnap Israeli soldiers, UNIFIL covered up the crime. In 2001, after UNIFIL discovered two vehicles used by Hezbollah in the raid, stained with the blood of the injured Israeli servicemen, they promptly surrendered the evidence to Hezbollah upon its request. Worse, as it later acknowledged, the

UN lied by denying its possession of videotape that shed light on the abduction. The UNO is the organization that singles out Israel for special and false denunciation which other countries, that it ignores, deserve (IMRA, 7/27 from UN Watch). The UNO is a problem.


The Olmert Cabinet is not a team, though almost all are from the same Party. Each Minister cites different war aims from the other and expresses different aims at different times, without explaining the inconsistency (Dr. Aaron Lerner, 7/27).


(Israel did not gain peace but merely a respite from war, when the Arabs thought it unbeatable militarily. That is why Egypt, the State Dept., and Thomas Friedman stressed diplomacy, the other route for defeating the victim of aggression. When Israel started retreating under pressure, the Arabs began to regain hope of defeating Israel.)

The Arab world's desire to "wipe Israel off the map" is the result of their total immersion in an anti-Jewish, jihadist, genocidal world view as a result of the indoctrination efforts of their state-run schools, mosques and media organs. In addition, their perception of Israel being on the retreat ever since it opened negotiations with the PLO in 1993 has convinced them it is possible to destroy Israel.

Iran has made destruction of Israel its goal. It is building nuclear weapons and, with help from N. Korea, long-range missiles. Meanwhile, its proxies, Hizbullah and Hamas started the attack (diverting attention from the nuclear problem Iran poses). The same imperialist ideology motivates most of the foes of the US in Iraq. Therefore, the US avoided an immediate ceasefire, lest it stave off the defeat of Hizbullah and make the US position in Iraq untenable. Israel must defeat Iran's proxy both for its security and for America's.

Although the Islamists get favorable media coverage, and the media and leftists exaggerate Israel's losses and mistakes, Hizbullah has been losing. Signs of that are its patrons' calls for a ceasefire (a Muslim tactic when the infidels are winning) and Hizbullah's switch from touting victory to touting its survival.

Totalitarians anticipate a lack of fortitude by democrats. They have found that if they hold out long enough, and inflict enough damage upon their enemies, the appeasement-minded among their enemies will give them a diplomatic victory. This time, they are finding Israelis much stronger-willed than anticipated. Tens of thousands of Israelis in safer areas are taking in Israelis from the northern areas subjected to Hizbullah bombardment, while the IDF reduces Hizbullah rocket stores and launchers. Hundreds of Jews are emigrating to Israel, too.

The problem is not with the Israeli people but with its government. The government sent in too few troops to clean out Hizbullah swiftly. (Likewise, the US sent in too few to keep a firm grip on Afghanistan and on Iraq.) The government has been reluctant to send in sufficient troops, because that would demonstrate the invalidity of its theory that it can take cover from terrorists, behind a fence. Meanwhile, the IDF refuses to acknowledge the invalidity of its over-reliance upon air power. The government and IDF compound the mistakes out of fear to admit them. Another mistake is to think of Hizbullah solely as terrorist. Yes, it uses terrorism. But it also uses iconventional and guerrilla tactics. The IDF failed to prepare for Hizbullah's higher quality of combat.

This insouciance led to carelessness by the Israeli missile boat, blasted by Hizbullah without having activated its radar warning system. Same for announcements after two days that its planes destroyed half of Hizbullah forces, for sending in too few troops to hold too large an area, and for claiming to have surrounded a town when it was only around that town. On the other hand, when the IDF finally wanted to call up reserves and send in a large force, the government refused, apparently for political purposes.

That was Olmert's gift to Hizbullah. As for the troops, they are fighting with great skill, dedication, and bravery (Caroline Glick in IMRA, 7/28). Hizbullah boasts that its fighters are fearless. The Israeli soldiers fight fearlessly. Sec. Rice made a damaging statement, "strong concern about the impact of Israeli military operations on innocent civilians during crisis." Later, Pres. Bush straightened it out partly, by not citing Israel. He should have condemned Hizbullah sternly for using civilians as human shields (IMRA, 7/30).

In one town, Hizbullah held the residents hostage. Enemies of Israel used to claim a linkage between the war against Saddam and the PLO war on Israel. They said, sacrifice Israel, and the US would get support against Saddam. Nonsense! But now that both wars are by jihad, there is linkage. Israel must win, for the US to win. Sec. Rice doesn't seem to care. First put down Israel, then take care of the US, is US policy.


The Muslims take the ingredients of Biblical commands issued for particular circumstances, and the fact that most Israelis are Jews, and mix it into a batter that bakes into a mixed up, anti-Semitic, propaganda assault. So it was that a Hizbullah leader accused Israel of seeking out women and children to kill, claiming Israel is commanded to do so by the Torah (IMRA, 7/28 from Michael Widlanski).

The Torah has no such general command. Israel strives to protect civilians; Hizbullah strives to endanger its own, partly so it can accuse Israel, and partly because it knows Israel does not want to harm civilians. Hizbullah also strives to kill Israeli civilians. What else is its rocket bombardment of Israeli cities? Ironically, Israel does not follow the Torah. Hence it wars too hesitatingly against uncivilized foes. This hesitancy produces more casualties. In that sense, the government of Israel is guilty, but guilty towards its own people.


In radio interviews, Israeli leftist playwright Yehoshua Sobol admitted he was wrong to think that territorial withdrawals would bring peace. He rebuked leftists who call for an immediate ceasefire, for that would support Hizbullah (IMRA, 7/28) which needs the ceasefire to recuperate. This war is disillusioning many leftists about appeasement. Their return to reality comes at a deadly price.


Australia set up a civilian convoy to go out, fetch some foreign nationals and journalists, and bring them to Tyre. It did not give Israel sufficient notice. Israel had enabled other convoys shortly before to take the same route to safety. It urged Australia to wait a day, so it could assure the convoy's safety. As the convoy was moving, Israel repeatedly warned that it was heading into a combat area. Australia paid no heed. A mortar struck near the convoy, startling a driver to veer off the road, injuring a couple of passengers. The media hastily lamed Israel, although there was no indication that Israel had fired the mortar (IMRA, 7/29).

Worse, the media reports such rumors as if the firing were deliberate. Interesting that it does not suspect the Muslim terrorists, who do aim to embarrass the enemy by sowing such suspicions. Journalists were treated well by the PLO, but kept under control. They largely are given their freedom by Israel, but not catered to. The journalists keep their biases against Israel. They do not take Israeli warnings or instructions seriously, neither believing nor obeying the government of Israel. Their arrogance sometimes costs their lives, but they don't reform and they blame Israel.


Every day, the government of Israel announces the types of targets it had struck in Lebanon the prior day. It also has been keeping track of the total number of missiles fired by Hizbullah into Lebanon. That number was 1600, as of 7/29 (viz. IMRA, 7/29). Were the targets destroyed? Were they attacked in daytime? The IDF used to attack PLO targets at night, when they were less likely to be populated by terrorists.


I have every reason to believe, that leadership on both sides of this crisis would like to see an end to the violence, would like to see a way forward that puts Lebanon, the Lebanese government, in full control of its territory with the Lebanese army able to deploy south, with the south stable, with an international force that can help that to take place. (IMRA, 7/29). What "reason to believe?" The leadership on the anti-Israeli side is Iran, Syria, and Hizbullah. It doesn't want the violence to end or the Lebanese government in full control of the south. Unless a big force, probably Israeli, comes in to disarm Hizbullah, the violence would continue. There's harmful violence and beneficial violence. Depends who is doing what to whom. A ceasefire after the WWII Battle of the Bulge would have prolonged the war.


Sec. Rice was said to be working on a ceasefire under which Israel would withdraw from the Shaba Farms area, part of the Golan Heights that Hizbullah claims is Lebanese and its reason for continuing to fight Israel (IMRA, 7/29). The UNO said it had been Syria. Hizbullah would get what it claimed to be fighting for; Israel would get nothing. That is the usual outcome of US negotiations, turning Israel's victory into defeat regardless of who is President.

The UN certified that the area was Syrian. Israel incorporated it, thereby ending any legal basis for an Arab claim to it. However, the world does not operate on the basis of law, when Israel is involved. It operates on the basis of distortion of the law in order to thwart Israel. The State Department's traditional policy is anti-Zionist. Withdrawals are steps towards Israel's dissolution. The US should not have paid attention to Hizbullah's claim. That terrorist organization's claim is not sincere. It is the usual deceptive Islamic propaganda. Hizbullah has described its goal as the conquest of Israel and establishment of worldwide Muslim rule. That is the broad stake in which Hizbullah is the proxy of Iran, enemy of the US. Sec. Rice is assisting the enemies of the US.


Israeli paratroopers could have seized key bridges; tank and infantry units could have taken other areas by surprise, destroyed Hizbullah bunkers and mopped up. The initial air war did not and could not do enough, but, gave Hizbullah warning. Hizbullah had time to launch hundreds of rockets. Ground troops went in too late and too shallow, while the government tried to impress the Arabs with "signals" by sonic booms or brief incursions that impress them with Israel's reluctance to use major force. Declarations that Israel would not send the troops far reassured Hizbullah! Flying over Syria without bombing it reassured Syria. Dropping leaflets on Lebanon urging the people to expel Hizbullah themselves amused people. Empty threats signal weakness (Prof. Steven Plaut, 7/30).

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 25, 2006.

1. Olmert's new surrender:
www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1154525940768&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

Israel has essentially given up hope of Hizbullah being disarmed, and instead is now concentrating on ensuring that an arms embargo called for in UN Security Council resolution 1701 be implemented, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

Furthermore, senior Israeli officials have made it clear in recent days during talks with foreign governments that Israel realizes a Hizbullah presence south of the Litani River is unavoidable, if for no other reason than because the organization is so well rooted there that the only way to get rid of Hizbullah would be to evacuate the entire region.

What Israel does expect, however, is that the Lebanese Army and the international force that will deploy there ensure that Hizbullah doesn't have offensive weaponry to attack Israel, and that if they do try to attack, there will be someone there to stop them.

2. Olmert's surrender in Lebanon is already having repurcussions. Syria has figured out that Israel is on the run and is so weak it cannot defeat a ragtime band of terrorists shooting WWII rockets. The empty "Never Again" slogan aside, Olmert's Israel did nothing when 4000 rockets were fired at its civilians. Moreover, Syria sees that Israel is still trying to appease its way to peace and achieve peace through surrender. Senior Israeli officials are signalling they are ready to turn the Golan Heights over to Syria to become a new base for launching rockets at the Jews.

SO Syria is mobilizing its entire army and moving it forward to the border with Israel, openily threatening to open a new front any day now. And why shouldn't it? Olmert has made all of Israel ripe for the Baathist pickin'.

3. If only this were true:
August 25, 2006 "Hezbollah Didn't Win"
By Amir Taheri
August 25, 2006; Page A14
Mr. Taheri is author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).

The way much of the Western media tells the story, Hezbollah won a great victory against Israel and the U.S., healed the Sunni-Shiite rift, and boosted the Iranian mullahs' claim to leadership of the Muslim world. Portraits of Hassan Nasrallah, the junior mullah who leads the Lebanese branch of this pan-Shiite movement, have adorned magazine covers in the West, hammering in the message that this child of the Khomeinist revolution is the new hero of the mythical "Arab Street."

Probably because he watches a lot of CNN, Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei also believes in "a divine victory." Last week he asked 205 members of his Islamic Majlis to send Mr. Nasrallah a message, congratulating him for his "wise and far-sighted leadership of the Ummah that produced the great victory in Lebanon."

By controlling the flow of information from Lebanon throughout the conflict, and help from all those who disagree with U.S. policies for different reasons, Hezbollah may have won the information war in the West. In Lebanon, the Middle East and the broader Muslim space, however, the picture is rather different.

Let us start with Lebanon.

Immediately after the U.N.-ordained ceasefire started, Hezbollah organized a series of firework shows, accompanied by the distribution of fruits and sweets, to celebrate its victory. Most Lebanese, however, finding the exercise indecent, stayed away. The largest "victory march" in south Beirut, Hezbollah's stronghold, attracted just a few hundred people.

Initially Hezbollah had hesitated between declaring victory and going into mourning for its "martyrs." The latter course would have been more in harmony with Shiite traditions centered on the cult of Imam Hussain's martyrdom in 680 A.D. Some members of Hezbollah wished to play the martyrdom card so that they could accuse Israel, and, through it, the U.S., of war crimes. They knew that it was easier for Shiites, brought up in a culture of eternal victimhood, to cry over an imagined calamity than laugh in the joy of a claimed victory.

Politically, however, Hezbollah had to declare victory for a simple reason: It had to pretend that the death and desolation it had provoked had been worth it. A claim of victory was Hezbollah's shield against criticism of a strategy that had led Lebanon into war without the knowledge of its government and people. Mr. Nasrallah alluded to this in television appearances, calling on those who criticized him for having triggered the war to shut up because "a great strategic victory" had been won.

The tactic worked for a day or two. However, it did not silence the critics, who have become louder in recent days. The leaders of the March 14 movement, which has a majority in the Lebanese parliament and government, have demanded an investigation into the circumstances that led to the war, a roundabout way of accusing Hezbollah of having provoked the tragedy. Prime Minister Fouad Siniora has made it clear that he would not allow Hezbollah to continue as a state within the state. Even Michel Aoun, a maverick Christian leader and tactical ally of Hezbollah, has called for the Shiite militia to disband.

Mr. Nasrallah followed his claim of victory with what is known as the "Green Flood" (Al-sayl al-akhdhar). This refers to the massive amounts of crisp U.S. dollar notes that Hezbollah is distributing among Shiites in Beirut and the south. The dollars from Iran are ferried to Beirut via Syria and distributed through networks of militants. Anyone who can prove that his home was damaged in the war receives $12,000, a tidy sum in wartorn Lebanon.

* * *

The Green Flood has been unleashed to silence criticism of Mr. Nasrallah and his masters in Tehran. But the trick does not seem to be working. "If Hezbollah won a victory, it was a pyrrhic one," says Walid Abi-Mershed, a leading Lebanese columnist. "They made Lebanon pay too high a price -- for which they must be held accountable."

Hezbollah is also criticized from within the Lebanese Shiite community, which accounts for some 40% of the population. Sayyed Ali al-Amin, the grand old man of Lebanese Shiism, has broken years of silence to criticize Hezbollah for provoking the war, and called for its disarmament. In an interview granted to the Beirut An-Nahar, he rejected the claim that Hezbollah represented the whole of the Shiite community. "I don't believe Hezbollah asked the Shiite community what they thought about [starting the] war," Mr. al-Amin said. "The fact that the masses [of Shiites] fled from the south is proof that they rejected the war. The Shiite community never gave anyone the right to wage war in its name."

There were even sharper attacks. Mona Fayed, a prominent Shiite academic in Beirut, wrote an article also published by An-Nahar last week. She asks: Who is a Shiite in Lebanon today? She provides a sarcastic answer: A Shiite is he who takes his instructions from Iran, terrorizes fellow believers into silence, and leads the nation into catastrophe without consulting anyone. Another academic, Zubair Abboud, writing in Elaph, a popular Arabic-language online newspaper, attacks Hezbollah as "one of the worst things to happen to Arabs in a long time." He accuses Mr. Nasrallah of risking Lebanon's existence in the service of Iran's regional ambitions.

Before he provoked the war, Mr. Nasrallah faced growing criticism not only from the Shiite community, but also from within Hezbollah. Some in the political wing expressed dissatisfaction with his over-reliance on the movement's military and security apparatus. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they described Mr. Nasrallah's style as "Stalinist" and pointed to the fact that the party's leadership council (shura) has not held a full session in five years. Mr. Nasrallah took all the major decisions after clearing them with his Iranian and Syrian contacts, and made sure that, on official visits to Tehran, he alone would meet Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei.

Mr. Nasrallah justified his style by claiming that involving too many people in decision-making could allow "the Zionist enemy" to infiltrate the movement. Once he had received the Iranian green light to provoke the war, Mr. Nasrallah acted without informing even the two Hezbollah ministers in the Siniora cabinet or the 12 Hezbollah members of the Lebanese parliament.

Mr. Nasrallah was also criticized for his acknowledgement of Ali Khamenei as Marjaa al-Taqlid (Source of Emulation), the highest theological authority in Shiism. Highlighting his bay'aah (allegiance), Mr. Nasrallah kisses the man's hand each time they meet. Many Lebanese Shiites resent this because Mr. Khamenei, a powerful politician but a lightweight in theological terms, is not recognized as Marjaa al-Taqlid in Iran itself. The overwhelming majority of Lebanese Shiites regard Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, in Iraq, or Ayatollah Muhammad-Hussein Fadhlallah, in Beirut, as their "Source of Emulation."

Some Lebanese Shiites also question Mr. Nasrallah's strategy of opposing Prime Minister Siniora's "Project for Peace," and instead advancing an Iranian-backed "Project of Defiance." The coalition led by Mr. Siniora wants to build Lebanon into a haven of peace in the heart of a turbulent region. His critics dismiss this as a plan "to create a larger Monaco." Mr. Nasrallah's "Project of Defiance," however, is aimed at turning Lebanon into the frontline of Iranian defenses in a war of civilizations between Islam (led by Tehran) and the "infidel," under American leadership. "The choice is between the beach and the bunker," says Lebanese scholar Nadim Shehadeh. There is evidence that a majority of Lebanese Shiites would prefer the beach.

* * *

There was a time when Shiites represented an underclass of dirt-poor peasants in the south and lumpen elements in Beirut. Over the past 30 years, however, that picture has changed. Money sent from Shiite immigrants in West Africa (where they dominate the diamond trade), and in the U.S. (especially Michigan), has helped create a prosperous middle class of Shiites more interested in the good life than martyrdom a la Imam Hussain. This new Shiite bourgeoisie dreams of a place in the mainstream of Lebanese politics and hopes to use the community's demographic advantage as a springboard for national leadership. Hezbollah, unless it ceases to be an instrument of Iranian policies, cannot realize that dream.

The list of names of those who never endorsed Hezbollah, or who broke with it after its Iranian connections became too apparent, reads like a Who's Who of Lebanese Shiism. It includes, apart from the al-Amins, families such as the al-As'ad, the Osseiran, the al-Khalil, the Hamadah, the Murtadha, the Sharafeddin, the Fadhlallah, the Mussawis, the Hussainis, the Shamsuddin and the Ata'allahs.

Far from representing the Lebanese national consensus, Hezbollah is a sectarian group backed by a militia that is trained, armed and controlled by Iran. In the words of Hossein Shariatmadari, editor of the Iranian daily Kayhan, "Hezbollah is 'Iran in Lebanon.'" In the 2004 municipal elections, Hezbollah won some 40% of the votes in the Shiite areas, the rest going to its rival Amal (Hope) movement and independent candidates. In last year's general election, Hezbollah won only 12 of the 27 seats allocated to Shiites in the 128-seat National Assembly -- despite making alliances with Christian and Druze parties and spending vast sums of Iranian money to buy votes.

Hezbollah's position is no more secure in the broader Arab world, where it is seen as an Iranian tool rather than as the vanguard of a new Nahdha (Awakening), as the Western media claim. To be sure, it is still powerful because it has guns, money and support from Iran, Syria and Hate-America International Inc. But the list of prominent Arab writers, both Shiite and Sunni, who have exposed Hezbollah for what it is -- a Khomeinist Trojan Horse -- would be too long for a single article. They are beginning to lift the veil and reveal what really happened in Lebanon.

Having lost more than 500 of its fighters, and with almost all of its medium-range missiles destroyed, Hezbollah may find it hard to sustain its claim of victory. "Hezbollah won the propaganda war because many in the West wanted it to win as a means of settling score with the United States," says Egyptian columnist Ali al-Ibrahim. "But the Arabs have become wise enough to know TV victory from real victory."

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Pollard, August 25, 2006.

Dear Shalit, Regev and Goldwasser Families,

From the moment Gilead was taken captive and then Eldad and Ehud shortly thereafter, I have not been able to stop thinking about them or about you. I pray every single day for their safe and swift return home, together with all of our MIAs and captives.

My wife Esther and I feel for you with all of our hearts. Although it is not easy for me to speak about the issue of captivity, I feel I must share with you what is in my heart.

When I first heard that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had declared that Israel would not even consider entering into negotiations for a ceasefire, nor any cessation of operations against Hizbullah, unless our captive soldiers, your beloved sons, were first returned home, I immediately knew that these were just empty words.


Because fighting a war for the return of a captive requires a moral basis.

It requires a commitment to G-d, country and fellow man. It requires the kind of morality that the State of Israel no longer seems to have.

I cannot say for certain just when it was that the State of Israel first disengaged from its moral roots and from our commitment to each other. But I do know that the moral decay was already apparent at least 21 years ago when I was thrown out of the Israeli Embassy in Washington and into the waiting arms of the FBI.

That moral failure has gone unchallenged and unrepaired for 21 years. It is a curse, which still plagues us to this day. It is the original moral failure which gave birth to the abandonment of Ron Arad, Zachary Baummel, Tzvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz, Guy Hever, as well as the abandonment of Mudhat Yosef who was wounded on the field of battle and left to bleed to death. It is the moral failure that led to the abandonment and destruction of Gush Katif, and more recently to the abandonment of all of the citizens of northern Israel. It is the moral failure that brought us a culture of empty words and broken promises which subsequent Governments of Israel have perfected to a high art.

Jewish tradition teaches that to save even a single soul, the entire Nation must be prepared to go to war. So it was when Avraham Avinu dropped everything he was doing and went out to wage war against four kings and their armies in order to secure the return of his nephew, Lot. So it was when the entire Nation went to war to secure the return of a single maidservant who was taken captive. How much more so should this be the case for our own brothers and sons, who are taken captive during their service for the security of the State!

When there is no moral basis for the return of a captive, there is of course no moral resolve, no determination to succeed, and as result no effective action is taken. This creates a vacuum, which the politicians love to fill with empty words and empty promises so that they can hang on to their cushy jobs and comfy seats. Diboorim yafeem lello ma'aseem (all talk, no action) will never bring any of the captives home.

Dear families, if my words seem unduly pessimistic, the reality is a harsh one, especially for those still in the pit of captivity. We cannot afford to ignore the truth. The only way we can hope to resolve the situation is to seek the roots of the problem, no matter how painful.

It hurts me to tell you that the real obstacle to bringing Gilad, Eldad and Ehud home is not operational or practical. On the contrary. The real obstacle has nothing to do with Israel's ability to formulate a plan of action or to carry it out. Indeed, the only real obstacle to their release is a lack of morality, a lack of arevut hadadeet (mutual responsibility).

Throughout the history of our Nation whatever Israel has truly wanted to achieve with all its heart and soul, it has achieved. The only times we have failed to realize any of our national aspirations, almost invariably the failure has been the result of some moral failure.

It was not always this way.

In June of this year we marked the 30th anniversary of "Operation Yonatan" the daring rescue operation which freed the hostages being held in Entebbe. Thirty years ago we did not have the equipment or the technology or the experience that we have today, but we still managed to pull off this amazing rescue mission. This mission which merited the blessing of Heaven, had at its root, the moral resolve of a Nation utterly committed to not surrendering to evil, and to absolutely never abandoning a brother in time of trouble.

Sadly, that is not the case today

We cannot, we must not allow this culture of abandonment to go on! The People of Israel must find the emotional strength to get right up out of the muddle of immorality -- at once - and find its way back to the path of harevut hadaddeet (mutual responsibility). We must rekindle and recapture our strength as nation that stands united -- all for one and one for all! If we can do this, and I believe we can, then we may once again be worthy of the blessing of Heaven and of the swift return home of all of Zion's prisoners.

May G-d bless us all, and may we soon see the speedy release of Gilad, Eldad and Ehud, along with all Israeli captives and MIA's! Amain!

With much love and blessing,
Jonathan Pollard.

Jonathan Pollard writes from FCI, Butner, North Carolina, USA 27509-1000.

To Go To Top

Posted by Walid Phares, August 25, 2006.

The organized campaign against the use by government of the term "Islamic fascists" is an indication that the War of Ideas is raging in the center of the War on Terror. In this clash of words and ideas, it is the education of the public, as well as the identity of those who do the educating, that will make a difference. The less informed Americans are about the enemy's ideology, the more Islamist pressure groups can attack the president, congressional and world leaders on rhetoric, blurring the public mobilization.

The term used by the president -- "Islamic fascists" -- when referring to the al-Qaida plotters in London, triggered a wave of negative reactions by Islamist lobbies, but also by moderate Muslim groups worldwide. The president most likely meant "Islamo-fascists" when he was attempting to expose the radicals. But Islamist lobbies were quick to "interpret" it as implying that "Muslims are fascists" -- an assumption which would necessarily elicit strong negative feelings from the Muslim community, moderates included. "Islamo-fascism," on the other hand (a term used by the president in speeches in 2005), makes for a more precise term because it refers to a particular set of ideologies and movements such as Salafism, Wahabism and Khumeinism, not a religious community per se.

Just as the word "Crusaders" doesn't equate with "Christians," the term "Islamist" doesn't equate with "Muslims." In the Arabic debates online and on the airwaves, reform- oriented Arabs and Muslims who are opposed to Fundamentalism call the followers of the latter Islamiyeen (Islamists), fashiyeen (fascists), Jihadiyeen (jihadists) and others. Ironically, the radicals of al-Qaida and Hezbollah identify themselves as "Islamists" and "jihadists."

Hence, it would be most logical to use the terminology produced by both of the Muslim sides: Islamist-jihadists. But it is important that leaders, intellectuals and academics explain to their audiences that words are part of the War of Ideas. The public must understand that there are political forces that are putting pressure on governments and media around the world to block knowledge as part of an effort to shield the radicals and the terrorists.

Here is a summarized lexicon for basic words: In view of sensitivities and the complexity of the debate, terms to avoid are any association between the term Muslim and terrorism, fascism, etc, especially if it is generalized. One may be born a Muslim, but becomes an Islamist.

So the term Islamic is an attribute to a behavior, an action or a self-assertion. The root identification between Muslim and Islamic is clear, but the linguistic nuance between Islamic and Islamist in the Arabic language is very narrow. In English (and other Western languages) it would be best to use the most identifiable term when addressing an ideological movement. While one can use the term Islamic when associating with radicalism, it would be academically permissible to use it while stressing on the attribute such as radical Islamic groups, instead of Islamic radicals. This description would equalize with, for example, "radical any other group." However, as advanced above, the most accurate terms would be directly borrowed from Arabic, such as Islamist and jihadists.

Both are well-known ideologies with clear political and militant agendas, massively used in the Arab and Muslim world. Islamist is a perfectly legitimate term that describes a particular ideology such as Salafism, Khumeinism or jihadism. Not only is it used in the academic world as an indicator for an ideology and not a community, but it is used by followers around the world. Thus adding attributes to Islamist is academically sound and understood. For example: Islamist-fascists or Islamo-fascist, Islamist-Salafist, etc.

But the most descriptive term of the actual "movement" at war with the U.S and democracies around the world is clearly jihadism or al Jihadiya. It is a militant doctrine, an ideology, which has generated movements, including the terrorist organizations at war with the U.S., Europe, Russia, India and the moderate Arab and Muslim countries. Arab media and governments use this terminology, but the most important argument is that the terrorists describe themselves as jihadists when in action, and Islamists ideologically. If Islamist pressure groups criticize any official for using the term Jihadist and Jihadism, they can be responded to that the Nazis called themselves Nazis in WWII.

The U.S. president, Congress and other world leaders have the duty to alert the public with regard to the name, ideology and plans of the enemy -- in this case, the jihadists.

Dr Walid Phares is a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of Future Jihad. This appeared in the Sun Sentinel. (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/)

To Go To Top

Posted by Elyakim Haetzni, August 24, 2006.

When the complaints of reservists reached the media to the effect that the IDF was not able to supply them with, among other things, water, I recalled images from the nightmare of the expulsion from Gush Katif; images of policemen and soldiers wearing their best expulsion outfits, with a stylish, uniform water bottle clipped on their backs. It was another piece of equipment of an organized and well-equipped army - but only for the oppression and expulsion of "the enemy within," the settlers.

A year has passed and that same army went to war against the real enemy, with supply containers half-empty, without sufficient supply of food, with even necessary battle gear missing or out-dated and ineffective. Soldiers were forced to purchase bullet-proof vests and other equipment with their own funds.

Whoever wants to understand the order of priorities of the leftist governments - the expulsion governments and the elites behind them - there is no better exemplification than the foregoing juxtaposition.

The campaign in Lebanon was the Yom Kippur War without the crossing of the Suez Canal, without a civilian leader like Golda Meir - whose iron character crushed Moshe Dayan's hysteria - and without the young Arik Sharon.

Imagine that World War II was waged, throughout, by Neville Chamberlain, the peace criminal whose "peace now"-style appeasement fed the Nazi snake. And imagine that the British military campaign in Africa was led by the failed generals who were removed by Churchill - Ritchie, Auchinlek, Wavell - and not by Montgomery. Rest assured that the Second World War would have ended with Hitler's regime intact, and only in France, or perhaps somewhere else, would there have been created a demilitarized buffer zone. And that cynical, mass-murdering liar would have signed a commitment, with his own impure and untrustworthy hand, to keep that zone free of soldiers and weapons.

Nasrallah will keep his ridiculous and meaningless commitments just as Hitler would have done so. Who covered, analyzed and explained this war? That same media that is hostile to Jewish nationalism and that supports "Palestine", that is defeatist and that led to this war, those same journalists and anchormen who demanded that the IDF budget "fat" be cut, until our sons were left prey to the enemy's new anti-tank missiles. Rafael and the air industry have effective countermeasures, but it was too much money to develop and install them. It is said that experimental models that were given to the Americans were deployed successfully in Iraq.

Who will pay the penalty for the blood spilled needlessly because the corrupt, bought-out government, which was drowning in surplus funds, could not find the means to supply such a necessary defensive tool? And who will pay for the poisoned minds, including the minds that were placed in charge of the internal division of the defense budget; and the minds of the staff generals who believed, in their great blindness, that the period of large-scale wars is over and that the bank of appeasements, concessions, disengagements and self-degradations is endless, to the point that there will always be something else to throw the enemy in order to avoid war? And where hides the intellectual father of the "small, smart army," that dream that crippled the military, the architect of the destruction in Lebanon - Ehud Barak?

Only the Israeli theater of the absurd could have created a scenario in which the war was run - at the military and civilian levels - by those who brought it about by their pathetic weakness and their twisted thinking, in which those who are analyzing the war contributed to its breaking out, and in which, most outrageously, it is now suggested that the war be investigated by the spiritual father of the ideological downfall at its foundation - Aharon Barak.

Carthage was not destroyed all of a sudden. For 200 years, it was fought by Rome, which eventually razed it to the ground and salted its earth. After the First Punic War came the Second Punic War, and the end came after 50 years. My friend Moshe Leshem brought to my attention the fact that the great Canaanite superpower - which ruled all of the western Mediterranean, North Africa and deep into the continent, as well as part of Sicily and Spain, and whose ships reached England, perhaps the leading economic power in the ancient world - was brought low, had its burial pit dug from within, by a faction known as "the Peace Party". And it was also the party of the ruling elites.

In light of Arab-Iranian genocidal desires, whoever does not want this last war to be recorded as "the First Punic War," Heaven forbid, is obligated to bring down our "peace government" and put an end to the malignant "peace-philosophy" in both the civilian and military establishments.

Why did Carthage fall? Because what primarily interested them was money. It was a trading superpower, a nation of millionaires that rejected any nationalist, militant, responsible approach, any proposal to preempt the clear and obvious danger, because even talk of danger was "bad for business" - never mind mobilization and preemptive war. Therefore, while in Rome Cato the Elder - like Ahmadinejad today - would end every speech with the phrase, "Moreover, I advise that Carthage should be destroyed," the ruling elites in Carthage were busy counting money. Their thoughts were on the "stock market," not on national survival. And with the end of national existence came the end of the stock market, as well.

As part of that disorder, Carthage was also filled with public corruption and irresponsibility in the affairs of state. How typical it is that all of those in the leading financial circles in Israel, almost without exception, leverage their powerful influence on politicians (and on the media, which they control) according to the premise that "peace" is good for business, while settlement of the liberated land of Israel is bad for business.

It is extremely worthwhile to study carefully the events of what the Romans called "the Punic Wars." After all, the rulers of Carthage were related to us, as sons of Tyre and Sidon. Hannibal crossed Spain, crossed the Alps and defeated Roman armies on Italian soil in battles that are studied until today in military war colleges. Hannibal reached the gates of Rome, but was defeated by the Romans due to a lack of support from home and the undermining of the forces of "peace" and corruption. Rome was patriotic and militant until its last drop of blood and its last gold piece; whereas, the cynical, nihilist Carthagian men of disengagement and convergence sat back and watched from the side, letting Hannibal "play for them." It was their failures and intrigues that sealed the fate of the city and the empire, which the heroism and self-sacrifice of the patriots could not save.

And what does the future hold for us?

Will we be able to produce a civilian leader and a military personality that the people can look up to, who will project character, charisma, incorruptibility and nobility, and most importantly, original and independent thinking that will get us out of the straits? Will the hostile media repent and return to being Jewish, Zionist, and supportive of the survival instinct of the society and the state?

Carthage could have been saved only by a speedy and timely fall of the "peace government."

Elyakim Haetzni is a lawyer and former Knesset member who resides in Kiryat Arba.

This article appeared today in Arutz Sheva as an opinion piece. This was adapted and translated from an article by Mr. Haetzni on Arutz Sheva's Hebrew service.

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, August 24, 2006.

Mahmoud AhMADinejad Iran's maniacal President asserts Israel should be wiped off the map. The silence from most of the outer world is deafening. What if the Jewish State suggested Iran should be wiped off the map? Would Muslim as well as Western European nations blast warmonger Israel for its disproportionate assertion? Would Kofi Annan direct his Security Council to sanction the tiny 'no-good nation' for its 'chutzpah'? Does a bear do his business in the woods? Let's face it, in the mind's eye of many sovereign governments, as well as their respective citizens, Israel can do little if anything right, but so much wrong. All good points are minimized, all bad points are maximized when you despise an entity but need a rationale to support your feelings. Six million Jews were slaughtered in a Holocaust beyond human comprehension, while many movers and shakers 'in the know' let it be. Finally, reluctantly, the Jewish homeland was founded, perhaps as compensation to a brutalized people, a tiny swath of land whittled down to less than two tenths of one percent the size of surrounding Muslim nations, and still that State of Israel must continually fight to survive, must always defend itself from abusing rhetoric. Why? What is it about Jews that make them so despised, consciously or sub-consciously by so many other folks? Indeed, for that tribe's size, it has contributed so much in medicine, science, technology, philosophy, as well as most every other discipline; has in fact achieved far more than its sworn enemies over time; yet as a reward is unduly vilified. Might this disrespected group of humans, in fact, represent the moral conscious of a species, to be shunned and mistreated for what it stands for, while that species continues to barrel down a path perhaps leading to its inevitable destruction?

Israel attempted to fight a surgical, hence morally justifiable war against fanatical Hizbullah, a terrorist organization obsessed with jihad, implicated in many despicable murders and massacres, yet Israel was slam-dunked in the court of world opinion for exercising a disproportionate response. Hmmm! Were allied forces castigated by most of the world for bombing Dresden in WWII, resulting in extremely large numbers of civilian casualties? Was the Truman Administration castigated by much of the world for dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, resulting in enormous civilian casualties and immense suffering for a Japanese populace experiencing the effects of radiation poisoning for generations? War indeed is hell, yet when Israel attempts to avoid civilian casualties in a guerrilla war; where immoral Hizbullah terrorists launch deadly missiles from enclaves populated by non-combatant Lebanese men, women, and children; the IDF and its nation are excoriated. Nothing biased about that, is there? Israel can do little if anything right but so much wrong in that court of public opinion, notwithstanding the fact the aggrieved Jewish State only fights to survive.

Amnesty International's recent assertion that Israel has committed war crimes over Lebanon, accusing the disrespected Jewish nation of indiscriminate attacks on civilians, is blatantly biased gratuitous rhetoric spewed upon a tiny country that truly attempted, perhaps to its own detriment, to destroy Hizbullah without harming those civilians who in fact collectively elected that sworn enemy to serve in its Parliament thus represent the will of the entire nation. Israelis could have bombed all of Lebanon indiscriminately following war time precedent set by presumably civilized nations, yet chose to follow a pathway imbued with a heightened sense of morality, even warning civilians to leave targeted areas. Of course, London-based Amnesty International did not see things that way, perhaps out of naivety, perhaps due to ingrained anti-Semitism (London after all is governed by a blatantly anti-Semitic mayor Ken Livingston), or perhaps out of a sub-conscious need to skewer a moral nation fighting to survive, utilizing surgical techniques, perhaps no other military juggernaut would employ.

Let us be clear. Israel has put its own existence in jeopardy by exercising restraint in battle while Hizbullah wantonly launched deadly Katyusha rockets at Israeli civilians, yet the State with a conscience is charged with war crimes by a presumed human rights cadre with an anti-Israel (perhaps anti-Semitic) agenda. Bizarrely, these 'do-gooders' hang their hats in a city pummeled by fanatical Muslims, kindred spirits of the terrorists Israel attempted to vanquish. Alas, no good deed goes unpunished, as those descendants of victims, brutalized by last century's Holocaust beyond human comprehension, must endure guilt-laden hostility from descendants of those who perhaps stood by and watched. Israel, a nation of Jews that will not forsake moral imperatives even during war, remains in the face of those who wish to forget the sins of their ancestors. The world collectively has no shame!

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 24, 2006.

After we, or our children and grandchildren, find ourselves living at the mercy of people who have NO MERCY, what will future generations think of us? That we let this happen because we wanted to placate "world opinion" by not acting "unilaterally"? By "appeasement"? We are fast approaching the point of no return. Wake Up Free World!

This is by Thomas Sowell and it appeared August 22, 2006 on the Townhall website.

It is hard to think of a time when a nation -- and a whole civilization -- has drifted more futilely toward a bigger catastrophe than that looming over the United States and western civilization today.

Nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran and North Korea mean that it is only a matter of time before there are nuclear weapons in the hands of international terrorist organizations. North Korea needs money and Iran has brazenly stated its aim as the destruction of Israel -- and both its actions and its rhetoric suggest aims that extend even beyond a second Holocaust.

Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.

This is not just another in the long history of military threats. The Soviet Union, despite its massive nuclear arsenal, could be deterred by our own nuclear arsenal. But suicide bombers cannot be deterred.

Fanatics filled with hate cannot be either deterred or bought off, whether Hezbollah, Hamas or the government of Iran.

The endlessly futile efforts to bring peace to the Middle East with concessions fundamentally misconceive what forces are at work.

Hate and humiliation are key forces that cannot be bought off by "trading land for peace," by a "Palestinian homeland" or by other such concessions that might have worked in other times and places.

Humiliation and hate go together. Why humiliation? Because a once-proud, dynamic culture in the forefront of world civilizations, and still carrying a message of their own superiority to "infidels" today, is painfully visible to the whole world as a poverty-stricken and backward region, lagging far behind in virtually every field of human endeavor.

There is no way that they can catch up in a hundred years, even if the rest of the world stands still. And they are not going to wait a hundred years to vent their resentments and frustrations at the humiliating position in which they find themselves.

Israel's very existence as a modern, prosperous western nation in their midst is a daily slap across the face. Nothing is easier for demagogues than to blame Israel, the United States, or western civilization in general for their own lagging position.

Hitler was able to rouse similar resentments and fanaticism in Germany under conditions not nearly as dire as those in most Middle East countries today. The proof of similar demagogic success in the Middle East is all around.

What kind of people provide a market for videotaped beheadings of innocent hostages? What kind of people would throw an old man in a wheelchair off a cruise liner into the sea, simply because he was Jewish? What kind of people would fly planes into buildings to vent their hate at the cost of their own lives?

These are the kinds of people we are talking about getting nuclear weapons. And what of ourselves?

Do we understand that the world will never be the same after hate-filled fanatics gain the ability to wipe whole American cities off the face of the earth? Do we still imagine that they can be bought off, as Israel was urged to buy them off with "land for peace" -- a peace that has proved to be wholly illusory?

Even ruthless conquerors of the past, from Genghis Khan to Adolf Hitler, wanted some tangible gains for themselves or their nations -- land, wealth, dominion. What Middle East fanatics want is the destruction and humiliation of the west.

Their treatment of hostages, some of whom have been humanitarians serving the people of the Middle East, shows that what the terrorists want is to inflict the maximum pain and psychic anguish on their victims before killing them.

Once these fanatics have nuclear weapons, those victims can include you, your children and your children's children.

The terrorists need not start out by wiping our cities off the map. Chances are they would first want to force us to humiliate ourselves in whatever ways their sadistic imaginations could conceive, out of fear of their nuclear weapons.

After we, or our children and grandchildren, find ourselves living at the mercy of people with no mercy, what will future generations think of us, that we let this happen because we wanted to placate "world opinion" by not acting "unilaterally"?

We are fast approaching the point of no return.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Phyllis Chesler, August 24, 2006.

This was published yesterday in the Jewish Press.

Our beloved Israel is engaged in an existential fight for survival.

From the moment of its birth in 1948, Israel has been under constant siege. This latest war, however, feels different. It comes upon Israel after decades of non-stop terrorist attacks, large-scale military battles, and endless international boycotts and condemnation.

Israel has been relentlessly demonized and successfully isolated by lethal propaganda. World-class illiterates and leading academics have loudly agreed that Israel is a "Nazi, apartheid" state that deserves disdain and death or have shamefully looked the other way as Jewish blood flowed and the noose tightened, perhaps secretly hoping that a second Holocaust -- this one for the Jews of Israel -- might somehow spare the West from experiencing its own much larger Holocaust at Islamist hands.

I first wrote in these pages in 2004 and again in 2006 that the beginnings of a second Holocaust were already discernable. A handful of others also envisioned this. Only recently have some Jewish- American leaders begun to entertain this idea and to repeat our lines but without acknowledging their source. Until now I was mocked as a "Jewish Cassandra" by certain Jewish leaders and slandered, banished, or simply ignored by the mainstream (liberal, left, and feminist) media.

Tragically, many of our leading Jewish intellectuals and our mainly liberal Jewish masses shared the view that whatever was happening was not really happening -- and if it was, that Israel either had only itself to blame or actually had the power to reverse the course of events. Even today, many Israeli leftists and feminists actually believe that Israel can find peace by negotiating with Hamas and Hizbullah. They send me their ideas. They boggle the mind.

Over the years, Israelis have learned to live large and tough and sweet despite the unending attacks against them. Now, for the first time, Israelis, Jews, and their many supporters are beginning to contemplate the unbearable -- namely, that the siege against Israel might never end, that our Islamist enemies (and their supporters in the Western media and academy) will never stop until they wear us down completely, drive us into the sea, or annihilate us with nuclear weaponry.

Of course, Israelis are not leaving (though many of Israel's wealthiest and most well connected citizens have second and third homes on other continents and work and travel outside of Israel a great deal). True, thousands of Jews have made aliyah in the past few years, despite the ongoing violence, and world Jewry, our Christian Zionist supporters, and the American government have continued to visit, fund, and arm Israel.

Still, there is a somber and infinitely sad quality to the conversations I've had with many Israelis. Those who have lived long enough are exhausted and afraid. The never-ending battle for the land is consuming their young. They and their children after them have all fought and been wounded in Israel's unending wars; now they are sending their grandchildren to the front. Worse: the entire country has become the front.

In the space of five weeks, trees that took one hundred years to grow were burned to the ground by Hizbullah rockets. The Israeli north became one vast ghost town, Kiryat Shmonah was devastated, more than a million Israeli refugees were forced to flee -- though they have been welcomed by other Israelis who live in temporarily safer, southern communities. (May this hospitality begin to unite our people.) But little of this has been shown by the world media, which has focused obsessively on the Lebanese civilian dead.

How ironic. Israeli civilians are essentially soldiers while Iranian terrorist army members who dress in street clothes are counted by the media as "civilian" dead. Despite being stopped in some instances by vigilant bloggers, the world media continue to run Hizbullah's doctored footage and craftily arranged photo opportunities.

Israelis are asking some hard but necessary questions. A Haifa resident admitted that "finally, for the first time in 40 years," she is "depressed" and wondering "whether Israel has a future." Israel's enemies, she said, "live only to fight, kill, and die. They `win' if they can reduce our way of life to one of brute existence."

A resident of Jerusalem tells me "the loss is great, the fear is deep, confidence is low, support for the soldiers is high, but we feel isolated and misrepresented, misunderstood. Where will this end?"

Another Jerusalem resident says, "The war in the field is barely connected to the war being constructed by the media who mold the broadcasts to fit their ideologies. The ironies are too much to bear."

A refugee from Nahariya: "The Israeli government is not showing us the pictures of the northern towns. But are they getting out to the world? Do you see the Israeli wounded, are you getting the picture of what it's like to live in a bomb shelter actually or in your head for five or six weeks? How long are we supposed to do this?"

The director of a northern kibbutz for handicapped and special-needs children writes that his vulnerable charges are "terrified by all the rocket-dodging" and by life in "small, crowded, underground spaces."

Even some proverbially nonchalant Tel Avivians have confirmed that they have been staying home "every single night" to be close to their young children and aging parents "in case they are bombed."

Today, for the first time, Israelis and Jews are beginning to think the unthinkable. How long must Israel continue to do the heavy lifting in America's civilizational war against Iran and Syria and indeed against Islamist jihad? At what point will Israel need to consider exercising its nuclear option against Iran?

Can Israel, or Israel and America, succeed militarily? Even if they can, will the fallout for Israel be greater politically -- or radioactively? Must the Jews once again enact another Masada-like scenario? Or is Israel, unrestrained, still capable of an Entebbe- like commando action that will stop Ahmadinejad/Armageddon?

Conversely, will the Jews have to consider leaving Israel again, at least temporarily? If they do, where will they go? To the moon? Under the sea? Perchance to Arizona or New Mexico for a century until things quiet down in the Middle East? But will Jews ever be safe in a Jew-hating world without a strong Israel?

Just this month a London hairdresser refused to cut "the hair of a Jew" (a woman who had frequented the salon for a decade) and 20 Jewish shops were vandalized in Rome. Anti-Jewish, anti-Zionist, and anti-American marches (not to mention terrorist attacks against trains and buses and plots against airlines) continue unabated in every major European capital. Placards read: "Europe is the Cancer. Islam is the Answer"; "Europe You Will Pay, Your 9/11 Is on Its Way"; and "Be Prepared for the Real Holocaust."

And it's not just Europe: Dislike, if not open hatred, for Israel, coupled with the belief in an evil Zionist lobby, is rampant on American campuses, within certain quarters of the American State Department, and among the progressive and mainstream media. This month in Washington, D.C., ten-year-old Arab-American girls chanted pro-Hizbullah slogans.

Religious Zionists will never give up on Israel; I doubt secular Israelis will either. I certainly won't. And Israeli soldiers are absolutely willing and able to fight. But the exhaustion and the danger are real and must be factored in. We must weigh every option, make all kinds of contingency plans, be prepared to act on all fronts -- simultaneously, if need be.

There are at least a million totalitarian Islamists willing to die in order to kill Jews and other infidels; more than a billion of their fellow Muslims have, thus far, refused to challenge and subdue them. These civilian-terrorists, who hide in rat-holes and caves, rooming houses and dormitories, are adept at using our technology and our legal system against us. Israel was in the forefront of fighting Arafat's kind of terrorism but we are now in the al Qaeda/Hizbullah era. New military, undercover, and propaganda strategies must be adopted.

Many people, including some Jews, accuse Jews of elevating our suffering above that of other groups. They see this as selfish, even racist. In my view, what happens to Israel is a prophecy and a warning to the world about what will happen to all humanity. Perhaps this is one way the Jews are special or "chosen." We constitute God's holy classroom.

If the world does not stop the jihadists in Israel, if it chooses to sacrifice the Jews once again, it will, soon enough, find itself bombed back to the seventh century and living under Islamic religious law. Several Iranian dissident friends have begged me to explain to them why America has not already stopped Iran. As one distraught dissident put it, the mullahs have already murdered vast numbers of their own countrymen and will stop at nothing to return to a Caliphate. "And the Jews?" he asks. "How can they, of all people, hesitate?"

If not now, when? If not us, who? The time is now.

Dr. Phyllis Chesler is the author of classic works, including the bestseller "Women and Madness" (1972) and "The New Anti-Semitism" (2003). She has just published "The Death of Feminism: What's Next in the Struggle for Women's Freedom" (Palgrave Macmillan), as well as an updated and revised edition of "Women and Madness." She is an Emerita Professor of psychology and women's studies, the co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology (1969) and the National Women's Health Network (1974). She lives in New York City. Her website is www.phyllis-chesler.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Holcberg, August 24, 2006.

President Bush's pledge to hand out $230 million in "humanitarian aid" to the Lebanese people is a deadly sacrifice.

Given that Hezbollah controls much of Lebanon, and given that most of the destruction inflicted by Israel was done to neighborhoods heavily supportive of Hezbollah, any U.S. assistance to the Lebanese will benefit Hezbollah and the population that supports it.

Moreover, the Lebanese people do not deserve any help: since Israel left Lebanon in 2000, the Lebanese elected Hezbollah to the parliament, gave them two cabinet seats, and permitted the Islamic terror group to arm itself and launch unprovoked attacks on Israel's civilian population.

If the goal of President Bush is to win over the Arab street, he will not succeed. No amount of American aid will buy the hearts and minds of those who hate us and want to see us dead. Aid will, however, earn their contempt--by showing them that they can support anti-American terrorism without reprisal.

It is bad enough that Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia are still funding Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers. It is beyond the pale that the United States would decide to join them.

David Holcberg is with the Ayn Rand Institute (www.aynrand.org/) in Irvine, CA. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead." Contact the writer at media@aynrand.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, August 24, 2006.

One of the perhaps most popular arguments for condeming Israel is that it must be racist becuase it is a "Jewish" State, and has a 'right of return" that is racist in its favoritism to Jews, and really, like other civilized states, Israel should be a secular non-denominational state.

My answer has always been: "well, do you have a problem with the Moslem Republic of Pakistan; or with the Islamic Republic of Iran; not to mention the incredibly xenophobic and apartheid Sunni Wahhabi Moslem kingdom of Arabia?"

That usually stops the conversation and my interlocutor lamely attempts to change the topic or backtrack.


........the WSJ op-ed below does a much more thorough job of exploring the issue....and asking very astute and insightful questions about this issue.

It is by David E. Bernstein and it appeared today. I encourage you all to read it, memorize it, and quote it whenever necessary. Mr. Bernstein is a professor at the George Mason University School of Law. This appeared on The Volokh Conspiracy.

A reader, sympathetic to Israel but troubled by its existence as "Jewish state," asks: "Can you point me to any case in any example where you would say '[Country A] has the right to exist as a [Race B] or [Religion C] state?' I can think of numerous claims like this by societies in the past, which are now widely condemned."

Actually, many, many countries have an official religion, including not only "backward" countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia that enforce religious law, but "progressive" liberal bastions such as Norway, Denmark, and Iceland (all Lutheran). By contrast, Judaism is not the official religion of Israel. Jewish holidays are government holidays, but that's like Christmas in the U.S. (Family law is controlled by religious bodies, but that's true for Muslims, Christians, et al., as well as Jews, and is an artifact of Ottoman and British rule. My understanding is that most Jews in Israel are against the religious monopoly on family law, but it survives because the religious parties have disproportionate power. The Arab community, which is far more traditional in its religious practices than is the Jewish community, almost certainly is more supportive of this arrangement than the Jews are, so this has really nothing to do with Israel being a "Jewish state," as such.)

As for the question of "race," the problem can't be "self-determination" of a group, because the propriety of that principle seems rather well-accepted. "Jewishness" is not a racial identity, but complaints about Israel being a "Jewish state" are often put in terms of the Law of Return being "racist."

The Law of Return is based on ethnic (not racial) heritage and grants anyone with a Jewish grandparent automatic citizenship (the Israeli Supreme Court has held that one is not eligible for the Law of Return if one has adopted the Christian religion, because in the complex area of Jewish identity, Jews who become Christians have left the Jewish people).

Non-Jewish immigrants with no ethnic Jewish background can become citizens, with some difficulty (DML: More or less the same difficulty as can non-Danes seeking citizenship in Denmark), as can, automatically, non-Jewish immigrants closely related to Jews (e.g., spouses), many of whom have recently arrived from the former Soviet Union. Arabs who lived in Israel during the War of Independence (and thus presumptively accepted the existence of Israel and were not engaged in warfare against Israel) and their descendants have full citizenship rights, but they are relieved of one of the major obligations of Israeli citizenship, military or other national service (I think this is a big mistake, but that is a topic for a separate post).

One's liberal, progressive or libertarian hackles can easily be raised at Israel's citizenship policies. Why should ethnic background entitle one to citizenship? On the other hand, Israel's defenders would argue that given that the Jews have been the subject of massive state and private violence over the past few centuries, including one attempted genocide (by Hitler) and another one that was averted only by Stalin's timely death, Jews need a homeland/refuge where they can go with automatic citizenship rights.

Whatever side you take on that debate, the more interesting question is why the question of basing citizenship (in part) of ethnic descent only calls the right of Israel to exist into question.

My correspondent was unaware of any other countries that have an overt ethnic identity, but, judging by immigration laws, there are quite a few, and with a few exceptions (Armenia and Germany), their discriminatory immigration policies exist, unlike Israel's, without any justification resulting from persecution of that group.

For example, according to Wikipedia: "Japanese citizenship is conferred jus sanguinis, and monolingual Japanese-speaking minorities often reside in Japan for generations under permanent residency status without acquiring citizenship in their country of birth." Why does Japan have the right to exist as a Japanese state? Has this question ever been asked?

An Irish government Web site states: "If you are of the third or subsequent generation born abroad to an Irish citizen (in other words, one of your grandparents is an Irish citizen but none of your parents was born in Ireland), you may be entitled to become an Irish citizen"--if, as I understand it, you register properly. Does Ireland have the right to exist as an Irish state? Several other countries recognize a "right of return" similar, but often broader, than Israel's (via Wikipedia):

Armenia. "Individuals of Armenian origin shall acquire citizenship of the Republic of Armenia through a simplified procedure."

Bulgaria. "Any person ... whose descent from a Bulgarian citizen has been established by way of a court ruling shall be a Bulgarian citizen by origin."

Finland. "The Finnish Aliens Act provides for persons who are of Finnish origin to receive permanent residence. This generally means Karelians and Ingrian Finns from the former Soviet Union, but United States, Canadian or Swedish nationals with Finnish ancestry can also apply."

Germany. "German law allows persons of German descent living in Eastern Europe to return to Germany and acquire German citizenship." My understanding is that this German descent may go back many generations. (Note that until recently, Germany's citizenship law was less liberal than Israel's, in that it did not allow people who were not ethnic Germans, including Turks who had lived in Germany for generations, to be become citizens.)

Greece. " 'Foreign persons of Greek origin' who neither live in Greece nor hold Greek citizenship nor were necessarily born there, may become Greek citizens by enlisting in Greece's military forces."

Wikipedia provides a several other examples, none of which seem to ever raise the same questions about the legitimacy of the states involved as the Law of Return does for Israel.

Of course, Israel has the added burden that the Palestinians claiming that they are the true "owners" of the relevant land, or that at least the Palestinians who fled in 1948 and their descendants should have their own "right to return". But I think that issue exists quite apart from whether Israel's Law of Return is objectionable, and indeed must, given that the Palestinian side is calling for even fourth-generation descendants of residents of what is now Israel, who never set foot there, to be allowed based on their ancestry to return.

(DML: what the author is intimating here, without going into more explicatory detail, is that if one objects to Israel's right of return, say, on the grounds that it shows favouritism to one ethno-religious group, then should not one have the same objections to the Palestinian 'right of return - haq el-auda', and perhaps even more so since the PA 'law of return' allows fourth generation identity which the Israeli law of return allows only 3rd generation identity?)

In short, the perception my correspondent had, which in my experience is shared by many, that Israel is a uniquely "religious state" is not only wrong; it's backwards--

--Israel has less of an explicit religious identity than many countries (complicated, I admit, by the fact that one can in an odd way assume a Jewish ethnic identity by converting religiously). And Israel is hardly unique in basing immigration and citizenship policy at least partly on ethnic heritage (the thought that Israel is unique in this regard seems bound up with the confused notion that it must have something to do with Jews thinking they are God's "Chosen People").

The big difference is that unlike, say, Japan, Israel actually has especially strong, though I wouldn't say completely unassailable, reasons for doing so.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, August 24, 2006.

This was written by Khaled Abu Toameh and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post today.

I have added a few notes beneath his article.

For the first time since the Hamas victory in the parliamentary elections earlier this year, the Fatah central committee, a key decision-making body in the Palestinian Authority, began a three-day meeting in Jordan on Wednesday to discuss internal reforms and relations with Hamas.

------- (DML: I'm separating out the Caliphate part from the rest, for your ease of reading)---

Meanwhile, a radical Islamic group called Hizb al-Tahrir (Liberation Party) is planning to declare the birth of an Islamic caliphate in the Gaza Strip on Friday. The relatively small party, which is seen as more extreme than Hamas, is said to have increased its popularity following what is perceived as a Hizbullah victory over Israel.

On Tuesday, thousands of the party's supporters staged a demonstration in Gaza City to mark the anniversary of the end of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. It was the first demonstration in the Gaza Strip in which demonstrators called for establishing an Islamic caliphate that would rule not only in the PA territories, but the entire world. [*]

Buoyed by the large turnout, the party's leaders are now considering declaring an Islamic caliphate in the Gaza Strip during Friday prayers, sources close to the party said.

Jordanian security forces recently foiled a similar attempt by the party's followers in the kingdom and arrested most of their leaders. Ramzi Sawalhah, the leader of Hizb al-Tahrir in Jordan, was arrested shortly after he delivered a sermon in a mosque in which he called for replacing the monarchy with an Islamic caliphate. [*]

---------(DML: now Tuomeh returns to his main topic)-------

The Fatah meeting is being held under the chairmanship of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who is also the leader of Fatah.

Sixteen members of the committee, which is dominated by veteran officials representing the "old guard" in Fatah, are participating in the discussions. The meeting is being held in Amman so that Fatah leaders living abroad like Farouk Kaddoumi could attend, sources close to Abbas said. [**]

Khaled Musmar, a member of the Fatah "revolutionary council," another one of the party's influential bodies, said Abbas was expected to brief the committee members on the results of his talks with Hamas over the formation of a national-unity government and demands for implementing major reforms in Fatah.

He said the Fatah leaders were also expected to set a date for holding a general conference to elect a new leadership. The last time such a conference was convened was in 1989 in Tunis.

"We will discuss the internal situation in Fatah and ways of reforming the party," Musmar said, referring to demands by representatives of the "young guard" to inject new and younger blood into the party and to get rid of corrupt officials.

Abbas and other veteran leaders of Fatah have been under immense pressure from grassroots activists to reform the party following its failure in the parliamentary elections. However, Abbas did not invite representatives of the "young guard" to participate in the discussions - a move that has raised eyebrows among many disgruntled Fatah activists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Many of the Fatah leaders who are attending are former cronies of Yasser Arafat whose names have been linked to financial corruption and mismanagement in the PA over the past decade.

"We're sick and tired of seeing the same old faces talk about the need for reforms in Fatah," a top Fatah activist in Ramallah told The Jerusalem Post. "How can they talk about reforms in Fatah without consulting with the young leaders, especially those who are in Israeli prisons?"

Former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei said participants would discuss ways of repairing Fatah after its defeat in the election.

Abbas is also hoping to win the backing of the committee for his plan to form a "national-salvation government" once talks with Hamas over the establishment of national-unity government failed. PA officials in Ramallah said on Tuesday that Abbas was seriously considering the possibility of forming a government of technocrats after failing to persuade Hamas to establish a joint Fatah-Hamas government.

Fatah leaders claimed Hamas was not interested in such a government because its leaders had no intention of changing their political agenda. They said Abbas warned Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh that unless he recognized Israel's right to exist, the international community would not resume financial aid to the PA.

Abbas Zaki, a member of the Fatah central committee, said Hamas should copy the the model of Hizbullah, which, he added, was keen to attribute its victory over Israel to the entire Lebanese people. "Hizbullah cares very much about national unity in Lebanon," he said. "We are hoping that Hamas will learn from the experiences of Hizbullah, which enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of Lebanese."


[*] Sounds crazy, doesn't it? A small terrorist organization, extremist even when compared to Hamas and Hezbollah, with a small following of outlandishly outre extremists....whom many in their own culture consider to be part of a loony loopy crowd of psychos and sickos.....THEY will declare a new Caliphate which will eventually rule the entire world: "Islam uber alles"??!!

For those not old enough to remember, or not well enough versed in history to know, my paragraph above more or less paraphrases what many in Europe and the USA, and even in Germany, said about Hitler in the mid-1930s.....even as he wrote in Mein Kampf that he intended to establish a thousand-year Reich in which all Jews would be annihilated, and which would make "Deutschland uber alles"!

Most thought he was crazy....but a few years later the German masses by the millions were wild with enthusiasm about their finally getting their true place in the sun, the place that Gott-in-Himmel (God in heaven) always intended for them....the ruling aryan race, in control of world affairs because the masters should indeed have dominion over the inferior ones....that is the natural order, that is the order that God wants (and getting rid of the Jews, too).

And a few years after that, Europe's great powers were appeasing him with chunks of eastern europe, and a year after that world war 2 had begun, and soon all of europe was in flames, and five years later somewhere betweeen 40,000,000 and 70,000,000 people had been killed.

So I urge all to take Hizb-et-Tahrir very seriously. We have strong and tragic historical antecedents to the extreme danger of ignoring their lunacy.

[**] It is important to recall, when considering that our so-called "moderate" Abbas brings Fatah and PLO to Amman for their meeting just so that he can enable Farouk Qaddumi to attend (if Qaddumi entered the west bank Israel would arrest or kill him), that Qaddumi is a Fatah terrorist leader, with the blood of scores or even hundreds on his hands, who is even more extreme in his anti-Israel stance than was Arafat.

Qaddumi chose to stay in Tunis in 1993 rather than go to Oslo and return to "Occupied Palestine". He contended that Arafat, by even pretending to be acquiescing to the demands of the Oslo accords, was going soft on the basic cornerstone Fatah/PLO demand that Israel be destroyed and its Jews driven from the land or killed (although there has been talk of maybe allowing the descendents of those Jews who were in "Occupied Palestine" prior to 1915 to remain on as indigenous Jewish Dhimmi under PLO/Fatah political control.).

Qaddumi remained in Tunis, preaching extreme Fatah ideology of total destruction of Israel and criticism of Arafat and Abbas and Fatah for trying to find some wiggle-room within the Oslo accords for a Palestinian state even termporarily existing alongside of Israel.

His basic line was, and is, "ISRAEL DELENDA EST" (a Latin quote from Cato, who used to stand up in the Roman Senate every day and utter just three words: Cartago delenda est - Carthage must be destroyed. Many thought him crazy, or just addled enough to be eccentric..... until, after years of doing this, he roused the roman consciousness to its perceived need to destory Carthage...which Rome did).....

.....So Qaddumi insists....Israel must be destroyed.

That is all there is to it. For Qaddumi and his group, there is no compromise, not even for tactical purposes. Just keep killing jews in order to eventually destroy Israel and kill all of its Jews. Done.

So.......when Abbas goes way out of his way to hold his meeting in Amman so that Qaddumi can join them, Abbas is going way out of his way to accomodate Qaddumi and send a signal to all who know who and what Qaddumi is and what he stands for.....

.....and what is that signal?

Some would say the signal is that Qaddumi's extremism is not alien to Abbas and the PLO, even as they work for some sort of rapprochement with Israel.....because, after all, in the final analysis, just as Arafat said on April 14, 2002..."Once we have our state firmly established on the West Bank and GAza Strip, then we will call upon all Arabs everywhere to join us in the last great final Jihad and use the West Bank as a launching pad for the grand assault on Jerusalem, a springboard for that glorious final invasion and liberation of "occupied Palestine"."

Others would say...no, no!...Abbas is doing the smart thing. He is tryng to co-opt Qaddumi and his followers into a more moderate line, tryng to defuse Qaddumi's extremism by bringing him into the fold. If Abbas can get Qaddumi to relent and take part in the political process....well...then the political process will moderate him.

The UN tried that with the PLO back in 1974. Rather than the UN moderating the PLO, the PLO radicalized and hijacked the UN.

Clinton and Israel tried that with Arafat and the PLO in the Oslo Accords. Rather than the responsibilities of governnance moderating Arafat, Arafat jettisoned all pretense of governance, ruled via the "democracy of the gun", and used the Oslo Accords as the launching pad for 11 years of the worst terror war in world history.

Lebanon tried that with Hezbollah in its "Cedar Revolution". Rather than Hezbollah moderating itself as it took part in the democratic processes of a new Lebanon, Hezbollah hijacked Lebanon, held it hostage, and then subordinated it to hezbollah's own terrorist intentions.

Israel and Bush and the Palestinian Authority tried that with Hamas in the January '06 PA elections. Rather than Hamas now becoming moderate because of needing to handle the garbage and budget etc....Hamas left that to the PLO and went on a terror binge of thousands of Qassams, hundreds of terror attacks from the Gaza STrip, and scores of attempted suicide bombings.

Given the recent history of attempts to 'moderate' extremists by bringing hem into the mainstream, I tend to suspect that Qaddumi's presence in Amman is not a harbinger of moderation.....and Abbas knows that.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 24, 2006.


Hizbullah refused to allow civilians to evacuate from Bint Jbeil, a Hizbullah command and storage center, about to be attacked by the IDF. It kept the civilians inside, to use as human shields. This tactic worked to some extent, inasmuch as the IDF minimized its bombing and strafing, in order to spare the civilians (Arutz-7, 7/27). The pro-Syrian President of Syria complains that civilians are getting killed in this war. He also complained that Hizbullah invokes Israeli attacks.


Hizbullah laid an ambush for the incoming Israeli infantry. It killed eight Israeli soldiers. "An IDF source explained that, considering that there are still a few hundred Lebanese citizens in Bint Jbeil, forces cannot attack the town aerially, and, thus, it is necessary to bring in ground troops." Just when the families of IDF soldiers thought that rules of the game finally were corrected so that the insanity of dying for PR was over. (IMRA, 7/26.)

Israel rarely gets credit for excessively humanitarian rules of war. Indeed, Israel has been excessively criticized for allegedly inhumane military practices.


"Last week in Maroun a-Ras, several soldiers died fighting Hizbullah around their fortified bunkers. The correct use of military power in that situation would have been to use small special forces teams equipped with nothing more than GPS trackers, laser pointers and Uzi submachine guns." The elite forces, instead of going into the bunkers, could have laser-painted the bunkers' positions to the IAF, which would have destroyed them. That would be the correct way to leverage Israel's technological advantage."

"The massive bombings - the IAF's use of brute force - has its limitations with respect to high-value targets, and the deployment of ground troops neutralizes our advantages. When a soldier meets a soldier, when a Kalashnikov meets an M-16, when the fight is eye to eye, there are no technological advantages." The Israeli Cabinet does not understand the modern way of counter-terrorism, which whittles down the enemy by attrition (IMRA, 7/27 from Dr. Shmuel Gordon.) It's the old story. When the commanding general is from the air force, as is Israel's, he over-estimates air power. The strategy recommended by Dr. Gordon combines the different military branches. However, another, unmentioned branch is diplomacy, which also means propaganda. Israel is poor at that. There also needs to be a way to counteract radical ideology. The West has not figured out how to do so. The Lebanese Daily Star claims the answer is to support pro-Western and moderate Arab leaders, such as Abbas and PM Siniora of Lebanon (IMRA, 7/27). Maybe, but the Star is not Western and Abbas is neither pro-Western nor moderate.


"How very much admiration there is for you in the United States with the President for your courage and for your continued leadership of the Palestinian people. I know that this is an extraordinarily difficult time for the Palestinian people as well as for other innocent people in the region including, of course, the Lebanese and innocent Israelis, and we need to get to a sustainable peace for this region. That is really the problem. There must be a way for people to reconcile their differences and to move forward toward peace... we must remain focused on what is happening here in the Palestinian territories on our desires to get back on a course that will lead ultimately to the President's vision and deep vision of President Abbas -- President Bush's vision, but indeed the vision of President Abbas, of two states living side by side in peace." (IMRA, 7/25.)

"Admiration for the courage" of Abbas, who refused to disarm terrorists. His "continued leadership" of the people who don't follow it? The Palestinian Arabs are an "innocent people," although they favor and support terrorism? "There must be a way for people to reconcile their differences" when the Muslim side tolerates no different faiths and seeks to dominate them? Abbas' vision of two states, when he was Arafat's assistant in seeking to eradicate the Jewish state?


Israel attacked a UNO post in Lebanon, killing a couple of its troops. Sec.-General Annan condemned Israel for deliberately attacking the troops, then called for an investigation. IMRA thought the sequence of his statements backwards. Annan did say that he had asked Israel to be careful of that post. One of the slain troops had sent out an e-mail in guarded language indicating that Hizbullah had surrounded the post and was using it as a shield, in its attacks against Israeli forces. The UNO does not punish terrorists nor stop them, despite its mission to stop them (IMRA, 7/26). Apparently the IDF fired in self-defense, intending to strike not the post but the Hizbullah men using it as cover.


After weeks of boasting, Hizbullah has gone on to denying the significance of its loss of territory, lamenting its "martyrs" deaths, blaming the US, and rebuking the Arab states for not coming to its relief. These are signs of defeat. At that time, Israel had killed an estimated 150 fighters and captured dozens of others (IMRA, 7/25). Hizbullah had become unpopular in Lebanon. Later reports indicated that it took the lead in rebuilding, and distributed Iranian cash, recouping its popularity. Hizbullah has thousands of fighters. A couple of hundred is just a dent.


Anthony Cordesman wrote that Hizbullah had up to 3,500 troops, most of whom are part-timers, but many of whom are experienced. About 300 are their mainstay. As against that, he says that the Lebanese Army has 70,000 (IMRA, 7/26). He did not compare their training and arms. He did not mention the other private militias, their strength, and which side they would likely support.


What does the Sec. of State talk about? Does she rally the forces of independence against the Islamists? No. She stresses humanitarian aid for Lebanon and the "need for a ceasefire." She mentions Syria's international obligations that it should honor. She does say that the ceasefire should prevent return to the conditions that led to the war (IMRA, 7/24). She does not explain the urgency to a ceasefire. Syria won't honor obligations with Iranian support and without compulsion. Rice's talk is lip service. She is involving the UNO, which one cannot depend on it to solve anything.


Hizbullah's initial attack on the Israeli Army post was called reasonable, because it was military, rather than terrorist. It actually was unreasonable, because it violated the ceasefire. It was an act of aggression. Israel's massive counter-action is called disproportional. It actually is reasonable, because Hizbullah has fired at Israeli cities before. It long has been conducting a war of constant attrition. Israel has the right to go to the source of these attacks and squelch the capability for further aggression. Proportionality refers to the difference between the means needed to reach a military objective and the means used. "When one side routinely attacks the other with no legitimate cause over years, and the other side has an interest to stop the aggression, it is allowed to use the required force to achieve that objective. In our case, we can see that a little force will not be enough, since all the force used so far is not sure to be enough." Israel is alleged to have committed war crimes by attacking civilians. No, war crimes are either deliberately attacking civilians or taking no care to avoid unnecessary casualties. Israel takes care. It is the responsibility of Hizbullah for casualties by civilians whom they use as human shields. Many of the shields knowingly volunteer, thereby losing civilian status (IMRA, 7/26).

Why don't Israel's critics complain about Hizbullah doing that by bombarding Israeli cities for no military purpose?) Humans in general use logic to rationalize what their emotions favor. In the Arab-Israel conflict, they abuse logic and notions of human rights to rationalize their anti-Zionism in favor of a backward, totalitarian culture that wants to conquer them. What could be more irrational than that? Unfortunately, the media generally goes along with their perversion.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Ettinger, August 24, 2006.

The enclosed article by Dr. Richard Booker was referred to me by Dr. Michael Widlanski [mikewid@netvision.net.il]. It highlights the shared values, which underlie the ties between the US and its sole soul ally in the Mideast, the Jewish State. Dr. Richard Booker is Founder/Director, Institute for Hebraic-Christian Studies.

The cardinal role played by Haym Salomon, in the success of the American Revolution, was a natural extension of the Judeo-Christian world view, which guided the pilgrims, the Founding Fathers, the early US colleges and universities and the formulation of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

For further reading on Haym Salomon: "The Story of Haym Salomon - Forgotten Patriot", by Dr. David Allen Lewis, Springfield, MO, 1993.

In 1975 the United States Postal Department issued a stamp honoring a man named Haym Salomon for his contribution to the cause of the American Revolution. This stamp was uniquely printed on the front and the back. On the glue side of the stamp, the following words were printed in pale, green ink. "Financial Hero - Businessman and broker Haym Salomon was responsible for raising most of the money needed to finance the American Revolution and later to save the new nation from collapse." I personally have one of these stamps. Historians who have studied the story of Haym Salomon all agree that without his "contribution to the cause" there would be no America today.

Haym Salomon bought and sold financial papers to raise money for Robert Morris who was the Superintendent of Finance for the Continental Congress. He believed that America would be a safe haven for the Jews. But this son of a rabbi, also believed that one day in the future, Jerusalem would rise from the dust, the Jews would return to their ancient homeland, and Israel and Jerusalem would once again be the home of the wandering Jew. Salomon determined to do all that he could to finance the Revolution so that America could survive until that future time when his people would once again fill the streets of Jerusalem.

From one crisis to the next, Robert Morris went to Haym Salomon for help, and Salomon always responded. Haym Salomon gave his entire personal fortune of over $800,000 to the cause of the Revolution. This debt was never repaid. He died sick and penniless at the age of 45, January 6, 1785, leaving behind a young widow, Rachel, and four children all under the age of seven. Rachel tried for months after Haym's death to collect on personal loans that he had made to Robert Morris, to the Congress and others. She was requested to turn all her securities and certificates over to the State Treasurer of Pennsylvania for evaluation. After several months she made further inquiries and was informed that all of the papers relating to her inheritance had been lost.

Haym Salomon was buried in Mikveh Israel Cemetery in Philadelphia in a grave which is now unmarked. Since we don't know which his grave is, we cannot even pay our respects at his graveside nor erect a marker.

But the story of Haym Salomon doesn't end with an unmarked grave. There is a plaque on a brick wall bordering the cemetery that was placed by Haym's great-grandson, William Salomon in 1917. It says, "To the Memory of Haym Salomon... interred in this Cemetery the location of the grave being now unknown..."

Was it just a coincidence that the year this plaque was erected was the same year of the Balfour Declaration issued by the British which begins, "His majesty's Government views with favor the establishing in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."? Was it just a coincidence that in 1975 when the U.S. Postal Department issued the stamp honoring Haym Salomon, that same year the Israeli government issued a stamp honoring Harry Truman, the American president who was the first head of state to recognize Israel?

As Haym Salomon believed, America has been that save haven for the Jewish people and Israel has been reborn. As we celebrate America, may we remember the great debt we owe to Haym Salomon. While we may not be able to repay him personally, we can honor him by standing firm in our support and prayers for a strong and secure Israel and a united Jerusalem under the rule of Haym's Salomon's spiritual descendants, the Jewish people.

Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Eugene E. Narrett, August 24, 2006.

The title is a slight exaggeration that makes an important point: the war of resistance to global jihad can be won by just a few Western states without using their massive advantage in armaments except for deterrent purposes.

Here's the historical precedent that was not taken and then the contemporary 'weapon' at hand that can put the jihad-genie back in its demonic lamp.

During the last twenty-five years of the Cold War, the Soviet Bloc was maintained not by its arms but by American and Canadian wheat. That's right: so massive was the dominance of the diplomatic corps of the Western powers, so complete was their sway over the media and their higher education echo-chamber of useful idiots that it was the "enlightened consensus" that "peaceful co-existence" was the only alternative to apocalypse.

Actually, foreshadowing current dynamics, maintaining the Communist threat kept alive the sense of crisis (before there was a genuine Soviet nuclear threat beginning around 1970) that allowed the politicians that front for major corporate interests to mobilize society and terrify citizens into paying for a war that could have been ended anytime from 1946-66 with minimal casualties to the West.

The Communists wrecked their economy, especially their agricultural basis and could not begin to feed their people. Withholding American and Canadian wheat would have ended the Cold War before the Russians ever developed the ICBM capabilities that gave them the chance to do significant damage to the West before being utterly destroyed.

How much the peoples of Eastern Europe (and most Russians) would have given had America,

1) massively bombed Soviet Russia from 1946 - 60 when our air and missile long-range delivery superiority was enormous,

or 2) withheld the food gifts that kept the homicidal and imperialist tyranny afloat till taken down in the late 1980s.

Me and millions of other kids wouldn't have done all those drills of scrunching up under our desks or filing down into the AV room in the school basement. Entrepreneurs like Bohemian Grove top-dog Nellie Rockefeller wouldn't have made a fortune promoting "bomb shelters" in the '50s. But unless you've got a terrified population they won't pony up big tax money for "defense" or tolerate the whittling away of civil liberties...

So it is today. The British awakened the jihad-genie in the 1920s to use against the Jews, mainly, but also to create the chronic crises that would "require" a global security state as so neatly described by Huxley (1931), more grimly and accurately by Orwell (1948) and promoted by the Utilitarians from the 1830s: a strictly 'empirical' elite that would oversee all society from its "Panopticon," not unlike the floating eye atop the Masonic pyramid, and constantly adjust the levers of state to secure, ostensibly, "the greatest good for the greatest number" ---- as the seers would define it.

And here we are in the "War on Terror" with the leaders of the "free" West so reluctant to name their enemy and to fight it, genuinely (a phenomenon we have just witnessed with Hezbollah, sworn to annihilate Israel while the Hellenist leaders of that state refused to fight).

But the point is that the West need not mobilize or use its massive superiority in weaponry to squash jihad and put the genie back in its box for centuries.


The Europeans, Japanese, Indians and Chinese may SEEM to need it more than we but that's illusory. Norway, England, Mexico, Venezuela, let alone the United States and Russia have vast reserves and untapped quantities of oil. Things might slow down for a few weeks but by then, without food from North America and Europe the Islamic nations would be starving.

This non-military victory is a question of political will and public awareness of its possibility. Just as Israel need only shut off the electricity, food and water in order to subdue the "Palestinians" [sic] and cause most of them to flee to their Arab brethren, so America, Canada and Europe need only stop exporting food to the Umma to bring jihad to its knees. The kamikazes among them will be dealt with quickly on the principle of answering each terror incident by subtracting an Islamic city from the face of the earth. One month and WW III is over.

The peace crowd really ought to get behind this approach. It's ecologically balanced, ergnomic and very low cost. If Ralph Nader was sane, even he would like it.

Now that this clean strategy is public, our leading politicians and diplomats have an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to world peace and transformation of Islam into that religion of peace we've heard so much about. No more fruit, bread, meat, vegetables, and no more trips to Vegas, Atlantic City and Foxwoods, Mahmoud. Grow your own food. What, you can't? You won't? Sorry.

End of Jihad.

PS and by the way: in the 1950s and '60s, national socialist Islamic states were permitted by the West, primarily Britain's and America's corporate-diplomatic elites to "nationalize" the oil industry and vast infrastr ucture that was conceived, designed, manufactured, built, connected, set to work, from drilling, and pipelines, to harbors, tankers and refineries. This "nationalization" is a cute word for THEFT by a state, usually an artificial, Empire-coined artifice like "Iraq" or "Kuwait" or "Libya." It is high time for the Western powers who applied genius, sweat equity, lives spent engineering and manufacturing to create and run the oil industry TO TAKE IT BACK, possess, police and use it for the citizens of the nations whose institutions supported their creative efforts. The sheiks, thugs, drug-dealers, slave-traders, and dictators of OPEC can crawl back into their holes and take jihad with them.

It is this simple: the kidnappers and murderers of civilians, the partisans of the global caliphate and submission to Shari'a get NO MORE FOOD from those for whom they have such genocidal contempt and the West TAKES BACK ITS OIL INDUSTRY. No more good cop/ bad cop regime with Islamo-fascist despots.

And the War on Terror, WW III will be over and won within a month with two-three more months for mopping up spills here and there. And then instead of a Global Security State and "Homeland Security" (loss of civil liberties for western folks who conceived of civil liberties) and an endless war of attrition, there will be genuine peace and all the blessings of abundance and prosperity and trust it brings.

Let's put it on the agenda now. It's getting late.

Professor Eugene Narrett teaches writing and Literature at Boston University. He is the author of hundreds of articles, columns and reviews on politics, American culture and the arts. He is completing a study on Romanticism and the longterm decline of Western Culture. He writes often on subjects relating to Israel and Judaism and is a weekly columnist for the MetroWest Daily News in Framingham, Massachusetts. Contact him at culturtalk@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 23, 2006.


The US has supplied Israel with precision bombs. The Arabs criticized that as taking sides and furthering the destruction of Lebanese infrastructure. The US should take sides. The same Islamist ideology attacks Israel as attacks it. If Israel uses more accurate bombs, it won't have to blast a whole city block to get at a Hizbullah site in part of the block. That way, less Lebanese infrastructure is damaged.


The problem some people see with US diplomacy in the Mideast is that the US does not talk with Syria. Sec. Rice replies that that the US has negotiated with Syria before, to no avail, and still does, to no avail. The answer is a good one, as far as it goes. It falls short. How? First, the President and his Party are on the defensive over foreign policy. His opposition hardly acknowledges that this is a difficult world, and pretends that he fails to talk things over with our enemies. Sec. Rice and he should take the offensive and make sure the public knows that our new enemies do not resolve problems by negotiation. Our enemies are fanatical imperialists. They want to exacerbate problems. If they can make the problems worse by negotiations, they will, but they won't solve them. Pres. Bush should prove that his opposition is naive about foreign policy and how evil our enemies are. But he is willing to negotiate with terrorists, at times. Second, negotiations with totalitarians cannot succeed unless backed by sufficient force. If our enemies know that we would be willing and able to exercise that force, they might make concessions to us. "Concessions to us." Doesn't that sound better than our, or Israel, always making concessions to the recalcitrant enemy? Let Pres. Bush then challenge his critics to vote for more spending on the military and for more war to prevail over Iran.


Pres. Bush has instituted several controversial security measures in secret. When their practice is discovered, he defends them too vaguely to be persuasive. He has not tried persistently and persuasively to rally the people in this unprecedented type of world war. He argues that mere knowledge of the existence of some of the measures would make terrorists wary. Since he was deceptive about his sabotaging of environmental and consumer protections, he was thought sneaky about the security measures, too. His opponents draw a connection, justifiably or not. They fail to define the issues, just as he does. If defined, many people would be willing to sacrifice some civil liberties to security measures. Instead, they think the security measures dubious. Which ones are needed?


Israel claimed that a building Israel bombed in Gaza was Islamic Jihad's main arms depot and that quite a few terrorists were killed in the attack. The Arabs claimed it was a civilian one. Following the bomb, photographs showed a series of explosions, proving that the building housed rockets, as Israel had contended. Secondary explosions also followed an Israel attack on a Hamas arms depot. Israel originally spared such buildings in civilian areas, but the necessity of war overcame its reluctance (IMRA, 7/25). Israel is subject to one-sided and undeserved international criticism. This and exaggerated scruples make it timid and restrained. Years of provocation pass before Israel responds forcefully. It is ridiculous to suppose that Israel deliberately attacks civilian structures. That would incur criticism without military gain.


Radical Indonesian Muslims pressed so hard for a vague anti-pornography bill against a Playboy Magazine pledged not to publish nudity, that a counter-reaction has set in. The two main, moderate Muslim organizations demanded that the government crack down on organizations that promote violence in the name of Islam. Indonesians now are contemplating how to restore the country's traditional tolerance, rather than how to smother it (IMRA, 7/25 from Lebanon's Daily Star).


"Canada's Jewish community has come under increasing attack, including a bomb threat against a synagogue, the stoning of worshippers emerging from evening prayer, and a Jewish family being sent a decapitated pig."

"The tension here is palpable as Jewish individuals and community organizations being targeted by persistent phone and email abuse and threats linked directly to events in the Middle East." (IMRA, 7/25.) This is an example of collective punishment by Muslims. It is how Muslims think. Why not? They are against the rest of the whole world, and their own society is collective. How hypocritical of them to claim, usually falsely, that Israel wields collective punishment against Arabs!.


A UNO executive in Lebanon reiterated the vague claim that Israel was fighting disproportionately and in violation of international law in Lebanon. What is news is that he also condemned Hizbullah, and for specifics. Hizbullah, he said, had dug tunnels and bunkers near the border. Their fighters sneak out and blend in among civilians, so as to catch Israeli troops by surprise (and to have the civilians be their shields). Hizbullah should not be proud, he said, of having reduced its own casualties at the expense of more deaths of women and children. It is cowardly (IMRA, 7/25). The Palestinian Arabs willingly are terrorists' shields.


"The IDF was still encountering Hizbullah guerrillas who were shooting from inside mosques, hospitals, and schools. They take advantage of the population" (IMRA, 7/25.) Hizbullah draws Israeli fire at mosques, hospitals, and schools. It also drew fire at a Lebanese Army radar installation from which it fired at an Israeli ship. It uses trucks, bridges, ports, airport, and ports to bring in arms. If it fought in the open and outside the cities, civilians would be far less harmed and discomforted, but Hizbullah would be eradicated promptly.


Not satisfied with Syrian arms supply, Hizbullah wants the Syrian army to enter the war. It fires at the Golan Heights, in an attempt to sucker Syria into war (IMRA, 7/25).


NATO sources said that NATO could not put troops into the field soon enough to be of help in enforcing a Lebanon ceasefire (IMRA, 7/25). Thank goodness the USSR did not put NATO to the test!


Mike Wallace interviewed Pres. Ahmadinejad. There were ground rules.

One was that Ahmadinejad picked the translator. Any others were unstated. Much time was wasted on unimportant matters, such as the President's hobbies and his rambling answers that kept the focus off his lying propaganda. The interview should have been a challenge to the President, who seeks nuclear weapons, supports Hizbullah, wants to exterminate Israel, imprisons dissidents and journalists, represses other faiths, etc.. Wallace went easy on him. Wallace lamely suggested that America believes Iran to be pursuing nuclear weapons, failing to mention that this is also the conclusion of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and of the Intl. Atomic Energy agency.

He presented no evidence to challenge the Iranian leader... Ahmadinejad lamented the suffering in Lebanon, without being blamed for having instigated it or disproving his claims about Israeli actions. Neither did Wallace mention the hundreds of Americans murdered by Hizbullah, Ahmadinejad's alleged involvement in the takeover of the US Embassy, etc.. Wallace let stand the claim that Israel arose from the Holocaust, whereas the Balfour Declaration preceded it in recognition of the Jewish people's historical connection with the Land of Israel. Nor did Wallace bring up Ahmadinejad's messianic creed and his motive for violence. "viewers of '60 Minutes', used to tough, unflinching interviews" (David Harris, NY Sun, 8/15, Op. Ed..)

It doesn't surprise me. Wallace is anti-Zionist and an advocacy journalist. He interviewed Syrian Jews in front of the secret police, and pretended their praise of Syria and disinterest in taking haven in Israel was sincere, even after he was rebuked for it. He used to ask powder-puff questions of Arafat.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 23, 2006.

It was a war Israel was more afraid of winning than of losing.

It was a war whose battlefield strategy was based on posturing. on acting as if Israel were conducting an actual all-out war.

It was a war in which Israel attempted to defeat the enemy by not defeating him.

It was a war of the make-pretend.

Let us be clear. Every war has its share of mishaps, glitches, and human errors, and this one was no exception. But this war was fought after many years of massive budget cuts for the military. Convinced that the era of peace was anon, the politicians had conducted a sort of fiscal hari-kari on the army in order to allocate far more funding for nice things like social spending and pork projects.

The result was tanks going off to battle without basic protective electronics, and troops marching off without medicine, ammunition and food.

But the real problem in this war was that the political elite decided to prevent the armed forces from really fighting. As a result, Israel failed to achieve any of the declared goals it had set for itself. It failed altogether to stop the Katyusha blitz on northern Israel. The day before the "cease-fire" went into effect, 250 rockets hit Israel, the largest number of any day in the war, demonstrating that Israel had not even put a crimp into the terror machine of the Hizbullah savages.

Despite early talk of disarming Hizbullah as part of the cease-fire, within days it was revealed that Hizbullah would in fact keep all its arms but would not parade about too openly with them.

The military tactics imposed on the Israel Defense Forces by the politicians were guaranteed to create failure. At times it seemed that the strategy of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Amir Peretz consisted of hoping that if Israel waited long enough, Hizbullah would just run out of rockets.

For the first 32 days of the fighting -- five times the period of time it took Israel to defeat the combined Arab military machine in 1967. Israeli ground troops and armor were still huddled en masse inside the Israel-Lebanon border or camped just a short distance across it.

For the first 32 days of the war Israel tried to defeat Hizbullah by bombing empty buildings, empty bunkers and "infrastructure" across Lebanon. It may well be that the air attacks on Hizbullah's buildings failed to kill even a single terrorist.

It was only after those 32 days, and with a UN cease-fire stopwatch already ticking, that a half-hearted "ground offensive" was launched. With the government announcing that Israel was driving for the Litani river in the final days, the ground troops made it less than a third of the way there. Bravado by the generals in announcing a massive paratroop landing at the Litani itself, or commando raids behind the enemy lines in the Baalbek Valley, proved to be nothing more than empty grandstanding. They achieved nothing. Olmert was trying to knock out rockets with a 40-mile range by taking one or two kilometers of Lebanese territory.

The air campaign was a waste of time and resources. The film clips of empty buildings being blown to smithereens were designed to give the Israeli public little morale boosters, but not to defeat Hizbullah.

The Olmert government, which had gone to war to win the release of the kidnapped soldiers being held hostage by the terrorists, signed a cease-fire agreement in which it gave up the demand for the soldiers. immediate and unconditional release.

The cease-fire was a complete capitulation by Israel, which got a promise of a few more UN troops to sunbathe in Lebanon. But UN troops have been "patrolling" the south of Lebanon since 1978 and have yet to stop a single Katyusha or mortar attack, or even a single stone from being thrown over the border fence. As Haaretz's Avi Shavit asked sarcastically, "Did we go to war so that French soldiers will protect us from Hizbullah?"

Throughout the war, the near-total failure of Israeli intelligence in Lebanon was obvious. But this was the direct consequence of Israel's 2000 unilateral capitulation, in which Ehud Barak ordered all Israeli troops out of south Lebanon in what amounted to a Monty Python version of Dunkirk. As part of that capitulation, Israel abandoned its networks of informants and allies there, many of whom were murdered by Hizbullah.

At the time of the Lebanese retreat, it was argued that the move would at least unite Israelis behind any future military retaliation should Hizbullah misbehave. But Hizbullah had been misbehaving ever since, such as when it kidnapped and murdered three Israeli soldiers soon after the withdrawal.

Up to a point, a closing of ranks in Israel did indeed take place, with polls showing near unanimity among the general Jewish public in backing massive military retaliation. But as the days dragged by with no serious progress, the Peace through Surrender forces came back into public view. Small demonstrations led by communists were reinforced when Peace Now and Meretz joined in demanding an instant Israeli withdrawal.

The Israeli Literary Left and much of the chattering classes had backed the war at first, but toward its end they reverted to their gut instincts, with many denouncing Israel for "war crimes" and calling for "talks" with Hizbullah. (Olmert's own daughter was among those denouncing Israel's actions as criminal.)

The real problem is that Israel has been captive to the Peace through Surrender mindset for so long that it is now second nature. The open terrorist aggressions by Hizbullah, combined with the near unanimous public support for serious military action, were insufficient to put fire into the bellies of the politicians. They meowed their rage at the terror.

The day the cease-fire went into effect, Hamas fired rockets, including a Katyusha, into Ashkelon from Gaza. So we now know where the next front will be. In the middle of the fighting Olmert announced that the war was designed to create conditions under which he could go ahead with his "contraction" plan, which in effect would turn the West Bank into a new Katyusha base for bombarding Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Who says the Wise Men of Chelm is just a fable?

Unless Israel's pusillanimous leadership is replaced with people possessing vision, willingness to fight, and determination to deal effectively with the genocidal Islamofascist terrorists, Iran's president may yet get his wish.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

This article appeared in the Jewish Press

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, August 23, 2006.

This article was written by Joseph Farah, editor of World New Daily (WND)
(www.worldnetdaily.com); it appeared in WND August 18, 2006.

We've all known brave soldiers who fought courageously in multiple conflicts only to succumb to lingering and debilitating illnesses years later.

Likewise, history tells us of nations that never lost a battle in combat only to die because they lost their sense of purpose, their will to survive.

I think that's what is happening in Israel today. I think the Jewish state is terminally ill.

Israel may have won three major wars in its 60-year history, but it will be lucky to survive another decade of morally bankrupt leadership.

It's not just former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon who is comatose. It seems the whole current Israeli government is brain dead.

How else can one explain Israel's agreement to Lebanon cease-fire terms that amount to unconditional surrender?

I know few other commentators who have explained the development in these stark terms, but this is the reality of what Ehud Olmert's government has done. It represents, in my opinion, one of the biggest strategic blunders in the history of the country.

Let's review what Israel has done:

It launched a war on Iran-directed Hezbollah terrorists after they kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, killed eight others and rocketed northern Israel towns. From the beginning, Israel demanded the return of its troops and the disarming of Hezbollah terrorists.

What did Israel get in the cease-fire deal? No return of the kidnapped troops and Hezbollah terrorists remain under arms.

For the life of me, I don't understand why Israeli civilians are not massing in the streets of Jerusalem demanding the immediate resignation of Olmert and his Cabinet. The Israeli army is returning from Lebanon with its tail between its legs.

How can you ask soldiers to kill and die for a simple objective that is later abandoned without explanation or reason?

Does Olmert not understand what his surrender means? It means he has given aid and comfort to Israel's enemies. He has handed Hezbollah its biggest victory since former Prime Minister Ehud Barak unilaterally withdrew from Lebanon, handing the southern part of the country to Iran's proxy army and positioning it to claim it had defeated the Jewish state.

He has also proved to Israel's other terrorist enemies -- those in Hamas and the Palestinian Authority -- that rocket attacks, assassinations and kidnappings are winning tactics against the Jewish state. Prepare to see more of them under the terms of this "cease-fire."

He has demonstrated for the entire world that Israel has lost the kind of resolve it had in previous military campaigns. When the going gets tough, today's Jews evidently will just sue for peace.

Hezbollah has won. That's the unimaginable bottom line after this conflict. The terrorists have won -- not in the battlefield, mind you. But they won before the war ever began because weak-kneed, cowardly, morally unfit leaders in Jerusalem would never permit Israel to win.

With Hezbollah's victory, Iran and Syria have been emboldened as well. This is bad news not just for Israel, but for the entire world.

If you think I overstate the case, ask yourself this fundamental question: Is Israel more secure after abandoning its conflict in Lebanon or less secure?

You know the answer. Everyone knows the answer.

Israel may have one of the greatest military machines in the world. It may have an intelligence apparatus that is the envy of superpowers. It may even have right on its side.

But Israel is being led by men unworthy of its history, unworthy of its sacrifices, unworthy of its hard-fought victories of the past and unworthy of God's sovereign promises to bless the Jewish state forever.

It's clear the only enemy that could ever destroy Israel is the kind of internal moral rot we are witnessing today in Jerusalem. Israel has just one shot at surviving its terminal illness -- cutting out the cancer that is the Olmert government.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by JCPA, August 23, 2006.

This is a Jerusalem Institute for Contemporary Affairs (ICA) Jerusalem Issue Brief. ICA is published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). The article is archived in Vol 6, No 9. It was written by Dr. Raanan Gissin, who was a senior advisor to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. He is one of Israel's leading spokesmen to the foreign press and the international community on security and strategic issues, and the peace process.

  • Instead of the war being about Israel's right of self-defense, Hizballah was able to turn it around so that the issue on the international agenda became Israel's destruction of Lebanon. Israel should have been seen as the victim. We were being attacked. We were the ones who fulfilled all of the requirements of the game. We were true to the international border, we restrained ourselves, we held back. Why should it be that once we start attacking, we immediately start to lose in the diplomatic arena? Because Nasrallah and his patrons in Iran successfully integrated the "ABCs" of public diplomacy into their long-term strategic war doctrine.

  • Nasrallah ordered his men to remove their uniforms and blend into the population and continue to fight from within the population. In this way, when Israel attacks Hizballah, the scene is one of Israel moving against what appears to be a civilian population, even though rockets fired from these villages are striking Israel. Attacks on what looks like civilian targets can then be called "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes."

  • Israel now faces the "special forces" of the Iranian military, the best guerilla warfare units, in front-line positions. The whole concept of how they operate on the battlefield and in public diplomacy is directed by Iran. Over the last twenty-five years Iran has gradually created a global network, first forming an axis with Syria and then building up Hizballah, with Lebanon serving as a regional theater, part of Iran's global design in its confrontation with the West.

  • Israel had been operating on the assumption that Hizballah was a terrorist organization like Hamas or the PLO that had to be neutralized in order to bring about stability. But these are not merely terrorist gangs. This is an army - a well-trained, well-organized, and ideologically indoctrinated guerilla army - and Israel did not make that point strongly enough at the beginning of the war, neither to the world, nor to itself.

  • The conflict with Hizballah in Lebanon is a testing ground - like Spain in 1936 - for weapons, tactics, and doctrine of how Iran is going to fight the war when it comes to confront the West. Hizballah in south Lebanon with its 13,000 missiles represents a front-line position of Iran. Not surprisingly, Nasrallah reportedly found refuge in the Iranian embassy in Beirut when his underground headquarters came under Israel Air Force bombardment.

  • From the minute Israel left Lebanon in May 2000, Iran began to implement its initial plan for a takeover of Lebanon by Hizballah. First, it got into the political system and then from within it is trying to take over. Israel struck over two thousand Hizballah targets, and not only in south Lebanon. Hizballah is fully deployed in south Lebanon, Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and on the border with Syria. By looking at the targets that Israel struck, one can see the extent of the Hizballah takeover.

Changing Perceptions: From a Theater of War to a Crime Scene

Public diplomacy for any country, not just Israel, has gone global. While the conflict may be determined in local terms, such as Israel's fight against Hizballah, the ramifications of the action itself are global in nature. Therefore, public diplomacy must be geared toward the global scene.

Ever since 9/11, we have been in a different type of war. We were exposed for the first time to a global network of terrorist organizations, sort of a multi-national corporation of non-state actors.

On the Lebanese scene, through the careful manipulation of evidence, the theater of war has turned into a crime scene. Every action that Israel takes in Lebanon - with its densely populated villages that Israel must operate in because that's the only way that we can uproot the terrorists in them - creates an opportunity for the other side to use public diplomacy with global ramifications. Thus, instead of the war being about Israel's right of self-defense, Hizballah was able to turn it around so that the issue on the international agenda became Israel's destruction of Lebanon and Israel as the cause of world instability. The victim becomes the criminal.

For example, Nasrallah ordered his men to remove their uniforms and blend in and continue to fight from within the civilian population. In this way, when Israel attacks Hizballah, the scene is one of Israel moving against what appears to be civilians, even though rockets fired from these villages are striking Israel. Attacks on what looks like civilian targets can then be called "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes." In addition, by blending in with civilians, it's easier to fight the Israelis who exercise self-restraint when fighting near civilians.

Another way to change a theater of war into a crime scene is by building Hizballah positions in close proximity to those of UNIFIL. Then there is always an opportunity for a potential mishap where Israel will hit the UNIFIL position by mistake. Or Hizballah may provoke an Israeli attack by firing from a specific location and ensuring that a human shield of innocent civilians will be present at the site.

These are just some examples of how Hizballah uses public diplomacy and the media as a tool of war. They create changes on the ground so that later they can manipulate the situation, and once the crime scene is created, the media look for the villain and his smoking gun.

Not Like the 1982 Lebanon War: Iran on Israel's Northern Border

What we are seeing today in Lebanon was not there before. The conflict is no longer a local or even a regional conflict. Iran and Syria are now deeply and directly involved. In 1982 the PLO had some support from Syria and from other Arab countries, but was basically a regional terrorist organization. Now Israel faces the "special forces" of the Iranian military, the best guerilla warfare units, in front-line positions. The whole concept of how they operate on the battlefield and in public diplomacy is directed by Iran as part of its global war design against the West.

This did not start recently. When the PLO was in Tunis, having been ousted from Lebanon in August 1983, Hizballah made its debut on the scene. In October 1983, Hizballah blew up the barracks of the U.S. Multinational Forces and Observers (MFO) unit in Lebanon, killing 241 American soldiers. Back then, Iran was giving only spiritual support and some money, while Syria was Hizballah's main supporter. Over the last twenty-five years Iran has gradually created a global network, first forming an axis with Syria and then building up Hizballah, with Lebanon serving as a regional theater, one in which it had the most favorable demographic conditions - a large Shiite minority.

Today Israel has strategic cooperation and coordination with the United States that it didn't have in 1982. With regard to Iran's nuclear weapons, Israel is participating in a coalition. In other words, there is a perception among world leaders that in public diplomacy, an issue that seemingly looks like a local one - and Hizballah is a classic case - actually involves a much more global phenomenon that needs to be addressed.

The globalization of a local conflict has important implications for public diplomacy. What happens on Israel's northern border will affect what happens on its southern border with the Palestinians in Gaza. And the overall situation in the north and the south is going to determine the overall impact on the Arab world, and to what extent stability will be threatened in those regimes like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan that fear the rise of Hizballah.

On the military operational level, sometimes terminology misleads. The head of Israel's Air Force intelligence and the deputy chief of staff referred to Hizballah as "terrorist gangs." But these are not merely terrorist gangs. This is an army - a well-trained, well-organized, and ideologically indoctrinated guerilla army - and Israel did not make that point strongly enough at the beginning of the war, neither to the world, nor to itself.

Lebanon is a testing ground - like Spain in 1936 - for weapons, tactics, and doctrine of how Iran is going to fight the war when it comes to confront the West. We have to alert people not only to the fact that there are 13,000 missiles threatening Israel's very existence, but that these missiles do not belong to a terrorist organization - this is a front-line position of Iran. Not surprisingly, the head of Hizballah, Hassan Nasrallah, reportedly found refuge in the Iranian embassy in Beirut when his underground headquarters came under Israel Air Force bombardment.

Israel's intelligence services knew about the bunkers and the missiles, but the wider interpretation was not made. Is it only Hizballah that will launch an attack against Israel? Or is it the Iranians building up this force as their long arm in Lebanon, to be used when they decide to make their initial move to take over?

The kidnapping of the soldiers enabled Israel to preempt before the Iranians had completed their buildup. The Iranians did not want a full-scale war yet. They wanted to put pressure on Israel, but Hizballah made a mistake in its assessment of Israel's response. The end result was a "premature" war that has put the Iranian terrorist threat on the global agenda of public diplomacy, alerting the West before Iran was completely ready.

In February 2006, during a meeting at the Northern Command of the Israel Defense Forces, Prime Minister Olmert was given a full briefing by the chief of staff, who said that the scenario of a kidnapped soldier should be avoided since this could cause a major strategic embarrassment. It could set the entire conflict in motion because the whole Hizballah army had made preparations for such a scenario.

Hizballah was also prepared with its public diplomacy. It had prepared for this war for a long time. It had spokesmen speaking fluent English who would escort the reporters to the designated crime scenes. Hizballah knew that Israel was going to launch attacks on Beirut and that there would be scenes of destruction.

From the minute Israel left Lebanon in May 2000, Iran began to implement its initial plan for a takeover of Lebanon by Hizballah. First, it got into the political system and then from within it is trying to take over. Israel struck over two thousand Hizballah targets, and not only in south Lebanon. Hizballah is fully deployed in south Lebanon, Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and on the border with Syria. By looking at the targets that Israel struck, one can see the extent of the Hizballah takeover.

There was a discrepancy between public diplomacy and the actual fighting on the ground. From a public diplomacy perspective, Israel should have been seen as the victim. We were being attacked. We were the ones who fulfilled all of the requirements of the game. We were true to the international border, we restrained ourselves, we held back. Why should it be that once we start attacking, we immediately start to lose in the diplomatic arena? Because Nasrallah and his patrons in Iran successfully integrated the "ABCs" of public diplomacy into their long-term strategic war doctrine.

Strategic Public Diplomacy

This war is a symptom of the inability of Israel to prepare strategically with public diplomacy as a tool of war. It would be useful to learn and follow what Hizballah has done in terms of its preparations to meet the requirements of a proactive public diplomacy strategy.

Today, states and governments can learn much about the effectiveness of operations from NGOs (non-government organizations). Again, unlike the 1982 war, there is an environment of NGOs - some sinister and bad, some good. Backing the terrorist organizations are NGOs that operate on the world scene with the support of other countries.

Hizballah invests $15-20 million a year in its own TV station, Al Manar. That is more than the overall public relations (hasbara) budget of the State of Israel. Its broadcasts are pure propaganda, but they are professional and are carried worldwide via satellite and cable.

We need to recognize that the media is a tool and that it can serve as a weapons system. Hizballah is ten years ahead of Israel in the ability to use and manipulate the media for its strategic purposes. I don't want to underestimate the limitations that a democracy has in instituting a coherent long-term public diplomacy strategy, but thinking has to start about this as a strategic issue.

Hizballah had a strategic problem after the Israeli withdrawal in 2000. It was an organization in search of a cause, in search of a reason to continue to exist and justify its continued terrorist operations. Therefore, it did all it could to show that it was an integral part of Lebanon and not an agent of Iran - which it is.

Armies fighting each other in the desert is a thing of the past. From now on it's "dirty wars," and that means that the role of public diplomacy is much greater. There are only two basic scenarios. Either you fight in densely populated areas on enemy territory, where the enemy is, or the enemy fights on yours. Israel is not a country that can absorb casualties. One of Israel's basic security principles is that it cannot afford to fight wars on its territory. Israel's existence is based on deterrence. Deterrence is based on the perception that Israel is able to project to its Arab neighbors who did not participate in the war - to the Palestinians, the Egyptians, and the Jordanians - that messing with Israel is too costly. This is a message that can set in motion the need to come to a political agreement with Israel.

The threat Israel faces is not just Hizballah, it's Iran, and we should alert the rest of the world to that, as we alerted the world to the Iranian nuclear program. Israel is on the front line of Iran's war against the West. This may sound alarmist, but the best way to conquer fear is to tell people the truth. Tell them what we are facing, and then mobilize the world as well. Military action alone is insufficient.

The globalization of terror under the auspices of Iran is a much more formidable and more clear and present danger than the Iranian nuclear threat. The minute the Iranians get nuclear weapons, they may not immediately send them against Israel on their missiles. But this will give them the kind of protection and deterrence to use the methods that they're using now in Lebanon. For instance, if there was an Iranian terrorist coup in Egypt, the world would have to weigh any reaction differently if Iran had nuclear weapons.

The Iranians are coming, and we better read the writing on the wall. It is not in Arabic; it is in Persian, and it is still not too late to learn.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 23, 2006.


The "buzz words": "International bankers," "New Yorkers," "neocons," "Zionists," "Israel Lobby" are all today's euphemism to anti-Semitism!

Zionists, the Israel, the Lobby are just as catchy as they were 70 years ago and just as false.

Today's anti-Semitism comes from the left, not the extreme political right.

Like Adolf Hitler before them, today's Islamic fascist leaders telegraph exactly what they intend to do and appeasement doesn't work -- not then and -- not now!

The Islamic fascists describe a futuristic world that has one religion, one people, and one God.

When Islamic fascists condemning the "infidels" to death and destruction, it should be clear that they are not just talking about Jews

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad echoes Hitler and announces, repeatedly, his sacred duty to destroy Israel and the Jews; chances are that this is just the beginning of the list of those he wishes to destroy.

In 1941, anti-Semitic Charles Lindbergh suggested that the Jews should be in the forefront of keeping America out of the war because "they will be the first to feel its consequences." He was right on that score -- they were the first -- but they are never the last. Let us not repeat shameful history again.

This is an excellent article. It was written by Warren Kozak and appeared August 21, 2006 as an Opinion piece in the New York Sun
http://oasis.nysun.com). Warren Kozak is a regular contributer to the New York Sun.

Years ago, before modern devices could register poisonous gas levels in mines, miners would take canaries into the shafts with them. The birds, which are more susceptible to toxins, served a very useful purpose. If the canary fell over, it was time for the miners to get out quickly. It was a sad miner who failed to pay attention to the canary in the cage.

Throughout time, whenever tyrants arose and preached a mixture of world domination and complete intolerance for most other human beings, their first targets were often a small group of people noted for giving the world monotheism, the bible and a set of basic laws that have been followed for thousands of years. From the ancient Babylonians to German Nazis to today's Islamic fascists, tyrannical regimes always seem to have one common link -- their deep hatred for Jews. At the same time there has been another continuum throughout the ages -- a small fringe in every society that blames not the tyrants, but instead, blames their victims. That would be tantamount to a miner not just ignoring his early warning device, but blaming the canary for the problem. That's not just ill advised, it's downright stupid.

Sixty-five years ago, Charles Lindbergh, the hero aviator of America was such an individual. On September 11, 1941, less than three months before Pearl Harbor, Mr. Lindbergh appeared before a huge anti-war rally sponsored by the group America First in Des Moines, Iowa. In spite of the ongoing atrocities already being committed by the Germans and the Japanese, the flyer delivered an articulate and compelling speech entitled,"Who Are The War Agitators?" Answering his own question, Mr. Lindbergh told his audience there were three main forces pushing America into an unnecessary war with Germany: Franklin Roosevelt, Great Britain, and the Jews. The President, the British Prime Minister and the Jews -- there's a familiar ring to that. But, Mr. Lindbergh went one step further concerning the Jews when he added his concerns about the perceived Jewish domination in America and their "large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio and our government."

That was a constant refrain throughout America in the 1930s -- dangerous Jewish influence. This thought was spear-headed by Mr. Lindbergh, a popular radio evangelist named Father Coughlin, the industrialist Henry Ford, and all other anti-Semites. The Jewish "influence" they focused on was not much different from the classic anti-Semitism of old Europe. In their minds, Jews were using their sinister powers to manipulate our country and the world to their advantage. In truth, many professions in 1941 were still closed to Jewish people in America. If another ethnic group held a lock on industries here in America, no one seemed to complain. So the Irish, who went through their own ostracism a century before, could now control big city governments. Protestants, still in the vast majority, could control the White House, big oil, railroads, and most corporations. But the Jews were somehow different -- scarier -- more villainous. Of course, you couldn't just come out and actually say this in polite society, so different buzz words were often used -- like "international bankers" and even "New Yorkers." But everyone knew what the phrases meant. They meant Jews.

Almost 70 years later, the words have changed but not the meaning. Today, we hear about the "neocons" who seem to control the mind of Dick Cheney. The "Zionists," we are told, are enflaming the Islamic world with their occupation of the Palestinians. And with a dark, evil hand, it's the "Israel Lobby" that controls the White House and almost the entire American Congress. Even the collapse of the World Trade Center was not caused by Al-Qaeda. Almost immediately after the World Trade Center fell and the Pentagon burned, rumors surfaced on the internet, first from Muslim countries but then picked up by a growing fringe element here at home, that it was "the Mosad," Israel's intelligence service which deftly committed the atrocities. All of these terms -- neocons, Zionists, the lobby -- are the euphemisms of today. But it's the same old story. It's the Jews. Again.

There is one big difference now than in 1941. Today's anti-Semitism comes from the left and not the extreme political right. We are also beginning to hear it from some presumably mainstream people -- actors, journalists, documentary film makers, and Ivy League professors. Look closely at any antiwar rally almost always sponsored by far left groups today. You can see the code phrases being used to blame who and what they consider to be the real culprits behind all the problems in the world. The phrases -- the Zionists, the Israel, the Lobby -- are just as catchy as they were 70 years ago and just as false.

These phrases arise at the same time the West faces another threat, not very different from the one it faced in 1941 -- a large and growing fascist army, has come out of the Middle East, bankrolled by enormous oil wealth and determined to conquer and destroy Western democracies. Again we hear the same rhetoric. Again we see the massive parades (what is it with fascists and the goose step?). We even see those straight armed salutes cheered on by wild eyed masses. And once again, there are people who either don't wish to face the problem or worse, they are aiming their sights at the wrong target.

Appeasement doesn't work either -- not then and not now. It never does. In 1938, on a trip to Germany and a tour of its army and Luftwaffe, Mr. Lindbergh concluded that Germany was simply too big, too powerful, and too focused to be defeated by the Western democracies. Instead, he believed a reprimanding of the mighty German Reich would make all be well. "Tolerance is a virtue that depends upon peace and strength," Mr. Lindbergh told his audience in Des Moines."History shows that it cannot survive war and devastation." Of course, history showed us quite a different outcome. The Nazis turned out to be not the most tolerant folk with which to deal (fascists never are). Mr. Lindbergh's prediction was not just off, but extremely costly. At the price of some 50 million lives, a devastated continent, immense treasure and untold suffering, the world learned that while Hitler had deep hatred for the Jewish people, he also didn't much care for the British, the French, the Danes, the Russians, the Dutch, or the Poles -- just about everyone who wasn't an Aryan German.

Like Adolf Hitler before them, today's Islamic fascist leaders telegraph exactly what they intend to do. They describe a futuristic world that has one religion, one people, and one God (sound familiar?). And when we hear Islamic fascists condemning the "infidels" to death and destruction, it should be clear that they are not just talking about Jews. Remember those Buddhist statues in Afghanistan? And when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad echoes Hitler and announces, repeatedly, his sacred duty to destroy Israel and the Jews, chances are that's just the beginning of the list.

Back in 1941, Charles Lindbergh insisted, in spite of everything he said, that he was not anti-Semitic and suggested that the Jews should be in the forefront of keeping America out of the war because "they will be the first to feel it's consequences." He was right on that score -- they were the first. But they are never the last.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah 15, August 23, 2006.

This comes from yesterday's DEBKAfile

Apparently out of the blue, a clutch of Israeli ministers -- Amir Peretz, defense, Tzipi Livni, foreign affairs and Avi Ditcher, internal security -- have evinced a burning desire to talk peace with Syrian president Bashar Assad and even a willingness to discuss handing over the Golan captured in the 1967 war.

Monday, Aug. 21, prime minister Ehud Olmert stepped in with a reminder: Thousands of Hizballah missiles striking Israelis came from Syria, he said. Until that stops and the Palestinian terrorist commands are ejected from Damascus, we have nothing to discuss with Syria.

But the damage was done. Assad himself must have wondered what he had done to deserve this sudden attention from an American ally after three years of helping Baathist insurgents and al Qaeda fight US forces, hosting the most radical Palestinian groups including Hamas and Jihad Islami, and engineering the murder of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri.

The Israeli ministers timing was unfortunate; Syria continues to pump arms to Hizballah and Israeli soldiers are still deployed in Lebanon, holding the line against Hassan Nasrallahs men and their Syrian and Iranian sponsors. Furthermore, the Saudi king Abdullah and Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, for whose regimes the Syria-Iran-Hizballah pact poses an existential threat, must be stewing in their palaces over the senior Israeli ministersdecision to go a-wooing after the Syrian president.

DEBKAfile political, military and Washington sources offer some disclosures to account for this apparently illogical behavior:

1. After refusing to see Irans long arm behind the Hamas in Gaza in the aftermath of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza a year ago in which those ministers played a lead role they were dismayed to find themselves again face to face with Iran on a second front, behind Hizballah in Lebanon. And should Assad make good on his threat last week and go to war on the Golan, Israel will be hedged in by Tehran and its strategic partner on a third front. They therefore chose what looked like a quick fix for cutting Syria out of the hostile Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas-Jihad Islami equation: Offering the Golan to appease Assad.

The only trouble is that such a step would continue the land-for-peace policy which failed so strikingly in 2000 in Lebanon and in 2005 in Gaza - and which has been made irrelevant anyway by the outcome of the Lebanon war and the looming threat from Iran.

2. The second part of the minister rationale is even more troubling.

The open letter of grievances signed by officers and men of the Israeli armys crack Alexandroni Brigade shocked and still puzzles the entire nation. The lack of clear decisions was manifested, they said, in the failure to act, the non-implementation of operational plans and the cancellation amid combat of missions assigned the unit. The result was that the unit was deployed too long in hostile country without any operational purpose for reasons that were unprofessional and, moreover, held back from making contact with the enemy. In every stage of the war, cold feet were evident in decision-making. The writers of the letter sensed the cold feet at the top but lacked the information to explain its cause or account for the cancellation and shifting about of mission directives in mid-battle.

That was one of the riddles of the Lebanon War.

Another was hinted at last week when Israel deputy chief of staff Maj-Gen Moshe Kaplinsky revealed that at 1200 noon, July 12, four hours before Hizballah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and killed eight in a cross-border raid, no one on the general staff had any notion a war was in the offing.

A DEBKAfile investigation has uncovered some facts that would help explain some of the mishaps.

The knife-edge threat that caught the Israeli army unprepared was welcomed in Washington. Our sources close to the Bush administration have learned that secretary of state Condoleezza Rice embraced the opening for an Israeli offensive against Hizballah in Lebanon. Vice President Dick Cheney also favored an Israeli air strike but worried about the lack of an Israeli plan for a parallel ground offensive.

One of his aides later expressed the view that Olmert and Halutz had been cautioned that air offensives unaccompanied by ground assaults never achieved strategic goals, as the Americans discovered after bombing Baghdad at the start of the Iraq war in 2003. But the Israeli prime minister and chief of staff insisted that the air force was able to inflict a shock defeat on Hizballah and produce a fast and che ap victory. US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld was leery about any Israeli military offensive against Hizballah, fearing complications for the US army in Iraq at he peak of a surging sectarian civil war.

But Olmert talked Rice into asking President George W. Bush to back the air offensive. The US president acceded only laying down two basic conditions: Israel must confine itself to an air campaign; before embarking on a ground offensive, a further American go-ahead would be required. The second was a promi se to spare Lebanons civilian infrastructure and only go for Hizballah positions and installations.

The conditions when relayed by the secretary of state were accepted by the prime minister. The first explains why Israel ground forces were held ready in bases for three long weeks rather than being sent into battle - up until the last stage. By then, the air force offensive had proved a long way short of fast and cheap; worse, it had been ineffectual.

The second condition accounts for another of the war enigmas: Israeli forces were not allowed to destroy buildings known to be occupied by Hizballah teams firing anti-tank rockets because it would have meant destroying Lebanese infrastructure. This brought Israeli forces into extreme danger; they were forced to come back again and again to repeat cleansing operations in villages and towns close to the Israeli border, such as Maroun a-Ras, Bint Jubeil and Atia a-Chaab. This exposed them to Hizballah attrition tactics at the cost of painful casualties.

Only in the third week of the war, when the Bush administration saw the Israeli air force had failed to bring Hizballah to collapse, and the campaign would have to be salvaged in a hurry, did Rice give the green light for ground troops to go in en masse to try and finish off the Shiite terrorist group. Then too, an American stipulation was imposed: Israel troops must not reach the Litani River.

The Israel army did embark on a tardy wide-scale push to the LItani River and as far as Nabatia and Arnoun, but was soon cut short in its tracks. American spy satellites spotted the advance and Olmert was cautioned by Washington to hold his horses.

This last disastrous order released the welter of conflicting, incomprehensible orders which stirred up the entire chain of command - from the heads of the IDF Northern command down to the officers in the field. Operational orders designed to meet tactical combat situations were scrapped in mid-execution and new directives tumbled down the chute from above. Soldiers later complained that in one day, they were jerked into unreasoned actions by four to six contrary instructions.

None of the commanders at any level could explain what was going on because none were party to the backroom decision-making at the prime ministers office. According to our sources, Olmert kept his exchanges with Condoleezza close to his chest and members of his cabinet and high army command firmly out of the process. The prime minister even kept the chief of staff out of the picture and did not explain why he was called on to chop and change tactics in the heat of war.

Olmert absolute compliance with Rice directives without fully comprehending their military import threw Israel entire war campaign into disorder. Because of the muddle, supply trucks could not locate units and had to leave them without food and water, the subject of one of the bitterest complaints. This botched sequence of decisions and their consequences also ties in with the fishing expedition in Damascus subsequently embarked on by senior Israeli ministers.

It appears that Condoleezza Rice was not exactly happy with the way the war turned out, nor with the failure of diplomacy to bring Lebanon hostilities to a satisfactory conclusion or even to deploy an effective multinational force to stabilize South Lebanon.

She therefore decided to explore the chances of luring Bashar Assad away from the Iranian fold. This is a tentative idea which has not ripened into a policy - much less gained a White House go-ahead. But as soon as word was leaked to Jerusalem, several Israeli ministers jumped aboard Peretz first, followed by Livni, who there and then created a Syrian Project Desk at the foreign ministry, the education minister, Yuli Tamir and finally, on Monday, Dichter.

These ministers know that the Olmert government stands on shaky legs against the spreading wave of popular disaffection over its management of the Lebanon war, its cost and its outcome. The clamor for a state inquiry is the least of the public demands. For government members who are caught between a fragile truce in Lebanon and a tenuous government, any distraction even a reckless feeler towards a declared enemy may look attractive.

Contact the author at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yardena Even, August 22, 2006.

This article was written by Gary Pickholz and it appeared in Haaretz

There has been an astonishing bipartisan sea change in Washington within the last two weeks regarding financial support for Israeli military activity in general, and what is perceived as reckless adventurism in particular.

From the standpoint of Israel's finances, a vortex of factors have suddenly come together that raise significant doubt that Washington will foot the bill for the Lebanon War, much less increase military aid to Israel going forward.

A significant blunder of the Olmert Administration has been its pandering to a lame duck the Bush Administration at the expense of garnering bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. American politics differ significantly from Israeli or European politics, and a fading Bush Administration has become increasingly irrelevant in terms of foreign appropriations. Even within the Republican Party, the lame duck President has ceded much of the authority to the two front leading Republican Senators for the 2008 nomination. The Olmert Administration has played the wrong hand in Washington's poker game.

Simultaneously, there now exists widespread bipartisan sentiment on Capitol Hill for a radical reduction in US military and foreign aid across the board, and in the Middle East in particular. From a Republican perspective, there can be no further increase in foreign aid within the parameters of the Republican budgetary platform, which is taking a beating due to the escalating costs of the Iraqi/Afghani war. From the Democrat side of Congress, there is growing sentiment that the vast sums of American aid have only fueled the battl es of the Middle East and it is time for a significantly lower profile.

Israel is the New Taiwan

From an American perspective, the costs of Olmert's adventure into Lebanon are staggering both financially and politically, dwarfing the costs of the Gaza handover. America will be asked to pay over $7 billion in replacement costs to the Israelis, plus at least an additional $3 billion to rebuild Lebanon from the very bombs Congress paid for in the first place. This is prior to all calls for additional Israeli aid for its economic growth --all within 24 months of the original final date for US guarantee of Israeli national debt. All within a year of more than $5 billion in additional costs for the Gaza relocations.

Senate responses fall into two categories. First: revulsion for Israel's carpet bombing of civilians in retaliation for terrorist actions, as expressed on the Senate record by Senator John Warner of Virginia, one of the two leading Republican candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination. Far more important and pervasive, however, is the taboo none dared even express until August 2006: the Israel is the new Taiwan -- a poor military ally, incapable of fulfilling its regional role irrespective of a bottomless credit, no longer worth the significant investment. Like Taiwan experienced, a sudden sea change has occurred on Capitol Hill that those funds may be better invested in other manners within the Middle East puzzle, capable of achieving greater long-term alliance and stability for America. Like Taiwan, the Israeli government may well find itself suffering whiplash from the sudden embrace of its arch-enemy by the United States as a more viable solution to pouring billions into the black hole of military adventurism

What was not even a remote possibility in American Israeli relations 35 days ago is now openly discussed on a bipartisan basis as a more intelligent solution to American interests in the region. While the Olmert Administration must now work double time in repairing its image on Capitol Hill, there certainly is no prospect of discussion of even further aid to repair the damage to the Israeli economy suffered in the past month.

All previous growth and prosperity projections for the Israeli economy are now worthless, and perhaps for the first time in the history of the State of Israel, discussion will focus on minimizing cutbacks of American aid rather than relying upon a bottomless line of credit with Uncle Sam.

Contact the author at yardena3@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, August 22, 2006.
This is what I wrote previously re data mining.

I love validation; but i was surprized to find some very direct and forceful validation in the LA Times to what seems to have become an incendiary issue about which my opinion has aroused considerable heat (more heat than light, unfortunately) in the community of my email-recipients and beyond.

The author of the LA Times article, Mr. Yoo, focuses on one specific technological issue: data mining.

But the core of his argument is the same as mine. In time of war, when our very existence is threatened by an intractable, barbaric and brutal enemy who seeks only "victory or martyrdom" (and let's recall, for el-qaeda and hezbollah and ansar-el-islam and el-jama'a el-Islamiyeh and the scores of other Islamofascist terror groups operating against us around the globe, 'victory' means that Israel has been destroyed, its nearly 6 million Jews genocided, and that you and I are either dead or Moslem), we must use every avenue available to defeat that enemy, even if it means suspending some of our civil rights temporarily.

As Mr. Yoo points out:

"According to news reports, British authorities searched telephone, e-mail and banking records and uncovered connections between the bombers in Britain and their supporters in Pakistan... ... In fact, the (US) government also already uses modest forms of data mining. In response to drug cartels and organized crime, federal authorities are allowed to search banking records for signs of money laundering. Such analysis has already paid off in the war against terror by identifying groups that funnel funds to extremist organizations.....

...........Right now, we're fighting terror with one hand behind our back by refusing to exploit data-mining tools. London's success should serve notice that we must use our technological sophistication and reject the sky-is-falling claims of the extreme civil libertarians."

In short, the Islamofascist war against us requires that our government decide where we want the casualties.

If we acquiesce to the extreme demands of civil libertarians, as an elderly Detroit judge has just done, and continue to tie the hands of law enforcement and homeland security, thus preventing our government's defensive agencies from maximizing technology and other forms of both clandestine and overt research and surveillance......then the casualties will be those victims of the future terror attacks which would have been stopped (just as the London massive airline attacks were stopped) had we used those technologies. Given the degree to which terror groups and terror-supporting nations (Iran primarily) are surging forward in their quest for WMDs, it is quite possible that such future victims will number in the millions; and those future attacks will be critical tipping points in deciding who wins this war.

If we reject the extreme demands of civil libertarians, implement the very best of our most effective strategies to detect and prevent terrorism, the casualties may be:

a.) some innocent individuals who are inadvertantly caught in the dragnets of these strategies,

b.) and the general discomfort of our citizenry that such strategies are in use and may violate our constitutional rights to privacy.

While there is no remedy for 'a', we can find a counter-balance to 'b' by commiting to the vigilance necessary to make sure that as a body politic our democratic society will use all legal means at our disposal (and, if necessary, have the creativity to come up with some that are not yet in existence) to guarantee that these technologies are put to rest once the war is over and we have won (by no means a foregone conclusion).

In sum, you and our Congress, and perhaps even the Supreme Court, must decide where we want the casualties.

The article below, written by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., raises a related issue. It appeared in Jewish World Review today. He focuses on CAIR, but his concept is applicable to the tempest over data-mining and other attempts by our security forces to anticipate and pre-empt and prevent terror attacks,and the vociferous antagonism that such actions have roused in some parts of our society.

Are the people and institutions that are opposed to such activity (despite the fact that clearly such activity does help to catch terrorists before they strike) just lacking in good judgment (per Gafney's article), are they just ignorant of the facts, or do they have nefarious motives, do they want the terrorists to win?

there is little doubt in my mind that CAIR and a number of other Moslem groups are in the latter category. Those groups which are funded by the Saudis, support Hezbollah and Hamas and el-Qaeda, and promulgate in their mosques and meeting halls the demise of western civiliation and the triumph of "Islam uber alles" -- they are our enemy.

But what about the ACLU, the NLG, the Green Party, and a variety of far left born-and-bred American liberals and Democrats and other national personalities including some congresspersons and university professors and high-profile journalists and intellectuals, who argue so strenuously against what is so obviously necessary if we are to win this war?

What category do they fall into?

In recent days, it has become harder than ever to deny the true nature of the conflict in which we find ourselves. As President Bush put it recently, "We are at war with Islamic fascists." To be sure, the mounting evidence does not preclude some from denying this reality. The facts are sufficiently clear, however, that we must begin to question the judgment, if not the motivations, of those at home who persist in trying to obscure the central threat we face from the totalitarian political ideology known as Islamofascism.

One straw in the wind could be found in Sunday's New York Times which prominently featured an article entitled "And Now Islamism Trumps Arabism." Although the author, writing from Cairo, used throughout the euphemism "political Islam," the import was unmistakable: With its attacks on Israel and its survival of Israeli retaliation, the Iranian- and Syrian-supported Islamofascist terrorist group, Hezbollah, has added luster and new recruits to longstanding efforts to subject the entire Muslim world -- and, in due course, all non-Muslim populations -- to Taliban-style Islamist rule.

The manifestations of this rising tide have become evident not only in the Muslim world -- Arab and Persian, Sunni and Shiite alike. Britain, Canada, Germany and the United States are among a number of Western nations that narrowly averted terrorist attacks, all of which appear to have been orchestrated by adherents to one form or another of the Islamofascist ideology.

Particularly worrying is the fact that at least some of the would-be perpetrators of such murderous attacks fall into a category increasingly described as "home grown" -- that is, suicide-bombers who do not come from abroad, but are citizens of the country they are trying to afflict. Detecting and counteracting such individuals has proven to be even more challenging than the task of preventing their fellow ideologues from getting into the targeted nations.

While it is true that Western societies are increasingly arresting individuals suspected of involvement with terror who are native-born, to call them "home-grown" is misleading. This term understates the role being played by foreign Islamists who have been allowed to establish elaborate recruitment and indoctrination operations inside such societies, including the United States.

For example, mosques and their associated schools (madrassas), prison and military chaplain programs, college campus organizations and increasingly businesses induced to accommodate Islamist demands for employee prayer rooms, time off for prayers, etc. are being used as vehicles for inspiring

For example, mosques and their associated schools (madrassas), prison and military chaplain programs, college campus organizations and increasingly businesses induced to accommodate Islamist demands for employee prayer rooms, time off for prayers, etc. are being used as vehicles for inspiring and/or compelling adherence to the radicals' ideology. Many of these operations receive generous funding from the most important promoter of Islamofascism in the world today, Saudi Arabia.

So what are we to make of the claims of a prominent spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Ibrahim Hooper, who has publicly denied that Islamofascist imams in some U.S. mosques preach and teach in their schools the destruction of America? In response to a question from CNBC host Larry Kudlow last Thursday, Hooper declared "I've been in a lot of mosques in America. I've never heard that. It's not something that's -- I know of in the Muslim community. It's put out and bandied about by anti-Muslim bigots constantly."

This is, of course, patent nonsense. Most, if not all, of those convicted of ties to terror (a population which includes, by the way, three former CAIR officials) have been associated with radical imams and mosques, Islamist missionary organizations like Tablighi Jamaat, and/or Saudi-funded campus or prison recruitment operations.

This is no accident. For example, Freedom House has documented that the Saudis have been providing their mosques in America (Saudi Arabian-financed entities are said to hold the mortgages for as many as 80% of them) with materials that promote jihad against Americans and other "infidels."
(See: http://www.freedomhouse.org/religion/pdfdocs/FINAL%20FINAL.pdf.)

For too long, organizations like CAIR (which was reportedly spawned as a political front for the Islamofascist terror organization, Hamas), have been given a pass as they make misleading statements and otherwise sow confusion about the nature of this war. Especially intolerable is their practice of branding those who challenge them and their conduct as "anti-Muslim bigots." (Ibrahim Hooper evidently used such unfounded charges to prevent yours truly from debating him on Kudlow's show last week.)

Now that we have no choice but to be clearer about the nature of our enemy in this war, we must stop treating those who apologize for, or otherwise do the bidding of, the Islamofascists as anything but what they are: Part of the problem. The FBI and the law enforcement community more generally, the military and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should stop allowing CAIR and its ilk to provide "Muslim sensitivity training" to their personnel.

Similarly, the U.S. government should refrain from granting those like CAIR access to security-sensitive facilities and operations. Incredibly, in June, according to WorldNetDaily, a senior DHS official personally provided CAIR representatives a "VIP tour" of the Customs screening center at the world's busiest airport, O'Hare International -- at the same time British authorities were trying to prevent the penetration of their airport security systems by Islamofascist terrorists.

Finally, the media must not allow, as CNBC recently did, CAIR's bullying tactics to prevent its representatives from being held fully to account. Such practices will only perpetuate the kind of muddled thinking that has to date kept the U.S. from waging the indispensable "war of ideas" against the Islamofascists, both at home and abroad.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, August 22, 2006.

Below is Uri Dromi's article in International Herald Tribune (IHT). Uri Dromi is the director of international outreach at the Israel Democracy Institute, Jerusalem.

My (critical) comments are in CAPS. Feel free to use my input to write your own letter to Advocacy_International@yahoo.com and letters@iht.com

In order to be a political dove, one needs to be a military hawk.


In other words, Israel will never be able to make peace with enemies like Hezbollah if they can harass the Jewish state at will and get away with it.


But has Israel really beaten Hezbollah enough to make it think twice before it tries again? I think the answer is yes.


Obviously, Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is still around, presumably gaining admiration in Lebanon and in some quarters of the Arab world for standing up to Israel. But he now has plenty of time to ponder how badly he blundered.


Nasrallah's concept of deterring Israel with his arsenal of rockets failed miserably. The Israeli rear remained resilient after 4,000 Katyushas were launched at the north of Israel, and the Israeli government and army had the willpower to strike back, even when Nasrallah used the Lebanese as a human shield. Contrary to his bravado, his organization suffered a heavy blow, with a quarter of his fighters killed and his infrastructure badly damaged.



Nasrallah's claim to be the savior of the Shiites in Lebanon was shattered.


In recent years he had shifted his focus away from fighting Israel and toward empowering the Shiite community, which has for decades been discriminated against and underrepresented in the Lebanese political system.

He had managed to build an impressive system of social services and education, parallel to the state's system. Yet because of his rash provocation, many of his accomplishments are now heaps of rubble. His lieutenants hasten to shower Iranian petro-dollars on the Shiites whose houses were demolished, but it remains to be seen whether these people will continue to back him.


Another pillar of Nasrallah's strategy, that of Lebanon's lack of state accountability, also collapsed. In the 1970s and 1980s, Yasser Arafat used the weakness of the Lebanese government to build a Palestinian mini-state in Lebanon. This was ended by Ariel Sharon in 1982. Nasrallah tried the same approach, but Lebanon today is different.

Only a year ago, in the Cedar Revolution, the Lebanese kicked out the Syrians, and today - thanks to Nasrallah - they are sending the state's troops down south, together with an augmented UN force. Gone are the good old days of Beirut's impotence. So much so that the Lebanese defense minister threatened that if a Hezbollah militant launched a missile at Israel, he would be harshly punished as an "agent of Israel" because such an irresponsible act would surely trigger an Israeli reprisal.


In the Arab world, Nasrallah's stock has also dropped. His pretension to be a leader both of Shiites and of Sunnis has been ridiculed. Sheik Safar al- Hawali, a top Saudi Sunni cleric, said in a religious edict that Hezbollah, which translates as "the party of God," was actually "the party of the devil."



As for the leaders of the pro-West Arab states, they have expressed their dismay at the destabilizing fiasco initiated by Nasrallah, and chose not to invite Syria's foreign minister, a supporter of Nasrallah's, to their recent meeting in Cairo.


Finally, with his reckless gamble Nasrallah has left Israelis very angry and determined to settle unfinished business. The war exposed a lot of flaws in the Israeli military and civilian systems, but these will be vigorously examined and fixed. Nasrallah and his like, who have no idea how democracies function, may mistake the present turmoil in Israel for weakness. They are in for yet another surprise.


Meanwhile, the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, during a tour of southern Lebanon, made a surprising statement: If Israel plays it smart, he said, we can turn this tragedy into an opportunity for peace. Sounds far-fetched? Stranger things have happened in the Middle East.


Come to think of it, for Israel, peace with Lebanon is far more feasible than peace with Syria or with the Palestinians. There is no meaningful territorial issue at stake, and there is no zero-sum game between the two states, but rather the opposite: Both Lebanon and Israel would gain immensely from peace. Just think of joint investments, tourism and more.



Am I getting carried away here? Maybe.




But if it happens, it will be Nasrallah's worst nightmare. And if he lives to see it, he will only have himself to blame.

David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, August 22, 2006.

Have your ever wished that you were King or, at least, someone in a position to set things right. So who do I think I am to dare to wish for such exalted power? The fact is, I would be totally unsuitable for such a role. But, since in the world of wishes, you can do whatever you dream up, let's consider the following:

Let us deal with the Jewish State of Israel and what could be done to elevate a society that could have been noble, exceptionally decent, pure and meet the criteria of how men should treat each other in this world.

At present, society has been so distorted, that most people are uneducable. So let us not try the impossible by teaching the elite because they are simply too low down and unethical to educate at within the next 10 years.

First we have to clean house of the negative role models who have sunk their roots deep into everyone's lives.

Second, we dismiss the likes of Ehud Olmert, the Kadimites and move them well out of sight as role models to the public. Cheating, selfish deals in back rooms, use of public office to dip into the public treasury.... With Olmert and his collaborators out of power and out of sight, the public will no longer have a corrupt model to emulate.

Next goes most of the Knesset. The choice of who goes or who stays will depend upon their character and willingness to serve the public, that is, to serve the public as a public servant.

Cleaning out the so-called Legal Offices of the Attorney General's officeswill be more difficult. An Attorney General appointed for his friendliness to the Prime Minister and willing to manipulate the outcome of investigations as pay back for the 'job'. No, this one will absolutely have to go and the people will once again have confidence in the law which, of course, now they no longer have.

The Courts: This Leftist Courts may be insurmountable but, since this is after all a dream sequence, we could discuss the entire unholy lot. No longer would there be petty judges putting teenage girls in jail for months and keeping them because there they refused to acknowledge the Court's superiority. These are petty men and women appointed to their posts mostly because they are PC, Politically Correct and will punish anyone who disagrees with them on political matters - such as our rights to live in the homes they built and work the farms they created. These low lifes would not only be dismissed but, given jobs as clean-up crews in Israeli jails for Muslim terrorists.

The Leftist Supreme Court is now well-known world-wide as hopelessly 'activist' for their own gain and view themselves as a political party unto themselves alone. The Pack is led by Aharon Barak, Chief Judge of the Supreme Court, making this Court irrational beyond corrupt.

The entire bunch would do well picking oranges on one of the Kibbutzim they intended to turn over to the Arab Palestinians.

The IDF (Israel Defense Forces): This is or was the most advanced institution in all of Israel. But, this had its down side. When the Leftists from Ben Gurion on down, recognized the value of officers nurtured to be future politicians for the Leftist Labor party. So the army started turning out the likes of Rabin, Barak, Dan Halutz and dozens of others, insuring the spiraling down of the best and elevating the worst. Yes, indeed, I would re-test the entire officers corps, keeping the talent and downgrading the political.

Perhaps you might agree that cutting the budgets of the Political Parties so those who would go anywhere for a buck, a shilling or a shekel would no longer be attracted to plundering the public treasury.

Secret Agencies and Police: It is time to bring back the confidence of the people in the Intelligence Agencies and Police Force. At this moment, the people of Israel see their Police not as their friend and defender but as storm troopers obeying the orders of sham politicians with little or no ethics.

When the Police attack elderly, unarmed women, beat up teenagers and ride German-bred horses into the crowds - these are not friends of the people. Yes, the higher echelons would be dismissed and the younger recruits would be retrained to recognize they are servants for the well-being of the people and not their masters.

The Media, the purveyor of their edeas and only their ideas. If I could not close them down as a danger to the morals and ethics of the nation, I would put them under a law called: "Truth in Reporting". Clearly, the families who control the news and, therefore, the thoughts of the people should be held under a tight rein, given their tendency to each act as a separate political party but, ultimately loyal only to the Political Left and the Labor Party.

Occasionally, they will switch their spin of the news, if the opposing party takes up the doctrine of abandoning the G-d given Land to Hamas, Hezb'Allah or finding a path to appeasement for Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and their Western friends.

Well, there you have it. I have had my dream sequence and now you can have yours.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at winstonmedia@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 22, 2006.


Here we go, again. There is another ceasefire with vague terms to be interpreted against Israel and with one-sided Israeli compliance. The pact, which the Arabs question and defy even before it is promulgated, undermines Israel's military gains against Arab aggressors. The Lebanese Army refuses to disarm Hizbullah. The Europeans do not want to fight. Hizbullah will rebuild its arms caches and resume its aggression.

The Europeans, if they ever arrive, would either flee from terrorists or condemn Israel if it counter-attacks. By letting Muslims into Europe, Europeans are subject to retaliation at home by mobs and votes, thanks to their suicidal notion of democracy. Israel should not have agreed to a vague pact that calls upon it to comply before the enemy's full compliance. Israel should insist that the aggressors comply first. A worthy Israeli government would deride the pact and denounce the diplomacy of appeasement.


The first factor in IDF effectiveness is the military budget, strategy, and rules of military conduct formulated by the civilian authorities. The government has cut the budget, abandoned strategy and adopted appeasement until provoked too much. It tilted the rules of conduct in favor of the Arab aggressors. Barry Chamish accuses the government of having inhibited the soldiers attacked by Hizbullah kidnappers from shooting them in time. It not accurate in this case, it is common enough.

The second factor in IDF effectiveness is the military leadership. It has become political and appeasement-minded, but is more hawkish than the government. The third factor is troop morale. The government undermines troop morale, by over-stressing the rights of enemy troops and civilians, intimidating proper self-defense, and by anti-Zionism and hostility to religious Jewry.

Nevertheless, many of the troops are religious and still fight hard. Finally comes what most people consider dominant, training and equipment, though those are curbed by the budget cuts. How should we gauge IDF effectiveness in the war in Lebanon? I have an idea to contribute on this. Each day, the IDF releases a combat report. The report includes how many rockets Hizbullah fired into Israel. The report is not cumulative, and I have not been keeping count. I wish I had. Hizbullah had an estimated 14,000 missiles. How many have been fired, and how many have been captured or destroyed without having been fired? If the IDF neutralized most, then its warfare is effective. How many has Hizbullah left? Is the IDF likelier to neutralize a bigger proportion of them? How is this effected by the ceasefire? Should Israel have agreed to a ceasefire?


July 17, 2006, Human Rights Watch issued a document entitled "Questions and Answers on Hostilities Between Israel and Hezbollah" with the stated purpose of "provid[ing] analytic guidance for those who are examining the fighting as well as for the parties to the conflict and those with the capacity to influence them.

The piece purports to be a neutral guide setting out the legal rules governing the current hostilities in Lebanon. However, the authors' distorted views of the underlying facts, selective omission of crucial legal issues, and insistent characterization of Hezbollah and Israel as the primary legal actors - with the attendant implied denial of legal responsibility of Lebanon, Syria and Iran to end their support for Hezbollah - all mislead readers and betray the bias of the piece. This is a consistent pattern followed by HRW in activities related to the Middle East.

The most outstanding example of HRW's approach is provided by its question, What is Hezbollah's status in relation to the conflict? and the answer: Hezbollah is an organized political Islamist group based in Lebanon, with a military arm and a civilian arm, and is represented in the Lebanese parliament and government. As such a group, and as a party to the conflict with Israel, it is bound to conduct hostilities in compliance with customary international humanitarian law and common Article 3." The main HRW omission is that as a terrorist organization, Hizbullah has no sanction. The Security Council has ruled that it must be disarmed. Countries that support Hizbullah violate international law. Another omission is that Hizbullah strives to commit genocide.

Shockingly, the only reference to legal obligations related to terrorism in HRW's document is an accusation that the "logic" of alleged Israeli actions "opens the door to ... terrorism," followed by a warning to Israel (!) that "international humanitarian law explicitly prohibits attacks of which the primary purpose is to intimidate or instill terror in the civilian population."

What does HRW think the primary purpose of Hizbullah is? HRW denies that the Beirut airport, seaports, bridges, and roads are used by Hizbullah to import weapons, so that therefore they exclusively are civilian facilities that Israel is not permitted to bomb. To the contrary, such facilities are legitimate targets, under the rules of war (rules that Hizbullah flouts and violations that HRW ignores). Hizbullah does not make its own weaponry. It imports them. Western intelligence agencies have found the evidence of the airport use for this. HRW is fabricating its assertions and then condemning Israel based on falsehood. Further bias may be seen in the selection of issues. Eight questions are posed regarding Israeli military activity, and seven of the eight answers provided by HRW imply Israeli wrongdoing, often without legal or factual basis. By contrast, only three questions regard Hezbollah activity, with only one of HRW's answers directly acknowledging Hezbollah wrongdoing.

HRW treats superficially Hezbollah's repeated violations of the laws of war in targeting civilians, using indiscriminate weaponry designed to needlessly enhance suffering, threatening the civilian population, using civilian shields and the like. Indeed, while Hezbollah's use of civilian shields and deliberate placement of military assets in civilian areas are gross violations of the laws of war, HRW refers to such acts only in passing.

Another means of bias is HRW speculation, without evidence, about Israel, and only Israel, having sordid motives, and then warning Israel not to proceed accordingly. HRW finds the Hizbullah kidnapping of Israeli soldiers non-terrorist, but overlooks its being cross-border aggression and therefore illegal. It concludes that Israel has no right of self-defense! (IMRA, 7/23 from NGO Monitor). HRW deploys its huge budget to distorts human rights law so as to defame Israel and condone terrorism. It questions Israel's motive; its own are questionable.


Israel's current wars were launched by the Arabs from territories Israel did not control. So much for the theory that if Israel did not control territories the Arabs claim it took from them, the Arabs would leave it alone. These two wars are sponsored by Iran and Syria, as parts of their religious and imperial ambition and the Syrian regime's strategy for survival. Israel is just a pawn in their grander scheme for control first of the Mideast, then to defeat the US, then to dominate the whole world, and finally to conjure the "hidden imam" and a Muslim era. Iran takes credit for pushing the US out of Lebanon, the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the Spanish out of Iraq, and the Israelis out of Lebanon and Gaza. It commits terrorism abroad and develops nuclear weapons without great penalty. It thinks its enemies are afraid of it. That self-confidence pulls it along and persuades Muslims everywhere that their time has come, again (IMRA, 7/24 from Moshe Ya'alon). It is time for the US to pull together with Israel and apart from the UNO.

The US should ask the leaders of Russia and China what they think of the Muslim plans to dominate the world. Perhaps the US has, but the US has failed to sever its corrupt and confused ties with certain Muslim countries. The US has not developed a counter-strategy. Pres. Bush wars we are in a world war, but has not followed through. US power is not growing and is not wielded usefully. It sometimes is counter-productive, as when it hinders Israel.

As a practical matter and not just as an ethical one, the State Dept. must overcome its traditional anti-Zionism and use what allies it can to defend the West. PLO and Hamas doctrine is to attack Israel from whatever territory Israel relinquishes. Muslim doctrine is that any territory formerly conquered by Islam bet alter emancipated is "occupied." There can be no peace. The US helped push the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Leftists pulled Israelis out of Lebanon and Gaza.


Israel aims to reduce the menace from Hizbullah. This is reasonable but too limited. Hizbullah is just a tool of Iran and Syria. That tool can be damaged but just as easily rebuilt. The answer is to cripple the tool's wielder, Syria. Remove Syrian power, and Hizbullah probably could not make a comeback (for it would lose face from its defeat and access to Iranian arms via Damascus). Iran would lose face, too. That would halt the Arab rush into its embrace. Crippling Syria and eliminating its missiles would remove it as a direct threat to Israel, too. It might give democracy some chance in the Arab world (IMRA, 7/24 from Efraim Imbar).


The head of Israeli security warned that unless Israel regains control of the Gaza border and interior, Hamas will import and manufacture arms and build a military infrastructure like Hizbullah's in Lebanon. There would be bunkers, tunnels, and dangerous weapons (IMRA, 23). Why couldn't all those Jews who cheered at Israel's abandonment of Gaza foresee that? I think it is because they think ethics are relative and they don't acknowledge that some movements, totalitarian, bigoted, and imperialist, are evil. They think that if they satisfy the enemy's immediate demands, the enemy would drop its ultimate demands. Fantasy.


The IDF listed its rules for what may be disseminated about the war and what must be submitted to the censor before publication. Basically what is forbidden is anything that might inform the enemy about ongoing warfare (IMRA, 7/24).

Fair, in principle. I think the code too liberal, for the enemy can learn what might help in evaluating tactics. Missing from the release is the penalty for violation. I believe that violations should be punished with discretion but severity when warranted. Some of the reporters or their agencies are hostile to Israel.


Iran is bidding to dominate the Arab world and via radicalism. The Saudi rulers and sect fear for their survival. Their officials give that as the reason for raising troop and arms levels, and privately admit that Israel has no imperial ambitions to concern it. An American expert thinks that S. Arabia would be buying more arms, anyway. It always does (IMRA, 7/24).

If S. Arabia were not poised against Israel, why doesn't it move towards Iran its squadron on a base near Israel, a base it stocked with planes sold to it by the US on condition that they would not threaten Israel? THE HIZBULLAH STATE WITHIN A STATE

What do they mean, that Hizbullah is "a state within a state?" Hizbullah directly controls a fourth of Iran, to the virtual exclusion of the government of Iran. It has foreign embassies, collects an income tax, appoints officials, and runs local schools, clinics, and many businesses. It imposes the dress code and other religious rules of fanatical, Shiite Iran. It has given the downtrodden Shiites a sense of superiority, and has connections with Shiites outside its quarter of the country. The largely Shiite Lebanese Army would be doubly reluctant to try to disarm the better armed and trained Hizbullah. Iran is using Hizbullah against Israel to rally the Arab world under its banner. It is seeking to dominate the Mideast via Lebanon, Syria, its tightening control over Iraq, Gaza, and then Israel. Israel must defeat Hizbullah as the spearhead of world jihad.

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Nathan, August 22, 2006.

This article was written by Lee Smith. He is a Hudson Institute visiting fellow based in Beirut; he is writing a book on Arab culture.

Israeli leaders face a reckoning, while the people prepare for the next round of fighting.

HERE IN ISRAEL the reckoning has been underway at least since the U.N.-brokered ceasefire started Monday morning. The papers are loaded with detailed analysis of varying opinion, but much of the criticism of the military and political leadership has nothing to do with how they waged war against Hezbollah. Among other scandals brewing, it has been reported that IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz sold nearly $26,000 worth of stock right after the kidnapping of the two soldiers that sparked the conflict, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert seems to have gotten a sweetheart deal on a luxury Jerusalem apartment last year.

My Lebanese friends are curious to know if all this means that Israel is tearing itself apart at the seams. They know better, but the man who is de facto leader of their country, Hassan Nasrallah, believes that a free press and dissent are signs of weakness.

Of course, it is very dangerous in Lebanon to disagree with Nasrallah, which might be why future MP Saad Hariri, son of the slain ex-Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, says he is so proud of Lebanon's "victory," which he credits to the arms of the resistance. Perhaps Saad means to preserve Lebanon's illusory "national unity," a fiction that may only serve to make it easier for IDF planners during the next round of fighting, which many believe to be inevitable.

Unlike other Western observers, most Israelis don't seem particularly concerned that the Arabs consider this a great victory for Hezbollah. The fact is no one can really afford to tabulate wars the way the Arabs do, not those who make war against them nor, least of all, the Arabs themselves, who acknowledge defeat only after losing lives and land on a massive scale.

The June 1967 war is the gold standard for defeat in the Arab world, but the intra-Arab slaughter at Hama in Syria and the failed Palestinian uprising in Jordan, known as the Black September, are also understood as defeats. In Lebanon, however, where the only parts of the country that were destroyed were those ostensibly "defended" by the resistance, and tens of thousands of civilians avoided death only because the enemy warned them to leave, the Arabs believe they have achieved an historic victory. "If Nasrallah sent a missile through my window," as one young Israeli Arab told me, "I would be happy just knowing that Arabs were fighting."

Even though Nasrallah's rockets killed lots of Israelis, and many Arabs among them, I have yet to meet an Israeli who is scared or even nervous. Still, most here believe that they are always walking a very fine line with little room for error, and what mistakes that have been made need to be corrected quickly.

In contrast, the Bush administration is now behaving more like an Arab regime, as though no one will ever have to pay the price for endangering the lives of people the administration is supposed to protect. Why Secretary of State Rice spent so much time and prestige working on U.N. Resolution 1701 is baffling. Presumably, it was to garner support for America's own fight with the Iranians; if that's so, the White House should learn from its mistakes here and correct them before crunch time. If Washington was more like Jerusalem, Rice would probably be looking for another job right now. Her ceasefire is on the verge of falling apart after less than a week for reasons that were obvious from the outset.

First, the Lebanese government has said in the past that it could not disarm Hezbollah. Furthermore, in the two years since UNSCR 1559, it has demonstrated no will to do so. Second, no matter what the rules of engagement are for a reinvigorated UNIFIL, no European leader is foolish enough to commit troops if it means standing between an armed Hezbollah and a state whose very existence is threatened by an armed Hezbollah.

And so, if what we have seen the last month is at least in part a proxy war between the United States and Iran, we now have an idea of what a real war between these two states would look like, as almost everyone at the table has shown his hand:

The conservative Arab regimes, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf States, will keep their mouths shut as long as they can, desperately needing an American victory. They will be under intense pressure from "the street," which supports Tehran's agenda and the Damascus-Hezbollah- Hamas axis, but between two hard choices the regimes really have none but to tough it out. Most importantly, Saudi Arabia will keep pumping oil.

Maybe Europe really is "with" the United States regarding the Iranian nuclear program, whatever that may mean at this point. It agrees that Iran is a serious problem, but given the political climate in England, France, and Germany, siding with the United States will be a serious problem, and unlike their Arab counterparts, European leaders can actually lose their jobs. It's worth remembering that France was to lead the pumped-up UNIFIL force with a reported 3,500 troops and has now backed out of its commitments almost entirely--an indication of Europe's aversion to any military action in the Middle East.

More to the point, it now seems clear that the Iranians have no interest in negotiating over their nuclear program. If, in this equation, Israel equals the United States and Hezbollah equals Iran, Hezbollah's refusal to disarm can be understood as Iran's refusal to give up its nuclear program. There is nothing subtle about Hezbollah's brinksmanship, they have effectively taken over the government of Lebanon and they threaten anyone who stands in the way of the resistance. Rather than disarm, they will instead conceal their arms in the south, as though prior to the recent conflict they were public about the number and location of the Chinese-made silkworm missiles they possessed. When the world community, led by the United States, has shown that it can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat on behalf of Hezbollah, why would the party of God's Iranian patron expect anything but the same deference?

That means that after putting a leash on its one truly useful ally in this war, the United States is virtually alone. So now the only real question mark, the only actor whose actions are not entirely predictable at this point, is the United States. We hope.

Contact David Nathan at DAVENATHAN@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, August 22, 2006.
This article was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared today in the Jerusalem Post.

At around 4 a.m. Saturday, Lt. Col. Emanuel Morano, a senior commander in the General Staff Reconnaissance Unit (Sayeret Matkal), was killed in a fierce battle with Hizbullah fighters near Baalbek in the Bekaa valley not far from the Lebanese-Syrian border.

From the details of the commando raid that have filtered into the media, we learned that Morano and his men were airdropped into the area by helicopter along with their two Hummer vehicles, with the mission of attacking a Hizbullah base in the nearby village of Bodei used by the Iranian-sponsored guerrilla fighters for weapons smuggling.

Iran is now working steadily to replenish Hizbullah's surface to surface and anti-tank missile stocks and augment them with anti-aircraft missiles.

Israel's continued sea and air blockade of Lebanon, which Kofi Annan is pushing the Olmert government to lift, forces Iran to resupply Hizbullah by land through Syria and into the Bekaa valley.

Morano and his men were discovered by Hizbullah fighters around the heavily guarded enclave and a pitched battle ensued. Morano was killed, another officer was seriously wounded and a third was wounded lightly. At least three Hizbullah fighters were killed and two were reportedly taken prisoner.

Close air support from helicopters and fighter planes prevented Hizbullah reinforcements from participating in the battle or encircling the IDF commandos who were extracted - with their casualties and prisoners - after a prolonged firefight.

Morano, 35, was a hero. He was admired and respected by his soldiers and officers. Those who knew him well agree that his most outstanding features were his humility and his Zionism. Morano lived modestly with his wife Maya and three young children in Moshav Tlamim by Sderot. He never wore his uniform in his community - he wasn't interested in people knowing how senior an officer he was. He was in the IDF to serve his country and his people, not for the glory. He was a loyal son of Jerusalem.

EXACTLY a year before his death, Morano's humility and dedication to serving his country brought him to perform a different sort of nocturnal mission.

Every night last August - until precisely 52 weeks before his death - he snuck into Gush Katif to bring food to his brother David and his family who were besieged along with the rest of the residents of Gush Katif by a force of some 50,000 IDF and police forces. These forces, who outnumbered the forces sent into Lebanon to fight Hizbullah a year later by 20,000, were under orders not to fight Israel's enemies, but to expel loyal, patriotic Israeli citizens from their homes and communities, destroy their homes and communities and abandon their land to Hamas and Fatah control.

David Morano is a major in reserves in another elite IDF unit. Last year in Neve Dekalim he challenged the IDF to find one soldier who would be capable of throwing him and his family out of their home. Taking David's point and seeking to avoid embarrassment, the senior brass of the IDF beat a steady path to his door, attempting to convince him that he must leave. Sitting in a modestly furnished, book-lined living room, David repeatedly demanded to be told the strategic rationale of the expulsions. Why were these senior commanders following orders to surrender land to terrorists? Why were they turning 8,500 Jews into refugees in the Land of Israel in order to carry out a mission conceived by a prime minister desperate to avoid a felony indictment on corruption charges from the radical leftist state prosecution? David kept repeating over and over again that this was not the reason he and his four brothers served as combat officers in the IDF. He warned over and over again that expelling the Israelis from Gaza would strengthen Israel's enemies and lead directly to another war.

NONE OF the officers who spoke to David could provide him with answers. The most they could do was lend a sympathetic ear as they suggested he start packing his bags. They could not convince him to leave. In the end, the events had their own momentum. By Friday afternoon, David and his family were more or less the only family left on their street.

Everyone else had been expelled Thursday. Over the Sabbath, the remaining Jews of Neve Dekalim darted around in the shadows avoiding arrests by soldiers and police. When they gathered in the synagogue, they were momentarily heartened to see that a couple hundred were still on hand.

But their spirits were broken. By the end of the next week, they were all refugees, their homes and communities laid to waste by IDF bulldozers. Their abandoned synagogues awaited destruction at the hands of Palestinian mobs which came three weeks later.

Some of the most charged moments at David's home last summer came when he expressed his indignation over the way that IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz and his generals daily insulted the religious Zionist community. Halutz threatened to bar the youths who protested the expulsions from serving in the military. Maj. Gen. Dan Harel, who as then OC Southern Command commanded the expulsions, talked about "a lost generation," and demanded an accounting by the heads of the religious Zionist public for their children who refused to accept the legitimacy of the expulsions. Maj. Gen. Benny Ganz, who then served as OC Northern Command, claimed that the youth who protested the expulsions were a greater danger to Israel than Hizbullah.

And yet, over the past year, after in many cases having to submit to humiliating interrogations by the Shin Bet, and repeated rejections by draft boards due to their "ideological fervor," thousands of the youths who protested last summer's expulsions were drafted into the army. Like Emmanuel and David Morano and their three older brothers, these soldiers make up the backbone of the IDF's regular combat and Special Forces units. Like Emmanuel Morano, a disproportionate number of religious Zionist soldiers have died in the past month of war.

LAST WEEK, Vice Premier Shimon Peres tried to silence the growing calls for the government and the members of the General Staff to resign by saying that this is no time for a war between the Jews. His statement is an insult to the intelligence. Demanding accountability from incompetent political and military leaders who led us into defeat against an enemy we could and should have beaten is not opening a civil war. It is the proper response from a responsible public that understands our leaders are incapable of defending the country.

Indeed, if Peres is concerned about the possibility of a war between the Jews, then he should be the first one calling for the government to resign.

The Olmert government was elected with a platform explicitly committed to carrying out a war against the Jews through the conduct of mass expulsions of up to 100,000 Israelis from their homes and communities in Judea and Samaria.

In the midst of this month's Lebanon war, as it became increasingly clear that he lacked the will to prosecute the war to victory, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert attempted to buck up his support in Europe and among the radical Israeli Left (of which his children and wife are proud members), by saying that the war in Lebanon would pave the way for the mass expulsion of Israelis from Judea and Samaria.

Saturday, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni appointed a senior diplomat Yaacov Dayan as her point man for future negotiations with Syria. Her decision to appoint an envoy for talks on surrendering the Golan Heights to Syrian dictator and Iranian toady Bashar Assad came just days after Assad announced that he hates Israel, wants nothing to do with peace and is committed to Israel's destruction.

In light of Assad's statements, there are two logical explanations for Livni's move. First, like her colleagues in the Olmert government who also are pushing peace talks with Assad, Livni may be stupid.

Second, Livni may have appointed Dayan in the hopes of stirring up internal fissures over the issue of land for peace. Already the radical leftists who run Israel's media are engaging in surrealistic debates about the possibility of making peace with Assad the warmonger. These debates immediately place religious Zionists on the hot seat for their stubborn insistence on settling the land which makes giving it to Israel's sworn enemies all the more difficult for people like Livni and her friends.

Last summer in Gush Katif, there was no war between the Jews. Last summer, under orders from Ariel Sharon and Olmert, the IDF and the police fought a war against the Jews. David and Emmanuel Morano didn't fight against Israel. They didn't fight against the IDF.

The Moranos fought against insane policies that victimized 8,500 patriots for no reason other than Leftist anti-religious prejudice, and that caused Gaza to become a new base for global jihad. And then, when war came from our emboldened enemies, as they warned it would, the Moranos loyally served beside their brothers and countrymen in defense of Israel.

When the outraged Israeli public sends this incompetent government and General Staff home, it will not be starting a war between the Jews. It will be preventing another war against the Jews.

Aryeh Zelasko lives in Beitar Illit, south of Jerusalem. He is Director of Sales and Marketing of Israel Visit (www.israelvisit.co.il) which provides information and an internet buying facility for American visitors to Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, August 22, 2006.

Why have we not heard the real truth about the Arab Muslim Palestinian Terrorists and their control of the Media - among other things? FOX NEWS has reported the facts and this irritates the Palestinians. CNN, on the other hand, plays along and tells the story in a way more acceptable to the Palestinians.

I recall the 12 years in Lebanon's Civil War from 1975 to 1982 when Yassir Arafat created a State-within-a-State. Arafat's brother, in charge of Public Relations, issued press releases to the journalists hunkered down in the Commodore Hotel in Beirut. Arafat's brother handed out the press release needed for the moment and the journalists knew that they had better send the story back to their editors who, in turn, had better print the story as Arafat dictated.

Ask Tom Friedman (if he's ready to 'fess up) how the journalists - including himself - feared the streets of Beirut. The kidnapping of Steve Centanni and the Photographer Olaf Wiig from New Zealand was merely the M.O. ("Modus Operandi") of the Muslim Arab Palestinians who have always done 'business' their way when it came to the Media. During the 12 year Civil War which Arafat instigated, 100,000 Christians and Muslims were killed. At least 10 Media personnel were also murdered. That was the Muslim Arab Palestinian message to the media and the media understood what they were ordered to do.

Others like the NEW YORK TIMES, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, LOS ANGELES TIMES, etc. walk that fine line between honest reporting and twisting the facts so t either flatters the Palestinian terrorists or bashes the Jewish State of Israel.

We recently watched John Roberts of CNN being escorted by Hezb'Allah through the alleged wreckage of the Hezb'Allah headquarters in Lebanon. The questions and answers to them were clearly scripted and Roberts went along without asking any tough questions which might have endangered his own life or those of his colleagues. Granted the Media choose their professions but, they, when they had to, they also chose to lie to keep their jobs.

Conversely, in Israel the Media roams freely and there is no implied threat that they had better slant the story a certain way - or else!

In fact, when it turns out that the journalist and his photographer lied and try to set up the shot, even then their credentials are not (usually) withdrawn. (Note! On very rare occasions, press credentials have been withdrawn only to be returned later.)

Do the Palestinians or Arab in general threaten the Media? (To say it their way), you bet!

Muslims lie and expect the world media to accept their distortions and when questioned, they storm with expressions of insult. Perhaps lying for Allah is beyond reproach.

As for the Media, they are clearly scared witless and will spin the story as ordered without checking, without facts, happy to leave the scene with their head yet attached to their shoulders.

There is still more to consider. Terrifying journalists to convince nations and their people that Palestinian Muslim Arab Terrorists are merely just good 'ole' boys, doing good deeds is one benefit. But, terrifying nations and their governments is a more important aspect of terror. Whether it is the Palestinian terrorists, Hamas, or the Hezb'Allah terrorists in Lebanon, acting as proxies for Iran and Syria, their goals are the same.

9/11 was a message from Islamic 'Jihadists' to all Americans. It was a terror message which was intended to have the Bush government fall into line, much the same as was expected of the media. It worked fairly well with the media but, President Bush and his team wasn't as cooperative.

Perhaps whoever the terrorists were, they will release Steve Centanni, FOX NEWS anchor and Olaf Wiig, free lance photographer from New Zealand, when they discover their fellow journalists will bravely come to their aid.

The threats to distort their reportage should have angered the media community so much they would cease to be a shill for the terrorists.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at winstonmedia@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, August 21, 2006.

The unintended consequences of a botched Iraqi occupation allow Iran to extend its sphere of influence to an emerging Shiite 'Sadr-stan'. Furthermore, fossil fuel addicted nations in collusion with Islamic extortionists, Big Oil, and mercenary commodities traders, propel the per barrel price of that prehistoric carbon based heroin-like energy producing substance to more than seventy dollars and climbing, enhancing revenue flows to those 'got rocks' oil-supplying Persian psychopathic mullahs and maniacal Muslim madman AhMADinejad, allowing them the luxury of amply financing proxy Hizbullah, currently in charge of Lebanon. Syrian sadists, reflecting on days when former emperor Assad won respect with mass murder followed by bulldozers, salivating at Iran's muscle flexing, join the Shiite team in its maniacal quest to morph the Middle East and Western Europe into an Imam-inspired intolerant misogynist Jew-bereft neo-Ottoman fundamentalist empire. Alas, Israel, attempting to control its own destiny in this truly less than comical 'Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, World', must proceed with caution coldly assessing all facts, especially the convoluted money flows from presumably sane civilized non-Muslim industrial leviathans to less than sane oil saturated Muslim regimes to criminally insane homicidal/suicidal jihad junkies with eyes on the thighs of compliant virgins in Allahland. No Stanley Kramer produced extravaganza, even with turbaned Milton Berle and Sid Caesar playing the parts of crazed Arabs, could ever hope to compete with this real-life mayhem; it would simply stretch the believability quotient of an average audience beyond acceptable limits, unwilling to convince itself that educated societies would be so dull witted as to so enable their worst enemies.

Yet truth sometimes does trump fiction, even bizarre fiction. No doubt, if such a truly dull witted non-Muslim industrial world did not so crave prehistoric Texas tea, Islamic pusher states, currently in T-Rex mode, would be less imposing than toothless herbivores foraging for veggies, a well deserved fate for century twenty-one ner-do-well nations dependent on raw-material economies. Alas, such an addiction is not easily broken as vested interests within the non-Muslim industrial world rule the day to the detriment of hoodwinked populations that just go with the flow. Tiny Israel, less than two tenths of one percent as large as surrounding hostile Muslim neighbors, the chronic shlamazel state on a planet dominated by oil-oligarchs, must take heart in the fact that brains can conquer brawn. Thus it is incumbent on the Jewish State's leaders to create incentives for the best minds in the land to develop an efficient cheap alternative energy source to replace the vicious viscous bane of Israel's existence. At some point, industrial world nations will have to reduce, perhaps eliminate, their dependence on oil, possibly when the impact of global warming finally hits world citizenry so hard, even vested interests will not be able to contain the panic-driven clamor for change. Might such a time give rise to a prepared Israel's day in the sun? Might a wise Prime Minister, currently on the ropes, suggest such a course of action, for the sake of a legacy now seemingly in tatters?

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, August 21, 2006.

This article was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post August 18, 2006.

Since the cease-fire was implemented in Lebanon, we have heard scattered reports indicating that a prisoner swap with the Palestinians may be in the works. In exchange for hundreds if not thousands of Palestinian terrorists now held in Israeli prisons, IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage by Palestinian terrorists for nearly two months, may be released from captivity.

These reports lend weight to the view that things are back to normal. Terrorists kidnap Israelis and hold them hostage and Israel releases terrorists in order to free them. It is a comforting thought for people like Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his colleagues and the members of Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz's General Staff who continue to believe that it will be possible for Israel to sign on a dotted line and achieve "a normal existence." Unfortunately, the chance that Shalit will be released is almost as small as the chance that Israel will be able to achieve a "normal existence." Palestinian sources explain that the decision of whether or not to release Shalit is firmly in the hands of the Iranians and Syrians, and they are not in any mood to horse trade with the Jews.

Today the Palestinian Authority is nothing more than yet another Iranian proxy. During the past month of war in Lebanon, it was the supposedly moderate Fatah terror group and the supposedly moderate Fatah-led Palestinian security forces that organized mass rallies in the streets of Ramallah and Gaza cheering on Hizbullah and calling for Hassan Nasrallah to bomb Tel Aviv.

Now, in the aftermath of the cease-fire, which handed Hizbullah and its state sponsors Syria and Iran the greatest victory in their history, forces in the PA are actively preparing for a new round of war against Israel. As Hamas spokesmen have put it, Israel's defeat in Lebanon has convinced them that it is possible to adopt Hizbullah's methods to destroy the Jewish state. Amid false reports that he was planning to dissolve the Hamas government and replace it with a government of technocrats, Abbas went to Gaza on Monday morning and asked Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh if Fatah could join his government.

As instructed by his commanders in Teheran and Damascus, Haniyeh has not yet agreed to Abbas's offer. Rather he set humiliating conditions which Abbas must accept first. Abbas already agreed to Hamas's demand that he allow the Islamic Jihad terrorist organization to also join the government. He is similarly expected to agree to Hamas's demands that Fatah join the government as a junior partner and that it abandon its negotiations with Israel.

Throughout the Gaza Strip and the Palestinian areas of Judea and Samaria, the Palestinians are gearing up for their next round of jihad with Israel. As was the case six years ago, they are beginning with public executions of Palestinians accused of helping Israel combat terrorism. Just this week, a crowd of hundreds hooted and stomped their feet in ecstasy as unmasked murderers killed one such Palestinian "collaborator" in Jenin.

So while all eyes are glued on Lebanon, the Palestinians may well start the next war. And we know exactly how that war will look. They will use missiles, mortars and rockets that they will smuggle in from Egypt to kill Israelis in their homes in the South. They will infiltrate Israeli cities by digging tunnels under the security fence around Gaza, and from Egypt and from towns and cities in Judea and Samaria and murder us in ever growing numbers. They will receive money, weapons and combat instruction from Hizbullah and Iranian operatives in Gaza and abroad and they will attack us while protesting their everlasting dedication to jihad and their anger over Israel's "aggression."

Then there is Syria. Syrian President Bashar Assad's address Tuesday was a watershed event. After 14 years of beating around the bush, Syria finally came clean. Peace, Assad said, is dead. We hate Israel and we want to destroy it. If not us, then our children will destroy it. All the Arabs that want peace with Israel are traitors. Long live Hizbullah and we're going to war to conquer the Golan Heights as a first step towards destroying Israel.

So Syria is planning to attack us. Perhaps it will do so while Hizbullah is carrying out what Nasrallah called the "building and reconstruction jihad" where with Iranian funding Hizbullah will rebuild Lebanon for the Lebanese and so hammer one more nail in the coffin of the Lebanese nation state and move 10 steps ahead in the Iranian colonization of Lebanon. Yes, while Hizbullah goes forward with Lebanese reconstruction, and with Iranian and Syrian assistance reequips and upgrades its arsenal of war and rebuilds its force structure, Syria will likely open a new front on the Golan Heights.

Like the Palestinians, the Syrians will be following the Hizbullah model. Assad knows that his antiquated conventional forces are incapable of conquering and holding the Golan Heights. But, if Israel fights Syria the same way it just fought Hizbullah, then that doesn't matter. Syria, with its arsenal of Scud missiles whose range covers the entire country and armed with its chemical and biological arsenals that can act in the best case as a deterrent force, will be able to kill thousands if not tens of thousands of Israeli civilians and soldiers in the coming battle and cause property and economic damage to the tune of tens of billions of dollars.

Syria believes that it will be able to cause sufficient damage to make Israel sue for a cease-fire as we just did with Hizbullah. So like Hizbullah, Syria expects to gain at the UN Security Council what it could never hope to achieve on the battlefield. Specifically, given the precedent of Resolution 1701, Syria no doubt believes that in exchange for its aggression, it will receive international recognition for its territorial demands against Israel; an international force on the Golan Heights that will make it difficult for Israel to respond to future attacks; a major upgrade in its international profile; and billions of dollars in international assistance to rebuild in the wake of any damage caused to Syrian infrastructures by IDF operations.

Behind the Palestinians and the Syrians lies Iran, the guiding light behind the present jihad. Iran, with its burgeoning nuclear weapons program, is the single greatest danger to international security. It is the single greatest danger to Israel's survival. To date, Iran has made do with fighting Israel through its proxies, to great advantage. But Iran has made it absolutely clear that it intends to join the fray directly - when it is good and ready. And of course it will be good and ready when it has nuclear weapons.

If Iran is allowed to attain nuclear weapons, there is no reason to doubt that it will use them. If Iran attacks Israel with nuclear weapons, then of course we are looking at a future war scenario involving not thousands of dead, but millions.

As all of Israel's leaders have been quick to point out over the years, the threat of a nuclear armed Iran is not just dangerous for Israel but for the entire world. Iran has its Persian Gulf neighbors in its gun sites. It has directly threatened the US and Europe.

Although this is true, the fact that Iran is a threat to the entire world does not give Israel the ability to shirk from its responsibility to contend directly with Iran. Doing so would be tantamount to signing the death warrant of the Jewish people.

In the not so distant future, we will find ourselves at war with Iran. Today, the choice of whether we fight that war in our own time, and before Iran gets nuclear weapons is in our hands. If we hesitate, if we and the rest of the free world waste precious time with worthless diplomatic wrangling with the ayatollahs, war will come to us, but on the enemy's terms. And we will have only ourselves to blame.

All of these future wars present us with a clear challenge as a country. We must prepare for war. This means, that technologically, we must engage in a crash program to find means to protect our cities from missile attack. We got off relatively easy this time. Hizbullah chose not to attack our industrial centers but showed it has the ability to do so through its missile attacks near Haifa's port and its attacks near Hadera's power plant.

Militarily, we must not relent in targeting our enemies. The IDF must target every Palestinian terrorist. It must reassert control over the international border between Gaza and Egypt. Israel must accept the reality that the PA is a terrorist organization, not a legitimate regime, and stop viewing Abbas and his associates in Fatah as potential peace partners. Obviously, Israel must give up the idea of transferring Judea and Samaria to Palestinian control and take all necessary measures to stabilize the situation on the ground in a manner that neutralizes the threat of Palestinian jihad.

Furthermore, the war in Lebanon exposed the results of years of neglect of the IDF reserve forces. These forces must be properly equipped, properly trained for war, and properly led. The talk of releasing men from reserve duty at 35 must be abandoned. The IDF has to accept that it is a fighting force in war. Commanders have to stop acting like yuppies in uniform and understand that they have a war to train for and fight and win.

Finally, Israel needs a political leadership that will be capable of telling the Israeli public the truth that has been ignored for the past decade and a half. We are not a "normal" nation and we are not going to get peace in the coming years. We are an abnormal nation in our neighborhood and in the world and will always remain so, as is our right. Our people must be ready to sacrifice for the survival of the state and the defense of our freedom to be abnormal. We need leadership that will tell the Israeli people that a struggle awaits us but that our democracy, our freedom, and our values give us the power of creative thought that will allow us to beat the dull forces of jihad that surround us.

In response to Assad's speech on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that Assad has to decide if he's on the side of peace or on the side of war. Defense Minister Amir Peretz outdid even that when he said that now that the war is over, it is time for Israel to get down to the real business of peace and to set the conditions for a renewal of the peace negotiations with Syria.

In so responding to Assad's unequivocal warmongering, our leaders again have shown us that they have learned nothing and are incapable of learning anything from the disaster into which they led us with Hizbullah in Lebanon. There is no missile that is capable of penetrating their walls of self-deception and delusion. They are blind and deaf to all evidence that their way of appeasement has failed.

With the Olmert government's stubborn insistence that Israel won the war it just lost, with the General Staff's absurd statements that the mission was successful, it is clear that both our political and military leadership must be replaced as quickly as possible. Our enemies give us no time for hesitation. They plan their next wars in broad daylight as our leaders squawk in the darkness of their ideological stupor.

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Magdi Khalil, August 21, 2006.

The recent, simultaneous bombing of six Iraqi churches reflects the ser iousness of the predicament of Arab Christians, who are trapped between the hammer of terrorists groups and extremists, and the anvil of fanatic governments that skillfully manipulate the issue of religious radicalism for their own benefit, while reinforcing religious, ethnic and sectarian discrimination among their citizens. Arab Christians live in the bosom of a racist culture that claims superiority over non-Muslims, fueled by a legacy mostly filled with violence and hatred and a history centered on strife, murder and viciousness.

Obviously, the Christians of the Middle East have lost the demographic race to the benefit of their Muslim compatriots. Their numbers continue to dwindle not just due to natural factors, but because many of them chose, or were compelled, to emigrate. Some fell victims to the constant pressures that escalated to fata l attacks. And others succumbed to the temptation to renounce their faith. ┬  The Christians of Southern Sudan were the only ones to maintain their place in that difficult contest, and though they paid a dear price, they discovered the means to achieve a realistic balance of power and face off eradication designs.

A survey of the present situation of Christians living in the Middle East demonstrates a problematic and distressing cycle: Arab Christian populations are declining, resulting in an erosion of their political power, which in turn causes their conditions to worsen and ultimately drives them out of their own homeland. This pattern is repeated throughout the region.

In Lebanon, Christians represented 50-60% of the population prior to 1975; today this percentage has declined to 25-30%. Most importantly, their political influence has severely weakened. The Lebanese emigration ministry estimates the number of emigrants at five million, more than three and a half million of which are Lebanese Christians. In the past Lebanon was known to be a safe haven for persecuted individuals who were hunted because of their religious or intellectual beliefs. Today, however, it is driving out its own children because of the Arab infringement, the Palestinian foolishness and the Syrian occupation.

The Lebanese Patriarch Nasr Allah Safir talked with LBC TV station about the Christian situation saying: "The Christians feel left out, their presence being clearly unwanted". He commented on the injustice committed against Lebanese Christians: "Lebanon was in a state of war, and it was the agreement of El Taef that put an end to this war, but only a partial and selective implementation of the agreement was carried out." The writer Mushee Maouz confirmed this statement in his book Middle East Minorities Between Integration and Dissension, with the following words: "Since 1943, and for many decades, the Maronite Christians of Lebanon, the ShiÔ'a, and the elite Sunni have worked together in a diverse, legal and democratic system that was controlled by minorities. However, the shift in favor of Muslim communities, Radical Arab nationalism and military Palestinian existence, as well as the Syrian and Israeli intervention ended up alienating the Maronites and forcing them to take a defensive stance."

Iraq witnessed an increase in Christian emigration following the defeat of Sadam Hussein in the second Gulf War, as the political speech took religious tones and the economic situation continued to deteriorate. Once Baghdad fell at the hands of the Coalition troops, the fanatics came out of their dark caves and began attacking the liquor shops owned by Christians. As a result more than two hundred shops had to be closed. The attacks became more serious as they then targeted Christian women who were not veiled, Christian residences, and finally took the lives of a number of innocent Christians citizens. The final attacks targeted Christian churches during Sunday services and resulted in alarge number of casualties and injuries. News reports mentioned that thousands of Iraqi Christians were forced to migrate to Syria in the aftermath of such attacks, proof enough that the so called "resistance" is nothing but another facet of the vicious terrorism that assaults innocents and ultimately seeks to ruin the new Iraqi experience.

During a few decades, the percentage of Palestinian Christians has dropped from 17% to less than 2% of the total population. The Israeli newspaper Badiut Ahrunut report ed that entire neighborhoods in Beit Gala, Beit Lahm and Beit Sahur have been em ptied of Christians because of the overwhelming Islamic tide that has turned the Palestinian cause into an Islamic issue, and the growing power of the fundament alists who are imposing their rules and views on the Palestinian community. According to the BBC, the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem, who, in 1920, represented 50% of the population, currently represent a mere 10%.

The Palestinian Intifada, under the leadership of Islamic organizations, had a detrimental effect on the Christians who were required to pay a type of tax to those organizations to support suicide missions. News coming out of the Holy Land is disturbing. In Gaza, Christian women, in fear of being attacked by Islamic fanatics, have donned the veil. During the crisis in the Church of the Nativity, a reporter from Los Angeles managed to sneak into the church and indicated that the terrorists have raided the church, leaving nothing intact. They used the wood of the temple as fire fuel, and the pages of Bibles as toilet paper. Another incident that took place in Nazareth City, when the fanatics tried to build a mosque right in front of the Church of the Annunciation, clearly reveals the intentions of the fundamentalist organizations to establish an Islamic state on this most sacred Christian ground.

The situation of Egypt's Copts is definitely not promising, as they are now more marginalized then ever. The reports issued abroad refer to them as "an isolated minority", "a minority under siege", "a persecuted Church" and "an oppressed minority". To quote Mushee Maouz: "The Copts' participation in political life is minimal. The peaceful integration of the Copts into their society started in the middle of the 19th Century, but was regularly interrupted by the militant Islamic movement that disconcerted the Copts and created tensions between Muslims and Christians. The Copts continued to swing back and forth between integration and rejection throughout the 20th Century, and isolation became the common pattern under the rule of autocratic regimes." This dismal situation propelled a million and half Christians to emigrate to the United States, Europe and Australia. The exact number of the Christian minority living in Egypt remains a well guarded government secret.

Of all the Arab regimes, the Syrian and Jordanian regimes are deemed the best in their dealings with Christian citizens. Nevertheless, the Islamist movement and the deteriorating economic situation have badly affected the Christians in these two countries. Since the events of September 11, tensions are running high in the region, and hatred towards all that is related to the West is growing almost to the point of triggering a collision between the East and West. To quote the British reporter Martin Buckley: "The Christians in Jordan feel that they are being pushed into a difficult corner, either to belong to the Western World or to the Arab World." Growing suspicions surround the Christians, falsely accusing them of being "a fifth column" or an "inside enemy" - another example of a prevalent mindset that constantly casts doubts about the Christians' loyalty and patriotism. It seems that Christians are sadly destined to pay the price whenever tensions or conflicts arise between the Arab World and the West.

Throughout the ages of Arab invasion and Ottoman occupation, Christians of the Middle East: the Copts, Armenians, Syrians, Maronites, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Aramaeans have suffered from persecution along with other minorities like the Shi'a, Kurds and Druz. Their situation improved, however, when the modern state was founded after the collapse of the Ottoman rule and at the onset of Western colonization, becoming more engaged in their societies in response to the emergent concept of citizenship. Unfortunately, at the escalation of militant regimes and fascist religious movements, a relapse occurred costing the minorities most of their justly earned citizenship rights.

The bleak situation of the Christian Arabs has caught the attention of honorable men who chose to confront the sinister tide that has overtaken the region, and some of them paid dearly for their courage such as Dr. Farag Fouda and Prof. Saad Eddin Ibrahim; the former who was assassinated in 1991, and the latter who was jailed during 2000-2003.

A number of Arabic writers have recently produced candid articles and other publications calling attention to the ordeal of Arab Christians.

Saudi Prince Talal Ben Abdelaziz wrote an a rticle entitled "The Survival of Christian Arabs", in El Nahar, a Lebanese newspaper, stating the following: "The Christian Arabs' situation is the product of an environment overwhelmed by fanaticism and a violence level which can trigger disasters of historical proportions, and, most of all, the product of an environment strongly disposed to eliminate the different other. The continued existence of the Christian Arabs in their homelands will reinforce the foundations of the modern state, the cultural diversity and democracy, and put an end to the continuous loss of scientific, intellectual and cultural abilities in our region. Their emigration is a mighty blow that will prove detrimental to our future."

Mr. Muhammad Hasanayn Haykal wrote the foll owing words in the magazine entitled Perspectives: "I personally feel, as others certainly do, that if we do not address the issue of Christian emigration, if we continue to overlook it or neglect it on purpose, then we will face an Arab scene that will not just be different from the current one, but one that would have definitely lost part of its assets on a human and cultural level. It would be such a loss if the Eastern Christians leave believing that there is no future for them or their children here, Islam would then be left alone in the East, with only the company of Zionist Judaism - and most specifically that of Israel."

As for Mr. Galal Amin, he wrote the following enlightening words: "Evidently, the issue of Muslims and Copts is not a religious issue, it stirs up all our issues: education, freedom, rational thinking, justice, ethics and development. If this argument is valid, then it is obvious that if we want to see Muslims freed, we need to free the Copts first."

Mr. Tarek Heggy wrote the following comment: "Progress and modernization are infectious! And it is up to the minorities of the Middle East to pass on these notions into our region".

There were many other inspiring words, in addition to a significant visit from Pope John Paul II, who wished to support and encourage the Middle East Christians. However, no matter how important the words and visits are, neither of them is capable of achieving significant results. Only when the foundations of the modern state are firmly set in place, can we dare hope that this situation will change. Democracy, liberty and citizenship - the basics of a modern state - were the factors that initiated the integration of Christians within their societies in the first half of the last century; and it was the absence of these factors during the second half of the last century that sent them back into the dark ages of isolation and persecution, where they still abide.

Magdy Khalil is an Egyptian writer and analyst residing in the USA.You can contact him at magdikh@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jan Willem van der Hoeven, August 21, 2006.

O my soul, my soul!
I am pained in my very heart!
My heart makes a noise in me;
I cannot hold my peace,
Because you have heard, O my soul,
The sound of the trumpet,
The alarm of war. (Jeremiah 4:19)

Terrible destruction is set to come upon Israel. Syria plans a surprise attack, emboldened by the success of the Hizb'allah fighters against Israel. Bashar el-Assad openly calls for the destruction of Israel and puts his army on the highest alert possible. Syrian pilots sit in their jets on their runways, ready to take off. Nearly all sections of the Syrian population side emotionally with Hizb 'allah, calling for the re-entry of Syrian troops into Lebanon to join their fight against Israel.

Totally blind to what is cooking in Syria, leftist circles in Israel immorally call yet again for constructive dialogue with a regime of murderers. Syria has murdered people both inside that country (more than 20,000 of its own citizens in Hama) as well as outside of it, among them various politicians and journalists in Lebanon. Nonetheless, many on Israel's left persist in parroting the defunct line: that to achieve peace with Syria it is best to talk to these killers, ev en if doing so will result in the complete surrender to them of the Golan Heights, and all this for not even a real peace. For Assad will never give up his dream, and his father's dream, of a greater Syria that one day will include all of Lebanon through a Syrian-dependent Hizb'allah, and via the Syrian-faithful Khaled Meshal and his Hamas-directed Palestinians they one day intend to roll in to Israel.

Israel is sleeping, many content that the very costly war just fought by courage ous Israeli soldiers in Lebanon has for the time being come to a kind of precari ous but ominous halt. And the world -- mostly biased and/or anti-Semitic -- is as usual applying more pressure on Israel to keep this fragile ceasefire than it is willing to apply on the Lebanese government, still afraid to rein in the Hizb'allah which, by its blatant attack and naked aggression, brought all this death and destruction upon that beautiful, Swiss-like country....Italy May Head U.N. Force, The Media Line - 2006-08-21

While all reports until now have spoken of either France or Turkey spearheading the United Nations 15,000-strong force in southern Lebanon, it looks as though Italy may take on the role. The French had offered to lead the force but were only prepared to commit a maximum of 400 soldiers. Italian President Romano Prodi has said he is prepared to send a sizeable force to Lebanon, but no official figure has been published. Senior U.N. officials are unhappy at the slow pace of troop commitments from Western countries and in particular from France. Reports on Monday suggest The U.N. may increase UNIFIL powers to allow the soldiers to open fire if necessary, something that the existing UNIFIL force has not been mandated to do.

-- "GSS Chief Warns: Ignore Gaza and it Will Become Lebanon," Ezra HaLevi, Arutz-7 - 2006-08-21

The head of Israel's General Security Service issued a warning Sunday against treating Gaza with the same neglect that led the government to disregard six years of Hizbullah's preparations for war.

Shabak (General Security Service) chief Yuval Diskin told the government ministers at the weekly Cabinet meeting that the "intensification of terror infrastructure in Gaza is a strategic problem which, if not treated properly, will result in a situation just like in Lebanon."

"Tons of explosives and hundreds of weapons," Diskin said, "have been smuggled in recently through the Philadelphi Corridor." That corridor, a strip between Egypt and Gaza that contains the Rafah Crossing, was abandoned by Israel during the Disengagement, against the protestation of IDF intelligence. In return, Egyptian and European Union guarantees were to have ensured that the border would remain controlled and free of weapons smuggling....

"Iran tests short-range missile," Associated Press, The Jerusalem Post - 2006-08-21

Iran on Sunday test-fired a surface-to-surface short-range missile a day after its army launched large-scale military exercises throughout the country, state-run television reported.

"Saegheh, the missile, has a range of between 80 to 250 kilometers," the report said. It said the missile was tested in the Kashan desert, about 250 kilometers southeast of the capital of Teheran.

Saegheh means lightning in Farsi.

Iran has routinely held war games over the past two decades to improve its combat readiness and to test equipment such as missiles, tanks and armored personnel carriers. But the new tests, in the wake of the Lebanon-Hizbullah fighting, seemed certain to create new tensions with the West....Jewish philosopher: Survival depends on strength

Rick Hellman, Editor The Jewish Chronicle - 2006-08-21

...When The Chronicle reached Rabbi Greenberg for a telephone interview last week, Israel was still embroiled in open warfare with the Hezbollah guerrilla army in southern Lebanon. The hundreds of civilian casualties Israel caused while pursuing Hezbollah, however, has generated a chorus of critics ripping the Jewish state for its "disproportionate" response.

As a leading thinker on the Jewish use of power, the rabbi is often asked to respond to how such actions comport with the biblical injunction for Israel to act as "a light unto the nations"?

Light unto the nations

"It's a fair question," Rabbi Greenberg said. "The human calling is to complete and perfect the world. The relationship between God and humanity is a partnership. It's about making a world of life, of human dignity, of justice, overcoming war. That's the main vision of the Jewish teaching for all humanity, not just Jews. We saw ourselves as teachers, as role models to show how you do it in the real world. It's easy to talk, but how do you live it? I've always felt Zionism - Israel - fits that profile perfectly.

"The Holocaust made clear that if you're weak and powerless, you can't protect your own dignity; your own life. That is why Jews became overwhelmingly Zionist. ... After World War I and the overthrow of western imperialism, colonialism, we (the Jews) were one of the first countries to do that. Israel became a living, teaching model on how to establish power and sovereignty. The question is how to do that without afflicting oppression on others. The Third World dictators became as bad as those they replaced. The Jews reached out to Arabs in peace and were rejected. ...

"Israel's role has been very much a light unto the nations. The catch is, it was never accepted by its neighbors. ... So maybe that is a negative form of light unto nations. .... Israel became a negative test, and it has become even more climactic now, with the growth and rise of radical Islam, which is against modern values, equality and all these other issues. That's why they are so antagonistic to Israel; it is the modern example of what they are not.

Moral failure

"The sad part is also that the world has not handled this problem well. The U.S. has done magnificently. But as Islam has gotten stronger, Third World pressures have grown. Europe has ... demonized Israel and will not stand up for it. ... In Europe, I feel the pathology is the temptation to appease them at Israel's expense.

"Rabbi Greenberg defended Israel's conduct of the war against the Lebanese "Party of God."

"To begin with, the whole world should have demanded Hezbollah disarm," Rabbi Greenberg said. "That is the only reason Israel had to go to war; the Lebanese did n't control their territory. ... But instead of condemning it, they equate the two. ...

"The French foreign minister said Israel is using disproportionate force. But the other side is trying to undermine your very life and society with terror. No country in the world would stand for it....

Jan Willem van der Hoeven is Director of International Christian Zionist Center in Jerusalem.

To Go To Top

Posted by Fern Sidman, August 21, 2006.

It has now been an entire week since the UN mandated cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah terrorists went into effect. Not ones for wasting time, Hezbollah has already been receiving arms shipments through Syria, courtesy of the Iranian government.

According to Arutz Sheva, 8/19/06, "Israeli forces carried out a raid deep in southern Lebanon Saturday morning, disrupting Syrian arms shipments to Hezbollah terrorists. One IDF officer, Lt. Col. Emmanuel Moreno died in the operation. Lebanese officials confirmed that three Hezbollah members were killed in the confrontation.

Unofficial sources report that two Hizbullah terrorists were captured by IDF troops during the operation, which took place near Baalbek in eastern Lebanon. About 97 kilometers (60 miles) north of the Israel-Lebanon border, Baalbek was the scene of previous IDF strikes against Syrian arms shipments to the Hizbullah.

Two IDF soldiers were also reportedly injured during the mission. They were flown to a hospital in Israel.

The air force flew drones and warplanes across eastern Lebanon early Saturday in order to cover up the commando attack in Baalbek. A special forces unit unloaded army vehicles from a helicopter and headed toward the city, but Hezbollah terrorist guerillas intercepted them. The operation in Lebanon was apparently exposed, military sources said, when IDF planes had been identified; however, the mission went ahead as planned."

The report goes on to say that, "The UNSC resolution establishing the cease fire prohibits foreign weapons from reaching Lebanon without authorization of the Lebanese government. Israel considered the continuing arms shipments to Hezbollah to be a violation of the cease fire. As Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev said on Saturday, "Israel is entitled to act to defend the principle of the arms embargo."

And what is the reaction of the United Nations? What is the reaction of the international body dedicated to peace? It is of no surprise that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has blamed Israel for violating the cease fire and has unequivocally condemned its actions. This cease fire agreement does not call upon the Lebanese army or the international peacekeepers to disarm Hezbollah. This cease fire agreement does not call for the immediate return of the kidnapped Israeli soldiers. This cease fire agreement does not even call for Hezbollah forces to remain outside of southern Lebanon. It has been reported that if Hezbollah does dispays its arms, the army and the "robust" international peacekeeping force comprised of armies from pro-Muslim countries can confiscate such weapons.

It is clear that this cease fire, whose main objective is to allow Hezbollah to rearm and thus place Israel in even greater danger, will be short lived. The Lebanese army will be as effective at reigning in Hezbollah terrorists as a squadron of Keystone cops would be. They are an army whose membership is composed of fifty percent Shiite Muslims who are avowed Hezbollah supporters. It is an army without a proven track record in its ability to stop Hezbollah forces from entering southern Lebanon. It is an impotent army, an army who is not trained to handle this kind of guerilla warfare and above all, it is an army that lacks the resolve to defeat Hezbollah.

According to the UK based Guardian newspaper, 8/19/06, "An internal Lebanese army statement, circulated among forces in the past week, has called for troops to stand "alongside your resistance and your people who astonished the world with its steadfastness and destroyed the prestige of the so-called invincible army after it was defeated".

The report goes on to say that, "According to sources close to the army command, there has been a tacit agreement between Hizbullah and the army that those fighters who hail from the south will return to their villages and all arms will be put out of sight. Publicly displayed weapons will be seized but any further attempt to disarm the group has been ruled out for the time being. Retired general Nizar Abdel-Kader, a former deputy chief of staff for army personnel who is in close communication with the army command, told the Guardian: "The army knows there is a gun in every household, they are not going to go out and look for them ... What we are concerned about is the launchers.

There is an agreement with Hizbullah that any weapons that are found will be handed over." A mutual respect and cooperation exists between the army and Hizbullah, according to Gen Kader. "They are two very separate entities but they cooperate on security issues," he said, adding that many of the army's troops were from southern Lebanon. One defence analyst who asked not to be named said that, in the south, the army often acted as a subordinate to Hizbullah's military apparatus. "All intelligence gathered by the army is put at the disposal of Hizbullah but Hizbullah does not offer the same transparency to the army," he said. "In a sense, military intelligence in the south is operating on Hizbullah's behalf." Another retired general, Amin Hoteit, now a professor at the Lebanese University, said: "The army sees Hizbullah as a group that is defending the country and so assists them as best it can."

Speaking last year, the Lebanese army chief of staff, General Michel Suleiman, said: "Support for the resistance is one of the fundamental national principles in Lebanon and one of the foundations on which the military doctrine is based. Protection of the resistance is the army's basic task." The relationship had been strong for many years, Gen Kader said. "From 1996 onwards there has been a consensus in the army command that Hizbullah was a legitimate national defence force and that the government should extend its umbrella to protect the resistance." He said most army officials viewed the deployment primarily as a "counter-penetration force" working to prevent the infiltration of Israeli intelligence and military patrols. Hizbullah's top official in south Lebanon, Sheikh Nabil Kaouk, told reporters in Tyre this week that the group welcomed the Lebanese army's additional deployment in the south. "Just like in the past, Hizbullah had no visible military presence and there will not be any visible presence now," he said. "We are helping them with our experience by advising them on the best strategic areas to deploy and the best means of protecting this land from Israeli and US violations."

This reports spells out the truth concerning the intention of the Lebanese government. It is as clear as day, yet we can expect no condemnations from the United Nations and we will hear no concerns being voiced from the international community. It is clear the Hezbollah terrorism is alive and well and is being buttressed and actively supported by the Lebanese government. It is imperative that we know that good and evil cannot co-exist in one place. The government of Lebanon, the UN and the world cannot make us believe that true and lasting peace will ensured between Israel and Hezbollah while no enforcement of a true disarmament is going to take place. The UN can no longer speak of the "spirit of peace in the region" while it clearly sides with those whose objective is to thwart any real vestige of peace and whose main objective is to destroy the State of Israel.

No international peacekeeping force can deter Hezbollah from its agenda and no force in the world can fight to protect the Jewish State. Today, it is Katyusha rockets that are aimed at our cities and towns. Tomorrow and in the future it will be more sophisticated weaponry, more longer range missiles with the capacity to destroy major population centers in Israel, with the result being mass genocide. With each passing moment, Hezbollah has a free ride to receive more weapons, to re-arm and re-group and to place themselves in a position to be even more dug in than before. More tunnels and passageways will be built and a more effective military strategy will be developed.

There will be no worldwide condemnations and denunciations of Syria and Iran's role is funding Hezbollah terrorists. There will be no outcry of indignation when other Arab countries join the bandwagon and begin to lend support to Hezbollah. Hezbollah is a well organized and highly skilled band of militias who have been thoroughly trained for warfare and they are being funded to the tune of billions. Very soon they will be capable of launching a global campaign of terror, the likes of which we have never seen before. The State of Israel, the people of Israel stand alone. If the Jewish State will not protect itself from its enemies, we can not expect that the UN or that the world will do so. We must develop the strength and resolve to destroy our enemies and we must demand that the government of Israel protect its citizens. Our very lives and the lives of future generations are at stake. Our only salvation must be our reliance on the Almighty G-d of Israel. Our only true defense will come through our collective acknowledgement of the Creator of the Universe, as our salvation and our strength.

It is incumbent on us to remember the words of King David, those words that we say from the beginning of the month of Elul until after the holiday of Succot. These words can be found in Psalm 27 which says, "Hashem is my light, and my salvation, whom shall I fear? Hashem is my life's strength, whom shall I dread? When evildoers approach me to devour my flesh, my tormentors and my foes against me -- it is they who will stumble and fall."

Contact Fern Sidman at AriellaH@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Max Yas, August 21, 2006.

When Afghanistan allowed bin-Laden to establish headquarters on their land, training camps for al-Queda terrorists, stock weapons and plot terror attacks on sovereign states, culminating with the destruction of the World Trade Center and death of about 3,000, the UN passed resolutions which Afghanistan always rejected. NATO invaded and although Afghanistan still has a way to go, it is heading in the right direction to establish a democratic government.

After Israel withdrew in 2000, in compliance with UN resolution 1559, from a buffer zone established in South Lebanon, Hassan Nasrullah and his Hezbollah were allowed by Lebanon to establish a state within the state of Lebanon, with parallel ministries and members in the Lebanese Parliament as well as posts in the Lebanese Cabinet. They too plotted and carried out terror attacks against a sovereign state. Why wasn't Lebanon dealt with in the same manner as Aghanistan. It apears that some member are more equal than others!

Lebanon ignored UN resolution 1559 to disarm Hezbollah, which promptly set about staging terror raids into Northern Israel. They dug a tunnel under the border, killed eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapped two. Israel had no option but to protect her citizens. Israel placed at risk the lives of her soldiers and her citizens in order to avoid "collateral damage". Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets loaded with ball-bearings for maximum random kill of civilian men, women and children. Fortunately their aim was not very effective and about 95% landed in empty fields. Nevertheless Israel lost over 100 soldiers and several hundred civilians.

Hezbollah "fighters" do not wear uniforms, but dress like ordinary Lebanese civilians, which is an International Crime, and hid behind civilian shields: an other International Crime! This made it impossible for Israelis to distinguish between soldiers and civilians. Their rocket launchers were hidden in civilian areas, even in Mosques and warehouses. In consequence over 1,000 Lebanese were killed, but there is no way to establish with certainty how many were "fighters" and how many civilians.

After five weeks of fighting the UN agreed on a cease-fire resolution. It is interesting to note that this resolution was not covered by Chapter 7 and therefore unenforceable.

This cease-fire is a result of compromise and includes some provision that may lead to peace. Or it may have a negative effect for peace.The negative aspects in resolution 1701:

UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is given the authority to decide on compliance. In the past Annan was quick to condemn Israel. There is no provision for the release of the two Israeli soldiers, whose kidnapping triggered this war.

In 2000 the UN agreed that the Israel has fully withdrawn from Lebanon. Now the ownership of the Shaba farms is back on the agenda. Provision for reparations for Lebanon were made, but none for Israel.

On the positive side: Israel retained her right to self-defence.

Within the fist week the cease-fire showed signs of weakness: France reneged from her promise to supply 4,000 soldiers and cut it back to 200. Although the cease-fire agreement states explicitly that Hezbollah does not have the right to rearm, it made no provision for enforcement. When Israel took action to stop a shipment of arms from Syria Mr. Annan immediately blamed the Israelis for a breach of the agreement.

Hassan Nasrullah claimed victory for merely surviving for five weeks. The damage to his assets was far, far greater than his rockets inflicted on the Israelis. Israeli soldiers, some 30,000, were in South Lebanon and reached the Litany River.

Nasrullah was saved by the UN call for a cease-fire while the momentum was all with Israel.

The free world learned about the true nature of Hezbollah and the support they received from important pro-Syrian politicians. The president of Lebanon, Mr. Emile Lahoud, a former commander of the Lebanese army appointed many like-minded, pro- Syrian officers to important posts and stated that the "Lebanese army will fight, but not against Hezbollah."

This is a short synopsis and many questions are left unanswered. Please feel free to submit any questions or comments to

Unfortunately Israel lives in a bad neighborhood and may be forced to use maximum power before she is accepted by her neighbours.

Contact Max Yas at maxyas@shaw.ca

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 21, 2006.


The night he won the primary race to be the Democratic candidate for the US Senate, Ned Lamont stated his policy on dealing with Iran's nuclear threat. "We should bring in allies and use carrots as well as sticks." He evidently failed to notice that we deputized Britain, France and Germany to negotiate with Iran for three years and that Iran had been offered plenty of carrots and has not been threatened with many sticks. Once again, a disconnect with reality." (Michael Barone, NY Sun, 8/14, Op. Ed..)

He is naive about evil Iran. NY Times readers called Sen. Lieberman "out of touch." Yes, he is out of touch with his Party's radical elements, who advocate policies that have failed.


Pres. Bush told a reporter that Israel would keep fighting for weeks before a ceasefire agreement were insisted upon. He said the Mideast is littered with discarded agreements that don't work. The problem is not lack of a ceasefire agreement but the movement against democracy (IMRA, 7/28).

It's not just against democracy but against all other religious con cepts. Nevertheless, Pres. Bush's stated understanding of the issue is valid. Trouble is, he and his State Dept. then proceeded toward an unworkable ceasefire agreement. Bush does not do what he said he would.


It is global, ideological, and cultural. It encompasses mosques, madrassas, "charities," banks, and boardrooms in many countries. Countries we mistakenly counted as friends and moderates finance it with the funds we send them for oil. Although Islamic culture is backward, its jihadists use modern technology and methods for indoctrination, communications, and destruction. We welcomed into our society many Islamists working for our conquest. They recruit bombers. We let them preach, because usually they don't advocate immediate violence. But their followers eventually do commit violence. Therefore, we should revise our concept of speech being free except for exhortation to immediate violence presenting a clear and present danger.

We must keep better track of what they are plotting, all over. Instead, the US and U.K. treat extremist Muslim organizations deferentially, as representative, and neglect the moderates, whose help we need (Richard Perle, NY Sun, 8/14, p.1). He thinks moderates are a majority. I think they are an exception. The Muslim masses generally express sympathy for jihad.


Mr. Solana of the EU claims insufficient data. Meanwhile, Hizbullah claims intent to strike every part of Tel Aviv (Arutz-7, 7/19). Hizbullah is bombarding Israeli cities randomly and intensively. It has fired at civilian targets for years. But the EU hasn't sufficient data? A self-respecting Israel would kick Mr. Solana out of the country, he who makes demands upon Israel but condones terrorism.


Lebanon called upon the UNO and such Western agencies as the EU and the Vatican to press Israel to cease its fighting (Op. Cit.). Why doesn't it call upon Iran and Syria to press Hizbullah to cease its fighting? As for the EU and Vatican, they should call upon Israel to fight harder and get rid of the terrorists. The terrorists are the common enemies of all Western countries and religions (and most others, too). Europe look's backward at past enemies.


Israel used to target for assassination field commanders and foot soldiers of terrorist organizations. Now it targets the leadership, too. This should disrupt those organizations more effectively (MEF Forum, 7/21).


Hamas had developed a katyusha capable of traveling 24 kilometers (IMRA), thanks to the removal of IDF monitors from Gaza.


A study of anti-Semitism in W. Europe found that it is mostly among the few "intellectuals." These intellectuals share the old-fashioned, crude notions of hatred of the Jews with the more fashionable notions, as when the Prime Minister of Spain donned a kaffiyah, that the Arabs have a right to attack Israelis, to free themselves (Prof. Steven Plaut, 7/23).

The Arab goal is to enslave. Unfortunately, intellectuals run government and the media, and are influential. Surprisingly, they have not gotten their prejudice more widely shared. Sadly, the same sort of intellectuals exist in Israel, where they cheer on Hizbullah! They staff some of the colleges there. For shame!


Russia has been giving Hizbullah diplomatic support (IMRA, 7/23).

Russia and China are old-fashioned. Their dreams of world influence if not dominance lead them to support any enemy of the West, even though the Islamists also are enemies of Russia and China. The great powers would gain more from peace than from strife. But they promote strife. I don't relish declaring Russia an enemy of the US. I would prefer to persuade it of its common interests with the US. Putin knows that Russia is a dieing country, but he thinks he can simply pay bonuses to reverse his population decline that leaves the country open to eventual Muslim domination.


Hizbullah runs a TV station, al-Manar. It broadcasts hate-propaganda, emphasizing blood libel against the Jews, their murder, and martyrdom in attempted murder. The libel includes accusations that Jews consume the blood of Christian children and that God sanctions the killing of Jews. In its counter-attacks against Hizbullah, Israel bombed al-Manar. The International Federation of Journalists condemned Israel for doing so. It complained that Israel silences media with which it disagrees (IMRA, 7/23 from Palestinian Media Watch).

This is the usual tack of condemning an insufficient defense by Israel against utter evil, as if the defense were offensive. Actually, Israel allows Arab TV stations and journalists onto its territory (and risks their spyingor broadcasting items of military use to enemies in combat). The condemnation is overstated. What relationship does a media have to war? During WWII, the US media was patriotic but reasonably fair. Totalitarian media are arms of the state. To totalitarians, the media is a weapon. In the Arab-Israel conflict, the media is the Arabs' main weapon, for it undermines Israel's military victories. The European media feeds its people a fare of anti-Zionist propaganda. But the Muslim media rouse its people to vicious aggression. Israel should bar it. The question implied by Palestinian Media Watch is why the international federation of Journalists condemned Israel for attempting to shut down hate-propaganda. Does the Federation condone hate-propaganda? Does it have a naive belief that all societies' media are equally entitled watchdogs of government, totalitarian media are lapdogs? Are international organizations crippled by having a majority membership of dictatorships and their appeasers?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, August 21, 2006.

This was written by Michael Freund and was published August 15, 2006.

Not since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait has a Middle Eastern leader made such a grievous strategic mistake, both in underestimating his foe and miscalculating the impact of his own course of action.

Inexperience at the helm combined with hesitation and uncertainty produced an unmitigated fiasco, one that raises serious questions about whether this person is truly fit to lead.

While many might view the above description as referring to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his handling of the war in the north, there is in fact another figure in the region, one to whom it would appear to be even more applicable. And that person is none other than Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Sure, Teheran and its ally in Damascus are no doubt celebrating Israel's agreement to the dubious UN cease-fire. If you listen carefully enough, you can probably still hear them clinking their glasses together as they toast the damage that was done to the Jewish state.

Over the course of a month, their nasty little proxy group in Lebanon managed to fire some 4,000 rockets at Israel, inflict grave damage to its economy and send a third of its populace into bomb shelters. They killed 156 Israelis, wounded more than 3,000 others, and pierced the country's aura of military invincibility.

But at the end of the day, these achievements, if one can call them that, will end up exacting a heavy price from Syria and Iran. Inevitably, the trouble they have stirred up in the region over the past month is bound to boomerang right back at them.

Indeed, by transferring advanced rockets and weaponry to Hizbullah, Teheran and Damascus have just unwittingly proven one of the Bush Administration's central contentions regarding the need for preemptive action against rogue states in the global war on terror.

The two countries have demonstrated that they are ready and willing to share missile systems with a terrorist organization, thus strengthening the case that they must be prevented from obtaining weapons of mass destruction at all costs.

This very point was at the heart of an important speech made by US President George W. Bush last October in which he outlined America's strategy for fighting terror across the globe. Speaking at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, Bush made clear that, "we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes, and to their terrorist allies who would use them without hesitation."

Furthermore, he stated, "Any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization. And the civilized world must hold those regimes to account."

THUS, BY supplying weapons to Hizbullah, Syria and Iran have inadvertently provided concrete evidence for all the world to see of just how dangerous the combination of "outlaw regimes" and their "terrorist allies" can be.

In this respect, Israel is fortunate that the conflict erupted when it did, because had it occurred in another five or ten years, who knows what types of horrific weapons might then have been found in Hizbullah's arsenal.

And so, by inciting the start of hostilities last month in an effort to divert the world's attention from their nuclear program, Iran may actually end up achieving precisely the opposite.

Through their actions, Iran has just made the case, better than the most eloquent of Washington press spokesmen ever could, as to why they pose a grave and immediate threat to the entire free world with their obstinate pursuit of nuclear weapons. And it is this very same argument, which the Iranians have just unwittingly bolstered, that Bush may one day soon choose to make in justifying the need for possible military action against Iran to stop their drive toward nuclear weapons.

In other words, to borrow Lenin's phrase, Iran and Syria may have just sold the rope from which they themselves will eventually hang.

Moreover, the violence of the past month has also been an educational process of sorts for both the American and Israeli publics, underlining in very stark terms the danger posed by Iran and Syria.

Their intractable opposition to the West, and their willingness to wreak havoc on Israel and its citizens, only served to highlight their status as a menace that must be tackled as quickly as possible.

So if Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad thought that igniting a war along Israel's northern border would somehow help them to save their own skins, they may soon find out just how sorely mistaken they were.

And, like Saddam, their blundering adventure abroad may yet come back to haunt them sooner than they imagine.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 21, 2006.

1. I live in what is probably one of the most entrenched leftist neighborhoods in Israel, conservative only when compared with Hashomer Hatzair kibbutzim. Until recently, roughly every third car in the neighborhood had some sort of leftist bumper sticker. Some just said "Peace Now," others demanded evacuation of the occupied territories for Israel's sake, others denounced settlers as criminals, and some simply read "Shalom Chaver".

On shabbat I went for a long walk around the neighborhood, enjoying the absence of katyusha explosions. This is not exactly the most scientific way to gauge things, but what I saw was a political revolution. In the entire neighborhood, I could not find a single leftist bumper sticker. And this in the bastion of Haaretz and Meretz! The car owners had taken them all down.

True, I also did not see a lot of right-wing bumper stickers. But most rightists are reluctant to put political bumper stickers on their cars because of the well-known notorious practice by leftists of vandalizing such cars. I did see some though. What I saw more of were generic patriotic bumper stickers such as "We will Win" or "We are Fighting for Our Home" and "Israel stands With the Golan".

2. From Nissan Ratzlav-Katz at Arutz7: 'I heard on the BBC (horrors!) a report from southern Lebanon in which the reporter interviewed one of the Lebanese soldiers moving into the south of the country. He asked the Leb soldier if the army would disarm Hizbullah.

'"But if we take away their arms, they will not be a strong force!" the soldier answered incredulously. Like, duh - stupid Brit. Why would we do that?!?

The reporter continued saying something like: "This soldier apparently does not have a handle on the mission here." Actually, I think he has a pretty good idea.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, August 20, 2006.

We finished a quiet Sabbath in the relative safety of Jerusalem, only to check the news and find out the heartbreaking news that seven more Israeli soldiers have been killed and eighty-four injured in the worst-led war in Israel's history. In addition, the government who interfered with the military (i.e.go win the war without upsetting CNN and the BBC), imposing guidelines that have helped get not only our boys killed left and right, but our civilians as well, has now decided to accept a Security Council resolution which ensures that Israel's soldiers and her people have made their ultimate sacrifice for nothing:

our kidnapped soldiers will not be returned. Hezbollah will not be disarmed. And Israeli forces will be replaced by some U.N. force and a bunch of European anti-Semites who will allow Hezbollah to re-arm. The full text of the resolution has been published in YNET. So far, 1,784 Israelis have responded. The overwhelming majority have this to say:

We went to war to free our kidnapped soldiers. Why aren't they mentioned?

For shame.

Olmert, Peretz, Halutz, the triumvirate of losers. Let me add this: Mr. Olmert, Mr. Peretz, Mr. Halutz: You have squandered the lives of our soldiers. You have squandered our opportunity to free the nation of Israel from a deadly enemy. You have set the stage for the next war. By September, we will be under attack once more. Do the decent thing: Resign, all of you, and let Mr. Netanyahu, General Yaalon (who was kicked out because he refused to go along with the disengagement) take over. Resign Mr. Olmert. Resign in shame for your incompetence. Your inability to carry out a single one of the objectives you so stirringly announced at the beginning of this war. With all of you and your incompetent Kadima-led government out of office, we will all be safer and better prepared when the rockets start to fall once again, as they inevitably will with the U.N. and the French guarding our borders. And if you won't do the honorable thing, we will do everything we can to get you fired. You make me sick.

I am ashamed to be a citizen of my country under your leadership.

I am appalled to have a son in the IDF under your leadership. For shame, for shame, for shame!

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Singer, August 20, 2006.

The ceasefire brokered by the United Nations in Lebanon offers possibly the last chance for political stability to be restored in Lebanon and for Lebanon to rid itself forever of forces over which it has no control.

Will the United Nations and the Lebanese Government seize this opportunity and finally act like lions or will they, like lemmings, continue to rush towards the edge of the abyss into which both have already started to slide and from which both may never get out?

Judging by what is happening, it appears that the lemmings will again prevail over the lions.

Woe betide Lebanon if this is allowed to happen.

The United Nations appears to be baulking at giving its' 15000 strong force being sent into Lebanon clear rules of engagement to disarm and disband Hezbollah as Security Council Resolution 1559 demands.

Failure to do so will confirm that the United Nations is not prepared to translate its Security Council resolutions into concrete action.

It will send a clear message to terrorist groups world wide and their sponsoring States that Security Council resolutions are not worth the paper they are written on and that terrorists can continue to operate with impunity from any member's sovereign territory free of international intervention to forcibly remove them.

The United Nations force must be given the right to search for and destroy all armaments not under the control of the Lebanese Government, to stop the delivery of armaments into Lebanon unless expressly approved by the Lebanese Government and to take all steps including armed intervention to disband the structure and organization of Hezbollah's military arm.

Anything less will be a waste of time and lead to Israel intervening once again with even more devastating force to defend its' own sovereign territorial integrity.

Hezbollah has justified its' continuing occupation of 2400 square kilometres of Lebanon -- one quarter of the country -- as necessary to drive Israel from, and gain Lebanese sovereignty over, 25 square kilometres of desolate land called the Shebaa Farms.

Lebanon condoned this situation by continuing to dispute a ruling by the United Nations in 2000 that this small piece of land belonged to Syria, from whom it was captured by Israel in 1967.

Trading sovereignty over 2400 square kilometres in order to gain sovereignty over 25 square kilometres must surely be the most bizarre decisions ever made by any Arab nation in their ongoing conflict with Israel.

This abdication of its national security and foreign policy has cost Lebanon dearly and has become the catalyst for the abject position in which Lebanon finds itself today.

15000 Lebanese homes have now been totally destroyed, a large section of Lebanon's roads, bridges and other vital infrastructure has been reduced to rubble, its economy set back for 20 years and its environment devastated by an oil spill that threatens the rich marine life in its territorial waters.

A thousand deaths, many more thousands injured and maimed, and countless others traumatised by constant and incessant bombing raids testifies to Hezbollah's foolhardy action in entering Israel to abduct two soldiers, kill three others and then fire a barrage of 3000 rockets into Israel.

It appears Lebanon has not learnt the lesson of the Sheba Farms folly and is still obsessed with gaining sovereignty of the area.

It was deemed so important an issue that it was included in the seven point plan prepared by Lebanon as it urgently sought the current ceasefire, calling on the United Nations to place the area under United Nations jurisdiction until the Lebanese claim to sovereignty was fully settled.

Instead of rejecting that call, the United Nations has stood its' decision in 2000 on its' head by agreeing to once more deal with Lebanon's claim to the Shebaa Farms within 30 days of the ceasefire resolution.

What will happen if the United Nations reverses its decision? What does this say about the competency of the organization? Will Syria accept such a reversal? Will Israel withdraw? Why did Lebanon have to wait six years and subject itself to such destruction and humiliation before asking the United Nations to review its' earlier decision?

Lebanon needs to let go of this issue. It has and will continue to bring Lebanon to its' knees if it persists. A loss of face is far preferable to further loss of life and limb.

Lebanon or Lebezbollah?

That is the question that both Lebanon and the United Nations need to answer without delay if Lebanon is to end the suffering and bloodshed inflicted on it for the last 30 years because of its' loss of control over its' sovereign territory to others with different agendas.

David Singer is an Australian Lawyer and Convenor of 'Jordan is Palestine International' - an organisation calling for sovereignty of the West Bank and Gaza to be allocated between Israel and Jordan as the two successor States to the Mandate for Palestine. Contact him at dsinger@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 20, 2006.

Flash! Breaking News!

Israel has just become the first nation on earth in which a judge ruled that granting army veterans preferences is unconstitutional. A bit astounding, considering that Israel does not even have a constitution.

In the second-stupidest court decision of the year, a Haifa judge has ruled that the University of Haifa's policy of granting army vets preferences in allotment of scarce dorm space is illegal because it discriminates against Arabs. Most Arabs do not serve in the army, because they are not conscripted, although no one is stopping them from volunteering to serve. And those Arabs who serve their country would have gotten the dorm preferences.

A court motion was filed by an Arab "civil rights group" in collaboration with anti-Zionist extremist Ilan Pappe, a faculty member at Haifa U, against the university for this "discrimination" in favor of army vets. They claimed it was unfair to Arab students. The judge agreed.

Let us be clear what this means. A wounded Jewish soldier coming home from the front and an Arab radical student waving a Hezbollah flag are competing for a dorm slot. (The dorms are underpriced, by the way, which is why the demand is so high.) SO now, according to court diktat, the university would have to grant the room to the Hezbollah cheerleader if the latter could show, say, he was coming from a further distance or that his father had lower reported income. (A colleague of mine suggested years ago that dorm rooms be allotted by grades only, not "social need", but the proposal was shot down.)

The idea of dorm buildings at Haifa U being bedecked with Hezbollah flags by Arab students is not so far-fetched. Radical Arab students on campus have long marched about with PLO flags. Radical Haifa U professors in the past hoisted the PLO flag on campus and would have no problem doing the same with a Hezbollah flag.

Ilan Pappe has an article in this week's "Socialist Worker", a Trotskyite rag in the UK, cheering the Hezbollah. It is at http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9495

Pappe was involved in the court petition, bragging in a published letter that "We beat them." His anti-Israel sidekick Yuval Yonay, who teaches "queer studies" at Haifa U, backed Pappe and issued a call on the university NOT To appeal the ridiculous court decision. For background on Yonay, take a look at this:
http://www.israelnn.com/article.php3?id=6372 Here is the Haaretz Version of the Story: Court rules Haifa University must halt housing advantages for IDF veterans By Tamara Traubmann, Haaretz Correspondent

Haifa District Court has ruled that Haifa University's dormitory application process, which gives preference to Israel Defense Forces veterans, is discriminatory against Arab students. The university's policy of requiring dormitory applicants to have completed military service in the IDF excludes most Arab applicants.

The precedent-setting verdict was handed down Thursday by Judge Ron Sokol, following a petition submitted by Adalah - The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel - together with three female Arab students. Last year, the university denied the three women's requests for rooms in university dormitories, despite their difficult economic straits and the low frequency with which public transportation reaches their respective home villages.

The university decides which students will receive rooms in the dormitories based on a list of criteria including socio-economic status and academic achievements. As Haaretz has published in the past, 40 percent of the points required to fulfill the criteria can be garnered by having completed military service.

The court accepted the claims made by Adalah and the students, who said that the military service requirement creates a discrimination against the Arab students, and ordered the university to abolish it.

"The inclusion of the military service requirement results in discrimination against a variety of sectors [especially the Arab sector]" Sokol wrote.

He said that even though there are Israeli Arabs who do serve in the IDF, "Military service is not open to the general Arab public of the State of Israel" and noted that Israeli Arabs are legally exempt from service in the IDF.

Sokol also ruled that limiting the granting of benefits only to those students who contributed to the country via military or national service discriminates against students who contributed in other ways. (Like waving Hezbollah flags? -- SP)

Precedent-setting ruling

Adalah lawyer Susan Zohar said Sunday this marked the first time that the courts have disqualified the use of military service as a criterion for granting benefits, a common practice among institutions of higher learning, employers and housing managers.

"The ruling is likely to have ramifications on other universities who make use of military criterion," Zohar said. She noted that Adalah will made use of the court's ruling in its current battle in the High Court of Justice against the Israel Lands Administration's practice of using military service criterion when distributing plots of land.

This is also the first time a court ruled Haifa University discriminates against Israeli Arab students following years in which discrimination claims had been leveled at the institution.

(In fact, Haifa U strongly discriminates in FAVOR of Arab students by means of affirmative action. That is one reason why Haifa U has the largest Arab student body in Israel.)

If you would like to urge the university adminsitration to fight the court verdict and also to do something about seditious faculty members, the emails and faxes of the Rector and President appear here:

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments - both seriously and satirically - on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. His website address is http://www.stevenplaut.blogspot.com. Contact him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Shifftan, August 20, 2006.

This was written by Francisco Gil-White (gilwhite@comcast.com) and it summarizes and quotes from the very important 1968 Pentagon report on Israel's security.

I have seen much pessimism from Jewish patriots in the wake of the 'cease-fire' that the United States and the United Nations have sought to impose in order to protect Hezbollah, and which Israel's leaders have accepted. Many have characterized the result as one where Israel lost the war, and they have lamented what they perceive as the damage to the earlier perception that Israel was invincible, with negative consequences to the deterrence of Israel's enemies.

My own view is less pessimistic.

It is certainly true that Ehud Olmert lost the war by agreeing to a 'cease-fire' that, like previous US and UN-brokered cease-fires in southern Lebanon, will protect the antisemitic terrorists and allow them to re-arm. But in my view Ehud Olmert was going to lose whatever war he was called upon to wage. I don't think he is a patriot. So the question for Jewish patriots is this: Which war would you rather have Ehud Olmert lose?

Remember that Ehud Olmert was rushing to cleanse the Jews out of the West Bank -- like his mentor, Ariel Sharon, had done with the Jews who lived in Gaza -- in order to turn this territory over completely to the terrorists. For those paying attention to geopolitical realities, as opposed to the pro-Oslo propaganda statements of US and Israeli officials, the probable outcome of Ehud Olmert's policies was not difficult to foresee. Relatively low-level but constant Hezbollah attacks from the north, and PLO-Hamas attacks from Gaza in the south, would have made the relocation of the evacuated West Bank Jews to the north and south of Israel impractical, particularly given that a stream of Jews native to those areas would be fleeing the Hamas/Hezbollah attacks towards the relative safety of the Tel-Aviv-Yafo area (as indeed many have now fled). Tel-Aviv-Yafo already contains about half of all Israeli Jews, and as a result of Olmert's 'convergence' and the terrorist attacks from north and south the Israeli Jews would have been further concentrated there.

Now, the West Bank and Gaza, according to a 1967 Pentagon study done immediately after the Six Day War, are strategic territories that, if relinquished, will guarantee the destruction of Israel.[1] This Pentagon study was not carried out for Israel's benefit and Israel was not informed of its conclusions. It was kept secret and made public only many years later because somebody filed suit to have it released under the Freedom of Information Act. That the US ruling elite did not share with the Israelis its view of the vulnerability of the Jewish state, but instead pressured Israel to participate in the Oslo process that has for purpose to hand over precisely these indispensable territories to the antisemitic terrorists, is consistent with the entire history of US foreign policy towards the Jewish people and state, which has been a constant sponsoring of Israel's enemies and sabotaging of Israeli self-defense.[2]

One does not have to be a military genius, or even a mediocre professional military strategist, to see that the Pentagon's 1967 study reached correct conclusions concerning the indispensability of the West Bank and Gaza to a defensible Jewish state. The Tel-Aviv-Yafo area, where the Israeli Jews are being concentrated, is the tiniest strip of land, with no more than 18 km. (11 miles) between the West Bank border and the Mediterranean Sea. Many of my readers live in cities that are wider than this, and those who are in good physical condition can easily jog this distance.

Ehud Olmert's policies would have turned Tel-Aviv-Yafo from the large concentration camp it now is into a death camp. Why? Because Tel-Aviv-Yafo is a lowland, and the West Bank ground that the terrorists would control completely after Ehud Olmert's so-called 'convergence' -- if the Israelis had allowed it -- is highland. Once the West Bank Jews had been evacuated and concentrated, PLO/Hamas, armed to the teeth by the Arab states, would simply have started shooting downwards from the West Bank hills, while PLO/Hamas attacked from Gaza, and Hezbollah and the Lebanese army attacked from the north. But that is not all. Egypt would have attacked also, from the south, while the Syrian and Iranian armed forces added themselves to the Hezbollah/Lebanese forces that they control.

It is true that in order to do this Iran would have to rush through Iraq but that would not be a problem, because the US has been withdrawing from Iraq for a year, and it is clear to everybody that Iraq now belongs to Iran (HIR has argued that the US attacked Iran in order precisely to achieve this outcome).[3] Saudi Arabia, which the US has turned into one of the most heavily armed countries in the world,[4] would have overrun Jordan in order to join the attack on Israel (assuming the Jordanians didn't simply invite them in and join the attack as well, which I think is more likely). This is the war that Ehud Olmert was going to lose, and losing this war would have destroyed Israel, and its people.

It is much better that Ehud Olmert lost this other war in Lebanon.

The reason the war in Lebanon took place, in my view, is that the rabid attack dogs employed at the lower levels by antisemitic terrorist forces such as the PLO, Hamas, and Hezbollah are so deranged, so transformed into beasts of prey anxious to gorge on Jewish blood, that they can be difficult to restrain. This is especially true as the final moment approaches, when the suicidal behavior of the Israeli ruling elite leads the hounds of death to smell an easy prey. So, eager for the kill, they snapped their master's leash and caused some trouble to the carefully laid plans for the next anti-Jewish genocide. Consistent with this are the Arab criticisms of Hezbollah, which accused Hezbollah not of unacceptable terrorism against Israeli civilians, but of "miscalculation," and of engaging in "unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts."[5] In other words, Hezbollah's attack was premature, because the West Bank had yet to be fully cleansed of its Jews and the United States had yet to fully turn Iraq over to Iran. So what happened is that Hamas and Hezbollah became too violent, too soon, forcing Ehud Olmert's government to produce some kind of response, however weak and ham-fisted, there to prevent the patriots in the officer class of the Israeli Defense Forces from leading a revolt.[6]

The outcome of this war is not as bad as many are saying. True, Hezbollah will rearm and prepare for the next assault under the protection of the United Nations and the Syrian-controlled Lebanese state, as it has done before.[7] But Hezbollah does need to rearm, and it will now be more difficult than before to carry out the evacuation of the Jews living in the West Bank. Moreover, as ineffectual as the Israeli response was, it was a response, and more than what we have seen for years in the face of constant terrorist assault. I am not sure that the Arab regimes are really learning from this that the Israelis are easy to beat, despite the propaganda to the contrary; after all, it was Hezbollah, not Israel, that asked for the cease-fire, and with special urgency as the major Israeli assault was to begin. It is also possible that Ehud Olmert's government will not even survive, because many Israelis are waking up to the vulnerabilities of the Jewish state, and to the suicidal nature of the policies favored by the Israeli ruling elite.

All in all, Hezbollah has bought Israel a bit of time -- at least a year, by my reckoning. Since the alternative was a war of extermination that Ehud Olmert was going to lose, Jewish patriots everywhere, ironically, should be thanking Hezbollah.

But in order fully to understand what lies ahead, and what those of us, Jews and Gentiles, who defend the Jewish people against the antisemites can do from this point forward, it is important that we have a good grasp of Israeli and Diaspora Jewish politics. I will endeavor to explain this in future pieces, and I will begin by taking a look at the Israeli media. So, I invite you to read the following piece -- Part 2: "What is wrong with the media? Why does the Israeli media also attack the Israelis?"

Footnotes [1] The following piece quotes the relevant portions of the Pentagon study and analyses it in its political context, with links to the original document (to go directly to the Pentagon study, see further below):

"1967 -- After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense"; from "IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence"; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. http://www.hirhome.com/israel/ihrally.htm#1967b


This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published until 1984. It was published by the Journal of Palestine Studies:

"Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.< This file is especially useful because it shows a map with the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes" http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pentagon.pdf

And by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs:

And as an appendix in:

Netanyahu, B. 2000. A durable peace: Israel and its place among the nations, 2 edition. New York: Warner Books. (APPENDIX: The Pentagon Plan, June 29, 1967; pp.433-437)

[2] "IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A chronological look at the evidence"; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White. http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm

[3] "BUSH JR.'S WAR ON IRAQ: A general introduction"; Historical and Investigative Research; 1 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White. http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iraq-general-intro.htm

[4] According to Frontline (PBS), the US-led military buildup of Saudi Arabia has made this country "ultimately...the largest beneficiary of U.S. weapons sales in the entire world" and "one of the most heavily armed countries in the world."

SOURCE: "The Arming of Saudi Arabia;" Transcript of FRONTLINE Show #1112; Public Broadcasting System; Air Date: February 16, 1993.

[5] The quotations are taken from the following two articles:

Pro-western Arab states temper reaction: Jordan, Egypt, others risk domestic peace with mild comments, Ottawa Citizen, July 17, 2006 Monday, Final Edition, NEWS; Pg. A5, 364 words, Hugh Miles, The Daily Telegraph, CAIRO

Militia Rebuked by Some Arab Countries, The New York Times, July 17, 2006 Monday, Late Edition - Final, Section A; Column 2; Foreign Desk; TURMOIL IN THE MIDEAST: THE ARABS; Pg. 1, 1027 words, By HASSAN M. FATTAH; Reporting for this article was contributed by Nazila Fathi from Tehran, Suha Maayeh from Amman, Jordan, Mona el-Naggar from Cairo and David E. Sanger from Vermont., BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 16

If you would like to see HIR's analysis of what the Arab reaction to Hezbollah's attack means, visit:

"THE ARAB REACTION, AND WHAT IT MEANS: Get ready for the rebirth of the PLO..."; Historical and Investigative Research; 25 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah5.htm

[6] HIR has produced an analysis of this dynamic, by looking at previous events that followed the same pattern, here:

"THE ARAB REACTION, AND WHAT IT MEANS: Get ready for the rebirth of the PLO..."; Historical and Investigative Research; 25 July 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah5.htm

[7] To place in historical perspective the manner in which the United States reacted to this war, by proposing a quick cease-fire and UN troops that will protect Hezbollah, read the following piece:

"UNDERSTANDING THE US POSITION (Part 2): Why does the US propose a United Nations intervention?"; Historical and Investigative Research; 1 August 2006; by Francisco Gil-White. http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah4_2.htm

To Go To Top

Posted by Marcia Leal, August 20, 2006.

This was written by Daniel Johnson August 18, 2006.

Dear Gunter Grass,

What makes most Germans feel betrayed is not the fact that you were a member of the Waffen SS, a criminal organization, but that you made the fateful decision not to share with anybody the most important single fact about yourself.

Not with your fellow writers in the Gruppe 47, most of whom were, like you, war veterans, who gave you your first breaks; not with the publishers and the book trade that marketed you as the voice of a new, untainted but angry young generation, and above all not with the reading public, which has remained true to you since you broke onto the literary scene in 1959 with your first novel, "The Tin Drum."

It was, and is, a modern classic. It was followed in quick succession by two more war novels, "Cat and Mouse" and "Dog Years." Over the years you have returned again and again to the war years for inspiration. Four years ago you published "Crabwalk," your fictionalized depiction of the tragic sinking of the liner Wilhelm Gustloff, laden with German refugees fleeing the Russians in the last days of the war -- a subject dear to the hearts of old Nazis that, had you not been a life-long Leftist, would have cast doubt on where your true sympathies lay. But you did not vouchsafe your readers that essential detail about what you were doing at the time.

Throughout your fiction there are characters in denial, whose bad faith or failure to come clean have terrible consequences. From the first, you invested "the power of silence" with supernatural force. Variations on the theme are repeated over and over again in your work. You urged Germans to break their unhealthy silence about the Holocaust, the "inability to mourn" in the catchphrase of the day. But you did not follow your own advice.

I have before me two of your books. The first, a translation of your speeches and, yes, open letters, is entitled "Speak Out!" Published in 1968, it is introduced by Michael Harrington, a leading American liberal, who praises you for your outspoken courage as a public intellectual. The ironies here are too obvious.

The other volume is your 1960 collection of poems, "Gleisdreieck," as always beautifully illustrated by the author. One of the best is "Nursery Rhyme": "Wer spricht hier, spricht und schweigt?/Wer schweigt, wird angezeigt./Wer hier spricht, hat verschwiegen,/wo seine Grönde liegen." (Who speaks here or keeps mum?/Here we denounce the dumb./To speak here is to hide/deep reasons kept inside.) Yet, strange to say, nobody ever thought to ask whether you, too, might have had something to hide.

Granted: you are not the inmate of a mental hospital. Unlike Oskar Mazerath, the diminutive hero of "The Tin Drum," you do not play the drum incessantly nor utter shrieks so high-pitched they shatter glass. Oskar, your brainchild, disguises himself as a retarded infant with a mental age of three in order to bear witness to the sinister events around him, Germany's descent into the abyss of the Third Reich.

Oskar's unbearable scream is a protest, all the more eloquent for being inarticulate, against that silence in the face of depravity that made Hitler possible. In Oskar, you created one of our most memorable metaphors for the moral insanity of Nazism.

Now, however, you have forced us to read your books again, and in an ambiguous light. In your interview last weekend, you sought to justify your decision to volunteer as a teenage revolt against the narrow confines of your petty bourgeois home. To thus romanticize your youthful Nazi allegiance is, frankly, sickening, but maybe that is how you saw it at the time.

If so, "The Tin Drum" may not be the novel we thought it was. Your harsh social satire is aimed at the people you grew up with, small shopkeepers with a bust of Hitler beside that of Beethoven. In real life, however, your bid for freedom was not directed against the Nazis, but for a more radical version of the ideology: the death or glory paganism of the Waffen SS.

Would the book have been read as it was, would it have won you the Nobel Prize, would Volker Schlndorff have made it into a no less remarkable movie, if your background had been known?

But you are not a literary character. You are a writer: the most celebrated in Germany, perhaps even in Europe, and winner of every imaginable literary award, including the Nobel Prize.

For nearly half a century you have been recognized by your country's citizens as a moral arbiter, even (absurdly) as the conscience of Germany. In that capacity, you have sat in judgement on your fellow Germans, as indeed on America and just about everybody else.

Like your American counterpart Noam Chomsky, like countless writers and intellectuals of the left from Gabriel Garcia Marquez to Harold Pinter, you have worked hard to discredit the political and economic system to which you owed your success: capitalism. You did your best over many years to undermine the Atlantic alliance -- the same alliance, incidentally, that liberated Europe from the tyranny of your countrymen.

During the Cold War, and now in the war against Islamist terror, you have frequently made use of your hard-won liberty to make common cause with its enemies. You joined in the mythologizing of the Baader-Meinhof terrorist movement. You are a supporter of the European ideal, but only as a counterweight to America. You were delighted when Chancellor Schröder broke with President Bush over the Iraq issue, and legitimized the tide of anti-Americanism that then swept Germany.

Soon after the liberation of Iraq, I was told by one of your fellow writers that you were so angry with Tony Blair and George Bush that you were boycotting Britain and America. You probably won't know Aurel Kolnai's book "The War Against the West," a study of Nazism published in 1938. But its title sums up Hitler's struggle.

Now that we know how you began your career, with a thorough indoctrination in the Waffen SS, your lifelong loathing of the West takes on a new and sinister significance.

You have always presumed to occupy the moral high ground, condemning the elected leaders of the West on the somewhat dubious authority that Germans have traditionally accorded to intellectuals. I say dubious, because you know as well as anyone how that authority has been abused in the past.

Heaven knows, you had enough fun at the expense of Martin Heidegger in "Dog Years," mercilessly satirizing his "jargon of authenticity," his existential angst and phoney pathos, his pseudoprofundities and oracular orotundities. You know as well as I do how deeply the Nazi bacillus took root in German culture, and how the gullible Germans, stylizing themselves as the nation of "Dichter und Denker," of poets and philosophers, let themselves be manipulated by fanatics and fiends.

You didn't only lecture Nazi intellectuals, either. One of your many open letters reprimanded the East German writer Anna Seghers for lending her authority to the Berlin Wall in 1961. By the time the Wall came down in 1989, you seemed to have had a change of heart. You embarked on a quixotic campaign to persuade Germans that they would really be better off living in two states.

The only people who agreed with you were the old communist intellectuals who had done well out of the division of Germany.Yet even they, apologists for a totalitarian regime in which they no longer believed, were not as disingenuous as you.

It was part of your disguise to adopt as a badge of honor the old anti-Semitic insult "rootless cosmopolitan." Your friend Stefan Heym, communist time-server that he was, was the genuine article. As a Jew, he had been driven out of Germany in 1933, and returned in 1945 as an intelligence officer in the U.S. Army. He might even have interrogated you. Luckily for you, he did not. The East Germans would have had no hesitation in blackening your name, despite the fact that your anti-Americanism and your lifelong campaign to detach West Germany from NATO were quite useful to them.

Why did you lie? For your 60-year silence was a lie, an unspoken reproach that forced you to lie again every time you sat down to write. Perhaps you no longer know why you did it. I have a theory, which may be mistaken, but which takes us back to your own "zero hour" at the end of the war.

When you started your life again after your release from POW camp, you decided to be an artist. That was your first love, and you were talented. You have never ceased to draw and print. Your collected graphic art, "In Kupfer, auf Stein" (In Copper, on Stone), documents an impressive body of work. But you were not content to be a humble printmaker. You wanted to be a great writer.

In literature, unlike art, you were a late developer. You did not get your first poem published until you were 28, and you were 32 by the time your first novel appeared. But you were determined to make your name as a writer. It was only when you became a literary celebrity that your secret became a huge liability. If you had grasped the nettle then, your new career, which meant so much to you, might have been stillborn. You chose silence.

And so you made your pen your accomplice, in one of the shabbiest deceits ever practised on a reading public -- a German public that desperately needed you to be the person you presented yourself as. In the annals of European literature, I cannot recall a similar case. Literary hoaxes, even those in which the author has pretended to be an eyewitness to the Holocaust, are innocent by comparison.

You are often compared to Thomas Mann, but you are no more a Mann than you are a man. The only Mann character with whom you have much in common is Felix Krull, the confidence trickster. Your rise and fall recalls the greatest of all German myths, that of Faust, which Mann explicitly connected with Nazism.

Your fate, though, is not tragic, but comic. Your reputation, which was already in decline, now lies in ruins. It is no consolation that you may acquire a new following among the Germans you most affected to despise, those who think the Waffen SS has been much misunderstood.

I saw you once. I have only a dim memory of it, because it was well over 30 years ago, when I was a schoolboy of about the age at which you volunteered.

You came to give a reading in London, together with two other German writers: your friend the novelist Siegfried Lenz and the East German poet Peter Huchel.

The other two were men of integrity, neither of whom concealed his conduct in the Third Reich. But you were the star turn, reading from your play about Brecht's role in the 1953 workers' revolt in East Berlin, "The Plebians Rehearse the Uprising." You were sympathetic to Brecht and his grubby compromises -- praising Stalin and Ulbricht in public, writing bitter verses in private ("Would it not be easier for the government/ To dissolve the people/ And elect another?").

I should have seen then and there what kind of man you were. I remember warming to Huchel, by then a broken, disillusioned figure living in exile and waiting to die. But my German teacher had eyes only for you: the hero of the West German Left, the very model of a modern intellectual. I suppose I was impressed, too. I subsequently devoted much of my life to writing about German politics, history, and culture. You touched my life, as you touched countless others.

What, though, if we had known you for what you really were? Now that we do know your secret, the least most people might expect would be an act of contrition. But I, for one, do not expect it from you. You are not sorry, neither for what you did nor for what you did not do.

To apologize now would merely compound your insincerity. We want no more pilgrimages to Auschwitz. No, Mr. Grass, it is too late for that. You have lived and will die a fraud, a coward, and a hypocrite. One day you may be forgotten, but you will never be forgiven.

As I suspected, the East German communist secret police, the Stasi, knew all about your Waffen SS membership. The truth would have come out anyway when your Stasi file is published next year. Your decision to keep quiet actually exposed you to blackmail by the Stasi. It seems that the facts were also contained in American military archives. Your file might have surfaced at any time over the past 60 years, if anybody had cared to look.

I see, too, that your publishers are rushing out your memoirs early, to cash in on the worldwide publicity generated by your admission. They have also released brief extracts to tempt us. They disclose that you remained an unrepentant anti-Semite even after the war.

While working as a prisoner of war in the kitchens at a U.S. air base, you found yourself -- almost certainly for the first time in your life -- having to treat Jews as equals. Your co-workers were Jewish refugees, recently released from German concentration camps, who must have endured unimaginable suffering and humiliation at the hands of your comrades in the SS.

Not surprisingly, when a row broke out in the kitchen, they shouted: "Nazis, you Nazis!" Well, that was no more than the truth. You admit that you were proud to serve in the Waffen SS. So how did you respond? "We retorted: 'Just go away to Palestine!'"

For you, it seems, the war wasn't over. You still wanted a Europe, and especially a Germany, that was Judenrein, ethnically cleansed of Jews. Given your hostility to Israel today, some 60 years later, we are entitled to ask whether your "denazification" went far enough.

From what we have seen of your memoirs, I do not expect to learn much from them. The extracts so far published do not explain the mystery of your silence. "I kept silent about it after the war out of a growing shame," you write.You still do not seem to understand that your silence was itself shameful.

Now that you are under intense though belated scrutiny, you are full of self-pity and self-justification. On German TV on Thursday night, you complained: "What I am experiencing is an attempt to make me a persona non grata, to cast doubt on everything I did in my life after that."

No, Mr. Grass: It was you who did that to yourself.

Yours sincerely,
Daniel Johnson

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

To Go To Top

Posted by B'nai Elim, August 20, 2006.

This was written by Nachum Shifren

This will come as a shock to you "Zionists" out there that haven't heard the post-mortem about this institution. Better look up a new ideology for yourself. The latest aliya statistics confirm that the patient was dead on arrival: nobody is interested in "Zionism" nowadays except the religious. Interestingly enough, it was Ehud (one-world-order) Olmert himself who bemoaned this fact; Jerusalem was in "danger" of becoming a place of only Charedim and Arabs. The inference here is that Zionism must also be inclusive, able to embrace a "diversity" of thought (Oh, how I hate that word!). The inference here is that we as Jews need to be "normal" people, with bowling alleys, fast foods, malls, drugs, prostitution, and pop culture.

If anything drove the nail in the coffin of "Zionism," it was the latest outrage in Lebanon. As if, the ripping out of 8,000 families in Gush Katif didn't cause this, but let's not go there right now.

We, (the Jewish people), went to war against an enemy that took our soldiers. We had to get them back. We went to war to crush our enemy, to prevent them from ever harming a Jew ever again. Where are the soldiers? How long will it be until the rockets start up again? Everyone knows the answer. Therefore, we must ask some hard questions about this treachery that truly endangers every Jew on this planet.

The government knows that Hezbollah (may their name be blotted out speedily in our days) will attack again. Why did they stop their incursion to eliminate them? Because this government fears the Gentile more than they fear the G-d of Sinai. They believe, against their own logic and bitter experience with the UN, that somehow the =91peacekeepers=92 will watch over them. Could there not be a crueler joke than this? The UN that voted to sanction Israel, calling Zionism racism? The UN that never tires of censuring Israel as expansionist and a denier of "human rights. (Hmm, well, they may have something there, with all the times we got arrested for attending Kahane demonstrations!).

A friend of mine wrote me, "Why should I go to reserves and serve in Lebanon for a country that ripped me out of my home in Gush Katif and gave my land to the terrorists? Our family remains homeless, moving from place to place. Every dime we had, we invested in our home. Now, they want me to die in Lebanon? I'll go to jail first!"

This has all the makings of a civil war. It is not Jihad, Hezbollah, or, Al Qaeda that threatens the Jewish people. It is the illegal, corrupt, anti-Jewish government of Israel that is sending us to the brink. How much longer can the Jewish people tolerate a system that has more concern for the terrorists than Jews?

Never before in the history of the IDF has a system brazenly abandoned its soldiers in the manner that we have recently witnessed. Where are they? What message does this send to the terrorists? There is a tight media lockout against the ideas I am expressing in this column. You will never hear a reporter or journalist in Israel say the things I do, because he knows what will happen to him, his family, and his job. We are, simply put, living with a regime that thinks only of its grip on power, whatever the cost in human life or Jewish souls. It's just that nobody's got the gumption to talk about it. And that's why they had to get rid of Rabbi Kahane. At every turn, he pointed out the contradiction between Judaism and the state of Israel.

So let us not dare to call this latest debacle what it is: treason, pure and simple. In any other normal (secular) country, these leaders would be rounded up and put before a firing squad. Bring it on. Bring on the war we know is coming. Bring on the Jewish "sleeper cells" in Israel that will liberate the Jewish people from the long love affair the state has had with fascism a la Soviet Russia. Bring on the struggle we know must ultimately liberate us from a liberal "supreme" court that gives more rights to Arabs than Jews. Bring on the struggle over the Temple Mount where Jews are forbidden to tread; but where Arabs desecrate the site daily. Bring on the fight to free from political prisons the followers of Rabbi Kahane, yet Gay and Lesbian "pride day" marches are held through the city of Jerusalem.

No, it isn't the Arab I fear. It's the Leftist Jew, sitting in the Knesset, mandating, sanctioning, betraying the promise of Abraham with the bat of an eyelash. It is the Jewish lemming that darkens my soul, knowing full well that he prefers a fiery death from Hamas rather than to yield to the Sovereign of the world, to His word and promise.

This Sabbath, we shall read: "Behold, I have given you a blessing and a curse. A blessing if you follow my commandments. A curse,=94 if otherwise. The government of Israel has spoken and made their decision. It's now up to us.

Please recite this Chapter of Tehillim for the Holy-land

The three captive soldiers being held by Arab Moslem terrorists are Gilad (ben Aviva) Shalit in Gaza, and Ehud (ben Malkah) Goldwasser and Eldad (ben Tova) Regev in Lebanon.

Tehillim - Chapter 93

1. The Lord has reigned; He has attired Himself with majesty; yea the Lord has attired Himself, He has girded Himself with might. The world also is established that it cannot be moved.

2. Your throne is established of old; You are from everlasting.

3. The rivers have raised, O Lord, the rivers have raised their voice; the rivers have raised their depths.

4. More than the voices of great waters and more than the mightiest breakers of the sea, is the Lord mighty on high.

5. Your testimonies are very faithful to Your house, the dwelling of holiness, O Lord, to the length of days.

Contact B'nai Elim at news@bnaielim.org
To Go To Top

Posted by Batya Medad, August 20, 2006.

In "Guys and Dolls" Miss Adelaide blames her cold on "psychology." Is that the reason the State of Israel is endangering itself with the most "peculiar" and "perverse" policies? Psychology?!?

For a long time I've been ranting about the fact that Israel so proudly brings distinguished guests to Yad Vashem instead of showing our connection to the Land and how quickly and miraculously we've developed industry, agriculture and modern cities here. I've always thought the reason was to get sympathy.

"Pity me! Pity me!" our politicians cry out! Pathetic, I thought, but now I see it as an even worse symptom of a pathological condition. They want a "mommy" or "daddy" to take care of them. Olmert's peculiar statement in a more complete version, from the words we all know so well, shows how far removed he is from reality:

"We are tired of fighting. We are tired of being courageous. We are tired of winning. We are tired of defeating our enemies. We want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies. We want them to be our friends, our partners, our good neighbors. And I believe that is not impossible."

Olmert, along with many Israelis, just wants to be liked. That's the simplistic interpretation, and considering his similarity with other "right wing" Israelis who lost their principles as soon as they were Prime Minister, I think Miss Adelaide is on the right track. They all act like many victims of physical and emotional abuse. They want to be liked, pitied and only feel secure if they don't have to take responsibility for themselves.

The early Zionists wanted to imitate western culture, like the Jewish People when they demanded from Samuel the Prophet: (4) Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah. (5) And they said unto him: 'Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.'

Today's Israelis dream of a country combining what they think of as the best of Europe and the United States. For spiritualism, they prefer visiting India, since they wouldn't want their materialistic life-style compromised.

Remember that even after the Holocaust, the survivors still worshiped and admired German culture.

This last fiasco of a war, when Olmert and Peretz were forced to follow up on their threats to go in and rescue the kidnapped soldiers, ended up a disaster. I was embarrassed listening to the news in New York, when my government was begging the United Nations and United States to organize a "peace-keeping" force.

Olmert and gang are so tired that they refuse to take full responsibility for our defense.

They don't understand that it's an "all or nothing affair." The UN has made it clear that if Israel is out of Southern Lebanon, it may not go in, even for one of our quick army actions. In addition, the UN does not plan the sort of force Israel wants.

Also our "claim to fame" that ours is the "most moral army in the world" is just a joke to that very world, since no other army would ever endanger its soldiers the way the Israelis do. Victims of abuse have a need to be liked, even if it endangers themselves.

What we do need is a good therapist!

Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, August 20, 2006.

CNN newscasters on August 14th have been speculating as to what Hezb'Allah's Hassan Nasrallah would be likely to do IF Iran's Mahmoud Abahdinejad supplies Hezb'Allah's Nasrallah with nuclear missiles. They generally agreed that Hezb'Allah - at Iran's urging - would use nuclear weapons against Israel.

There were follow-on discussions as to parallel events such as using liquid explosives in 10 American aircraft coming from England to be detonated over American cities or over the Atlantic Ocean simultaneously.

Additional discussions continued throughout the day about the downstream effects of Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's unwillingness to follow Israel's well-established Military plans to engage Hezb'Allah. Olmert, Chief of Defense Amir Peretz, Chief of Staff Gen. Dan Halutz, ostensibly told Hezb'Allah that Olmert was ready to cut and run.

Olmert had accepted Gen. Halutz' concept that this War could be won in 3 days from the air. Halutz wanted the glory equal to Ezer Weizman's air attack which decimated the Egyptian Air Force on the ground during the 1967 Six Days War. Halutz was still consumed with a War of the past and he had two civilian advisors, Olmert and Peretz, who were not only amateurs but, as with all politicians, their orders reflected political interests and not the winning of a War.

This was a "test war" for Iran, using Hezb'Allah as its Proxy. The Russians, too, had their opportunity to test their 'Koronet' anti-tank missiles against Israel's famed Merkava Tank.

General media discussion revolved around the many terrorist groups who were closing ranks, thereby becoming a deadly threat to the Free West. The media debated whether we should talk or fight.

Muslims fanatics spread across Europe and are growing in America. The main well-known terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezb'Allah, Al Aksa Martyrs' Brigades, the Palestinian Authority and others were all well-armed, trained and funded with the Free West donors' money. All are gathering under the banner of Islamo-Facism as their reason for attacking the West.

In the North Olmert's blunder gave Lebanon a government ruled by Hassan Nasrallah and his Hezb'Allah terrorist organization - with Syria and Iran, the ultimate masters..

Reports indicate that wherever Hezb'Allah terrorists were driven out of southern Lebanon, they are now returning in droves with their families to their bunkers and tunnels with whatever missiles remain hidden. All this is under an agreement where the war against terror become meaningless.

Each of the Western nations have made limp attempts to develop counter-insurgency authorities such as Homeland Security in America. But, they are still playing with rules and laws designed for a time when nations fought each other and abided (to some degree) with such laws as the Geneva Convention. They find it difficult to use racial/religious profiling despite the fact that all but one major terror attack in the last 25 years has been conducted by Muslim fanatics against their host country or the world-wide airlines.

Israel, having experienced the most exposure to terror, has also been the worst at protecting her civilian population - lest it anger the E.U., the U.N., America and the Arab League. Israel secretly tried out the Oslo Accords to appease the Muslim and Arab nations, but learned nothing from the Oslo failure.

Ehud Barak abandoned the Israeli security strip in southern Lebanon in the year 2000. Therefore, Barak caused a vacuum which quickly filled with Hezb'Allah terrorists, armed, trained and funded by Iran and Syria, armed with thousands of Katyusha missiles.

Here again, the politicians and Leftist Generals of Israel or America learned nothing.

Binyamin Netanyahu was next as Prime Minister and he surrendered 80% of the Jewish holy city Hebron, re-enforcing the belief of the Muslim Arabs that Jews will neither defend their G-d given Land or their religion. When the most feared warrior, Ariel Sharon adopted the already failed "Land for Peace", the Arabs knew that Israel's leadership was, indeed, the paper tiger.

The greatest disappointment was the once great warrior, General Ariel (Arik) Sharon who, like Barak, gave up Gush Katif/Gaza to the Arab Muslim terrorist organization, Hamas, which allowed Gaza to become the perfect Global terrorists' base to launch Kassam Rockets. Sharon, Olmert and his developing Kadimites managed to fire all those who happened to disagree with his cut-and-run plan, calling them 'rebels' who turned out to be absolutely correct.

Here again, Ehud Olmert was Sharon's advisor - mostly to protect Sharon's dysfunctional family for the crooked schemes that were coming to light. Sharon was the new darling of the Leftist Hebrew Media - as long as he followed the revised Oslo Accords. Now it's called "Convergence" which plans to evict, uproot, evacuate up to 250,000 men, women and children from Judea and Samaria. After one million civilians had to flee south from Northern Israel, where do you think Olmert plans to park those 250,000 from Judea and Samaria?

This man, Ehud Olmert, was a man of no special credentials other than devising back room schemes, who proved his incompetence by being the first Israeli Prime Minister to lose a war started by Muslim Arabs against Israeli Jews. Olmert's foe was a mere 3,000 Hezb'Allah terrorists who were armed with 15,000 Katyusha Missiles, wholly ignored for the six years it took them to build deep fortifications in southern Lebanon.

While Olmert was leading Israel's military failure by subverting his own army of courageous soldiers, the Muslim Arabs were spreading across the globe, determined to make Islam the dominant religions whom all peoples were supposed to follow and obey.


Perhaps Israel should bring back those whom Sharon, Olmert and their Kadimites called "Rebels". They were the only people who defied Sharon and the gang who were giving Hamas a global base of operations by abandoning Gush Katif/Gaza. Israelis keep discovering that the Prime Ministers they have chosen are not always people of integrity. Former Minister of Knesset Uzi Landau sacrificed his career by telling the truth to the people when he could have folded and jumped into Kadima, the new receptacle for exceptionally corrupt politicians.

Bibi Netanyahu once again played self-serving politics even to this day as Israeli soldiers are being buried due to a mis-led war.

Will the people march to the P.M. office and remove him and his utterly weak and contemptible Cabinet? Even the Leftist Hebrew paper Ha'aretz has stated that Olmert must go.

In the meantime, we observe two dangerous incompetents, making decisions on what to do about Iran and Mahmoud Abmadinejad. He not only pledges to destroy Israel with a nuclear bomb (on August 22nd), but he bases his conclusion that this is the time of the return of the Mahdi of Islam (which he seems to believe is really his role).

Additionally, Abmadinejad does not fear a nuclear reprisal because within the Muslim Koranic doctrine, to die fighting the infidels will assure a glorious life after death. Israel's well known second strike nuclear capability is no deterrence to such a religious fanatic.

Are Olmert and Peretz capable of even thinking about nukes falling on Tel Aviv or Jerusalem - let alone doing something pre-emptively to prevent such a strike and preserve the nation? I don't think so. Olmert and his Kadimites will instead rely upon U.N. agreements, pledges by America to assist - which will, of course, be only after a saturation missile attack with nukes and chemicals. How is that two men with dysfunctional families were able to drag the Jewish nation into a similarly dysfunctional response to terror.

Olmert and his crew must be dragged out of office now and not wait for the formalities dispensed by an activist Leftist Supreme Court. The newscasters will, no doubt have a lot to say but, will they say it before Israel is hit with a nuclear weapon or after.

At one time, before Israel became a puppy on a short leash held by America, the Israelis would have pre-emptively acted to preserve the Jewish State. Now they have pathetic leadership, more concerned with the opinion of other nations, each of whom played a role in doing them best to complete the Genocide ramping up from the Middle Ages, through WW2 and now well into the Third World War.

Olmert, Peretz, Peres, Halutz are deep into planning how to avoid being blamed for a catastrophic failure. The soldiers were magnificent in their courage, bravery, youth and the older reservists who left their jobs and families went into battle despite the lack of decent leadership at the top. Even as these young and older soldiers are being buried or fitted with prostheses for missing limbs, due to the failure of leadership, those same leaders are planning self-serving hearings which will serve to keep them in their power seats.

I will be writing more on these coming sham hearings and urge other analysts to peel away the PR (public relations) campaign now being formed to shield the perpetrators from the wrath of their own people.

Added Note from E. Winston: Will PM OLmert, his gang and Chief of Staff Dan Halutz have the sense to vaporize Iran or simply wait for Israel to vanish? If Israel is to play her role as the sacrificial goat, then - after Iran explodes its bomb - America will have sufficient reason to eliminate Iran.

DEBKAfile: Iran's Military Exercise & Apocalyptic Plans For Israel & World
DEBKAfile Special Report August 20, 2006

Washington is keeping a sharp weather eye out for Tuesday, August 22, which this year corresponds in the Islamic calendar to the date on which many Sunni Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on his winged horse Buraq to "the farthest mosque", which is traditionally identified with Jerusalem.

According to the Muslim legend, on that day, a divine white light spread over Jerusalem and the whole world.

DEBKAfile's intelligence sources report that information rated "highly credible" has reached US undercover agencies of a secret report presented to Iran's supreme ruler Ali Khamenei by Abdollah Shabhazi, one of the heads of the Supreme National Security Council. He claims to expose a mega-terror plot against Jerusalem scheduled for August 22, which aims at killing large numbers of Jews, Arabs and Christians.

This atrocity will reportedly arm the United States and Israel with the pretext for hitting Iran's nuclear installations, as well its capital, Tehran, and other big cities.

Shabhazi says the US and Israel need to launch a military campaign to restore the deterrent strength they lost in the Lebanon war.

The massive attack will reportedly focus on the Old City of Jerusalem and its eastern suburbs. The Iranian report claims that the plotters, who are not identified, are eager to recreate the divine white light whish spread over Jerusalem in the year 632. It does not rule out the use of a non-conventional weapon.

DEBKAfile reports that the authorities in Israel do not appear to be taking this threat seriously, unlike Washington - and Tehran.

Deeply impressed, Iran's rulers launched a large-scale are, sea and ground exercise Saturday, Aug. 19. The maneuver, dubbed the Blow of Zolfaghar (the sword used by Imam Ali), involves 12 divisions, army Chinook helicopters, unmanned planes, parachutists, electronic war units and special forces. State-run television reported a new anti-aircraft system was tested "to make Iranian air space unsafe for our enemies."

The massive military exercise will spread over 14 of Iran's 30 provinces and last about five weeks.

DEBKAfile adds: The point of this massive display of might is in fact to place Iran's armed forces on the ready for the contingency of a US-Israeli offensive on August 22 as per Shabhazi's prediction. The exercise will be moved to Tehran to prepare the capital for a potential assault.

August 22, furthermore, is also the day of Iran's formal reply to the incentives packages on offer from the West in return for halting its uranium enrichment projects.

For weeks, Tehran was under pressure from the United States and Europe for an earlier reply, but insisted on August 22.

Prof. Bernard Lewis, the great scholar of Islam and the Middle East offers the background in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 8:

"In Islam, as in Judaism and Christianity, there are certain beliefs concerning the cosmic struggle at the end of time - Gog and Magog, anti-Christ, Armageddon, and for Shiite Muslims, the long awaited return of the Hidden Imam. Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22. This was at first reported as "by the end of August," but Mr. Ahmadinejad's statement was more precise."

Revolutionary Iran habitually links fundamentalist symbolism to political events.

Prof. Lewis explains the significance of Aug. 22 and adds ominously:

"This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and, if necessary, of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind."

The Shiites do not recognize Rajab 27 as the date of Muhammad's purported flight to Jerusalem but celebrate Mabath to commemorate the day they believe Allah appeared before Mohammed in a cave and told him he had been chosen as the prophet to spread the divine message across the world. Mabath is marked by Shiites in Iran and other parts of the Middle East with great ceremony.

Claiming to represent the true Islam, the Shiite rulers of Tehran are expected by Washington to mark the date by demonstrating their military superiority for all Muslims to see.

In addition to Bernard Lewis's hypothesis, speculation is rife in Washington about what Iran has in store for next Tuesday. Tehran may announce success in producing enriched uranium of a higher grade, meaning it is no more than six months away from a weapons-grade capability. While providing justification for UN Security Council sanctions, Tehran prefers to believe that this announcement will be its passport for admission to the world's nuclear club and its attendant privileges, including the right to enrich uranium independently.

In the meantime, the Iranians are putting on a spectacular show of military bravado to show the world and reassure their own people that they are not afraid of threats.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at winstonmedia@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, August 20, 2006.

This was writen by Mona Charen and appeared in Jewish World Review (www.jewishworldreview.com) August 18, 2006.

When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed the Knesset and claimed victory against Hezbollah, some members of the body audibly scoffed, reports WorldNetDaily. Israel's tentative military campaign, Olmert asserted, "changed the strategic balance in the region." Well, he's right about that part.

By failing to crush Hezbollah, as 90 percent of the Israeli public, the U.S. government, the French and even the Saudis hoped they would do, Israel has sustained the most damaging defeat of its history - and this defeat has hurt the United States as well. An Israeli columnist, calling himself an "optimist," notes that contrary to Hassan Nasrallah's prediction that Israel would "'collapse like a spider web,' it didn't collapse." Those are not words to chill the hearts of Hamas and Hezbollah.

In a better world, the tactics of Hezbollah - crossing an international boundary in an unprovoked act of ruthless aggression; kidnapping soldiers; using civilians as human shields; deliberately targeting Israeli civilians - would have provoked universal revulsion. Every death of an innocent Lebanese would have been laid at the feet of Hezbollah. But in the world we actually inhabit, the European Union, Muslims throughout the world and many on the left in the United States condemned Israel instead. This war brought us not embedded journalists but embedded terrorists, woven into the fabric of civilian society - missiles hidden in mosques, launchers within laundries.

Hezbollah, with a large assist from the Reuters news agency, boldly and blatantly falsified photographs and other news from Lebanon - strategically posing human beings (dead and alive), stuffed animals and weeping women for world media consumption. Thanks to alert bloggers like those at LittleGreenFootballs.com, we have come to recognize the ubiquity of figures like "Green Helmet Guy" posing as a Lebanese rescue worker when he almost certainly works for the terrorists - the Leni Riefenstahl of Hezbollah. One part of the world that proved particularly vulnerable to this manipulation was Israel itself. It fought this war with one eye on the camera. And though utterly unskilled in such tactics itself (where were the pictures of suffering Israe lis?), the Israeli government worried excessively about the public relations price it was paying to defend itself. But by failing to finish the war, Israel did itself far more damage than any public relations hit could do. It emboldened the enemy - and Israel's enemy in this war is our enemy, too.

How do you fight people who are not afraid to die? Well, certainly not by letting them believe that such tactics succeed. Iran, the font of so much misery in the world right now, has no reason to believe that defiance of the United Nations, Nazi-like belligerence toward the U.S. and Israel, funding and training of suic ide bombers, and the pursuit of nuclear weapons have brought them anything but gin. Hezbollah was their cat's paw. Had it been crippled, they would have felt the pain. The psychic blow would have been enormous. The psychological war is every bit as important as the one fought with bullets (it has always been so). It's one thing to blow yourself up for a great cause that is everywhere on the march. It's quite another to sacrifice your life for futility.

At this moment, Israel has done the most dangerous thing we in the West can do: It has withdrawn from a fight without victory. The U.S. has offered some wobbly signals as well. Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute reports that after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced that the U.S. would "engage " Iran, a top Iranian official jeered, "Why don't you just admit that you are weak and your razor is blunt?" A few days later, an Iranian Revolutionary Guards boat unfurled a banner as it passed a U.S. Navy ship in the Persian Gulf. It read: "The U.S. cannot do a damn thing."

A Hamas columnist has predicted that Hezbollah's "victory" will open the door to a "third intifada."

We await the consequences elsewhere around the world - from London to New York to Baghdad to Bali to Calcutta - of jihadists who feel the wind at their backs.

Contact Shaul Ceder by email at shaul.ceder@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, August 20, 2006.
This was written by Richard Z. Chesnoff and it appeared in the Jewish World Review (www.JewishWorldReview.com).

I've been reporting on the Arab-Israeli conflict for more than 42 years and I've just come to a horrifying but unavoidable conclusion: Nothing has changed - and probably nothing can change - Israel's enemies' fanatic refusal to accept her right to exist. It is simply too deeply ingrained in the psychology of the region.

It was loud and clear in Arab capitals back in the '60s, and today it remains the driving force in most of the Islamic world. Israel's latest battles repeat the story. Why would Hezbollah murder and kidnap Israeli soldiers without provocati on? Why were thousands of Iranian and Syrian-made missiles lobbed from Lebanon onto Israeli cities and towns? Why are Palestinian rockets still landing on Israeli homes and villages? What do these people want?

The answer is simple: Israel's destruction. These Muslim madmen will never stop their murderous war of terror against Israel, just as England's thwarted jihadi bombers will keep trying to blow up airlines and trains and office buildings in their worldwide struggle to spread "the true word."

It is a twisted form of a noble religion, and it defies Western logic - because the Muslim world would gain far more by cooperating with Israel. Consider what's been accomplished by Israel, the only non-Islamic sliver in the vast lands that lie between Pakistan and Morocco. With less than 1/1000th of the world's population, Israel boasts a $100 billion economy larger than all of its immediate neig hbors combined, the highest ratio of university degrees and museums to population in the world, and some of the world's finest medical, scientific and high-tech research facilities.

Most vital: despite nearly constant war, Israel has absorbed, built homes and provided jobs for millions of Jewish immigrants - 800,000 of them refugees from Arab countries.

Now consider the sorry record in the Arab world. Illiteracy and disease still reign supreme. In the year since Israel left Gaza, the Palestinians have accomplis hed next to nothing. Where are the housing projects for Palestinian refugees? Wh at happened to the network of high-tech hothouses the Palestinians inherited from Israeli settlers? Most have been vandalized or neglected into ruin. After 60 years, Gaza's Palestinians continue to whine, live off the global dole and put their efforts into building rockets instead of a future for themselves. They teach their children that Jews are "apes," Christians are "swine" and Israel should be wiped off the map.

At a royal banquet in Jordan recently, I sat next to the sophisticated editor of one of the Mideast's most influential Arab dailies. He spoke of how "most think ing Arabs" understand that some kind of "pragmatic peace" must be maintained with Israel.

But when I asked the man - the epitome of a "thinking Arab" - if he believed Israel had a legitimate historical place in the Middle East, he was shocked. "Do you expect us to be Zionists?" he asked rather scornfully.

Might not be a bad idea. At least fewer Palestinian, Lebanese and Israeli children would die - and the Arab world might have something it doesn't have today: hope.

Contact Shaul Ceder by email at shaul.ceder@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 20, 2006.
The mantra we must all remember and recite:

Arabs are either at your feet or at your throat!

Contact the author at 4nuritg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, August 19, 2006.

Humans inhabit a world replete with contradictory forces. Most Israelis, perhaps most planetary observers, having set the bar so low for Hizbullah and so high for Israel, perceive the former, still standing, as victor in a clash of armies. Yet, northern Israel, for now, is no longer threatened by armed fanatics, as Lebanese and international troops begin to monitor Lebanon's southern border. Furthermore, the misguided notion of unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria is for now thankfully dead, hopefully immune to resurrection, last rites recited by most Israelis and their leaders, presciently grasping the likelihood of an Iranian supported terrorist infected West Bank if such a dastardly deed was consummated. Would that state of awareness exist if Israel crushed Hizbullah? Jews, indeed, through the ages have experienced mixed bags of joy and tsuris, no doubt the latter in the blackest of spades during a Holocaust beyond human comprehension, yet the consequential creation of the Jewish State Israel drowned out the venomous voice gurgling 'death to the Jews' with a wondrous chorus of 'NEVER AGAIN'!

Israel, however, must ever monitor the monitors along its northern border, ever assuring that terrorists do not once again infiltrate. Concurrently, the Jewish high-tech economic dynamo can once again rev into high gear, strengthening the material substance of its society. Israel's spiritual substance, alas, curiously conflicted by the misperception of defeat against a sworn enemy, must focus on one prominent fact; that its IDF had no choice but to surgically attempt to destroy Hizbullah combatants and their deadly Iranian supplied weapon systems, maniacally mixed within civilian enclaves. The home court advantage of an enemy, indeed fighting a guerrilla war on its own turf, willing to sacrifice innocents for the sake of its own collective cowardly hide and worldwide propaganda value accrued through collateral damage attributed to an already disrespected nation, is incredibly daunting; neutralizing the military might of most any juggernaut with but a dollop of moral fiber, unwilling to level all life, innocent and despicable.

Yet, in Einstein's universe where God does not roll dice, let us hope contradictory forces eventually will intertwine into one cogent ball of life guided by morality and wisdom. Today's State of Israel, ever tested by terrorizing militants obsessed with delusional thinking awash in vestiges of a primitive predatory past, must keep its focus on a higher cerebral plane. It must not allow other nations or its inner bogeyman to define the consequences of its decisions. Israel must keep its eye on the prize, ever striving to improve the lives of its citizens with vanguard technology, robust commercial enterprise, and a stellar educational system; unlike the degenerate raw material economies and maniacally skewed educational systems of its hostile neighbors. Hizbullah fanatics and kindred spirits are unfit to inhabit century twenty-one, along with those Islamic despots who rule over populations resembling powder kegs each in search of a lit fuse. If Israel did not now crush Hizbullah, so what! The IDF did not have to survive by hiding behind Israeli citizens. That moral comparison between adversarial armies is highly significant in the greater scheme of things.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Martin Sherman, August 19, 2006.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry has just produced a report casting grave doubt's on the feasibility of the "Convergence" Plan -- the theme on which the incumbent government (including the Foreign Minster who commissioned the study) was elected to power.

(The Haaretz coverage of the report - in English and Hebrew - is provided as attachments).

This of course raises an interesting question of some urgency: If unilateral withdrawal, which was adopted because negotiated withdrawal was deemed unrealistic, is now also deemed unrealistic, what policy options remain for Israel??

In this regard I urge you to peruse the proposal presented in following site(s), which seems to now emerge at the only viable alternative for the preservation of Israel as the Nation State of the Jewish people:

http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/hs_short_eng.htm (English)
http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/hs_short.htm (Hebrew)

Dr. Martin Sherman is in the Department of Political Science at Tel Aviv University. He has written extensively on water, including "The Politics of Water in the Middle East," London: Macmillan, 1999. He was a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, and served for seven years in Israel's defense establishment.

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Shaw, August 18, 2006.

Other countries, namely Britain and Canada, can learn from this official message from Australia.

I am particularly impressed by the simple statement "Immigrants, not Australians, must adapt".

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard, hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament. "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Sharia law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you," he said on national television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are 2 laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and, another, the Islamic law, that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Sharia law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better option," Costello said.

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically, people who don't want to be Australians and who don't want to live by Australian values and understand them, well, then, they can basically clear off," he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques quote:

"IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia."

"However, there are a few things that those who have recently come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand."

"This idea of Australia being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."

"This culture has been developed over 2 centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society, LEARN THE LANGUAGE!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right-wing political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE.'"

"If you aren't happy here, then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted."

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, American citizens will find the backbone to start speaking and voting the same truths!


Barry Shaw made aliyah from Manchester, England, 25 years ago with his family. He writes the "View from Here" columns from Israel. To sign up to receive his emails, contact him at netre@matav.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, August 18, 2006.

This was written by Bob Lonsberry.

Toiletries don't commit acts of terrorism.

Muslims do.

So why can't I take my toothpaste on the plane? How is it that Gatorade is forbidden? Why can't I have a bottle of water?

Because we aren't really fighting a war with terror, we are losing a struggle with political correctness. It is not so much the evil of outsiders, it is the cowardice of Americans.

The cowardice that won't let us call a spade a spade, that makes us all live in an alternate reality, that puts survival secondary to servility. We are fighting World War III with one arm tied behind our back.

Last week was a good example.

A group of two or three dozen fascist Muslims in England and Pakistan plotted to blow up 10 or 12 passenger-laden airliners in transatlantic flight. The purpose was to celebrate and reprise the attacks of September 11. The means was the detonation of explosive liquids disguised as common liquids -- like Gatorade or shampoo.

The plot was discovered, followed and -- hopefully -- foiled by British intelligence with an assist from Americans and Pakistanis. Immediately, new restrictions were put on airline passengers. Because the plotters planned to use liquids, passengers were forbidden to bring liquids onto airplanes.

Not medicines, not creams, not drinks, not nothing. Untold hundreds of thousands of airline passengers immediately and indefinitely lost the right to carry liquids or pastes on themselves or in their carry-on luggage.

Which is stupid.

Because Gatorade's not the problem.

Muslims are the problem.

Can we be honest enough to just admit that for a minute? The plotters uncovered in England were all Muslims. They all had Muslim names. They all but one or two were of Pakistani descent. They were motivated by religious bigotry. They wanted to kill because they were Muslim and they wanted to kill the people they wanted to kill because those people weren't Muslim.

Yet political correctness forbids us from mentioning that, much less acting upon it.

In fact, on the ABC network news over the weekend, the plotters were called "British Extremists" -- as if somehow the fact they were in Great Britain was defining of their extremism. The fact is they were Muslim extremists, but the American media is so in bed with the diversity-training crowd that that fact can't be mentioned.

Also on American newscasts over the weekend, the story was told of three men buying thousands of disposable and untraceable cell phones, an an activity with possible terrorist linkages. Not surprisingly, very few accounts noted that the men were Muslims with Muslim names.

Political correctness has sanitized this fight to such an extent that we are not allowed to even identify the enemy.

Which is not toothpaste.

It is Islam.

An Islam practiced by tens of millions of people around the world and which repeatedly and consistently puts armies and cells of terrorists in action around the world. No doubt there are peace-loving Muslims, it's just that they have an amazing capacity for keeping a low profile -- or demanding that people respect their religion.

Our desire not to offend Muslims and their culture has great potential to cost American lives. Countless American= lives.

Here's what I mean.

Let's lay aside political correctness for a moment and use scientific analysis. Let's use reason and logic for just a minute.

For example: How many terrorist acts have been committed involving liquids carried onto airplanes by passengers?

Answer: Zero.

Second question: How many terrorist acts involving airliners have been committed by Muslims?

Answer: All of them.

Third question: Why are we focused on liquids instead of Muslims?

Answer: Beats me.

Why is it that the protection of our airline industry is focused on products, not people? Why is it that we go to such extreme lengths to screen materials, but purposely avoid screening the people who carry them?

Wouldn't we be safer if we focused our security efforts largely on Muslim passengers? Especially young, male Muslim passengers? Isn't the fact that every single act of airliner terrorism involved a young, male Muslim relevant?

Does it make sense to take away a mother's bottle of Children's Tylenol and a grandmother's bottle of Coke while at the same time purposely not profiling likely terrorists?

Can't we be honest enough to admit that profiling potential terrorists by religion, national origin, gender and age is a good idea? Aren't we bright enough to understand that asking a few extra questions of a young Muslim airline passenger is not the same as pulling over a black man just because he's driving in a "white" neighborhood?

A group of people was arrested last week for plotting a terrorist attack. They were young Muslim men. Just like the group before that and the group before that and the group before that.

And the group before that.

So, naturally, you can't take Chapstick on an airplane.

Toiletries don't commit acts of terrorism.

Muslims do.

Maybe if the government spent less time looking at your carry-on bag and more time looking at young male Muslim passengers we'd all be a lot safer and a lot less inconvenienced.

This isn't about Gatorade, this is about jihad. It's time to stop focusing on products and start focusing on people.

People who happen to be Muslim.

Aryeh Zelasko lives in Beitar Illit, south of Jerusalem. He is Director of Sales and Marketing of Israel Visit (www.israelvisit.co.il) which provides information and an internet buying facility for American visitors to Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, August 18, 2006.

This was written by Moshe Arens

To lead the nation in a war to victory was just too much for them. Too heavy a burden for their narrow shoulders. That trio - Ehud Olmert, Amir Peretz and Tzipi Livni - asked and received a mandate to lead the people of Israel, promising to take our fate into our own hands and unilaterally establish Israel's borders by evacuating Israelis who live in Judea and Samaria, and turn Israel into a country "in which it will be a pleasure to live." We do not know and probably will never know if they would have been up to that task, but we now know they are not fit to govern Israel in these trying times.

They had a few days of glory when they still believed that the IAF's bombing of Lebanon would make short shrift of Hezbollah and bring us victory without pain. But as the war they so grossly mismanaged wore on, as northern Israel received its daily dose of 150-200 rockets, the Galilee was destroyed and burned to the ground, over a million Israelis sat in shelters or abandoned their homes and both civilian and military casualties mounted - gradually the air went out of them. Here and there, they still let off some bellicose declarations, but they started looking for an exit - how to extricate themselves from the turn of events they were obviously incapable of managing. They grasped for straws, and what better straw than the United Nations Security Council. No need to score a military victory over Hezbollah. Let the UN declare a cease-fire, and Olmert, Peretz, and Livni can simply declare victory, whether you believe it or not.

An almost audible sigh of relief could be heard from the Prime Minister's Office as the negotiations that were supposed to lead to a cease-fire began at the UN. The appropriate rhetoric has already started flying. So what if the whole world sees this diplomatic arrangement - which Israel agreed to while it was still receiving a daily dose of Hezbollah rockets - as a defeat suffered by Israel at the hands of a few thousand Hezbollah fighters? So what if nobody believes that an "emboldened" UNIFIL force will disarm Hezbollah, and that Hezbollah with thousands of rockets still in its arsenal and truly emboldened by this month's success against the mighty Israel Defense Forces, will now become a partner for peace? Does a cease-fire that will avoid further casualties among the IDF's soldiers not outweigh these concerns over future events?

Many politicians are notorious for preferring short-term considerations over a long-term view. Examples abound of the dangers of such myopic policies. From Munich in Europe of 1938 that set the stage for World War II, to Oslo in 1993 which brought Arafat and his cohorts from Tunis here, to the disengagement from Gush Katif last year that brought Hamas to power, and Barak's hasty withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, which sowed the seeds of the latest intifada and is the root cause of the current war - the rotten fruits of that withdrawal we have been reaping this past month.

The long-term implications of an Israeli agreement to a UN brokered cease-fire at this time are obvious. Israel's enemies, and they are many, will conclude that Israel does not have the stamina for an extended encounter with terrorism. You do not need tanks and aircraft to defeat Israel - a few thousand rockets are enough. Katyushas today and Qassams tomorrow. Don't let Olmert, Peretz and Livni fool you: These rockets will keep coming after Israel is seen as not only punished but also defeated in this month-long war.

"Yesterday is dead and tomorrow's out of sight," Dean Martin used to sing. Olmert may be humming this song as he agrees to the UN cease-fire resolution, and Peretz and Livni can sing the refrain "let the devil take tomorrow." But tomorrow will come much sooner than they expect. And it will find Israel with nothing left of its deterrent capability that used to keep its enemies at bay. The war, which according to our leaders was supposed to restore Israel's deterrent posture, has within one month succeeded in destroying it. That message will not be lost on Hamas, the Syrians and the Iranians, and possibly even some of our Arab neighbors who for many years had forsworn belligerence against Israel.

The task facing Israel now is to restore its deterrent posture and prepare for the attacks that are sure to come. But not with this leadership. They have exhausted whatever little credit they had when they were voted into office.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel, August 18, 2006.
From yesterday's Arutz-Sheva

Exactly a year has passed since the expulsion from Gush Katif, and despite the suffering of the expelled and the Hizbullah War, there is still no national consensus on the matter.

One year ago today, on August 17, 2005, tens of thousands of Israeli soldiers and policemen descended upon the residents of Gush Katif (- the northern Shomron was targeted a week later) and began forcibly removing them from their homes.

An article in on the Ynet Hebrew news site depicting the suffering of the expelled over the past year - including family breakups, suicide attempts, unemployment, and more - has aroused a wave of comments. Despite the sympathetic nature of the article towards the former residents, the talkbacks show that Israeli society is still very divided over the issue.

Dozens of couples have begun divorce proceedings, and many others are suffering various difficulties between spouses, with children, and among themselves. Quoting a psychologist who has treated many Gush Katif couples, the article tells the plight of "men 50 years old and over who were used to working hard their whole lives and who now can't get out of bed..." Another psychologist talks of a woman who constantly relives the trauma of not being allowed to go to the bathroom for 30 hours while on the bus out of the Gush, and the resulting humiliation, and others who cannot remove from their minds the sight of long columns of black-uniformed soldiers coming to take them from their homes.

"Their gentle struggle against the evacuation created a situation in which the extent of their fury never found its true expression," one psychologist said. "A man's home is his castle - this is very instinctive. Think what type of fury erupts from a person whose home is destroyed - yet they never expressed it... Then their long hotel-stays greatly hurt the family cell, with the children far away from the parents' room, and the families not eating together for months - one of the most important aspects of religious family life... Then they put them into these caravillas, and now they are reduced to prowling back and forth there like lions in a cage."

The grave situation depicted in the article did not particularly move all its readers, however. One particularly hostile commenter, who evoked many objections by later talk-backers, wrote, "I feel only derision towards you. Get divorced, leave the country, become poor... I heard that some rich farmers who were expelled from Gush Katif are doing good business in Ethiopia; go there - it's good for all of you. And make room there for the new expellees from the West Bank; you can build settlements in Ethiopia."

A typical response to this writer was: "You are so full of hatred." Another one wrote, "I have trouble believing you are Jewish."

Most of the writers had some form of empathy for the settlers, even if they did not agree with them. "The disengagement was a correct move," one wrote, "it's just too bad that the evacuated residents are in such a bad state. In my opinion, it's both their fault and the government's fault. It seems strange to me that people who announced that they had lost all confidence in the country, waited for that very country to save them." Others criticized them for not having anticipated the expulsion in advance, and for "not raising their children properly."

In response to many of the more negative comments, one wrote the following:

"I have read all the comments up until now and I am shocked at what I see. Every argument, as far as you are concerned, has only to do with politics? Every time the word 'settler' is mentioned, it arouses your glands of [self] hatred and fury? Can't you simply read the article as it's written - a description of tremendous emotional distress of an entire public...? Where does this incessant hatred come from? Every single one of you, if you would sit face-to-face with one of these families and hear their story, would feel empathy and even sadness - regardless of your political opinions. Enough of this unending hatred!"

Another comment, signed by "Man of the Left," was entitled, "When I started reading the article, I felt nothing." It then continued,

There's this unspoken feeling we have that it's not our fault, but rather theirs [the expelled residents]. Those who feel that the settlers never should have been there, and that it was wrong for them to build communities there, cannot identify with the pain of being uprooted. Automatically the well-known phrases of wasted money and soldiers who were killed there start jumping up in our heads.

But in the middle of the article, I had another thought - that something is not right if I am closed to what is being described here. It describes not a disengagement - but a collapse. The collapse of genuine life. And to be honest, it's not totally their fault, because the State is that which decided on the direction of settlement as something that is justified. The State encouraged them - and the Stated crushed them.

I still think we had to leave Gaza - but maybe if it was in the framework of real peace... perhaps the idea that their loss gave us something significant would have changed something.

Furthermore: The State knew that the disengagement would happen; it was not right that alternate communities were not prepared... They were not only expelled from their homes - but from their lives... For this, I admit guilt.

One commenter wrote that the residents often treated the army as if "the army owes them something."

Largely in response to that, one young soldier wrote,

"I was there and evacuated Shirat HaYam, Kfar Yam, and some others... So first of all, [the above commenter] is either an idiot or has no idea what he is talking about. The large majority of the residents behaved in a way that cannot but be admired. They love every piece and stone of this country, more than what most of us can even comprehend, and are willing to sacrifice so much for concepts such as faith, common decency, and love of the Land... To call them lawbreakers is simply stupidity and a misunderstanding of the reality and the facts... The lack of support that the government and some parts of the country showed our brothers (!!!) whom we removed from their homes - that is what widened the gap between us and created the crisis, no less than the process of the evacuation itself... The high percentage of elite army fighters, officers and fighters in various IDF units among them is almost illogical. I talked to officers who lost their soldiers and people who were wounded in war or by terrorism in Gush Katif. Try, please, just to understand them, instead of hating them for nothing... I am a secular youth, aged 20, from central Israel, who was sent at such an early age to defend and sacrifice for the country in which we all live..."

One philosopher summed up the situation by reminding his fellow-countrymen that "at least we're home." He wrote:

Whenever an El Al flight takes off from Tel Aviv, after five minutes everyone starts complaining about the service, etc. But when they're on British Airways or Lufthansa, those same Israelis sit quietly, without making a peep, and even praising the airline. What's the conclusion? That if you move abroad you will be like Jews who are detached and scared, planning where to run to when the persecutor comes and thinking how to prevent your children from assimilating. Therefore, I'm not impressed with your cries for a second. You're just like the El Al passengers...

Others said that the government had truly done them an injustice. One wrote very succintly, "Sharon, Sharon! Too bad you're not around to see what you have caused!"

Another one summed up by noting the just-ended war in Lebanon and quoting Joseph's brothers in the Bible who said, "But we are at fault for seeing his suffering when he pleaded to us but we did not listen - and therefore this suffering has come upon us."

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, August 18, 2006.

At last, Olmert has found a group he isn't afraid to bully -- the loyal citizens of Samaria and Judea. He's planning to kick them out of their homes and productive businesses so they can be added to the welfare rolls. These are citizens that have contributed sons and daughters to the IDF to protect Israel. Which is more than Olmert has done -- his boys ran away out of the country, and his daughter is gungho for the Arabs. He mucked up the war against Hezbollah. How much more damage does he have to do before they kick him out? This is from yesterday's Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

The bureaucracy rolls on. With its residents still in Lebanon under emergency call-up orders, the Yesha town of Maaleh Rehavam learned that officials were headed to post eviction orders on its doors.

Families in Maaleh Rehavam - a small outpost community in eastern Gush Etzion - were surprised to note this morning that Civil Administration officials were on their way to post eviction orders on their homes. Of the 30 residents, including five families, five are in Lebanon after having been called up on emergency basis this past month, and two others are in the standing army.

Some town officials believe that the army wished to take advantage of the situation in which a quarter of the men were away to give out the notices. "It is shocking to think," town secretary Moriah Halamish said, "that with war happening on two fronts, north and south, the defense establishment finds the time to give out these orders. The State is taking advantage of the fact that our men were drafted to war in order to fulfill this new expulsion decree. Good citizens go off to fight with emergency orders, and are then forced to return to receive a slap in the face in the form of an eviction notice on their doors."

Others feel the truth is more mundane: "The bureaucracy has a calendar and a schedule, and no one thinks whether now is a good time to do it or not; it just gets done." So says Nadia Matar, co-chairperson of Women in Green, a grassroots Land of Israel organization. "The previous orders expired," she said, "and they have to be renewed, and that's it. There's no consideration as to whether right now, with people still on the front lines in Lebanon, it might not be a good idea to go ahead with destroying Jewish homes."

Postponed for a Week

In the event, Maaleh Rehavam's secretary Moriah told Arutz-7 this afternoon, "We were informed later today that the 'mission' has been put on hold. I believe this is largely due to the press coverage by Arutz-7... Zambish [Yesha leader Ze'ev Chever] called the Civil Administration, and they said they're sorry, they didn't realize, and they will postpone giving us our eviction notices for another week. But we will not rest; there is no reason for our homes to be destroyed."

Maaleh Rehavam is a mixed religious-secular community, home to five families and several singles. Residents lived in caravans for the first two years after its founding, and three permanent homes have been built in recent years. It overlooks the Judean Desert, the Herodion, Tekoa and Nokdim, home to MK Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beiteinu). The community is an eight-minute drive from Jerusalem, but the residents must now drive almost an hour due to the government?s refusal to open a newly paved road.

The community is not illegal - but neither has it been officially approved, and for this reason, the government says it plans to destroy it, in keeping with its promise to the US to raze all "unauthorized" outposts. The radical left-wing Peace Now organization has filed a court suit, demanding to know why the government has not yet implemented the demolition orders it issued regarding Maaleh Rehavam and other small communities throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Demanding an Apology

The people of Maaleh Rehavam recently demanded an apology from the Maariv newspaper for writing that their community is illegally located on private Arab property. "This article presents us as land thieves," a letter from the town's secretary states. "If a serious investigation had been done, as could be expected from a newspaper of your level, you would have found that the neighborhood is [a part of] the town of Nokdim, is totally located on state lands, and that the residents were even allocated land for planting and grazing. The neighborhood is in the process of being approved."

This was not the only time the Maariv newspaper has exposed itself to criticism of being anti-Yesha. Earlier this week it publicized a listing of cities and towns in which the soldiers killed in Lebanon had lived. However, though the chart listed the names of dozens of towns and cities, it concealed the disproportionately large role played by the towns of Judea, Samaria and Gaza by hiding them in the "others" column.

Ronen Tzafrir, of the non-religious pro-Land of Israel Nahalal Forum, had strong criticism of Maariv. "When there is something positive to say about this fantastic public," he said, "which educates towards heroism, sacrifice and love of land, suddenly Maariv forgets the word 'settlements.'"

Tzafrir called upon the public to boycott Maariv.

In fact, nearly 10% of the 117 soldiers who were killed in the five weeks of fighting in Lebanon were from towns in Yesha (Judea and Samaria) - almost twice as much as their proportionate numbers in the population. Their names:

Lt.-Col. Ro'i Klein, 31, of Eli
Lt. Amichai Merchavia, 24, Eli
Sgt. Gilad Zissman, 26, from Eli
Staff-Sgt. Yehuda Greenfeld, 27, from Maaleh Michmas
St.-Sgt. Philip Mosko, 21, Maaleh Adumim
Sgt. Yigal Nissan, 19, Maaleh Adumim
Sgt. Bnayah Rein, 27, Karnei Shomron
Sgt. Amasa Meshulami, 20, Ofrah
Corp. Ohad Kleisner, 20, of Beit Horon
St.-Sgt. Yotam Gilboa, 21, of Kibbutz Maoz Chaim in the Jordan Valley
Sgt. Gai Hason, 24, Naamah

Yesha Growth

The total population in Judea and Samaria grew by some 3% in the first half of 2006, according to Interior Ministry statistics. At the end of June, the total population in these areas stood at 260,932 people, a growth of nearly 7,200 over the previous six months. The Yesha Council welcomed the news, stating that the extra thousands of new citizens, even as the government continued to talk about uprooting them, showed the strength of the Judea and Samaria settlement enterprise.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 18, 2006.

This has been going around the internet.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 18, 2006.
This was written by Frederick Forsyth and it appeared in the Daily Express, August 11, 2006.
It must surely be true that the level of lies and hypocrisy that a society can tolerate is in direct proportion to the degeneration of that culture.

Personally I am not particularly pro or anti Israel, pro or anti Arab or pro or anti Islam. But I do have a dislike of myth, hypocrisy and lies as opposed to reality, fairness and truth.

Watching the bombing of Lebanon it is impossible not to feel horror and pity for the innocent civilians killed, wounded or rendered homeless. But certain of our politicians, seeking easy populism and the cheapest round of applause in modern history, have called the Israeli response "disproportionate". Among thee politicos are Jack Straw and that master of EU negotiations William Hague.

That accusation can only mean: "disproportionate to the aggression levelled against them". Really? Why did the accusers not mention Serbia? What has Serbia got to do with it? Let's refresh our memories.

In 1999 five Nato air forces -- US, British, French, Italian and German -- began to plaster Yugoslavia, effectively the tiny and defenceless province of Serbia. We were not at war with the Serbs, we had no reason to hate them, they had not attacked us and no Serbian rockets were falling on us.

But we practically bombed them back to the Stone Age. We took out every bridge we could see. We trashed their TV station, army barracks, airfields and motorways.

We were not fighting for our lives and no terrorists were skulking among the civilian population but we hit apartment blocks and factories anyway. There were civilian casualties. We did not do it for 25 days but for 73. We bombed this little country economically back 30 years by converting its infrastructure into rubble. Why?

We were trying to persuade one dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, to pull his troops out of Kosovo, which happened to be (and still is) a Yugoslav province. The dictator finally cracked; shortly afterwards he was toppled but it was his fellow Serbs who did that, no Nato.

Before the destruction of Serbia, Kosovo was a nightmare of ethnic hatred. It still is. If we wanted to liberate the Kosovans why did we not just invade? Why blow Serbian civilians to bits?

Here is my point. In all those 73 days of bombing Serbia I never heard one British moralist use the word "disproportionate".

The entire point of Hezbollah is not to resolve some border dispute with Israel; its aim is to wipe Israel off the map, as expressed by Hezbollah's master, the crazed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. That aim includes the eradication of every Israeli Jew; i.e. genocide.

Serbia never once threatened to wipe the UK off the map or slaughter our citizens, yet Straw, in office in 1999, and Hague, leading the Conservative Party, never objected to Serbia being bombed.

As an ex-RAF officer I am persuaded the Israelis fighter pilots are hitting civilian-free targets with 95% of their strikes. These are the hits no TV network bothers to cover. It is the 5% that causes the coverage and the horror: wrong target, unseen civilians in the cellar, misfire, unavoidable collateral casualties. Unavoidable?

Israel has said in effect, "If you seek to wipe us out we will defend ourselves to the death. You offer us no quarter, so we will offer none to you. But if you choose intentionally, inadvertently, or through the stupidity of your government to protect and shelter the killers among yourselves then with deepest regret, we cannot guarantee your exemption."

Yesterday we Brits learned that certain elements in our society had tried to organise a mass slaughter of citizens flying out of our airports. We will have to take draconian measures against these enemies in our midst. Will Messrs Hague and Straw complain our methods are disproportionate? Not a chance. Now that, dear readers, is blatant hypocrisy.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, August 18, 2006.

When President Bush responded to the 9/11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the White House (the intended target) by suicidal Muslim fanatics, he may have inadvertently saved the world.

Few will want to admit that George Bush did something good for America and all the world's nations.

For some time terrorism by fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists has haunted our planet but, it was tolerated because it was reasonably small and generally out of sight - although growing exponentially.

All that changed when Georg Bush kicked over the poisonous ant hill of terror with their carefully carved tunnels, false fronts and an aggressive plan of recruitment. The Free World's civilization simply could not or would not see what was taking place under our feet. Like ants, burrowing out of sight, terrorists were building cities of terror and making connections with each other.

Why didn't our vaunted Intelligence know what was going on?

Similarly, why didn't our State Department "Middle East Experts" knew that our supposed "best friend and ally" Saudi Arabia, was the deep pockets for Global Terror?

Didn't our spooks and State Department know that Saudis, both in the Governing Kingship and their private wealth, "Jihadists" (fighters for Islam) of the Saudi kingdom were funding sleeper terrorist cells in Europe and America?

Not only were they funding terror cells but the Saudis had also set up Madrassas (Schools to teach Strict Islam) which taught pure hatred for un-believers in Islam? Their curriculum taught that it was only right in Allah's will to make all the world an Islamic Caliphate with Muslims superior to all others - that all other religions must be subordinated to Islam or the infidels must die. Those were always the teachings but, only until the Muslims reached "critical mass" in numbers, money and weapons would they dare to put their planned Global Jihad into operation.

Why didn't we know?

The simple answer is that President Bush was out-of-the-loop, whereas the State Department Arabists were deep in the know. But, then again, so were the likes of Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and Admiral Bobby Ray Inman when they decided to countermand President Reagan's orders to shell Syria after it was determined that Syria was responsible for having Hezb'Allah send the truck bomb that murdered 242 American Marines in their Beirut barracks. Some, at the highest level of government, knew the aggressive nature of Islam but the profits in oil and sales of weapons blinded them to the threat.

Perhaps it was not so different when the State Department, linked with major U.S. corporations, sold trucks, weapons to the Nazis during WW2. It was as if the corporations and the U.S. State Department were responsible only to themselves. The U.S. even saved the most notorious SS Nazi officers and CEOs of corporations that worked Slave Labor until they were dead.

The same seems to be true today except, instead of names like Eichmann, Goering, Heydrick, Goebbels, etc., we have names such as Arafat, Abdullah, Ayatollah, Mahmoud Abadinejad, et al. They are the same brothers-under-the-skin, with the State Department still at the epi-center.

President Bush may not have known that those under his command were really a "shadow government" which seemed to take orders from Bush but, in effect, they ran their own network. This is why Syria was always untouchable - even after they sent the bomber who murdered 242 Marines sleeping in their barracks.

Bush attacked Afghanistan, along with Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban. Things started to come apart for the global terror network but, Bush hadn't a clue that he had disturbed a growing network, far more advanced then anyone could possibly imagine. The money flow in was endless, given that we oil users were paying for our own funerals.

Had Bush waited another few years so the mix of terrorists could further their plans and obtain more WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) with NBC (Nuclear, Biological and Chemical) warheads from the Russians, Chinese and North Koreans, et al, America would be forced to agree to any demands by Iran and other "Jihadist" States to obey or else! Those who had previously armed Saddam Hussein's genocidal terrorist army would remain silent lest their names and the roles they played come to light.

So, President George Bush and the U.S. military attacked Iraq and properly caught or killed the dysfunctionally murderous Hussein family members - Saddam and his evil sons. Udi and Kusai. Here again, Bush disturbed a significant part of the world's growing terror network. Given just a little more time, Saddam could have been sitting in the Saudi oil fields, with every well wired to explode unless we Westerners accepted his commands - which included agreeing to his ownership of Kuwait and her rich oil fields.

We are now seeing the results of Iran's quiet backing of the Hezb'Allah in Lebanon as it spreads throughout the Middle East as Iran's cats-paw. We are seeing the same in Europe as the Muslims expand their powers, their threats and the weakness of obsequious European leaders who hope to appease the demanding Muslims, both locally and the Arab Muslim nations who have their stranglehold on the world's oil supply.

Bush may have saved the World by making the Islamists prematurely show their intent to gain world power. Many, particularly those in the media, choose to spin the conclusion that, IF had Bush had NOT attacked global Jihadists so aggressively, terrorists would have either remained dormant or low key (using acceptable low-level terror).

History tells another story when you see Islam ramp up their power which is growing exponentially. When they then attack, they may conquer large areas of Europe where appeasement only increased - exponentially - the appetites of the Muslim conquerors.

Bush, for all his supposed faults, has caused terror to expose itself before it became an indomitable force. Granted, the Europeans are already failing to maintain their cultures as Muslims stream in, demanding obedience to the ways of the vicious Shariah laws (most strict form of Islam).

One can only wonder to where the native populations of France, England, the Netherlands, etc. will immigrate as the Muslims take over their societies.

In any case, it was George Bush who gave us a "Better Late than Never" heads-up on Global Terror. Hopefully, the Left Liberal Media will finally awaken to the phenomenon fo the attacks by Islam in every corner of the globe.

Please send President George Bush a Thank You note for doing America and the world a favor.

Now, we can only hope that he stays the course!

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at winstonmedia@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Irwin N. Graulich, August 18, 2006.

America overwhelmingly won the fighting in Iraq, yet continues to lose the war. Israel won every battle in Lebanon, yet supposedly lost the war. Wait a second--how is that even possible?

How can it be that South Beirut looks worse than Hiroshima; that the entire southern part of Lebanon is comparable to Dresden; that Israel pretty much devastated Hezbollah, eventually winning over every town it entered. Didn't the IDF get to the strategic Litani River, even though it occurred later than first anticipated? Yet CNN, The New York Times, al Jazeera, and Europe, all call it a defeat for Israel.

Of course Olmert (pronounced "all merde") and Amir Peretz (pronounced "a mere putz") screwed the war up from the outset, although it is easy to be a Monday morning General, especially if you are a CNN reporter. Yet Jacques Chirac (pronounced "merde"), that amazing military strategist, declared, "Israel used 'disproportionate force,' although they somehow lost the war."

Only a French prostitute for Saddam like Mr. Chirac (pronounced "merde") could come up with such a ridiculous statement. I'll tell you what was disproportionate, Jacques. America, who was never even threatened, using massive power to save Europe in 1945; that was truly disproportionate, "Mr. Vichy" Chirac.

How is it possible that millions of non innocent Lebanese accomplices of Hezbollah (aka Lebanese civilians) are crying about their lost homes and families, blaming Israel for the devastation, while their brave rolly polly hero Nasrallah hid in a basement in Iran, declaring a great victory? Doesn't the world understand that if Israel were not one of the two most moral countries in the world along with the US, then all of Beirut, no, all of Lebanon would have looked like Nagasaki, without Israel ever touching its nuclear arsenal?

Yet the Hezbollah terrorists declare victory because they "stood up" to the Israeli military. Joe Louis' opponents all stood up to him--so what? They were still knocked out. But Nasrallah (pronounced "Nazi rally") and Ahmadinijad (pronounced "a mad dog on Jihad") had the audacity to declare, "Hey world. Do not believe your lying eyes because Islam won! And do not pay attention to the Hezbollah goose steppers and Nazi salutes you saw being displayed on tv by Hezbollah children as young as 10. We are the good guys."

It is a new type of military strategy, actually quite brilliant. No matter how badly you lose i.e. Iraq or Lebanon, you simply declare victory. The macho Arab and Muslim armies cannot fight against the West, evidence the way both Israel and America have humiliated them every single time. So Muslim nations have developed a brand new weaponry called "collateral damage," disproportionate response," and "collective punishment," launched with the help of the supposed Zionist-controlled media.

There you go Israel and America--so much for caring about those "innocent civilians." This is what you get for being so nice and not using force properly. Perhaps carpet bombing Beirut and The Sunni Triangle would have produced far fewer Israeli and American casualties, and ended the fighting much sooner.

How is it possible that America invaded the supposed great war machine of Iraq and defeated, no decimated, the strongest Arab/Muslim army in the Middle East in just one month, capturing 90% of the top Baathe party officials including the main man himself--Saddam Hussein, while killing both his sons? Yet the evil insurgents (aka terrorists), the Arab/Muslim world, the American left, a majority of the Democratic party, Europe and Hugo Chavez all say in unison, "Hey America, do not believe your lying eyes, because you guys have lost."

The answer to this dilemma is fairly simple if we just go to Cairo, Egypt where there is an impressive museum dedicated to the Egyptian victory over Israel in 1973 (sic). I mean, is that a joke? Welcome to the Arab/Muslim version of war, where "winning is losing and losing is winning."

The Arab and Muslim world finally figured out a way to defeat America and Israel...lie about it, just like Hitler and Goebbals, who used the big lie technique for their own propaganda war. Ever since Sabra and Shatillah, Israel's enemies learned that you can murder your own people, show it on CNN...and then successfully blame the Jews.

According to Nasrallah and his terrorist corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Iran, "Victory is the fight itself." With that type of rationalization, one can never lose as long as one man is left standing, even though he is shaking in his sandals and holding a white flag.

Western democracies are both brilliant and stupid, strong and weak, all at the same time. America and Israel have the power to destroy whom they want, when they want and how they want. However, the big stumbling block is their obsession with decency and morality. And the Arab/Muslim media has made an art form of misusing this important Judeo-Christian quality.

The Zionist-controlled media (sic) shows photos (some falsified by Muslim journalists) of Lebanese mothers and children suffering the results of the "big, bad Israeli war machine" and naturally, our hearts hurt. The Jewish/Christian psyche feels compassion when we see any children in pain, unlike our enemies who celebrate the deaths of their teenage suicide bombers.

However, imagine a photo of Adolf Hitler as a baby, suffering with a bad case of measles. I guess we should cry for little Adolf. It is important to view all photos/videos within their proper context, which is the reason that CNN is the ultimate form of propaganda.

If Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman worried about so called "innocent civilians" and "collateral damage," Americans today would be speaking German and singing praises to the Fuhrer! There were babies in Nazi Germany and Japan who were blown to smithereens along with their mothers. But that is a consequence of war and the blame is totally on the evil enemy of democracy.

Today, our liberal politicians and CNN have lectured us that we must "win over the hearts and minds of the Arab and Muslim world." If I hear that despicable phrase again, I will need a barf bag. Who needs to win "hearts" that want to destroy everything American, Christian and Jewish? Who needs to win over evil minds that cherish suicide bombers, beheadings and death? Frankly, we should be more concerned about stopping their hearts from beating!

Their minds and hearts are not embarrassed by bin Laden, Saddam, Nasrallah and Ahmadinejad, because these men happen to be fellow Muslims. "Bad Muslims" do not embarrass most of the Muslim world; but a political cartoon about their Prophet Mohammed does indeed embarrass them.

And this concept is the KEY to winning the war in Lebanon, Iraq and worldwide terror--embarrassment, humiliation, disgrace and shame. Those are the West's secret weapons in addition to maintaining our great strength.

In the Arab and Muslim world, a man's honor is everything--everything. Accepted Western values such as women's rights diminish a "real man's" honor in their minds. Thus a wife is just a piece of property who should cover herself with a burqa, stay home, not drive a car, cook dinner and have babies.

If a Muslim man cannot control his wife or children, he loses the respect he enjoys in the eyes of other Muslim men. In the Arab/Muslim world, once "honor" is impaired, great efforts are required to restore it.

Hence, honor killings are prevalent because a daughter has dated someone against her father's wishes or may have had any form of premarital relations. Imagine that--killing your own daughter gains respect. And yet the whores at CNN want us to be compassionate to people who believe these evil ideas.

The secret weapon to winning this battle with Islamic Fascists (thank you GWB) and the entire Islamic world, (except most American Arabs and American Muslims who do not have this hang up), is to understand that the Islamic world's honor is the collective property of their family or the entire Muslim nation. If honor is lost, it causes the loss of "karam," which is dignity...and DIGNITY, dignity is everything!

To Nasser, Arafat, Saddam, Ahmadinejad, Assad, Nasrallah and the Arab/Muslim street, if their "karam" is damaged, if they are insulted or shamed, they are obligated to put up a great show in order to restore their dignity. The man who has self respect never allows anyone to insult or defeat him with impunity.

Why did the media stop showing the Saddam capture video of American troops using a tongue depressor to check out his hoof and mouth disease? Because a lot of pressure from Arab and Muslim countries was applied to everyone not to show it. Embarrassing Saddam is like embarrassing all Muslims. Can you imagine an American saying we should not broadcast the Timothy McVeigh capture because he is an American?

So how does America, Israel and the West defeat these sick monsters? Listen carefully Mssrs. Bush and Olmert. You guys think you are sophisticated because you do not respond to the bad guys comments. You say you do not want to stoop to their level, because we are better.

Western democracies--listen up. Don't you understand that by not responding to their macho rhetoric, we are emboldening them. Let us give al Jazeera some excellent material for the Arab/Muslim street to hear. The difference is that we can back up our rhetoric and they cannot.

Of course we are better, a lot better. But we are cutting our noses off to spite our faces if we do not respond to evil, even verbally. These are valuable lessons that one learns only in the Brooklyn schoolyard, where you must deal with psychotic, psychopathic bullies like the leaders of Muslim countries. So George and Ehud, here is some valuable information and quotes culled from a top secret CIA report, which should be used in upcoming speeches.

1) Everyone knows that Fatso Nasrallah had to run and hide in Iran because he feared that Israel would do to him, what Israel had done to his pathetic, cowardly little son in the 1967 war. "Chic" Nasrallah calls it a big victory to "stand up" to the IDF. "Stand up" in this case actually means, "We lost miserably, but we will lie and say we won." Nasty Narallah knows that if the lie is repeated often enough, a la Joseph Goebbals, people will believe it."

Notice that Nasrallah's wife is never seen in public. The reason he hides her is probably why the burka was originally invented. Because Mrs. Nasrallah is so hideous looking, that she could burn your retinas out if you looked at her ugly face for too long a period of time. therefore, a veil is absolutely necessary for the good of the neighborhood.

2) And check out that little spider monkey who runs Iran. Is he a joke or what? The skinny little midget, Ahmadinejad, needs a nuclear weapon because of a serious case of "penis envy," since Allah, God or nature did not give him his fair share. "Little" Ahmadinejad also makes his wife wear a burqa to hide her mustache. Had he not married her, she could have successfully toured with the side show of Ringling Brothers Circus.

Notice how Ahmadinejad never takes "the little woman" (she's even shorter than him), to any government function. That is probably the only good thing he is doing for Iranian society. Her face would crack a tv camera. She is one hideous looking First Lady. At least King Hussein got himself a hot American babe, although not a very bright one.

3) Reviewing Syria's military qualities, Bashir Assad and the arrogant Syrian Foreign Minister produced some interesting results. The Syrian leadership seems to have forgotten how Big Daddy Assad lost the entire Golan Heights to Israel in a few days. The truth is that the Helena, Montana police department could defeat the entire Syrian army in today's environment. If Syria is not careful, our analysis tells us that Israel will be negotiating about the return of Damascus instead of the Shebaa Farms.

4) For Americans to win in Iraq, there is an easy strategy. American soldiers are in Baghdad patroling the streets, and have already won the war. The Marines have become a police force, unable to enforce law and order on the most immoral population on the face of the planet. The only thing that Iraqis can do successfully, is blow up their own people every day. Therefore, US armed forces should leave very, very soon.

If Iraqis choose to set up a democracy, we should wish them good luck. However, if Iraqis choose another dictator, a theocracy, divide the country or anything else, America should wish them well. As long as they do not bother any of their neighbors who are America's friends, or dare to hurt us through any form of terrorism, they can literally do what the hell they want to each other. However, should Iraq go outside their borders or threaten any of America's friends, the United States will pull a Schwartzenagger and "We'll be back!"

5) Declaring victory in Iraq and leaving the Iraqi people to their own talents (sic), is only part of the winning strategy. How about turning over Saddam, Tariq Aziz and their partners in crime to the Israelis for one of the greatest show trials ever? After all, they did attack Israel in the Gulf War, so Israel can put them on trial as war criminals. We were just notified by the Israelis that the new prisoner uniform in Israel for court appearances on tv is wearing a pair of tight shorts, a sleeveless t-shirt ( "A" shirt), no sox and the prisoner's head must be covered with a pair of sexy women's Victoria Secret underwear (red color).

If the Middle East did not like Abu Ghraib, wait until these images from an Israeli courtroom are shown on al Jazeera. And should a defendant like Saddam Hussein get out of order and yell at the judge, he will be grabbed by the neck and pushed back down into his chair by his Israeli "female" guard.

6) Before leaving Iraq, America might consider capturing the Iraqi Nasrallah, his twin dish towel wearing fatso, al-Sadr, who had the audacity to lead a demonstration of hundreds of thousands of his followers against Israel. Amazing, that the most evil people on earth have the nerve to criticize and demonstrate against Israel.

The above suggestions are not satirical. Not at all, although many leftists and liberals are probably more angry with this writer than with the evildoers. That is par for the course.

Yet, this is how we can win the war on terrorism. When Ahmadinajad and friends see what could eventually be in store for them, their rhetoric and ideas will certainly change. That type of public embarrassment is a fate worse than any torture and death to that mindset.

The key to winning in Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, et al is to totally destroy their nation's dignity publicly. This includes embarrassing their families, their history, their leaders--all with truths. In fact, that is why the entire Arab and Muslim world is angry with Israel.

I mean, why does Malaysia, Indonesia and Kuwait hate Israel and refuse diplomatic relations or trade? Israel does not "occupy" one square inch of their land. If it really was the Palestinians, how come not one word was said against King Hussein of Jordan who massacred the Palestinians and threw the remainder of them out of his country in what has become known as Black September of 1971.

The simple answer is that the entire Muslim world is angry with tiny little Israel because this rag tag bunch of ex-Yeshiva boys totally humiliated every single Arab and Muslim nation by building a gorgeous, successful country in the Middle East from sand dunes, produced one of the most incredible scientific and technological societies in the world, and then had the audacity to decimate any Arab/Muslim country that attempted to destroy them. Talk about humiliation!

And the Saudis, even with all of their oil money, are still humping camels in the desert. Check out Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Egypt, et al--all third world countries that have not developed to any modern extent. Can we blame them for hating Israel so much? How dare those arrogant little Jews embarrass a billion Muslims!

These are real answers to winning the war against terrorism, about which every single Western democracy should be concerned. If we do not begin to respond to their evil rhetoric, we will have to respond to their evil nuclear weapons. Only then, it will be a little late. And by the way, I think Mr. Nasrallah has an orgy with 72 virgins in his near future--so do not accept any invitations for a victory dinner party at his home.

Irwin N. Graulich is a motivational speaker on morality, ethics, religion and politics. He is also President and CEO of a marketing, branding and communications company in New Yoqrk City. He can be reached at irwin.graulich@verizon.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, August 18, 2006.

This was written by Aaron Lerner, who is Director of Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA). Contact IMRA at imra@netvision.net.il go to the website: http://www.imra.org.il

A generation of proponents of Israeli concessions assured the Israeli public that if things didn't pan out that the IDF could always cover the mistake in judgment at a relatively low cost.

Israel's perceived weakness in the last war fundamentally changes all that.

I say "perceived weakness" because the outcome of the war reflected mostly the incompetence of the civilian decision makers rather than any crippling faults in the military. Yes - there were problem in the IDF, but the most part, the IDF soldiers and field commanders, through a combination of initiative and bravery, were able to perform well despite the failings of the IDF technocrats and planners. The problem wasn't with the IDF "machine" but with the machine's indecisive civilian operators who, as Maj. Gen. Benjamin Gantz, commander of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Army Headquarters put it, took a promising "bullet train" battle plan and turned it into "an urban bus with several stops.,

Thanks to the perceived weakness, Israel can no longer be expected to take reckless so-called "risks for peace".

Israel can no longer be expected to risk handing over the control of territory to terror groups promising to be on good behavior.

Israel can no longer be expected to risk ignoring the build up of illegal weapons within its security envelope. An envelope that still includes the Gaza Strip as well as the West Bank.

Israel can no longer be expected to risk relying on inevitably ineffective third parties to supervise border points on its security envelope.

By the same token, Israel can no longer be expected to take the huge risk of withdrawing from the Golan Heights in a "land for piece of paper" swap.

Israel's perceived weakness can also be used to justify changes in its policy towards Arab human shields, what with the potentially devastating consequences if Israel, in the course of respecting human shields, were to be perceived again as weak.

Israel's perceived weakness can also be tapped to justify a freeze on action against the outposts. The post war IDF arguably simply cannot afford to divert or compromise the vital resources in needs to defend the State just to rip Jews out of their homes.

Yes. It is hardly pleasant to hear out enemies call us weak. But that doesn't mean we cannot exploit it to our advantage.

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Christopher Barder, August 18, 2006.

After two weeks away from the UK and reading the New York Times and
Boston Globe, I have returned to find some emails missing and a lot of the potential provided by tragically essential warfare, squandered.

Early on it was obvious that a full-scale land offensive was necessary to find Hizballah and to flush them out. It was also clear that aerial advantages had to be used to the full and provide every kind of protection for tanks and men in a close support role as well as a fully-fledged 'softening up' aspect. According to hopefully misleading media reports, Israel was surprised by enemy resistance levels. Or these reports were not mere disinformation and there was an Israeli intelligence failure. If however Israel knew what to expect, then its tactics did not use surprise and 'shock and awe' sufficiently.

What was also declared was that Hizballah was surprised by Israel's forceful response. Either that is disinformation or the Israeli deterrence level was very low. Punishment for kidnap and murder should, after all, be expected. Yet the Hamas-Hizballah axis meant a two front 'low intensity' war, avoidance of which was part of the reasoning for the cession of Sinai. Toleration of Hamas's election result by the EU and others, and the acceptance of the arms and man-power build-up under the yellow flag looming over Rosh Hanikra by the Lebanese government and by Israel meant strategic position and diplomatic capability were being lost progressively by Israel and for that matter by any right thinking personnel in the US; which latter gave way for no gain to the immoral pressure for a cease-fire.

Instead of no cessation until the kidnapped were returned, and the condition had to be alive, we now have rumours of trade-offs, massive moral equivalence emanating from a hostile to Israel UN Secretary-General, and diplomatic phrasing turning treatment of terror organisation Hizballah into the equivalent of a high contracting party to international treaties as if its state-within-a-state presence were not illegal but normative and merited full diplomatic and political status or at least that of a government representative, which, of course, to no small extent it is.

War aims of the return of the kidnapped and the destruction of terror organisations, themselves totally justifiable especially, in the context of constant civilian population bombardment now appear to have been bent and twisted to create a kind of non-peace for a short while, as if Israel has to buy this by military action and at the cost of lives and its economy. So much for withdrawal and the slur and injury to the SLA and its forces and so much for the UN and EU and the rest: constant attacks on Israel count for nothing and so does Israel's right to defend itself however often the US administration and perhaps occasionally although not in Europe Mr. Blair may mouth these platitudes.

Unless Israel goes to war, nobody else cares within the 'international community' about its civilian suffering and when it goes to war it is unwilling either to adopt the timing and tactics necessary and (perhaps for this reason) is unable diplomatically to finish an essential job. And thence militarily is left exposed without clear-cut victory because of weakness or fear or what among the political echelon. Reparations for Israel? Who discusses them seriously?

The figures for Lebanese casualties seem also to play out not at all justly on the international circuit. Who knows a civilian from a terrorist? Who knows who was what kind of casualty? Hozballah have boasted to the media that after fighting they change from their fatigues and become unrecognisable. And where is the condemnation for the use of human shields rather than for those trying to defend their children by having to attack their aggressor? For years, including those in the 'age of peace' created by the Oslo accords, the Palestinian Arabs have targeted Jewish children. The Israelis and their 'purity of arms' doctrine, from the 1980s to Jenin, and including all contemporary orders, have assiduously avoided, and apologised for, any civilian and child deaths. Yet there is no serious moral outrage and diplomatic damage done to those who deliberately target women and chlildren and put up theirs in the front line in the worst of danger, in some hideous inversion of the Western standard of safety rules demanding 'women and children first' in escape procedures.

When Winston Churchill demanded he be given the tools to finish the job he did not aim for anything less than total victory over grotesque evil. Shamefully the West, including the Bush government, has willed into being far less than such a victory in the 'war on terror'. My concern is that Israel has agreed to be forced into exactly the same compromise and the clarion fanfare of Nasrallah's supporters and those 'elected' terrorists, Hamas bear witness to this. The undermining of Israel's abilities in the Arab propaganda on these matters is echoed by the vitriol in the Western media.

My concern is that all Israel's supporters make it clear that terror must not be allowed to survive because when it does so, it claims and is proclaimed victorious, however militarily damaged and weakened it may be. President Bush showed considerable cheek when he proclaimed Israel victorious. The rest of us can only hope and wrestle with our doubts -- and with the Arab and Western media determination he shall be wrong and Israel also.

Christopher Barder is the author of Oslo's Gift Of "Peace":The Destruction Of Israel's Security. He has published in the Jerusalem Institute for Western Defence, The Maccabean, Outpost, Nativ and the Arial Center. Barder is also a member of the Advisory Board of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies
(www.freeman.org/serendipity/index.php?/archives/ 320-WHY-AM-I-VERY-CONCERNED.html#extended), where this article appeared yesterday.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 18, 2006.


Israel may defeat the forces of Hizbullah, but not the force of jihad. First, it let itself be barraged by missiles, without strong counter-measures. This showed its enemies that its population is vulnerable. Its enemies now smell blood.

The welling up of warfare should have been foreseen. It follows every Israeli withdrawal. Nevertheless, the rulers of Israel placed a blind faith in withdrawal. They ignored warnings of the missiles Hizbullah had been accumulating.

They also had a misplaced, blind faith in the efficacy of air power. The Air Force, however, was not provided by intelligence agencies with a proper list of targets, just as the people were not apprised of the risks they faced. Caught unprepared, the people reacted less favorably (but with more courage than when Saddam attacked). When Israel reacted, it left the main opponents, such as Syria, unpunished (lost the rest of the article).


After Israeli troops withdrew from Gaza, in July, they returned in force. The P.A. and its media cried that Israel was using internationally banned weapons, such as nail-laden bombs. That is as unproved and defamatory as past P.A. claims that Israel uses ray guns and radioactive weapons (Michael Widlanski in IMRA, 7/19).

It also is hypocritical. P.A. terrorists put nails into their bombs. The Arabs always accuse enemies of doing what the Arabs do. Disregard or expose their claims!

Are ray guns banned? I don't think they were invented yet. If the West understood the Zionist principle of "purity of arms," it would scoff at the charges. MEANWHILE, P.A. CIVIL STRIFE CONTINUES

Masked gunmen killed a guard at a house they were trying to blow up. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights "calls upon the Palestinian National Authority, represented by the Attorney-General, to investigate these crimes, and to bring the perpetrators to justice." (IMRA, 7/19).

It has made that call many times. There is no indication it ever is heeded.


Peretz, who is also the chairman of the Labor Party, said he was proud that in Gaza a soldier told him that he did not fire at a terrorist armed with a launcher "because the terrorist was holding the hand of child." "These aren't hostages being held by the terrorists. These are people who are fully aware of the situation and yet have decided to remain and shield the terrorists from Israeli attack." (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 7/20.)


Hizbullah is more than a terrorist organization. It has a well-trained and supplied army, acting without restraint. It would do whatever it can and whatever its masters in Iran order it to. Fighting it is a strategic decision by Israel, for Hizbullah is Iran's first line of defense (IMRA, 7/19) and offense.


Israel's "most decorated soldier," PM Barak, had pulled the IDF out of southern Lebanon. Northern Israel became subject to rocket attacks by Hizbullah, but the warfare no longer was daily. The Left short-sightedly called that retreat a successful model for withdrawal from Gaza and from Lebanon. PM Olmert called the retreat from Gaza a successful model for withdrawal from Judea-Samaria.

Now Israel is back to daily warfare in both, because it withdrew, leaving the terrorists free to build up their forces (Prof. Steven Plaut, 7/19).

Olmert and other leftists were criminally negligent. The NY Times' authoritative sounding editorials, did not warn against the folly of the retreats.


PM Olmert telephoned condolences and support to the Arab mayor of Nazareth, which was bombed by Hizbullah. The Mayor refused to say anything against Hizbullah. All he would demand is that his Israeli government make peace (IMRA, 7/19). His loyalty?


Many Arab countries would rather make money than fight Israel. They are more worried about Iran, which threatens them, than about Israel, which does not. The Sunnis are afraid of a Shiite axis, including Iran, Iraq, and Syria, with large Shiite minorities in some Gulf States. The King of Jordan keeps criticizing Israel, but he has expressed alarm about the Shiites, organizing for dominance (Michael Rubin, MEF News, 7/19).


HRW said that the Hizbullah rocket attack against Israeli civilian areas violated international law and probably was a war crime (IMRA, 7/19).

Only probably? Yes, HRW explains that the attack may have been indiscriminate rather than deliberate targeting of an Israeli city. At least HRW finally condemned the terrorists.


On July 19, the IDF released this report of its targets:

"In the past 24 hours the Hezbollah terror organization launched over 140 missiles into Israel, killing two children and wounding dozens of civilians.

Also in the past 24 hours, the IDF carried out aerial attacks against over 200 terror targets in Lebanon. Among the targets attacked:

14 Hezbollah structures and command posts across Lebanon.
10 Hezbollah vehicles transporting weapons.
8 rocket launchers and suspected rocket launching pads.
Hezbollah communications infrastructure.
14 Hezbollah weapons depots.
46 access routes and 2 bridges, targeted to prevent Hezbollah terrorists from reaching rocket launching sites.
IDF naval ships attacked a Hezbollah structure and rocket launching location in southern Lebanon.
The IDF continues to fire artillery at launch sites in Lebanon.

Since July 13th, the IDF has targeted over 200 Katyusha rocket launching sites in Lebanon." (IMRA.)

The NY Times and London newspapers report Lebanese casualties but, as far as I can see, do not use these IDF releases to indicate the military nature of Israeli targeting. The newspapers leave a false impression, the impression that the London newspapers cultivate in their implied indignation against Israeli forcefulness, of wanton destruction and disregard for civilians. The disregard for civilians by the terrorists, who position themselves in civilian areas, rarely gets notice in the Times.


Military analysts, civilian and military, thought Hizbullah chief Nasrallah a force for stability. He had not made many attacks. They thought he had acclimated himself to the status quo. They assumed that conditions would not change. They were mistaken (admission by correspondent Aluf Benn in IMRA, 7/20).


The Lebanese Army had threatened to join with Hizbullah, if Israel invaded southern Lebanon (IMRA, 7/20).

Hamas has intensified its fighting in Gaza, possibly to divert Israel's effort from Lebanon. It has used P.A. police buildings in Gaza as refuges, possibly to undermine Fatah control over those police. The IDF believes that the police chiefs do not want them there. Israeli forces have surrounded the buildings and demanded that the wanted terrorists surrender. Some did. A few opened fire upon the Israelis, and were killed (IMRA, 7/20).

Nevertheless, people of note still propose, despite years of violations of those terms in peace agreements, that the P.A. and the Lebanese Army disarm the terrorist militias. How much Arab violation does it take for those people of note to realize that infidels cannot rely upon the Arabs?

Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, August 18, 2006.

More from Aaron Lerner's list. Where are our priorities? We must get rid of the people in power and change direction if we are going to survive. I mean it.

Aaron Lerner is Director of Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA). Contact IMRA at imra@netvision.net.il go to the website: http://www.imra.org.il

This is called "Army Threatens to Destroy Soldiers┤ Homes." It was written by Hillel Fendel Thursday and it appeared yesterday on Arutz-7 Radio

The bureaucracy rolls on. With its residents still in Lebanon under emergency call-up orders, the Yesha town of MaalehRehavam learned that officials were headed to post eviction orders on its doors.

Families in Maaleh Rehavam - a small outpost community in eastern Gush Etzion - were surprised to note this morning that Civil Administration officials were on their way to post eviction orders on their homes. Of the 30 residents, including five families, five are in Lebanon after having been called up on emergency basis this past month, and two others are in the standing army.

Some town officials believe that the army wished to take advantage of the situation in which a quarter of the men were away to give out the notices.

"It is shocking to think," town secretary Moriah Halamish said, "that with war happening on two fronts, north and south, the defense establishment finds the time to give out these orders. The State is taking advantage of the fact that our men were drafted to war in order to fulfill this new expulsion decree. Good citizens go off to fight with emergency orders, and are then forced to return to receive a slap in the face in the form of an eviction notice on their doors."

Others feel the truth is more mundane: "The bureaucracy has a calendar and a schedule, and no one thinks whether now is a good time to do it or not; it just gets done." So says Nadia Matar, co-chairperson of Women in Green, a grassroots Land of Israel organization. "The previous orders expired," she said, "and they have to be renewed, and that's it. There's no consideration as to whether right now, with people still on the front lines in Lebanon, it might not be a good idea to go ahead with destroying Jewish homes."

Postponed for a Week

In the event, Maaleh Rehavam's secretary Moriah told Arutz-7 this afternoon, "We were informed later today that the 'mission' has been put on hold. I believe this is largely due to the press coverage by Arutz-7... Zambish [Yesha leader Ze'ev Chever] called the Civil Administration, and they said they're sorry, they didn't realize, and they will postpone giving us our eviction notices for another week. But we will not rest; there is no reason for our homes to be destroyed."

Maaleh Rehavam is a mixed religious-secular community, home to five families and several singles. Residents lived in caravans for the first two years after its founding, and three permanent homes have been built in recent years. It overlooks the Judean Desert, the Herodion, Tekoa and Nokdim, home to MK Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beiteinu). The community is an eight-minute drive from Jerusalem, but the residents must now drive almost an hour due to the government's refusal to open a newly paved road.

The community is not illegal - but neither has it been officially approved, and for this reason, the government says it plans to destroy it, in keeping with its promise to the US to raze all "unauthorized" outposts. The radical left-wing Peace Now organization has filed a court suit, demanding to know why the government has not yet implemented the demolition orders it issued regarding Maaleh Rehavam and other small communities throughout Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Demanding an Apology

The people of Maaleh Rehavam recently demanded an apology from the Maariv newspaper for writing that their community is illegally located on private Arab property. "This article presents us as land thieves," a letter from the town's secretary states. "If a serious investigation had been done, as could be expected from a newspaper of your level, you would have found that the neighborhood is [a part of] the town of Nokdim, is totally located on state lands, and that the residents were even allocated land for planting and grazing. The neighborhood is in the process of being approved."

This was not the only time the Maariv newspaper has exposed itself to criticism of being anti-Yesha. Earlier this week it publicized a listing of cities and towns in which the soldiers killed in Lebanon had lived. However, though the chart listed the names of dozens of towns and cities, it concealed the disproportionately large role played by the towns of Judea, Samaria and Gaza by hiding them in the "others" column.

Ronen Tzafrir, of the non-religious pro-Land of Israel Nahalal Forum, had strong criticism of Maariv. "When there is something positive to say about this fantastic public," he said, "which educates towards heroism, sacrifice and love of land, suddenly Maariv forgets the word 'settlements.'"

Tzafrir called upon the public to boycott Maariv.

In fact, nearly 10% of the 117 soldiers who were killed in the five weeks of fighting in Lebanon were from towns in Yesha (Judea and Samaria) - almost twice as much as their proportionate numbers in the population. Their names:

Lt.-Col. Ro'i Klein, 31, of Eli
Lt. Amichai Merchavia, 24, Eli
Sgt. Gilad Zissman, 26, from Eli
Staff-Sgt. Yehuda Greenfeld, 27, from Maaleh Michmas
St.-Sgt. Philip Mosko, 21, Maaleh Adumim
Sgt. Yigal Nissan, 19, Maaleh Adumim
Sgt. Bnayah Rein, 27, Karnei Shomron
Sgt. Amasa Meshulami, 20, Ofrah Corp.
Ohad Kleisner, 20, of Beit Horon
St.-Sgt. Yotam Gilboa, 21, of Kibbutz Maoz Chaim in the Jordan Valley
Sgt. Gai Hason, 24, Naamah

Naomi Ragen is an American-born novelist and journalist who lives in Jerusalem. She can be contacted at www.naomiragen.com, where you can subscribe to her newsletter.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 18, 2006.

This comes from The Peoples Cube website:

It has wonderful satirical articles and graphics.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Cal Thomas, August 17, 2006.

During the Cold War, American intelligence loved getting its hands on defectors from communism. The reasoning was that these people had the best information about the plans of the other side, information that would help America defeat them.

In the present war against what President Bush has properly labeled "Islamic fascism," defectors are just as valuable.

The Israel Project, an international nonprofit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel, recently made a former leading imam and radical Islam expert available for media interviews and I had a chance to speak with him. He goes by the name of Sam Soloman because of death threats from those not happy with the information he has about their plans to dominate the world.

Soloman was brought up in the Islamic tradition and became a "recruiter," which he says is something like an assistant teacher. One of his responsibilities was "brainwashing people in the Koran." He tells me "The suicide bombers go through stages, and the most important stage is not when they blow themselves up. The most important stage is conforming them to the (Muslim) ideology. Once they are conformed to the ideology, the rest is easy. That is the role I had."

Soloman is in double trouble. Not only did he abandon Islam and the terrorists' objectives, he has also become a Christian, which has marked him for death. Born in the Middle East, he visited Washington from his adopted country, which he declines to name to protect his family.

Soloman speaks with knowledge, credibility and conviction. He has memorized large sections of the Koran and tells me, "There's not a single verse in the Koran talking about peace with a non-Muslim, with the Jews and the Christians. Islam means submission. Islam means surrender. It means you surrender and accept Islamic hegemony over yourselves..."

I ask him about the best strategy for fighting it: "It cannot be combated simply by force. It needs to be combated ideologically, spiritually (as well as) through arms."

Soloman says the outlets for Islamic ideology are religious -- seminaries, the madrassas (Koranic schools) and especially the mosques. "From the beginning, Mohammed used the mosque to propagate this ideology. It was in the mosque that jihad was declared (and) that troops were sent to conquer the rest of the world. The mosque was the seat of government and Americans are right to be concerned about (their growth)."

He asks Americans to inform themselves about the real teachings of Islam and not to fall for what various Islamic groups say it teaches. Soloman says, "The simplest Islamic book you open" teaches that all unbelievers (in Islam) are profane people. "Because of the (Koranic) text and what it says, it incites violence." He begins quoting verses from memory, too quickly to write them all down. One is, "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush." (Surah 9:5)

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

"This kind of tactic of taking verses out of context can be used against any religious faith," says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic civil rights and advocacy group. "It can and has been used against the Bible and has been used against the Quran."

"These verses deal with the real experience of the Muslim community at the time when they were under attack. It's not a general injunction to go out and harm people. The only people who take it that way are those who want to promote hostility toward Islam and Muslims. They would object if the same thing were done to their faith."

Yes, but virtually all Christians and Jews denounce the infinitesimal few who claim to be Jewish or Christian and use their "holy books" to justify violence against others as a direct command from G-d.

Asked whether the Koran commands the killing of or violence against all nonbelievers, Ali Khan, national director of the Chicago-based American Muslim Council, replied: "No. (That's) far from the truth. There's nothing in the Koran, no verse that I'm aware of, that advocates the killing of nonbelievers."

The terrorists and those who preach from mosques throughout the Middle East must be reading a different version, then, because virtually all of their sermons that I've read claim their G-d wants them to kill all "infidels."

Soloman says Americans must demand from the leading Islamic hierarchy, such as the Muslim World League and the Union of Imams, a fatwa that makes it clear "that this is not what the text means and that these texts are no longer effective. They have passed their date. But if they remain effective and eternally valid, then in America we have a serious problem."

How serious? He says. "They are infiltrating and undermining every part of this society. We are promoting Islamic mortgages, Islamic insurance companies. There are 29 banks in the United States promoting Islamic banking. Since 1999, Dow Jones has launched Dow Jones Islamic Index and has subjected itself to be governed by an international Sharia board." (Sharia is the religious law of Islam outlined in the Koran.)

Soloman adds, "The Islamic organizations have their missionaries and there are active or sleeping cells in this country." He mentions one, Tablighi Jamaat, "a Pakistani organization that is hand-in-glove with the Wahaabis, strong Muslim sects known for their strict observance of the Koran, and a strong facilitator of al-Qaida and other factions of terrorism. They alone have 1,000 missionaries in New York, 50,000 across the United States. This is only one organization. In 1994, I took a map and started putting pins in it. I found there is not a single state without a mosque. Since then (the number) has increased."

Americans must see past their natural reluctance to paint all members of a group with a broad brush and realize our failure to act now against this clear and present danger in the ways Sam Soloman recommends will lead to a disaster for us that is far worse than our Cold War enemies had envisaged.

This appeared on the Townhall website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Laurence Uniglicht, August 17, 2006.

No doubt, the bar is set at a stratospheric level for Israel, most observers expecting its war machine to crush any Arab enemy. Conversely, the bar is set so low for Hizbullah, all the fanatical jihadists had to do was not trip over it, indeed survive juggernaut Israel's onslaught in the minds of most observers. Sadly Hizbullah was not crushed, it did survive, although much of its deadly weaponry, especially its substantial cache of Iranian provided missiles and launchers, was obliterated by the IDF. Alas, Israel did not secure the release of its kidnapped soldiers, and that is terrible. Israel lost many lives, both in the military and civilian sector, in fact suffered many casualties and much property damage, and that is also terrible. Israel received a worldwide black eye to its image for destroying much Lebanese infrastructure, as well as causing the deaths of many Lebanese civilians; that too is terrible; but what other choice was there? Hizbullah deliberately and immorally mixed its troops and deadly weapons within civilian populations; thus (presumably) innocent Arab men, women, and children would likely be injured or killed, even though the IDF did everything humanly possible to hit only Hizbullah targets. Yet, Hizbullah won that despicable propaganda war, as much of the world only blamed Israel and not cowardly maniacal Hizbullah for such devastation, absorbing anti-Israel photos and descriptions, many doctored, by so many media outlets with no sense of fairness. But, did Israel lose the war against Hizbullah?

Hizbullah's military force is being replaced by other Lebanese troops as well as an international military coalition, within southern Lebanon, abutting Israel's northern border, in effect nullifying the terrorist threat to Israel posed by those jihad junkies. Northern Israeli citizens can begin to breathe a sigh of relief, Warren Buffet's substantial investment in an Israeli manufacturing concern within the Golan Heights, for one, can once again begin to earn profits as the Israeli economic dynamo is safe to resume operations, reservists can return to civilian life, and the Jewish State, in general, can once again flourish without fear of Katyusha rockets landing in civilian enclaves. All this is not exactly chopped liver. Furthermore, Iran's diversionary war now in remission, worldwide eyes, minds, and demands can return to proper focus, hopefully thwarting the maniacal Persian upstart's nuclear ambitions. Let ego-deflated Arabs, grasping at any perceived reason to relieve a perpetual state of humiliation, dance in the streets, eat sweets, and sip tea, as if all this will improve their non-productive lives. Israel is in the process of regrouping, contemplating facts on the ground, and will continue to kick high-tech economic butt while surrounding raw material Muslim economies, populated in large part by dysfunctional citizenry, besot with the disease of anti-Semitism, continue to languish. Now, did Israel really lose the war against Hizbullah?

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, August 17, 2006.

Israel's current Defense Minister Amir Peretz has assembled a mix of retired military officers and businessmen - supposedly known for their analytical abilities - to investigate Israel's ignominious loss in Lebanon to a relatively small number of Hezb'Allah terrorists. Hezb'Allah is guided by Hasan Nasrallah, a non-military man - himself advised, armed and funded by Syria and Iran. Expect a lengthy investigation designed to make the people forget and then whatever penalties are assessed will also disappear into that void of 'cover-up'.

Regrettably, given past investigations, I do not have much hope for a hard look by any official committee appointed by the Israeli government in their desperate need to explain Israel's loss.

Once Israel was known as the most fierce of armies, capable of superior performance on the ground, in the air, in the sea and especially with her incomparable intelligence. But, much of her superb capabilities were swept away by a host of politically-driven reasons that weakened this once great army.

The IDF was "taught" to evict Jews from their homes instead of being trained to fight her self-declared hostile neighbors.

Clearly, Olmert interfered and subverted Israel's military planning as if he was personally acting in the interests of Hezb'Allah and Hamas.

Throughout the many wars which Israel was forced to fight, the influence of the world's nations played a role of growing significance on the outcome of each war. In each war that Israel succeeded in winning, B'SD (with the help of Heaven), major powers stepped in and forced Israel to surrender her victory and withdraw to indefensible lines.

Unlike the Allies of WW2, Israel was never allowed to demand a full surrender of the attacking Arab Muslim armies, rightfully insisting on a negotiated peace. It seemed important to the nations who had commercial ties with such nations as Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf oil nations to not lose their vaunted Pride and Shame for having lost in battle to those Jews whom they thought were so lowly.

Israel was forced to accept 'diktats' from both her friends (America) and such enemies as the then Soviet Union, China, and other nation states as embodied in the United Nations.

Israel was not only a friend of her American allies but she knew she had to listen to a great Superpower who supplied military aid, cooperation in weapons' development and a backup in the face of hostile world governments. With those elements at stake, when you are told to restrain your country's response to deadly Arab Muslim attacks, you generally do what you are told. Once taught restraint, a country becomes reluctant to fight full out. In effect, you learn or are taught to lose - a failing which is mostly driven by weak politicians - especially when former generals become the ruling politicians.

Israel was not America's vassal state but she could not fight wars with successful pre-emptive tactics lest she infuriate the oil-producing Arab and Muslim nations of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Dubai, Egypt, etc. who were considered allies of America and her oil multinational companies.

Israel was like a small marble, rolling around among the big balls of a billiard table.

Israel's politicians and military knew that she must seek approval, first of her American friends before taking any action. Many examples demonstrate Israel's learning these lessons of defeat following victory.

Israel was given strict orders not to eliminate Yassir Arafat, the Master Assassin Terrorist, lest the Muslim world would become angry and attack interests in the Western Free World.

Israel watched Hezb'Allah build a veritable underground city fortress just across her northern border with Lebanon which was loaded with missiles and armaments, paid for and shipped by Syria and Iran. Ariel Sharon, the once great warrior general, could not attack these fortified positions lest it weaken the Lebanese government which barely existed - except as a false front for Syria and Iran. Lebanon's Army consists of Hezb'Allah and Syrian officers running a State within a State.

Israel was not allowed to attack Lebanon's southern front and, when she did, this incursion was conducted by inexperienced and frightened politicians with one eye on America's opinions and directions - with the other eye on possible Israeli casualties which would anger the voters who would then throw them out of office.

Then there were the PC, Politically Correct generals like Dan Halutz, Shaul Mofaz, and Moshe Kaplinsky and others, whose primary goals were to elevate their own status and negotiate additional military aid from our only ally (America) who had to be kept happy.

Strangely, by teaching Israel obedience and restraint, they took away her spontaneity and fighting spirit. When the U.S. counted on Israel's Army to destroy Hezb'Allah, they instead found an Army that had skimped on training for war, guided by a Prime Minister whose only thought was to abandon Gush Katif/Gaza, followed by the abandonment of Judea and Samaria. Olmert and the other amateur - Defense Minister Peretz - failed their obligations, resulting in too many Israelis being killed fighting an enemy whom they were not trained to fight.

We Americans were surprised and disappointed at Israel's poor performance at the top command level, forgetting the years when they (the Americans) demanded restraint.

Investigating today's Israeli military failure to succeed in defeating a small number of well-armed terrorists should match the most flagrant cover-up to date. Does anyone believe that Olmert-Peretz-Peres-Livni-Halutz will allow full disclosure, resulting in their dismissals?

The degradation of Israel's ruling clique of elites has been going on so long that even when caught red-handed in a host of crooked affairs, the people elect them again. They listen to speeches by corrupt politicians, knowing they are liars and pretend that they just heard a brilliant set of opinions.

What's wrong with the Israeli/Jewish people? Are we so wedded to stupidity that we cannot tell the difference between people with integrity and those who ride on slogans?

If Israel is to survive, her government and many of her political generals must simply be thrown out of office.

Let's find the rebels whom Sharon and Olmert threw out of the government, because they dared to say that abandoning Gush Katif/Gaza was a bad plan whose only beneficiaries would be Hamas in Israel's south and then Hezb'Allah in her north.

Israel must be de-programmed from losing so our friends will be pleased. Perhaps as Terror expands globally, America will realize that weakening Israel has NOT been in the best interests for America's safety.

Now we see the forecasted mix of global terrorists, claiming their "rights" in Europe and America, expecting compliance because their population numbers are reaching "critical mass". Israel's weak Supreme Court once made it illegal to display any sign reading: "No Muslims No Terror".

I wonder if, after the next 9/11, will we see mass deportation of Muslims to their country of origin and/or to a place where they can find acceptance of a Global Caliphate run on Shariah laws according to Fundamentalist Islamic Jihad.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at winstonmedia@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 17, 2006.


Last night we attended the Zionist Organization of America meeting and listened to irritating and rather shocking updates on Israel's government actions, the situation in Israel in general and our State department actions, which brought about our suggestion to write to President Bush and Madam C. Rice. Please join Batya Dagan and our in our -- speaks for itself -- petition messages below. Or write your own. BUT MAKE IT STRONG.

White House: president@whitehouse.gov
White House e-mail: comments@whitehouse.gov
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
Fax: 202-456-2461
Comments: 202-456-6213
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: comments@whitehouse.gov

Mister President

You finally allowed the enemy of Israel CONDOLIZA RICE to kick Israel while she is down. And kicked she did.

She forced Bolton to accept a cease-fire resolution that dogs will not accept let alone a country fighting for her survival.

You committed a crime against Israel.

A Christian. An evangelical Christian.

You are helping Muslims-ARABS, IRANIANS, to destroy the country that gave you JESUS.

We are crestfallen and dumbstruck.

We are devastated.

You crossed over to the enemy side.

Your war on terror no longer exists.

You just gave Israel to HEZBOLLA.

The only country that fought terror is now a victim of your terror on her.

How unfortunate that Israel has a loser for a PM who speaks loudly and carries no stick

Frankly, you and Olmert are the same.

The world is in a terrible shape because of the two of you.

Rice is working on behalf of our MUTUAL enemies


She is a disaster to all of us, TO THE ENTIRE FREE WORLD.

What did we ever do to cause you to abandon Israel, THROW HER TO THE DOGS?


batya dagan
Los Angeles, California


August 16, 2006
To: President George Bush

Dear President Bush,

For unknown reasons and against all her empty statements, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pushed for unmerited ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon that holds no validity. In fact emboldened the entire Islamo-Fascist world to strike Israel and the USA faster and harder.

John Bolton was forced to draft and make Israel accept ceasefire resolution NO sovereign country would have accepted, let alone could live by or simply survive along its stipulations.

On many levels, the US State Department forced Israel to sign a suicidal note. This suicidal note includes Christians, Druze, Bahai, Armenian, and all other sects living freely in Israel, all want to be left alone to live peacefully!

By the US State Department forcing Israel to sign this ceasefire, in any and all ways possible, you are helping the Islamo-fascists Muslims-ARABS and the Iranians to destroy the world's Jewish and Christian Center, Israel.

This ceasefire left all those who support Israel speechless and flabbergasted! We are all devastated. You just gave Israel to Hezbollah.

Have you crossed over to the enemy side? Does your war on terror no longer exist? Have you abandoned Israel?

Israel is the only country that -- shoulder-to-shoulder with the USA -- on its home front line is fighting terror. By this ceasefire it was made a victim of USA much questionable actions as well as the Islamo-Fascists terrorists.

It is unfortunate that Israel has a lost case leadership but the USA should have not taken advantage of this unfortunate Israeli government lead by its PM who speaks loud and carries no stick!

You ended to be like Olmert. Over and over again you promised us that there would be ONLY ONE U.N Resolution that will have teeth and will guarantee that there will be forever peace on Israel's northern border! Where is this promise?

With this ceasefire the US State Department has set us ALL back in the fight against terror. It has put the entire free world is worst predicament and jeopardized our wining cards. What were you all thinking or not thinking when you imposed this ceasefire on Israel?

Sec. Rice did not do her job and ended up appeasing Israel and the USA mutual enemy. Amazingly and for unjustified reasons you allowed her these actions.

Sec. Rice actions will end up disastrous to the entire free world.

Time for immediate actions: the immediate release of the three Israeli captured soldiers, Shabba Farms is not negotiable and off the table, there will be no release of any Islamo-fascist terrorists locked in Israel prisons for crime against humanity, and no matter what is the excuse of all the nations that were so very quick to see Israel sign thsi ceasefire, Hezbollah MUST be disarmed, or the Islamo-Fascist world has made mockery of and is laughing at the USA along with Israel.

Do the right thing.


Nurit Greenger
Los Angeles California

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Frankfurter, August 17, 2006.
Dear Friends,

The northern border has been quiet since the cease fire with Hezbollah came into force Monday morning. People are beginning to return to their homes on both sides of the border. And now the clean-up begins.

It is a sobering thought that the damage in Lebanon was a totally predictable outcome of that nation's deliberate flaunting of UN resolutions demanding that it take control of its own territory and disarm the terrorists that were usurping it. Instead, it invited those same terrorists to join its government. Worse, it condoned and encouraged the war crimes of launching attacks against civilians in a neighbouring sovereign state and the use of its own citizens and civilian areas as human shields.

Lebanese infrastructure and many private homes - including those used as weapons facilities and rocket launching pads - will need repair. Iran has stepped up to the plate, and the Hezbollah will once again be its proxy. Europe, concerned about the positive image Hezbollah will gain was quick to announce that they will set aside hundreds of millions in humanitarian aid, which it is channeling through charitable agencies, the UN and the Lebanese government.

All in all, though, the message for those who survived will be that the war was not so bad for Lebanon. Israel got the message, and Lebanon gets lots of new infrastructure houses, and even furniture. All courtesy of international donors.

In all this, however, where is Israel? The international community seems to have completely ignored the affect on ordinary Israeli citizens of the month of war, in which they were the direct and sole targets of Hezbollah's war crimes. Which international charity or donor has come forward to offer even a token?

If you are surprised by the question, consider the extent that your media reported the damage to Israel. Did you know that 500,000 Israelis fled their homes in the north, and that the rest were forced to spend long hours in bomb shelters? Have you heard of the stream of refugees returning to their homes in Israel's north, to confront their damaged houses, destroyed businesses, lost sales. The international coverage has been almost completely focused on Lebanon. Here, though, are the statistics for Israel.

Hezbollah rockets landing in Israel -- 4,000
Israeli civilians displaced by the war -- 500,000
Israelis killed -- 157
Israelis injured -- 5,000
Israeli civilians treated for shock and distress -- 1,300
Israeli Buildings destroyed -- 12,000
Israeli Trees destroyed -- 750,000
Financial cost of the war and related damage in Israel NIS 25 b
Of this: military budget -- NIS 7 b

One of the reasons that the media did not cover the story is that Israel moved its civilians out of danger to the extent possible. All around the country not only did people take in friends and relatives, but also complete strangers. The stories are many and heartwarming. The stark contrast on the other side of the border, where civilians were used as human shields, and in some cases even physically prevented at gunpoint from fleeing is clear.

Of course, as is the case in the Palestinian Authority, international aid will be interpreted as tacit support for the war crimes that created the humanitarian disaster. And Israel will be left to cope on its own.

David Frankfurter is a business consultant, corporate executive and writer who frequently comments on the Middle East. To subscribe to his 'Letter from Israel', email him at david.frankfurter@iname.com. Or go to http://www.livejournal.com/users/dfrankfurter/

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 17, 2006.

Pictures of some Hezbollah equipment and maps by which they followed on the IDF manouvers during the war, all found by IDF in bunkers AND apartments in South Lebanon.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, August 17, 2006.

The article below was written by Caroline Glick and appeared in the Jerusalem Post on August 15, 2006.

Just before the ceasefire last Monday, foreign television crews interviewed some Israeli reservists about their reactions to the war. The general feeling they expressed was one of extreme disappointment:

"It was a waste of time. We didn't get our soldiers back. Hizbullah still has its weapons. A lot of our guys got killed. We stopped everything in the middle."

The opinions of these soldiers are prevalent in today's Israel. The Olmert Government has utterly failed us, and MUST be replaced. Olmert's political indecision and delay is responsible for one of the greatest catastrophes that has yet befallen Israel.

In the words of Caroline Glick in another article previously published in the Jerusalem Post on August 8, 2006, entitled: "Talkin' about a revolution."

Territory [our Jewish Land] is vital. Jihad is real. Israel has a right to defensible borders. Israel is not to blame for our enemies' hatred.

May we be granted a new and loyal leadership by the G-d of Israel, which will not undo the great miracle of our "Return to the Promised Land."

With Blessings and Love for Israel,
Ruth Matar

From all sides of the political spectrum calls are being raised for the establishment of an official commission of inquiry to investigate the Olmert government's incompetent management of the war in Lebanon. These calls are misguided.

We do not need a commission to know what happened or what has to happen. The Olmert government has failed on every level. The Olmert government must go.

The Knesset must vote no confidence in this government and new elections must be carried out as soon as the law permits. If the Knesset hesitates in taking this required step, then the people of Israel must take to the streets in mass demonstrations and demand that our representatives send Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and their comrades out to pasture.

Every aspect of the government's handling of the war has been a failure. Take relief efforts as an example. For five weeks the government ignored the humanitarian disaster in the North where over one million Israelis are under missile assault. The government developed no comprehensive plan for organizing relief efforts to feed citizens in bomb shelters or for evacuating them.

And then there is the military failure. The IDF suffers from acute leadership failures - brought to Israel courtesy of Ariel Sharon who hacked away at the General Staff, undermined its sense of mission and treated our generals like office boys just as he decimated the Likud by undermining its political vision and promoting its weakest members.

Yet, guiding the generals to make the right decisions and finding the generals capable of making them in wartime is the government's responsibility. It was the government's responsibility to critique and question the IDF's operational model of aerial warfare and to cut its losses when after two or three days it was clear that the model was wrong. At that point the government should have called up the reserves and launched a combined ground and air offensive.

But the government didn't feel like it. It wanted to win the war on the cheap. And when the air campaign did not succeed, it abandoned its war goals, declared victory and sued for a cease-fire. When the public objected, after waiting two precious weeks, the government called up the reserves but then waited another unforgivable 10 days before committing them to battle.

All the while, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni did her best to demoralize the IDF and the public by publicly proclaiming that there is no military solution to what is clearly a military conflict.

OLMERT'S DECISION Friday to begin the ground offensive was by all accounts motivated not by a newfound understanding that this is a real war, but by the headlines in the newspapers that morning calling for his resignation. Yet, by Friday, the IDF had only 48 hours to achieve the objectives it had waited a month to receive Olmert's permission to accomplish.

Diplqomatically, in the space of five weeks the government managed to undermine Israel's alliance with America; to hand Syria, Hizbullah and Iran the greatest diplomatic achievements they have ever experienced; and to flush down the toilet the unprecedented international support that US President Bush handed to Israel on a silver platter at the G-8 summit.

The UN cease-fire that Olmert, Livni and Peretz applaud undercuts Israel's sovereignty; protects Hizbullah; lets Iran and Syria off the hook; lends credibility to our enemies' belief that Israel can be destroyed; emboldens the Palestinians to launch their next round of war; and leaves IDF hostages Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev in captivity.

Israel's diplomatic maneuvers were cut to fit the size of our Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni who believes that her job is limited to being nice to other foreign ministers when they call her up on the telephone. In an interview with Yediot Aharonot over the weekend, Livni defended her decision not to engage in public diplomacy by claiming that this is not an important enough task for the foreign minister. It makes sense that this would be her view because as one who understands neither diplomacy nor English, she is incapable of conducting public diplomacy.

Livni argued that the job of the foreign minister is "to create diplomatic processes" - whatever that means. She also claimed that the best way to gain international support is not by publicly arguing Israel's case, but through back door discussions devoted to developing good relations with other foreign ministers. This is ridiculous. The job of the foreign minister is to defend Israel and advance Israel's national interests to foreigners, not to be their friend.

ASIDE FROM the fact that the government's bungling of the military mission meant that Olmert and Livni sprinted to the negotiating table empty handed, the reason that the UN Security Council cease-fire resolution ignores every single Israeli demand is because Israel didn't aggressively pursue its goals. While the Lebanese and the Arabs massed all their forces and pressured the UN, the Foreign Ministry asked US Jewish leaders to say nothing about the draft resolution and to make no public objections to that diplomatic process Tzipi and Ehud "created" with their "friends." And so Israel's positions were ignored.

Yet the reason that this incompetent, embarrassment of a government must go is not simply because it has delivered Israel the worst defeat in its history. This government must go because every day it sits in power it exacerbates the damage it has already caused and increases the dangers to Israel.

Iran has been emboldened. Its success in the war is now being used by the ayatollahs to support their claim of leadership over the Arab world. In evidence of Iran's success, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak met in Cairo with Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. So now, after 27 years of official estrangement, Egypt is moving towards establishing full diplomatic relations with Teheran.

The Palestinians have been emboldened. Hamas leaders and spokesmen are openly stating that just as Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000 precipitated the Palestinian terror war in September 2000, so Israel's current defeat in Lebanon will spur the outbreak of a new Palestinian terror war against Israel today.

THE AMERICANS have lost faith in Israel as an ally. After he gave Israel every opportunity to win this war, even signaling clearly that Israel should feel free to go as far as Beirut if necessary, President Bush was convinced that Olmert simply didn't want to fight. The Americans were shocked by Israel's performance. They know that we can win when we set our mind to it and were flummoxed when presented with an Israeli leadership that refused to even try.

Today we have 30,000 soldiers in Lebanon with an unclear mission. Because of the failure of this government, Israel now needs to contend with an emboldened Hizbullah protected by Kofi Annan. Already on Sunday, Annan sent a letter to Olmert instructing him that once the cease-fire is put into effect, the IDF will be barred from taking action even if it comes under attack. As far as Annan is concerned, resolution 1701 says that if Israel is attacked, all it is allowed to do is call his secretary.

Given that both the Lebanese army and the countries which plan to send forces to Lebanon all say that they will not deploy to the south until after Hizbullah is dismantled, it is clear that the military mission is still to be accomplished.

In its helter-skelter offensive over the weekend, the IDF performed brilliantly as it tried to accomplish in 48 hours what it had been denied permission to accomplish for an entire month. Still now, in the diplomatic minefield this government set for it, the IDF remains the only military force capable of fighting and dismantling Hizbullah. But there can be no doubt that it will not be accomplished under this government.

There will be time to inquire into what has gone wrong in the IDF. There will be time to fire the generals that need to be fired. But we don't need a commission to determine what we need to do. Because of the Olmert government's failures, ever greater battles await us. As the dangers mount by the hour, we must replace this misbegotten government with one that can defend us.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 17, 2006.

With the Australian blood that runs in her veins she is feisty. We thank Nicole Kidman and the Hollywood pact who joined her for taking public stand against terrorism. Friends, Hollywood is finally waking up! Keep these name in mind!

NICOLE Kidman has made a public stand against terrorism.

The actress, joined by 84 other high-profile Hollywood stars, directors, studio bosses and media moguls, has taken out a powerfully-worded full page advertisement in today's Los Angeles Times newspaper.

It specifically targets "terrorist organisations" such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.

"We the undersigned are pained and devastated by the civilian casualties in Israel and Lebanon caused by terrorist actions initiated by terrorist organisations such as Hezbollah and Hamas," the ad reads.

"If we do not succeed in stopping terrorism around the world, chaos will rule and innocent people will continue to die.

"We need to support democratic societies and stop terrorism at all costs."

A who's who of Hollywood heavyweights joined Kidman on the ad.

The actors listed included: Michael Douglas, Dennis Hopper, Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Danny De Vito, Don Johnson, James Woods, Kelly Preston, Patricia Heaton and William Hurt.

Directors Ridley Scott, Tony Scott, Michael Mann, Dick Donner and Sam Raimi also signed their names.

Other Hollywood power players supporting the ad included Sumner Redstone, the chairman and majority owner of Paramount Pictures, and billionaire mogul, Haim Saban.

Addendum from TheLady@bayarea.net
--- In JewishClubMaoz@yahoogroups.com

Please understand that those public figures actively taking the Jewish side should expect certain revenue loss.

Like Natalie Portman or wrestler Goldberg, their names will be added to pro-Arab websites announcing the boycott of anything these people do. The 84 signees will forever be blacklisted by a whole segment of the population for their support of Israel.

The 84 are to be applauded, appreciated and their products deserve our patronage.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Sandy Rosen-Hazen, August 17, 2006.

First things first.....I want to thank you for all of your wonderful e-mails and to apologize for not replying to any of them!!!! As you know I've been keeping very busy with my "WAR Update" and other newsletters, such as for Organ Donors, various charities, etc.....all the while feeling terribly guilty about my dreadful neglect of personal e-mails from everyone, but I do promise to answer all of them VERY soon!!!!

Following, is the FINAL Update for this war, so..... the Last, but far from least, personal note from Sandy..... for yet another time, this important reminder: My "WAR Updates", # 1 through # 9, are filed on my Web Site, in case you've missed any of them.....also there are now over 450 photos in the "WAR Album" on my Web Site!!!!!

Meanwhile. just a short note here (before getting on with the subject of this newsletter "WAR's end?!?!") to let you know how I feel about Arabs.....in case you didn't already know!!!! Yes, this is me (the person who has fought for equal rights for everyone, all of my life).....making an exception!!!!

Just got this.....LATEST POLLING SHOWS:
Forty-three percent of all Americans say that immigration is a serious problem. The other 57 percent said, "No hablo ingls" [not included here are all those who've said "Allah Akbar"]!!!!

Consider this & the American-Muslim item (A NATIONAL POLL QUESTION.....Subject: Can a Muslim be a good American?) below.....then you'll understand my reply to it: NO, Muslims can NOT, but Mexicans can!!!!

I have come up with a terrific solution for America's illegal immigrant problem with the Mexicans (who only want to work at jobs Americans won't do.....cleaning homes, picking produce, gardening, etc.)!!!!

Invite ALL the Mexicans in and give them full American citizenship.....on the condition that each of them KILL at least two anti-American Jihadist Arabs (who are there only to hurt us)!!!!

Thus TWO huge problems solved.....lots of law-abiding, hard-working Mexican citizens.....and NO more fanatic Arab ones!!!! Aren't I brilliant?!?! So, why hasn't the government thought of doing this?!?! They really should!!!! Love always, Sandy ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Subject: Can a Muslim be a good American?

Can a good Muslim be a good American ( or, even a good citizen of any country) -- I forwarded that question to a friend that worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his forwarded reply: Theologically - no. Because his allegiance is to Allah, the moon god of Arabia.

Religiously - no. Because no other religion is accepted by his Allah except Islam (Quran, 2:256)

Scripturally - no. Because his allegiance is to the five pillars of Islam and the Quran (Koran).

Geographically - no. Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

Socially - no. Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

Politically - no. Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and Destruction of America, the great Satan.

Domestically - no. Because he is instructed to marry four women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him (Quran 4:34). Intellectually - no. Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

Philosophically - no. Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran do not allow freedom of religion and __expression Democracy and Islam cannot coexist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

Spiritually - no. Because when we declare "one nation under God," the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in The Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore after much study and deliberation....perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans. Call it what you wish....it's still the truth.

If you find yourself intellectually in agreement with the above statements, perhaps you will share this with your friends. The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. Pass it on Fellow Americans. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand. It sure as Hell IS!!!!

Thus my reply to Can a Muslim be a good American? is:
NO, Muslims can NOT, but Mexicans can!!!!

Below, my remarks are in square brackets [..] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Now, for what's happening here since the "cease-fire.....]
Past wars and the war to come -- The causes and consequences of past wars and how to prepare for the next one:
YNet News -- Ausust 17, 2006

All our wars ended with a sense of missed opportunities, including the War of Independence. For 20 years David Ben Gurion lamented the flawed consequences of that war calling his restraint from conquering East Jerusalem and the Judea region an "infinite tragedy."

During the Six Day War we achieved our most shining victory alongside our greatest missed opportunity: We didn't know how to turn our victory into peace. The Yom Kippur War stemmed from that missed opportunity, and the missed opportunities from the first war in Lebanon, aimed at healing the wounds of the Yom Kippur War, appeared right on the planners' war table.

All our operations carried out to silence Lebanon ended in bitter disappointment, as did the last war. This doesn't say a thing about the justness and wisdom of any particular war, but about wars in general. Wars never fulfill the hopes of the victor, and frequently a glorious victory brings with it the worm that gnaws away at the fruit.

Had we not driven out the Arabs who had settled in the Land of Israel, we would not have been able to build a stable country for the Jewish people, however, that's how we created the Palestinian exile, which is the root cause of our problems.

Consequences of war

Our victory in the Six Day War saved us, but created the National Palestinian Movement. Our duration in Lebanon began with the aim of destroying the PLO's kingdom but instead created Hizbullah.

Our redeployment from Lebanon saved us from spilling our blood on its turf, but enabled Iran to establish an offshoot in our neighborhood.

We have yet to find a leader who can predict three moves in advance. Olmert proved that he was unable to predict even two, and thus he joins a long list of former prime ministers.

Brunt of economic damage

The number of rockets fired at us during this war almost equaled the number of injured civilians. On average, each missile hit and maimed a single person. The majority of the wounded suffered from shock and recovered within a short time.

Every human life is priceless, however when making the national calculation, the level of home front losses is not high. The direct damage to property is also not too bad. The brunt of the economic damage is the loss of working days and the standstill of commercial life in the north of the country.

Had businesses continued working as in peacetime, the casualty figure would have been much higher, but presumably would not have exceeded the number of losses incurred during the second Intifada (uprising). These are heavy losses and they cannot be discussed with cool rationality, but when considering the plight of a nation, thinking about them is unavoidable.

Next war inevitable

The next war is inevitable, and we may assume that rockets will once again be fired on our home front, and are likely be worse the next time around. It has been proven that an offensive strategy that employs conventional weaponry does not eliminate the enemy, particularly an enemy prepared to destroy its own country in order to achieve a delusional victory.

Israeli war tactics, according to which we must transfer the fighting to enemy land as quickly as possible, will not always be implemented.

We should, therefore, fortify ourselves, build protected spaces in every area where people congregate, accelerate the development of anti- missile solutions, improve the services rendered to those suffering the consequences of war, and plan the strategy by which we shall continue working under fire.

I would recommend setting up a committee to handle such matters; however my suggestion is uncalled for because a similar committee headed by Dan Meridor submitted its conclusions just several months ago.

Not such a bad situation

As long as the Arabs continue rejoicing at their success in delaying the Israeli army, at the cost of their country's ruin, then our situation is not too bad. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Day After /
The War in Numbers - 4,000 Katyushas, 42 civilians killed:
By Eli Ashkenazi, Ran Reznick, Jonathan Lis and Jack Khoury
Haaretz -- August 15, 2006

Initial statistics compiled by the Police Northern District, show that since the conflict broke out on July 12, Hezbollah fired 3,790 rockets across the border into Israel. Of these, 901 landed in communities, and 42 civilians were killed as a result of rocket strikes.

The Health Ministry said 4,262 civilians were treated in hospitals for injuries. Of these, 33 were seriously wounded, 68 moderately and 1,388 lightly. Another 2,773 civilians were treated for shock and anxiety.

The Israel Air Force conducted some 15,500 sorties over Lebanon and attacked more than 7,000 targets there. These flights included 10,000 combat sorties, some 2,000 battle helicopter sorties, some 1,000 Saar helicopter sorties, more than 1,300 reconnaissance flights and some 1,200 transport sorties.

Israel Navy vessels sailed for more than 8,000 hours opposite Lebanon's beaches and fired about 2,500 times at Lebanon's coast. Targets included rocket launching sites, launchers, weapons stores, roads, Hezbollah infrastructures and radars, fuel depots and the coastal road.

The IDF said that despite the 33-day blockade on Lebanon, it has permitted more than 200 ships to reach the country to evacuate civilians and bring relief supplies. The naval blockade on Lebanon will be maintained until a means of supervising materiel smuggling is established, the IDF said.

Kiryat Shmona and the surrounding communi ties were the hardest hit - 1,012 rockets fell there, including 372 inside Kiryat Shmona and another 354 within its municipal boundaries. The municipality said 25 of its residents were wounded and 81 suffered from shock, and that 2,003 apartments and 151 vehicles were damaged.

Throughout the conflict, only about 6,000 of the 24,000 residents remained in the town. Some 400 of them were evacuated for a few days yesterday.

Meanwhile, residents of the Western Galilee began trickling back following the cease-fire.

In the morning people were still wary of leaving the shelters, and the streets were mostly empty. In larger towns like Kiryat Shmona, Nahariya, Carmiel, Acre and others, shops and businesses remained shut.

A few cafes reopened along Nahariya's main street, but few patrons were seen and most stores remained closed. Most residents, however, were yet to return to their homes after fleeing from the rockets some four weeks ago.

A few businesses reopened in Acre as well.

In Kiryat Shmona, where the streets had been deserted for the past month, people left their bomb shelters and walked outdoors. A few stores opened, and customers arrived. Traffic lights began to function for the first time in more than a month.

"The air is a little different today," one of the residents said.

Residents were doubtful and uncertain about the cease-fire agreement. Some said they very much hoped the Katyusha rocket fire would not be renewed, but were still apprehensive.

In the afternoon, the local authorities in the north finally advised residents that they could leave their shelters, subject to Home Front Command instructions.

People returned to their routines in Ma'alot yesterday morning, and many were seen in the streets.

The residents, especially those whose homes were damaged or who were forced to shut their businesses, fear they will not be compensated adequately and are uncertain about their future.

The mayors of the confrontation-line communities are scheduled to hold an emergency debate today to assess the damage and prepare for the future.

The Israel Police said it would send hundreds more policemen to the northern district as reenforcements to help residents resume their routine.

Police Commissioner Moshe Karadi held a debate at Police National Headquarters yesterday. Karadi instructed police chiefs to provide the necessary protection to people returning home after a long sojourn away.

Education Minister Yuli Tamir said yesterday that the school year would open as scheduled on September 1 at most schools. However, the Education Ministry will make the final decision tomorrow, after its officials meet with mayors and municipal education directors in the north, in accordance with the instructions of the Home Front Command.

Tamir said some 10,000 northern residents staying in boarding schools will be evacuated this week so that the school year will be able to open on time.


Those Poor, Innocent Lebanese:
By Irwin N. Graulich -- August 4, 2006

Let me get this straight. You allow one of the largest terrorist organizations in the world to set up shop throughout your country. You permit them to completely take over the entire southern third of your country and you claim to have seen nothing.

You allow the terrorists to build sophisticated, fortified bunkers and you did not see any heavy equipment building them. You allow the Hezbollah terrorists to move into many of your towns and villages, including the complete takeover of one of the largest neighborhoods in Beirut, where they proceed to build numerous, complex command and control centers ... and you claim ignorance.

You allow the terrorists to store weapons, bombs and rockets in your basements. You turn a blind's eye when they carry arms into your restaurants, stores and buildings. Yet you call yourself an "innocent civilian."

You sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
You sleep with missiles, you wake up dead.

You watch the parades with hundreds of thousands of participants including children screaming, "Jihad. Death to Israel, Jews and Americans," burning American and Israeli flags. Goose-stepping soldiers with Nazi-like salutes receive your cheers--and all of you "innocent civilians" did not see a thing (even though you were captured on videotape).

There are giant posters of the rubenesque terrorist leader, Hasan Nasrallah, all over Lebanon with headlines declaring the imminent destruction of Israel. Yet you choose to elect this terrorist party to your government--and all of the so called "innocent Lebanese" do not know anything about anything.

Twenty thousand rockets and launchers are shipped into your country along with other military equipment by plane, truck and ship, and the government industrial complex knew absolutely nothing; and neither did all those "poor, innocent civilians" who are now crying.

The Lebanese "knowingly allowed (aka aided and abbetted)" murderous terrorists to proliferate in their sovereign nation. Like spoiled teenagers, they now refuse to take any responsibility. Of course there are some truly innocent civ