HOME Featured Stories August 2011 Blog-Eds List Background Information News On the Web
pinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, August 31, 2011.

"The still photograph is to moving pictures what poetry is to prose -
less comprehensive perhaps, less literal even,
yet somehow capable of expressing a deeper truth."
- Anonymous


Nature in motion, not unlike poetry, reveals its beauty in evanescent bursts. You cannot photograph something without first seeing it. Yet some images don't really exist, except in our imagination, until the still camera freezes the rushing tide and uncovers the grace in a few scattered, battered seashells. Seconds later, grace and elegance are wiped clean by another wave.

On the shore of Nizzanim beach, between Ashkelon and Ashdod, I noticed these shell fragments during a casual late-afternoon stroll. I stopped to study the wave action and marveled at how each shell left a kind of footprint in the receding tide. I like this shot for its minimalism. Just sand and a few shells, yet each one gains prominence and invites individual examination. Another click and a moment unseen is captured for eternity.

Technical Data: Nikon D300, 28-105 macro zoom at 44mm, f8 @ 1/320th sec., ISO 400.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by UCI, August 31, 2011.

The Unity Coalition for Israel (UCI) and the European Coalition for Israel (ECI) have introduced an ECI film which explains, in historical detail, the legal foundation in international law for the modern State of Israel.

"Give Peace a Chance" discusses the legal foundation of the State of Israel. It talks about the San Remo Resolution [of Apr 24-25, 1920], to reconstitute the Jewish National Home.

To see the film, click here.

For more material from UCI, see San Remo

Editor's Note:

See also: San Remo mandate.

In the comments of the August 30, 2011 Israpundit (http://www.israpundit.com/archives/39138), a reader calling himself Dweller wrote this:

The San Remo Resolution [of Apr 24-25, 1920], which ordered creation of the Mandate for Palestine, and awarded it to His Majesty's Gov't as League of Nations Mandatory was the "deed-of-trust" for the Jewish people.

The Mandate was awarded to HMG by the Principal Allied Powers (four, of which the UK was one) and the Associated Powers (of which there were many) — because of a wartime promise the Lloyd-George Cabinet had given to the Jews [the Balfour Declaration]: to wit, that the UK would do what it could to foster the restoration of the Jewish National Home in its traditional country after the fighting ended. It was not a legally binding promise at the time it was made, as the War was still raging & the country was still held as a chunk of the vast Ottoman Empire — hardly something for HMG to be making 'promises' over.

After the War, however, the Principal Allied Powers awarded the Mandate to the Brits (rather than one of the other powers) BECAUSE of Balfour's (eponymous) wartime pledge, and now ordered HMG to keep the pledge — an order and duty which HMG accepted: thereby making it thereafter a legally obligatory, International Treaty. This was the San Remo Resolution, that I cited earlier.

By the terms of the Mandate which that Resolution ordered, the UK was to prepare the Jews for self-govt in their own, acknowledged, historic national home — as explicitly recognized in the Mandate Charter's Preamble [and it's about time you read it] — and the British Mandate Administration in Jerusalem was required to issue an annual progress report to the League's designated "watchdog," the Permanent Mandates Commission.

Otherwise the UK could lose the Mandate.

That was the sole and entire PURPOSE of the Palestine Mandate, to prepare the Jews and the Land for sovereignty — Jewish sovereignty — it had no other purpose than that.

Aside from the Jews, no other people, nationality or ethnicity was promised sovereignty in this particular Mandate. All that was assured any other existing communities or persons there were the same civil rights, property rights and freedom of (peaceable) worship that was granted to ALL — as individuals. Sovereign rights of nationality in Palestine were accorded explicitly & exclusively to world Jewry — i.e., not merely those 85,000 Jews then presently in-country, but to the world's then-14 million Jews scattered across the globe.

The Jewish National Home [JNH] was understood to embrace everything from River to Sea. That included the provinces of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. If the local ethnic Arabs didn't want to live amongst free Jews, they were to be permitted to relocate to Transjordanian Palestine: the 80 percent of the Mandate that was gouged out of the JNH (arguably fraudulently), to seal the deal and presumably mollify any Arabs who begrudged the (until-then, customarily dhimmi ) Jews the right to self-determination.

As WWII approached, however, HMG threw the Jews overboard (about nine months after joining the French in selling out the Czechs at Munich), in order to curry favor with the Arab world: HMG issued a White Paper [May 1939], which violated an International Treaty by effectively countermanding the Mandate Charter. It made Jewish immigration to Palestine subject to a local Arab veto — and therefore, an Axis one as well: thus facilitating and expediting the Holocaust. The Permanent Mandates Commission cried foul, and could have taken away the Mandate from the Brits right then & there — but by now the War had overtaken everything else. The panzers & stukas crossed the Polish frontier, and legal niceties became a sad memory.

This kissing of Arab ass, BTW, turned out to be a fruitless gambit, as most of them threw in with the Nasties anyway. (Poetic justice of a most perverse sort.)

Even after the War, the Brits continued to renege on their solemn Mandate obligations to the Jews to prepare them for independent sovereignty.

So the Jews — at long last — took it to the streets. You could say that, in the end, HMG was "dishonorably discharged."

Britain surrendered the Mandate back to the UN, successor to the League, but in so doing they put the matter explicitly into the hands of the General Assembly (not the Security Council). The Gen. Assembly endorsed partition/independence. But the UN Charter makes clear that Gen. Assembly has no authority to create (or approve creation) of states — let alone, otherwise dispose of Mandate territories. It can only PROPOSE or EXHORT — not command or create. So UNGA 181 [the Partition-qua-Independence Resolution] had no legal force to creat ANY state: Arab, Jewish, or Martian.

The truth is that what created the Jewish state was the Jewish Declaration of Independence [15 May 48] — and the Jewish blood & tears that went to defend it. In other words, fromthe standpoint of the Mandate and International Law, it was a Declaration which COULD have been made at any time after the Mandate Charter was ratified [24 July 1922].

Whether HMG would have tolerated such a move, and whether the Yishuv [the Jewish community in Palestine] would've had the wherewithal at that juncture to force the issue, as they eventually did after WWII, is a separate question, TBS, but legally the Jewish Agency [created in Article 4 of the Mandate] could have declared independence at any point subsequent to the 1922 Ratification.

And if the Pali's — or their simpering sycophant toadies in the media, academic & diplomatic universes — actually try pushing a legal case on substantive legal grounds, they WILL, I quite assure you, have to confront the implications of what I've just laid out.

Guaranteed, or your money back.


On Statute of Limitations

You cannot 'supercede' an international treaty except by another such treaty, which declares the former one henceforth null & void

— or by something within the treaty which, of its own operation, will bring about the treaty's expiration.

This has never been done as to the San Remo Resolution.

Have you got that? — never been done.

Furthermore, even in those cases where a treaty DOES expire or IS superceded, the fact remains — and it IS a fact — that articulated rights & duties within treaties, having no statute of limitations, do not, as a matter of course, 'expire' with their original incorporating instruments, a legal reality affirmed by long-settled practice, and known colloquially in international jurisprudence as the Acquired Rights Doctrine.

This was codified in law in 1969 — IS 1969 RECENT ENOUGH FOR YOU? — as an integral part of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties [informally, "the Treaty on Treaties"], Article 70 (1) b:

"Unless the treaty otherwise provides or the parties otherwise agree, the termination of a treaty, under its [own] provisions OR in accordance with the present Convention, does not affect any right, obligation or legal situation of the parties created through the EXECUTION of the treaty prior to its [i.e., the treaty's] termination..."

UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, August 31, 2011.

NU chairman has no doubt as to how a lone terrorist could have injured 8 security men and emerged alive: court policy is to blame.


The terrorist who went on a rampage in Tel Aviv Sunday night managed to injure eight security men, some seriously, but is still alive and has only light injuries. How did this happen? National Union Chairman MK Yaakov Katz says soldiers and police are simply afraid that the courts will persecute them if they use force against the enemy.

"The fear of Supreme Court President Beinisch has fallen upon the soldiers and policemen of Israel," MK Katz said.

"The behavior of the State Attorney's Office and the legal system lately against security guards, policemen, soldiers and officers who staunchly defended the Nation of Israel — and were rewarded by being sent to jail — weakens the security forces," he explained.

"Fear and trembling seize them and in any confrontation between an Arab terrorist murderer and dozens of policemen, soldiers and guards, our men bleed with serious injuries and the Arab murderer emerges unscathed, and is already preparing for his release in the next release deal, so that he can plan the next massacre."

The policy of the State Attorney and legal establishment needs to change, MK Katz said, as the current policy causes a lack of deterrence. "The Arab terrorist murderers know that nothing will happen to them [if they attack] and that they will be able to go back and murder again shortly afterward."

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com This article was published yesterday in Israpundit and is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Patrick T. Dunleavy, August 31, 2011.

There is a new brouhaha stirring among civil libertarians and Islamic organizations in light of the recent Associated Press story regarding the working relationship between the New York Police Department and the Central Intelligence Agency. The article focused on the intelligence division of the NYPD and the deputy commissioner who runs it. David Cohen is a former career employee of the CIA, who was appointed by Police Commissioner Ray Kelly in 2002.

Terms like "rakers" and "mosque crawlers" were bantered about in the article, which painted a picture of unrestrained spying on the citizenry by the government. The authors, Adam Goldman and Matt Apuzzo, described a super-secret section of the intelligence division called the "Demographics Unit" whose responsibility was to send undercover officers into predominantly Muslim neighborhoods and gather information by observing the neighborhood.

Immediately following the story's release, several spokesmen for the Council on American Islamic Affairs (CAIR), and the Islamic Leadership Council voiced their outrage at what they termed "profiling." CAIR staff attorney Gadeir Abbas went so far as to call on the Justice Department and the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the NYPD.

It was not too long ago that these same organizations were accusing the police of entrapment and the illegal use of informants in several thwarted terrorist plots, such as "The Bronx Four" and the "Christmas Tree Bomber" in Portland, Ore.

As the former deputy inspector general of the criminal intelligence division in New York State prisons, I was assigned to work in the NYPD Intelligence Division from 2002-2005.

In all of my time there working on numerous cases regarding terrorism and homegrown radicalization, I never heard anyone use the terms "rakers" or "crawlers" when describing human-intelligence gathering. In recent conversations with former colleagues who also worked in the intelligence division, none of us could recall ever seeing the "Demographics Unit."

So what is true in the article?

Fact: After Sept. 11, 2001, there was a need for all law enforcement agencies to adapt to a new methodology when it came to dealing with the issue of terrorism. There was also a need for the intelligence community to recognize the value of law enforcement's contribution in the war on terrorism.

The melding of these two was on a larger scale than previous endeavors, although not a novel concept. In the 1980s, my office worked with intelligence agencies in the case of Edwin P. Wilson, the rogue CIA officer who was accused of selling explosives to Libya. Although Wilson's case regarding the explosives was overturned, he was convicted of conspiring to murder the federal prosecutors in that case based on the evidence provided.

There is a vast difference between obtaining evidence and gathering intelligence and the distinction must be clearly understood.

In order for evidence to be useful in any prosecution, it must be admissible. In order to be admissible, it must be legally obtained. John Cutter, former deputy chief of the NYPD, articulated that distinction in the Goldman-Apuzzo article: "Cutter said he and other uniformed officers had to tell [Deputy Commissioner David] Cohen, no, we can't just slip into someone's apartment without a warrant. No, we can't just conduct a search. The rules for policing are different."

In contrast, the rules for information gathering, analysis and dissemination also are distinct. That does not mean that the process is nefarious or something to be feared as some sort of Big Brother spying on the masses agenda.

The CIA annually publishes a World Factbook. According to the CIA's website, it "provides information on the history, people, government, economy, geography, communications, transportation, military, and transnational issues for 267 world entities."

It is a useful, informative tool for understanding the nations and the cultures of the world. No one decries that civil rights were violated to obtain and collate this data.

Concerns that are legitimate should be addressed. Police departments throughout the country use mapping to understand and combat crime effectively in their cities. The New York State Department of Corrections annually produces a Report of Foreign Born Inmates that details nationality, immigration status, crime of commitment, etc. Is this profiling? I think not.

The Handschu decision, an agreement between the NYPD, the plaintiffs and approved by the federal district court, established guidelines for police in conducting investigations or gathering intelligence on political or religious organizations. Its requirements are still very much a part of any NYPD decision-making when it comes to surveillance of political or religious organizations.

Concerns that are legitimate should be addressed. Outrageous claims of civil rights violations should be put in their proper context.

There is a reason there has not been a successful terrorist attack in New York City in 10 years. It is the dedication, hard work and partnership of men and women who work in the law enforcement and intelligence community.

Patrick Dunleavy is the former deputy inspector general for the New York State Department of Corrections and author of "The Fertile Soil of Jihad," forthcoming from Potomac Books in September. Contact him at p.t.dunleavy@gmail.com. This article appeared yesterday in the Washington Times and is archived at
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/30/ intelligence-versus-evidence-gathering/

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 31, 2011.

Well, Kaitana Savta (Grandma Camp), which was great, is over. I am back to normal — whatever that means — and prepared to resume more frequent postings. The questions then are where to begin and what to focus on during this upside-down time.


Of primary importance is terrorism, attempted terrorism, and the threat of even more terrorism.

Late Sunday, Israel received concrete intelligence regarding Islamic Jihad plans for a second attack involving infiltration from Gaza into southern Israel via the Sinai; the plans reportedly are for the attack to be executed (once more!) along one of the roads running near the border with Sinai and to involve abduction of Israelis. More than 10 terrorists were said to be already in Sinai, preparing.

Several actions were then taken:

Chief of Staff Benny Gantz ordered a sizeable deployment of infantry forces to the area.

Two major roads near the border (#10 and #12) were closed, while Israelis with high security clearance were forbidden to drive on roads in the area.

Two large Israeli Navy corvettes (war ships) were docked in Eilat.

And the possibility of the attack was made public.


On orders from General Gantz, the Egyptians were informed of IDF plans to deploy along the Sinai border. Because of the tenuous relationship with the Egyptian military, it was decided that there would be no IDF incursion into the Sinai in pursuit of the terrorists.

The Egyptians, for their part — fearing an upswing in violence at the end of Ramadan (Aid el-Fitr), which was yesterday — are in process of a military operation to hunt down jihadi groups in the northern Sinai. Launched on Monday with Israeli approval, the operation involves some 1,500 soldiers and police, utilizing tanks and armored vehicles, who have been operating in Al-Arish, Sheikh Zuwayed, and Rafah, near the Gaza border.


There is considerable sentiment inside of Egypt for a re-writing of the peace treaty with Israel, in particular with regard to the demilitarization of the Sinai.

Last week, in the course of Egyptian demonstrations outside the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, the Israeli flag was torn down from the roof of the building.

While the flog has been re-instated (this time in a safer locale on a balcony) on instructions from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the man who tore down that flag has become something of a national hero.


I add here that while Defense Minister Barak was gung-ho to permit large scale Egyptian troops into the Sinai (well beyond what has been approved for the specific operation mentioned above), three days ago Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed quite a different opinion. This is "not something that we have to rush into," he said at a meeting with Likud ministers. Furthermore, he indicated that a Cabinet vote would be required for a change in the treaty with Egypt.

Additionally, MK Shaul Mofaz (Kadima), Chair of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, was making noise about the need for his committee to pass on this as well.


On Monday, a terrorist, thought to be acting alone, entered Israel illegally from Nablus with intention of striking at a Tel Aviv nightclub filled with young people enjoying an end-of-summer party. Earlier in the evening, the police had made a decision to bolster their presence outside major venues in the city, and thus it was that an attack was adverted. He ran his vehicle into a police roadblock, injuring some officers and yelling "Allahu Akbar."


That Palestinian Arab state and the UN:

I think it's reasonably clear at this point, in spite of occasional media reports to the contrary, that nothing will change on the ground for Israel after the PA goes to the UN in September — something Mahmoud Abbas continues to insist he will do unless Israel caves on his major demands.

What he is seeking to do is secure his state without committing to end of conflict. He, in fact, made it clear just recently that he would still push for "right of return" even after the founding of a Palestinian state (although he may run into difficulty on this — see below).

Israeli concerns about outcome focus on a possible increase in violence by the Palestinian Arabs — perhaps with large numbers at the borders attempting to enter Israel — and greater international legitimacy for the PA. This might give it leverage with regard to bringing charges against Israelis in the International Criminal Court and against Israel in the International Court of Justice.


On Sunday night, here in Jerusalem, I attended the first part of a conference on "The Palestinian Statehood Initiative," jointly sponsored by the Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel, and Hadar Israel (a grassroots civic organization).

Michla Pomerance, Professor of International Law, Hebrew University, spoke about the enormous confusion with regard to the whole issue of "UN law," which is very problematic. Traditional international law is not imposed by a central authority but is rooted in reciprocity — it derives from the consent of states.

The Security Council is not an enforcer of international law, and may not order transfer of/or concessions on territory. It has no power to abrogate sovereignty.

The General Assembly does not have authority to recognize states. Its authority is only with regard to admitting and suspending members, pending SC approval.

Only states already in existence can be admitted to the UN. They are required to be peace-loving, and able and willing to carry out their obligations under the UN charter. There is no admission of a state granted with the intention of eliminating another state.

Within international law, there is no universal right of self-determination recognized.

With regard to a Palestinian state, self-determination would require a defined population. But as there is a question of boundaries, there is no defined population.


Dr. Tal Becker, International Associate, Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Israeli negotiator, believes that Abbas is proceeding as he is because of the "Arab Spring" — fear that street anger will be channeled against his government if he doesn't act; expectations that have been created by Obama and Fayyad; and a desire to secure his legacy.

He cautions that if the PA does go to the UN, it is likely a committee will be created to begin a slow process: there will not be speedy results.


General (Res.) Yossie Kuperwasser, Director General, Ministry of Strategic Affairs, addressed security concerns.

The PA, he says, cannot accept Israel as a Jewish state because of the issue of the refugees; because of the Arab population inside of Israel (which would be utilized for demands for a "state of all its citizens" in the second stage of their plans); and because it would require adjusting the narrative.

The bottom line is that the PA goal is to destroy Israel. It is essential that it accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. But the Arabs are seeking to end historical claims.

Absent PA acknowledgement that Israel is the Jewish state, Israel may have to begin to think in terms of managing the conflict rather than resolving it.

There are security dangers for the PA, as well. The entire process will be an embarrassment for the PA, and Hamas may end up the winner — with escalation of violence against the PA.


For other takes on the PA initiative:

Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, in an exclusive interview, said yesterday that if the PA proceeds with its plans, all agreements between the PA and Israel might become null and void:

"We have a lot of agreements with the Palestinian Authority, we have no agreements with a 'Government of Palestine,' It's just a fact, we have no agreements with a 'Government of Palestine.' It puts us in a different realm."

Oren was referring, he said, to agreements that cover such matters as import-export, water sharing, and Israel-Palestinian security forces cooperation.

"It's not just our agreements with the Palestinian Authority, it's America's agreements with the Palestinian Authority (that are at risk)," he further explained. "America is a cosignatory to the Oslo Accord and this would seriously undermine it.... Unilateral steps would have legal, economic, and political ramifications for us and for America as a cosignatory."


Jordan has just urged the PA to reconsider its move to pursue bid for UN recognition King Abdullah considers the move dangerous because it may compromise the "right of return."

Jordan, of course, worries that without a "return" of refugees to Israel, there might be a push to make Jordan the Palestinian state officially (while it is now de facto, with a majority Palestinian population).


Last week similar discouragement with regard to the PA bid in the UN came from the Arab League:

Said Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby, "The unilateral appeal to the U.N. Security Council and U.N. General Assembly could be a very dangerous move for the Palestinians during this period and I propose that Abbas reconsider the handling of the matter."

Elaraby is concerned because the PA is not in control in Gaza.


The PA team — headed by Saeb Erekat — that is preparing the UN initiative has received an independent legal opinion — from by Guy Goodwin-Gill, a professor of public international law at Oxford University who has long advised the PA on legal matters — that the initiative could jeopardize the rights of the Palestinian people.

Since 1975, the PLO has been recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and in fact has observer status at the UN. The PA is seeking to replace PLO representation at the UN with a state sitting in the UN. But then there would no longer be an agency that "can represent the inalienable rights of the entire Palestinian people." Palestinians "outside the homeland" would no longer have representation and would be disenfranchised with regard to such matters as "right of return."

This comes from the PLO news agency, Ma'an.


Elliott Abrams, Senor Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, asks "Whose Brilliant Idea Was That UN Vote?" He looks in greater depth at the Goodwin-Gill concerns, and at additional legal/diplomatic issues as well.


And we're worried about the UN initiative? I wonder how much sleep Mahmoud Abbas is getting these days.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nick Griffin, August 31, 2011.

"It's like watching a nation busily engaged in building its own funeral pyre... we must be mad, literally mad....I seem to see the River Tiber, foaming with much blood."


Dear Fellow Patriot

Just as Enoch Powell was right in 1968, we, the British National Party have ourselves been proven right.

I warned in 2008 that these riots — or something very similar — would happen, and they tried to put me in prison three times for telling the truth!

They even tried to jail me for warning — months before it happened — that Muslim suicide bombers would blow up buses and tube trains in Central London.

But now, while the political class and their media whores are trying to say that the worst is over and that things will get back to normal, the truth is that the real trouble has hardly even started yet.

The failure of the multi-cultural society is now so total that things can never go back to 'normal' — at least until we have a serious, adult debate about what has gone wrong, and how we can take it all into account as we rebuild the Britain that the political elite have broken so badly.

'Shopping with violence'

Unfortunately, now that the initial pathetic police response has let the genie out of the bottle, the nearest we are going to see to a return to normal will involve a permanent new feature — low-level, smallish scale but recurrent outbursts of 'shopping with violence'.

Thanks to the Useless Tories and the PC police, this new crime is here to stay.

The establishment reaction of trying to cover up and persecute those who draw attention to uncomfortable problems like these show what is wrong with our country. It shows why this country needs the British National Party.

Help us to help broken Britain

I am always prepared to speak the truth, and I will always speak the truth, no matter what is thrown at me. I know that you too care about or country, and so if you want to help make our voice louder, please send your most generous donation to the Party today.

By donating to the Party today you will help us raise public awareness and ensure that our message reaches as many people as possible; there is still a long road ahead, and we need to be ready for when the inevitable second round of rioting happens.

Because that is what is just around the corner in tinderbox Britain. I'm not sure when...but I'm warning our corrupt establishment that, unless they really get a grip, this is the road to hell.

Remember, the British National Party is the frontline in the battle to defend our people. Together we can make the difference.

Very many thanks for your continued loyal support and dedication.

Nick Griffin MEP is Chairman of the British National Party. Contact him at newsletter@bnp.org.uk

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, August 31, 2011.

Contrary to what some Israeli officials and one or two otherwise bright journalists have said or written, it is unwise to permit the stationing of any Egyptian forces in the Sinai — quite apart from its violation of Israel's March 1979 treaty with Egypt.

Permitting Egyptian forces in the Sinai may seem to be a pragmatic way of dealing with the upsurge of terrorist activity in that peninsular. It is highly probable, however, that those forces are not only going to remain in the Sinai, but they will also increase in number, while Israel's inept government — personified by Defense Minister Ehud Barak — will do nothing to remove them.

Mr. Barak is the genius who said one must sometimes sacrifice strategic to tactical considerations. Perhaps this is why Israel's most decorated soldier is Israel's is most notorious bungler.

Contrary to the mentality of Barak, Israel's government must assume full responsibility for keeping the Sinai free of terrorists. Allow me, therefore, to abbreviate an article I wrote at the outbreak of the Egyptian Revolution.


With a revolution brewing in Egypt, it may be of some value to reiterate certain principles of statecraft articulated in my book Sadat's Strategy (1978). A section of the book was read in the Knesset, but it did not prevent the folly of the Begin Government's withdrawal from the Sinai. In any event, consider some principles of statecraft enunciated by Prince Metternich, the great nineteenth-century Austrian statesman on whom Henry Kissinger wrote his doctoral dissertation. I will update what I wrote in 1978.

  • According to Metternich, "to base one's conduct in an important undertaking on faith in the moderation of one of the contracting parties is ... to build on air, to gamble the future on one throw." This faith animated Shimon Peres and Yossi Beilin, the myopic architects of the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993, who long ago should have sought safe haven in Los Angeles, perhaps near Disney World. The same faith animates Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, evident in his mantra of "reciprocity" in dealing with the Palestinian Authority. A replay of this myopia is now being performed with the entrance of Egyptian forces in the Sinai.

  • To expect the leaders of a dictatorship (such as Egypt or the Palestinian Authority) to be moderate is like asking them to destroy the foundations of their existence.

  • Any plan conceived in moderate terms must fail when the circumstances are set in the extreme. Hence, in any situation where each of the possible lines of action involves difficulty, the strongest line is the best.

  • Nations with democratic forms of government are not for that reason the natural allies of each other or the implacable foes of dictatorships. [Welcome Mr. Obama to the Middle East!]

  • Weaker states can ill-afford merely to react to events; they must also try to initiate them. [The contrary of this principle has been taught in Israel's Command and Staff College.]

  • We must rely for the execution of our plans on ourselves alone and on such means as we possess. (Israeli governments repeatedly violate this principle by relying excessively on the United States. And now Israel's government is permitting the stationing of Egypt forces in the Sinai!)

Regarding the current revolutionary situation in Egypt, it is mere drivel for the Obama Administration to call for "moderation." This will win no friends from any group in Egypt, and will only anger Egypt's government and its opponents. It is also futile and counterproductive to call for democracy in Egypt. That's not what typical Muslim males want, and that's not what 1,400 years of the Quran prescribes.

For U.S. and Israeli leaders, the name of the game in the Arab-Islamic world is POWER and INTERESTS, and not morality and democracy. When dealing with Arab-Islamic autocracies, two questions should head the list: who has the power, and how can it be used to serve our country's own interests?

In short, all the "politically correct" ideologues of democracy should shut up!

Professor Paul Eidelberg is an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 31, 2011.

TURKEY NEEDS ISRAEL AGAINST TERRORISTS HAARETZ REPORT SUMMARIZED: Turkey tried making peace with its large Kurdish minority, but arrested Turkish "activists," prompting Turkish Kurdish riots.

Kurdish terrorists based in Iraq, however, continued cross-border attacks. The Turkish Army has gone into war mode against the terrorists. In this war, the former Turkish military chief laments Army failure to organize properly.

In prosecuting the war, Turkey needs Israeli UAVs. Although Turkey now tries to make its own arms, Turkey needs a large quantity of UAVs and other weapons soon. It will buy them from Israel.

Ironically, Turkey is waging this war in much the same manner as IDF combat in Gaza. Turkey had condemned Israel for those methods. Now Turkey bombs sites suspected of housing members of the terrorist PKK, inevitably producing some civilian casualties.

The government of Iraq reacts to the Turkish incursions as violations of its sovereignty and has summoned the Turkish Ambassador to complain, a position Israel found itself in over Gaza. The Kurdish regional government protests, too. It demanded an apology, just as Turkey had demanded of Israel when it killed some Turks in self-defense against an illegal flotilla.

A "senior Turkish source told Haaretz" that this war may rehabilitate Turkish-Israel relations.

Cries of Turkish military failure follow on the heels of the Islamist regime's arresting hundreds of ranking military officers on charges of plotting against the regime.

Meanwhile, government-military relations suffered another blow in Turkey when parliament transferred billions of dollars worth of military-owned civilian businesses to civilian control, took over the Army's pension fund, and will reduce it by 15% via taxation. Not trusting the Army, the government is putting special police forces and its own oversight in charge of fighting the Iraqi Kurds.

The war against the PKK led to diplomatic cooperation with Syria and Iran. But Turkey strongly opposes the Assad regime, and that puts it into diplomatic conflict with Iran, too. Iran has made threats. Will it aid the Kurdish terrorists against Turkey? (Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz, 8/31/11
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/turkey-s-need- for-israel-s-uavs-may-unite-once-close-allies-1.381663 from IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis Website: www.imra.org.il .)

WHAT DOES THIS REALLY MEAN? Does by "activists" arrested in Turkey, the paper mean terrorists? It should be clear on this, because arresting terrorists is justified, but arresting "activists" may be oppression. Here is an example of politically correct language, really weasel-wording, possibly misinforming.

Egypt, too, has many businesses controlled by the Army. There, this arrangement stultifies initiative. Does it do likewise in Turkey? One success the Islamist regime has had is in freeing capitalist incentives and boosting the economy. Its takeover of the Army's factories and hotels may further boost Turkey's economy. More information about that would be welcome.

A more realistic perspective on international relations is that Iran and Turkey are vying for leadership of Islam and especially of Radical Islam, now that the Egypt-Saudi combine has been weakened. This rivalry is not likely to make either party pro-Western. Both are ideologically committed against the West and against Israel. The people of Turkey largely have become haters of Israel, and the Turkish military has been clipped.

Yes, Turkey needs Israeli arms. Who doesn't? The sale of arms does not translate into friendship. Dictatorships are capable of temporary accommodations with enemies. So long as Turkey is ruled by an Islamist ideology, Israel would be prudent to consider it an enemy.

The region has a history of governments supporting and then betraying the Kurds. The present antipathy between Turkey and Iran and Syria may play out the same way. Turkey has a similar ideology to Iran's. Turkey's criticism of Syria may be based on the instability of that neighbor, Syria's weakening impairing the Radical Islamist front, and even President Assad's repression of the Moslem Brotherhood, which otherwise might make a closer ally with Turkey.

The newspaper report should have stated international law on foreign incursions. International law holds a recognized government responsible to prevent cross-border incursions. If it fails that duty, then the invaded country may strike back in hot pursuit of the raiders. The notion of "hot pursuit" has become somewhat obsolete, when the raiders are more organized, as they often are these days. The only true recourse is to wipe the terrorists out in their bases.

The question is how far should the victimized country go? So far, Turkey appears within its rights, and Iraq appears failing in its responsibilities. Iraq and Kurdistan should examine themselves. How much does the regional Kurdish government in Iraq promote or condone terrorist forces because it sympathizes with the Kurds of Turkey? Can it point to efforts to curb the terrorists?

It is one thing to sympathize with civilian victims of a war. It is another thing to condemn a country for inflicting those casualties. Blanket and automatic condemnation can facilitate terrorists who commit war crimes by attacking the country's civilians, and who deliberately station themselves among their own civilians. Arab terrorists have succeeded in getting its victim, Israel, condemned and in deterring Israel's self-defense. The condemnation defies international law. The U.S. is one of the countries that has condemned Israel, though it wages its own wars the same way!

International law upholds the right of self-defense and permits it to inflict civilian casualties if done in the course of genuine military objectives. International law holds the aggressors responsible for ensuing civilian casualties. So would common sense, if critics of Israel's Gaza tactics didn't override reason with anti-Zionist or pro-Muslim ideology.

How ironic that the terrorists, who attack enemy civilians and who endanger their own terrorists, are able to get their enemies condemned for attempting to stop the terrorist war criminals! Terrorist diplomatic success shows the high influence of ideology and the low state of international ethics.

Would Haaretz ever realize that the Kurds have a far better case for a country of their own, than do Palestinian Arabs? Unlike Palestinian Arabs, the Kurds are a separate nationality with a separate language and culture from the countries around them, with their artificial boundaries++: Turkey, Iraq, Iran, and Syria.


Summary of Israeli Ambassador's Letter to UNIFIL Discussing Problems (The Statement by Ambassador Haim Waxman can be read here.1

Since the ceasefire agreement banning Hizbullah military emplacements south of the Litani River, Hizbullah has installed tens of thousands of rockets throughout Lebanon, including south of the river. These rockets menace most of Israel's population.

As the UN knows, Hizbullah is seeking even more advanced weaponry from Iran, via Syria. UNIFIL has not enforced the arms embargo against Hizbullah nor has it disbanded Hizbullah and other Lebanese militias.

Hizbullah embeds military infrastructure among civilians, even in UNIFIL areas of operations, sometimes within schools, hospitals, houses, and mosques. Such deployment violates international law. Israel has furnished the UN with evidence of this, to no avail.

Going further, Hizbullah has been enlisting civilians to block, stone, threaten with weapons, steal equipment, and now to attack UN forces moving toward areas of Hizbullah violations.

UN reports hardly mention Hizbullah and its violations. Will the UN let its UNIFIL forces be stymied or worse? Or will it provide the resources for UNIFIL to enforce Resolution 1701?

Lebanon is failing to do its mandated part in enforcing UN Resolution 1701. Instead, it has provoked border incidents with Israel by unprovoked firing upon Israeli troops.

What does the Israeli Ambassador conclude? He calls the presence of UNIFIL "indispensable" for "stability," thanks its troops and the countries that dispatched them, and welcoming the renewal of UNIFIL's mandate.

Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA notes that Israel is thanking UNIFIL for having "miserably failed to do its job." (IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis, 8/31/11).

Diplomacy can be foolish, but must it be that willfully blind? How are people going to learn about UN prejudice and ineptitude if Israel thanks the UN for it? Shouldn't Israel be demanding necessary reform of resolution 1701 or withdrawal of UNIFIL?

The Netanyahu regime should not be reluctant to point out the failure of UNIFIL and the predicted failure of Security Council Resolution 1701. After all, the Resolution still is cited by Netanyahu's chief rival, and now head of the Kadima Party, as the crowning achievement of that Party's foreign policy. Kadim Party head and former Foreign Min. Livni boasts that the ceasefire agreement accompanying 1701, which she fostered, has made Israel secure from Hizbullah. Shouldn't Israelis know that she blundered before the rockets crash into their cities?

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 Mech'el Samberg, August 31, 2011.

This was written by the Gothamist. It appeared on the Gothamist website and is archived at
http://gothamist.com/2011/09/01/ rye_playland_bans_hijabs_for_safety.php
Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.


After a brawl erupted between police and Muslims at Rye Playland yesterday, local officials defended what some have criticized as a disproportionate use of force. "The incident was very quickly escalating," Peter Tartaglia, deputy commissioner of the Westchester County Parks Department, tells the Times, "and the police had no choice to interfere, or it could have turned into a riot." Video shows police pushing at least one Muslim woman to the ground, and over 100 officers responded to the melee, which was started by one 17-year-old girl from Brooklyn.

"I started the whole thing," Ola Salem tells Lohud.com. She says she was told to remove her headgear if she wanted to go on a ride, and recalls telling the attendant, "This has nothing to do with headgear. This is my religion." Salem complained to a manager, who refused to bend the rules, explaining that her scarf could get stuck in a wheel. As word spread among the 3,000 Muslims visiting the amusement park, a heated debate unfolded near the park's entrance.

Lohud.com reports that some members of the group were yelling at the women to just take off their scarves. "That's like telling a girl to take off her shirt," Salem's twin brother, Ali, recalls. He says he saw a park ranger push a Muslim woman, she pushed back, and then "Rangers pulled out sticks and started hitting people, taking them to the floor." In all, 13 people were arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

Cyrus McGoldrick, civil rights manager at the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, tells the Times, "There seems to have been a disproportionate response in which police used excessive strength and force to subdue female protesters. That had a snowball effect on the antagonism and aggression that ensued."

Whether police overreacted or not, it seems the melee could have been avoided had the group's organizers communicated to their members that 10 of the 26 rides at the park would be off-limits to hijab wearers. According to emails obtained by Lohud.com, Playland officials were clear about the ban on hijabs and other "headgear," but a flier about the trip sent out to the group had no mention of hijabs being banned on certain rides. Still, Ali Shibah of Yonkers, who was part of the Muslim group, tells the Post, "I understand the point that this could be a safety issue. But they have to learn how to deal with certain groups... What would they say if the Virgin Mary wanted to go on a ride — to take off her hijab?"

It appears that Rye Playand's rules are stricter than other amusement parks'. Six Flags in New Jersey, for instance, permits hijabs on rides as long as they are securely wrapped around the head. On the other hand, Six Flags hasn't had a fatal accident since the '80s, and it may be that Rye Playland has tighter safety regulations because of a 2005 incident in which a 7-year-old boy who was killed on a boat ride at the park.

Editor's Note: A Fox NY home video is available here. Odd that no one mentioned that two policemen were badly beaten by the mob and had to be taken to the hospital. The tour organizers, the Muslim American Society of New York, had been warned about the ban on head scarves. The women were offered their money back. As Cal Thomas writes in Fox News:

"Because some of them attempted to board the rides anyway, it can't help but raise a question about whether this was another attempt to force us to lower our guard against those Muslims who mean us harm. As we have seen at airports and other venues, Muslim activists have deliberately tried to create incidents against the government in order to avoid searches and questions about their behavior and conversations."

'It's clear, this all happened because we're Muslim,' says Dena Meawad. (Norman Y. Lono for News).

Yup. A clear case of Islamophobia and schmatta-neurosis.

Contact Mech'el Samberg at mechelsambergnew@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, August 31, 2011.

Anti-Israel boycotters increasingly successful in strangling economy of Jewish state: More than 20 organizations in Europe in 13 countries endorse boycott of Agrexco, Israel's leading flower exporter


Many Israeli agricultural products have been recently targeted by the Israel boycott campaign: tomatoes, peppers, citrus fruit, carrots, melons, strawberries and celery. But the flowers have been the primary obsession of the divestment movement, which wants to strangle the Israeli economy.

Agrexco, Israel's leading flower exporter, has recently declared bankruptcy, partially due to the global boycott of its produce, according to some reports. More than 20 organizations in Europe in 13 countries endorsed a boycott of Agrexco.

International pressure, boycotts and sanctions on South Africa's apartheid government played a major role in ending its power. Modeled on that global campaign, the anti-Israel boycott movement has notched notable victories of late, while making use of an old Marxist lexicon ("imperialism," "colonialism," "occupation," and "settler society").

The first symbol of the anti-Israel economic campaign, Caterpillar, was far removed from the Western public consciousness. Yet Israeli roses were a better Jewish scapegoat, as flowers are a pillar of Israel's economy (in the 1980s Israel became the world's number two flower exporter. Agrexco was boycotted because it's partially owned by the Israeli government and because the company has some farms in the Jordan Valley and in Tekoa, a settlement at the gates of the Judean desert.

Last year, Norway's oil fund withdrew its investment from Africa-Israel and Danya Cebus citing their involvement in "settlement construction." Just recently, the Swedish Coop has decided to terminate all purchases of Soda Stream carbonation devices. Meanwhile, the Methodist Church had passed an "anti-Israel" motion demanding a boycott of goods from "illegal" settlements. Quakers in Britain have also agreed to boycott Israeli products.

Elsewhere, major Dutch pension fund Pensioenfonds Zorg en Welzijn, which has investments totaling 97 billion euros, has divested from almost all the Israeli companies in its portfolio (banks, telecommunication companies, construction companies and Elbit Systems.) A large Swedish pension fund also divested from Elbit over the latter's role in building Israel's West Bank security fence. Meanwhile, the Ethical Council of four Swedish buffer pension funds urged Motorola "to pull out of the Israeli-occupied territories in the West Bank" or face divestment.

On the cultural front, a film festival in Scotland returned funding to the Israeli Embassy after succumbing to boycott activists who threatened to picket the event. Elsewhere, some major Indian artists have announced the boycott of a show scheduled at the Tel Aviv State Museum in the spring of 2012. Dozens of music stars also endorsed the boycott this past year (Elvis Costello, Gil Scott-Heron, Roger Waters).

Western universities infested

And there's more: A major boycott is going to be approved soon at the Park Slope Food Coop, a renowned cooperative in Brooklyn, affecting Israeli paprika, bath salts, vegan marshmallows and the Soda Stream seltzer machine. Norway's governmental pension and Germany's Deutsche Bank divested from Elbit. The flagship London outlet of beauty company Ahava has been closed after years of protest. A Scottish council recently banned Israeli books from its public libraries. Eden Springs, the major Israeli water company, will not have its contract renewed by the famous London School of Economics.

The Hudson's Bay Company, the oldest commercial corporation in North America, also discontinued sales of Ahava. Although this decision was made for "commercial reasons", it coincided with an aggressive campaign by several groups advocating a boycott of Ahava.

Most of the Western universities are now infested with a virulent anti-Jewish mood. Students at Edinburgh University just voted in favor of a boycott of Israel. The University of Johannesburg has cut its links with Beersheba's Ben-Gurion University. DePaul University's Student Association approved a boycott of Sabra hummus. The French University of Aix en Provence cancelled a meeting with Israeli writer Esther Orner after a boycott by Arab authors. Alan Dershowitz recently charged that Norwegian universities are conducting "an implicit boycott of Israel."

Several companies, primarily Swedish firm Assa Abloy, which runs Mul-T-Lock, and the partly Dutch-owned Wine Cellars, have pulled out of the Barkan industrial area, near the Israeli city of Ariel. The Spanish government disqualified Ariel University Center of Samaria from competing in the finals of the international contest between university architecture departments to build a self-sufficient house using solar power. The Norwegian EL & IT union, which represents thousands energy and telecommunications workers, has adopted a boycott of the Histadrut labor union federation.

Brazil's largest trade union voted for the boycott and called for the suspension of Israeli-Brazilian economic agreements and military ties. French firm Veolia, which operated the light rail project in Jerusalem, sold its shares in the project. Deutsche Bahn just withdrew from the same project, with German transport Minister Peter Ramsauer offeringthe following reason for terminating the project: "Palestinian Foreign affairs Minister Riyad al-Malki, members of the German Parliament and media have criticized a project in which DB international is acting as adviser to Israel's state-run railway." Italian company Pizzarotti is now under pressure for the same train project.

When Italian stores last year announced the banning of Agrexco, the company's director, Shimon Alchasov, rhetorically asked me: "Should I mark the products with a yellow star of David?" The late, great historian Raul Hilberg explained that the economic strangling of the Jews in business, education and employment was the first step in the Holocaust. Now the same "Raus mit Uns" (out with us) boycott is bleeding the State of Israel.

Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism.
This article appeared in Ynet News and is archived at

Editor's Note:

The Divest This! website has produced The BDS Cookbook, which has tips on how to "Confront and Defeat BDS." It is available at http://www.stopbds.com/

It has also published an excellent monograph -- both easy to read and informative -- on the history of the BDS campaigns and how to combat them. It is called "Divest This: How to Stop the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Attack on Israel." The PDF version is called "divestthis_winning_against_bds.pdf. Download it from the Divest This! website at

The following is called "Dear YNet: The Sky is not Falling". It emphasizes the need to confront any BSD program effectively, but it believes the BSD campaigns have not succeeded. It advises: "Don't Panic, Don't be complacent." It was published today in "Divest This!" and is archived at
http://www.divestthis.com/2011/08/dear-ynet-sky-is-not-falling.html It was posted by Jon.

With this the 300th entry to Divest This (can you believe there have been that many things to say about this subject?), I had planned to write a description of what the final failure of BDS might look like. But with publication of today's "Sacrebeu! BDS is On the March! We've Got to Do Something!!!!!" panic piece from Ynet, I thought it best to alert my reader that the sky is indeed not falling.

The first thing I noticed when reading over the Ynet article was that the author got nearly every single fact wrong.

Agrexco, Israel's leading flower company, is going through financial problems not because of significant losses in exports, but due to a major drop in the domestic market (along with a host of general financial issues). Similarly 2009-2010 "divestment" from the Africa-Israel Corporation was not due to politics but to the company's near hopeless debt situation, trigged by the 2008-2009 crash in the real estate industry. In both these cases, BDS activists have made claims that the financial problems these companies face were based on their boycott and divestment advocacy, but (as chronicled here and elsewhere), these claims were exposed as fraudulent time and time again.

The article also mentions Caterpillar Tractor without once mentioning that anti-Israel divestment targeting Caterpillar at universities, churches and the like have been going on for close to a decade without one share of Caterpillar stock ever being sold by one of these institutions for political reasons. And Caterpillar itself has all but told the BDSers to piss off after years of harassment at annual shareholder meetings.

As we move onto boycotts, the Park Slope Food Co-op is not going to approve a boycott of Israel products "soon," for the simple fact that a decision on this matter is not even on their agenda. A group of local BDSers is pressuring the Co-op to put a boycott to a member ballot (which wouldn't necessarily be binding), and even this so-far-unsuccessful campaign has been met with stiff resistance by members trying to avoid having the Middle East conflict dragged into their community.

The University of Johannesburg recently reversed its decision to break ties with Israel's Ben-Gurion University. Hudson Bay has made it clear that it did not pull Ahava products off the shelf at the urging of BDSers. DePaul University rejected (not approved) a boycott of Sabra hummus, and on and on and on. (I'm assuming the Ynet piece is an editorial vs. a regular news story, but even so how hard can it be to use this new Internet thingy to double check so many easily debunked claims?)

Even in situations where BDS "wins" documented in this story are not simply false or outdated, boycott or divestment "victories" can hardly be described as successes. Rockers like Elvis Costello cancelling their gigs in Israel have proven to be far more embarrassing to the performers than to Israel. The violent protests that led to the closure of an Ahava store in London or the ban on Israeli products (including books) by a local council in Scotland exposed BDSers and mindless thugs, incompetent ideologues or both. Recent attempts to reproduce such bully-boy tactics in Australia have managed to unite nearly the entire Australian political spectrum against the boycotters. So again, are we supposed to quake in fear of such BDS tactics, or simply continue to (successfully) fight against them?

I'm not familiar with the author of the story, and from what I can tell he seems to have sent up this signal flare in an attempt to alert his fellow Israel supporters to what he perceives to be a mounting danger. And there is something to be said about not becoming smug or assuming that if we just ignore BDS or other de-legitimization activities they will just go away.

But in this case, the real story is how most if not all of the problems he chronicles have been dealt with rather well. BDS financial hoaxes (such as those relating to Israel-Africa) are now exposed so quickly that the divestment cru rarely uses this tactic anymore out of (legitimate) fear of getting quickly cost and embarrassed. Even in harsh political environments (like U Johannesburg), sensible heads are prevailing. And this entire story of Israel's alleged dire economic predicament due to boycotts ignores the fact that Israeli exports and the Israeli economy itself close to doubled during the decade when BDS is alleged to have forced it to its knees.

The motto on all these matters still holds: Don't Panic, Don't be Complacent. And while I welcome calls to avoid complacency, panic (especially one informed by so much mis-information) really doesn't do anyone any good.

To Go To Top

Posted by Sanne DeWitte, August 31, 2011.
This was written by Daniel Pipes and is archived at
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/08/ middle-eastern-upheavals-enter-round-two.

The following replies to a question posed by National Review Online: "With Qaddafi vowing a win or martyrdom and Assad being urged to step down by the West, what has happened to the Arab Spring this summer? Has it been a summer of progress . . . democracy . . . Western-media delusion? Where stands the Arab Spring as we prepare to mark the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks? We asked a group of Middle East experts." For the answers by the other twelve authors, see "Long, Hot Arab Summer: The Arab Spring, circa the end of August."

Round one of the Middle Eastern upheavals consisted of uncannily parallel coups d'état in Tunisia and Egypt. In both, street demonstrations prompted the security/military establishment to rid itself of a rapacious, unpopular president. Events moved so quickly because, faced with rejection by their own institutional power bases, Presidents Ben Ali and Mubarak had little choice but to resign. They were rapidly replaced by another security/military leader who kept most of the governing institutions, practices, and policies in place. Neither liberals nor Islamists made much of a difference over the subsequent half year.

Round two consists of the near-certain overthrow of the Qaddafi regime in Libya and the likely overthrow of the Asad dynasty in Syria as well as the Saleh regime in Yemen. In all three cases, revolution is underway. Should these leaders fall, so do the institutions of their rule, leading to chaos and the eventual founding of an entirely new government. In the Syrian and Yemeni cases, there could well be no effective central government but the devolution of power to regions, ethnicities, ideological groups, or tribes.

In other words, the second round is more consequential than the first. Further, the five aforementioned states may not be the only ones in play. Algeria and Jordan could undergo similar processes of upheaval and revolution. Plus, picking up from the repressed riots of 2009, some small spark could set off a conflagration in Iran, the Middle East's most disruptive state.

Round three could even follow, consisting of regional breakups. Prime candidates here include Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Turkey.

In brief, we could be just at the start of a wild ride in the world's most volatile region. (August 25, 2011)

Editor's Note: I found this interchange in the Readers' Comments thought-provoking:

What if it were 1&1/2 Million instead of 1&1/2 Billion?
Submitted by Ron Thompson (United States), Aug 28, 2011 at 15:22

This survey by Daniel Pipes which I, perhaps perversely, find more optimistic than pessimistic, prompts a question that often comes to mind.

If we were faced with a religion of 1&1/2 million adherents, or 10&1/2 million, or even 100&1/2 (150M) million adherents, which continually produced a steady stream of suicide killers sent by or with the blessing of the clerics of that religion against Westerners, and far more lethally against their fellow believers, killers who targeted them while they were out shopping, and even while inside their places of worship, or at funerals for peole killed by earlier bombers, instead of a religion of 1&1/2 billion, would be so relentless in making excuses for that religion as we are with islam?

By somehow, consciously or unconsciously, continually making and re-making the vast collective decision that no matter how many are killed, or what degree of barbarous nihilism is reached, we must never, ever ask whether there is something wrong at the core of the religion of Islam, are we failing to consider what is perhaps in the long run the very best weapon we have against this plague of mindless villence and oppression?

Imagine if we had Christian or Jewish suicide killers loose among us — would we accept other Christians or Jews saying, "Oh, that's not the real Christianity (or Judaism)"? I can't believe we would, just as i can't believe that no one from islam has accepted responsibility, in the name of islam, for what has come out of islam in the past generation under the avoidance-names of "Islamism", or "militant" Islam, or most ridiculously, "violent extremism".

We see no signs there is any significant introspection among the thinkers of Islam, that they are asking, or ever have asked themselves, is there any chance there is something basically wrong with our creed? With our attitudes toward women? With our attitudes toward sex? With our attitudes toward peaceful resolution of conflicts, or toward the idea of peacefulness itself?

By we in the West joining with the believers of Islam, in tacitly agreeing that whatever is going on with the endless violence in Islam, toward its own adherents and toward the entire outside world of Infeldom, it can't possibly be that maybe there's something wrong at the core of the Message of Mohammed, we may ourselves be failing one of the two or three greatest moral tests of the Age.

Well Said
Submitted by Prashant (United States), Aug 29, 2011 at 00:03

Ron Thompson made wrote a very well reasoned note on your site. Everyone should read it. I am noticing that more and more people are using the phrase "Islamic hypocrisy" on your site. Indeed, there is nothing admirable in the behavior of Islamists and Islamic apologists. They forget repeatedly and completely that rules of honorable human conduct imply symmetry.

Don't killl others if you dont want to get killed. Don't call others sinners if you don't want to be called sinners. Don't marry four wives if you don't want to be one of four husbands. Don't demand democratic rights if your own magna carta is against democracy. Don't carry your religion on your sleeves if you would like others to not carry theirs on their sleeves.

These are commonsense rules which are blatantly missing in Islamic conduct. But the as more and more people highlight these facts, it will get increasingly difficult for hypocrites to hide.

I appreciate your comments
Submitted by Ron Thompson (United States), Aug 29, 2011 at 18:08

Thank you for your comments and well-chosen follow-up remarks.

One sentence I should have added would have pointed out the extent many people seem to be hypnotized by the sheer number of adherents to Islam. But it is nonsense that numbers alone should determine the worth or respectability of any belief system. Such a hypnotized deer-in-the-headlights reaction to the fact that there over a billion Moslems has led to a adngerous taboo.

It prevents all sorts of questions and analysis which, among other considerations, precludes us from knowing how many of those tens of millions may themsleves be doubters or possible drop-outs from the religion. After all, if the most hated enemy — the West — of the most vocal Moslems should subject itself to the Taboo of never saying anything critical of the religion itself, why on earth should potential doubters or drop-outs take the terrible risk of speaking up.

Our collective refusal, or rather the refusal of our timid leaders, to confront Islam per se may have the huge effect of depriving us of all sorts of potential and probable allies among the populations of the many nominally Moslem nations.

Cracking the Iron Curtain taboo on criticizing Islam, this time an Iron Curtain imposed on ourselves (which can probably be most clearly dated to the craven kowtowing to mob violence at the time of the Danish cartoon fiasco), would open up wide vistas for intellectual challenge and debate, a true global dialogue on whether islam cabn be a citizen of the modern world.

For instance, is the choice for the Moslem populations, Islam or Prosperity, Islam or Democracy, Islam or Human Rights, Islam or Iree Speech, Islam or Modernity? Is it possible that none of those things will ever happen unless Islam is either jettisoned as a belief system, or rendered subject to some sort of separation of Mosque and State?

Pre-eminently, these should all be at least discussable issues without fear of death threats or hysterical violence

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, August 30, 2011.

This was written by Ileana-Ros-Lehtinen, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.


The recent onslaught of violent attacks against Israel reminds us of the growing threats facing the Jewish state. But even as extremists from Gaza fire rockets and mortars at civilians in southern Israel and cause death and destruction, we must not forget about another danger facing Israel: a unilateral campaign by Palestinian leaders to secure recognition from individual foreign governments and from the United Nations for a self-declared Palestinian "state." This anti-Israel, anti-peace scheme must be stopped.

Abu Mazen's Palestinian leadership has announced that they will seek recognition from the United Nations in September. They will likely turn first to the U.N. Security Council, where the United States holds a veto and should use it, although the Obama administration has yet to pledge that it will.

The next step would be the General Assembly, which has an automatic anti-Israel, anti-American majority made up largely of member states that are not democratic and other governments that repeatedly vote with rogue regimes and against Israel and the United States. The General Assembly cannot grant membership to a "Palestinian state" without the approval of the Security Council, but the General Assembly can grant the present Palestinian observer the upgraded U.N. status of "non-member state observer," which is the same status granted to Vatican City. Other U.N. agencies and programs could also grant membership or other upgraded status to Ramallah.

Such U.N. actions would severely undermine opportunities for a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. They would provide implicit recognition and legitimacy to a self-declared "state" and reward and reinforce the unilateral, rejectionist policies of the Palestinian leadership. Restarting bilateral negotiations would become even more difficult. Ramallah could seize on the U.N.'s actions to escalate its efforts to demonize and isolate Israel internationally, including through seeking an International Criminal Court investigation in order to undermine Israel's right to defend itself from attacks by violent extremist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah — including the very attacks that have killed several Israelis and wounded many others in recent days.

If the U.N. were to act in support of this unilateral Palestinian scheme, it would deal a blow not only to Israel and to the cause of peace, but to the U.N. itself. The U.N.'s obsession with castigating Israel — from the Human Rights Council and the Goldstone Report and the Durban conferences to the multitude of U.N. bodies created for the sole purpose of condemning Israel — has eliminated the U.N.'s credibility to aid in achieving peace and security in the Middle East. The U.N.'s most infamous anti-Israel act came in 1975, when the General Assembly voted to declare that "Zionism is racism."

Over 35 years later — and 20 years after the General Assembly repealed that resolution — the U.N. is still rightly discredited by that hateful act. Next month, if the U.N. again sides with Palestinian rejectionism and against Israel and peace, it will be "Zionism is racism" all over again. The U.N., not Israel, will lose whatever remaining legitimacy it holds, and it may never be able to recover.

Fortunately, we are not helpless in the face of this dangerous challenge. There is a historical precedent for how to stop it.

In 1989, Yasser Arafat's PLO also pushed for membership for a "Palestinian state" in UN entities. The PLO's strategy looked unstoppable until the George H.W. Bush administration made clear that the U.S. would cut off funding to any UN entity that upgraded the status of the Palestinian observer mission in any way. The UN was forced to choose between isolating Israel and receiving U.S. contributions, and they chose the latter. The PLO's unilateral campaign was stopped in its tracks.

This example demonstrates a simple but needed lesson: At the UN, money talks, and smart withholding works.

With Arafat's successors up to the same tricks today, the U.S. response must be as strong. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has consistently refused to use our strongest leverage — our financial contributions — to advance U.S. interests at the UN. If the executive branch will not demonstrate leadership on this issue, Congress must fill the void.

I will soon introduce the United Nations Transparency, Accountability, and Reform Act, which will reflect the executive branch's previous successful policies by cutting off U.S. contributions to any UN entity that grants membership or any other upgraded status to the Palestinian observer mission. This legislation will also leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars to make sure they do not fund biased or wasteful UN activities, and to achieve other much-needed reforms that will make the UN more transparent, accountable, objective, and effective.

It is time to use all our leverage to stop this unilateral Palestinian scheme — for the sake of our ally Israel and all free democracies, for the sake of peace and security, and for the sake of achieving a UN that upholds its founding principles.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yoram Fisher, August 30, 2011.

This was written by Velvet Hammer and it appeared today on the Ironic Surrealism website (http://ironicsurrealism.com/category/islam/). Contact them at Ironicsurrealism@ymail.com


"The Christian is Free to Worship His God in His Church, but if the Christians Make Problems for the Muslims, I Will Exterminate Them"

(Memri) — On August 13, 2011, the Egyptian daily Roz Al-Yousef published an interview[1] with Sheikh 'Adel Shehato, a senior official in Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ), who, on March 23, 2011, was freed from prison in the wake of the Egyptian revolution. He was imprisoned in 1991 upon returning from a three-year sojourn in Afghanistan.


Following are excerpts of the interview:

Q: "Do you support the uprising?"

Shehato: "...The [Egyptian] youth rose up for a certain ideal... They did not rise up in order to put the shari'a into practice, nor did they [complain] that Mubarak's regime did not rule in accordance with the shari'a... As Muslims, we must believe that the Koran is our constitution, and that it is [therefore] impossible for us to institute a Western democratic regime. I oppose democracy because it is not the faith of the Muslims, but the faith of the Jews and Christians. Simply put, democracy means the rule of the people itself over itself... According to Islam, it is forbidden for people to rule and to legislate laws, as Allah alone is ruler. Allah did not hand down the term [democracy] as a form of rule, and it is completely absent from the Arab and Islamic lexicon..."

Q: "If you do not believe in the rule of the people, why did you go out to Al-Tahrir Square with the slogan 'the People Wants to Implement the shari'a?' Are you exploiting democracy in order to achieve what you want [only] to then abolish [democracy]?"

Shehato: "I am not exploiting democracy, since I have never joined and will never join politics or party activity... We believe that implementation of the shari'a [must be accomplished] far from the political game, though some [other] Islamic streams are willing to participate [in this game] in order to achieve the same goal [i.e., implementation of the shari'a]. We said that 'the people wants to implement the shari'a' because most of the people are Muslims, and also based on [our] reading of the situation on the ground. [At the same time,] we did not make demands for the people's sake in the people's name, but demanded the rule of Allah. And once Allah's law is instated, the role of the people will end and Allah will reign supreme."

Q: "How do you reconcile your opposition to the will of the people with the notion of shura [consultation] in Islam?"

Shehato: "'Shura' in Islam means that alongside the Muslim ruler, there is a steering council comprising the finest of the senior Muslim clerics, to be selected on the basis of their piety and political leadership [abilities]. But there is no consultation with commoners, such as workers and fallahin, nor is there consultation over issues that contravene the shari'a."

Q: "What solution is the EIJ suggesting [today], after the revolution?"

Shehato: "...We still espouse the old jihadi ideology that is today the ideology of Sheikh Ayman Al-Zawahiri, the late Sheikh Osama bin Laden, and Abu Muhammad Al-Maqdisi... If the revolution was meant to overthrow the tyrant Mubarak, then we have always said that all the Arab rulers, without exception, are infidels who must be killed because they do not rule according to the shari'a. They are apostate infidels, as opposed to infidels like the Jews and Christians, and anyone who doubts that they are infidels is an infidel [himself]."

Q: "But we Egyptians have never regarded the Christians as infidels. [In fact,] many of us have Christian friends even closer than our Muslim friends."

Shehato: "As a Muslim, I must support the Muslim and oppose the Christian. If there is a Christian who does me no harm, I will maintain limited contact with him. Islam [discusses] certain degrees of contact with the Christian, namely: keeping promises [that were made him], dealing honestly with him, treating him kindly, and befriending him. The first three are allowed, but the fourth [i.e., befriending the Christian] is deemed dangerous, for it contravenes the verse that says, 'O you who believe! Do not take my enemy and your enemy for friends: would you offer them love while they deny what has come to you of the truth' [Koran 60:1]. It is inconceivable that they should serve in judiciary or executive posts, for instance in the army or the police."

Q: "Are you against blowing up churches?"

Shehato: "Yes and no. The Christian is free to worship his god in his church, but if the Christians make problems for the Muslims, I will exterminate them. I am guided by the shari'a, and it stipulates that they must pay the jizya tax while in a state of humiliation..."

Q: "These positions of yours frighten us, as Egyptians."

Shehato: "I will not act [in ways] that contradict my faith just in order to please the people... We say to the Christians, convert to Islam or pay the jizya, otherwise we will fight you. The shari'a is not based on [human] logic but on divine law. That is why we oppose universal, manmade constitutions."

Q: "If you rise to power in Egypt, will you launch a campaign of Islamic conquest?"

Shehato: "Of course we will launch a campaign of Islamic conquest, throughout the world. As soon as the Muslims and Islam control Egypt and implement the shari'a [there], we will turn to the neighboring regions, [such as] Libya [to the west] and Sudan to the south. All the Muslims in the world who wish to see theshari'a implemented worldwide will join the Egyptian army in order to form Islamic battalions, whose task will be to bring about the victory of [our] faith. We hope that, with Allah's help, Egypt will be the spark [that sets off this process]..."

Q: "You said that you endorse the ideology of Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Does this mean that your way of implementing shari'a in Egypt will be through violence and war, like their [way]?"

Shehato: "No, we will implement the shari'a through da'wa [preaching], while violence will be directed only at the infidel Arab rulers. In their case, there is no choice but to use force, though the shari'a does not call it 'violence' but 'jihad for the sake of Allah.' There is no other way... because they have power and weapons..."

Q: "How will the foreign ministry [operate] in an Islamic state?"

Shehato: "There are Muslims and there are infidels. We will have ambassadors in every country. We want to call all other countries to join Islam, and that will be the task of the ambassadors. If [the countries] refuse, there will be war. We will not tolerate mutual trade and cultural ties with non-Muslims."

Q: "If you rise to power, what will be your approach to tourism?"

Shehato: "There will be tourism for purposes of [medical] treatment, but the tourism sites of the pyramids, the Sphinx, and Sharm Al-Sheikh will be shut down, because my task [as a ruler] is to get people to serve Allah rather than [other] people [i.e., tourists]. No proud Muslim will ever be willing to live off tourism profits, because the tourists come [to Egypt] to drink alcohol and fornicate. [If they] want to come, they must comply with the conditions and laws of Islam. We will explain to them that, according to the shari'a, the pyramids are [the remains of] a pagan and polytheistic age."

Q: "What will be the state of art and literature in such a state?"

Shehato: "In Islam, there is no such thing as art. Painting, singing, and dancing are forbidden. Therefore, in the [Islamic] state there will be nothing but Islamic culture, for I cannot teach [people] the infidel culture. As for literature, such as [the works] of Naguib Mahfouz, it is forbidden. Naguib Mahfouz was a criminal who stimulated [people's] desires and struck a severe blow to modesty. We will return to the decent culture of the Muslims and the Muslim forefathers, and to Islamic history."

Also see this report at Memri:
Egyptian Cleric Dr. Sallah Sultan, Founder of the American Center for Islamic Research [Columbus, Ohio], Calls to Kill Israeli Ambassador and Tourists in Egypt: Video.Transcript.

Contact Yoram Fisher at yoramski@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Eliana Benador, August 30, 2011.

When historians will look back at the events that began on February 2011, with the Egyptian uprising, they will understand how Western Civilization was being the victim of an incredible and very complex conspiracy. Those of us in the know, have been fearing this could happen maybe in 50 years, but the situation has worsened precipitously during this last year.

It was amazing how world leaders could see the "Arab Spring" unravel as they watched Muslims masses rise against their former dictators as in the Tahrir rally against President Mubarak who, despite all his flaws, has been a great friend of America and the West at large. After all, it was not difficult to see the masses of women in white burkas — most likely for Western consumption — white is linked to innocence, while black is what it is, darkness.

One could also observe many rally participants, men or women, aware and constantly keeping track of the satellites above them, in charge of transmitting not only communication but actually showing them to the rest of the world. Though not done on purpose, but it was a subtle way to keep, otherwise unruly Muslim masses, on check.

Some days later, February 15, 2011, the world was alerted by another explosive situation developing this time in Libya, where rebel forces began a revolt against their strongman, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi in an armed conflict to depose him and which was to last several months.

Only nine days thereafter, the UN Security Council moved to unanimously adopt Resolution 1970 condemning any use of "lethal force" by Gaddafi against the insurgents. And, in an unprecedented move, the Security Council swiftly referred Libya to the International Criminal Court.

In an unusual move, from the onset, the UN Security Council 'expressed grave concern" at the situation in Libya condemning the use of force against civilians. And, for once, they condemned the repression and violations of human rights as well as attempts by the Libyan government to incite violence. The Security Council also welcomed statements of condemnation coming from the Arab League, the African Union, The Organization of the Islamic Conference and the United Nations Human Rights Council. And they announced as well that attacks on protesters would be considered "crimes against humanity."

Meanwhile, US as part of NATO had their warplanes turn their firepower against ground forces loyal to their former friend, Libya's, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

As a matter of fact, in America, president Obama even bypassed Congress to wage war in Libya. But, why would the president avoid asking authorization by Congress to send our militay the Libyan rebels?

The political turnaround has been impressive. As recently as 2003, and thanks to African nations,Libya had been elected to chair the United Nations Human Rights Commission. America under president Bush complained unsuccessfully to then Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Now we know that even under president G.W. Bush, the expansion of mosques or masjids continued to proliferate actively and silently throughout the American territory.

It was striking that, on February 23rd, 2011, only eight days after the insurgents began operations to remove Colonel Gaddafi, the United Nations already cut ties with Libya's ruling family. The expeditiousness of the United Nations in doing so was surprising especially because of the close relationship they had — and is indicative that they either wanted or expected the situation to degenerate. The dice were thrown.

Meanwhile, March 25, 2011, wires bring the news that the Libyan insurgency was lead byAbdel-Hakim Al-Hasidi, a former member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) that had killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks. Al-Hasidi fought against what he calls the "foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, but he was captured in Pakistan in 2002, handed to the US and then sent to Libya where he was released in 2008.

In his current capacity as the rebels' leader, he has admitted that roughly 25 of his 'fighters' are "patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaedaare also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader." Naturally, this begs the question. Which 'invader' was this former Al Qaeda terrorist referring to, because Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was one of them and not an invader.

In other words, the American president not only bypassed Congress authorization, but he sent our military to support insurgents who counted the same former Al Qaeda terrorists their brothers-in-arms were fighting in Afghanistan. Boots on the ground or not, those are the facts.

It is very telling of course, that when former Al Qaeda terrorists-turned-Libyan-rebels first appealed for international aid, wealthy and pro-Islamic, sharia-abiding countries, as Qatar and United Arab Emirates, were among the first responders — warplanes from both countries were sent to join the NATO-led military coalition and made sure that critical aid and diplomatic support were supplied for the former Al Qaeda terrorists.

As a matter of fact, Aref Ali Nayed, ambassador to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and spokesman for the rebel "stabilization team" currently working out of Dubai, has said that Gulf expertise would be key in areas such as construction and port operations. "This has really been a partnership," he said.

On his part, Mahmoud Jibril, the number two leader in the National Transitional [rebel] Council of Libya, was meeting yesterday in Qatar with international officials to arrange $2.5 billion in funding for an interim government.

On the other hand, British Prime Minister David Cameron has said the U.K. hopes to release about 12 billion pounds ($20 billion) of Libyan assets, while the U.S. says it will soon give Libya's opposition between $1 billion and $1.5 billion in frozen Qaddafi regime assets. The U.S. has said the vast majority of about $37 billion in frozen Libyan assets it holds are in real estate and other property.

As a matter of fact, note that in April 2011, the cost of the Libya War for America was $608 million dollars, according to the Pentagon; that number increased to $896 million dollars by July 31st, also as per the Pentagon. And counting.

The question is: WHY will Obama and his Administration give Libya's former terrorists between $1 and $1.5 billion of frozen Gaddafi assets — instead of paying back to America the almost $1 billion dollars that the war has cost to the U.S., and counting? After all, now, that Colonel Gaddafi is a fugitif and the rebels are pushing to secure Tripoli, they seem to have no problem with liquidity: They have placed a bounty on the capture of Gaddafi of nearly $2 million dollars.

Thus, while world power mull what their approach to the new situation in Libya will be, the senior rebel representative, Ahmed Jehani, informs the world that a rebel transitional government would honor all the oil contracts granted under the government of Colonerl Gaddafi, including those with Chinese companies.

Naturally, many are rushing to congratulate themselves and president Obama, arguing that — with some caution and contingent to unknown, future events — he may have just become "not only a good but a great foreign policy president..."

And, it is precisely for this that I have kept la pièce de résistance for the last.

I have in my hands the Draft Constitutional Charter for the Transitional Stage of the likely upcoming Transitional Government of Libya.

It begins as follows: "In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate — In the Name of the People" [this is *no* good beginning...] and it states that it is based on the statute of the interim Transitional National Council issued on March 12th, 2011 and.... the following Charter has been promulgated:

On Part One, Article (1) it describes that "Libya is an independent Democratic State.... " but, here, "democratic" is more likely in the sense that was used during the Cold War, for instance, by partitioned Eastern Germany who called themselves the "German Democratic Republic," which as we all know had nothing of 'democratic' but on the contrary, was an oppressive state-controlled regime.

Article (1) continues giving us critical information, they keep "Tripoli capital of the State. Islam is the Religion of the State and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).

It is written black on white that sharia will be the law of LIBYA. And, sharia is absolutely incompatible with Democracy the way we understand it. Whoever says sharia and Islam will adapt to our kind of Democracy, is using his right to taqqiya.

Taqqiya is the sharia legalized license giving the right and obligation allowing any Muslim to distort reality as necessary in order to advance the cause of Islam — the invasion of Western countries in order to achieve the conquest of the West.

A few lines further, it says: "Libyans are brothers and their official relationship shall be based on law rather than tribal, proud or personal loyalty. Libyans shall be equal before the law."

"Brothers", as in Muslim Brotherhood?

As a corollary, we can conclude that the president Americans elected in 2008, has two top priorities on his agenda: Ruin America's economy. And politically, promote the global Muslim agenda keeping wider open our doors to the wave of Muslim invasion that's happening right now in front of our eyes, in America and the West.

And, as the allied forces join in the massive manhunt of the Libyan leader they once accepted among them, one can almost bet that what's coming will be the result of leaders who have not hesitated to take mankind into darkness.

Eliana Benador is a public relations consultant. Contact her by email at msbenador@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by John Cohn, August 30, 2011.

To the editor of The Forward:

RE: "Israel's Image Won't Improve Without Policy Changes"
by Gary Wexler
August 29, 2011

After critically analyzing why Israel's problems in the public eye go well beyond "branding", Gary Wexler makes an unfortunate leap to conclude that Israel's troubles must therefore be due to Israel's policies. There is, of course, a third possibility, that Israel's difficulties lie not with Israel but with those who oppose the existence of the world's only Jewish majority state in 2000 years.

During those millennia, there was no Israel. Despite that, Jews were massacred, herded into ghettos or expelled across the Christian and Muslim worlds. Following the murder of six million Jews by Nazi Germany, they gained a modicum of international acceptance, resulting in the United Nations partition of British ruled Palestine into Jewish and Arab homelands, which the Jews accepted and the Arabs promptly rejected, followed by five Arab armies invading the nascent state.

On a planet marked by brutality on a vast scale, much of the world has remained obsessed with the Palestinian Arabs. They have unquestionably suffered, although in far smaller numbers than many other groups. This has been mostly the fault of their own leaders and self-proclaimed friends who have kept them as perpetual refugees, unlike others who were resettled, rather than accept Israel's permanent existence. Palestinians were handed autonomy in Gaza and turned it into a platform for terror, while rejecting sovereignty on the West Bank if not on their own exact terms, including mass migration of the descendants of displaced Arabs not to the proffered Palestine but to Israel. Inordinate attention is paid to the deaths of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis trying to stop attacks on their citizens, tragic though that may be for those who are the innocent and accidental casualties of war, but the intentional murder of vastly more Muslims by other Muslims is largely ignored.

It is the Palestinians' policy of unappeasable rejection along with Israel's survival and success that most damages Israel's image in a world too often discomforted watching Jews forcefully defending themselves. The former is beyond their ability to change; the latter they dare not.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by John Trudel, August 30, 2011.

I'm finally a published Novelist

I'm pleased to tell you that the paper version my debut novel, God's House, is now published and available. For full information see my new website for novels, www.johntrudel.com. I now have five (5) novels completed and agented. My second one, Privacy Wars, will be out in 2012.

Stores can order paper books from their normal distributors, and you can get one in a day or so from Internet sellers. The eBook version will be out in September.

Please check out God's House. If you like it, a positive review on Amazon.com would be greatly appreciated. While you are there, also set some "tags."

Most on these lists should like my novels. They are fun reads, with patriotic, freedom-loving, and sometimes eccentric Americans working together to solve big problems. The science and history in my novels is edgy, but real, and readers are saying kind things.

Here's the best news: My publishing arrangements are capitalistic and innovative. My novels are written to entertain, not for a political agenda. Obama is only mentioned once in God's House. But if patriotic groups (TEA Parties, 9/12 & AFP Groups, Climate Realists, policy advocacy groups, etc.) like my novels, they may be able to qualify as a "reseller" with my publisher CreateSpace. If so, they can buy at wholesale, sell books, and raise money.

Please pass this note along to patriotic and local groups, most of which are stressed trying to resist big government. Some are already selling books and pamphlets to raise money, and here's one more. Most of my reviews have been positive, non-partisan, and polite, but some of my fans are, well, less PC. Here's what one outspoken patriotic Navy Vet just said, in an apparent effort to surpass my friend Don Bendell's famous "You will wet your pants" review, which is posted on Amazon and my web page.

"Trudel's God's House shakes out the anti-Freedom anti-Capitalist agents from their hideouts and exposes their true nature — the peace marchers, the lefty churches, the PC government rules, the environmental extremists, the entitlement dependents, and the UN World Brotherhood aficionados — all in a riveting tale of suspense over the acquisition of an amazing new power source technology."
— Dr. Roger Smith

9/11 desensitization, 2001 to 2011.

Please take a few moments to pause and reflect on the 9-11 attacks and the Americans who died that day. We've lost our focus. Our government is now desensitizing us to Islamic Jihad, the clash of cultures, and the hatred of America that drove an attack right up there with Pearl Harbor. We've reacted poorly. Here is the current policy:

  • TSA refuses to profile Islamic terrorists, ignores Muslims, but gropes our children and women, and grabs our junk.

  • TEA parties and patriotic groups are called "terrorists" and "racists" by high level officials.

  • The "War on Terror" has become "The overseas contingency operation."

  • We have Muslims at high levels in TSA, the Communist Party (standing with SEIU and illegal alien groups) in our streets, and reports of the Muslim Brotherhood in the White House.

  • Instead of rebuilding the Towers, Obama advocates for a trophy mosque.

  • The Arab Spring is cheered, but its strategic consequences for America are ignored.

  • Obama famously "stands with the Muslims," and makes lavish apology tours.

  • Iran is allowed nuclear weapons, while Israel and other allies are thrown under the bus.

  • There is no discussion of enforcing loyalty oaths to America, but much about Sharia Law.

  • We have an unsecured 2,000 mile border with what is becoming a failed state (Mexico).

  • Federal lands are sanctuaries for illegals, drug gangs, and terrorists (in Arizona and elsewhere).

  • Fear mongering dominates. Terrorist acts are called "manmade disasters" and 9-11 is reframed as just another event in an endless list of disasters.

  • Reading the pledge of Allegiance or flying our flag is controversial, especially the "One nation, under God" part. So are crosses in military cemeteries.

  • Active military members are banned from speaking at Christian Church events.

  • The Obama DOJ selectively ignores immigration and voter intimidation laws.

  • We are now in four wars, at least one of which is unconstitutional, with no Congressional or public debate of objectives or exit strategies.

  • The Obama Administration's policies are bankrupting America and defunding our military.

  • Instead of open hearings, we get secret committees, class warfare, Czars, and demagoguery.

Action: For this 9/11, Pray, Fly your Flag, Wake Up, and Take a Stand.

ObamaCare for books?

The boot is on our throats. Real unemployment is at depression era levels, 19.8% in Oregon. The socialist/progressives hate capitalism, and all over the country children's lemonade stands are running afoul of stupid rules. EPA is strangling our energy industries, Gibson Guitars is being destroyed, and I can't submit my novel to Barnes and Nobel without agreeing to compliance certification. [".... including, but not limited to the Consumer Product Safety Act of 2008 (CPSIA)." "Vendors are expected to maintain knowledge of and comply with all safety standards for their products."]

This is a product safety act that no one understands, as applied to a paperback book??? It reminds one of the old Soviet Empire, where everything was illegal and citizens lived in constant fear. Details about this are on my FAQ page, here. See the "Who is your publisher?"

John D. Trudel is Consultant Emeritus, Inventor, Engineer, Author, retired Adjunct Professor (U. of Oregon), and Novelist.

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berchuck, August 30, 2011.

We trained the guys who eventually started Al-Qaeda when they were willing to fight Russian proxies for us. Haven't we learned anything? The Libyan rebels include a hefty number of hardline fundamentalists, who want to see a return of 7th century Islamic practices. They include men already suspected of being in Al-Qaeda. Are we crazy?

Another point. Remember Sabra and Shatilla? Read the last paragraph. Here, we already know that the rebels are likely to revenge themselves if they are victorious. But I'll bet you a diet coke that neither England nor the USA will be blamed when it happens. Remember when the victorious Christians in Lebanon revenged previous atrocities by Muslims by slaughtering Muslims? Muslims killed Christians and Christians killed Muslims and the Jews were blamed.

This was written by Sean Rayment, defense correspondent for the Telegraph (UK). It appeared in the Telegraph 28 Aug 2011
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ africaandindianocean/libya/8727076/How-the-special- forces-helped-bring-Gaddafi-to-his-knees.html)


The attacks took place on the southern outskirts of Tripoli, a few miles north east of the international airport, where a brigade headquarters and a helicopter facility was based.

The targets were destroyed with Paveway IV satellite guided bombs prior to a secondary attack on a BM21 Grad rocket launcher west of the port of Ras Lanuf, which had been earlier spotted by a Nato reconnaissance patrol.

The mobile rocket launchers, which had been used to target civilians and attack rebel forces, were destroyed an RAF Tornado armed with Brimstone missiles.

The attacks came at the end of a week in which British special forces played a pivotal role in helping the Libyan rebel army take control of Tripoli after several days of intense fighting.

The battle for Tripoli — codename Operation Mermaid Dawn — began eight days ago, shortly after Iftar, the breaking of the Ramadan fast for the evening meal, by a pre-arranged message from the headquarters of the rebel army.

Minutes later automatic gun fire echoed around the Libyan capitol amid chants of Allahu akbar — God is Great — as hundreds of heavily armed anti-Gaddafi fighters, who had patiently waited for the appointed time, took to the streets.

Rebel commanders knew that Gaddafi would not give up Tripoli without a fight but if the city was to be taken without a blood bath a cunning plan would be required.

Planning for Mermaid Dawn — Mermaid is the Libyan nickname for Tripoli — began three months earlier when groups of young male volunteers left their homes in Tripoli and travelled to Benghazi to learn the art of insurgent warfare from an international force of covert units composed of the British SAS and MI6 agents and troops from the French, Qatar and United Arab Emirates special forces.

As well as training the rebels, the British government also covertly supplied 1,000 sets of body armour, advanced telecommunications equipment and night vision goggles.

For weeks on end the Libyan volunteers were taught weapon training, street fighting and sabotage in a series of disused compounds across the city. While the rebels trained, hundreds of weapons, tons of ammunition and communications equipment were smuggled into Tripoli and hidden in secret arms dumps.

The plan for capturing the city were drawn up by rebel commanders — they chose the targets and the date and time for the attack while the SAS and MI6 operatives were on hand to offer advice and finesse the operation.

By the middle of August, more than 200 volunteers were trained and primed for action. They then infiltrated back into the capital, disguising themselves as fishermen, or travelling through the western mountains that ringed Tripoli.

"They went back to Tripoli and waited; they became sleeper cells," said Fadlallah Haroun, a rebel military spokesman who helped organize the operation. Other volunteers went back to their homes in the cities west of Tripoli, including Zintan and Zawiya, and waited for the day to come to push into the capital."

So called "shaping attacks" began last Saturday morning when Nato war planes, including those from the RAF began a series of highly coordinated attacks against command and control bunkers, which once destroyed would leave the Libyan dictator unable to respond effectively to the insurrection.

Five precision-guided Paveway IV bombs were dropped on the Baroni Centre, a secret intelligence base under the command of Abdullah Senussi, the brother-in-law of the dictator while other aircraft, including predator drones, attacked troop concentrations, tanks and artillery batteries.

The covert order for the uprising was contained within a speech by Mustafa Abdal Jalil, the chairman of the National Transitional Council broadcast via Qatar-based Libya TV on Saturday evening when he told the citizens of Tripoli "You have to rise to the event". It was the call to arms for which the rebel fighters had been waiting.

By 8pm, a group of rebels took control of the Ben Nabi Mosque close to the city centre. Using loudspeakers normally used for the call to prayer they began to call on anti-Gaddafi supporters to join the uprising.

The timing of the operation caught Gaddafi by surprise. The rebels had spent much of the day mopping up government forces in Zawiyah, 30 miles west of Tripoli and Gaddafi's generals probably assumed that the rebels would regroup and rearm before pressing on.

One of the keys to the success of the audacious plan was the ability of the rebels to recruit Mohammed Eshkal, the head of Mohammed Megrayef Brigade — whose battalions were charged with protecting Tripoli's gates.

Although Eshkal was reportedly very close to the Gaddafi regime and one of his commanders, the Army officer harboured a deep seated hatred for the dictator who some 20-years earlier had ordered the death of his cousin.

"Eshkal carried a grudge in his heart against Gaddafi for 20 years, and he made a deal with the NTC, when the zero hour approached he would hand the city over to the rebels," said Haroun.

"Eshkal didn't care much about the revolution. He wanted to take a personal revenge from Gaddafi and when he saw a chance that he will fall, he just let it happen.

"NATO played a very big role in liberating Tripoli, they bombed all the main locations that we couldn't handle with our light weapons," said Harouin.

The secrecy surrounding Operation Mermaid's Dawn was so intense that even senior Whitehall officials were surprised when the news broke last Saturday evening.

Prime Minister David Cameron had to cut short a family holiday in Cornwall to return to London to make a statement on the operation.

"We all knew that something special was going to happen in and around Tripoli but the briefings had suggested that it was due to takes place around mid-September," a source told The Sunday Telegraph.

"But it was brought forward at very short notice and caught everyone in Government by surprise. It has been very successful and the Gaddafi's time is clearly up but it may take some time before the fighting is over."

The following day hundreds more fighters flooded into the city as the RAF and Nato aircraft pounded Gaddafi's forces in 46 separate attacks.

Members of the SAS and other foreign specialist troops were able to supply the rebels with real time intelligence from surveillance aircraft and drones enabling them to maximise their limited fire power.

On the ground the rebels sent out text messages calling for others to rise and by the afternoon the revolt had spread out across 13 suburbs.

Gaddafi took to the air waves to make a series of increasingly desperate appeals for Libyans to defend Tripoli from the rebels "as a matter or life and death" but all to no avail.

The fighting continued through the week and one of the last stronghold in the city Gaddafi's vast and well protected compound was finally overrun.

Late on Monday afternoon, Libya's state broadcaster was off the air and any sense that Gaddafi had any control over Libya had all but vanished.

On Friday the NTC announced that they had managed to install the National Transitional Council in Tripoli. An operation which was expected to last up to two weeks was over in a matter of days.

There have been periods over the past five months, since the start of the Nato mission to enforce the UN backed no fly zone, when the war appeared to have reached a stalemate.

Attacks by Nato jets, mainly led by the RAF and the French air force destroyed vast amounts of Libyan military hardware and communication centres.

The sorties not only protected civilians from attack but also allowed greater freedom of movement for the rebel forces but despite this advantage many of the advances ended in a tactical reverse.

Operation Ellamy, the British contribution to the Nato mission, began on 19th March when HMS Triumph, a Trafalgar Class submarine, along with elements of the US Navy, fired 110 Tomahawk cruise missile at various targets in Libya.

A move which followed attacks by French aircraft earlier in the day.

Almost immediately RAF Sentry and Sentinel surveillance aircraft took to the sky and began to identify potential targets for Nato aircraft.

Later that same evening RAF Tornados, equipped with Storm Shadow missiles flew from RAF Marham in Norfolk on a 3,000 mission against targets in Libya.

The attacks have continued unabated ever since with RAF combat jets taking part in bombing raids almost every day over the past five months.

France, which, according to one British source, have been more "forward leading" than most of its Nato partners, attempted to break the deadlock with shipments of tons of weapons and ammunition to Berber tribal fighters based in the Nafusa mountains in early June — a move which technically broke the UN arms embargo and led to condemnation by both Russia and China.

There were also moments of tension within the British government, especially over whether Gaddafi himself was a legitimate Nato target.

General Sir David Richards, the chief of the defence staff, insisted he was not whereas Liam Fox, the defence secretary suggested that targeting Gaddafi was legally acceptable.

Commanders can now point to the success of the mission so far.

But two challenges remain. Gaddafi is still at large and his loyalists are not defeated everywhere.

And the possibility still looms large of an ugly end-game in which factions of Nato's rebel allies begin to commit atrocities in retaliation for those committed by the retreating Gaddafi Army — something Britain and its allies would be powerless to halt.

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, August 30, 2011.

This was written by Geneive Abdo and it appeared 25 Aug 2011 in Foreign Affairs
(http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/68230/ geneive-abdo/how-iran-keeps-assad-in-power-in-syria?page=show).


The Iranian regime is one of the few remaining allies of the embattled Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad. For years, the United States has tried to sever the ties between the two countries, but the current crisis has only pushed them closer together.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, has made it clear that Tehran sees the uprising in Syria as a U.S. ploy: "In Syria, the hand of America and Israel is evident," he said on June 30. Meanwhile, he affirmed Iran's support for Assad, noting, "Wherever a movement is Islamic, populist, and anti-American, we support it."

Despite disagreements on other matters, the rest of the Iranian regime seems to concur with Khamenei about Syria. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps have characterized the Syrian uprising as a foreign conspiracy. And the parliament, which in recent years has competed for power with the guards, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the supreme leader, is also in lockstep. On August 8, after a trip to Cairo, Alaeddin Boroujerdi, the chairman of the Iranian parliament's Foreign Policy and National Security Committee, reiterated Khamenei's stand. "Having lost Egypt," he said, "the U.S. has targeted Syria."

For Iran, Assad's Syria is the front line of defense against the United States and Israel. Without his guaranteed loyalty, the second line of defense — Hezbollah and Hamas — would crumble. According to U.S. estimates, Hezbollah receives $100 million in supplies and weaponry per year from Tehran, which is transported through Syria. It would become all the more difficult to use Iran as a proxy against Israel if the Syrian borders were suddenly closed.

Moreover, the Iranian regime is particularly sympathetic because it views the Syrian uprising as similar in kind to the waves of protest that swept Iran in 2009 and 2010. Those protests, they have claimed, were a U.S.-backed attempt at regime change. The Syrian ones, the thinking goes, are a U.S. maneuver to destroy the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis — the bedrock of Iran's power in the region. Speaking this spring, Ahmad Mousavi, Iran's former ambassador in Damascus, made this explicit: "Current events in Syria are designed by the foreign enemies and mark the second version of the sedition which took place in 2009 in Iran," he said. "The enemy is targeting the security and safety of Syria ... [The protestors] are foreign mercenaries, who get their message from the enemy and the Zionists."

It should not be surprising, then, that Iran has taken significant measures to keep Assad in power. According to U.S. officials, as of April Iran was providing the Syrian security services with weapons, surveillance equipment, and training. Earlier this month, Ankara intercepted an arms shipment headed from Tehran to Damascus — the second such shipment it caught this summer.

The Iranian regime has also provided Assad with technology to monitor e-mail, cell phones, and social media. Iran developed these capabilities in the wake of the 2009 protests and spent millions of dollars establishing a "cyber army" to track down dissidents online. Iran's monitoring technology is believed to be among the most sophisticated in the world — second, perhaps, only to China. Shortly after Iran shared its know-how with Syria this summer, Assad lifted restrictions on social networking Web sties, presumably to lure dissents out into the open.

In addition to sharing weapons and surveillance tools credible reports from Syrian refugees indicate that Tehran sent its own forces to Syria to quash the protests. A number of revolutionary guards from the elite Quds Force are also reported to be there, presumably to train Syrian forces. On May 18, the U.S. Treasury Department mentioned the role of the Quds Force directly, asserting that Mohsen Chizari, the Quds Force's third-in-command, was training the security services to fight against the protestors.

So far only one major Iranian voice has dared to question the Iranian regime's support of Assad. Grand Ayatollah Dastgheib, a member of the Assembly of Experts and a spiritual guide for Shiite Muslims, questioned Tehran's strategy during his weekly Koran interpretation session at the Qoba mosque in Shiraz on June 23. He emphasized that Iran's resources should be saved for Iranians and asked, "Where should the public wealth that could make this country one of the best in the world be spent? Should it be sent to Syria, so they can oppress the people?"

Iran's other major regional allies — Turkey and Hamas — have also been hesitant to follow Iran's lead. Iran values the improvement in its ties with Turkey that came with Recep Tayyip Erdogan's rise to power and wants Ankara to serve as a buttress to Iran's regional strategy, and even as an interlocutor with the United States. But as Erdogan became more critical of Assad this summer, Tehran soured on the relationship. Iranian officials even openly blamed Erdogan for the unrest, and promised consequences should he not recant. Similarly, over the last two months, Hamas officials refused to hold rallies in the Gaza Strip in support of Assad. According to officials, Tehran has since cut off funding to Hamas.

Assad's chances of staying in power are greater than were those of Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi. He may be forced to make some concessions to the protestors, but he still wields too much power to be removed from office completely. To date, there have been no significant defections within the Alawite-controlled military, which is key to his survival, and the Iranian-trained and supplied security forces have prevented the protests from reaching the levels of those in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. In Iran's view, much like the Tehran spring, the struggle for Syria is one of regime survival. Even if Assad should eventually fall, Iran will not stand idly by; Tehran will surely try to influence any successive government.

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Zvi November, August 30, 2011.

I strongly recommend that you read Melanie Phillips' The World Turned Upside Down (2010) because it refutes conventional, politically correct "truths" to which we are constantly exposed. Over the past sixty years or so, liberal Western intellectuals with the collusion of the media have denigrated religion especially Christianity as irrational superstition; promoted science as an omniscient system of inquiry capable of solving every conceivable problem; advanced reverence for nature and her holiness 'Mother Earth'; guaranteed a global climate catastrophe as a result of vastly increased carbon emissions into the atmosphere and continue to warn us about the terrible consequences of over-population. These are some of the subjects critically analyzed by the author.

In today's civil society, old-time Judeo-Christian morality has been superseded by an emphasis on the individual and his newly discovered "rights" to any lifestyle he or she craves whether it is drug abuse, alcohol over-indulgence, cult participation or single parenthood so long as he does not commit statutory crimes.

While Judeo-Christian values and ethics have lost much of their influence due to the propagation of "progressive" ideas (e.g. sexual freedom, feminism, child-centered education that encourages self-expression at the expense of objective fact-finding, multi-culturalism, moral relativism and a blind commitment to the Third World) liberal thinkers promote tolerance for Islam despite its inflexible ideology, Jew-hating tenants, relegation of women to second-class status, jihadi terrorism and expressed aim to take over the world, by force if necessary. "Enlightened" thinkers falsely condemn Israel as a racist, apartheid state but the atrocities committed against its citizens along with attacks on Jews in other countries is either ignored or justified.

On every one of the 408 pages of text in this expose, Phillips succinctly demonstrates how rational thinking has been replaced by subjectivity and irrationality, especially the irrational hatred of Jews and Israel. Often, facts that contradict liberal ideologies are dismissed as irrelevant. Furthermore, opinion-molders disparage traditional Western values such as two-parent families, discipline, open-minded scholarship, respect for others, social consciousness, nationalism and patriotism. Internationalism and British multiculturalism are harshly criticized as destructive innovations which have led to a loss of respect for British culture and past achievements.

Phillips recounts how open-minded 18th century Enlightenment principles gave way to 19th century Romanticism with its emphasis on introspection, emotion and national myths. Moving into the 20th century the author discusses fascism, communism and Islam which, surprisingly, have much in common. All three are utopian ideologies that breech no dissent. They want to dominate the entire world and they all share a fanatical "hostility to Judaism, Israel and the Jewish people" [p. 406].

Phillips' analysis of today's world (its belief in moral relativism; adoption of transnationalism; appeasement of Islam; commitment to cultural equality even when a particular culture's mindset is oppressive, racist and stifles intellectual freedom; and the castigation of Western materialistic civilization) gets to the heart of the West's current state of degeneration. All of our supposed crimes (i.e. colonialism, American imperialism, crass materialism, capitalism, globalization and, of course, Zionism) are refuted and debunked as false concepts. Phillips also derides the Left's endorsement of Arab/Moslem propaganda.

The World Turned Upside Down is well-written. It covers many seemingly disparate topics (alleged global warming, the real causes of the war in Iraq, Israel's struggles, education failures, competing theories of creation, diverse trends in Christian beliefs, Jewish reasoning and a lot more). Yet Phillips reveals common themes that tie these subjects to one another. Her acquaintance with political thought and philosophy over the past three centuries is truly encyclopedic. She quotes innumerable experts who employ honest arguments supported by facts as well as proponents of absurd ideas not substantiated by solid scientific evidence to make her case. This is definitely an enlightening and entertaining book well worth your reading time.

To Go To Top

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


It all started with an interest in multicultural tolerance in Philadelphia. The mayor appoints the board of the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation. The corporation oversees Penn's Landing. There, the local electric utility, PECO, which runs the PECO Multicultural Series, was to host Philly's June 11 Islamic Heritage Festival. The Festival was organized by the New Africa Center, run by the Islamic Cultural Preservation and Information Council (ICPIC). ICPIC is headed by Abdul Rahim Muhammad.

Mr. Muhammad advised the Philadelphia Inquirer, "The principles that govern this nation are already principles that are adhered to in our faith. ... We don't see a conflict."

Contradicting that statement of principles is that fact that "Rahim Muhammad's museum has displayed artwork that asks, 'Which will survive the war of Armageddon?' One side is labeled 'Christianity,' followed by the U.S. flag and the words 'slavery,' 'suffering,' and 'death.' The other is labeled 'Islam,' followed by a Nation of Islam-style flag and the words 'freedom,' 'justice,' and 'equality.'

Mr. Muhammad hung a portrait of Louis Farrakhan, notorious racist and antisemite, in the New Africa Center's hall of fame for being what Muhammad calls one of the "great giants" of American Islam. Mr. Farrakhan recently called Pres. Obama an "assassin" and he accused Jews of fomenting war against Libya [implying that they did so as Jews and in behalf of Jews].

The full facts of the story were brought to the attention of PECO and of the Inquirer. PECO rejected the protest and the Inquirer printed the letter without the references to the New Africa Center honoring Farrakhan.

"Muslims deserve better than to be represented by those who sow division while pretending to stand for tolerance." Philadelphians deserve to know that PECO ignored the problems explained to it. They are the victims of a censorship based on willful blindness and lack of standards involving anything Islamic. This lack of standards helps legitimize dubious Muslim groups (David J. Rusin, Jun 29, 2011,
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2011/06/ armageddon-farrakhan-and-philadelphia-islamic).

How often multiculturalism is distorted into attacks on other cultures! Multiculturalism has veered out of control into counter-productive manifestation. When government officials and watchdog newspapers avert their eyes to these attacks, and even help promote them, who looks out for ordinary citizens? Islamist-Watch does.

Imagine, in the name of multi-culturalism identifying the U.S. and Christianity with slavery, suffering, and death, and identifying Islam with freedom, justice, and equality! At present, the reverse is truer, if one considers that most Muslim states are dictatorships, that most of their courts are tools of the dictators, that women, religious, and often national minorities are deemed inferior, and that work slavery and sex slavery is widespread. Then there is the anti-Americanism, deceit, and bigotry that characterize Mr. Muhammad's presentations.

Philadelphians deserve better than to be represented by those who sow division while pretending to stand for tolerance. So do all Americans, whose country Philadelphia is a part and in which Philadelphia is an example of a widespread phenomenon.

Perhaps it also is true that "Muslims deserve better than to be represented by those who sow division while pretending to stand for tolerance." Why not ask them if the divisive statements presented here represent their views. Ask them why they do not speak out against this? Are they with us or against us? I hope they are with us, but let us find out. Let us halt publicly supported efforts to subvert our culture and our country!


Arabs live in Jisr al-Zarqa, what the government calls the poorest town in Israel and what Haaretz calls the most densely populated one. To reduce that excessive density, the town seeks to appropriate some land from adjoining Jewish towns. Apparently Haaretz is sympathetic to the land grab.

The town's density is 7,730 people per square kilometer. The newspaper compares that with Israel's average density of 321 people per square kilometer. However, the national average includes desert, seas, and highways. The average for many Jewish towns is higher than for that Arab town. Density figure: Falsehood number one.

The notion of that town being so poor derives from the tax authorities. The tax authorities record low income from that town, because many of the employed residents do not report their income. Poverty allegation: Falsehood number two.

Not only do those residents of Jisr al-Zarqa evade taxes, their pretended poverty enables them to get welfare and unemployment benefits. This means that Israelis who report their own incomes are paying taxes to subsidize the non-taxed and perhaps equal income of Arabs.

From the highway that passes by the town, one can see luxurious, single-family mansions throughout.

Incidentally, the town's families immigrated from Sudan about a century ago. That makes them "Palestinians with roots that go all the way back to the Canaanites and the right to national self-determination?" [My source is kidding — the Canaanites were not Arabs, and Arabs were not in Canaan, but the Palestinian Authority tries to claim that the ancient Canaanites were "Palestinians." The Arabs make up this history to replace the legitimate Jewish claim to the country with an illegitimate Arab one. Falsehood number three.] (Prof. Steven Plaut, 8/29/11.)

One hears much hot air about Jewish land grabs from Arabs, but few of the cold facts about Arab land grabs from Jews.

As reported years ago, Israeli Arab towns tend to over-spend their budgets and then get the national government to pay the difference. Who exploits whom, in Israel?

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 Isi Leibler, August 30, 2011.

Even before the Middle Ages, we encountered marginal Jews who turned against their own people. Among apostates to Christianity, there were those who wrote inflammatory libels against the Jews, paving the way for pogroms; socialists like Karl Marx whose vile anti-Semitic tirades speak for themselves; and more recently, Jewish communists purportedly supporting a new world order who applauded Stalin while he was murdering and imprisoning their fellow Jews.

Today in Israel and abroad, there are Jews who retain the wretched tradition of their renegade antecedents. They are few in number, but their influence extends beyond their Jewish fringe status because many occupy prominent roles in universities, the media and the arts. Of late, much of the Western liberal media has been idolizing them.

A few days ago, I was alerted to an unprecedentedly obscene extension of such behavior emanating, to my profound regret, from Larry Derfner, a senior staff writer for The Jerusalem Post. Only days after Israeli infants and families had been brutally murdered by terrorists, Derfner publicly stated that the murder of Israeli citizens was a justifiable weapon for Palestinians in order to overcome the "occupation."

It was not published as a Jerusalem Post column, but was posted on his public website, to which readers of his regular articles are occasionally referred. It also appeared on Facebook.

The essence of a good paper is to open its columns to opposing views. The Jerusalem Post and Israel's most widely circulated Hebrew daily, Israel Hayom, irrespective of editorial positions, always provide readers with a wide spectrum of opinions. I take pride in the fact that I contribute regular columns to both papers, and my column is frequently accompanied by diametrically opposing views.

That of course does not imply that a selfrespecting Israeli paper would accept contributions from a neo-Nazi, an anti-Semitic jihadist or a person justifying the murder of Israelis.

Whereas Derfner is regarded an an in-house leftist opinion writer for The Jerusalem Post, his chilling outburst extends far beyond traditional far-Left efforts aimed at applying moral equivalence to Israelis and terrorists. In fact, Derfner actually scolds those on the Left who condemn Palestinian terrorism.

To avoid any misunderstanding, let me be specific about what Derfner actually said. He asserted that in fighting for their "independence," Palestinian terrorists are "justified" in deliberately murdering innocent Israeli women and children. He even explicitly said that "whoever the Palestinians were who killed the eight Israelis near Eilat last week, however vile the ideology was, they were justified to attack," and it is the Israeli government that "is to blame for those eight Israeli deaths." He opined that it was high time for Israelis to appreciate "that terrorism in the face of a rejectionist Israeli government is justified... even to kill Israelis."

He stated that while he endorsed the right of Palestinians "to use terrorism against us," he did not wish to see Israelis killed and, like Abbas, felt that terrorism (while justifiable) can be counterproductive to the Palestinian cause. However, Israeli "blindness" was "compelling the Palestinians to engage in terrorism," and exposing the "unjust" Israeli government as being "to blame for these Israeli deaths," would contribute toward "ending the occupation."

Derfner conceded that such remarks would encourage Hamas, but was not unduly concerned because Hamas is already committed to Israel's destruction. It was more important for him to ensure that Israelis recognize that by their behavior, "they are compelling Palestinians to engage in terrorism" than to worry about whether his remarks would be quoted approvingly on Hamas websites. In fact, the Arab media have already widely reproduced his remarks, highlighting the fact that he is a prominent Jerusalem Post contributor.

Derfner concluded his shocking remarks with the extraordinary statement that "writing this is not treason. It is patriotism." That he justifies the murder of innocent women and children while describing himself as a "patriot" makes one question his sanity.

In a twisted sense, Derfner is probably justified in claiming that his remarks are not treasonable. Although there may well be grounds for the Attorney General to charge him with incitement to murder, his remarks are so vile that they go beyond treason. They display an utter lack of sensitivity, humanity and compassion for the tens of thousands of Israeli families who since the creation of Israel have lost loved ones, murdered by the barbarians whose actions Derfner justifies due to "harsh" Israeli government policies.

If an anti-Israeli Western politician or media outlet published such remarks, it would raise a storm. For a purportedly respectable Israeli journalist to do so is simply incomprehensible.

This is not the place to refute Derfner's ridiculous remarks about the "occupation." Nor to relate to the offers of 95% of the territories extended to the Palestinians by prime ministers Barak in 2000 and Olmert in 2008, which were summarily rejected by Arafat and Abbas. Nor that the principal objective of all Palestinian factions is ending Jewish sovereignty in the region rather than attaining independence. And that, since Netanyahu assumed office, the Palestinians no less than Hamas have refused to partake in negotiations, even after Netanyahu's unprecedented 10-month settlement freeze.

For an Israeli Jew professionally employed by the only Israeli English language newspaper to justify the barbaric murder of his own brothers and sisters in a public website is unforgivable.

Presumably in response to massive protests directed against him, Derfner "apologized" a week after his article appeared, and deleted it from his website. However, he has the chutzpa to reiterate the justification for terrorism, and merely states that he does not endorse the murder of fellow Israelis. This is neither a retraction nor an apology. His obscene and callously insensitive remarks are likely to haunt him for the rest of his life.

Contact Isi Leibler by email at editor@WordfromJerusalem.com and visit his website at
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/. This article is archived at
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=3079. It was originally published in Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, August 30, 2011.

We sit at a Jewish or Arab film festival, or at a "pro-Israel, pro-peace" or "free Palestine, end the Occupation" event and watch a full feature film about the Occupation Army, the 21st Century manifestation of Nazis (i.e. Israelis). They are building a wall around Palestinians towns, uprooting their olive tree groves, purposely detaining them and denying them movement, treating them as sub-humans while catching their young males to harvest their organs.

A future screening will be of a film titled "Picasso coming to Palestine."

For a Westerner living in a democracy, going to a museum or an art show or other cultural event is part of our lives. Some of us would aspire to visit a major museum in one of the world's capitals or to have a chance to experience a particular once-in-a-lifetime performance. I remember seeing Jascha Heifetz at UCLA, when I was a student there, and missing one of the very last performances by Yul Brynner because I was a stubborn adolescent and refused to go with the family.

Thus, we can easily relate when we hear of a very famous painting being loaned to a local exhibit for a short period of time. Many foundations in the USA loan their collections so the public at large will have access, like the modern art collection of the Frederick Weisman Art Foundation.

Something in a Picasso on loan to Palestinian Authority is so extraordinary that it captured the imagination of a filmmaker and will soon capture our hearts. It is so vile that we must quash the very image while still in its infancy, before I have to sit alongside well-intentioned audiences and deceitful enemies of Israel and the West and suffer through yet another screening that has one aim, and one only: demonize the Jews, delegitimize the Jewish State.

It is in this movie that we will see the craving of the innocent, subjugated Palestinians to have a sense of normalcy, art, culture and some color in their lives.

We will be reminded vividly of a single butterfly in the Ghetto or the child in a red dress against the black and white background in Spielberg's movie Schindler's List.

It is the Journey of Picasso that will show us how evil the Israelis are. Oh, how easily we will ignore the incitement for terrorism throughout every fiber of the Palestinian existence and turn the most vicious and hideous terrorists into peace-loving angels or Michelangelo's David.

Mistake not, "Palestinians" are no David. They are the Goliath that wants to destroy Israel and who is using our very system, ideals, morals, history and institutions to fight our modern-day, Western existence.

Rather than bringing a Picasso, possibly it would be more helpful to stop teaching children to hate an Israeli or Jew just because they are Jewish?

Maybe in the quest to inspire peace, it would make more sense to stop promoting the propaganda that every square inch of Israel is an occupied land stolen from the Palestinians?

Peace will arrive neither with Picasso nor with aspirations to annihilate Israel. The mere presence of the painting does not make savages into cultured people or a beast into a beauty.

Last week, the Civil Administration coordinated the return shipment of Pablo Picasso's famous oil painting "Buste de Femme" (1943) from Ramallah to the Van Abbemuseum in the Netherlands.

From June 24th to July 21st, the International Academy of Art Palestine (IAAP) in Ramallah exhibited the $4.3 million painting, allowing Palestinians to experience the most valuable work of modern art to have ever been exhibited in the West Bank. [Priceless art, historical and archeological sites are available throughout Judea and Samaria, practically for free.] As part of a larger project, IAAP documented its experience in requesting, transferring, exhibiting and returning the famous work of art.

In a press announcement by the Israel Defense Forces, the Civil Administration said it "was pleased to contribute to this endeavor and will continue to assist in all future artistic and cultural efforts."

When will Israel stop facilitating her own downfall? Anyone who imagines two states living side-by-side with good neighborly relations would have expected nothing less than a traveling exhibit. As an example, I was promoting a Jordanian movie, Captain Abu Raed. However, Israelis (Jews) are not invited, in fact not permitted and realistically may be murdered if they find themselves in PA-controlled areas.

The Palestinians do not welcome Jews in their midst. Jews (aka Israelis) are unwelcome guests, filth prohibited from defiling the holy Palestinian land.

The Palestinians aspire to have a state of their own and to eliminate their Israeli neighbors. There is no space in the Middle East for a Jewish State or for Jews. The first is a racist idea, the latter an abomination of the good order of the world according to the Quran.

Even from a mere practical approach, they want their own "free and independent Palestine" while millions of their brethren will be able, by law (i.e. a peace agreement by which Israel capitulates to their demands), to immigrate to the Jewish State. Then the notion of Apartheid and Racism will indeed apply, and Israel will have to be erased, once and for all; a blight removed for all eternity from this earth.

So what are Israeli authorities doing? They facilitate normal life and assist the very propaganda machine against Israel. I can only envision the movie about a cultural icon like a Picasso painting being shipped to Ramallah. All the obstacles along the way, juxtaposed for the convenience of the viewer. Road Blocks. Zionist-Nazi-like Soldiers. Ghettos. Walls. Vicious dogs patrolling the open air prison. Chimneys spewing ashes into the air 24 hours a day, black during the day, fire during the night. And a sign (instead of "work is liberating") reading "Zionist Propaganda: Israel permits a painting for a short visitation."

How characteristic that the colors of the chosen Picasso's painting match so very closely those of the Nazi Concentration Camps.

Has no one in Israel sat in or possibly read a report about an event in any major city around the world where such acts of kindness are twisted and presented as the most sophisticated cover-up of the Zionist-Colonialist-Imperialist-Occupier evil deeds?

Imagine a chessboard. There are two armies ready to battle, one white and the other black. One prepared to fight in spirit and in body. The other engaged in a pleasant afternoon high tea dressed in pink.

Picasso, my friends, was used to fight Israel, and Israel is plowing the path to her own demise. Apparently, we once marched like sheep to the slaughter and nothing has changed. Israel will also dig the trench in which she will later be shot and thrown into, but for now she is oblivious. So used is she to insanity and so deeply she craves normalcy, that she refuses to see the obvious and deliberately ignores what is unfolding in front of her very eyes.

Once shot, as the last whisper or silent shout escapes her lips, it will be too late. She will ascend to heaven with an image of Picasso's painting, reminiscent of Chagall's goat.

If anything, the gates of Heaven will remain locked, for stupidity must not be excused, not even for God's Chosen People.

The Director of the International Art Academy in Ramallah, Khaled Hourani, first saw the painting in 2008. The project was more than two years in the making. Hourani says: "This started off as a crazy idea to bring a European masterpiece to a war-zone, but I was only half-joking."

The Palestinians define the area correctly as a WAR ZONE. What will it take for Israel to recognize the same and behave accordingly?

Until such time, Israel continues to engage in the frivolities of high tea all day long while her enemies have amassed the most magnificent arsenal of conventional and other methods of destruction.

See how efficient their propaganda machine, constantly reaching new heights. Charles Esche, Van Abbemuseum's director said: "Our Picasso will be changed by its journey to Ramallah. It will take on extra meaning and the story will remain a part of the history of the painting from this moment on."

Only in the land of a thousand and one Arabian nights can one be so creative as to turn good into evil and make evil seem so innocent.

May Israelis be spared a prolonged destruction, may they suffer little when the day comes. May we all.

Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, August 30, 2011.

There is No "Ceasefire" in Arabic by Elad Benari

The Arab terms "hudna" and "tahadiya", which are used by Hamas to describe the ceasefire, do not at all mean that the firing of rockets and missiles stops completely. According to Islamic rules, these terms allow the individual who uses them to keep fighting or to stop the fighting as he wishes. "They can attack and stop attacking whenever they want," David Bedein, said. "There is no connection between hudna and tahadiya and a ceasefire. You have to understand the terms."

Bedein's Center for Near East Policy has studied these terms carefully using four Middle East experts. He reminded what happened after three previous 'ceasefires' that were declared by Hamas: After the ceasefire announced in 2006 235 missiles and rockets were launched into Israeli territory; after the ceasefire announced in 2008 and which lasted six months, 538 missiles and rockets were fired; after the third ceasefire, which was signed after the IDF's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, no less than 912 missiles and rockets were fired into Israeli territory.

He added that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Ministry are not free from blame either, since they know what the terms mean and still do not explain them to the public. The reason for that, believes Bedein, is that there are elements in the Prime Minister's Office and the Foreign Ministry who do not want to deal with a situation of total war with the Palestinian Authority.

Hit and Run Ceasefires

The Islamic Jihad organization announced another useless ceasefire agreement in the Gaza strip. The ceasefire was brokered by Egypt and the UN. According to Islamic Jihad, a small terrorist group with roots in the Muslim Brotherhood, it would triple the number of Israelis affected by rocket attacks. This announcement came hours after Palestinian sources reported that the IAF killed two Islamic Jihad operatives in the Gaza Strip.

Never Ending Terror Sage

Seven people were injured in South Tel Aviv early Monday, Aug. 29, when a Palestinian from the West Bank town of Nablus grabbed a taxi, ran over pedestrians, jumped out outside a night club and stabbed four Border Police officers, two seriously, at a checkpoint. He shouted Allah Akhbar and verses from the Koran throughout the attack.

Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak

There is no chance that any Israeli politician will be awarded by a 'fat' UN job for the betrayal of their own country. So, why are so many of them still undermining Zionist objectives of the Jewish people and the foundation upon which Israel was built?

Israel's Water to Flow East

In about two years' time, Israel's water company Mekorot, intends to unveil a new National Water Carrier that will rely chiefly on desalinated water from plants along Israel's coast.

Political Prostitution has not Worked

Organisers of the tent protests which have enthralled Israel for more than a month have called off demonstrations planned for this weekend following the attacks in the south of the country. (Arab allys of the self-hating Jews have undermined their political drive for 'Peace' by killing 8 Israelis in bloodiest attacks on Israel in recent years)

Gutless Treats of the Enemy

Egypt's foreign minister, Mohammed Amr, said that the plan to recall the nation's ambassador to Israel "was never on the table," confirming the government's decision to disavow a threat that generated widespread popular support at home but brought the government under intense diplomatic pressure to back off. The call to withdraw the ambassador was initially announced on state television and posted briefly on the government's web site.

$13.5 million for Grad Rocket — Unlimited Political Stupidity!

Despite the continued rocket and missile attacks from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip into Israeli territory, Israel transferred $13.5 million into the Gaza Strip. Money was delivered to UNRWA (the (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) — the perpetual refugee facilitator!

Arabs Thank Firefighters with Rocks

Two Arab youths were arrested for hurling rocks at a fire engine in the northern village of Jisr a-Zarka. The event took place against the backdrop of a major blaze that consumed thousands of dunams and other green areas in the Golan Heights at around the same time. (Arabs in Israel and PA have the same goal, based on hate toward Jews!)

Zionists' Self-Defense — Video Cameras

For years, Jews living in Judea and Samaria have been branded as "violent settlers" in media reports abroad and at home, despite the fact that they are far more likely to be the victims of violent attacks than the perpetrators. The Samaria Residents' Council recently sponsored a photography course for 25 residents. "Sending footage quickly and correctly is crucial in shaping awareness," explained instructor Gur Dotan. "The media is thirsty for good footage, supplied quickly and whoever gives it to them wins the battle for the public consciousness."

Quote of the Week:

"Back in '97 at The National Press Club Meeting in Wash. DC, Arafat told his audience: "The Peace Process is a strategy, (pause) a strategy." Since then he and his cronies have repeated the mantra: " The only way there will be peace is if it is imposed on both parties." Arafat has signed three documents, (DOP, Interim, WYE) that specifically call for the PLO/PA to revise/amend/revoke their Covenant as agreed to. It still hasn't happened. So why does Israel go along with this farce?" — source unknown — (It seems that all the agreements must be observed by Israel only!)

Preemption, No Retaliation! by Yoram Ettinger, Ambassador (ret.)

The recent surge in Palestinian terrorism behoves Israel to revisit the fundamentals of counter-terrorism.

For example, the most effective defence against terrorism — operationally, financially and morally — is not retaliation and a limited, surgical offensive, but a comprehensive, decisive, sustained and disproportionate pre-emptive ground offensive, which aims to obliterate terror infrastructures and capabilities, and bring the enemy to submission. A decisive defeat of terrorism requires a victory over — and not coexistence or ceasefire agreements with — terrorism; uprooting — and not just stopping — terrorism.

Any response to terrorism which is short of devastating the ideological, political, financial, logistic and operational terrorist infrastructures, reassures terrorists that they are immune to annihilation. Moreover, it nurtures their hope-driven terrorism: the hope to whack Israel's psyche of defiance, wreck Israel 's steadfastness, and sustain the 1993-2011 trend of sweeping Israeli ideological and territorial retreats.

Furthermore, a limited response to terrorism exacerbates wars of attrition — the dream of terrorists and nightmare of democratic societies. The limited-retaliation response to terrorism adds fuel to the fire of terrorism, feeds the self-defeating assumption that, supposedly, there is no military solution to terrorism, hence significantly eroding Israel's posture of deterrence...

The more defensive and retaliation-driven the Israeli response to terrorism, the more emboldened are Palestinian terrorists, the less confident are Israelis in their government's capability to safeguard personal and national security, the more taxing is mental fatigue, and the less convinced are Israelis in their cause.

The addiction to defense, and to limited response, has been embraced by Israel since signing the 1993 Oslo Accord, in order to resuscitate the 'peace' process, which has triggered dramatically more hate-education, terrorism and non-compliance than the pre-Oslo reality. 250 Israelis were murdered by Palestinian terrorism in the 15 years prior to Oslo, but over 2,000 have been murdered in the 18 years since Oslo. Limited response has also been implemented, in order to soothe international public opinion " which is never satisfied with Israeli concessions...

Rather than retreating toward the pre-1967 ceasefire lines, Israel should take charge of the breeding ground of terrorism... (Remove enemy population from Jewish land and end Jewish suffering from Islamic terror!)

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Im HaHar, August 29, 2011.
This below was written by Yosef Rabin.

With Honor of Torah:


Rabbi Basil Herring,
Executive Vice President of the Rabbinical Council of America

Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel
Executive Vice President, Agudath Israel of America

Rabbi Steven Weil,

Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum
Director, The Rabbinical Alliance of America/Igud Horabbanim

Rabbi David Algaze
Chairman, World Committee for the Land of Israel


There may be a Halachic debate if it is permitted to ascend the Temple Mount in our times; there are major rabbinic authorities on both sides. What is clear however it is not the place of the secular government of Israel to be persecuting Jews who ascend Har Habayit according to the opinions of the Rambam, Ra'avad, Radbaz and more modern authorities like Rabbi Shlomo Goren, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, Rabbi Ya'akov Rosenthal and Rabbi Dov Lior among others.

When Ehud Barak went to Camp David, Arafat turned to him and asked why Israel needed sovereignty over the Temple Mount, when there is not a single Jewish structure or activity there. Ehud Barak did not give an immediate response and called the head of the Secret Service who was Avi Dichter to see if he had any case. Avi Dichter told him that there a Rabbi named Rabbi Yosef Elboim who ascends with his students up to the Temple Mount once a week. Armed with that information, Barak went back into the negotiating room and stated that Israel could not hand over the Temple Mount because Jews make pilgrimage every week to the site. That was the last straw, which broke down the negotiations and thus saved Israel from itself. This story was told to me by Rabbi Yosef Elbaum himself, who heads the Tenua Lekinun HaMikdash (Organization for Temple Renewal). Dichter had called him and revealed this to him.

The lesson is clear, the Temple Mount is the key issue. An appropriate parable would be a father who bought an expensive gift for his son. The son lovingly takes the gift, throws it out and plays with the box instead. The Temple Mount is of course the gift and Jerusalem is the box, the box is only there to hold the gift. We have thrown out the gift and instead focus on the box. This Israeli policy is held up by the entire Jewish world without question. Anyone who thinks he is doing a Mitzvah by keeping silent is making a terrible mistake! The State of Israel is perpetrating what is perhaps the greatest crime since the days of Yeravam Ben Nevat and everyone is allowing them to get away with it.

I am urging and pleading for a united statement from rabbinic leadership around the world to demand that the State of Israel restore Jewish rights on the Temple Mount in accordance with Torah law.

This is more or less the situation on the Mount today:

  • All non-Muslims have restricted visitation times on the mount 4 hours a day, Sunday-Thursday. The mount is closed to Jews on Friday, Saturday all Muslim holidays and even Jewish holidays that coincide with Muslim holidays.
  • Only Jews are forced to wait an extended period of time before being allowed through security. Only Jews are forced to present their ID's to the police.
  • Only Jews are followed and harassed by Israeli police and Muslim Wakf guards throughout the entire visit on the Mount.
  • Only Jews are arrested for crimes such as prayer, closing eyes, bowing down or singing.
  • The Prime Minister of Israel has failed to include the Temple Mount in his own "Heritage Plan," among those sites of historical, cultural and religious significance to the Jewish people, to receive enhanced government budgeting for the improvement of access, upkeep, and beautification of the sites.

The Mount has completely been abandoned to the Muslim Authorities and is used by Muslims for the following dangerous, destructive and disrespectful activities:

  • Illegal digs causing unparalleled destruction of Temple antiquities and the historical Jewish presence on the Mount.
  • The touring of the Temple Mount into a recreation center; Muslim soccer games and picnics are frequent on the Mount
  • Endless incitement against the Jewish State and Nation from within the Mosques.
  • Physical attacks against Jews on the Mount and down below at the Western Wall

If there was ever a time to speak out; this just might be the time!

Thank you,
Yosef Rabin

Contact Im HaHam by email at mhahar@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 29, 2011.



Gen. Ephraim Sneh's New York Times Op-Ed of July 11 urges full Israeli withdrawal to borders to be made secure by another peace agreement with Palestinian Arabs, now shelling Israeli cities. Here is a refutation of his assumptions, which he asserted without supportive facts and historical experience.

My rejoinder disproves his case introducing the facts. Comparing all sides' views is infrequent in the prevailing Establishment media, but could settle the dispute.

My article remains current for a long time, because the same assumptions it tackles keep arising in new iterations of purported peace plans, whose flaws remain largely unknown.

THE CASE MADE: Israel's former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh made a new argument for continuing to appease the PLO. Persuasive his case is, except for appeasement's prior failures, false assumptions, unsupported assertion, and illogic.

General Sneh starts by admitting that PM Netanyahu is right. PM Netanyahu called militarily indefensible the 1967 armistice line. [Sneh mistakenly calls that line "borders," as if the line where the armies just happened to cease firing had legal standing, and as if Israel could not claim land on the other side of it.] Without controlling Judea-Samaria, Gen. Sneh acknowledges, an Arab force might cut Israel's narrow waist into two, indefensible halves. So far, so good.

Sneh then seemingly contradicts himself. "It does not serve Israel's security interests" "...to reject the only viable formula for Israeli-Palestinian peace — a negotiated two-state solution based on mutually agreed upon land swaps..."

Fleshing Out the Proposal

How does he reconcile this contradiction? First, he states, Israel needs peace with the Palestinian Arabs. Second, to get it, Israel must withdraw behind the 1967 line. Third, the new Arab state would be demilitarized but bolstered by international guarantee, its Jordan border would be jointly patrolled with Israel, and it and Jordan would sign a mutual defense treaty. Voila! Israeli national security.

Joint patrols supposedly would keep Iran from smuggling rockets into Judea-Samaria. The mutual defense treaty would enable "moderates in the region" to unite against Islamist extremists, Gen. Sneh predicts. Rising on this column of hot air like vultures wheeling in the sky, Sneh goes on to imagine Gulf states becoming natural business partners with Israel and the Arab and Muslim world accepting Israeli encouragement in becoming democratic.


Not to be thought reckless, Sneh declares his life devoted to defending Israel and insists that Israel must remain the strongest military power there but not occupy territory. Hurry, he urges, before Abbas runs out of pro-negotiation drive! (NY Times, 7/11/11, Op-Ed).

CASE UNMADE: Israelis like offering to modernize the Muslim Arab world. Unfortunately, Muslim Arab culture takes offense at the notion of infidel Jews instructing them. Communicating to them Gen. Sneh's vision of Israeli leadership in the Mideast is counter-productive. If he doesn't know that fundamental, then the rest of his plan probably incorporates the usual but mistaken Western premise that Muslim Arab culture has the same values as Western cultures. That error causes many Western policy failures. The frequently adverse reactions by other cultures thwart Western expectations.

Assuming jihadists want peace

There is no "viable formula" for peace with an unregenerate Islam, increasingly in jihad mode, and that considers a Jewish state an affront. No wonder the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) refuses to recognize such a state! The P.A. indoctrinates its youth to believe that Israel belongs to them and that they have a duty to destroy it. How can a former Israeli Dep. Defense Minister be so unaware of the cause of the Arab-Israel conflict? His proposal fails to address that cause. He cites no evidence that setting up an Arab state would be a solution or that the Arabs want peace.

The Muslim Arabs of the P.A., Jordan, and Egypt, among others, are indoctrinated in religious hatred. In their classrooms, on their TVs, and during their mosque sermons, they are told that Jews are evil and must be slain or dispossessed. That is the prevailing view. So while the Muslim Arabs are sharpening their knives, Sneh urges Israelis to put their necks nearer those knives. Not prudent! Gen. Sneh's vision, that he considers an irresistible force, fails to deal that that immovable object.

Since the Palestinian Arabs covet Israel, how would giving them Territories outside the State of Israel resolve Arab demands? They'd still covet Israel, at least as a religious obligation. In case Gen. Sneh hasn't noticed, P.A. head Abbas indicated that he seeks an agreement with Israel (unless he can get the UN to circumvent Israel) that leaves open the refugee issue. That means further P.A. demands and continued motive for conflict. Gen. Sneh is making the usual idealistic Israeli scenario that does not take the contrary Arab goals into account. This is self-delusion.

Illusory military security

Here is the illogic of the proposal for joint military patrols: (1) Render Israel militarily indefensible; and then (2) Depend on an increasingly radicalized and fanatical enemy to refrain from still further aggression against Israel and instead to help defend Israel from other Muslim Arab brothers. That would be like having brought Soviet troops into NATO to help defense against an eastern invasion. It makes no sense.

Would joint patrols with the P.A. forces of Abbas help prevent Iranian arms smuggling? Abbas, himself, was an arms smuggler. Sneh should have to show that Abbas and the Muslim Arab world have abandoned jihad as an article of their faith. They haven't given it up, so he can't show us that they have. Giving those religious imperialists part of their desired spoils is no way to induce them to relinquish the rest, not when their terrorism obviously yields offers like Sneh's. He may be filled with hope, but he gives terrorists hope.

How could Israel remain militarily the strongest military power, when if it gave up the Territories, it would: (1) Lose strategic depth for turning around its warplanes; (2) All its cities and airports would be vulnerable to rocket attacks from the P.A.; (3) With sovereignty, the P.A. legally could invite in foreign armies alongside Israel's cities; (4) The U.S. has been building a P.A. army, ostensibly against the terrorism that Abbas honors, an army that could disrupt Israeli reservists mobilizing against those foreign armies; and (5) Israel already is surrounded by tens of thousands of rockets?

Treaties with totalitarians are traps

The Op-Ed assumes that negotiation and a deal suffice. Not when conquest is the Muslim Arab goal whereas peace is Israel's. Hitler and Stalin negotiated deals, but peace was not their object. P.A. negotiators utilize negotiation to gain advantage in the next war. Yasir Arafat was taught that by the North Vietnamese Communists. Gen. Sneh imagines that his country's enemies share his desire for peace, because peace would benefit them. Islamists, however, are less moved by material benefits for their people than by fidelity to advancement of their religion. Leaving in peace the country they dub "little Satan" would dishonor them in their people's eyes.


Evidence on behalf of further appeasement of the Arabs? Gen. Sneh offers none. Instead he states his hopes as axiomatic. The evidence runs counter to appeasement.

For examples, Israel repeatedly withdrew from territory and made many other concessions and offers similar to Sneh's. Israel signed agreements with the PLO to keep the P.A. demilitarized and to form joint patrols. Result: Militarization, Intifada, terrorism, Arabs shooting at Israeli joint patrollers, more Arab demands, and Arab belief that they soon will win. How many times will Israeli leaders propose what gets their people killed? Sneh assures us he is not reckless. His proposal inadvertently is.

False premises of Arab land rights, "moderates," foreign guarantees

Land swap ideas and mistaken references to occupation incorrectly imply that the Territories once belonged to the Palestinian Arabs. History records no such country. Therefore the contention that if Israel were to take in some of the Territories on the other side of the 1967 armistice line, it should swap out some of its own land, is unjustified.

Talk about justice, in proposing another Palestinian Arab state (Jordan already is such a state), the PLO's declares intent to bar all Jews. This intended apartheid indicates a religious loathing that dooms any peace effort. Note the one-sidedness of Arabs wanting another state exclusively for their own people, but also wanting that Israel not be a state for the Jewish people. Gen. Sneh ignores these injustices and problems. What good is his plan that overlooks realistic obstacles?

"Moderates" in the region, as Sneh claims? None identified. Jihadists are dominant in the P.A., strong in Jordan, and about to take over Egypt. Sneh probably mistakes Abbas — Holocaust-denying, Jewish Temple-denying, terrorist honoring, and war threatening — for a moderate. Sneh's proposed appeasement fails to recognize extremists for what they are.

One can arrange for foreign guarantees, peacekeepers, compensatory arms and technology, and signed agreements. Such arrangements tend to get forgotten. Examples: U.S. guarantees or promises for Israeli freedom of passage through the Suez Canal, for Egypt not to move missiles forward, and for Israel to retain large "settlement" blocs. Peacekeepers tend to ignore violations by Lebanon or to be withdrawn as from the Sinai in 1967. Arms can be withheld, as the U.S. has done at times, in order to pressure Israel. Technology can be rendered obsolete or be overcome by enemies.

Many times Israel was burned by dependence upon violated foreign guarantees, one of which, UNIFIL, was cited by Sneh, himself! He knows they guarantee nothing, yet he suggests them to reassure doubters.

Coupled with proposals for unreliable international guarantees are demilitarization and a mutual defense treaty. As Israeli commentators (especially Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA) have explained, once sovereign, a new Arab state could disavow pre-state promises to demilitarize and help defend Israel. P.A. statements reject demilitarization and reject helping to defend Israel. The P.A. has seriously broken its agreements with Israel. Making an agreement with it would be like accepting a promise of good behavior from a serial killer.


Apparently Gen. Sneh is unaware of these pertinent objections. Hence he draws unrealistic conclusions. His ideological mission trumps his military one.

Since the Op-Ed indicated no understanding of the facts and of Arab Muslim culture, it is fair to warn that unless Western leaders study enemy cultures and gather the facts before advocating solutions, their policies will continue to fail and perhaps will bring down the countries they mean to defend. These leaders' good intentions do not validate their theories. They may consider themselves patriotic, but their theories harm their countries.

Foreign policy is not a fairy tale with a guaranteed happy ending.


New York Times "Public Editor" Arthur S. Brisbane is called the "readers' representative." His June 12 review of readers' complaints on Mideast coverage, instead, shields the newspaper from accusations of bias.

I have written hundreds of Internet articles about Times bias on that subject; others have written books on it. Publishers there have been anti-Zionist for decades. Their editorials' bias extends beyond opinion and into the facts and into news coverage.

The newspaper exhibits many different techniques for deceit. Examples:

(1) Consult predominantly anti-Zionist American experts and Israeli leftists;

(2) Quote false but emotionally strong Arab propaganda, such as that Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and quote tepid and terse Israeli statements that make little impression;

(3) State Israel's position, if at all, much briefer than the Arabs';

(4) Place Israeli explanations later in articles, where fewer readers reach;

(5) Depict the Arab-Israel conflict as territorial and subject to a peace process, whereas to Muslims it is part of their global jihad, not amenable to compromise;

(6) Call people "extremist" and "moderate" without definition, giving the false impression that "settlers" are extremist and Arab leaders, moderate;

(7) Fabricate distinctions between Fatah and Hamas, whereas both factions are terroristic and seek to conquer and destroying the Jewish state whatever its size;

(8) Cite historical background from 1967, when Israel "seized" the Territories, not from the earlier, international recognition of the Jewish people's historical territorial and Arab terrorism and aggression;

(9) Select photographs and headlines that generate sympathy for the Arabs and antipathy for Israel;

(10) Ignore most terrorism against Israel, and then assert that it is waning;

(11) Fail to analyze political statements' lack of facts, logic, and justice. Hence the paper asserts without supportive explanation that Abbas' Palestinian Arabs "deserve" sovereignty and want peace.

The public editor ignores those serious problems, and falls back on the old ploy of stating that since both sides criticize the Times, evidently it is fair. This assertion assumes that each side is equally unfair. Actually, criticisms of Times bias against Israel are valid, whereas most Arab criticism demands what amounts to bias. The Arab, or jihadist, side is totalitarian, imperialist, bigoted, and unscrupulous. So were the Nazi and Soviet sides. Should newspapers have given the Nazi and Soviet sides the same credulity as the American side? Of course not. Then why the jihadist side?

Although the Times generally supports the Arab side, it eschews blatant anti-Zionism. Instead, the newspaper claims that its recommendations are for Israel's own good. What it suggests, however, would render Israel vulnerable to destruction.

Besides dismissing minor complaints, the editor considered a headline referring to the Golan Heights as being on Israel's side of the border with Syria. The editor called it a mistake. But it is not a mistake.

After capturing the Golan Heights in self-defense, Israel annexed it for national security. International law permits this prudent practice against aggressors. Anti-Israel government and media resent this principle being used by Israel. So they deny the legality of the annexation. The editor explains that the Arabs contest that border. What of it? Border claims are not justification for denying where the border is. Actually, the Arabs claim all of Israel. Does that mean Israel has no borders? Remember, the Arabs deny it on the basis of jihad, which targets the U.S.. Many countries claim many territories, but the Times does not deny those borders. Why just in the case of Israel?


Here is what the New York Times makes of the governing Party's electoral victory in Turkey. PM Erdogan's Party won a solid majority in parliament with only half the vote. [In other words, disproportionate representation.]

Having won fewer than two-thirds of the parliamentary seats, however, the Party cannot enact a new constitution on its own. "That is good news for Turkey's democracy." [The editorial hardly explains why.]

Turkey nevertheless needs, asserts the newspaper, a more democratic constitution to reinforce free speech, gender equality, "and represent the full range of the country's increasingly pluralistic society."

The governing Party, claims the daily, has unleashed business, "established civilian supremacy over a coup-prone army, and pushed through human rights reforms..." But PM Erdogan has become more authoritarian. [See the contradiction there?] He is expected to strengthen the presidency excessively and with himself as candidate. His foreign policy merely seeks popularity, by provoking Israel, stroking Iran, and ignoring the Arab Spring.

Free advice for Turkey: discourage Turks from running the Gaza military blockade, encourage Turks to enforce sanctions against Iran, and take the lead in fostering the democratic Arab movement (Editorial, 6/14/11).

Is the New York Times misunderstanding Turkey and the Arabs now, just as it under-estimated or under-stated the evils of Stalin, the Holocaust, Mao the "agrarian reformer," Castro, the Sandinistas, and the "moderate" PLO? Is the Arab world rising for democracy?

Rising, yes, but like yeast in cakes or like flames in bonfires? Whether the Islamists orchestrate the uprisings or harvest them, they find in them the opportunity to loosen the hold of autocrats who repress the Islamists so the Islamists cannot repress them and everybody else.

Egypt and Yemen are collapsing economically. Societal and governmental failure affords an opportunity for Islamist takeover. In any case, both Egypt and Tunisia are turning more against Israel, not toward peace.

Democracy requires democratic institutions and experience that those societies lack. Elections there are premature, giving an advantage to the Islamists, who would not let democracy develop. In Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and perhaps elsewhere, Islamist sentiment is the majority one. Most Arabs say they want to establish Islamic law, which by subordinating other religions, and by subordinating truth to their faith's standing, does not permit democracy. Rule by majority does not necessarily mean democracy.

Turkey is run by an Islamist Party. Certainly the current ruling Party has boosted the economy. This Party fastens its grip incrementally, moving too slowly for the myopic Times editors to discern the direction of the motion. That does not mean it is democratic but that it gets more popular.

Islamist curbing of the military does not foster democracy. The military protected the secular state. It staged some coups within that role. To PM Erdogan, the military blocks supreme Islamist power. He curbs the military by fabricating coup plots by it.

Erdogan packs or subverts the judiciary, so it, too, no longer can block his grasp for power. Corporations and individuals that do not cooperate with him get sued on trumped up charges. Putin of Russia and Chavez of Venezuela fabricate plots to persecute opponents, too, as they fasten their grip on power. Schools are subverted into serving Radical Islam. Journalists have been silenced. The government collaborated with the Islamists who tackled the Gaza blockade.

Formerly more cosmopolitan, Turkey's conservative hinterland now produces more Islamists and Istanbul's liberal population becomes a smaller proportion of the whole.

It is easy for the editors to tell the proud Turks what they "must" do. The editors would be wiser to figure out what the ruling Turks want to do and why. Erdogan isn't just toying with friendship for Iran. He is joining the Iranian axis, either as partner or as rival for the leadership. The righteous and simple advice that the newspaper offers Turkey so far contradicts Turkey's Islamist path, that the newspaper is ridiculous. Indeed, this advice is so far from reality, that one has to wonder about the level of its comprehension and the grip of its ideology in general. We have shown in previous articles how its ideology distorts its reporting on the Arab-Israel conflict.

The New York Times does not recognize Turkey's trend, but by withholding the facts on which that trend is based, abets it in behalf of its own, liberal ideology.

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 Helen Freedman, August 29, 2011.

"And the LORD went before them by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night; the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from before the people." Exodus 21/22

The inspirational gatherings that were part of the Glenn Beck mission to Israel occurred against a very grim backdrop. It was ironic that the subject of 'Restoring Courage', the theme of Glenn Beck's mission in Israel, was so starkly presented by the events that unfolded as I arrived in Israel on Thursday afternoon, August 18.

A series of terror attacks on buses and private cars had just occurred on the road from Be'er Sheva to Eilat that left many Israeli civilians and soldiers dead and wounded. Israel "retaliated," followed by Kassam rockets and Grads falling all over Israel's south. My friends in the trailers in the Gush Katif refugee camp in Nitzan were forced to take cover in the huge sewer pipes that the government had given them for their safe rooms.

Moshe Saperstein, having been expelled from his beautiful home in Neve Dekalim, Gush Katif, Israel, said he refused to die like a rat in a sewer and he would not take shelter in the "sewervilla." The red alert was sounded in Sderot, Nitzan, Be'er Sheva, Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ofakim, and so many other Negev communities. Again, the Israeli government "retaliated." Israel also apologized to the Egyptians for shooting back at terrorists dressed in Egyptian soldier uniforms. As of this writing, the Egyptians are violating the peace agreement with Israel as they proceed with the demilitarization of the Sinai, bringing forces and weapons into the area, possibly preparing to march on Israel. What will Israel's response be if that happens? Will Israel's leaders have the courage to protect Israel's citizens?

Glenn Beck would answer these questions by urging Israel's leaders not to fear world condemnation — to use the shields of courage and truth to banish fear — and not follow the path to surrender. He would encourage Israel to follow G-d's 'Pillars of Fire' to which he referred in his powerful address at the DavidsonCenter outside the southern wall of the OldCity in Jerusalem on Wednesday afternoon, August 24.

Following the glorious kick-off event in Caesarea on Sunday night, August 21, with the theme of the 'Courage to Love,' the Glenn Beck express stopped on Monday night, August 22, at the Old Train Station, built in the 1890's in Jerusalem. The theme this night was the 'Courage to Remember'. Beck explained that the site was chosen — first because it was big enough to hold the crowd, but also because of the association with the trains of the Holocaust. This was the night to have the courage to remember that nightmarish time in Jewish history when Hitler's Nazi regime systematically worked at exterminating Jewish life in Europe.This was the night to confront the past and refuse to be silent — to vow to construct a better world in memory of those murdered.

John Voight, who had joined us on Sunday night, was greeted enthusiastically by the crowd. He spoke of the new type of holocaust, where terror is used for political ends. Beck confirmed this by declaring, "If you stare evil in the eye, it backs down; it is a coward!" Beck declared, "This will be the generation that will say "Never Again" to the repeated holocausts against the Jews.

We then saw a touching film tracing the return, after seventy years, of Holocaust survivor Kleiner Rudy Wolff to his boyhood home of Norden, Germany, from where he was deported and where his parents had been murdered by the Nazis. A commemoration dinner was arranged by the townspeople of Norden to welcome Rudy. At the ceremony he repeated over and over again that all the killing was only because the victims were Jewish. We learned that after the war, Rudy, at age 15, went to Palestine. He arrived penniless and without any family or support system. The story has a very happy ending as Rudy married at age 21 and became a proud father, grandfather, and great grandfather to 16 children. At the conclusion of the film, the entire family came on stage, including Rudy's granddaughter, Michelle, who was the filmmaker. Rudy had made peace with his past. That he had the courage to do so is remarkable.

Tuesday night, August 23, the fortunate invitees to the Glenn Beck dinner at the BibleLandsMuseum gathered to enjoy the glorious setting and another extraordinary evening. The museum was at its best. Docents were available to provide insights into the ancient treasures. Dinner tables were set up in the beautiful garden. The mood was festive. Friends, old and new, were greeted warmly. We were there in support of Israel — of Jerusalem — and, as suggested by MK Danny Danon — in support of the annexation of Judea and Samaria. This proposal brought loud cheers from the crowd, as did Glenn Beck's declaration that "Israel is not the problem in the Middle East; it is the solution!"

By 3 P.M. on Wednesday afternoon, August 24, the crowds began arriving at the DavidsonCenter, adjacent to the southern wall of the OldCity. Again, the setting was perfect. The stones were golden in the warm afternoon sun and radiated with the spirit of love, friendship, peace, harmony and courage around which these gatherings had been forged. Wonderful music was provided by the Jerusalem choir, orchestra, and renowned cantor, Dudu Fisher. Nir Barkat, Mayor of Jerusalem, held a beautiful ancient bell and declared, "Our past is our destiny in Jerusalem, and we will not be derailed from our vision."

Glenn Beck then appeared, dramatically walking towards the stage, and proudly declared that this was the throne of the Lord, where G-d spoke to Abraham and where Solomon built the Temple. He confirmed Jerusalem's importance to Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

Beautiful 'Restoring Courage' medals were awarded to honor Faith, Hope, and Charity. Leah and Rabbi Moshe Goldsmith, mayor of Itamar, received the medal for 'Faith', as the horrible details of the Fogel family massacre were retold. The 'Hope' award was given to the Jewish and Arab co-owners of the MaximRestaurant in Haifa that was attacked by a suicide bomber on Oct. 4, 2003, killing 21 and injuring 51. It was re-opened two months later. Rami Levi was given the 'Charity' award for his generosity in providing the distribution of free food from his chain of supermarkets. We know how quickly he came to the aid of the surviving members of the Fogel family.

Glenn Beck took the stage and electrified the audience with stirring words of courage. The crowd roared in agreement when Beck declared, "There is more courage in one IDF soldier than all the bureaucrats at the U.N." He denounced that world organization for abusing the meaning of the term, "human rights."

Beck spoke about the mounting threats and the evil that is growing. As for the ongoing condemnations of Israel, Beck believes the diplomats know the truth, but it doesn't matter because they are cowards. With rapt attention, the audience heard Beck assert that "Israel is here because G-d keeps his covenant...Fear is the pathway to surrender...Truth and courage will overcome...If we follow Him, G-d will lead us."

Beck charged everyone with the Responsibility to alter the course of history by being willing to speak the truth. When the "human rights" organizations exercise their double standard, we must declare, "Not in My Name!!" He called for truth seekers to link arms with him — to stand with courage — and to walk behind G-d's 'Pillars of Fire' — to choose life — with no more lies.

The dynamic gathering was closed by Beck asking us to remember — and to teach these lessons to our children — and to obey G-d's word. When we are asked, "Where were you when the world was on the edge again, when the West, Israel and the Jews were blamed again, we can say that "We stood with Israel."

And so the 'Restoring Courage' events came to an end. Those who were privileged to be there with Glenn Beck will always remember and treasure this exceptional experience. For me it was an affirmation that it is the leadership that must restore its courage. The problem does not lie with the people, who turn out in masses in search of truth and honesty. It is our leaders who betray us. From the local Jewish organizational level, to many of our clergy, to the Israeli government that has conceded too much to the enemy, to the Obama administration that would have Israel cut itself in pieces to appease terrorist organizations, to the United (Arab) Nations, to the media and the academics who revise and distort history, the honest, courageous people have to deal with weakness, deception, and evil. It is therefore with a grateful heart that I heard Glenn Beck's message of Courage to Love, to Remember, to speak the Truth, to bear Responsibility and to trust in G-d's covenant with the Jewish people. To those who have difficulty accepting the fact that a Christian would care so deeply about Israel that he would create and finance such an amazing four day series of events in support of Israel, I can only recommend researching the facts oneself and not relying on the false media to relay accurate information. Go to www.glennbeck.com and read the reports on the website. Subscribe to GBTV. Once you read and hear Beck's words for yourself, I believe you will join me in thanking him for his extraordinary and courageous support of Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matter (FSM), August 29, 2011.

This was written by Frank Gaffney, Jr., President of the Center for Security Policy, a columnist for the Washington Times and host of the syndicated program, Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington on weeknights at 9:00 p.m. on WRC 1260 AM. It appeared in FSM and is archived at
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/ id.10269/pub_detail.asp


Image from the cover of FEAR, inc., the CAP's so-called report.

There they go again. Last week, the Center for American Progress released "Fear, Inc.," yet another report in the increasingly hysterical bullying campaign to shout down criticism of political Islamist efforts to influence American foreign and domestic policy. Their latest "copy and paste" effort duplicates large sections of five nearly identical "investigations" just this year, complaining that millions of concerned Americans are Islamophobes.

The primary organizations — what should be called the "Shariah Defense Lobby" — are the Center for American Progress/ThinkProgress, the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) with support from a handful of other far-left or Islamist bloggers and Washington lobbyists.

The "Shariah Defense Lobby" whitewashes and protects political, legal, military and religious doctrines of Shariah law (Islamic law) from scrutiny. One of its major goals is to silence all criticism of Islamist aggression, jihadist violence, or Shariah violations of human rights and civil liberties.

Frank J. Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, noted that:

The 'Shariah Defense Lobby' is in a race against time to hide the grim reality of Shariah law as it is actually enforced, as Islamist movements and political parties throughout the Arab world are aggressively seeking to govern by Shariah. Most significantly, the 'Shariah Defense Lobby' refuses to discuss a simple fact: secular and democratic activists in Egypt and elsewhere in the Muslim world oppose Shariah in their countries, just as Americans oppose it here.

The latest report also attacks venerable American family foundations for supporting educational efforts on national security and counter-terrorism. The funding sources of the "Shariah Defense Lobby" should be exposed to public scrutiny. For example, CAIR — an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terror financing trial in American history — has reportedly received millions in foreign funding from Islamist contributors, including the Organization of Islamic Conference (aka Cooperation). This year, CAIR lost its nonprofit tax status because of its refusal to file tax forms that would have revealed its sources of funding.

In addition to CAIR's foreign financing, this latest paper from the Center for American Progress reveals that the project depends on money from the Open Society Foundations, a funding vehicle of far-left billionaire George Soros. George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management LLC. He has amassed a personal fortune estimated at about $14.5 billion (as of 2011). His company, Soros Fund Management, controls at least another $27.9 billion in investor assets. Soros's foundation network — whose flagship is the Open Society Institute (OSI) — has reportedly dispensed billions to a multitude of far left organizations.

The "Shariah Defense Lobby," which aggressively defends Shariah from its critics, has produced a year-long campaign of remarkably identical agitprop papers, all with a single goal: to attack the millions of Americans who are concerned about political Islamists' growing power here in the U.S. and abroad. In these increasingly shrill reports, the "Shariah Defense Lobby" keeps attempting to silence the great majority of Americans who express legitimate concerns about home-grown Islamist terrorism, and about Islamist efforts to enforce Shariah law on American Muslim families and even on non-Muslim Americans.

The Center for American Progress — authors of "Fear, Inc." — are trying to make Americans afraid of discussing one of the greatest national security threats we face. Thankfully, the American people aren't buying what they're selling: the campaign is having the opposite effect of what the Lobby intends.

Selected Papers from the Shariah Defense Lobby 'Copy-and-Paste' Essay Series

January 2011: Thomas Cincotta, "Manufacturing the Muslim Menace: Private Firms, Public Servants and the Threat to Rights and Security" (Political Research Associates)

March 2011: Wajahat Ali and Matthew Duss, "Understanding Sharia Law" (Center for American Progress)

May 2011: "Nothing to Fear: Debunking the Mythical 'Shariah Threat' to Our Judicial System" (American Civil Liberties Union)

June 2011: Corey Saylor, et al. "Same Hate, New Target: Islamophobia and Its Impact in the United States" (Council on American Islamic Relations and University of California at Berkeley)

June 2011: Robert Steinback, "Jihad against Islam" (Southern Poverty Law Center)

August 2011: Wajahat Ali, Eli Clifton, Matt Duss, Lee Fang, Scott Keyes, Faiz Shakir, "Fear Inc.: The Roots of the Islamophobia Network in America" (Center for American Progress)

To Go To Top

Posted by David Isaac, August 29, 2011.

Our latest post is up!

You can view it at

The 'Arab Spring' leads to a blossoming of hatred.

Comments are welcome.



The Arab masses have a new hero. His name is Ahmed al-Shahat, a 23-year-old man who climbed a building in Cairo to remove the flag from Israel's embassy and replace it with an Egyptian one. Thousands of demonstrators cheered him on while burning Israeli flags and chanting "God is great!"

The Arab press has devoted many stories to the man's exploits, dubbing him "Flagman" — an Arab Spiderman. As journalist Khaled abu-Toameh[1] writes, "It is not that hard to become a hero in the Arab world. It is enough to say something bad about the Jewish state or carry out an anti-Israel attack to turn one into a hero."

Toameh points out that the flag incident reminds us that, "Egypt in particular, and the Arab world in general, are not headed toward moderation, especially in regard to recognizing Israel's right to exist." In fact, the situation has worsened in Tunisia and Egypt, two states that have seen regime change. Last month, Tunisia announced a new 'pact' that would act as the basis for a future constitution. The formulators included as part of this pact a rejection of 'any form of normalization with the Zionist State'. In Egypt, the revolutionaries want more than the Israeli flag to go. They now demand that the Israeli embassy be shut down and Israel's ambassador expelled. In a recent statement, the Muslim Brotherhood has threatened the ambassador's life, telling him "leave Egypt or die".

Yes, hate is still very much alive even in this 'Arab Spring'.

This hate was kept alive even when Egypt was supposedly honoring its commitments under the Egypt-Israel Treaty, which expressly called for an end to hostile propaganda. During Egyptian President Mubarak's rule, one could pick up a copy of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" from virtually any street vendor in Cairo. Egyptian newspapers were filled with vicious charges against Israel over the years, from blowing up the Pam Am plane over Lockerbie, Scotland (Al-Masa'a, Dec. 11, 1991) to exporting radiation contaminated food to Egypt (al-Ahram, June 8, 1987) to "introducing most of the plagues that afflict agriculture and animal health" (Al-Jumhuriyah, Sept. 13, 1988).

The young people demonstrating in front of the Israeli embassy in Cairo are the product of this Mubarak-era propaganda, having learned their anti-Semitic ABCs in their homes, schools and from their media. In "Heaven on Earth"[2] (Oxford University Press, 2011), author Richard Landes quotes an Islamic intellectual who explains why it's important to keep the hatred alive.

"The role of the Islamic stream is to keep the flame of hatred toward Zionism burning in their souls. This is because we are not ready to fight and use our military power, due to the limitations forced on us. We are not capable of conducting daily confrontations with Israel in the battlefield, because it is not in our hand, but rather in the hands of others (meaning, the Palestinian Authority). Nevertheless, we are capable of cultivating the flame of hatred to this enemy in the souls of our sons, daughters, and grandchildren. We can make hatred burn among the public. If we manage to do so, in our homes and with the help of our schools and media, our efforts will be successful. The fighting will come one of these days and if by that time the ideology of hatred has faded, we will be defeated; on the other hand, if on this day we will still hate [Israel], victory will be ours, with the help of Allah."[3]

From what source does this extraordinary hatred come? Contrary to the oft-repeated, modern refrain that Jews and Muslims lived in peace for centuries, anti-Semitism is deeply rooted in Islamic and Arab culture, beginning with the Koran (2:61), which states, "And humiliation and wretchedness were stamped upon them and they were visited with wrath from Allah. That was because they disbelieved in Allah's revelations and slew the prophets wrongfully."

In 1172, in his Epistle to the Jews of Yemen, the Jewish scholar Maimonides writes: "The nation of Ishmael... persecute us severely and devise ways to harm us and to debase us. ... None has matched it in debasing and humiliating us. None has been able to reduce us as they have. We have done as our sages of blessed memory instructed us, bearing the lies and absurdities of Ishmael. We listen, but remain silent. ... In spite of all this, we are not spared from the ferocity of their wickedness, and their outbursts at any time. On the contrary, the more we suffer and choose to conciliate them, the more they choose to act belligerently toward us."[4]

Shmuel Katz understood the roots of the conflict well.[5] As he wrote in Can the Palestinian Problem be Solved? (Van Leer Foundation, Jerusalem, 1982):

Since the seventh century the Arabs knew the Jews of Palestine as a suppressed and contemptible minority, the subject of constant oppression. The Jews always lived as a vanquished people, shadowed by the memory of their defeat in the year 70. Even though the Christians were also inferior in the Muslim conception, they had the backing of many countries, they had power. But the Jews, oppressed and ostracized even in large parts of the Christian world, had nothing. The Arab himself, even when he was the victim of discrimination, humiliation or maltreatment in a non-Arab Muslim society, always regarded the Jew as being one rung below him.

In terms of the Arab vision, then, the idea of a foreign state — and the more so that of the most despised race of all — "in the heart of the Arab world" was an utter abomination. Its establishment must be blocked, and if established it must be annihilated.

Here, then, in all its unadorned simplicity, is the fundamental truth that underlies the conflict, a truth that has been buried under countless layers of tendentious propaganda. Hundreds, even thousands, of categorical pronouncements, differing only in their wording, affirm and underscore this truth. In May 1946, when the Jewish state was no more than a "threat" on the horizon, leaders of the Arab states meeting at Inshass, Egypt, declared: "The problem of Palestine is not the problem only of the Arabs of Palestine, but of all the Arabs."

"When Palestine is injured," Egyptian president Nasser said in 1953, "each of us is injured in his feelings and in his homeland." The very core of the Arabs' objective was set forth by the ruling Ba'ath Party of Syria at its conference in 1966: "The existence of Israel in the heart of the Arab homeland constitutes the main base dividing the eastern part from the western part of the Arab nation."

This Arab truth was flagrantly exposed in the words of Egypt's Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Butrus Ghali, in a symposium sponsored by the periodical Al-Siyassa Al-Dawilla in October 1975: "Palestine is the heart of the Arab homeland before it is the homeland of the Palestinians." ...

In Arab history, 1948 is the "year of the disaster." The valorous Arabs, masters of the world, were vanquished by a handful of members of the despised community; and the state of these heretics, even if it occupied only part of Palestine, remained — strengthened — in its place. Never did the Arabs show even the slightest intimation of acceptance. On the contrary, their rejection of Israel and their determination to take revenge and undo what had been done, with the final purpose of annihilating the Jewish state, intensified. For it was inconceivable that the Jews should have defeated the Arab nation.

When one understands this basic fact, it is no surprise that the Arab Spring has not brought about a change of attitude among the Arab masses. Centuries of slander has placed the hatred of despised Jewry deep into the heart of the Arab volk. Indeed, the tyrants whom the Arab masses have recently overthrown may have helped keep that hatred in check. As the Arabs slough off one dictator after another, don't expect greater democracy to give way to greater understanding, rather expect greater displays of anti-Semitism and a renewed outburst of enthusiasm for Israel's demise.


[1] http://www.hudson-ny.org/2373/arab-world-heroes

[2] http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Religion Theology/Theory/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5OTc1MzU5OA==

[3] Salim Al-'Awa, Islamic intellectual close to Sheikh Qaradawi, published in Al-Istiqlal, August 28, 1998, trans. MEMRI, Special Dispatch Series, no. 5, August 31, 1998 (italics retained from "Heaven on Earth")

[4] The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, Andrew G. Bostom, Prometheus Books, 2008

[5] Shmuel Katz's monograph, NoSolutionToArabPal.pdf, can be downloaded from www.shmuelkatz.com

David Isaac is editor of the Shmuel Katz website: www.shmuelkatz.com. Contact him at david_isaac@shmuelkatz.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Maayana Miskin, August 28, 2011.

Jews in the village of Esh Kodesh in Samaria who planned a Torah class on Friday found themselves facing off against an angry Palestinian Authority mob instead. IDF soldiers managed to prevent bloodshed.

The mob, made up of roughly 100 men and youths, was armed "with whatever they could find," recalled Rafi Fischer, who spoke Sunday to Arutz Sheva. Among the makeshift weapons were metal pipes and clubs, he said.

The small group of Jewish villagers could hear the muezzin (Muslim prayer leader) calling on residents of the nearby PA town of Kusra to join in the attack on Esh Kodesh.

Fortunately, Fischer said, "The army was determined," and soldiers prevented the PA mob from carrying out a violent attack at the site. The Jewish villagers were evacuated for their own protection, and proceeded to hold the planned Torah class in a nearby town.

While the IDF put a stop to the planned bloodshed, it is also IDF actions that set the mob in motion, Fischer stated. PA Arabs used to leave Esh Kodesh alone, but began attacking the site after seeing the IDF's Civil Administration destroy buildings in the community, he said.

Fischer brought proof for his theory from the PA mob itself. A listserve used by PA residents of Kotzra was found to include statements saying that the Zionist army had destroyed buildings at the site. The statements ended with a declaration, "Today we go up," he said.

Esh Kodesh was intended as a site for Jewish settlement as many as 30 years ago, he noted.

Fischer and several others who witnessed the attack are not permanent residents of Esh Kodesh, but rather, visitors from elsewhere in Samaria who came to show solidarity with villagers in the face of recent attacks and demolitions. The group plans to continue weekly visits to Esh Kodesh and similar locations despite Friday's attack, he said.

Maayana Miskin writes for Jerusalem Post, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

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


For the second time in a week, Arab terrorists bombarded the Erez crossing from Israel to northern Gaza. Their 15 rocket and mortar shells damaged the crossing's electricity, trapping two Gaza residents between gates. The IDF rescued mother and baby.

The pair were among a group of five returning from medical treatment in Israel. Israeli soldiers treated the group, coming out of their daily Ramadan fast, to a meal.

The crossing is used by Gaza Arabs and the staff of international organizations (IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis, 8/28/11, www.imra.org.il ).

COMMENTARY: Contrast the behavior of Gaza Islamists with that of Israel. Islamists accuse Israel of occupation, oppression, and blockade, but attack the crossings for dozens of delivery trucks, international agencies' staff helping the people of Gaza, and residents seeking medical treatment in Israel.

Israel treats, usually free, ailing many Palestinian Arabs whose own facilities are limited. The terrorists had trapped the woman and baby, but Israeli soldiers rescued them. Israeli soldiers, often called brutal, treated the Arab party with a kindness one cannot imagine Hamas treating Israelis.

If the shelling had killed the two infants in the party, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) would have deemed them martyrs and would have either praised the terrorists for having attacked the "occupation" or blamed Israel for having killed the Arabs. Amnesty International and the UN very likely would accept the falsified Arab casualty statistics. The P.A. would not have praised Israel for its rescue and for its medical treatment of Palestinian Arabs.

Obviously, pro-Arab propaganda depicting Israel as inhumane and the Arabs as their victims is slander. Westerners who take up that propaganda self-righteously either do not know the facts or do not know right from wrong.

The Palestinian Arabs and their allies are in a combined military, diplomatic, and economic war on Israel to destroy it (and not to get a limited slice of territory, as some think). Usually, a country that is the victim of genocidal aggression does not seek to aid the people of that country. Israel does, because it is humane and, I suppose, because it wants to be recognized for its virtue and no longer be maligned.

Israeli humaneness does not get recognized by leftist Western supporters of the Arabs. As for Arab brutality, those leftists make excuses, justifying it by claims of non-existent Israeli oppression.

EDITORIAL: In my opinion, Israel is too humane to its enemies. The Arabs of Gaza have not bought Israeli medical insurance. Why no charge for medical treatment? The Arab people do not come out for peace as a result of Israel treating them unlike enemies. Some consciously exploit Israeli kindness for personal benefit, and others exploit it to gain entrée to Israel for purposes of terrorism. No foreign agency or media, to my knowledge, criticizes those Arabs as ingrates. Israeli support for the Palestinian Arabs, economic and medical, helps them stay in otherwise insufferable regimes and better able to conduct war on Israel.

If Satan came before you, explaining that he had just emerged from a very hot place, and asked for a drink of water, would you give it to him, to be humane? Well, the Palestinian Arabs are taught in Friday mosque sermons and on TV that Jews are devils to be destroyed. Israel feeds that mouth that bites it. Is it really humane to bolster the forces of genocidal aggression? It certainly isn't wise.


First, popular Muslim preacher Abu Ishaq al-Huwaini boasted that "Islam allows Muslims to buy and sell conquered infidel women, so that 'When I want a sex-slave, I go to the market and pick whichever female I desire and buy her.'" Then Salwa al-Mutairi, a female former parliamentary candidate for Kuwait's government, reportedly advocated revival of the Islamic institution of sex slavery.

Her premise is that Muslim men may not be satisfied sexually with their wives and may be tempted by their servants. Islam forbids adultery. The solution, al-Mutairi suggests, is for Muslim states to make war on non-Muslim states and impress captured females into becoming concubines. She cites Chechnya as an opportunity to capture women. The Kuwaiti female activist explains that religious authorities in Mecca confirmed the Islamic legitimacy of sex slavery, recognized by their Prophet.

Instead of veils, the sex slaves would be naked from waist up. She suggests the minimum age for this be 15. Officially recognizing the institution of sex slavery would place Muslim men in accord with Islamic law.

Meanwhile, sex slavery "...thrives underground throughout the Muslim world, where non-Muslim girls — mostly Christians — are routinely abducted, enslaved, and forced into lives of unspeakable degradation (Raymond Ibrahim, FrontPageMagazine.com, June 6, 2011
http://www.meforum.org/2930/muslim-woman- seeks-to-revive-institution-of-sex ).

What a cavalier attitude about women's rights and war! One cannot expect Islamic women to champion women's rights.

Why aren't such real problems described here an international concern of civilized countries and NGOs, instead of fancied problems emanating from Israel, another victim of Islamic aggression?


How well did Middle East studies professors evaluate Egypt's uprising?

Fifteen prominent professors stated their assessment before and right after Mubarak's overthrow. Thirteen discounted instead of explaining the Moslem Brotherhood's Islamic goals. They forecast democracy in Egypt.

UC Irvine Prof. Mark LeVine predicted a better world order. Sarah Lawrence Prof. Fawaz Gerges anticipated democratic pluralism. Ian Lustick considered the Moslem Brotherhood like European Christian Democratic parties, and Mark Tessler considered them like American social conservatives.

Prof. Carrie Rosefsky Wickham of Emory said Egypt could not become democratic without the Brotherhood. Bruce Rutherford of Colgate noted fifteen years of Brotherhood expression of commitment to democracy and human rights.

Rutherford did mention that the Brotherhood's 2007 platform proposed restrictions on presidential candidates, but not that the platform wanted to make Islamic Law the sole source of legislation, to make the elected government subordinate to a clerical council and the right to appoint clergy, giving them supremacy. As for human rights, the Brotherhood's spiritual guide, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, favors mutilating girls' genitals and exterminating all Jews.

Those professors missed the Brotherhood's action plan, which is a stage of outreach to gain position, followed by a stage of conquest. Instead, the professors take Brotherhood disavowals at face value.

Prof. Wickham failed to realize that the Brotherhood reformers she focuses on have left the Brotherhood in failure. She dismisses Brother statements as "rhetoric," and ignores the Brotherhood's less diplomatic past in which they collaborated with the Nazis and terrorized Egyptian Jews and Christians.

Prof. Rashid Khalidi of Columbia U. opposed keeping the Brotherhood from power, even though that could harm the U.S.. [Khalidi is a friend of President Obama!]

One professor, Mahsmeed Choksy of Indiana U. opposed empowering the Muslim Brotherhood, citing the United States' strategic interest. To Choksy, secular democracy and theocracy are locked in a struggle. Like Iran, the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood wants to create an Islamic state, acquire nuclear weapons, end the peace treaty with Israel, and halt Western influence in the Mideast. Iran secretly finances the Brotherhood and has ties with Tunisia's leading Islamist, Ghannouchi. Indeed, Muslim Brotherhood leader Kmal al-Hilbawi declared in Iran his wish to emulate it.

Prof. Juan Cole of U. of Michigan, Gerges, and Lustick tout the Turkish Islamist party as the Brotherhood's model. Unfortunately, the ruling party of Turkey has aligned Turkey with Iran, impeded the U.S. wan on Iraq, collaborated with the illegal blockade-running flotilla, removed democratic checks and balances, and arrested military officers and hundreds of journalists blocking their way to power, .

The Moslem Brotherhood is not compatible with democracy and stability. Apparently, the Middle East studies centers fail to alert this country to that (Janet Doerflinger, FrontPage Magazine, May 20, 2011,
http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/20/whitewashing-the- muslim-brotherhood/ http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/11330 ).

This is an old story, but the Centers nevertheless get federal subsidy.


NGO Monitor has exposed NGO violations of their human rights platforms to engage in jihad against Israel. Some of them adopt human rights platforms as cover for raising funds for anti-human rights programs.

NGO Monitor has found that foundations aiding those NGOs do not know or do not care about the violations. On being informed of the end use of donations to NGOs, some European governments and New Israel Fund are reducing their funding of those NGOs.

Now NGO Monitor has suggested ethical guidelines for NGOs and supportive foundations to prevent or at least not to finance violations. The standards derive from international documents and definitions.

The guidelines aim to promote transparency, accountability, tolerance, and civility. An independent ombudsman and independent ratings of compliance would verify compliance with the guidelines.

The guidelines would bar support for political antisemitism and political warfare, often based on "gross distortions of international law." Examples of such distortions are accusations against Israel of war crimes, apartheid, and ethnic cleansing.

One guideline bars support for boycott of, divestment from, and sanctions against Israel, an outgrowth of the Durban conference seeking to make Israel seem non-legitimate and therefore ripe for destruction. Same for legal action against Israeli officials abroad, which are made without foundation and for harassment.

Another guideline opposes UN-related activities that single Israel out, using double standards, and promote libel as did the UN Goldstone report.

Also prohibited would be opposing Israel's status as a Jewish state, including by demanding a one-state "solution," which would be instituted by recognizing a "right of return" for Arabs and ending Israel's Law of Return for Jews.

Antisemitism would be out, including Holocaust denial and claims that Israelis are the new Nazis, claiming Israel is racist, rejecting the Jewish people's right to self-determination, characterizing Jews as Christ-killers and slayers of gentiles for ritualistic purposes, demanding behavior of Israel not demanded of any other country, and alleging Jewish conspiracies for world domination.

Donors finding violations should cut off support for the offending NGO (www.ngo-monitor.org from IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis, www.imra.org.il, 7/5/11).

The guidelines could help some governments that did not know what their funds really supported. I doubt that New Israel Fund would adopt the guidelines or enforce them. Some of the foundations share the Arab view and ends-justify-means philosophy. They probably would claim that suggesting ethical guidelines for them amount to curbing their freedom of speech.


Americans perceive of the Arab uprisings as suddenly emerging from Tunisians utilizing social media, all constituting a single protest against political oppression and corruption to install popular and benign rule. This perception is mistaken.

The 300 million Middle Eastern Arab-speaking people are not a unified nation. The uprisings are for different reasons in different countries, not all against political oppression and corruption, not all to install benign rule, and not starting in Tunisia. Neither is it fair to condemn totally the former regimes in Tunisia and Egypt, which instituted some significant reforms. Egypt had a 7% annual growth in GDP for five years. Nor is it certain, yet, whether Tunisia and Egypt haven't remained under military rule [though the Egyptian military now is closer to the Islamists than was Mubarak].

Shiites in Bahrain claim to want equality under the existing ruling family, not, as feared, merger with Iran.

"In effect, the 'Arab Spring' is a series of civil wars, sectarian and tribal conflicts, and divisions not only between the political elites and the people but also within certain regimes themselves." So far, only ostensibly pro-U.S. regimes fell. As for what started the uprising, Iran had a revolution before Tunisia. So did Lebanon. The Iraq war toppled a dictator.

Some protestors want political freedom, some want religious freedom, some oppose price increases and other poor economic conditions, and some want to oppress religiously. Islamists are believed to be strong forces within the Libyan rebellion, biding their time. In some cases, the ruling military may simply have replaced too avaricious and brutal a dictator with another of their class. Some Egyptian revolutionaries seem to be abandoning originally declared democratic principles for populist ones. [For example, installing Islamic law, persecuting Christians, or making war on Israel is populist.]

As for the future of reform, the demonstrated power of the street may stiffen dictators' resistance to reform, lest they seem to reveal a weakness that the mob would exploit.

President Obama helped unleash the genie from the bottle when he addressed the amorphous Muslim world, rather than deal with their governments, as countries usually do. He fostered the misconception that the region is monolithic. That is how Iran conceptualizes it, by religion.

The new U.S. reaction was to declare Arab grievances legitimate [though their bigotry and imperialism really is not] and to try to appease them at Israel's expense. By deserting Egypt's Pres. Mubarak, who kept Egypt form war with Israel, Pres. Obama indicated he didn't care.

The State Dept. tried to explain why it went to war in Libya for humanitarian reasons but not in Syria, according to the means by which each regime repressed its protestors. Libya shot civilians from airplanes, but Syria used tanks. Not plausible.

The war in Libya was not in the U.S. interest. President Obama does not intend policy to be in the U.S. national interest. He used the war as an opportunity to bind U.S. foreign policy to that of other countries, and to act multilaterally (Lee Smith, Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2011, pp. 3-10 (view PDF),
http://www.meforum.org/2972/us-middle-east-influence ).

Actually, Pres. Bush acted multilaterally, but with U.S. leadership.]


The Zionist Organization of America condemned a number of actions by Arab Members of Knesset that express disloyalty to their country.


MK Tibi proposed legislation denying government subsidy of any organization denying the false Arab notion that the founding of Israel was a catastrophe imposed upon the Arabs. He and other Arab politicians advocated several measures denying Israeli legitimacy, as when attending an Arab conference as a representative of "Palestine," as claiming that Israel established apartheid in the Territories by means of separate roads and laws, as justifying Waqf destruction of ancient Jewish artifacts on the Temple Mount, as declaring automatic loyalty to Islam before that of Israel, as praising Syria for resistance (i.e., war on) to Israel, as calling Israel an aggressor in Lebanon.

Referring to the proposed bill, ZOA concludes, "It certainly explains the skepticism of the Israeli public as to the loyalty to Israel of the country's Arab minority. Ugly actions like Ahmed Tibi's are bound to only increase this well-founded suspicion. In fact, this type of action by an MK may be on the verge of being treasonous." (Press release, 7/6/11.)

I would not condemn those Arab MKs but the Jewish MKs for condoning the Arab MKs. I think that Israeli suspicion of Arab disloyalty is more than "well-founded." I think it is inherent in Islam and in the Arab-Israel conflict.

Israeli Arabs are the defeated enemy that had attempted genocide against the Jews there. They have a religious purpose for opposing the existence of Israel and a racist religious one for hating Jews. Despite a few Israeli Arabs who join the Army and who integrate, in general, that sector endangers Israeli national security. It is radicalizing. It bids openly to take over, as by seizing public land. Should the government of Israel just wait until the inevitable insurrection? If foreign Arabs join in, it may be too late.

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 Gerald A. Honigman, August 28, 2011.

Decades ago, while engaged in undergraduate and graduate work in Middle Eastern Affairs and related studies, the only way I learned of the struggles of scores of millions of non-Arab peoples in the region occurred solely via my own initiative. Of all the hundreds of books in my library, hardly a jot or tittle on such subjects. And even when, on rare occasion, you might find mention of some of these folks in a book, a discussion on the subject never made it into the classroom.

In just one of many examples, only by becoming a member of the London-based Anti-Slavery Society did I learn of problems black Africans faced regarding genocidal and 20th century slave trading Arab tormentors. The struggles of the Anya Nya and other black Africans in the south of the Sudan and elsewhere were in full bloom, yet one would never know anything at all about this stuff if the academic syllabus and classroom were the sources of information. If Israel was not the alleged villain, the problem was left untouched in far too many classrooms.

While I would frequently be exposed to such things as alleged Zionist fascism, racism, colonialism, imperialism, and dozens of other Hebrew sins, barely a word was ever spoken about the subjugation (largely by Arabs, but also by others such as Turks and Iranians as well) and plight of folks like Kurds, Imazighen ("Berbers"), Copts, Assyrians, native Jews, and so forth. And when mention of such non-Arab people was made, it was about such things as Berber rugs or musicians. To learn of Kurds back then, the Little Miss Muffet nursery rhyme provided more information than academia...and those were the wrong curds.

Now, keep in mind that this was especially odd because the sixties and seventies were very socially conscious eras in history. But, I was young and naïve and so gave the situation the benefit of the doubt.

I know better now.

The situation was indeed nauseatingly shameful and still remains so in far too many places where one set of lenses is routinely used in the scrutiny of an admittedly imperfect Israel in the classroom, assorted media, United Nations, State Department, and so forth, and a far different set — if any at all — is used when dealing with the so-called "Arab" world.

It turns out that while masses of students were being exposed to the real and imaginary flaws of Jewish nationalism — Zionism — in the attempt by Jews to finally cast off their perpetual victim and scapegoat existence in the resurrection of their sole, minuscule state, the far worse sins that such folks as Arabs and Turks were committing against scores of millions of other native peoples in the region were merely being swept under the rug. This was no accident, and (among other things) a check of foreign (and foreign related) sources of money funding such programs is indeed enlightening,

Worse still, while the cause of Arabs to acquire state # 22 was more often than not lionized, the suppression of such facts and issues regarding non-Arabs struggling for their own small semblance of justice in the region goes even deeper than what may already be suspected from above.

It is very likely that, right from the get-go over six decades ago, there was a trade off with the Arabs to promote the region as solely their own in return for access to oil in those lands.

The Kurds had already lost their one best shot ever at independence after World War I in such petro-political games being played by the Brits in collusion with Arab nationalism. After 1925, the oil of the Kurdish north in the Mandate of Mesopotamia was tied to a unified Arab Iraq instead of Kurdistan. Now, follow some favorite excerpts on related subject matter below...

In Algeria, Berbers were forbidden to use their own language, Tamazight...riots erupted, reported in France but ignored elsewhere in the West...America, of course, had been sufficiently subject to ARAMCO (the Arabian American Oil Company) propaganda, a payoff to the Saudis by Big Oil, to allow the latter to produce and market Arab oil. So, ARAMCO's message to America was that there is just an Arab world in this region in which there are no Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Turkmen...and, of course, no Berbers and no Jews — they all came to Israel, you see, from Europe for everyone in this region is just Arab (New English Review, January 17, 2008)."

So, until relatively recently, while countless volumes of print, classroom hours, United Nations sessions, State Department briefings, and so forth were devoted to the cause of the Arabs' proposed 22nd state (and second, not first, in the original April 25, 1920 Mandate of Palestine...Jordan sits on some 80% of it since 1922), Kurds, Berbers, black Africans, Copts, and others were literally being massacred, enslaved, displaced, forcibly Arabized and such by the millions by Arabs — but with barely a word being spoken in protest by a vast assortment of practitioners of the double standard supreme.

Kurds, the Amazigh and Kabyle people (the real majority population of " Arab" North Africa on lands that Arabs refer to merely as "purely Arab patrimony"), and others as well have had their own languages and cultures outlawed — and those who dared to protest were slaughtered or jailed. Yet, even most experts in the Ivory Tower (let alone those alleged voices of morality in the UN and elsewhere) could only act deaf, dumb, and blind to all that was going on.

Outside of academia, where have the editorials in The New York Times been regarding the plight of all of these peoples? What Quartet exists to promote "roadmaps" and such for their basic human, let alone political, rights?

When will the UN session be scheduled that will vote on independence for some 35 million truly stateless Kurds? One is scheduled for the creation of the Arabs' 22nd state just several weeks from now.

Having said all of this, there is some good news to report...

A few years back, there was a revolt of sorts within academia itself.

The duplicity, lack of freedom of fair academic discourse, and intimidation in too many classrooms led to the formation of a new organization, the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA), with two shining stars at the helm, Professors Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami.

While it surfaced too late for some of us who were victimized in too many MESA-dominated classrooms, ASMEA's emergence is a blessing indeed.

Tied together with other such organizations as Professor Daniel Pipes's Campus Watch and key studies on the problems which my own book also gets into (http://q4j-middle-east.com) like Professor Martin Kramer's Ivory Towers on Sand: The Failure of Middle Eastern Studies in America, students who expect that the same lenses of academic scrutiny will be applied to the "Arab" world as are routinely used to only study Israel with can breathe a bit easier today. While the duplicity and intimidation still exist in too many classrooms, there are now more ways to fight such nastiness and more alternatives available.

And that brings us up to current news...

With all that's been happening in Libya since the arrival of the "Arab Spring," it's time to introduce, yet again, another favorite quote — this one from MEMRI on May 3, 2007.

Follow Belkacem Lounes of the World Amazigh Congress as he responded to Libya's Mu'ammar Qaddafi's denial of the very existence of the Amazigh people, the "Berbers"...

The people of whom you speak...speak their own Amazigh language daily...every day live their Amazigh identity...What worse offense to elementary rights is there than denying the existence of a people...30 million in North Africa? You menace the Amazigh, warning that whosoever asserts his identity will be a traitor... There is no worse colonialism than internal colonialism — that of the Pan-Arabist claim that seeks to dominate our people. It is surely Arabism — an imperialist ideology that refuses diversity — that constitutes an offense to history and truth...

Now, recent reports state that the Imazighen have joined in the revolt against Qaddafi's rule.

The big question thus involves whether Qaddafi's Arab successors will be any different when it comes to granting rights and true freedoms to all of Libya's people than Qaddafi or any of the other Arab conquerors have ever been, or if the Amazigh people can simply expect more of the same murderous subjugation that they have been exposed to courtesy of the Arabs for centuries?

Keep in mind that the likely Islamist groups who will actually come to succeed Qaddafi are not especially known for tolerance. Ditto for the folks likely to take over in Egypt this fall after the ouster, months earlier, of President Mubarak. Ask Egypt's native, twelve million or more non-Arab, pre-Arab Copts how they're feeling these days with Hamas's older siblings, the Muslim Brotherhood, set to win the Egyptian elections. Stop by a local Coptic Church for a chat. I did...several times. Many Copts have fled such Muslim "tolerance" in the past — and many more will certainly be joining that diaspora shortly.

As a footnote of sorts, there is some good news to report related to this subject...

Another subjugated, non-Arab people finally gained political rights in this general region when the blacks of South Sudan finally gained independence from the Arab/Arabized north. The bad news is that it took the lives of literally millions over the past six decades (and many more prior to that) before that independence was finally achieved this past July. And the black Nuba in the north and the blacks in the western Darfur region of the country still have no light at the end of their own nightmarish tunnels.

As with the Berbers in Libya and elsewhere in North Africa, if Assad should fall in Syria, will the Kurds have it any better given the reluctance of the West (especially the Obama Administration) to oppose Assad in the first place — especially considering the support such folks are giving to Islamist groups in Syria as well?

Disturbing accounts are coming in which state that more inclusive, democratic forces (such as theKurds) opposing Assad are actually being left out of future plans that the State Department has for a post-Assad Syria.Think about that long and hard...and then consider the need for a strong executive occupying the White House independent of the State Department's Arabists — like President Reagan, for example.

Finally, while much attention has been focused upon such things as Arab rights, the creation of a 22nd Arab state, and on the Arab Spring (which may very well wind up exploding in many of our faces), is it not time for the world to enable such things as a Kurdish or Berber autumn — allowing some other folks in that region a small slice of the justice pie too?

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 Barbara Taverna, August 28, 2011.

This comes from the Daphne Anson website
(http://daphneanson.blogspot.com/2011/08/ how-sweet-it-was-brisbane-anti-semitic.html). Daphne Anson is an Australian writer and researcher. She focuses on anti-semitism and hostility to Israel.


The antisemites of the BDS movement and their running dogs (described by an eyewitness as "enraged with hate and envy") were out in Brisbane on 27 August, to scream the usual lies and insults associated with Israel-demonisers everywhere and the BDS movement in particular.

This lot, targeting the city's Max Brenner franchise, were a mainly 20- and 30-something mix of students, the inevitable Greens (aka the Watermelons, "green on the outside and red within"), GetUp, and Justice for Palestine, plus some Muslim women in hijabs. A few Palestinian flags were carried.

What the so-called Justice for Palestine group demands is, in their own words
(http://www.justiceforpalestinebrisbane.org/), "an end to the occupation of all Arab lands and the dismantling of the Apartheid Wall" plus " the right of return for all Palestinian refugees" [emphasis theirs]. The willful ignorance of the history of the conflict, any semblance of empathy for an Israeli population under constant attack from ruthless terrorists, any concession to the notion that the Israeli government has the right and obligation to defend its citizens, is of course entirely missing. The clear aim of "Justice for Palestine" — as of the entire BDS movement — is the eradication of the world's only Jewish State.

There's a video (I'll tell you where to see it, presently) of the squalid near-hysterical speech in that vein to the rag, tag and bobtail assemblage by one of those strident carbon copy far-left feminists (funny peculiar, that, isn't it?) who seem to be so much in evidence in Israel-bashing circles:

To quote Ari Heber, reporting for J-Wire, the protesters

'bleated their inane anti-Israel slogans as if in a street theater production of George Orwell's "Animal Farm".

A crowd of about 130 multicultural multifaith supporters rallied against the demonstrators drowning them out with jeers and generally positive messages.

Hot Chocolate, dancing and a sense of camaraderie made it an enjoyable afternoon.

In an email to the community this week Q[eensland] J[ewish] B[oard of] D[eputies ] President Jason Steinberg had asked supporters not to engage with the protesters and not to provoke them.

Many supporters at the protest felt that there was a need for the community to do something to challenge these protesters and not ignore them.

In the time it took to order a hot chocolate the protesters gave up and moved on down the street claiming a "moral victory" over democracy and free thought.'

And who were those counter-protesters that had the BDSers on the run? They were an assortment of well-intentioned individuals ranging in age from teens to senior citizens, with input from members of the Australian Tea Party.

One of the architects of the counter-protest was a University of Queensland student, Danielle Keys, who is National Plan Campus Director for the Conservative Leadership Foundation, although the counter-protest was not linked to that organisation.

She has said:

"It is offensive and reminiscent of the 1930's that a private business should come under attack because of either the origin of the business itself or the origin of the business' owners.

In a liberal democracy like Australia where freedom of religion, freedom of association and free enterprise is embraced, it is very disturbing to me to consistently see the prejudiced and violent behaviour of groups like the Socialist Alliance.

To aggressively protest and blockade entrance to a private business because of its Israeli origin and association is intolerant and unacceptable."
http://www.menzieshouse.com.au/2011/08/ counter-protest-against-socialist-alternative- anti-semitic-thuggary-in-brisbane.html

And of the good work on 27 August she comments:

'When the Socialist Alliance marched down to Southbank they were not counting on being outnumbered by ordinary Australians telling them to go home and that their intolerance was not welcome. They quite seriously didn't bank on it and were very upset about it (ha-ha!). I recognised quite a few faces from university so I look forward to whatever retaliatory aggression they will have for me in the coming weeks at the University of Queensland....

It was amazing to see the Socialist Alliance and Justice for Palestine outnumbered and placed into a nice little contained area. There were stacks of people and in particular many young people out to stand up against the Socialist Alliance. Unlike in other cities, the Socialist Alliance were kept away from the Max Brenner store (as they would have had to get through 10 police officers and 70 regular Australians who were fed up). Max Brenner Southbank was really busy and business was booming for them. We had random people off the street so disgusted by the Socialist Alliance that they went and bought some chocolate then stood with us.

This rabble of socialist sycophants were chanting about Max Brenner's support for genocide and how it has blood on it's hands. I found this particularly disturbing as Jewish people have been systematically persecuted and subjected to genocidal attacks for thousands of years. The conduct of the Socialist Alliance yesterday made it clear their attachment to violent, aggressive and fundamentally anti-Semitic behaviour.

We responded with many different chants and songs, but I think one of the most amazing ones was when a Max Brenner staff member came up to join us before his shift started and chanted about how he loves the company he works for. I was happy to give that guy the megaphone for a welcome break... everyone's vocal chords have taken a beating!

Anyone who was there would have seen how much fun it was. Everyone there was laughing, chanting, getting stuck into the SA, drinking hot chocolates and dancing around. The Socialist Alliance eventually walked away. Shamed into oblivion. They went and stood in a park somewhere continuing their little rant, where no one could hear them and no one could call them to account. This is unsurprising and indicative of their cowardice.

All fun and exciting times aside, there was a really powerful and beautiful element to this counter-protest movement. I was really humbled and overwhelmed by people from the Jewish community voicing their thanks for the support. It sounds insane but I never really thought of the Brisbane Jewish community when it came to organising this. I was so busy thinking of the political and ideological principles that I didn't properly see how personally vilified and offended the Jewish community felt over this. They came out in force to stand up for Max Brenner and say no to Socialist Alliance abuses. I met so many wonderful Jewish people and I felt so touched when they said how surprised and happy they were to see non-Jewish people standing by them in an event like this....

As a young idealist and libertarian I got lost in the principled machinations of what is happening surrounding the BDS. What is really important for all people to remember is that there is a huge personal element to these things. Because ordinary Australians stood up and said no to the Socialist Alliance's intolerance and hatred, the Jewish community has felt a level of support that I am not sure they felt was there before....

If there is an anti-Max Brenner protest in your own towns, I encourage you to gather your friends together and stage a counter-protest!'

Says David Goodridge, of the Australian Tea Party:

'The Australian TEA party and many other less vocal groups were happy to support Max Brenner's We understand not wanting to get closely involved with these anti semitic socialists but they have to be defeated and their actions and message must be defeated.Ordinary Australians are righteously indignant to this outrageous BDS campaign. The TEA Party believes that evil must be confronted and opposed.. and if that means staring them down, shouting back at their bully boy attempts and responding to their chants with "We love chocolate"..and "Go home Nazis!" SO BE IT!...the result??? they gave up, slinking off with their tale between their legs... defeated.... [W]e were all there and ready for them they were unable to get anywhere near Max Brenner's. The chocolate shop was able to operate normally ... victory.!!

The sight of fear and confusion in these extreme leftists eyes when they realised not only that they were outmatched in numbers but in passion....was priceless.

If our Jewish friends feel uncomfortable in standing up we will ! This is Australia ..protesting Jewish shops under false pretences about things they have obviously no influence over is 1930′s Germany ..NOT Australia.'

And another comments:

"Yesterday was a real low point for Queensland as the Anti-Semitic socialist BDS campaigners turned their attention to the Brisbane Max Brenner outlet.

As a member of The Australian TEA Party, which as an organisation was influential in organising yesterdays counter protest, and as someone who has zero connections with Judaism or Israel, I must say it was was an absolute pleasure defending free enterprise and the rights of Israelis and Jews alike to go about their peaceful business without fear of persecution or hatred.

Yesterday's counter protest was the first time the socialist BDS campaigners had actually come up against any real opposition on street level, and we did most certainly take them by surprise. After a 30-40 minute loud hailer exchange, the Green/Socialist Alternative BDS protesters retreated to lick their figurative wounds and possibly reexamine there vile campaign which up until now has met little street level opposition.

What yesterday really demonstrated was the support for Israel and Jews from outside of the Jewish/Israeli community and it was a real privilege as an Australian TEA Party member to take part.

Despite yesterdays success, we must always remain mindful that the BDS has de facto support from the Jullia Gillard government as she voluntarily formed a coalition with the Australian Greens who at a NSW level openly support the BDS campaign and at a federal level refuse to support Sen. Ron Boswell's motion condemning the BDS campaign.

Clearly this situation needs to change, and of course it will when this government either collapses or is voted out next election."

Read (and see) more:
http://www.jwire.com.au/news/brisbane-bds-demo-a-fizzler/ 18703/comment-page-1#comment-9439

As for the routed anti-Israel mob, they are furious, and even calling foul the slogan "Never Again!" raised by the protesters. Personally, I think it's entirely appropriate to use that slogan against those who would facililitate the destruction of the State of Israel. This is an extract (notice the disingenuous reference to "semites" in an attempt to wriggle out of the charge of being antisemitic, when as every honest person knows the term antisemitic was coined by Wilhelm Marr to refer not to Arab "semites" but specifically to antipathy towards Jews):

'As we assembled in the park with our 'Tear down the Apartheid Wall' banner intact we were confronted by a mix of Zionists, people mobilised by Max Brenner and University of Qld Liberal club. They were heavily supported by the Australian Patriotic Defence Movement (APDM), a fascist organistion here in Australia. With no irony they shouted slurs like 'racists' 'anti-semites'(curious because some of us are semites) and 'traitors'(to what, the Israeli flag they carried?). Some held up placards of the Australian Flag.'

Read the angry-as-a disturbed-nest-of-hornets piece here (and see that video I refer to above): hat tip Shirlee
http://workersbushtelegraph.com.au/2011/08/24/ boycott-israel-protest-in-brisbane/

Update: See earlier footage of counter-protesters below, and for glimpses of them at the 27 August rally see this.

See more footage of the counter-demonstration here.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, August 28, 2011.

From the MFA Newsletter:


IDF rescues Palestinians during mortar attack on Erez Crossing Several mortar shells hit the Erez Crossing, just as three Palestinian women and two infants were crossing back into the Gaza Strip after receiving medical treatment in Israel. (Communicated by COGAT and the IDF Spokesperson) On Thursday night (August 25th), the terror organizations from the Gaza Strip continued launching rockets and mortar shells towards Israel.

During the attack several mortar shells hit the Erez Crossing, just as three Palestinian women and two infants were crossing back into the Gaza Strip after receiving medical treatment in Israel, causing damage to the crossing's infrastructure and an electrical shutdown. The power outage disabled gates at the crossing. Two of the women passed through safely but a third woman, along with her infant daughter, got caught between two disabled gates while rockets were falling.

The commander of the Erez crossing and another security officer rescued the woman and her daughter. All of the Palestinian women were brought to a protected shelter at the crossing where they were given a meal for the end of the daily Ramadan fast. The squad of terrorists that fired a mortar shell hitting the Erez Crossing was targeted shortly afterwards by an IAF aircraft, in the northern Gaza Strip.

Terrorist groups in the Gaza Strip have fired over 15 rockets and mortars at Israel on Thursday, causing severe damage to the Erez Crossing.

The Erez Crossing is used for the movement of Palestinians and foreign staff members of international organizations in and out of the Gaza Strip. It should be noted that this is the second time this week the Erez Crossing has been hit by mortar shells and rockets. Despite rocket attacks from Gaza, the Erez crossing continued to operate in recent days, allowing for the passage of Palestinian medical patients and staff members of international organizations. The supply crossings into Gaza continued to operate, delivering over 150 truckloads of goods and food.

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

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

Jerusalem Post columnist Larry Derfner contends that Israel is occupying Arab territories, wrongfully so, and won't end it. He concludes that Arabs have a right to resist it, including by killing Israelis.

Mr. Derfner denies that his position is treasonous, but of course it is, since Israel is under attack from the Palestinian Arabs he encourages against his own countrymen.

Israel bans calls for mass-murder, but does not enforce the ban against appeasers of the Arabs, only against defenders from the Arabs (Prof. Steven Plaut, 8/24/11, usually by framing the Jews).

Do you realize that unequal enforcement of the law makes the government of Israel anti-Israel?

I have not seen any reasonable case made that Israel's position on Judea-Samaria conforms to international law's definition of "occupation," that there is a nationality called "Palestinian," that there ever was a country of those people in Judea-Samaria, and that they have a better claim to the Territories than do the Jewish people. A much better case can be made for the Jewish people's historical rights to the Territories recognized by the League of Nations and UN Charter, and also based on national security justification for territorial expropriation from aggressors.

In his one-sidedness, Mr. Derfner incorrectly assumes that the Arabs have full legal rights over the Territories, and that Israel does not have full legal rights over Israel, in the following sense. He knows that the Arabs would at best expel all the Jews in any Territories they took over. He would excuse that as setting up a state for the so-called Palestinians. He would not excuse Israel being a state for the Jewish people, if it meant expelling the Arabs there. So the Arabs get to expel Jews, and the Jews do not get to expel Arabs. Israel keeps the potential for Intifada. Not consistent, not fair, not peace.

The Post columnist falsely denies that the government of Israel has any interest in removing itself from the Territories, although several Israeli regimes have offered to 93 — 97%, as a final peace agreement. The PLO rejects such deals, because it wants to scoop up all of the Territories in the first bite and then bite off the State of Israel. The PLO does not seek peace. By contrast, the Israeli governments that Mr. Derfner criticizes do seek peace. But Derfner denounces Israel and favors the Arabs.

The Arabs have a right to negotiate with Israel, but they have not negotiated in good faith. They have negotiated to advance jihad. Since they are the ones starting the wars, peace is up to them, not to Israel.

The columnist grasps with the hands of rigor mortis the dead notion that the Palestinian Authority rejects on many occasions, that all they want is the Territories. But they see getting the Territories as a first step, positioning them better to conquer Israel. That means war, and under poorer conditions for Israel. So Mr. Derfner's encouragement of violence against Israelis would be multiplied. Where is the justice in that? Suicidal, yes. Just, no.

Also absent from Mr. Derfner's essay is any acknowledgment that the PLO already pledged peace in the 1993 Oslo Accords, which recognized Israel's overall authority in the Territories and did not restrict Jewish development in them. In pledging peace, the PLO repudiated violence. But in glorifying and committing the violence that Mr. Derfner encourages, Arabs are violating their agreement.

"Resistance," the term Mr. Derfner, is used by the Arabs to justify murdering Israeli civilians? That is terrorism. Terrorism is not justified.

After constant violations since 1993, what givers Mr. Derfner the idea that Israel could remove its forces and people from the Territories without becoming subjected to more rather than less attack? The example of the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza contradicts his assumptions.

Mr. Derfner likely shares the view of fellow leftists that he is "progressive," a citizen of the world, a seeker of "social justice." Like them, he proposes murder by a most reactionary people seeking to end the justice of Western civilization. Those leftists resemble the Soviet Communists, who talked about justice and fomented the worst injustice we had heard of. Now we are finding that jihad, abetted by Western leftists, is surpassing the excesses of Communism and Nazism. Leftists pervert liberalism.

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 Dr. Rich Swier, August 27, 2011.

New York is the epicenter of the interfaith dialogue movement. New York was the target of Shariah Islam on 9/11 and is the proposed home for the highly controversial "Ground Zero" mosque.

David Rockefeller founded the Downtown Lower Manhattan Association in 1958 to "advance Rockefeller's vision of Lower Manhattan as a global model for a modern central business district." The InterChurch Center (TIC), which houses the Muslim Consultative Network (MCN), is a member of the Morningside Area Alliance. created by David Rockefeller in 1947. In addition to Union Theological Seminary — home to Black Liberation Theology founder James Cone — member institutions include Riverside Church.

What does this all mean? Please bear with me as I explain.

Mayor Bloomberg announced that religious leaders will not speak at the 10th anniversary of 9/11. (Read his announcement by going here)

I believe that Mayor Bloomberg made his decision because if he allows religious leaders to speak at the 10th anniversary ceremony of 9/11 then one of them, in the name of interfaith dialogue and diversity, must be Muslim. If he and New York are committed to interfaith dialogue and diversity then to exclude a Muslim Imam would be taken, right or wrong, as an insult to Islam. On the other hand having an Imam give a prayer at ground zero on the 10th anniversary of the attack would be tantamount to endorsing the geo-political, military, social, economic and judicial system of shariah Islam. Shariah Islamists planned and executed their most effective and devastating attack on the United States, Western values and those who do not embrace Islam on 9/11/2001.

Do you see the Mayor's dilemma?

It is time to understand that interfaith dialogue is a Trojan horse. Interfaith dialogue assumes that shariah Islam is a religion which embraces the right of all other religions to exist. That is the fatal flaw in how many Americans view sharia Islam. Those who promote shariah Islam demand and get a pass on its violent roots against any and all other religious beliefs.

Two Sets of Books blog put it best stating:

"'Interfaith dialogue' is a waste of time in my opinion. It's based on the premise that there's one God we all believe in, and we're all basically good and decent people who can get along quite well if we all just understand one another. It's socialism/liberalism/multicult-diversity foolishness to the Nth degree.

Seyyid Qutb, the father of the modern Muslim Brotherhood, said very clearly in his book, Milestones, that a bridge was NOT to be built for non-Muslims and Muslims to mix, but to come over to Islam ONLY. I have no idea what is hard to understand about that. Which probably isn't the problem; the problem is that the people running these places don't look deep enough to learn such things.

There are also numerous Do Not Mingle with the Kuffar Qur'anic verses (except to advance the cause of Islam). My guess is the people running these things don't know about those, either."

The best Qur'anic verses denying any form of interfaith dialogue are:

[5:33] The just retribution for those who fight GOD and His messenger, and commit horrendous crimes, is to be killed, or crucified, or to have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or to be banished from the land. This is to humiliate them in this life, then they suffer a far worse retribution in the Hereafter.

[5:34] Exempted are those who repent before you overcome them. You should know that GOD is Forgiver, Most Merciful.

The interfaith bridge for Jews and Christians allows for travel in both directions. For shariah Islam travel is restricted to only one direction — to the embrace of shariah Islam.

Mayor Bloomberg must open the 10th anniversary of 9/11 to religious leaders. The question is: Should that include those who adhere to shariah Islam? I think not.

Contact Richard Swier by email at drswier@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Alan Baker, August 27, 2011.

To: Dave Alpert:

Dave — do you really believe that any such action initiated by israel in the UN or elsewhere would be taken seriously or could achieve anything? I think it's somewhat naive.

Six years ago when Ahmadinjad made his first statements, and when I was Israeli ambassador to Canada, I begged the then Canadian Minister of Justice Erwin Cotler to persuade the Canadian government to initiate action in the UN, including the ICJ and ICC.

Canada could have done it with it's stature in the international community and its status as head of the International Criminal Court. But it wasn't done.

Of course the UK and other Europeans wouldn't have been expected to do anything in light of their crass hypocrisy.

Even the US didn't initiate a call in the UN Gen. Assembly for an Advisory Opinion by the international court.

So no one did anything.

But it could still be done if the UK, Canada, and others were to initiate. But if israel were to try, it would be dead on arrival.

Best regards,

Alan Baker
Ambassador (ret')
Former Legal Adviser of Israel's Foreign Ministry

From Dave Alpert to Denis MacEoin:

Another outstanding effort, Denis. However, I can't help but think that if I were the Rt. Hon. MP Brown or any other politician, I would quite rightly ask why Israel herself has never demanded action against Iran and her abominable leaders by the UN, the International Court of Justice or other world bodies? How can Israel continually acquiesce in the worldwide tolerance of these constantly repeated and totally unacceptable and nauseating statements?? If she won't defend herself against such evil, why should anyone else come to her defense?

If I'm not mistaken, advocacy of genocide and the obliteration of a people and its country is a gross and blatant violation of international law and several charters such as the UN's. If Israel or any other nation advocated the eradication of a Muslim state, the international outcry would surely be deafening. However, Jewish blood continues to be cheap and expendable.

Thanks so much,

This below was written by Dr. Denis MacEoin.


Dear All,

Prompted by Clive Hyman's timely address to the PM and Foreign Secretary, I have written to Hague via my MP, in the hope it gets read. Feel free to use it as you wish.

Rt. Hon. Nicholas Brown MP
Newcastle upon Tyne/Westminster

Dear Mr Brown,

We have not met, but I am one of your constituents (my address is at the bottom of this page), and I look forward to having a chance to meet you before long.

I am writing on this occasion, not about a local matter, but on an issue that I hope you may be able to raise with the Foreign Secretary. Before embarking on the topic, I should perhaps explain why I have an interest in it, since it takes us far outside Newcastle. I have an MA and a PhD in Persian Studies and came here in 1981 to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. Naturally, I have a long-term familiarity with Iran (dating back as far as 1966), and despite the revolution I have continued to have a close interest in that unhappy country. Wearing a different hat, as it were, I have also for many years been a staunch supporter of Israel.

In the last few days, I have come across two statements made by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad which have worried me at least as much as his earlier diatribes on the same subject. According to the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), 'Delivering his Friday prayers congregation pre-sermon address, President Ahmadinejad said [the] Zionist regime's existence is not merely a threat to the Palestinian and the entire regional nations, rather its establishment and continued survival contrast interests, independence and dignity of all regional nations.' In an interview with the Hizbullah television station al-Manar, he further stated 'Iran believes that whoever is for humanity should also be for eradicating the Zionist Regime (i.e. Israel) as a symbol of suppression and discrimination'

Now, I am not so naïve as to think there is not much rhetoric in this, as in most of Ahmadinejad's statements. But I am also conscious that his earlier pronouncements on the subject have been unconscionable. Some years ago, I read one in which he said: 'Umam-e Islami bayad Isra'il-ra qal' o qam' kard. The Islamic nations must exterminate Israel', leaving no doubt as to his intentions. These latest statements may not be egregious, and they may not provoke the sort of outrage that I believe they should. But to the best of my knowledge, the UK has never censured Ahmadinejad or the Iranian regime for making such vile and repeated threats against a sovereign state.

As you will know, Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter 'allows the Council to "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression"'. Statements emanating from the Iranian regime that are threats to the very existence of the state of Israel and are in no sense responses to threats issued by Israel (which has never made threats against other member states) seem to me to fit very well the category of 'threats to the peace'. They are provocative, they are made in the well-founded knowledge that Iran is building nuclear weapons, in the context of an ongoing war of aggression against Israel from within Gaza, chiefly by Hamas (and Iranian-backed terrorist group which threatens the lives of all Jews), and with the support of Hizbullah, a Shi'ite terrorist organization established and funded by Iran (and which is in the process of taking control over Lebanon). Given that Hizbullah, Iran, and Hamas have between them large arsenals of missiles and other weapons with which they may themselves capable of waging all-out war with Israel, Mr Ahmadinejad's threat do not seem to me to be mere castles in thin air.

That is why I ask whether it is not time for the UK to act firmly, within or without the UN, in order to bring Mr Ahmadinejad and his regime to heel. Many other Middle Eastern countries have gone through or are going through revolutions that hold out the hope of deep-seated change. But Iran continues to impose the iron rule of a self-selected band of clerics and their supporters, denying its people freedom, democracy, and justice, continues to persecute the largest of its own religious minorities and pursues its ambition of building nuclear weaponry. It is a rogue state, yet it gets away, quite literally, with murder and, beyond that, with actions that destabilize the region and spread terror in many other countries.

The international order may find it desirable to live with the Iranian regime, but I cannot believe it is right to allow that regime to continue to threaten another UN member state. It is time to rule Mr Ahmadinejad's remarks as inadmissible. Israel has done nothing to provoke such threats. In pursuit of peace, it has given up land, offered almost 100% of what the Palestinians say they want, and restrained its armed forces from retaliating against almost daily rocket attacks, something I cannot believe this country would consider doing. But it is threatened. Israel adheres closely to the principles of human rights, giving its women, its gay men and women, its religious and racial minorities equal rights under the law. Iran is a grotesque abuser of every human right and shows no signs of slackening its hateful mistreatment of its women, gays, non-Muslims, the Baha'is in particular.

I ask for nothing more than is proper within the UN Charter, or what is normal for a rights-supporting country like our own. Israel is our ally, and a good one at that. I only ask that you find ways in which to remove these threats and to intimidate the arrogant and overbearing regime that rules such a lovely country, over such a lovely people. We have just helped chase Mu'ammar Qadhafi to his last hiding place. We may soon help remove the cruel Bashshar al-Asad. Isn't it time to do something to put President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on notice that he too may suffer a similar fate unless he backs down from his egregious behaviour and unacceptable statements?

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Denis MacEoin

Contact Alan Baker at AlanB@mbkb.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Gavriel Queenann, August 26, 2011.

As Palestinian Authority officials prepare to make their statehood bid at the United Nations in September, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinijad said Friday the creation of a 'Palestinian state' ws only the first state to the destruction of Israel.

Ahmadinejad, restating the position he outlined after taking office in 2005, said Israel was a "tumor" to be wiped off the map and urged Arabs in PA administered areas not to settle for a two-state solution, but to strive for a complete return of what they consider their land.

"Recognizing the Palestinian state is not the last goal. It is only one step forward towards liberating the whole of Palestine," Ahmadinejad told worshippers at Friday prayers on international Qods Day — an annual show of support for the PA cause.

"The Zionist regime is a center of microbes, a cancer cell and if it exists in one iota of Palestine it will mobilize again and hurt everyone."

"It is not enough for them to have a weak, powerless state in a very small piece of Palestine. They should unite to establish a state but the ultimate goal is the liberation of the whole of Palestine," he said.

"I urge the Palestinians never to forget this ideal. Forgetting this ideal is equal to committing suicide. It would be giving an opportunity to an enemy which is on the verge of collapse and disappearance."

Ahmadinijad's comments echo those of the long-Iranian underwritten Hamas terror organization in Gaza that has said any peace agreement with Israel would only serve as a prelude to war.

Iran reportedly significantly reduced — or even cut — its aid to Hamas in recent weeks due to the terror organization's refusal to endorse the crackdown of Iranian ally President Bashar Assad in Syria. Nevertheless, Iran continues to be a driving force behind Hamas and Hizbullah in its proxy war against Israel.

Gavriel Queenann is a columnist for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 26, 2011.

Because of time restraints, this will be short. But I wanted to do at least a basic update on the situation here, with more hopefully to follow before long.

After a three day period of relative quite, matters have heated up again. In the past 48 hours, there have been salvos of mortars and rockets coming from Gaza and aimed at Israel's south. We're talking about dozens of rockets, including Kassams and Grad Katyushas — with some 20 shot during the night last night.

Beersheva, Ashkelon, Sderot, Ofakim, Netivot and other towns in the region have been targeted. One baby was slightly injured and one house suffered serious damage.

The Iron Dome defense system has taken out some of the rockets, but the terrorists launching them have attempted to overwhelm the system by sending a large number at the same time. There are two batteries of the Iron Dome currently in place and a third is scheduled for installation.


Israel has resumed air strikes, but of a limited nature. It's important to ask why — why the limited nature? Reports are that Hamas is trying to restrain the other militant groups that are doing the actual launching of rockets, and I suspect this would be the answer: To give things a chance to quiet down again.

Islamic Jihad, which had just declared intention of increasing attacks has now announced a new cease fire (new?) brokered by the UN and Egypt.


Israeli officials say the response will be stepped up if attack continues.


As to Hamas not being the most radical of the "militant" forces in Gaza, and perhaps (so it is claimed) not entirely in control, I offer these releases:

The Popular Resistance Committees, says the IDF, are "supported, subsidized and trained by the Hamas terrorist organization."

Jonathan D. Halevy, writing for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, says the same thing, in "The Terrorist Attack on Southern Israel Under the Authority of Hamas, Using the Tactics of Al-Qaeda."
http://jerusalemcenter.wordpress.com/2011/08/19/ he-terrorist-attack-on-southern-israel-under-the-authority- of-hamas-using-the-tactics-of-al-qaeda/

And Eli Lake says that Al-Qaeda, which has links to Hamas, may have been involved in the attack near Eilat.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/22/ al-qaeda-linked-to-israeli-bus-ambush/

All of this raises very serious questions regarding the wisdom of a "ceasefire" and cutting Hamas any slack.

It ain't gonna get better and stands to get worse!


Right now, there is great vigilance by the IDF on the border with the Sinai, out of concern that there might be another attack involving infiltration into Israel.

With regard to this, Defense Secretary Barak is talking about allowing a real build-up of forces by the Egyptians in the Sinai — helicopters, thousands of troops, armored vehicles but no tanks — so that terrorist forces can be taken out. Barak himself admits that this reflects short-term vision — dealing with the terrorists now without sufficient consideration for what it may mean down the road to have Egyptian forces, who may be ambivalent to Israel at best, at our border. Egypt has indicated it will not permit Israeli forces into the Sinai to pursue terrorists. All together, the situation between Israel and Egypt right now is shaky and amorphous.

See an article about this and commentary by Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA here:

Not for the first time, it occurs to me that Barak is an idiot. MK Speaker Ruby Rivlin is saying that Barak may require Knesset approval because he would be over-riding the terms of the treaty with Egypt, which calls for a demilitarized Sinai.


The doctor's strike is over. The deal, which is for eight years, with one year retroactive, is said to be good for doctors and for improvement of the national health system.

Observed Prime Minister Netanyahu:

"The results of the negotiations proved that it is possible to bring about real and responsible change without breaking the budget and shaking up the economy."

Point taken.


In my next posting I hope to look at additional potential ramifications of the PA bid at the UN.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, August 26, 2011.

This was written by Merten Harney.


Alan Dershowitz has just penned a very good editorial titled "Should Israel Welcome Glenn Beck's Support?" He comes down in favor of Beck's mission to Israel and his unwavering support for her. Israel needs allies and friends more than ever and if Beck, with millions watching him, can deliver his message of "Count me a Jew" we should be ever thankful. I think Dershowitz agrees with that.

Further on in his article however, Dershowitz makes a glaring and I think a dangerous admission. In his praise for Israel, he slips in the caveat, "just as I feel free to criticize the Israeli government when I think it is wrong." Dershowitz, like so many others who stand with Israel, just can't seem to help entwining his praise with a critique.

But, why is this the case? It is an obvious thought, but completely misplaced in this setting. Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, the only nation in that area of the world where women are granted equal rights with men, where Christians and Jews are granted equal rights with Muslims, where gays need not fear for their lives. Is Israel perfect? Of course not — no nation is perfect. It is so obvious a point that by bringing up Israel's imperfections — which are considerably less than those of most nations — one weakens the very point they are trying to make in Israel's defense.

I would beg Alan Dershowitz, and others, to stop this ridiculous pandering that plays into the hands of those who want to destroy Israel and bring about the extermination of the Jewish people. Does it make one feel good to admit that they find fault with loved ones? "I love my daughter, but I won't shy away from exposing her faults and humiliating her." That is what this caveat means. Israel's worst faults are better than most countries best qualities. That is a fact. Israel on a bad day is better than almost any other country on their best day. Again, this is a fact. So, why the self-flagellation? Instead of fortifying Israel, it calls attention to Israel's true enemies and it seems there are more and more each day. Such wavering from Israel's defenders only serves to legitimize these zealots and their hate-filled diatribes.

If we love Israel, we must say so. If we love the Jewish State, the Jewish people, and would fall ourselves in defense of God's chosen people, we should declare it without caveats. Don't hedge your bets, don't apologize for your love of Israel. Don't throw Israel's suicidal enemies a bone, they don't need it. Israel needs someone, anyone, to stand up and say, "I support Israel, Israel is a great nation, the Jewish people have given the world a great gift." Save your "buts" and admonitions. When Israel comes down to its final hour and God stands in judgment on who stood with her and His people, I for one, want to be resolute, and absolute, in my defense. We all need to be.

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

To Go To Top

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


In just two weeks, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has stated all sorts of prejudices against Israel and in favor of war on it. Here are examples:

1. About the 8/18/11 terrorist incursion from Sinai into Israel, that killed eight Israelis, PLO Ambassador to India Adli Sadeq called the perpetrators "martyrs," the civilian victims "occupation forces," and the attack "a quality operation." So did other P.A. officials and publications. They also called the perpetrators heroes and the Israeli retaliation against them a "massacre."

2. Calling Jewish prayer at the Western Wall Plaza in Jerusalem "filth," P.A. TV announced plans to replace the Plaza with an Arab residential area, as, it stated, it used to be. The broadcast alleged that "Palestinian" roots are deeper than Jews' "false history." [Filth was the Arabs' — they filled the area with trash, which Israel cleared. Arabs may have had some houses there, also cleared for access to Judaism's holiest site. What for Israel is urban renewal is for Muslim Arabs jihad.]

3. A P.A. news report called the Jewish Temple(s) "alleged," because Muslims nowadays deny its existence. The P.A. calls Jews who visit it "extremist" and their visits an affront (ZOA press release, 8/25/11. I have reported hundreds of other examples over the years).

Not many Christians seem to realize that Muslim denial of ancient Jewish history and its replacement by a falsely contrived Arab version contradict the Christian Testament, too.

Official P.A. bigotry, falsity, and encouragement of war and murder contradict the impression held by the State Dept., President, and much of the U.S. media that the P.A. and its head, Abbas, are moderate. These examples have been matched by many others since the Oslo Accords of 1993. Why do supposedly informed and intelligent American leaders fawn on P.A. terrorists?

On the basis of that false U.S. governmental diagnosis, the U.S. gives the P.A. some support diplomatically, militarily, and financially. The U.S. puts its money where its foot in the mouth is.

Many anti-Zionists complain about U.S. subsidy of Israeli self-defense. One does not hear them complain about the equally large U.S. subsidy of Arab offense. The anti-Zionist position is not consistent nor ethical.


Ayatollah Khamenei asserted that Western assessment of Iran under-estimates its religious leadership. Ayatollah Khomeini had depicted his movement as centering the country on religion and exporting Islamic revolution. The regime considers nuclear weapons as strengthening this movement. The regime also has the Iranian nostalgia for the ancient Persian Empire and scorn for the Shah's dependence upon foreign help. Sanctions force the regime to be more self-reliant. It is unwise to expect the regime to give up its nuclear weapons acquisition.

The regime disguises its nuclear ambitions. Khamenei claimed that Islam prohibits weapons that could kill innocent civilians. Nevertheless, the regime finds excuses for continuing nuclear weapons development. And President Ahmadinejad declares that the Hidden Imam is likely to return sooner, if global chaos and violence and be stirred (as by nuclear war).

More messianic than the pragmatic Supreme Leader, the two leaders clash over this. Neither, however, is moderate.

Western leaders Imagine that some Iranian leaders are moderate, can be located, and would make deals with them. [Think: Iran-Contra, which failed to moderate Iran.] Hence EU foreign policy head, Javier Solana, asserted that Iran was honest in discussing its nuclear program. Pres. Obama proposed an honest "engagement" involving mutual respect. All misconceptions! Nothing constructive can be negotiated with Iran, now.

Unfortunately, Iran practices religiously sanctioned deception of non-believers, and does succeed in deceiving our leaders. To get power, Khomeini promised that no clergy would hold office, after the revolution. Hah! When confronted by his acquisition of supreme power, he referred to sanctioned deception.

The spokesman for the supposedly moderate Pres. Khatami admitted that overtly they negotiated, but covertly, they continued nuclear development. And so the regime seemed to accept negotiations and agreements with the UN, but immediately violated the agreement, as by barring UN inspectors and trying to evade the pact's terms.

Pres. Obama proposed a compromise. Iran rejected it — compromise would mean to Iran that its policy had failed. Iran [like the Arabs] views flexibility as a weakness that the West would exploit. [Actually, Iran exploits the West's weakness in its flexibility with fanatics.]

Instead, Iran went right into nuclear enrichment. Iran may find sanctions a nuisance, but not a deterrent. Besides, Iran sets up foreign banking operations and weapons factories, to circumvent sanctions. Iran uses international negotiations to advance its program, and seems to cooperate in order to get the West to ease pressure on it. They admit this — as did former deputy Foreign Min. Hohammed Javad Larijani.

There is more to Iran's estrangement from the West. The regime strives to survive: it represses dissidents. It bars outside views. It pursues an aggressive foreign policy. Western offers of rapprochement of necessity fall on deaf ears.

Obama Administration's efforts at rapprochement with Iran fail because the U.S. misunderstands Iran, its history, attitudes, goals, and priorities. The U.S., nuclear weapons is an Iranian bargaining chip; to Iran, it is the way to gain hegemony over other countries.

What should the U.S. do? Stop being naïve about Iran. Demand more of it. Encourage Muslims states to oppose it. Keep oil prices moderate. Help Internet users evade government control. Align executive and legislative branch policy to those ends. Try to keep Russia from arming Iran with advanced anti-aircraft systems. Initiate a naval blockade of Iran. Reduce the strength of Iran's proxies (and not coddle Syria]. Encourage Iranian opposition to the regime and confront the regime internationally over its human rights abuses (Aaron Menenberg, Middle East Quarterl, Summer 2011, pp. 49-58 (view PDF)


Shurat HaDin, the Israeli law firm that takes the offensive against terrorists has warned commercial abettors of terrorism to desist.

The law firm notified marine insurance companies and a company that had been providing satellite communications services to a Turkish ship intended to join the flotilla to Gaza against serving the flotilla. The flotilla probably would commit violence. In any case, it is acting in behalf of the terrorist regime in Gaza. Helping that regime would violate U.S. law (IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis, Website: www.imra.org.il ).

The partial Israeli blockade is legal, and attempts to crash through it are not, and Israel has the right to thwart those attempts.

Incidentally, the U.S. helps the terrorist regime in Gaza. Funds that the U.S. donates to the Palestinian Authority are shared with the Gaza regime.

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 Simon Halevi, August 25, 2011.

Some press reports argue recently that at September 2011, the UN Security Council is supposed to vote on the establishment of a new state, aimed to replace the existing Palestinian Authority. Greece and the Republic of Macedonia, or the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, as Greece insists to call it, are in years of a naming dispute. Greece claims that the historic name of Macedonia refers to part of its territory. In the case of Palestine a naming dispute is even much serious as it relates to day to day existence and security of the different parts of the disputed territories.

Map showing the geographic relationship of Gaza and the West Bank. Descriptors such as "Israeli occupied territories" are from the Arab point of view.

The historic Palestine territory was referred by its name in the new era formally at the time of the British mandate for Palestine, from 1917-1948. Today, this territory is known to the world as the Jordanian Kingdom, the west bank or Judea and Samaria, the state of Israel, the territory of the Gaza strip and the city of Jerusalem. Each one of these territories is associated with a different legal sttus; All of them have been declared by some Palestinian organization as part of the bid for statehood by the name of Palestine.

The two different Palestinian leaderships, Hammas and Fatah, argue for rights of most of the territory west to the Jordan River while most of this territory is part of what is known as the Israeli territory per se.

Jerusalem is known by many countries as the capital city of Israel. The old city of Jerusalem holds the holiest sites of Judaism as well as the holy sites of the Christian world and some holy sites of the Islam. The Palestinians claim that the holiest site of Judaism, the western wall of the Temple Mount, is an integral part of their national capital city in the future statehood.

The Jordanian Kingdom is also referred to by Palestinian leaders as a Palestinian majority populated country and there is no territorial treaty between Jordan and the Palestinian leaderships.

The state of Israel resides between the territory of Gaza, ruled by Hammas, and the territory of Judea and Samaria, controlled meanwhile by the Israeli security forces alongside with the Palestinian leader of Fatah movement, Mahmud Abbas. Any possible geographical passage from the southwest territory ruled by Hammas to the northeast territory, ruled by Abbas, will have to split the territory of the state of Israel. As for now, the two territories are totally separated.

The demand for traveling between Gaza to Samaria is decreasing since the political split between Hammas organization and the Fatah movement, The two political systems seem more and more strange to each other as the time goes by. .

Therefore, naming a new state by the name of Palestine, a state which its borders is still a serious political issue, might raise a new international naming dispute. The lack of election, for six years now, in the two Palestinian territories, the northeastern one and the southwestern one, may influence the ability of the Palestinians to form a stable state.

Shimon Halevi is an Israeli lawyer. Contact him at simon.halevi@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, August 25, 2011.

When reading Western reports dealing with Islam, one must learn to read between the lines. Many of these reports do state the actual facts; but without providing proper context, Western readers are often left to interpret the information according to their own understandings.

One example: the ubiquitous term "sectarian strife" to describe Muslim-Christian clashes in the Middle East is factually correct; yet "sectarian strife" connotes comparable forces fighting one another, when in reality it is often nothing less than a vastly outnumbered Christian minority being grossly oppressed by Muslim majorities, as has happened for centuries. Sometimes it is easy to fathom the true significance of a report (usually non-MSM). For example, a recent report titled "CAIR Wants Muslim-Turned-Christian Minister to Stop Training Immigration Officials" provides all the necessary data to reach an objective conclusion:

CAIR claims "We believe training by a person with such obvious bias against Islam and Muslims would only serve to heighten concerns American Muslims have about allegations of mistreatment at our nation's borders." Conversely, the apostate minister's supporters argue that "they're [CAIR] discriminating against him. They're saying only our kind of Muslim, only someone who has not converted from Islam ... only people we approve can work for the U.S. government in the immigration service. That's not the way it works in the U.S."

Accordingly, only a bit of contextualizing is necessary to understand what this is all about: CAIR does not want an ex-Muslim — someone well acquainted with Islam — to impart his knowledge to U.S. officials.

Other times, reading a report requires more cogitation to get to its ultimate significance. For insistence, MEMRI recently reported that

The Coptic Church in Egypt has expressed its objection to the U.S. Congress's appointment of a special envoy for minority affairs in the Middle East and Asia, who would be dealing with the Coptic minority in Egypt. They called on foreign Copts, who supported the appointment, to refrain from dealing with this subject. The Muslim Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party and the Al-Nahda Party also objected to the appointment, claiming that it constitutes interference in Egypt's internal affairs.

This seems natural enough: Egypt's religious leadership rejects foreign interference. However, when one realizes why a special envoy was created in the first place — because of the nonstop, documented incidences of persecution of Copts in Egypt — one is left asking: why would the Coptic Church, which knows better than anyone else the persecution of its flock, reject help? Knowledge of the dynamics of Islam and dhimmitude leads to the conclusion that the Church is being pressured to say that all is well for Christians in Egypt — or else.

Finally, when dealing with the MSM, the significance of an Islam-related story must usually be dug out. Consider the following excerpt from a recent New York Times piece titled "Behold the Mighty Beard, a Badge of Piety and Religious Belonging":

[A]ll over the Muslim world, the full beard has come to connote piety and spiritual fervor. It is such a powerful cultural signifier, in fact, that it inspires non-Muslims, too.... Of course, the beard is only a sign of righteousness. It is no guarantor, as Mr. Zulfiqar [a Muslim interviewee] reminds us: "I recall one gentleman who came back from a trip to Pakistan and remarked to me, 'I learned one thing: the longer the beard, the bigger the crook.' His anticipation was people with big beards would be really honest, but he kept meeting people lying to him" [italics mine].

This comports especially well for Western readers who naturally agree that outer signs of piety certainly do not signify inner piety. Yet they overlook the inadvertent significance of this quote: in Islam, outer signs of piety on the one hand, and corruption and deceit on the other, are perfectly compatible. After all, the same source — Muhammad as recorded in the hadith — that commands Muslims to grow a beard also advocates deception and all sorts of other things hardly associated with Western notions of piety.

Readers must therefore become sensitive to the gradations of clarity in Western reports on Islam. Whereas many of those produced by the non-MSM make an effort to spell things out, the true significance of MSM reports — which are consumed by the majority — must be read between the lines.

Contact Raymond Ibrahim at list@pundicity.com. This appeared today in Jihad Watch

To Go To Top

Posted by Laura, August 25, 2011.

This comes from the Fresnozionism blogsite
http://fresnozionism.org/2011/08/ israeli-officer-was-murdered-by-egyptians/


Murdered police counterterrorism officer Pascal Avrahami

Yesterday I wrote that there were rumors that Egyptians were involved in a firefight with Israelis. I deliberately didn't go into more detail because I didn't want to compromise my source. Now it has become general knowledge:

The incident involving the Egyptians occurred later in the afternoon, while the chief of staff and the defense minister held a press conference north of Eilat. An IDF force rushed to an area where there had been more shooting. Egyptian soldiers were seen holding three men at gunpoint.

When the Israeli officers asked for the captives to be handed over, an Egyptian officer claimed that they were Egyptian soldiers. At some point the troops came under fire, and a sniper killed the anti-terrorist police officer Pascal Avrahami.

IDF and Egyptian soldiers were facing each other along the border and they came under fire from one of the groups of terrorists. They were neutralized by the soldiers. The incident ended about 6 P.M. — Ha'aretz

Here is the story as I heard it, attributed to eyewitnesses: the police counterterrorism officers were observing the Egyptians across the border at a range of several hundred meters. It was late in the day, and the Egyptians were preparing to leave their position, taking apart equipment, etc. Suddenly, several bursts of automatic fire came from the Egyptian side. The Israelis rushed to take cover and return fire, and at this point Avrahami was hit. No one else was wounded on the Israeli side.

The bullet that hit him was an ordinary Kalashnikov slug, not a round from a sniper weapon. At that range, it was a very lucky shot.

If this account is correct, then what happened was not a 'regrettable accident'. It was a case of deliberate murder, and the Egyptians that were killed were killed in self-defense. There should be no apology from Israel, nor even an 'expression of regret'. An investigation should be carried out to find out which Egyptian soldier or policeman opened fire, and if he was not one of those killed by the reaction he provoked, then he should be arrested and charged with murder.

Egypt should apologize and compensate Israel for the death of Avrahami.

Of course this won't happen. The rules in the Middle East say that Israel is always wrong, that Arabs are allowed to kill Jews with impunity, and that Israel should apologize for existing.

During the reign of Mubarak, there was always vicious incitement against Jews and Israel in Egyptian media, although Mubarak kept a tight reign on violent expressions of it. Since his fall, the hatred has become more concrete, with repeated acts of sabotage to the pipeline supplying Israel with Egyptian natural gas and increased support to Hamas and other terrorists in Gaza. 'Arab spring' demonstrations in Egypt often include ugly antisemitic and anti-Zionist signs and expressions.

Now the incitement has reached its natural destination, murder.

To a certain extent, Israel in its public diplomacy pretends that it is a normal state, surrounded mostly by normal states (Iran is perhaps an exception) where peace is prevented by the intervention of extremists. This is a very distorted picture.

In fact the situation is that Israel is surrounded by states whose leadership and people hate Israel and Jews. They have never accepted the idea of a Jewish state. They only oppose the 'extremists' when these threaten their own regimes. This includes, of course, the Palestinian Arabs.

Peace cannot be obtained as long as this condition is maintained, and no Arab or Muslim leadership exists anywhere that wants to change it. This — not settlements, not borders, not human rights — is the reason that there is no peace.

Egypt promised peace in return for the Sinai. Israel gave them the Sinai, uprooting Jewish settlements to do so. But Egypt did not return peace. The regime just placed the stew of hatred on slow boil, and dumped in antisemitic incitement, books, TV shows, 'education', etc. And this is why, more than 30 years after Camp David, Egyptians are killing Israelis.

Contact Laura at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Confidential Reporter, August 25, 2011.

Confidential Reporter is the blogger name of a journalist and media consultant living in the U.S.A., who blogs about international affairs, politics and world history.

This appeared yesterday at the Foreign Confidential website:
http://chinaconfidential.blogspot.com/2011/08/ conspiracy-to-use-nato-against-israel.html


Tripoli Today, Tel Aviv Tomorrow?

A chilling, admittedly rushed early warning from Foreign Confidential™ analysts ... upon information and belief, as lawyers like to say.

A once unthinkable conspiracy is afoot — to deploy NATO forces against a strategic U.S. ally that is also the only democracy in the Middle East.

The country is Israel, of course, the tiny Jewish State that has never known a day of peace since its miraculous rebirth in its ancient homeland.

Barack Obama's reelection is central to the perfidious plot. Obama is the only U.S. Presidential candidate who is sufficiently hostile to Israel to go along with the conspiracy, as the potential usefulness of the only anti-Israel GOP hopeful, Ron Paul, is neutralized by his marginal appeal and old-line isolationism (recalling the likes of aviator Charles Lindbergh and other Nazi supporters and sympathizers in the years leading up to the Second World War).

The Conspirators

The three (European-born) authors of the anti-Israel conspiracy are Jimmy Carter's former National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama foreign policy advisor Samantha Power, and her patron, George Soros, the anti-Zionist, leftwing billionaire. Brzezinski, who was the architect of the Carter administration's intervention in Afghanistan on the side of Islamist warlords — before and in order to bring about the Soviet invasion of that country — and the brain behind the administration's catastrophic complicity in the Islamist overthrow of Iran's pro-American, modernizing monarch, Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, has advocated U.S. downing of Israeli warplanes if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear installations without Washington's approval. Power has proposed using U.S. and United Nations troops to impose a "Responsibility to Protect" (Palestinians) solution on Israel.

The Longterm Objective

The conspiracy's longterm objective is to use the R2P doctrine and the Kosovo-inspired intervention in Libya's civil war — on the side of Al Qaeda-connected Islamists — as a precedent for forcing Israel to withdraw to indefensible borders in order to create a "contiguous Palestinian state," as Obama put it in a recent speech, consisting of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, which is already a de-facto independent, Islamist state; the disputed "West Bank" territories of Judea and Samaria, and East Jerusalem, which Israel liberated from Jordan in the Six-Day War of June 1967; and a land corridor connecting Gaza with the aforementioned inland areas west of the Jordan river. It is further understood that Hamas will emerge as the ruler of the combined, new entity, and that this inherently irredentist mini-state will eventually merge with a Muslim Brotherhood-ruled country in what is now the Kingdom of Jordan following the inevitable overthrow of the Jordanian monarchy, thus creating an Islamist Palestine on both sides of the river Jordan that will ultimately "liberate" all of Palestine — meaning, the destruction of Israel, whose very existence the conspirators regard as a historic "mistake" and the root cause of regional instability.

The Crucial Player

NATO-member Turkey, Obama's model Islamocracy, is a crucial player in the plot. Turkey's Prime Minister recently called for U.N. airstrikes on Israel. More important, Turkey is a major military power and a potential existential threat to Israel, especially given a scenario in which Israel would be forced to defend itself on at least two land fronts — i.e. against Egypt and Jordan/Palestine.

Like their Shiite Islamist Iranian rivals, Turkey's Sunni Islamist leaders have adopted an imperialist foreign policy — i.e. a policy that aims to overthrow a nation's power relationships with other nations, known as the status quo. But Turkish imperialism, in contrast with Iranian imperialism, is supported by the Obama administration. Having failed in their efforts to appease and align with Iran in order to pacify Afghanistan and the Middle East, Obama and his advisors are now bent on backing the emergence of an Islamist, neo-Ottoman Empire, hoping to use a Greater Turkey as both a bulwark against a nuclear-armed Iran and a sword against resurgent Russia and rising China and their strengthening ties — Obama's answer to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Political and overlapping organized and state Islam is the tool; the vast energy resources of Central Asia, the prize; countering Russia and dismembering China, by stirring rebellion among restive Muslims, priceless! (Click here to read more about this new version of the Great Game.)

The Unknown Factor

Syria is the unknown factor — a potential spoiler whose actions could actually facilitate and accelerate the conspiracy, causing its implementation in the coming months, as shocking as this may seem. With the fall of Libya's dictator, all eyes are on Syria's embattled despot. Turkey has hinted at intervening in the Muslim Brotherhood-backed, Sunni, majority, Syrian uprising against the hated, Iran-backed, Alawite (Shiite branch) minority, Assad regime; and Obama has explicitly called for Assad's resignation. When push comes to shove, Syria could attack Israel to get back at the United States and muddy the waters. Damascus and Tehran have already indirectly attacked Israel, using Egyptian Islamist and Gaza-based, Palestinian Islamist terrorists as proxies, in order to distract attention from the Syrian regime's atrocities and brutality. This year's cross-border, Nakba-Day riots were similarly orchestrated by Syria and Iran.

An Israeli response to a direct Syrian assault would most likely bring Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas into the conflict, and, quite possibly, Iran, itself, which has repeatedly vowed to "burn Tel Aviv" and bomb Israel's Negev nuclear reactor. Should Israeli population centers come under heavy missile bombardment, crushing Israeli airstrikes against Gaza and Lebanese targets — missile launchers deliberately positioned in and around densely populated civilian areas — would almost certainly result in international condemnation of Israel (the only nation that is not allowed to defend itself) and thunderous calls for UN action against the Jewish State, setting the stage for another phony R2P intervention.

NATO against Israel?

It's a horrible thought. But history has time and again shown that the unthinkable can happen.

Contact Laura at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Leslie J. Sacks, August 25, 2011.

Shari'a and Western Compliance

Article 22 of the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam states:

Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari'a Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari'a.

This declaration — made by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and intended as an counter measure to the UN's 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights — exposes the slippery slope on which Western societies tread when indulging Shari'a-based interpretations of rights and freedoms. If every such right and freedom is bounded by religious edict, then no such rights and freedoms will exist.

Accommodation without limit is in effect enslaving supplication. Any parent with a wayward histrionic child will know that. Churchill knew it. Even Roosevelt knew it. Certainly Lincoln and JFK knew it. Do our leaders (politicians, intellectuals and clergy) know it?

Apparently not. Many Western European countries (Holland, UK, France, Italy, Norway) have made allowances for these fundamental restrictions, the same restrictions that have produced deadly fatwas issued against those who propagate ideas hostile to Islam. Where does it end? Imams central to current Islamic orthodoxy (such as Qadi 'Iyad, who died in 1149) confirm that any Jew or Christian who reviles Mohammed, or commits blasphemy, should be burned or beheaded unless they convert.

Authorities in these same countries often inhibit the criticism of Islamic history and doctrine. One can easily exhibit, in the West's leading museums, Christ and Pope figures fornicating, or publish in our press cartoons of demonic Jews with Stars of David and skulls-caps feasting on Palestinian babies. Yet our media will not dare publish cartoons of Mohammed or demand an open, fear-free discussion of all the reasonable and varying interpretations of the Koran that stand as alternatives to the current immovable, literal and fundamentalist doctrine — to do so will engender an earthquake, as the Danish Jyllands-Posten newspaper found out.

To censor any criticism of Jihad, to disallow any open discussion thereof, is to accommodate fascist authoritarianism, anti-Semitism and anti-secularism. This supplication by its very nature is oppressive and dehumanizing. This is not what the French Revolution was about, nor the American Bill of Rights — never mind what brought Moses down from Mount Sinai.

If we are honest with ourselves, we must admit that it is not pleasant for non-Muslims living in societies influenced by Sharia law. We see the ongoing burning of Coptic churches in Cairo, forced abductions and conversions of Coptic daughters, suicide bombings against the Baghdad Christian community, the de-Christianizing of Bethlehem, a simmering war on the Hindus in Kashmir, the illegality of bibles and crosses in Saudi Arabia, and Bahai's under enormous pressure in Iran. Our goal in the West should be to foster tolerance, not to make allowances for its erosion.

Until the Muslim world rejects its dominant fundamentalist ideology, until it allows a long overdue reformation in Islam, the hazards of Shari'a and the inviolability of Koranic law will remain an ominous threat to the West's ongoing freedoms, democracy and tolerance.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Paul Eidelberg, August 25, 2011.

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened to wipe Israel off the map, and he has not been deterred from developing nuclear tipped ballistic missiles for that purpose.

Ahmadinejad's malediction to eradicate Israel is not mere rhetoric. As a disciple of Mohammad, Ahmadinejad, with his "Revolutionary Guard, rules an Islamic regime that committed mass murder against its own people — children, which the Mullahs sent to their deaths by using them to walk across and explode land mines in the Iranian-Iraqi war.

Michael Ledeen describes that barbaric phenomenon in Accomplice to Evil. There he discusses Ahmadinejad's necrophilia, his exaltation of martyrdom and death. We are dealing with a psychosis.

There is no point in formulating nuclear strategies against a nuclear-armed Iran whose leader is not a Russian atheist, but a Muslim megalomaniac.

But let's get down to earth.

If Iran was allowed to develop a single nuclear-tipped missile, this alone would lead to Israel's demise. Aliya or immigration to Israel would cease. Many Israelis having marketable skills would leave the country. Capital investment from abroad would evaporate. Increased military expenditures would deplete funds for health, education, and welfare. The Jewish birthrate would decline. The demographic distribution would shift toward the Arab population. More Arabs would enter the Knesset and shape government policies.

Need I say more?

THEREFORE, if the Israel Defense Forces possess the means, which includes strategic Intelligence, the fundamental principle of self-preservation, hence of anticipatory self-defense, demands that the government of Israel initiate a preemptive attack on Teheran, with all weapon systems on the table.

Viewed in this light, it's not only pointless but a dangerous distraction to engage in speculation about what should be Israel's nuclear strategy should Iran field the bomb.

Israel is not the United States vis-a-vis a nuclear armed Soviet Union. It would be absurd to ruminate about Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT agreements) with Teheran.

It's foolish to talk about "containment" vis-à-vis that Mullacracy. One has to be mad to adopt the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) strategy that bemused American strategic analysts during the Cold War. Kissinger could think of a "counterstrike" or a "counter-value" nuclear

strategy vis-à-vis the USSR. Miniscule Israel does not have either option. It has only one option: PREEMPTION.

Needed, apart from the means, is BALLS!

Professor Paul Eidelberg is an Internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, August 25, 2011.



Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. Go to
http://freifenberg-newblog.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, August 24, 2011.

NEW YORK (JTA) — On Sept. 20, when the annual session of the U.N. General Assembly opens, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is expected to ask U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to present a Palestinian request for statehood recognition to the U.N. Security Council.

The long-anticipated request will kick off a chain of events that some analysts are warning could result in a new paroxysm of violence in the Middle East.

Here is a guide to what might happen, and what it might mean.

What do the Palestinians want the United Nations to recognize?

The Palestinians want recognition of the state of Palestine in the entirety of the West Bank, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem. The West Bank — an area controlled by Jordan from the end of Israel's War of Independence in 1949 until it was captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War — includes lands on which Jewish settlements now sit. Eastern Jerusalem was effectively annexed by Israel, but the international community views it as occupied territory. In total, more than 600,000 Jews reside in eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank.

What's the legal process for becoming a state?

The U.N. Security Council's approval is required to become a U.N. member state. The United States, which is one of the 15-member council's five permanent, veto-wielding members, has promised to veto a Palestinian statehood resolution.

Is there a way for the Palestinians to overcome a U.S. veto?

Not in the Security Council. However, the Palestinians still could seek statehood recognition at the U.N. General Assembly. While a General Assembly vote in favor of Palestinian statehood would not carry the force of law, the passage of such a resolution would be highly symbolic and represent a significant public relations defeat for Israel.

Is there any benefit short of full statehood recognition that the Palestinians can obtain at the United Nations?

Yes. The Palestinians already have non-member permanent observer status at the United Nations, which they obtained in 1974.

This time, the General Assembly could vote to recognize Palestine as a non-member U.N. state, which would put Palestinian U.N. membership on par with that of the Vatican. While being a non-member state wouldn't give the Palestinians much more than they have now as a non-state observer, it would be another symbolic victory.

If the Palestinians can get a two-thirds majority in support of statehood in the General Assembly, they also could put forward a so-called Uniting for Peace resolution. This nonbinding, advisory resolution could provide legal cover to nations wanting to treat Palestine as a state — for example, allowing sanctions and lawsuits against Israel to go forward. The Uniting for Peace option was first used to circumvent a Soviet veto in the Security Council against action during the Korean War, and it was employed during the 1980s to protect countries that sanctioned apartheid South Africa from being sued under international trade laws.

Why are the Palestinians seeking statehood recognition from the United Nations rather than negotiating directly with Israel?

The Palestinian leadership has eschewed renewed peace talks with Israel, either because Abbas believes that talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu won't produce desired results or because Abbas believes he has more to gain by going to the international arena — or both.

Abbas essentially is gambling that the U.N. move will give him more leverage vis-a-vis Israel, making it more difficult for the Israelis to stick to their current negotiating positions and establishing the pre-1967 lines as the basis for negotiations.

What tools does Israel have to respond to the Palestinian bid?

Israel's strategy now is trying to persuade as many nations as possible — as well as the Palestinians — that a U.N. vote favoring Palestinian statehood would set back the peace track. The argument is that it would make it less likely that Israeli-Palestinian negotiations would succeed, forcing Israel to dig in its heels.

Beyond that, Israeli experts have warned, Israel may consider the unilateral Palestinian bid for U.N. recognition an abrogation of the Oslo Accords, which stipulated that the framework for resolution of the conflict be negotiations between the two parties. If the Oslo Accords, which provides the basis for the limited autonomy the Palestinians currently have in the West Bank, are nullified, Israel may re-occupy portions of the West Bank from which its forces have withdrawn, end security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority and withhold hundreds of millions of dollars in tax money it collects on behalf of the Palestinian Authority.

What are some of the other possible negative consequences for the Palestinians of U.N. statehood recognition?

The U.S. Congress has threatened to ban assistance to the Palestinian Authority if it pursues recognition of statehood at the United Nations. That could cost the Palestinians as much as $500 million annually, potentially crippling the Palestinian government.

What's the plan for the day after the U.N. vote?

It's not clear. The Palestinian leadership doesn't seem to have a plan. The Palestinian public is expected to stage mass demonstrations. Israel is preparing for a host of worst-case scenarios, including violence.

If the United Nations does endorse Palestinian statehood in some form, it will be seen as a public relations victory for the Palestinians. But in the absence of progress on the ground in the Middle East, a U.N. vote could set off popular Palestinian protests against Israel that could escalate into another Palestinian intifada.

No one knows what another Palestinian intifada will look like. It's possible that soon after a U.N. vote, Palestinians will march on Israeli settlements and military positions much like Palestinians in Syria and Lebanon marched on Israel's borders in mid-May to commemorate Nakba Day — the day marking the anniversary of the "catastrophe" of Israel's founding.

Or a U.N. vote could unleash a new wave of violence, with attacks and counterattacks that destroy the relative calm that has held between Israel and West Bank Palestinians since the second intifada waned in 2004.

The outbreak of violence, however, could undermine Palestinian interests. In the relative absence of Palestinian terrorism in recent years, the Palestinians have managed to get increased economic assistance, established upgraded diplomatic ties with nations throughout the world, rallied more global support for their cause, and seen a considerable rise in their GDP and quality of life in the West Bank. They don't want to throw that all away.

That may leave the Palestinians and Israel back where they started before talk of U.N. recognition began: at a standstill.

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Chana Ya'ar, August 24, 2011.


Two Arab youths were arrested Wednesday morning for hurling rocks at a fire engine overnight in the northern village of Jisr a-Zarka.

Firefighters fended off the two youths, ages 15 and 16, by firing shots in the air to scare them off.

Police who were later called to the scene questioned the firefighters prior to arresting the teens.

The event took place against the backdrop of a major blaze that consumed thousands of dunams and other green areas in the Golan Heights at around the same time.

Firefighters battled the flames for hours.

The fire, which broke out Tuesday morning, also threatened homes in the northern community of Kibbutz Mevo Hama. Local residents came out overnight to help firefighters battle the flames which came extremely close to their homes during the night.

An additional risk that endangered both firefighting personnel and residents around the area occurred when the flames threatened to engulf a known minefield.

Firefighting planes eventually helped bring the blaze under control. Kibbutz members were asked to remain inside Wednesday morning due to heavy smoke in the area.

Last year a tragic inferno swept through the Carmel Mountains, killing 44 people and scorching tens of thousands of dunams of land. Numerous communities were evacuated and hundreds of people were left homeless as a result of the blaze.

The international community pitched in to help Israel with firefighting planes, since the Jewish State had none of its own. As a result of that tragedy, the government ordered a squadron of the aircraft that were used Wednesday to douse the flames near Kibbutz Mevo Hama.

Chana Ya'aar is a columnist for Arutz-7 (www.think-israel.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Roberts, August 23, 2011.


Maybe it's a profane analogy, but ranking the prophets is like picking stocks. It is a highly subjective exercise. Ask twenty rabbis, you'll get twenty lists. Well, maybe except for Isaiah and Elijah who are numbers one and two on everybody's list.

And isn't it strange that Elijah — a perennial No. 1 — doesn't have his own book. Samuel's got two. Even Haggai, a lightweight, thunders against moral apathy in four short pages, titled — what else — "Haggai". His mama must have loved it. "Well yes, he's a prophet, so he doesn't bring home much of a paycheck, but he's got his own book, you know." Poor Mama Elijah, just looked straight ahead

Jonah, who we read on Yom Kippur, also is one of these lesser lights. He delivers no inspirational sermons — no thunder and lightning of the Armageddon to come. Only one small prayer that the prophet delivers from the gut of the great fish that swallowed him. Then, later the brief warning to the Ninevites: "Only forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown".

Even more humiliating to the prophet than serving as fish food to a giant Gefilte fish, is the fact that the book of Jonah is not about Jonah. In fact, the prophet is the butt of the book. Public relationwise, it's a disaster for Jonah, who is chastised by his Creator. Nineveh, as far as I know, is his last assignment. Subsequently, this lover of gourds (more about Jonah and his gourd, later) is unemployed. Like Haggai's mama noted, the pay was never great, and now what does a 65 year old ex-prophet do for medical insurance?

Remember the story? The Lord commands Jonah to preach at the Ninevites. The message — consistent with the High Holyday theme — is REPENTANCE. But the prophet flees and buys a discount ticket on a freighter plying the Joppa to Tarsus trade. It turns out the reason the ticket's so cheap is that it's a three-day trip in the belly of a big tuna — a punishment for his rebellious ways. And if you think the United shuttle from Boston to New York is confining, try a cubicle in a tuna fish.

Of all the prophetic books — this one is overwhelmingly the most ecumenical. Maybe the Book of Ruth is a close second because it instructs us that Moabites are human, too. Sure "your people will be my people", but in the book of Jonah the Lord throws a mantle of compassion over the sinners of Nineveh, AND their beasts.

In the shortest speech on record by Rabbi, politician, or prophet the verbally parsimonious preacher declares, "Yet 40 days and Nineveh shall be overthrown". Boy, is Jonah a blind prophet. It turns out, he's as bad at prediction as all those stock analysts who recently went to jail and your local weather person.

"Let neither man NOR BEAST, herd nor flock. ...feed nor drink water, but let them be covered with sack cloth both man and beast." That's what the King of Nineveh tells his subjects in order to avoid the Lord's wrath. The message is: Jews, Gentiles, and animals are all divine manifestations. Find me another passage in the entire tanach that sings such a universal anthem of love. The Ninevites listen and clean up their act. Repentance and the Lord's mercy cancel a Sodom and Gomorrah encore. But our prophet is disappointed. Jonah has come a long way to see Nineveh burn.

And you must admit — he's well before his time, since he's the first vegetable activist. Yes! He places the welfare of the gourd plant — that shades him — above the lives of Nineveh's human and animal population. When the Creator destroys the gourd, Jonah cries.

You weep for this sappy plant, says the Lord, but you don't give a fig for the people (a mixed multitude of Jews and Gentiles) and cattle (again the animals!) of Nineveh.

So why do we pair this bizarre Haftorah (a Haftorah in which whales, gourds, cattle, and reformed sinners share the stage with God's prophet) with Yom Kippur, the most awesome of our holidays. The official answer I don't know — go ask your Rabbi. But to me, the Jonah story encompasses the entire world of man and beast. It is wildly ecumenical. And obviously, the theme is forgiveness.

If even the beasts of Nineveh regretted their excesses and dodged destruction because of their contrition, well there's hope for us.

Repentance will shield us from the evil decree. This is a happy Haftorah with a Hollywood ending — a touch of joy to temper the solemnity of Yom Kippur.


Looking back on my culinary life, it's amazing that I grew up as normal as I did. A Jew in the South was as gastronomically out of place as stuffed kishke in an ice cream store. All around me, friends and neighbors were frying everything in sight; steaks, chops, potatoes, onions, okra. A Southern cook without a heavy cast iron frying pan was like a nightingale without a song. While at my house my mama was stuffing and roasting a veal pocket. I almost developed a neurosis.

School classmates: "Teddy, boy did we have some great fried chicken last night. Double dipped batter, you know. What did you have?

Honest answer: "Carrot kugel."

Public answer: "Oh, we fried up a roast. Took a while, you know."

Why did my mother insist on complicating my integration into 6th grade society? We were hopelessly divided by the kitchen wall. At school I ate the contents of my lunch bag in the coatroom. My Christian friends were fryers. We were roasters. It wasn't bad enough that we went to synagogue on Saturday and they churched on Sunday. Or while I slaved in Hebrew school they played baseball. We ate weird dishes like tsimmus, kanadlach, stuffed veal pocket, Gefilte fish. And how could I ever explain Gefilte fish to my friend and neighbor Tommy Thompson, who thought a stuffed veal was a young cow who had eaten too much grass for supper. Another point of contrast between a shy, Jewish adolescent who wanted to pass as a native.

Grits was also a problem. They loved it. They even took cakes of it frigidly congealed in the lunch sack. My mother thought it was some kind of glue to patch the cracks in the sidewalk. "Oh sure we have grits all the time. I had two bagels smeared with grits before I went to bed last night."

"On a what?"

"Uh, Colonial white bread, naturally. We love Colonial bread and grits" (not pumpernickel, the real receptacle of the nonexistent grits, which was really chopped liver).

Not only was I betraying my cultural roots, I was turning into a pathological liar. Next thing you know I'd be humming "Onward Christian Soldiers".

My pals came to school bragging about the charms of fried catfish. What hope did I have of exalting Gefilte fish? No bones? Tell them that my mama served it with a neat circle of boiled carrot atop each lump? I was hopelessly alienated. How was I ever gonna be the starting 3rd baseman if I ate Gefilte fish for supper and didn't dare reveal the contents of my lunch sack?

One odd place where my Jewish tummy joined theirs was chicken feet. At the local Chinese restaurant they were introduced to sweet, sticky, barbecue-flavored chicken feet. I leaped at the cultural connection. My bubbe had been making chicken soup with only chicken feet for years. Not quite the same dish, but an area where I could truthfully praise our similarities. Of course, I didn't mention that Bubbe made a thin, watery gruel that resembled Chinese Dim Sum like dishwater resembled Clam Chowder. But like the book of Proverbs says or maybe should say, chicken feet is chicken feet.


Yeah, I know we Jews hate racial generalizations, but as it says in Proverbs, "He that breatheth truth uttereth righteousness". So, let it be said then that we Jews love chopped liver and we like to gamble. So, notice that proportionately more Jews visit Las Vegas than Presbyterians, Baptists and Jehovah's Witnesses. (The Jewish Press says Las Vegas is the fastest growing Jewish community in the U.S. Almost 70,000 chopped liver-loving souls.)

And why not? Our bible is full of gambling. Remember Jacob's spotted goat bet with his crooked father-in-law, Labon.

Remember that Joshua divided Canaan among the Tribes of Israel by casting lots? The first pot in history untouched by the house. (You don't believe me? — go look at Joshua Chapter 18, verse 8.)

And didn't Joseph roll the dice when he opened up his dream consulting business? A huge bet on the future!

And since I'm a descendant of these high rollers (plus my Uncle Louis, who was continually broke because he never met a poker hand he didn't like) I occasionally lay down a modest bet. Me and my co-bettor, to whom I'm united by a mutual interest in 3-card poker and a ketubah; we go to Vegas twice a year.

But for some reason she is sensitive to the charge of addiction.

Friend: "So, Shirley, where are you vacationing this year?"

Shirley: "Uh, the meadows." (That's as close as she'll come to the truth.)

Friend: "Where's that?"

Shirley: "It's kind of a Western resort near LA.

Friend: "What's to do — sounds dull."

Shirley: "Oh no — one of the hotels has a great art gallery. We study the brush techniques and thematic harmonies of the Great masters."

Friend: "Oh, I just wondered why you weren't going to Vegas this year."

Well, we did go to Vegas, where amidst the slots and blackjack tables we encountered the supernatural. It's our first night — 2:00 a.m. and I've given up since I've already lost next year's donation to the synagogue building fund. I'm in the room half asleep, dreaming the treasury department has consigned me one of their new $50 printing presses to install in my den.

Suddenly, a crazy lady is dancing around the gloom of the room with a handful of money. She's doing a Flamenco on the bed. Could it be my wife disguised as a flamenco dancer? Or is it my wife after an invasion of the Flamenco Body Snatchers?

One hand clicks like a maraca. The other holds a sheaf of 100's. I'm up and listening, now, as she explains how she got hold of ten hundred dollar bills without performing a single illegal, promiscuous, or fattening act. She tells a fascinating story: "So I'm losing big on the slots. I'm going zippo for 20 coins. No reinforcement whatsoever. Then I see this plump, red-headed lady with a nice, round, cheery face like a 25-dollar roulette chip. She's standing in the change booth and she's got on a uniform and a name tag."

"Why don't you try that machine on the corner?" she says. "I think it's ready." Here the wife stops to tuck her blouse into her skirt, push her hair back out of her eyes, and attend to a loopy string of plastic pearls that are draped over her ear — the one that still has the earring.

"Then on the third coin I hit the 1000 dollar jackpot."

When we get our breath back, I turn to my benefactress and ask, "Well, did you go back to the lady with the pink roulette chip for a face? Did you thank her?"

The wife says she tried, but could not find her. Looked all over the casino. "Strange, none of the casino employees knew a plump, red head with a face like a roulette chip."

Hmmm, I'm beginning to hear Twilight Zone music.

Unfortunately, she didn't catch the name on the ID tag. But even so, I just know the scenario would still have been surreal.

Wife (to Bellagio V.P. in charge of Spooks): "Where can I find Betty Sue McKintosh, employee No. 3172?"

Senior V.P., Spooks: "Lady, Betty Sue passed away in 1963 over a 25-cent slot. Her heart, ya know, just wasn't ready for the 10,000 quarter progressive jackpot."

This Guardian Angel of all losers, who evidently still roams the slot section, has touched our lives with 4000 shiny quarters. This is the Fairy Godmother of slot players. The Patron Saint of losers. We'll be back to "The Meadows" in early Summer looking for a plump, red-headed lady with wings and a harp and a strange attraction for down-on-their-luck slot players.

Ted Roberts is a syndicated humorist. His essays appear in the Jewish press, web sites, and magazines. He is author of The Scribbler On The Roof, a book of short stories and commentary. Visit his websites at
http://www.wonderwordworks.com and

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, August 23, 2011.

This was written by Boaz Bismuth and it is archived at


With events in southern Israel and the crisis in Egypt dominating the news this past weekend, we have all but overlooked a story that is no less important — a story that proves the new Middle East is perhaps as old as ever. Lebanon, which currently serves as the Arab representative in the Security Council, torpedoed a condemnation of the terrorist attacks last week, claiming that they were directed at soldiers rather than civilians, and therefore did not constitute terrorism. Some cynics might see this as a proper prelude to the U.N. General Assembly session next month, which is expected to take up the issue of Palestinian statehood.

I have just recently reread "L'Homme à la colombe" ["The Man with the Dove"] one of French novelist/pilot/diplomat Romain Gary's books, which while less known is one of his best works published under the pseudonym Fosco Sinibaldi. The book presents the U.N. in a ridiculous light as a place where the term "hypocrisy" has reached new heights. And trust Gary, he knows what he is talking about; he had an active role there.

But let's return to what happened here on Saturday. In the wake of the terrorist attacks, Israel turned to the U.N. Security Council and requested it issue a condemnation. One has to keep in mind that any such statement would have to garner the unanimous support of all 15 member states, including the five permanent and ten non-permanent members. Yet Lebanon had no problem or ethical qualms in thwarting the condemnation. It even insisted that any condemnation include a condemnation of the Israeli settlement enterprise. Some of its representatives even went so far as to call for a statement that only condemns settlement activity and makes no mention of the terrorist attacks.

Israel's Ambassador to the U.N., Ron Prosor, has gotten a first-hand look at the U.N.'s blindness, its unwillingness to speak up, and its hypocrisy when it comes to terrorist attacks against Israel. Lebanon considers its move to be a great success — mission accomplished. This was the reason it was elected to represent the Arab states in the Security Council. Lebanon argued that the terrorist attacks were a military strike, not terrorism, since one of the buses attacked was transporting soldiers, not civilians. This not only ignores the fact that civilians were also targeted during the attacks, but also begs the question: Since when is it okay to attack soldiers along an internationally recognized border like the Egypt-Israel border?

The Arab media also supported Lebanon's actions. And how do Lebanon's diplomats in New York define terror? The Israeli retaliation in Gaza, of course.

It has been fascinating to watch the Palestinian envoy to the U.N., Riyad Mansour, who is likely to be busy in the coming weeks. He claimed that the killing of civilians must be condemned regardless of their nationality, but also added that the killing of civilians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank should be condemned — as if Israel had launched a military campaign in Gaza, rather than carried out a pinpointed retaliation that targeted terrorist leaders in the Gaza Strip, and as if Israel had not shown restraint during the few days in which rockets continued to fall on its territory.

But let's get back to Gary's book. He manages to successfully convey the hypocrisy plaguing the U.N.'s conference halls and to underscore the degree to which discussions are divorced from the reality on the ground.

I highly recommend you read this book before the start of the U.N. discussions on Palestinian statehood in September. At the very least it could bring smiles to our faces as we watch the events unfold.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, August 23, 2011.

This was written by Soeren Kern and it appeared yesterday i Hudson New York.


Islamic extremists are stepping up the creation of "no-go" areas in European cities that are off-limits to non-Muslims.

Many of the "no-go" zones function as microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law. Host-country authorities effectively have lost control in these areas and in many instances are unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services.

The "no-go" areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.

In Britain, for example, a Muslim group called Muslims Against the Crusades has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities — including what it calls "Londonistan" — into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

The Islamic Emirates Project names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.

In the Tower Hamlets area of East London (also known as the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets), for example, extremist Muslim preachers, called the Tower Hamlets Taliban, regularly issue death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered with posters declaring "You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced." And street advertising deemed offensive to Muslims is regularly vandalized or blacked out with spray paint.

In the Bury Park area of Luton, Muslims have been accused of "ethnic cleansing" by harassing non-Muslims to the point that many of them move out of Muslim neighborhoods. In the West Midlands, two Christian preachers have been accused of "hate crimes" for handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. In Leytonstone in east London, the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen heckled the former Home Secretary John Reid by saying: "How dare you come to a Muslim area."

In France, large swaths of Muslim neighborhoods are now considered "no-go" zones by French police. At last count, there are 751 Sensitive Urban Zones (Zones Urbaines Sensibles, ZUS), as they are euphemistically called. A complete list of the ZUS can be found on a French government website, complete with satellite maps and precise street demarcations. An estimated 5 million Muslims live in the ZUS, parts of France over which the French state has lost control.

Muslim immigrants are taking control of other parts of France too. In Paris and other French cities with high Muslim populations, such as Lyons, Marseilles and Toulouse, thousands of Muslims are closing off streets and sidewalks (and by extension, are closing down local businesses and trapping non-Muslim residents in their homes and offices) to accommodate overflowing crowds for Friday prayers. Some mosques have also begun broadcasting sermons and chants of "Allahu Akbar" via loudspeakers into the streets.

The weekly spectacles, which have been documented by dozens of videos posted on Youtube.com (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), and which have been denounced as an "occupation without tanks or soldiers," have provoked anger and disbelief. But despite many public complaints, local authorities have declined to intervene because they are afraid of sparking riots.

In the Belgian capital of Brussels (which is 20% Muslim), several immigrant neighborhoods have become "no-go" zones for police officers, who frequently are pelted with rocks by Muslim youth. In the Kuregem district of Brussels, which often resembles an urban war zone, police are forced to patrol the area with two police cars: one car to carry out the patrols and another car to prevent the first car from being attacked. In the Molenbeek district of Brussels, police have been ordered not to drink coffee or eat a sandwich in public during the Islamic month of Ramadan.

In Germany, Chief Police Commissioner Bernhard Witthaut, in an August 1 interview with the newspaper Der Westen, revealed that Muslim immigrants are imposing "no-go" zones in cities across Germany at an alarming rate.

The interviewer asked Witthaut: "Are there urban areas — for example in the Ruhr — districts and housing blocks that are "no-go areas," meaning that they can no longer be secured by the police?" Witthaut replied: "Every police commissioner and interior minister will deny it. But of course we know where we can go with the police car and where, even initially, only with the personnel carrier. The reason is that our colleagues can no longer feel safe there in twos, and have to fear becoming the victim of a crime themselves. We know that these areas exist. Even worse: in these areas crimes no longer result in charges. They are left 'to themselves.' Only in the worst cases do we in the police learn anything about it. The power of the state is completely out of the picture."

In Italy, Muslims have been commandeering the Piazza Venezia in Rome for public prayers. In Bologna, Muslims repeatedly have threatened to bomb the San Petronio cathedral because it contains a 600-year-old fresco inspired by Dante's Inferno which depicts Mohammed being tormented in hell.

In the Netherlands, a Dutch court ordered the government to release to the public a politically incorrect list of 40 "no-go" zones in Holland. The top five Muslim problem neighborhoods are in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht. The Kolenkit area in Amsterdam is the number one Muslim "problem district" in the country. The next three districts are in Rotterdam — Pendrecht, het Oude Noorden and Bloemhof. The Ondiep district in Utrecht is in the fifth position, followed by Rivierenwijk (Deventer), Spangen (Rotterdam), Oude Westen (Rotterdam), Heechterp/ Schieringen (Leeuwarden) and Noord-Oost (Maastricht).

In Sweden, which has some of the most liberal immigration laws in Europe, large swaths of the southern city of Malmö — which is more than 25% Muslim — are "no-go" zones for non-Muslims. Fire and emergency workers, for example, refuse to enter Malmö's mostly Muslim Rosengaard district without police escorts. The male unemployment rate in Rosengaard is estimated to be above 80%. When fire fighters attempted to put out a fire at Malmö's main mosque, they were attacked by stone throwers.

In the Swedish city of Gothenburg, Muslim youth have been hurling petrol bombs at police cars. In the city's Angered district, where more than 15 police cars have been destroyed, teenagers have also been pointing green lasers at the eyes of police officers, some of whom have been temporarily blinded.

In Gothenburg's Backa district, youth have been throwing stones at patrolling officers. Gothenburg police have also been struggling to deal with the problem of Muslim teenagers burning cars and attacking emergency services in several areas of the city.

According to the Malmö-based Imam Adly Abu Hajar: "Sweden is the best Islamic state."
Biography of Soeren Kern: http://kern.pundicity.com/about/

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 22, 2011.


Libyan rebels suspended their long-standing ideological, regional, and tribal differences in order to unite against a common enemy, Ghadaffi. Now that the Liberals have wrested power from him, they and independent armed groups may vie for supremacy (Charles Levinson, Margaret Coker, Wall St. J., 8/22/11, A1).

Not stated is the fact that the West did not know which groups would prevail. They did not know which ideology their bombing of Libya would be dealing with the West after winning. But they killed people and spent a fortune on unknown rebels. That was rued by me from the outset.

How can our incumbent President claim to be any better than his predecessor, in going to war without a known benefit for our country? He shoots first and asks questions afterwards. Perhaps he is helping foist an Islamist regime on Libya, a regime that would be more militant against the West and against its people.


Here are two New York Times paragraphs describing Israeli retaliation against Hamas:

"'The military has been instructed to hit the terrorist groups in a surgical manner and to avoid as much as possible hurting the civilian population of Gaza,' said Mark Regev, a spokesman for the Israeli prime minister."

"In a response that many here considered minimal, Israel carried out airstrikes on two vacant militant training sites in Gaza, shattering windows and wounding seven Palestinians in a house nearby" (Isabel Kershner, 8/22/11, A10).

The instruction was to avoid striking civilians as well as can be done, considering that the terrorists post themselves into civilian areas. We are not told that the instruction is to avoid striking terrorists, but that is what Israel did avoid. It attacked vacant training bases. Why vacant? Why not attack Hamas troops? How can one deter enemy forces by appearing afraid to attack them and by sparing their lives? The government of Israel is misguided, really emotionally disturbed.

It is bad enough that the government limits its retaliation, knowing the location of enemy bases and troops who sooner or later will attack Israel. A proper reaction would be to wipe out those bases and troops, so they cannot take more Israeli lives. A few such reactions, and perhaps Hamas would find its imperialist and genocidal struggle futile.

The explanation that "many" Israelis considered the IDF response "minimal" is odd. What Israelis consider retaliation against a couple of vacant bases not minimal? What lesser retaliation would they call minimal? Do they consider striking two vacant bases in any way capable discouraging Hamas, celebrating their murder of eight Israelis?

How silly and misleading is the NY Times' term, "militant," in "militant training sites!" What does it mean, to train "militants?" Those forces are jihadist, and jihadists operate by criminal terrorism when they cannot assail their enemies frontally. But the Times won't call Palestinian Arabs terrorist. Sad that a supposedly great newspaper misleads readers with euphemisms about the great menace to civilization or our time. It did the same thing about the Communist and Nazi menaces.

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 UCI, August 22, 2011.

This was written by Jerry Gordon.


Matthew Hausman, talented brother of Rabbi Jonathan Hausman, has published a definitive article on the Israpundit website on why Israel has the legal right to annex what the world refers to as the West Bank of Jordan, Judea and Samaria: "History, Demographics, and Law Favor Israel's Annexation of Judea and Samaria, Not a Two-State Solution."

His article comes at a critical time given the looming UN General Assembly deliberations in September over a possible unilateral declaration of a Palestinian State brought by the Fatah, with international support of the newly renamed Organization of Islamic Cooperation, the EU, with tacit condoning by the Obama White House. A White House that has recently photo shopped Israel's claim to its ancestral capitol of Jerusalem by scrubbing the reference from a picture of Vice President Biden and Israel's President Shimon Peres from its website. Hausman's article is useful in disputing the arguments of proponents of the unilateral Palestinian State.

Moreover, Hausman's presentation is bolstered by legal considerations that the proposed Palestinian State does not meet the international legal standards for definition of a state, articulated in a recent Foreign Policy article by former AIPAC official, Steven Rosen, "The Palestinians' Imaginary State". Effectively, as both Hausman and Rosen argue, the Jewish State of Israel and its claims to the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria are a reality, while those of Fatah to East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza are 'imaginary".

Hausman's arguments are based on ancient Jewish antecedents, the 1920 San Remo Conference of the League of Nations that set up the post-WWI Jewish Homeland, the 1922 US Joint Congressional Resolution call for establishment of a Jewish homeland, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 that affirmed the 1947 UNSCOP report establishing the partition of the Palestine Mandate into a Jewish State of Israel, and an Arab state, the latter rejected by the Arabs who went to war, and the November 1967 UN Security Council Res. 242 that established the doctrine of secure and defensible borders for Israel based on the disputed territories. Hausman notes the demographic realities of more than 500,000 Israelis living in East Jerusalem and towns in Judea and Samaria. The term Palestine is Roman in origin assigned to the conquered Jewish lands by Emperor Trajan following the fall of the Bar Kochba Jewish Republic in 135 C.E. The term was considered a fiction based on the comments of the Arabs themselves, who noted during the British Peel Commission of the late 1930's they considered Palestine, a "Zionist" construct. Hausman's arguments are further bolstered by Israeli historian Benny Morris in 1948: The First Arab — Israeli War, his chronicle of Israel's War for Independence, that the young IDF during the latter stages of the conflict had the resources to rout the Jordanian Legionaries from what became the 1949 Armistice Line that divided Jerusalem until the June 1967 Six Days of War saw the liberation of entire municipality, the regaining of Judea and Samaria; the disputed territories that comprised the West Bank.

We have presented arguments by Dutch politician Geert Wilders and Israeli Member of the Knesset, Dr. Arieh Eldad, that, the real Palestine is the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (originally Transjordan created by the British Colonial Office in 1923 from the east bank of the original Jewish homeland) given that well over 70 percent of the population is composed of Arabs who fled the disputed territories of the West Bank in the several conflicts with the Jewish State of Israel.

Hausman also refers to the divisive clan conflicts between the Arab communities on the West bank and Gaza a subject that Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has written of extensively in his book Hamas Versus Fatah: the Struggle for Palestine.

Former AIPAC official Steven Rosen, the subject, along with fellow AIPAC officer, Kenneth Weismann, of a failed suit brought by Federal prosecutors and FBI counter-intelligence officials, went further by arguing in a recent Foreign Policy article, "The Palestinians Imaginary State" that the current push by the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and allies in the UN General Assembly at the behest of Fatah PLO for declaration of a Palestinian State doesn't meet international law standards, a reference to the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, Rosen noted:

But Fatah, the PA, and the broader PLO do not seek statehood for this West Bank entity that arguably could meet the legal requirements. Their minimum demand is a state that includes Gaza along with the West Bank, the eastern part of Jerusalem, and all the other parts of mandatory Palestine that were under Jordanian and Egyptian control before 1967. Fatah, the PA, and the PLO are demanding title to lands and authority over populations they do not control, being as they are under the rule of Hamas and Israel.

Unlike the two Palestinian entities that already exist, either of which could be recognized as a Palestinian state because they seem to fulfill the legal requirements, the Palestinian entity that a General Assembly majority will recognize as a state this September does not actually exist on Earth. It is imaginary and aspirational, not real. And it does not meet the legal requirements.

It is for all of these reasons cited by Hausman and Rosen that the current efforts by the Fatah, OIC, EU and even US allies seeking the unilateral declaration of an imaginary Palestinian State do not meet the legal standings of Israel for secure and defensible borders including the annexation of Judea and Samaria. After all the real Palestinian state already exists in Jordan.

UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel."

"Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!"

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 22, 2011.

All the talk of taking down Hamas, acting to create a strong deterrence, etc. etc. As flat now as yesterday's soda.

One might think that it would be a substantial relief knowing that we have managed to steer away from war. But that relief is hard to come by when the truth is that we've not steered away from war so much as delayed it. And, just possibly, delayed it in a fashion that ultimately will make matters more difficult down the road.


Things are slowing down, with expectation that quiet will be established soon. Or — as I suspect — is it just "relative" quiet that we're going to settle for?

A great deal of unease remains.

At this particular political/diplomatic juncture it was not hard to see this coming. There is, quite possibly, something to be said for not starting a war on the cusp of the whole UN business we are facing within weeks.

As it was, PA leaders were playing our response to the terror attack to the hilt: accusing us of deliberately escalating the situation in Gaza in order to cause complications with regard to their anticipated bid at the UN.

And yet...and yet...


According to a JPost piece on this issue written today by Khaled Abu Toameh and Yaakov Katz:

"Defense officials said Israel was looking for a way to end the current round with Hamas, citing the lack of international support as one of the reasons Israel could not open a larger offensive against the Gaza Strip."



In a YNet piece, Attila Somfalvi cites a "senior [Israeli] political figure":

"You cannot rush into war... [you need] to make any such decision in a responsible, smart manner. You don't rush into war, nor do you enter it carelessly.

"The entire Middle East is boiling over now, and we have to choose our path very carefully. We have to look at the entire region and decide how it could be affected, and what the consequences may be for us. It would be a mistake to get dragged into a war."


Much depends on precisely what parameters have been established with regard to this truce/ lull/ ceasefire/ armistice (terms being used interchangeably by media that are apparently oblivious to the differing implications).

The Abu Toameh/Katz piece states:

"According to Arab reports, a senior Israeli Defense Ministry delegation had arrived earlier in the day[Sunday] in Cairo for talks with Egyptian officials who mediated the cease-fire between Israel and representatives of Islamic Jihad and Hamas."

"mediated the cease-fire"? Was it more than Israel saying, we'll stop after you stop? What were the parameters that the Israeli government agreed to?


The Somfalvi pieces states:

"Jerusalem sources stressed that despite the armistice the IDF will continue thwarting terror attacks.

"A political source said that as long as the Gaza groups maintain the lull, Israel 'will not instigate an operation in Gaza and will not target tunnels;' further qualifying that 'If terror cells are detected, they will be destroyed without qualms. We will not take any chances in that respect.'"

"...according to one Jerusalem source...the Gaza groups...were the ones to asked for a ceasefire: 'They understood where the wind was blowing...'

"The armistice, another senior source in Jerusalem said, was declared by Hamas unilaterally and without negotiations with Israel, Egypt or the United States."


Impossible for us to wrap our heads around all of this at the same time. Was our government looking for a way out, or did Hamas back off unilaterally?

In a statement made earlier Monday, Hamas spokesman Taher al-Nunu said that Gaza's rulers "have reached an understanding on the ceasefire issue between the factions and Israel. The factions all confirmed that they are committed to the same points that Israel has committed to."


It is a matter of some considerable importance if we have maintained the right to pre-empt attacks when terror cells are detected. But I find it difficult to understand why Israel would commit to refraining from the bombing of tunnels.

The truth is that bombing them has limited impact because there are so damn many tunnels (which is why we need to retake the Philadelphi Corridor). But it strikes me as inherently illogical, that we know that those tunnels are used for the smuggling of weapons (which go through even more readily, now that jihadist/Bedouin forces control the Sinai) but somehow turn a blind eye, while we scrupulously block the transfer of weapons at sea, and very properly so.

I hear it said that all that matters now is that we managed to reinstitute quiet (however defined), so that people in the South are not at imminent risk. But if the Arabs then utilize that quiet to stockpile more sophisticated weaponry towards the day when they will go to war with us?


On this issue, former ambassador Yoram Ettinger had this to say today:

"The recent surge in Palestinian terrorism forces Israel to revisit the fundamentals of counter-terrorism.

"...the most effective defense against terrorism — operationally, financially and morally — is not retaliation and a limited, surgical offensive, but a comprehensive, decisive, sustained, disproportionate and preemptive ground offensive, which aims to obliterate terror infrastructures and capabilities, bringing the enemy to submission. A decisive defeat of terrorism requires a victory over — and not coexistence or ceasefire agreements with — terrorism. We need to uproot — not just stop — terrorism.

"Any response to terrorism that falls short of devastating the ideological, political, financial, logistic and operational terrorist infrastructures only serves to reassure terrorists that they are immune to annihilation."
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/ newsletter_opinion.php?id=375


Stay tuned!

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Helen Freedman, August 22, 2011.

Beck at first rally: "Jews honor God"

I had made the deliberate choice to leave New York and travel to Israel this August in order to participate in the Glenn Beck RESTORING COURAGE events. The three part program would take place over a period of four days — Sunday night, August 21, in Caesarea, would support the Courage to Love. Monday evening, August 22, at the Old Train Station Plaza. would focus on the Courage to Stand, and Wednesday evening, August 24, would be the Courage to Declare." It would take place at the Davidson Center near the southern wall of the Old City and at Safra Square.

At this writing, the Caesarea event has taken place. I joined a busload of people departing from our meeting place in Jerusalem to Caesarea. We arrived there at 6:30 PM on Sunday, as the late afternoon sun was spreading its rosy glow over the 2,000 year old stones. Throngs of people, mostly Christians, had already arrived and thousands more were being delivered by buses from all over Israel.

The mood was one of excitement and high expectancy. People met friends, along with old and new acquaintances. The warmth and friendliness of spirit emanated from everyone. As the huge theater stadium filled up with about 3,000 people, we had to admire the production features. The stage was lit beautifully; the sound equipment was working perfectly; the glorious backdrop of moving color photos of Israel's deserts, cities, mountains, rivers and Sea, gave us a beautiful look at Israel's amazing topography.

Dave Barton, President of Wallbuilders, proudly announced that eighty nations were represented in this demonstration of Standing with Israel. David Brog, Executive Director of CUFI, Christians United for Israel, spoke of the reality of shared Judeo-Christian values, having to do with loving thy neighbor as thyself. Venissa Mitchell and her choir of 23 men and women, along with a small orchestra, performed intermittently with some lovely inspirational songs.

Glenn Beck appeared on stage, greeted with wild applause. He seemed genuinely touched by the outpouring of love and the fact that so many people had come from so many countries, traveling at their own expense, to join with him in making his mission, their mission. The opening benediction emphasized Isaiah's vision of nations not learning war anymore.

Pastor Mike Evans told an amazing story about his Jewish mother and his anti-Semitic father who would beat his wife and threaten the boy whom he never called, 'son.' Evans has now spent forty years defending Israel. Pastor Tom Mullins spoke about G-d's divine love and the love of Nehemiah for the people of Jerusalem. He declared, "Have done with lesser things, and concentrate on doing great things together."

Glenn Beck, who was clearly turning over most of the stage time to the procession of speakers, then interjected that loving Israel also meant loving Jews. They are inseparable. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin continued with the theme of love and expressed the need to applaud the differences of "others" while having the courage to love them. He evoked cheers when he declared, "The Jewish people has never been alone. We have always been together with G-d."

Pastor John Hagee, leader of 750,000 Christians United for Israel (CUFI), and Pastor to 20,000 active members in his San Antonio church, electrified the audience by stating, "Our hope is not in Washington, but in G-d." He reaffirmed the belief of the Jews as the chosen people, pledged to always stand with Israel, and vowed that Israel's enemies were his. Affirming that "Israel is a tiny outpost of democracy in a sea of tyranny," he declared, "I am an Israeli," and led the crowd in chanting this over and over again.

Glenn Beck again took the stage to remind us that "We have to get off at the exits...We're speeding along the freeway, heading to the cliff, and we must exit." He concluded by reminding us that "G-d is not running for re-election, and we are entering the age of G-d's miracles."

The closing benediction was given by a Christian Arab from Bethlehem, Pastor Khouri. We listened to his words of love, recognizing that his appearance at this event, with Christians and Jews, in a demonstration of mutual love, took a great deal of courage on his part.

Fireworks illuminated the sky as the program ended. Everyone seemed to be uplifted and exhilarated by this outpouring of love and brotherhood. The bar of expectation has been set at an extraordinarily high level for the remaining events. They should dazzle, if Sunday in Caesarea is a sample of what's to come.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. History, August 23, 2011.

This is by Frank Marshall and it comes from the 24 June 2011 Right Side News
http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011062413898/ editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/weiner-fallout-and- the-muslim-connection.html


This is really something to read........scary........and that puts it mildly!!

The fallout from the Anthony Weiner fiasco includes a mystery no one yet has resolved, especially the media which is ignoring it like the plague. Make that: Two mysteries

Mystery # 1. How is it that Anthony Weiner, a Jew, married a devout Muslim woman, and vice-versa? [NOTE: This is a very serious violation of sharia law!]

Mystery #2. How is it that a devout Muslim woman with strong ties to the notorious Muslim Brotherhood is working within a trusted position in the highest levels of the Department of State? [NOTE: The credo of the Muslim Brotherhood is: "God is our purpose, the Prophet our leader, the Qur'an our constitution, Jihad our way and dying for God's cause our supreme objective."]

Here are the facts as we know them:

1 — Anthony Weiner, a Jewish U.S. Congressman from New York, (now resigned) married Huma Abedin, a practicing Muslim woman, in 2010. Ex-President Bill Clinton officiated.

2 — Huma Abedin was born in Michigan, but grew up in Saudi Arabia, the daughter of devout Muslim parents. She was later educated in the U.S. and remains a devout, practicing Muslim.

3 — At age 20, Huma Abedin started working as a White House assistant to then first lady, Hillary Clinton in 1996, and has been by Mrs. Clinton's side ever since. She now holds the position of Aide and Deputy Chief of Staff to Sec. Hillary Clinton in the State Department.

4 — According to numerous sources, which has not been denied or refuted, the mother of Huma Abedin — a Pakistani — is a member of the Muslim Sisterhood, or, the women's division of the Muslim Brotherhood.

5 — Huma Abedin's brother is a fellow with the Oxford Centre For Islamic Studies, which is heavily supported by the Muslim Brotherhood.

6 — Islamic scholars and experts confirm that no Muslim woman — especially devout Muslims and members of the sisterhood — may marry a non-Muslim man, yet a Jew, unless that man has converted to Islam.

7 — It is well known, especially in intelligence circles including the CIA and the FBI, that the Muslim Brotherhood is the most notorious global, anti-American, jihadist organization in the world, with long range sights set upon establishing an Islamic caliphate in the west. (That means, converting America into an Islamic nation, folks). According to their own documents — authored by the highest levels in the MB — America is destined to be settled as an Islamic nation, and that it will use deceit and infiltration to accomplish this goal from within.

From Within!

Readers tend to gloss over this, but it is as important as Mein Kampf was to the burgeoning Nazi movement in 1930s Germany that so many ignored.. You've read it before. Here, again, is their language taken from the Muslim Brotherhood manifesto, introduced at the Holy Land Foundation trial:

The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" with all the means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah's religion is made victorious."


The Muslim Brotherhood — or its affiliations — has infiltrated the highest levels of our government.

Hillary Clinton is either in denial, stupid, naive or complicit in having such a person with ties to the MB working within the highest levels of the State Department. That goes for the president as well.

There is certainly more to the story of the Weiner wedding, which we don't know about. If Anthony Weiner, in fact, converted to Islam,

it was done surreptitiously because it would have been a death knell to his political career. And, if so, Weiner certainly knew of the Muslim Brotherhood connections of his wife.

If the Islamic community has approved of, or ignores the marriage between Jewish born Weiner and Huma Abedin, it can be logically concluded that they — the Islamic community — know something we don't. An Imam from the Islamic Cultural center of New York, Omar Abu-Namous, not only approved of the union, he has encouraged Huma Abedin to stand by her man during the cybersex scandal. Thus, it must be advantageous to the goals of Islamic jihad and the MB to have Huma Abedin inside the bowels of the Department of State with daily access to governmental intelligence. Therefore, her "marriage" to a U.S. congressman, regardless of religion, was openly accepted.

That, folks, is an example of "Taqiyya" which I've often written about. Taqiyya is the Islamic equivalent to using lies, deceit and concealment in order to advance the cause of spreading Islam.

The 9/11 al Qaeda terrorists blended with American society for months prior to the deadly attack, drinking alcohol, carousing with women and eating pork, in order to conceal who they truly were, in order to carry out their mission.

Their mission was to infiltrate and kill. The mission of the Muslim Brotherhood is to infiltrate and conquer, even if it takes 100 years. In the Muslim Brotherhood planning document, "The Project," it clearly states — among their strategies:

Maintain the appearance of moderation

Use deception to mask the intended goals of Islamic Action

We know about these things, the government knows about these things, the highest of officials know, yet they are inexplicably ignored.

Forget about the war in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are losing the war right here. And our government is helping.

Contact Dr History at drhistory@cox.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, August 22, 2011.

He is a convicted spy. He has an Israeli passport. He is serving a life sentence. He is the only American to receive a life sentence for spying for an ally. It's one of the most painful wounds in the Jewish world. All Israeli attempts to obtain leniency for Jonathan Pollard have failed.

Some 113 years after French novelist Emile Zola famously wrote "J'accuse!" charging that an anti-Semitic government had wrongfully convicted a young Jewish captain named Alfred Dreyfus, Pollard's supporters wonder if history may record his case as America's Dreyfus affair. The former president of B'nai B'rith International, Tommy Baer, said the Pollard affair was "the closest thing to an American Dreyfuss case." If Pollard's incomparably harsh sentence is allowed to continue, all but the most naive will have to confront the idea that he is still in prison only because he is a Jew.

Dreyfus and Pollard are, of course, different cases in one significant respect. Dreyfus was innocent, and Pollard has admitted his guilt. But a close look reveals striking similarities.

The French Jew was exiled to the hell of Devil's Island. Pollard is being held in solitary confinement in an underground cell. Dreyfus was a political prisoner from the first day of his arrest. By contrast, Pollard was not a political prisoner during the first few years of his incarceration.

However, now that he is serving well beyond the time served by others who have committed comparable offenses, now that he remains incarcerated because of prejudice, he has become a political prisoner. If Dreyfus made Theodor Herzl into a Zionist, Pollard has been abandoned and betrayed by most Jewish intellectuals.

A few years ago only Ida Nudel and other former Soviet "Prisoners of Zion," in a letter delivered to then-Israeli defense minister Moshe Arens, declared that there remained yet another political prisoner: Jonathan Pollard.

Yosef Mendelevich, who spent 11 years in the gulag, called on "all the friends who fought for the Prisoners of Zion to organize again for Jonathan Pollard.."

Pollard's release is today an integral part only of the right-wing camp in Israel (Gush Katif made Pollard an honorary resident, and most of his supporters wear the knitted kippot that identify national religious Jews). But the question is not about the Jewish Right that adopted Pollard, but why the Jewish Left has abandoned him. Pollard has been in prison longer than anyone ever sentenced in the US for passing classified materials to a friendly foreign power. Israel has never underestimated Pollard's offense. But his case constitutes a great miscarriage of justice. In the United States the median sentence for a person convicted of spying for the Soviet Union was 10 years. The median sentence for someone spying for a non-Soviet power has been less than three years. Harvard Law School professor Alan Dershowitz said the Pollard case is "an American injustice," calling his life sentence "outrageously disproportionate." Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Ronald Montaperto was just sentenced to a three-month prison term for passing US intelligence secrets to communist China. Meanwhile, Pollard, who was sentenced to life in prison for passing US secrets to Israel is now in his 27th year in jail, held in a subterranean cell in solitary confinement for seven years.

After his arrest, Israel did everything in its power to distance itself from Pollard, despite the fact that Jerusalem knew the magnitude of his contribution in the face of the chemical-weapons threat presented by Syria and Iraq. It wasn't until 1995 that he was granted Israeli citizenship, and it wasn't until 1998 that Israel officially recognized Pollard as its agent. Binyamin Netanyahu is the only prime minister to have made a real effort to get him released.

For his contribution to Israel's security and for his long suffering in prison, Israelis should consider Pollard a national hero. He is commonly recognized as the source of the country's preparedness for the Iraqi missile attacks during the Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein's Scud rockets began to rain down on Tel Aviv, and Israelis wore gas masks.

Twenty-two countries were transferring nuclear, chemical and biological weaponstechnology to Arab states — in particular Iraq. This was six years before the Gulf War, six years before Saddam Hussein became a household name.

Jonathan Pollard warned Israel of Iraq's bellicose intentions, and that Syria's Assad was amassing vast quantities of chemical and other unconventional weapons. By its own agreement with Israel, the US administration should have given this information to Jerusalem. But it was deliberately blocked by then-secretary of state Caspar Weinberger. Among all the doubts, Pollard emerges as a Jewish hero.

He passed on information to try and save Israel from its enemies. But now reports on his health are marginalized to the back pages of Israeli newspapers, and claims by his supporters are treated as crank calls. The famous writer Amos Oz just got in touch with Marwan Barghouti, the Palestinian terrorist convicted of murdering many Israelis. The Israel Prize recipient sent the Palestinian prisoner one of his books with a personal inscription wishing him a speedy release from prison: "This story is our story. I hope you read it and understand us better, as we attempt to understand you. Hoping to meet soon in peace and freedom."

Pollard's espionage is no way comparable to Barghouti's murders of Jews, but Oz and the other Israeli intellectuals never sent a letter to the prison where Pollard is serving life without parole. Pollard's room is so small that when he sits on the bed and stretches his arms he touches both walls. His kippa was thrown to the ground. He was spread-eagled against the wall and his testicles squeezed.

His kosher food has been served rotten and his phylacteries were constantly split open by overzealous guards.

But for most of the influential Jewish intellectuals in the US, Pollard is still "a traitor," "a fanatic" (Robert Friedman of The Washington Post), "an aberration" (Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg), "a viper" (Marty Peretz of the New Republic).

Natan Sharanksy, Yosef Mendelovich, Josef Begun and other Jewish prisoners in the Soviet Union were freed because the Jewish world exerted all the pressure and influence at its disposal to free them. Pollard deserves the same tenacity. He has served more than sufficient jail time for his crime. And to return to the first question: Is Pollard like Dreyfus? No. After 27 years in prison, Pollard is still waiting for his Emile Zola. After the case of Dreyfus, the French essayist Julien Benda published his famous attack on the intellectual corruption of the age, La Trahison des clercs. We are now living through the new treason of the intellectuals, who are silent and indifferent in the face of anti-Semitism. And it's an intellectual collapse that goes way beyond the case of Jonathan Pollard.

Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism.
This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/ Article.aspx?id=234982

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 21, 2011.


Members of the Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP) are Israelis, but they depend on significant funding from Europeans, especially governments.

CWP works for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. It sponsored a rally on "Naba Day," the day of Israeli independence, and against "Occupation [that has] lasted for 63 years..." Among the protest slogans were "the intifada will win." By calling Israel an occupier for 63 years, the rally was against the State of Israel, not just the Territories that Israel acquired more recently. By encouraging intifada, the rally was encouraging war.

Falsely calling itself a peace organization, CWP is pro-jihad. Why do Oxfam and the governments of Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway, and Germany finance a religious war [the same jihad that attacks Europe]?

CWP has become so morally unacceptable, that the New Israel Fund (NIF) has removed the organization from its list of beneficiaries (www.ngo-monitor.org in www.imra.org.il, 5/16/11).

Does NIF deserve credit for terminating grants to CWP? CWP long has been morally unacceptable. New Israel Fund knew that. But the Fund waited until CWP became a public embarrassment to it. That is the pattern of the Fund constantly seeming blind to the subversion by its beneficiaries and resistant to protests seeking to alert the Fund.

NGO-Monitor has proved that the New Israel Fund, like EU governments, specializes in financing anti-Zionist subversives under the pretense of reform.


Recent U.S. Department of Justice press releases on terrorism-related indictments could have listed CAIR as a coauthor. The defensiveness, lecturing tones, and prostration before Islamist talking points reflect a government ever more obsessed with mollifying Muslims.

Consider a May 14 release announcing the indictment of six people in Florida and Pakistan for allegedly providing financial and other assistance to the Pakistani Taliban. After identifying two Floridians as imams, the text oddly notes that the "defendants are charged based on their provision of material support to terrorism, not on their religious beliefs or teachings." Who besides Islamists and those who swallow their victimhood narrative would assume otherwise?

FBI Special Agent in Charge John V. Gillies — or, more likely, the DoJ ghostwriter — then chimes in to "remind everyone that the Muslim and Arab-American members of our community should never be judged by the illegal activities of a few." Finally, U.S. Attorney Wifredo A. Ferrer further instructs Americans not to be haters: ot an indictment against a particular community or religion. Instead, today's indictment charges six individuals for promoting terror and violence through their financial and other support of the Pakistani Taliban. Radical extremists know no boundaries; they come in all shapes and sizes and are not limited by religion, age, or geography.

A May 31 release follows the same pattern as it reports on two U.S.-based Iraqi nationals indicted for allegedly aiding and even directly participating in attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq.

First, FBI Special Agent in Charge Elizabeth A. Fries retails the overblown "backlash" meme: "Just as we vigorously investigate terrorism cases, the FBI will vigorously pursue anyone who targets Muslims or their places of worship for backlash-related threats or violence in the wake of these arrests." David J. Hale, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Kentucky, adds, "Let me be clear that this is not an indictment against a particular religious community or religion. Instead, this indictment charges two individuals with federal terrorism offenses." Yes, we get it already.

This specific manifestation of DoJ political correctness looks to be a new one; for example, press releases on domestic jihad plots that eyed the Washington, D.C., area, Portland, Oregon, and Catonsville, Maryland in late 2010 include no comparable passages. However, it is quite consistent with the DoJ's tendency to tiptoe around Islam. Recent embarrassments range from its video that trains male police officers to avoid speaking with Muslim women unless their husbands are present, to insider claims about the department having scuttled terror finance investigations that got too close to Islamic pressure groups such as CAIR.

In Eric Holder's DoJ, the scales of Lady Justice hang unbalanced. Preoccupation with not appearing biased against Muslims is nurturing bias in the opposite direction (David J. Rusin, Jun 7, 2011,
http://www.islamist-watch.org/blog/2011/06/the-justice-department- pc-heavy-press-releases ).

Not all terrorists are Muslim, but most are. Some of President Obama's friends are Muslim jihadists and some are non-Muslim terrorists. However, Islamic jihad and their terrorists are the major menace to civilization now, on a par with Nazism and Bolshevism. Not other group of terrorists can make the same claim.

The Obama administration is letting U.S. national security down.

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 Arlene Kushner, August 21, 2011.

Briefly, that's the sum of it. The situation in the South is fluid — with outcome uncertain.

There is an enormous feeling here in Israel that strong deterrence is essential. We cannot tolerate aggression against our civilians — what is required is a rapid and painful response that delivers a message: You hurts ours, and you will suffer. Barak's comment today was, "You attack us, you lose your head."

A good position. A necessary position.

But now what?


There was talk about escalation of the attack on Gaza; of an operation that emulated the very intense first stage of Cast Lead, before the ground troops went in; of targeting Hamas leadership; of finally taking out Hamas completely; etc. etc.

However, the inner Cabinet, which met during the night, last night, decided not to decide yet — but to continue as we are doing now and see how Hamas responds. Sometimes, apparently goes the thinking, it is enough for the enemy to understand that we are serious about various escalating options if the launching of rockets does not stop.


Last night I already indicated that the political wing of Hamas did not have the enthusiasm for the continuing violence that the military wing was promoting.

Tonight a report has surfaced reflecting a willingness on the part of Hamas to cool matters. What is interesting about this report is the broader dynamic:

A Hamas spokesperson said that Egypt was involved and had delivered a message to Hamas that Israel would not stop air attacks in Gaza unless the groups in Gaza first stopped shooting at Israel. An Islamic Jihad official further indicated that the "militant" groups in Gaza had convened in Cairo to discuss a ceasefire with Israel. It was being said that the ceasefire would start on Sunday (today) and would be monitored by Hamas.

Use of the term "ceasefire" is inappropriate, however. Israel's position — which I pray holds — is that there is no negotiation for a "ceasefire." In a ceasefire, there is an agreement that stipulates that both sides are to stop together at a predetermined time and within certain parameters.

Israeli terms are simpler: As long as they keep attacking us, we keep hitting them. If they stop, then we'll stop. This would mean we reserve the right to start responding again if they begin to attack again or if we see preparation for an attack that requires pre-emption. There is no "breaking of a ceasefire" that would be involved.

Yet, we should take note of the reported Egyptian involvement in this matter. The message that the Hamas spokesman said Egypt delivered to Hamas may have been real (that is, delivered on behalf of Israel).

We should further take note of the fact that Hamas may truly be eager to cool it. There seems to be some credibility to reports that Hamas called on all militant groups in Gaza to stop firing on Israel as of 9 PM tonight.


However — and this is a big however — Hamas may not control the situation. It has for some time now been understood that it is not the most militant of the groups in Gaza any longer.

And yet, Israel holds Hamas, which is the governing authority in Gaza responsible, and must do so. Sometimes Hamas has control, but prefers to allow others to do their dirty work.

First the Popular Resistance Committees said they would not abide by a "ceasefire."

Then Islamic Jihad officials weighed in, but their story was somewhat different: They indicated that UN envoy to the Middle East Robert Serry had sent a "lull" draft agreement to be discussed. An Islamic Jihad spokesman said they had no intention of handing Israel a lull agreement "free of charge." Their demand would be that Israel halt attacks in Gaza.

This, as I see it, is not a small matter at all. Islamic Jihad wants to be able to say that they forced Israel to stop. But if there is to be Israeli deterrence, it must be that the militant groups felt compelled to stop because of Israeli attacks.


Today was considerably quieter than yesterday had been, but when additional mortars and four Kassams were launched from Gaza late in the day, our planes were in the air again. Israel, for the time being, declares intention to continue thus. There is no official Israeli acknowledgement of even a "lull" agreement being considered. And these words are bandied about (see below).


I read today that an IDF official said we were doing well, because we were hitting the people who were responsible for launching the rocket attacks. This was definitely true with regard to the PRC leaders who were eliminated outside of Rafah. And I hope it continues to be true to some extent since then. It must be higher-ups who are hit — those who plan and order the attacks. The people who actually shoot the rockets are readily expendable, and taking them out does not change the equation.


As to the Egyptians, there is much being written, all reflecting great unease about our current relationship with them: Will they sustain the peace treaty? Should we allow them into Sinai in sufficient numbers to regain control? Do they have culpability for Thursday's terror attack because they have fallen down on their responsibility to maintain control in the Sinai? At least one commentator is incensed at the notion that Egypt is angry with us because of the problem at the border when Egypt hadn't held up its end.

This is definitely a situation to be watched closely. I've picked up an eagerness on the part of at least some Israeli officials to mend fences — figuratively speaking only — with Egypt following that border cross-fire. And I speculate as to whether the message reportedly delivered to Hamas by Egypt was an attempt by Israel to work with Egypt (my idea only — have no data on this).


For the record I wish to clarify various terms being bandied about. What is referred to as a "lull," is in Arabic "tahadiyeh," simply a period of calm. It's a state, perhaps agreed to informally and off the record. (Which is why a written "lull" agreement doesn't quite make sense.)

What in Western terms is a "ceasefire" is referred to by the Arabs as a "hudna." It's an agreement. But there is a very significant proviso: It is conceptualized by the Arabs as a given that it is temporary. This is built into the culture. What this means that while there is a "hudna" they don't maintain the status quo, but scurry to gain strength towards the time when that "hudna" will be over. I've always been vastly uncomfortable with such agreements struck between Israel and Palestinian Arabs. It buys calm now at a cost later.

Thus, for this reason as well, do I fervently hope that if the situation quiets down, it is because the Arabs back off and not because of a "ceasefire" agreement.


Final thought for the night:

If things quiet down again now, is this in our best interest both in terms of our security and diplomatic situation? There are many parameters to consider — the impending UN vote, the implications of taking down Hamas and having the PA move back into Gaza, etc. My sense of matters is that our government knows that in due course there will be a war, but that this is not the right time.


There was intelligence today about plans for an imminent terror attack (exactly where or how was not specified) inside Jerusalem. Traffic was checked all day coming into the city. In the center of town, sniffer dogs were being worked by the police (which my youngest grandson found fascinating).


After the terror attack last Thursday Secretary of State Clinton offered a statement of condolence to Israel and said, "The US stands with Israel in fighting terror." How does she say this with a straight face?

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, August 21, 2011.

Sderot, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Beersheba....All major southern Israel cities are now under a heavy rocket offensive from Gaza. There are Jewish dead, babies wounded, schools and synagogues destroyed, entire cities and towns terrorized.

There is only one historical precedent of a modern democracy besieged under rocket attacks. During the afternoon of Sept. 7, 1940, 348 Nazi bombers appeared over London's skies. For the next 57 days, London was bombed day and night. Fires consumed many portions of the city. Residents sought shelter wherever they could find it — many fleeing to the underground that sheltered as many as 177,000 people during the night.

However, there is a big difference between the two situations: While the West backed the British resistance against the Nazi monster, Israel is alone in fighting a battle for all of us. And Sderot's fate has become the fate of the whole of Israel.

Israeli intelligence reports indicate that estimated warning time for a rocket attack on the greater Tel Aviv area has declined from two minutes to just 90 seconds. From Gaza, a couple of years ago, the terrorists were able to strike at most of Sderot, which is just three kilometres from the Gaza Strip. Then they reached Ashkelon (20 km), Beersheba (40 km) and Ashdod (31 km), also hitting the outskirts of Rehovot (42) and Rishon Lezion (58 km).

Missiles did not hit so close to Israel's main population centre since 1991, when Saddam Hussein launched his missiles from Baghdad. The next target will be Tel Aviv (68 km). In the north, Hezbollah is even more deadly. The Greater Tel Aviv area, where a quarter of the entire Israeli population lives, is the target of the next war. Nobody knows if and when it will begin.

Sderot represents the siege on the Jewish people and the resistance of Israel, but it also reveals the rest of the world's indifference to the genocidal hatred that is Jihadism. Some 70% of Israeli children in the Negev show symptoms of trauma, while thousands of children carry physical disabilities from Palestinian bombs.

There are children who want to constantly stay inside the bunkers, or in the secured rooms of their homes. There are children who don't get out of bed anymore. There are people who take the taxi to reach medical clinics, in case the air raid siren will sound. Many people had their hearing impaired because they live close to the siren. There are even those people who hear the siren even when it's silent.

Little is said or written about the incredible courage being shown by the civilian population of Israel, but it is reminiscent of events 70 years ago. Londoners, who had endured the blitz stoically, with British aplomb and quiet courage, then had more than 1,200 V-1 bombs rain down on them from the skies, followed later by hundreds of larger V-2 missiles that gave no warning. The people of Israel are equally valiant, going about their daily lives knowing that killers might explode a bomb or rocket in any public place at any time. Yet there is another difference. The British people didn't have to face a ground invasion or a house-to-house war. For Israel, more alarming than the rocket escalation is an eventual Islamist takeover of the mere six miles that separate Netanya on the Israeli coast from the Palestinian town of Tulkarem. There is an Arab saying about Netanya as the narrowest and most exposed throat of Israel: "When we hang you, we will hang you from Netanya."

Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism. This article is archived at


The mother of Hakim Awad, suspected of participating in the murder of several members of a Jewish family in the Territories, denied her son had committed murder. She said it was "impossible." She provided him with an alibi: he was with her the whole night. The villagers swore that no villager had anything to do with it.

Then Hakim Awad and his cousin, from the same village confessed and boasted.

Will reporters confront the mother and villagers with the truth? Will the media keep taking seriously families' assurance that their sons were innocent? Will human rights NGO testimony against Israel still be accepted without verifying it? (IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis Website: www.imra.org.il, 6/5/11).

Islamists cultivate murder and deceit. Protestations of innocence, constantly disproved, should ring hollow.

I notice that the New York Times still asserts Palestinian Arab claims as if factual and sometimes without attribution, but relays Israeli assertions with a cautious, "according to Israeli military officials."

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, August 21, 2011.

"Over 100 rockets fired at south since Thursday; 2 Israelis killed, dozens wounded; Grad rocket hits empty school in Beersheba while kids on summer break; IAF bombs targets in Gaza; Military Intelligence: Rockets smuggled into Gaza from Libya."

If anyone sees the following headline in their local paper, it's accidental. Probably the best kept secret since Coca Cola's ingredients!

This below was written by Gadi Golan, Shlomi Diaz, Daniel Siryoti and Israel Hayom Staff and it appeared in Israel Hayon


Burned car in Beersheba after rockets fall (Photo: Omer Messinger)

Southern Israel continued to absorb rocket fire from the Gaza Strip over the weekend, in the heaviest bombardment the country has seen since Operation Cast Lead in early 2009. By Sunday afternoon, over 100 rockets had been fired at Israeli communities since Thursday. More than a million Israelis within rocket range of Gaza have been warned to heed the instructions of the Homefront Command and remain alert.

Israel has retaliated for the rocket bombardment with aerial bombings in Gaza, as violence ignited by Thursday's Palestinian cross-border terrorist attacks near Eilat continues to escalate. Several Palestinians were reported wounded in an IAF raid early Sunday afternoon in Beit Lahiya in the northern Gaza Strip while attempting to launch a rocket.

Eight Israelis were killed in Thursday's attacks near Eilat, and some 40 were wounded. Two Israelis were killed in subsequent rocket attacks, and several dozen wounded. At least 15 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza in Israeli raids, including the leadership of the Popular Resistance Committees, the group behind Thursday's attacks.

At least nine rockets fired toward Ashkelon and Beersheba were intercepted by the Iron Dome air defense system, the IDF said on Sunday. The system has been deployed in southern Israel since late March, and reports on Sunday indicated the army might be receiving another battery in the coming months.

Response team investigates damage to the roof of a gym hit by a Grad. (Photo: Dudu Vaaknin)

Also Sunday, a Grad rocket hit a school gymnasium in Beersheva. No one was injured as children are on their summer break but the school was badly damaged.

IDF Spokesman Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai told Army Radio on Sunday that the army does not believe the current attacks are related to the Palestinians' upcoming bid for statehood at the U.N. in September. He added that the IDF holds Hamas responsible for the attacks. Some 100 rockets have been launched into Israel since Thursday, he confirmed.

IDF action against Hamas was not limited to Gaza on Sunday, as troops arrested over 120 Hamas operatives in the West Bank, the Israel Radio reported.

Meanwhile, Egyptian television reported Sunday that several rockets fired from Gaza landed in Egyptian territory.

"Several rockets from the Gaza Strip landed this morning in Egyptian territory in the region west of the Rafah terminal, without causing casualties," the television reported, according to AFP.

A security official confirmed that rockets had landed in Egypt, but said they could have been fired by mistake.

"It seems they were directed at Israel," the source told AFP on condition of anonymity.

A barrage of several dozens rockets hit Israel on Saturday night, leaving one person dead and several dozen wounded.

Thirty-eight-year-old Yossi Ben Shoshan was killed when a Grad rocket hit a house in Beersheba. Six others were wounded, two of them seriously.

One hour earlier, a Grad rocket hit a business establishment in the Beersheba suburb of Ofakim, wounding three. Three other rockets landed in open areas nearby. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack on Ofakim.

Earlier in the day, three Palestinians residing illegally in Israel were injured when a rocket fell on a hut they were sleeping in, located in a fruit tree orchard southeast of the city of Ashdod. Another rocket fell not far from a beach. None were injured.

Saturday morning, Beersheba resident Alex Markin was lightly wounded when a rocket fell near the city's western entrance, where he was riding his bike.

Additional rockets landed in open areas in southern Israel. One also hit an empty industrial building, igniting a fire.

A senior military source told Israel Hayom on Saturday that a Gaza-based terrorist organization known as the Popular Resistance Committees was responsible for the rocket fire on Beersheba and Ofakim, along with global jihad groups associated with al-Qaida. The source added that Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, was attempting to prevent missile fire in order to prevent continued escalation.

Palestinians survey damage in the northern Gaza Strip (Photo: Reuters)

According to a senior IDF intelligence officer, all of the long-range rockets fired into Israel on Saturday were smuggled into Gaza from Libya.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Christian Rettenmoser, August 21, 2011.

My plan is very simple and radical and it could be the game changer.

My only premise is to preserve ALL of Judea and Samaria for Israel and to secure its ancient heartland.

So Gaza is Israels trump card and it has to be given to the "Palestinians" to establish their sovereign state on its soil. Will they accept Gaza as their state? Of course not, but that does not matter at all...why? Because they will take the bait and take Gaza in the expectation, to get Judea and Samaria later on. In fact they would be unable to refuse it, when Israel would unilaterally cede its sovereignity (over Gaza) to them... It's like a game of chess, you cannot escape the game plan, no matter how great a player you are. From this point on, the whole thing would develop it's own dynamic, the new state of Palestine would be internationally recognised, it would become a member state of the UN and every country could have it's embassy there. And here we are!!! The question of Judea and Samaria would have changed from an international affair to a bilateral one, an affair between Israel and (Gaza) Palestine. It would no longer be a question of quality but of quantity ! The big international pressure would be off from Israel and the "Palestinian problem" would lose its attraction for the international propaganda, slowly but surely and Israel would be in the position to do the final step and to annex Judea and Samaria... What would the participants do?

a) The "Palestinians" would celebrate their sovereignity as a historic victory.

b) Israel would have to sidestep and isolate Mr. Abbas and recognise the new leadership of Gaza as the "Palestinian" leadership. These people may be radical and so it would be useless to conduct any talks with them...this would be the best case scenario as there would be nothing to negotiate.

c) For the most part, the international community would be angry about Israel's unilateral step. What could they do? They could NOT demand a THREE state solution as this would be ridiculous and a TWO state solution would already exist. Sooner or later they would have to recognise the new state of Palestine. Gaza would no longer be a means to squeeze Israel, but it would squeeze it's enemies.

Contact Christian Rettenmoser by email at christian.rettenmoser@web.de

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 21, 2011.

I think that the time has come to send messages of greetings and felicitations to the heads of Iran for their arresting three American "hikers" and convicting two of them over the weekend for "espionage." The convictions seem to be empirical proof that God has a sense of humor. Why? Because all three are long-time activists in the "BDS" Boycott-Israel and Cheer Palestinian Terrorism "solidarity" movements. There are numerous sources for this claim, a few attached below. The details of the arrest, from the blog of the third arrestee (Sarah Shourd, who was released on half a million dollar bail, showing that some jihadis are sitting on very large endowment funds from mommy and daddy) are here:

'On July 31, 2009, three Americans, Sarah Shourd (32), Shane Bauer (28) and Joshua Fattal (28), were detained by Iranian border guards while allegedly hiking in Iraqi Kurdistan. Iran claims the three crossed into Iranian territory, but the three Americans claim they were kidnapped from within Iraq. Sarah Shourd was released on $500,000 bail by Iran on September 14, 2010, on humanitarian grounds due to her declining health. The trial of the three hikers began on 6 February 2011; Sarah Shourd was not required by Iran to return for trial..

'In June 2010, an article in The Nation alleged that two villagers said the hikers were accosted by Iranian authorities while they were on the Iraqi side of the border. The three, anti-war, social justice and Palestinian solidarity activists, had been living and active in the Middle East, and were on holiday in Iraqi Kurdistan, an autonomous region of Iraq free from the sectarian struggle that dominates much of Iraq. They had been advised of the suitability of the region for a holiday by friends who had been there and through Internet research; and were recommended the Ahmed Awa waterfall, a popular Kurdish tourist destination, by a number of local people whilst they were in Sulaymaniyah. After visiting the waterfall, they continued walking within what they believed to be Iraqi Kurdistan, up to and including the time they were detained by Iranian border guards. According to the BBC, they were not "publicly charged" with a crime by Iran; but according to the New York Times, they have been held on espionage charges since their arrest.'

The Nation is supporting them? That sure convinces me they are guilty!

Well, all I can say is that there is lots of room in the Iran gulag for lots of other "BDS" and "International Solidarity Movement" pogromchiks. Come to think of it, why should't Israel ship its tenured radical leftists to Kurdistan to do some border hiking?

For more on our hiking pogromchiks, go to:

http://alexbkane.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/why-the-u-s- cares-little-about-the-jailed-hikers-in-iran-hint-its-about-palestine/


http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sarah-Shourd/ 136974762991964

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@gmail.com His website address is

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 21, 2011.


Underneath their bravado, Muslims crave non-believers' validation by converting to Islam. and rave against believers converting from Islam. Muslims react by violence and deceit. A prominent Muslim intellectual, Khaled Montaser, attributes his co-religionists' attitude to a kind of inferiority complex.

"Indeed, a new Arabic book, Al-Quran Yaqum Wahdu — which consists of 33 anecdotes of Western intellectuals converting to Islam after supposedly being bowled over by the truths of the Koran — lists Cousteau and Islam critic Henryk Broder as its very first two examples, despite the fact that, back in the real world, everyone knows they never converted. One is left wondering how many, if any, of the other 31 anecdotes are true."

Egyptian Muslims long have silenced and oppressed their Christians, still a sizeable minority. In recent years, Egypt has slid further into Radical Islam [despite Mubarak's reputation for opposing it]. Now its government either sides more with Islamists or appeases their domestic jihad.

This escalation amounts to a purge. Last May, a few thousand Islamists attacked Coptic Christians in the Imbaba area near Cairo. The mob used guns and Molotov cocktails against Coptic churches, houses, and businesses. They set churches and houses afire, looted, killed 12 Christians, and injured 232 others, all to the Islamic war cry, "Allahu Akbar."

The attack started at 5:30 p.m.. Despite appeals, the military did not arrive until 10 p.m.. That gave the terrorists sufficient time. [Typical government reaction, procrastinate.]

Did rioters have a cause or a pretext? They claimed that a Christian who had converted to Islam was abducted by the Coptic Church and tortured into renouncing Islam. Posing as rescuers, the rioters did not limit their efforts to seizing the girl, they attacked any Christians they could find. ]That is an assault, not a rescue.]

Egyptian Christians do not kidnap and forcibly convert Muslim females. [They wouldn't dare!] But as is well documented, "Islamists regularly kidnap and force Christian women to convert to Islam." A few days earlier, thousands of Islamists demanded the release of two wives of Christian clergymen whom the Muslims falsely claimed had converted to Islam but were forced to recant by the Coptic Church. The women publicly affirmed that had not converted. This is another case of attempted forcible conversion of Christians.

The Islamic principle is either to execute apostates or to beat women into returning to Islam.
(Raymond Ibrahim, 5/14/11, http://www.meforum.org/2902/ muslim-inferiority-complex-kills-christians)

One has to be suspicious of mobs that act on their own, and whose religious principles include deceit and violence. Ignoring the historical record and sacred Islamic writing, some Westerners ponder whether the problem stems from the religion or the culture. It helps to bear in mind that the religion emerged from Arabic culture and incorporated principles of religious intolerance and imperialism. Many Muslims are not inclined to jihad, but the jihadists are stirring them to action.


American unity and freedom may depend on the extent to which American Muslims have been radicalized and on the means for squelching their jihad.

Jihadists try to justify their violence. They cite the same religious sources as do their non-violent co-religionists, but interpret modern conditions as requiring more violence. To gain religious approval, jihadists foster a culture of martyrdom and a sudden devotion to Islamic law. Mosques facilitate their radicalization by higher levels of adherence to Islamic law, whose basic principles the various schools of Islamic thought share.

Some studies rely on self-reporting of mosque attendance. Poor measure. Self-reporting tends to exaggerate, for prestige.

The authors prompted a survey of Sharia-adherent behavior they think measureable and indicative: clothing covering women's faces, gender separation in prayer, and enforcement of straight prayer lines. Tip to law enforcement officials: look for sudden resort to beards and traditional clothing.

The survey also evaluated how extremist were the mosques' non-scriptural literature used for instruction and often written by non-Sharia scholars. Do they utilize Islam in behalf of "a violent political agenda?" Do they sanction violence in order to expand the faith? Do they exhort to kill those who do not submit? Even classical works by Islamic scholars may advocate violent jihad against non-Muslims. Some of them assert that any Muslim who drops the obligatory prayers, the fast of Ramadan, or monotheism is subject to loss of life and property.

Results of survey: 51% of the texts in the 100 U.S. mosques surveyed advocated violent jihad as a Muslim's duty and in behalf of establishing Islamic law. 30% moderately supported violence. 19% did not support violence. That's 81% in favor of violence!

Mosques whose literature advocate violence tend to follow Islamic law closely. Their imams tend to wear a traditional beard. Males dress traditionally. Attendance is higher. Female dress did not correlate to violence. The greatest correlation with jihad is with imams who recommend literature proposing violence. Such mosques more often invite speakers who advocate violence.

Such literature "...also explicitly praised acts of terror against the West; praised symbols or role models of violent jihad; promoted the use of force, terror, war, and violence to implement the Shari'a; emphasized the inferiority of non-Muslim life; promoted hatred and intolerance toward non-Muslims or notional Muslims; and endorsed inflammatory materials with anti-U.S. views." Such writings also promoted financial support of terrorism. The extremist and intermediate mosques usually advocated establishing an Islamic caliphate in the U.S.

Few of the mosques that promote violent jihad actively encourage joining a terrorist organization, raise funds explicitly for them, or tout such groups. Apparently they do not have to be explicit when the milieu leads to the same thing.

Not ascertained was what proportion of U.S. Muslims attends which type of mosque. Not clear is whether the small proportion of mosques not advocating violence could co-exist within a liberal Western country. The contemporary Salafist texts deem Muslims at war with non-Muslims or not obligated to cooperate with them.

A survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org found that most people in supposedly moderate Muslim countries, such as Morocco, Egypt, Pakistan, and Indonesia favor strict Islamic law and barring Western values. [I do not consider Pakistan and Egypt moderate.]

Are Muslims in Western countries aware of, or do they accept, Western notions of devoted citizenship? American mosques reject "the kind of tolerant religious and legal framework that would allow its followers to make a sincere affirmation of liberal citizenship." Most mosques surveyed resist social patriotic citizenship and cooperation with non-Muslims. [Think of Muslim attacks on fellow GIs.]

We are forewarned. Counterterrorists should monitor "exploitation of classic Islamic legal doctrine and jurisprudence for recruiting and generating a commitment to violence against the perceived enemies of Islam" and attitudes toward citizenship and violence. The article calls upon Muslim community leaders to educate their people against the violence (Mordechai Kedar, David Yerushalmi, summer 2011,
http://www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques). See the full article for the footnotes and detailed explanations.

What is the likelihood of enlisting Muslim community leaders against anti-Americanism?

The most important finding suggests that most Muslims here and abroad consider themselves in jihad against us. They share basic principles that are not moderate. This is like having an influx of Nazis organizing themselves for war against the U.S.,

Usually American policy does not consider a religion or ethnic group hostile as a whole. Rather, it accepts the group and enforces the law against individual transgressors. But with Islam, the study implies, most mosques promote subversion and violence. How many millions of people who mostly are violent and anti-American shall we let enter and stay?


UN Secretary-General Ki-moon declared against foreign naval attempts to break the partial Israeli blockade of Gaza, lest further violence result and peace prospects recede.

Hamas denounced Ki-moon for that. According to Hamas, the Secretary-General's exhortation renounces UN principles and violates international laws authorizing humanitarian aid through safe corridors. Further, Hamas accuses the proposal of encouraging Israeli violence, which Hamas claims Israel commits extensively (Independent Media Review and Analysis, 5/28/11, www.imra.org.il }.

That's a good one, Hamas holy warriors complaining of violence against them! Hamas cited no authority for its claims of UN violations and wrongful Israeli violence. Time after time, the Arab side attempts to base its complaints or demands upon international agreements or claims about Israel contrary to fact.

Actually, Israel does authorize shipments to Gaza, so Hamas has no legitimate basis for complaint. The permitted shipments must land in Israel, where they can be inspected for illicit arms. Hamas does smuggle in arms for the violence it inflicts on Israel. Israel does not attack Hamas except in retaliation against Hamas violence. To avoid conflict, Israel removed its people from Gaza. But the Arabs attack Israel, anyway. It's the old story: It's not what Israel does that causes violence, its what the jihadists do.

The UN mostly sides with the Arabs against Israel, but in the few instances that it doesn't, the Arabs denounce the UN.

If Secretary-Gen. Ki-moon imagines there are peace prospects, he is too imaginative. Jihadists do not make peace. They may lick their wounds, but they do not give up. They resume armed conflict when ready.

REVISING THE HISTORICAL RECORD TO SUPPORT JIHAD From the official PA daily's column on religious affairs, Is'haq Feleifel:

"The book I wrote a year ago is entitled Palestine Belongs to the Arabs and Muslims, According to the Testimony of the Sovereign of the Universe. This is a Quranic study based on the 'Night Journey' chapter, in which I proved the Arab and Muslim ownership of Palestine and reviewed Palestinian history since the period of the Canaanites, via the Edomites, Emorites, Midianites, Amalekites, Ibrahim bin Azar [the biblical Abraham] and Al-Khader [a reference to the prophet Elijah] in the Islamic sources." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, July 8, 2011 in IMRA — Independent Media Review and Analysis, www.imra.org.il).

Jihadist standards of proof are wanting, because, like their Nazi and Communist mentors, they enlist any propaganda they can regardless of veracity, and approve any foul means for what they consider their fair cause.

For example, the Night Journey chapter of the Quran, features their Prophet' dream of a visit to the "furthest mosque." The city is not named. Of two Islamic traditions speculating about which city it was in, one posits Jerusalem. The problem with that choice, convenient as it is for Islamic claims, is that Jerusalem was not conquered by Islam during Muhammad's lifetime. It had no mosque, then. He could not have visited it.

But they don't claim he visited it, only that he dreamed of having visited it. So, he didn't conquer the city, it had no mosque, and he didn't visit it, but because he dreamt of some visit somewhere, Muslims are entitled to Jerusalem and the Christians who controlled it then, and the Jews who were a large population in it before the Arabs arrived, and who traditionally revered it whereas the Muslims did not, are not entitled to it? Please explain to me where my logic is faulty and Mr. Feleifel's is fair.

The claim of "Palestinian" history is laughable. For thousands of years of Jewish control and residency in Jerusalem, starting long before the rise of Islam, when there was no Arab population there, what "Palestinian" history could Mr. Feleifel be referring to? He cites non-Arabic tribes preceding the Israelite arrival and contemporaneous with it. So what!

Nor did the Arabs in what the Romans, in a blatant attempt to erase Jewish history there, renamed Palestine, ever consider themselves a separate nationality from the other Arabs. They started calling themselves "Palestinian" in the 1960s, to make themselves seem like a separate and indigenous nationality. But the PLO Covenant admits they are of the Arab nationality. Imagine if the Albanian Muslims in Kosovo, Serbia, said they were of the Kosovo nationality, and therefore should have a separate country. Not that every nationality or tribe has or is entitled to a separate country. If they were, the UN would have a thousand members.

In the 1920s, the Muslim leadership in Jerusalem published a pamphlet acknowledging Jewish entitlement to that city. It was not the only time.

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 Ted Belman, August 20, 2011.

This statement comes to me from an Indian correspondent of mine who warns against a Palestinian state.


There is a parallel here with the PAKISTAN RESOLUTON of 23 March, 1940, passed at LAHORE (then in India, now in Pakistan).

The Muslim delegates declared themselves as the SECOND NATION within India that rejected Secularism and rejected the idea of living in a State with Hindu majority. The "bas*ards" have never any objection, though, in forcing the NON MUSLIMS to live in a Muslim majority State!

Hindu leaders did not KILL the "enemies" then and there. The result?

That Resolution lay unchallenged and its poisonous tree only grew and grew till in the end the MUSLIMS had their way when Britain agreed to PARTITION spineless secular India and give the Muslims their ISLAMIC Pakistan.

Then what happened in Pakistan?

Despite the promises of TOLERANCE towards the Non Muslims, immediately the MASSACRES started across Pakistan and the Non Muslims fled in all directions to save their lives. About TWO MILLION were KILLED and over 15 million were forced out of their homes. Thousands of girls and women were raped. It was truly the ISLAMIC practise of breaking their solemn pledges. Only a fool will trust even one word spoken by the followers of MOHAMMED of MECCA.

Israel must not sleep but immediately and categorically WARN the UNO that if they agree to a separate Palestinian State then Israel will invade that POISONOUS state and put an end to it, i.e., NIP THE ISLAMIC EVIL IN THE BUD. Please quote the example of "birth of Islamic Pakistan" that EXTERMINATED the non Muslims within weeks.

The Hindus in Pakistan have yet to see the UNO to ensure their safety in that ISLAMIC republic.

The new Palestinian State will mean the beginning of the end of ISRAEL.

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, August 20, 2011.

This was written by Charles Jacobs and appeared in the Jewish Advocate. Jacobs makes his case without even referring to how the NYT hid the truth regarding Communism and Stalin in the early part of last century and how it hid the horrors of holocaust prior to and during WWI.


It's August, and on the Cape, there's sun, sand and surf. Before downshifting to the worka day month of September, one wants mentally to coast, letting thoughts flow, unconnected — though shrinks swear that all our thoughts are somehow linked.

I've been pondering "The Help," a captivating summer film based on the book by that name, a story of a young, idealistic white woman in Mississippi of the '60s who convinces the town's black maids to tell her their stories of what it's like serving in racist white households for a book she wants to write.

A key plotline is the racist revulsion the white women have to the idea that the black maids (who hug, kiss and feed their babies) use their houses' toilets. The maids, forced to listen to whites express their disgust, are humiliated — but fear the consequences if they talk to the writer. When one servant is clubbed by police as she's arrested on suspicion of theft, all the town's maids decide to tell their life stories.

The movie works: Many in the audience applauded at the end. We felt moved, angered when witnessing blatant injustices; we rooted for the maid's courage to rise up, cheered when it did and exulted when justice was done. But upon rethinking ... "The Help" contains so many stick figures and so oversimplifies life that it verges on being a cartoon. The white ladies are caricatures, the writer's New York Jewish editor, even worse. With exceptions so minor that they really don't count, all the blacks are pure, good and innocent; and the whites, except for the intellectual writer, are racists or, at best, pitiable unthinking fools.

We know the truth's been shaved to serve the plot. We know there also exist immoral blacks and decent whites, even in the context of the larger true story about Southern racial injustice. And we also know that courage, decency and truth don't always solve human problems, though we'd love to think they did. So why do we allow a flawed movie with characters we don't fully believe to inspire and make us feel good? Because, I think, we hunger for this film's simple message, and we willingly suspend our disbelief. If done in the service of improving human conduct, a little molding of complex truths may not necessarily be a bad thing.

The fact is that humans — even brainy ones — yearn for simple explanations, and simple solutions to frightening problems. And maybe now more than ever, when not just the national debt, but much of our world seems to be spinning out of control, we hope hard that our favored tools — reason, courage, decency, truth — can heal the globe's conflicts. Indeed, before "The Help" came on the screen, the theater's previews contained no less than three "alien-horror" films with the same plotline: horrible, unknown forces are storming the planet and then some hero comes to save us in the nick of time. As the last election showed again, there's always a market for "hope."

But not all truth-altering fantasies succeed in being helpful. Last week, I saw a shocking revelation of deception by a New York Times staffer about his paper's reporting 20 years ago of the riots in the Hasidic section of Crown Heights. Ari Goldman, a Times reporter at the events, writes in The Jewish Week of New York how he was phoning in direct reports from the scene of Jews being attacked by mobs of blacks screaming "Heil Hitler" and "Death to the Jews." It was a pogrom, but the Times editors decided that was not the story they were going to tell. The paper, Goldman explains, has "frameworks" it imposes on raw facts, so that it can express "truths" it prefers. That framework, Goldman says, excluded the raw truth about anti-Semitism. The Times' formula, he explains, insists there are always competing "narratives," and each has to be given equal weight. (In "post modernism," taught in all our universities, there is no "truth" — always put in quotes. Ask your college-aged children.) While Goldman "never saw — or heard of — any violence by Jews against blacks," the Times "was dedicated to this version of events: blacks and Jews clashing amid racial tensions."

For Goldman, the most egregious example of forcing reality into the predetermined PC narrative was a Times report that treated the death of Gavin Cato, the 7-yearold boy killed in the car accident that spurred the riots, and the murder of Yankel Rosenbaum, 29, the Yeshiva student who was stabbed to death during the mayhem, as morally equivalent. This is instantly recognizable as the Times' formula for reporting the Arab/Israeli conflict: Murders and accidents are morally equivalent in a tragic "cycle of violence." Arab/Islamic Jew-hatred, if it appears at all, is a sad, but perhaps understandable consequence of a conflict over boundaries; it is never the cause of Arab violence. Why did Ari Goldman wait 20 years to tell the awful truth? He was being "loyal," he says, to the paper. He was clearly fearful of the consequences to his career, of being blacklisted by the PC czars. I'm speechless.

Two weeks ago, readers of The Advocate were given a preview of an up-and-coming Jewish "framewar" in the form of side-by-side columns by Leonard Fein and me. The news hook was the massacre in Norway committed by a psychopath who, among other things, claims to be driven by anti-jihadism. Fein used the tragedy to warn about what he wants us to think is a real and growing danger in the West of an irrational hatred of Muslims. "The swamp of Islamophobia," he calls it. His column appeared just days before what seems like a campaign launched by the Anti-Defamation League against those (of us) who work to expose efforts by well-funded Saudis and others to radicalize the historically moderate American Muslim community. Like the "framers" at the Times, Fein and the ADL will see, hear and speak of no threat to Jews and the West posed by radical Islam. They are obsessed with favoring the "other" uber alles.

And so as we fold away our beach chairs, we'll be preparing to deconstruct this post-modern truth-less "frame," coming at us all from the swamp of Jewish denial. It's been a short rest.

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 20, 2011.


8/20/11 Wall St. Journal headline: "Violence Escalates on Israeli Border."

Terrorists entered Israel from the Sinai, and murdered eight Israelis. The IDF pursued them. Gazans fired rockets into Israel. [The IDF struck some of those rocket crews in mid-action.]

In my opinion, firing rockets from Gaza is not escalation — thousands have been fired. Neither is IDF pursuit an escalation. To call it escalation is to impugn Israel for fighting back.

More accurately, the article goes on to explain that Egyptian maintains less security in the Sinai, now. Experts argue whether the Egyptian military is less in command or is less committed.

The report states that "Israel" but not Ben Caspit of Maariv was surprised by the boldness and expertise of the attackers. [Surprised? For years, Africans have been sneaking into Israel through the unguarded Sinai border. Eventually, Bedouin resistance to Egyptian rule and Israel's leaving Gaza in the hands of terrorists would bring terrorists in by the same routes. Only relatively recently, did Israel start building a border fence.] PM Netanyahu has ordered border fence construction expedited.

The Egyptian government formally complained to the IDF for killing some Egyptian troops [near the terrorists]. Egyptian PM Sharaf told reporters, "Egyptian blood is too precious to be spilt without response." A presidential candidate demanded a strong Egyptian response. Hundreds of Cairenes protested outside the Israeli embassy (Moshua Mitnick, Matt Bradley, A6).

PM Sharaf does not express regret for the loss of Israeli lives, which preceded IDF pursuit. Egypt's duty is to prevent cross-border raids from its territory. Whose fault, then, is the IDF pursuit? Apparently Israeli blood is not precious enough to warrant a strong response. That view follows from the Islamist notion that non-believers, even if not combatants, have no rights.

The Islamic (not just Islamist) view or propaganda is that non-believers' self-defense is aggression. This view encourages imperialism.

Perhaps Israel should beat Egypt to the punch by demanding a UN investigation of Israel. After all, Israeli self-defense usually is answered by a UN investigation of Israel, not of the initiating Arab aggression. The investigation is followed by a condemnation of Israel, except when it is preceded by the condemnation. The UN could save money by condemning without cover of phony investigation.

The Israeli demand should state, "How dare Israel defend itself!" Didn't the UN Goldstone report make clear that Israeli self-defense is not proper? The UN should repeat the claim that if Israel did not defend itself, there would be no escalation. As the claim has it, terrorists are nice people who would not, taking advantage of being spared retaliation, attack again. Israel should explain that the Jewish people have no national rights, and if it exercises them, it is an aggressor. Israel has no rights because much of the rest of the world doesn't like it and because the Muslim view is that Jews are racially inferior. If Israel seeks to preserve itself, it is racist. In conclusion, the demand should complain that the UN did not come out with its customary pro-terrorist finding swiftly enough.


England's Financial Times classifies economic protests as by: (1) Democratic reformers in a growing Israeli economy; and (2) Arab insurrectionists seeking to overthrow kleptocracies. In Israel, we are told, the problem is not corruption but having 24% of citizens live in poverty.

Israeli prices are indeed high. Why? A few politically connected families control monopolies, the newspaper answers.

"At the same time, it is evident that public spending on education and healthcare is low partly because the government's military budget is so high. Nothing better illustrates how a peace deal with the "Palestinians" would benefit Israeli society as a whole." (8/12/11.)

How efficiently the Financial Times crams so much misunderstanding into its five paragraphs!

Arab protestors' motives vary. The uninformed West bombs Libyan targets without identifying who leads the opposition. In Syria, a major motivation may be sectarian. Overall, several Arab states' economies are failing, making residents desperate. If oppression bothers them, why do most of them in Egypt, Jordan, and the P.A., support Islamists who oppress?

Israel hardly corrupt? How then to explain the sudden wealth of leaders such as Sharon, Barak, and Olmert? Isn't the wealth and power of "a few politically connected families" enabled by government?

Who draws the "poverty line?" Doesn't the large size and avoidance of secular education and jobs by many Jewish and Muslim Israeli families explain much of their alleged poverty? The newspaper urges more welfare benefits, which doesn't solve the problem but sets the same disincentive helping keep European unemployment high.

And what is poverty? In the U.S., the line keeps getting drawn higher and higher. The newly declared poor live in air-conditioned, VCR, mobile phone, full plumbing affluence. But liberals compare such people with rich ones, stimulating envy.

For liberals who consider business 100% the problem and government 100% the solution, it might come as a shock to find that prices of imports in Israel are inflated by very high tariffs. Prices of real estate are inflated partly because the government keeps most land off the market, including the cheaper land in Judea and Samaria.

It is evident to the Financial Times that Israel spends too little on education and medical care, but a few missing facts to back that up would not be amiss. Israel reputedly has advanced medical care.

Before throwing good money after bad, why not introduce discipline into public schools and discharge leftist professors who use their classrooms to smother intellectual diversity and to indoctrinate against Israel and pervert students' view of the economy, themselves and of the country's enemies?

Israeli military spending "too high?" Israel faces invasion, missile attack, and local insurrection. Israel's enemies want to destroy the Israeli people's way of life if not the lives of its people. Nevertheless, Israel has reduced military spending, curbed pilot training, and made other sacrifices in order to turn tax revenue over to those who don't pay much of it. A better case can be made for increasing Israeli military spending.

The most misleading liberal insinuation is that a declaration of peace with the Palestinian Arabs would free up military spending for civilian use. Or is it for misuse? In any case, peace with the Palestinian Arabs was declared. Remember the heralded Oslo Accords? The Accords did not bring peace. They enabled more war. The P.A. condition for a new peace agreement is for Israel to cede secure borders and to become a minority among Arabs indoctrinated into murderous hatred of Jews. Liberals call their poison prescription peace medicine.

Israel has been invaded by foreign Arab armies before. Therefore, even a real peace with Palestinian Arabs would not end Israel's need for a strong military. But there cannot be genuine peace. Muslim schools and mosques exhort the faithful to conquer Israel and slay the Jews. The Financial Times, which professes great interest in education, should condemn European subsidy of "education" in the P.A.. Reconsider, too, EU subsidy of NGOs that strive to subvert Israel. The money that foreign countries, including European ones, spend subsidizing Arab militaries, requires Israel to maintain large forces.

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 Arlene Kushner, August 20, 2011.

Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat)

"Rocket Barrage Continues"

Early today the Hamas military wing, Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, announced that the "lull" — the informal period of quiet — with Israel had ended.

It has not been quiet for some time now — with intermittent rocket attacks for which various "resistance" groups, but not Hamas itself, have claimed responsibility. Now a Brigades spokesman declared that any quiet is past, because of the "massacre" Israel is committing against the Palestinian people — a reference to the retaliation by Israel following the terror attack near the border with the Sinai on Thursday.

In the last 2-1/2 days, some 80 rockets and mortars have been launched from Gaza into Israel, according to the IDF spokesman.


Four rockets were launched on Beersheva this evening, with one man killed and four wounded, one gravely. One man had his leg almost severed from his body.

In Ofakim, a four-month-old baby and an eight-year-old girl were hurt.

Earlier today, 11 people were wounded as the result of rocket fire aimed at Beersheva and neighboring areas. There have been hits on houses, and in one case on a car. Kassam rockets, Grads, and mortars have been launched. At least one Grad, out of some five launched, was intercepted by the Iron Dome anti-missile system. (It seems to me that this is sorely inadequate.)

In the hours following this, who knows what will follow with regard to additional casualties. Soroka Hospital in Beersheva is on high alert, with all staff present.


As I write, the Inner Cabinet of eight is meeting along with IDF brass, to discuss how to respond to what is happening. There are reports that there will be discussion of ways to avoid a full Gaza operation. But right wing MKs are saying it's time to hit Hamas hard — aiming for Hamas political leadership. Minister of Security Affairs Moshe Ya'alon has made a statement indicating that we must be prepared for the worst. Certainly to date Prime Minister Netanyahu has been talking from a position of strength with regard to hitting those who presume to take aim at Israelis.

The Hamas political leadership, meanwhile, is not issuing the same belligerent message as the military wing of Hamas. My understanding is that they, recognizing the repercussions to be faced if they don't, hope to cool matters. And so my guess is that what transpires next depends in some good part on who prevails.


I would say that this is incredible, but in fact today nothing is:

According to an Arutz Sheva report, the UN Security Council will not be condemning the attacks on Thursday by terrorists coming out of the Sinai as "terrorism":

"Lebanon's representative to the U.N. Security Council said it would endorse a condemnation of the attacks only if the council were to condemn Israel as well, for killing the terrorists who planned the massacre.

"Lebanon refused to call the attacks 'terrorism,' arguing that the attacks were not legally terrorism because one of the buses the attackers fired on had been carrying soldiers. The attackers also fired on several civilian vehicles, and made sure to shoot innocent victims at close range to ensure they died.

"Israel's ambassador to the United Nations, Ron Prosor, expressed outrage. 'It is outrageous that the Security Council did not clearly condemn the deliberate and appalling murder of many innocent Israeli civilians, which occurred yesterday in a series of coordinated terrorist attacks,' he said.

"'The U.N. Secretary General condemned it, the Americans condemned it, the European Union condemned it, yet the bottom line is that the Security Council again failed as a body,' Prosor accused. 'Every time an issue pertains to Israel, we see deafening silence. They become blind and deaf.

"'It is no coincidence that Lebanon — the only member of the Council that obstructed this statement — is itself dominated by a terrorist organization.'"


Backtracking for a brief moment: After I wrote yesterday, I had contact with someone who has direct knowledge of the Counter-Terrorism YAMAM operations. It is not routine, he said, for them to be deployed in anticipation of an attack, as was the case on Thursday. This was an indication of the great seriousness with which the impending attack was handled. He confirmed what I had read — that they were operating on intelligence that what was planned was a kidnapping.

It is still believed that an abduction was intended, but was thwarted — with courage and determination.


I wrote yesterday about the YAMAM commander, Paskal Avrahami, who had been hit late in the day, after I reported on the terrorist attack. The attack had been thought over — some terrorists had been shot and others had escaped back over the border into the Sinai. Military leadership was in consultation on this situation, when shots came from across the border, killing him.

A gun fight across the border then ensued, in which Egyptian security officers were either wounded or killed (I have now seen conflicting reports). A full IDF investigation of the matter is now under way, and I believe there has been an apology offered by Defense Minister Barak. The terrorists, it seems, wore Egyptian uniforms and deliberately operated near an Egyptian security base. Even so, it is felt that Egyptian officers were not shot at directly by the IDF. Either they got caught in the line of fire during the exchange, or the terrorists shot at them.


A reader of mine (who will recognize herself) asked what I saw as a very good question on Friday: Why were civilians allowed on the road to Eilat if there was warning of an impending attack? I ultimately answered her that I believe it was because an abduction of soldiers was anticipated, and not what transpired.

Now I read that the IDF today admitted that the decision not to close the road was a mistake. That decision, made by Southern Command Chief Major-General Tal Russo, had taken into consideration a number of factors and was not made lightly. However...


Additionally postings will follow on Sunday as there is news — and as I am able to write, with three little boys, ages 4-8, visiting with Savta.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 20, 2011.

1. Would it not be nice if people simply said what they mean? All those tent protesters whining about "piggish capitalism" and yearning for "Scandinavian socialism" when what they really want is free handouts, rent controls with the housing in consequential shortage being granted to them, and a comfortable standard of living without having to work too hard. And then, when Israeli leftists denounce the "occupation," insist that the "occupation" is the root of all evil, demand an end to the "occupation," what do they REALLY mean?

What they all really mean when they demand an end to the "occupation" is the duplication of Gaza to the West Bank.

Once they end the "occupation," events like those near Eilat last week will be daily events in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

2. You might have seen that famous movie "The Terminal" with Tom Hanks, where the character played by Hanks gets stuck in an airport in limbo for a long period, living there, because of bureaucratic idiocy. Well, that ain't nothing compared to what Israel's pointy-headed bureaucrats are capable of doing!

I thought that the following story is probably the best illustration of what is REALLY wrong with Israeli economic policy.

As you know, there are a handful of Jews still in Yemen, and every once in a while a few manage to get out quietly. Well, according to the weekly "Shvi'i" this week, a religious magazine, one such Yemenite Jew named Yosef Hamadi managed to make it all the way to Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv from Yemen. The problem was that the local Israeli customs officials wanted to refuse to allow him in. Why? Because Hamadi had brought with him a Torah Scroll from Yemen, and there are high tariffs or import taxes on Torah scrolls brought into Israel, probably to protect the wages of the local Sofrim. There are also high import taxes on food, designed to make it expensive for Israelis to eat, and on some construction materials, making it expensive to build housing.

In fact, the new arrival from Yemen almost played Tom Hanks. He was ordered to pay 7200 NIS in customs taxes to bring the scroll in with him. Otherwise the scroll would be blocked from entering, as would be he, unless he left it behind. Israel, you see, still has a mercantilist 18th century set of policies from before the British Corn Laws governing imports. These contribute to the high cost of living and the perpetuation of monopolies and cartels inside of Israel and even to the gross distortion of the exchange value of the shekel.

Eventually Gilad Mizrachi, the Deputy Minister of the Environment in Israel, personally paid the import tax so that the Torah scroll and its owner could enter Israel.

3. Remember when the slogan that summed up the American elections and the collapse of the Republican Party at the end of the Bush administration was, "It's the economy, stupid."

Well, I wish I could take credit for this quip, but I think the best comment so far on the Woodstock on the Yarkon tent protests in Tel Aviv is in the column by Uri Elitzur in Makor Rishon this weekend. He describes how he would sum up the tentster protests if he were writing a memo to Manuel Trachtenberg, the head of the committee on "social change" appointed by Netanyahu to try to buy off the tentsters. Trachtenberg is a professor of economics, with specialization in the economics of technology. Elitzur sums up the tent protests with the quip, "It's the stupid people, economist!"

4. There is one other item in this weekend's Makor Rishon which I wish I had written. Actually it is written by Rabbi Haim Navon. He is mocking the tentster protesters and their demands. He suggests that in the next round of protests they issue a series of demands related to the hot summers in Israel. According to Navon, these should include:

1. A law that limits how hot it can get in Israel in August.

2. In order to make productive use of solar energy Israel needs to destroy all settlements in the West Bank at once and replace them with large solar panels.

3. Israel will officially cut July and August down to 15 days each and insert a new month in between them — the month of chill and solidarity.

4. All factories in the Israeli periphery that emit pollution will be converted into igloo manufacturers.

5. Tens of thousands of igloos will be distributed for free to Israelis living in hardship, especially to Negev Bedouin squatters living illegally on lands that do not belong to them.

6. Since greenhouse gases are causing global warming, all Israeli power plants will be shut down in August, making it a cooler month.

7. Being realists, the protesters understand that Israel would still need a source of power and so they are proposing that it be generated by conscripting tens of thousands of unemployed Israelis and assigning them to peddling stationary bike exercise machines attached to a generator to generate electricity, while earning high wages

8. Every Israeli citizen will receive an organic air conditioner unit that generates its own energy with compost and love.

9. The government will be asked to provide subsidized air tickets for young Israelis wishing to go to cooler countries in August.

10. And the most important way to make August cooler is to get rid of Bibi and his government.

Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist, a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic community. Write him at splaut@gmail.com His website address is
To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, August 19, 2011.

This isn't just another terrorist attack — it's a major escalation, a new phase in the Arab-Israeli conflict in two ways. First, it is the bitter fruit of the U.S-backed downfall of the government of President Husni Mubarak in Egypt, opening the Egypt-Israel border as a new front in the war. Second, it is probably the first successful al-Qaida attack on Israel. (The Palestinian Popular Committees, a Gaza-based al-Qaida affiliate is the prime suspect.)

A group of up to 20 terrorists from the Gaza Strip travelled through Egypt using vehicles, then went through the Egyptian border area without any apparent difficulty. Approaching the Egypt-Israel border they fired at a regularly scheduled public bus and cars on highway 12 — a road between Beersheva and Eilat, then entered Israeli territory. Their armaments included mortars and an RPG, as well as handguns. Soldiers engaged the terrorists in a firefight. Several soldiers were wounded; seven terrorists were killed.

According to several eyewitnesses, the attackers were wearing Egyptian army uniforms, a detail which if true is going to be a major issue. Stolen or sold or provided by low-level sympathizers in the Egyptian army? And the site of the attack was near an Egyptian army outpost which — so far as we know now — didn't do anything about it. One eyewitness said a terrorist was firing from an Egyptian army position. Again, these details will have to be checked by an investigation.

An explosive device, like the ones used in Iraq, was laid to ambush arriving Israeli troops. This is a very sophisticated and complex operation. Seven Israelis were killed: four people in one family whose car was attacked — including two children, aged four and six — and three soldiers riding on a public bus. At least 30 were wounded. For more than 30 years the Egyptian government ensured peace along the desolate border between the two countries. In the post-Mubarak phase — as I warned back in February — the successor regime is not so committed to the Egypt-Israel peace.

What I pointed out then still applies:

"There are many steps the Egyptian government could take [regarding Israel]: letting weapons flow and terrorists walk across the Egypt-Gaza border; not trying too hard to stop terrorists from crossing the Egypt-Israel border; not providing proper protection to Israeli citizens travelling in Egypt or to the Israeli embassy; recalling Egyptian diplomats from Israel; stepping up hostile and official anti-Israel incitement; and so on....

"Another problem is border security. Again, we are told that it is in the interest of Egypt, especially the army, to avoid having terrorists cross the border into Israel. Yet similar logic has often proven mistaken in previous, similar cases. With junior officers and soldiers sympathizing with Islamism or radical nationalism, the orders of the generals back in Cairo might not be followed with a high degree of discipline. There are already reports of al-Qaida planning to infiltrate into the Sinai to launch cross-border attacks."

Military discipline has slackened and terrorist groups are increasingly operating in the Sinai Peninsula. The natural gas pipeline to Israel is bombed every time it is put back into operation. A current Egyptian operation is intended to clear out terrorists affiliated with al-Qaida, from north Sinai.

The initial phase was marked by virtually free smuggling of arms, weapons, and money into the Gaza Strip for the Hamas regime there. The Mubarak government, though its efforts were imperfect, had kept the flow of munitions limited, making it harder for Hamas to renew full-scale warfare against Israel. Now, a new conflict could break out any time as Hamas is better-armed and more confident. The old Egyptian government looked at Hamas as a threat; the forthcoming Egyptian government will look at Hamas as an ally.

But while the media will no doubt attribute this attack to al-Qaida groups — and that might be accurate — this is far from the only problem. Hamas would no doubt cooperate with cross-border attacks on Israel from Egypt, as would the powerful Muslim Brotherhood which might well provide 30 to 40 percent of the members in the next parliament.

One should also remember the old strategy of the PLO in the late 1960s and in the 1970s: create waves of attacks on Israel's borders, provoking Israeli retaliation and mass enthusiasm for war with Israel; then push Arab states into the war for what is hoped to be a full-scale showdown.

Have no doubt: This is not just an isolated incident but the opening of a new phase. It will get worse. At a minimum, Israel will have to devote a lot more of its limited resources to guarding the Egypt-Israel border. An important question is how decisively will the Egyptian military react and how supportive of the attack will be Egyptian public opinion.

Given U.S. policy, nothing can be expected from Washington except words of dismay. The Egyptian regime will assure everyone that it is committed to the peace treaty and will take strong action. But what will happen when the military hands over power to a parliament with an Islamist/far-left majority in a few months? Anyone want to hand over Israel's West Bank border to sovereign Palestinian control?

Speaking of which, both Hamas and Fatah sites feature rejoicing at the killing of Israelis. Nobody is critical of the attacks. One Fatah site has such remarks as: "Our Lord is with the heroes"; "[I] call for resistance in the Gaza with rocket fire and suicide bombings and the Glory of God and His Messenger"; "Tribute to the Heroes of each attack and no matter what their affiliation"; "God is great and victory is coming."

This attack may indeed be only the opening round. Massive Palestinian demonstrations are planned for September either to demand, celebrate, or mourn the UN's response to a unilateral declaration of independence. The Palestinian Authority leadership says it wants the marches to be peaceful. But in this atmosphere that's hard to imagine.

Meanwhile, despite assurances from the interim Egyptian government, once a radical majority directs foreign policy after the coming elections — combining leftists, extreme nationalists, and Islamists who are all anti-American and militant toward Israel — Hamas will gain confidence that Egypt is behind the armed struggle.

The better-case scenario is that Egypt restricts itself to letting arms, money, and volunteers cross into Gaza. The medium-case scenario is if Egypt's government doesn't do a very good job of stopping cross-border attacks and other provocations by the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist groups in Egypt. The worst-case scenario is if Egypt actively joins Hamas.

If you read in the mass media that Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood are good guys fighting against the "Salafist" terrorists from al-Qaeda, I give you permission to snort derisively and cancel your subscriptions.

Oh, and here's my favorite media coverage example from the Daily Beast, part of Newsweek:

"Israel has stuck back after a series of attacks that left at least seven dead and 25 injured. Do you support Israel's right to retaliate — or does that simply lead to more instability in the region?"

What do you say? Right, terrorists have the right to attack Israel and murder people but Israel has no right to retaliate because that causes more instability? Well, yes, I'm sure a lot of "highly educated" people think that way.

The only defenses to the increasingly worse scenarios are: the Egyptian military's hope to continue receiving U.S. aid; the army's fear that it would lose a war; a demagogic but pragmatic president in the person of Amr Mousa; and centrist forces that want to pursue economic development and higher living standards rather than foreign adventures. Israel will now have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars — that otherwise could have gone for new housing — to build a border fence along a border of roughly 125 miles (the current fence is only 20 percent completed).

There is something to that combination of factors but it is not quite enough to make one feel things will remain calm. For example, the two best-known "reformist" leaders — Ayman Nour and Muhammad ElBaradei, who are both running for president — have called for revising the treaty in Egypt's favor. Some officers have radical nationalist and Islamist sympathies. And pragmatism is often trumped by demagoguery and foreign adventures in the Arabic-speaking world. Indeed, with Egypt headed for a major economic crisis within the next two years, such trends seem almost inevitable.

Here is some background material on events in Egypt and Sinai:

http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/08/11/ terrorism-returns-to-egypt-will-sanity-about-islamism- arrive-in-the-west/

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/03/ small-weapons-laden-ship-for-gaza-marks.html

http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/02/ egypts-revolution-more-they-reassure-us.html

http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/07/25/nato-allies- egyptian-democracy-become-main-weapons-suppliers-for-hamas/

ALSO READ: It Walks Like War, Looks Like War, Sounds Like War
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/08/18/ it-walks-like-war-looks-like-war-sounds-like-war/

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

This article is archived at
http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/2011/08/18/news-flash new-phase-in-war-as-terrorists-cross-egypt-israel-border-many-dead/

To Go To Top

Posted by HandsFiasco, August 19, 2011.

This is from YNET:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 0,7340,L-4111057,00.html
Yoav Zitun contributed to this report


'I watched my brother die, helpless'

Danny Gez tells of terrible loss of two couples traveling to Eilat, who died in at hands of terrorists:

Just 50 meters separated between Danny Gez and his brother, Moshe, when the latter was killed by terrorists together with his wife and another couple. Helpless, he was forced to watch his brother being shot dead.

"What happened was the result of a police and military failure," said Danny, who barely escaped with his own life intact.

Sisters Flora Gez and Shula Karlinsky and their husbands, Moshe Gez and Dov Karlinsky, were on their way to Eilat for the weekend when they were killed by the cell which terrorized the area on Thursday.

Nine people were killed and dozens of people were injured in multiple terror attacks which saw two buses, two private vehicles and IDF forces patrolling the Israel-Egypt border, attacked.

The friends chose to travel to the southern resort city on Highway 12, instead of the on the more popular HaArava Highway. Several dozens of kilometers north of Eilat, where Highway 12 runs the closest to the Egyptian border, they were ambushed by terrorists. The ensuing hail of bullets left no survivors in the Karlinsky and Gez car. "I saw the terrorists come up to the driver's side, Dovik's side (i.e: Dov Karlinsky), and shoot him, and afterwards shoot the rest," Danny recounted in an interview with Ynet.

"The murder took place before my eyes and I couldn't do anything. They shot them from zero range and even confirmed their deaths."

Gez also narrowly escaped being shot. He recounted seeing two people dressed in camouflage standing on the road, and ordered the driver of his vehicle to stop, and reverse.

Seeing their victims flee, the terrorists fired at the car, hitting its front as well as its tires. "I called out to the other passengers,

'We're being shot at, lie down'," Gez said. He and the other passengers were saved.

'Devoted educators'

Devastated family and friends told Ynet that the two sisters were close friends and that both were educators held in high esteem by their colleagues, parents and young students.

"They were devoted educators. This is a horrific loss," one of Flora's colleagues told Ynet.

Both couples lived in Kfar Saba, where they will be laid to rest on Sunday.

'I survived by playing dead'

The four's car was the second to be ambushed on Thursday.

Shortly beforehand, the terrorists ambushed another car: Esther and Joseph Levy were on their way back from Eilat to Holon on Thursday, heading north on the Mitzpe Ramon Highway, when they were caught in the fray.

They were ambushed by a terrorist who rained bullets on their vehicle, causing it to skid to a halt and flip over.

Joseph was killed and Esther suffered a gunshot wound to the chest. Lucky, she was able to stay conscious.

"It's a miracle she survived," her cousin, Raffi Mauda, told Ynet. "She told us that she saw the terrorist and prayed he wouldn't confirm the kill. She essentially played dead for 90 minutes. She was then able to call us and tell us what happened."

From her hospital bed, Esther relived the horrific moments which followed the attack: "The radio was still on after the car flipped over... I heard the one o'clock news, about the other incidents. I just kept praying that he stops shooting at us. The radio was playing and I could hear the fire exchange between the terrorists and IDF soldiers. "I didn't move. I was so scared that he would shoot at us again. There was blood everywhere and I heard my husband wheezing. I could see his shirt, it was blood-soaked."

Joseph Levy was a veteran employee of Elbit Systems. "He was such a good man. The salt of the earth. This is a tremendous loss," Mauda said.

Levy is survived by his wife and three children. His funeral will be held in Holon on Friday afternoon.

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, August 19, 2011.

This was written by Dr.Denis MacEoin, and addresses The Committee of the Edinburgh University Student Association


TO: The Committee
Edinburgh University Student Association

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

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

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

it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.

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

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

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

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

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

It's up to you to find out more.

Yours sincerely,
Denis MacEoin

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il. Visit his website at www.truthprovider.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 19, 2011.

I have learned that the Shin Bet had picked up information days ago about an attack initiated from the Sinai that was being planned by the Popular Resistance Committees. Thus, troops — from the Counter-Terrorism YAMAM Unit and the elite Golani Brigade — had already been deployed along the Israel-Sinai border.

The expectation had been that PRC was planning abduction of one or more Israelis, possibly soldiers, in a stealth operation under cover of night. What happened, then, according to reports, diverged from what had been anticipated not only in terms of time of day, but also locale, as the terrorists entered Israel at a point not far from an Egyptian military installation.

The prior intelligence explains how Barak was able to announce so quickly that the source of the attack was Gaza, and why the air strike aimed first for the PRC headquarters.

Without question, the toll of dead and wounded would have been far worse, had the military not already had a presence on the scene. They were able to engage the terrorists almost immediately.


But there are anguished questions that linger in the air with regard to whether the Israeli response was sufficient. Should there have been a far larger deployment along that border, with, perhaps, constant air surveillance?

Brig.-Gen. (res.) Amatzia Chen, a former commander of commando units, says, in an article running in Arutz Sheva:

"In the sixties we were able to seal the western border with Egypt such that even a mouse would have thought twice before going too far; it is hard to believe what is happening today."
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/146962


Are there other actions that should have been taken? The major charge in this regard, and the most serious, involves failure to be pro-active rather than re-active.

General Chen, cited above, says:

"Unfortunately, according to the Oslo framework, once the late Rabin signed the agreements they served as a pretext for the IDF's senior command to act as if it was a peaceful time, and that has failed time after time. That's why what happened in Eilat does not surprise me.

"Instead of responding after the attack, the military system had to act beforehand, against the intentions to attack..."

While Caroline Glick, in her column today, says:
"Israeli military preparedness follows a depressing pattern. The IDF does not change its assessments of the strategic environment until Israeli blood runs in the streets."
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/08/ blood-in-the-streets.php


So what are we talking about here?

If the IDF had intelligence that the PRC was planning a terrorist act, and knew where the PRC headquarters was located, why wasn't it hit before the act took place?

Ideally, that perhaps should have happened — it's something that many fervently wish would have happened.

And yet, the larger context may have mitigated against this in the minds of Israeli decision-makers. Putting aside issues of compromising valuable sources of intelligence, we are looking at a very involved diplomatic environment. With the UN vote on a Palestinian state pending and the Israeli government expending major effort on lobbying for support within the international community, I can imagine unease about appearing to be an aggressor — which is how we would have been painted.

I am not claiming that these should necessarily have been the determining factors in a decision. But I will say it is complex enough so that seconding guessing this is not simple.

Of course, we're being painted as aggressors anyway — see below — as we respond to the terror attack, but the world knows it's a response. Is the difference substantial enough to matter?


A more clear cut opportunity to act, it has longed seemed to me, is with regard to the retaking of the Philadelphi Corridor, the border area between Gaza and the Sinai where the weapons smuggling tunnels are located. Such an action would be clearly and demonstrably defensive in nature.

On Israel radio today, former chief of the Southern Command Zvi Fogel called for just this.


But then there is another issue involving the Sinai, and the fact that it's a terrorist playground today that is not adequately controlled by the Egyptian military.

General (res.) Uzi Dayan, who headed the Israeli National Security between 2003 and 2005, is a man for whom I have considerable respect. In another article up on Arutz Sheva he discusses this issue: "... from a military perspective we need to prepare for a new reality [in Southern Israel]."

The peace treaty with Egypt does not permit Israeli troops in the Sinai. But Israel, which is eager to preserve that peace treaty, must also maintain its fundamental right to protect its citizens.

"We do not want to heat up the region but we also do not want this border to become a terror border. Therefore it is important to react and go after terrorists. We must ask the Egyptians to have the possibility of intervening militarily in the Sinai if it is required.

Glick addresses this issue as well.

Elsewhere, Chief of Staff Benny Gantz has explained that there has been a reluctance to build up forces in the south out of concern that it would unsettle the Egyptians at a time when they may be vacillating with regard to the peace treaty.

Come on! If we need to reinforce our southern forces? (Shouldn't they have been reinforced before yesterday's attack?) The Egyptians — if they're not on the side of the jidhadists — know perfectly well what we're dealing with. And if it turns out that they are on the side of the jihadists, we darn well better have reinforced the Southern Command.

See a YNet op-ed on this issue here:


Yesterday I reported that there were seven Israeli dead, including one IDF soldier. This was Moshe Naftali, 22, of Ofra, in Judea. A member of the Golani Brigade, he was rushing to help people in the bus that had been fired upon when he was killed.

He was buried today in the Har Herzl Military Cemetery in Jerusalem.


Also buried today on Har Herzl was Paskal Avrahami, a senior member of the YAMAM Counter-Terrorism Unit and a legendary sharpshooter, who was hit after I had reported yesterday. A brave and dedicated veteran fighter who trained many others, he was deeply mourned by his unit.

His commander eulogized him thus:

"We're standing here, unable to fathom the loss of YAMAM's number one officer... You did not hesitate yesterday, didn't falter for one moment and your heroic actions saved many lives.

"You were the pillar of fire showing us the way. We promise to carry on with your work."

He leaves a wife and three children.


At least 12 Kassam rockets and Grad katyusha rockets were launched into Israel over the night. Grads were aimed at Beersheva and Ashdod; some were stopped by the Iron Dome system. Ten people were injured, two seriously, when a Grad hit a yeshiva in Ashdod. In one instance a rocket hit a synagogue but failed to explode.

During the night Israel continued to act in Gaza in response to this. There were seven sites targeted with direct hits confirmed — against weapons manufacturing sites in the north, smuggling tunnels in the south, and more.


Meanwhile Nabil Sha'ath, a senior PA (PA, not Hamas) official said that what Israel is doing constitutes "war crimes."

"The Israeli insanity will not hold back the Palestinian leadership from going to the UN; on the contrary it will give us a stronger motivation to continue our move," he told the PA news agency WAFA.

Such criticism as was leveled against the original terror attack was based not on a moral perspective. Rather, it was said that it "gives Israel an excuse to attack," and thus is counterproductive. This is the standard Palestinian Arab stance.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, August 19, 2011.

Silence. The West and Europe easily accept massacres of Jews and the unending waves of Kassam rockets, because Israel's sins have to be washed away by Jewish blood


A Jewish soldier from the Samarian community of Ofra.

A legendary Jewish sniper born in France and living in the Jerusalem's "settlement" of Pisgat Zeev.

Two Jewish sisters killed with their husbands.

A woman who survived by feigning death while the husband has been slaughtered. Buses under mortar attacks and sniper fire.

A yeshiva under rockets in Ashdod.

People sheltering in Ashkelon.

It happened just few days after the international community and the White House protested the construction of some new Jewish houses in Jerusalem and Ariel.

The terrorists, who shot at the bodies from close range to be sure that they had been killed, remembered then that the conflict is about Israel's existence, not its size.

The world will remain silent in the face of this newest killing spree of Jews.

The "civilized" people should have feel shame for leaving the Israelis alone during the Second Intifada. But the demonic strategy of silence worked very well. It's as if the Jewish victims never existed.

My fellow journalists were trained in the universities and editorial offices of the 1970s and 1980s, where they were taught that Israel is the new colonialist white man's burden. The Associated Press, Time, the BBC, the New York Times and others had artificially created the Israeli army "war crimes" in Lebanon and Gaza.

The West and Europe easily accepted the daily massacres of Jews and the unending waves of Kassam rockets, because Israel's sins had to be washed away by Jewish blood.

Scores of young people and children, women and elderly, incinerated on buses, cafés, pizzerias, and shopping centers turned into slaughterhouses; mothers and daughters killed in front of ice-cream shops; entire families exterminated in their own beds; infants executed with a blow to the base of the skull; teens tortured and their blood smeared on the walls of a cave; fruit markets blown to pieces; nightclubs annihilated along with hundreds of students; seminarians murdered during their Biblical studies; husbands and wives killed in front of their children; brothers and sisters, grandparents and grandchildren murdered together; children murdered in their mothers' arms.

The old Nazi slogan, "The Jews are our misfortune", amplified once again, in slightly modified form.

When the Europeans cited Israel as "the greatest threat to world peace," they meant: "The Jewish state is our misfortune". That's why they so easily accepted the idea that Israeli youngsters and Holocaust survivors have been killed.

Yehuda Shoham was just five months old when he was struck in the head by a rock while his parents were driving home to the Israeli town of Shiloh.

On the bustling Jerusalem street of Ben Yehuda, where the Israeli Left likes to talk about "peace", many Jewish youngsters were killed at the beginning of the Intifada.

Danielle Shefi, five years old, was killed near Hebron while she was playing in her parents' bedroom.

Avia Malka was nine months old when she was killed by a grenade in the coastal city of Netanya.

Ethiopian children were killed by rockets in Sderot, labeled as "the most bombed city in the world".

In Taba, al-Qaeda destroyed an entire Jewish family, the Nivs, because the Israelis had rendered the Arab city "impure" by their presence.

And always the same response by the West: silence. The Israelis are now the only Western population forced to live with their eyes turned to heaven.

The Eilat attacks are a reminder to all of us that in the eyes of Islamists and terrorists, Western appeasers and visceral anti-Semites, Israel itself is just one big settlement to be uprooted.

"If this is a man" was the title of Primo Levi's masterpiece on the Holocaust. Today it should be retitled: "If this is a Jew".

Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Martin Sherman, August 19, 2011.

Israel must credibly convey that support for unilateral Palestinian statehood will not be a cost-free decision for whoever acts to effect it — or fails to act to foil it.


"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." — Albert Einstein

As September 20 — and the Palestinian unilateral initiative (UDI) for UN endorsement of a state within the 1949 armistice lines — approaches, Israeli policymakers would do well to adopt this perceptive dictum as a conceptual compass and an operational guideline in formulating effective responses to the looming diplomatic offensive.

The urgent imperative

The "Palestinian Problem" was created — or at least elevated to its present prominence — by Israel's recognition of the Palestinians as a legitimate national entity. It can only be resolved — or at least reduced to future insignificance — by retracting that recognition.

This must be done by sustained assault on the Palestinian narrative, its factual authenticity, moral validity and political legitimacy, and aim at undermining the material, intellectual and emotional underpinnings of the Palestinian case for statehood.

Of course, this is easier said than done. However, this difficulty negates neither the necessity nor the urgency.

Indeed, the longer action is delayed, the more difficult it will become.

Defiance, not compliance

Indeed, it seems that in the corridors of power in Jerusalem, the lessons of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's recent visit to Washington have not been well-construed.

No one present in the US capital last May, when he confronted President Barack Obama and mesmerized the American political establishment with his rhetorical brilliance, could fail to feel the waves of admiration, identification and support he generated.

The unequivocal message this response conveyed was: Defiance is far more efficacious than compliance.

Assertive self-respect resonates far better than fawning self-effacement.

Resolve trumps retreat

It was a message further underscored by the recent flotilla fiasco, which — in the face of Israeli firmness — evaporated like the morning mists. (Wednesday's rejection of US demands to apologize to Turkey is, hopefully, a well-overdue sign of a new understanding of this.) This, then, is the spirit in which Israel must approach the UN vote. It must bring home that the decision to recognize unilateral independence will not be cost-free; it is liable to entail significant penalties for those who endorse it — or refuse to thwart it.

Inflicting costs

The first, most immediate measure is to make it clear to the Palestinians — and to their UDI supporters — that if it is independence they demand, then independent they will have to be.

Accordingly Israel must convey in unequivocal terms that unless the Palestinians abandon their UDI effort, it will cease to provide every service and all merchandise that it provides them today. In other words, no water, no electricity, no fuel, no postal services, no communications, no port facilities, no tax collection or remittances will be supplied by Israel.

Indeed, what possible claim could be invoked to coerce one sovereign entity to provide for another allegedly sovereign entity — and an overtly adversarial one at that? After all, when Israel declared its independence, no Arab country rushed to help it develop and evolve.

Quite the opposite: The Arab world imposed embargoes and boycotts on it — and on anyone with the temerity to conduct commerce with it.

This message need not be delivered in a provocative, confrontational public statement, but through confidential diplomatic channels to all concerned parties.

Discretion notwithstanding, there should be no doubt as to Israel's resolve to implement its stated intent — or as to the repercussions of thereof: The Palestinians will have to find alternative sources for their utility requirements and day-to-day needs.

It must be underscored that this burden will fall to those nations that endorsed the unilateral measure — should they care to shoulder such an onerous and expensive responsibility. It may be surprising how rapidly international appetite for UDI wanes if its sponsors realize that they will have to bear the financial consequences of its creation.

Ending the charade

If credibly conveyed, this declaration will compel the Palestinians either to forgo their UDI initiative with massive loss of face, or to launch a huge and humiliating appeal for urgent international assistance, exposing their total dependence on the very body from which they seek independence.

Either way, it will demonstrate the futility of the endeavor for Palestinian statehood, which almost two decades after the Oslo accords and massive investment has not produced anything but an untenable, divided entity crippled by corruption and cronyism, with a dysfunctional polity, an illegitimate president, an unelected prime minister, and a fragile economy that, with its minuscule private sector and bloated public one, is unsustainable without massive foreign infusions of funds and the largesse of its alleged "oppressor."

However, to generate the necessary credibility, the Israeli government must halt its complicity in perpetuating the farce that led to the current predicament.

Instead of trying to cajole an unrepresentative Palestinian leadership — with promises of ever-increasing pliancy — to re-engage in futile negotiations, it must declare that all previous offers are off the table, all previous agreements null and void.

It must announce that since agreement on a "twostate solution" has proved unattainable, Israel will seek alternatives — now unavoidably unilateral — to ensure its security and survival as the democratic nation-state of the Jewish people.

Containing the consequences

Yes, there will be diplomatic consequences from such radical departure from established diplomatic convention — but none as grave as those of continuing capitulation.

In this regard, Israel must refrain from concessionary gestures that might afford the Obama administration any political gain or foreign policy victories. Indeed, it must distance itself from it as far as the niceties of diplomatic protocol permit — leaving it to stew in juices of its economic woes and flounder in the moronic morass of misconceived actions and misguided inaction that masquerades as its "policy" in the Mideast.

Instead, energies should be channeled into generating as much domestic pressure on the White House as possible to convey that a failure to veto the Palestinian UDI move will entail dire domestic political ramifications — and a windfall for Obama's rivals.

After all, the White House will not order a Security Council veto because it is the morally right thing to do, but because it is the politically expedient thing to do. It should remember that the present acrimony is "small potatoes" compared to that which prevailed during the 1975 US "reassessment" of ties with Israel, when Gerald Ford brusquely suspended all aid and new arms deliveries to the Jewish state.

This policy was reversed not because of moralistic second thoughts on the part of the administration; as Ambassador to the US Michael Oren has observed, it was only when "confronted with opposition from both houses of Congress [that] Ford rescinded his 'reassessment.'" Israel — and Netanyahu — have demonstrated considerable clout in Congress. With the 2012 elections looming, this must be utilized to the utmost to make withholding a veto of the UDI bid too daunting to contemplate.

Moreover, today Israel has an additional card to play: the Evangelical Christians, who by some estimates total close to a quarter of the US electorate, and sizable minorities in other countries across the globe. They comprise a political asset of huge and hitherto sorely under-utilized strategic potential.

The plight of Christians under Islam today, and the massive erosion of Christian presence in Christ's birthplace, Bethlehem — under the Palestinian regime — make any policy to deliver control of Jerusalem's holy sites to Muslim rule, as is implicit in the UDI initiative, a cause for alarm not only for Jews. It is also a prospect of the utmost gravity for hundreds of millions of Christians worldwide, many of whom are among Israel's most fervent supporters and are searching vainly for some sign of direction from Israel of how to express that support.

The time has come to mobilize this asset and translate the potential into practical political influence.

In the US, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to win elected office against the united will of this community.

To date, such unity of will has been lacking. But what could be a better banner around which to rally such unity of will than the unity of the holy city? What more effective vehicle though which to bring political pressure to bear?

Come September

Israel is far from helpless in facing the Palestinian UN initiative. Much can be done to defuse it. True, it requires political will, moral resolve and the appropriate "anatomical appendages" on the part of Israel's leadership.

So the only question is, will it rise to the occasion...or be found wanting?

Martin Sherman is the academic director of the Jerusalem Summit. He lectures at Tel Aviv University, served in Israel's defense establishment and was a ministerial adviser to the Yitzhak Shamir government.

This appeared in the Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/ Article.aspx?id=234392

To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matters, August 19, 2011.
This was written by Tashbih Sayyed, the Editor in Chief of Pakistan Today and The Muslim World Today, President of Council for Democracy and Tolerance, an adjunct fellow of Hudson Institute, and a regular columnist for newspapers across the world.

Understanding the complex system of alliances and support that fuel the conflict in the Middle East can be difficult, but FSM Contributing Editor Tashbih Sayyed walks us through it, explaining just what this war means and why it matters.

First came the official Saudi Arabian, Egyptian and Jordanian condemnation of Hezbollah and then came Salafi Sheikh Abdullah bin Jabreen's fatwa (edict): It is illegal for Muslims to join, support, or pray for the terrorist group Hezbollah. The twin judgments raised a number of questions. Why has Hezbollah been condemned? What does it mean for the current Middle East crisis? Does it carry any weight with the Islamist groups that are busy in carrying out the global jihad? And how will these rulings influence the war on terror in the long term?

Has Hezbollah been condemned because of its mission or because of its religious orientation? As far as Hezbollah's mission is concerned, it is the same as that of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Martyrs Brigade and Lashkar-e-Taiba: destruction of the Jewish state. And we all know that the condemning states and the Wahhabi clerical establishment have been known to support this anti-Israel agenda. That means that the objective of the rulings cannot be the mission. It has to be the Shiite Islam that Hezbollah represents.

Another reason for Hezbollah to earn the wrath of the Sunni states is the fact that it is a proxy of the only Shiite state in the Muslim world, Iran, a country that under the leadership of its present president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has rededicated itself to the export of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's Shiite revolution. Iran also wants to be the regional superpower.

Saudi Arabia feels threatened by Iran's revolutionary zeal as it itself is in the business of exporting its own brand of revolution — Wahhabism — that has very successfully revived the institution of Jihad and has plunged the world into an abyss of anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism. A revolutionary Shiite state also poses a direct threat to the Khilafah movement, a passion of Wahhabism, that fuels the global jihad and wants to bring back the glorious days of early Islam when Muslims ruled over Jews and Christians.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan, the Sunni states that have contributed three of Al Qaeda's primary leaders, can't accept any group that can facilitate a non-Sunni state to take away the leadership of jihad from their hands.

Iran's recent efforts to present itself as the champion of the Islamist agenda and a leader of the anti-Israel jihad have rocked the Wahhabi boat. Iran has formed a close alliance with Hamas and has declared that Tehran and Hamas represented a "united front" against Israel.

"The Palestinians have voted for the resistance and have shown their loyalty," Iran foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said, telling "the allies of the Zionist regime to closely examine the evolution of the region and open their eyes to the undisputable realities of the Middle East.

Hamas political chief Khaled Mashal said during a visit to Tehran in December 2005, that his group would step up attacks against Israel if the Jewish state takes military action against Iran over its disputed nuclear program. "Just as Islamic Iran defends the rights of the Palestinians, we defend the rights of Islamic Iran. We are part of a united front against the enemies of Islam," Mashal said.

On January 20, 2006, Ahmadinejad visited Damascus and met with the leaders of 10 radical Palestinian movements, including Islamic Jihad and Hamas. He said he "strongly supports the Palestinian people's struggle".

Hezbollah, whose leaders pledge allegiance to Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has also been working very closely with Hamas. The Hamas-Hezbollah alliance is also seen by the Arab states as an effort by Iran to gain some level of strategic leverage in the heart of the Arab world.

In many ways the present crisis in Lebanon and Palestine is the direct result of this Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas-Syrian alliance. It all started when on June 16, 2006, Iran and Syria signed an agreement to expand military cooperation against what they called the "common threats" posed by Israel and the United States.

Soon after the Syrian-Iran defense pact, Hamas fired the first salvo in the latest war against the Jewish state by launching rockets at Israeli civilians and abducting the Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit on the morning of June 25, 2006. Hezbollah followed by launching a cross border raid into Israel on July 12, 2006, killing two Israeli soldiers and abducting the other two. It is safe to assume that the Hezbollah action was cried out under the obligations of an agreement between the two to continue to use terrorism against Israel in spite of U.S. and Israeli pressure and a U.N. resolution calling for the dismantlement of the terror groups. According to this agreement reached between Hamas leader Khaled Mashal and Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah at a Hezbollah office in south Beirut, "resistance and steadfastness option is the only option".

Hezbollah and Hamas both are an integral part of the Islamist effort to eliminate the Jewish presence from the Middle East. If Saudis have been providing the necessary wherewithal for the continuation of terrorism in the Jewish lands then Iran and Syria have also been using Hezbollah to funnel money to finance Palestinian terror against Israel. According to a captured Hamas document that detailed Khaled Mashal's visit to Saudi Arabia; he actually had been invited by Crown Prince Abdullah himself. While Hamas had refused at the time to stop its suicide attacks, nonetheless, Saudi officials reassured Mashal of continuing support. Mashal said Hamas' relationship with Hezbollah was "strong. We are partners in this march of confronting a common enemy. In the same way south Lebanon was liberated, we have hoped that all of Palestine will be liberated."

Sunni Arab states are afraid that Iran's successes in Lebanon, Syria and Palestine will directly benefit the Shiites in Iraq and consequently will embolden and empower the Shiites in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and other Middle Eastern states. To prevent this from happening, Sunni states do not have any other choice but to play the Shiite card. They are hoping that by rejuvenating and reinvigorating the Sunni-Shiite conflict, they will be able to prevent the Sunnis from rallying around Iran.

In my view, the Sunni condemnation and the fatwa will not have any significant effect on the ongoing conflicts in the Middle East but will definitely add to the ferocity that is often seen in Palestine and Iraq.

The underlining of the divisions in the world of Islam that have always existed and fuelled the factions to compete with each other will now influence the way terrorism is being carried out against the Judeo-Christian-Hindu world. Each the factions will compete fiercely to win the leadership of global jihad and the war against Israel. Israel can expect to see a hardening of attitudes among its adversaries and the U.S. will certainly experience further upsurge in insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Ginsberg, August 18, 2011.

Anyone reading this Rav Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written by Rav Kahane and would like to be, please contact me at:

To view previously posted Rabbi Kahane articles go to:

This below was written by Rabbi Meir Kahane and it appeared Nissan 5737, (April 1977) in thee magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea.


Once upon a time a plague broke out in the forest and all the animals gathered to discuss what to do about it. One wise old animal suggested that the plague was undoubtedly due to the sin of one of the community and it was agreed that each animal should confess his sins and it would be decided whose guilt had brought the plague. The fox was the first to rise and he said: "I was walking by the farmer's chicken coops last week and I crept in, seized three chickens and ate them. But after all, it was not my fault; I was hungry!" The animals considered the case and unanimously agreed that the fox was not to blame. After all, he was hungry.

The bear was the next to speak. "I passed by a tree last week and saw honey flowing from where the bees had made it. I took the honey from them and ate it. But, after all, it was not my fault; I was hungry!" Again the animals considered the case and agreed that the bear was blameless. After all, he was hungry...

Finally it came the turn of the sheep, who said: "It was a bitter, cold night and my little lambs were freezing. So I went into the barn and took some straw to keep my little lambs warm as they slept." No sooner did the sheep say these words, than the entire community of animals leaped to their feet and, pointing their paws, claws, and hoofs at the sheep, shouted: "There is the criminal!"

For two weeks the Arab mobs, thirsting for Jewish blood and Israel's destruction, rampaged through the streets of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. They stoned soldiers, attacked cars, burned tires, blocked roads. And so the gentilized Jewish animals in Israel gathered to discuss whose sin had brought this upon our heads. Who had caused the Arabs to riot? There was all manner of evidence for the animals to consider. For example: "We are opposed to occupation and we want to be free." (Bethlehem Mayor Elias Freij, 3/18/76); "It is the continued occupation to which I object." (Shchem Mayor Haj Masri, 3/16/76); "Palestine is Arab" (banners carried by Arabs in a procession in the town of Abu Dis, March 23, 1976).

But this was hardly sufficient evidence for the Jewish animals. Leaving the foxes, the bears and the rest — LEAVING THE ARABS — the animals sought the culprit amongst the Jews. And so we had Knesset member Yitzhak Ben Aharon say: "Jewish secular and religious nationalists provoked the unrest in great part." Jews in the Galilee were all responsible. (March 22, 1967) And, added Jerusalem's Mayor Teddy Kollek: "The deeds and declarations of (Jewish minority extremists have provided ammunition to extremist elements in the Arab population." (March 18, 1976)

The poor Arabs! Unfairly blamed. After all, we can understand why they riot and stone and attack. They are hungry — hungry for Jewish flesh and blood. Perfectly understandable. But the culprit — the real culprit — is the Jew. The Jewish militant, the Jewish extremist, the Jewish Rabbi Levinger who is going to a military trial while Hebron Mayor Ja'abri strolls free. The anti-Semites have always accused Jews of being to blame for everything. They still do, but now the anti-Semites can be found in the Knesset, in the government, and in the state that we once hoped would be Jewish but which has become a poor caricature of every gentile culture that exists today. We will yet pay — with Jewish blood — for this.

[Today, August 18th, we paid with Jewish blood once again. B.G.]

Contact Barbara Ginsberg at barbaraandchaim@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Roberts, August 18, 2011.


Somewhere in the Midrash it is said that every child in the womb has a perfect knowledge of the Torah. It is implanted in the heart. Amazingly, the child, still in a condition of bio-unity with the mother, knows the Torah. But right before birth, an angel presses his index finger in exactly the center of the child's upper lip; and the newborn greets the light of G-d's world with a mind totally blank, but ready for learning.

It must be true. We all have that indentation — the dimple of reminiscence. On some, the indentation is shallow, the angel barely touched and the infant mind went blank. On others it is deep. The angel pressed hard because the newborn strove to retain the treasure of the Torah.

The Rabbis say that unknowingly a man seeks to recall that intellectual bliss all his days; like an old song whose tune you can never exactly recall. The lifelong quest of a man or woman for truth and wisdom — in all forms — comes from that first great irretrievable loss. It is this quest, they say, that led Einstein to relativity and Salk to the vaccine and Offenbach to the Tales of Hoffman.

Once, they tell us, there was a great Tsadik with a noble heart and a mind to match. An enthusiastic follower of the Baal Shem Tov, he understood that joy and wonder are as necessary to worship as Tallith and Yarmulke. A worthy Hasid, he said, must have the mind of a Rashi, the poetry of David, and the heart of a laughing child. But one Rosh Hashonah an unnatural sadness gripped his spirits. His family noticed his little jokes stopped. His smile became as rare as wild flowers in January. All because he realized that no matter how strenuously he studied, he would never regain his ultimate mastery of the Torah.

On Rosh Hashonah he prayed with all his strength to once again be blessed with total understanding of the law. He would be the perfect Tzadik if only his heart and mind would be soothed by the balm of Torah. He promised even more. "I will dedicate myself," he declared, "to the study of your law. I'll move out of the village — away from my family — into the hills. The world to me shall be no more than a hut with a bench and table. Upon the table I shall put your Torah and I shall study until the light fails. Then I shall lay upon the bench and sleep until the light returns and I can study again."

The angels listened. He must learn, they agreed, the manifold faces of the Creator. So, they put the Rabbi into a deep sleep. As deep as the sleep of Adam when woman was created. And the Tsadik dreamed he was on a desert island. Alone. A strange island. Stocked with clothing for warmth and protection from the elements; stocked with supplies of food and drink; a deserted island with everything a man needed except for one thing. No books. No Torah, not even a pen and paper to set down his thoughts. It began to rain. An incredible rain that drenched him immediately. He ran into a cave on a hillside and once again, as he watched the deluge, he prayed with a great ache in his soul. "Send me, O Lord," he begged, "the Chumash or Novim, or even a Purim Megillah. Any expression of your truth, your power."

As the last word of his prayer left his mouth he heard a rustling noise behind him among the leaves that were scattered through the cave. And there, perched on a rock, was a pale gray mouse. A divinely programmed creature who pursues goals calculated to avoid destruction and enhance survival.

The Tsadik, his concentration intensified by his exotic surrounding and absence from his daily Torah study, fixated on the movements of the mouse. It sniffed the air, darted one way, then another, nibbled at the stem of a leaf, then burrowed under the rock.

"I ask for Isaiah and I get a rodent," he mumbled to himself. But what a beautiful creature he is — the universe is in his eyes. And how clever. He can survive even in this barren cave. And he is a product of free will — like me — except that his simplicity offers him fewer choices.

The Rabbi's eyes were full of his sleek, furry cavemate. He even forgot a second prayer for his beloved Torah. Suddenly, a bolt of lightning struck a boulder just outside the cave entrance. And a beam of light — a filament of fire — emanated from that boulder. It illuminated first the Rabbi, and then the pale, gray mouse. Flooded with an unbearable joy, the lover of Torah looked around G-d's world and smiled. "Blessed art Thou," he recited, "oh Master of the universe, whose mystery is in the Torah, the lightning, and the shining eyes of a little, gray mouse."

When the Tsadik awoke, his melancholia was gone. And for years afterwards he told his followers, "Only on Rosh Hashonah is a man blessed with the insight of a child".


If Lou Schwartz wasn't evil — well neither was Haman. He deceived his naive wife with regularity. His marriage was only a convenience — a shell as illicit as his financial activities. Over a five year period he had skillfully, cautiously swindled his two business partners out of 1.6 mill. It sat safely in an offshore bank and collected 2% interest. His two partners had bubkes, zero, zip. They deserved it. What crooks! They used a triple entry bookkeeping system; one set of books for the IRS, one for the wives, and an accurate set for their own eyes.

$1,632,112.33 — that's what the monthly bank statement, in his pocket, said. Lou pulled the deposit receipt out of his jacket pocket and luxuriated once more in the printed figure as he sipped a campari with soda in the ship's lounge. He was on his way to sign a few papers at the Royal Bahamian Bank and then pick up his loot. He planned many decades of luxurious retirement in a beach front condo filled with tasteful furnishings and enough playmates to gladden his solitude. But for now, maybe a nap before the supper buffet.

But he was interrupted by the steward. "Sir, pardon the intrusion, I'm Michael, the Head Steward. The Captain wanted me to notify the passengers that since tomorrow is the Jewish holiday Rosh Hashonah, we'll conduct services in the Dolphin Room on the middle deck."

Lou Schwartz blinked. "A rabbi on a cruise ship?" he asked.

"Of course," said the steward. "The motto of the Celestial Cruise Lines is; Buffets for the body — and services for the soul. Our rabbi will happily perform weddings, Bar Mitzvah, and Brisses. We even carry a Hupah for love smitten passengers. Shipboard romances, you know."

Lou Schwartz had not attended High Holyday services since his school days. Hmmm, Rosh Hashonah, Yom Kippur, he thought. What was that prayer where you beat your chest in repentance? Strange, he had prayed so passionately then and had so little to be forgiven for. Today, he thought, I'd need a year of Yom Kippurs to clean up my act. That was his last thought before he dozed off. The dream came quickly

He was on a rocky meadow and standing before him was a tall, thin man with burning eyes and shaggy hair. He was wrapped in a robe — gray like the rocks of the hillside.

"I am Nathan the Prophet," he said in a low tremulous voice. "The prophet who rebuked King David for his lust. But as I chastised the king, my insides, too, trembled with desire. I was as impure as he. I fear the Judgment Day even though I risked my life to speak against evil." As his last words echoed on the hillside, he vanished. A new figure stood before him — not ragged like Nathan, but radiant, majestic.

Somehow, Lou Schwartz, from long-ago Sunday School days, knew his identity. The apparition looked down at the wild flowers. He stated with emotion, "Even as I killed the priests of Baal at Carmen, my heart pounded joy. Even though our Master tells us to mourn for his children, the Egyptians, at the bottom of the Red Sea, my spirit laughed at the blood of my enemies. I am only made of the clay of Adam. I, Elijah, the messenger of God, fear the Judgment Day".

Next appeared a mild man in a herdsman's robe who blended with the boulder-strewn meadow. Yes, it was Amos, a preacher of brotherhood, of justice. "I was a shepherd of men and sheep. Social justice was my song, but sometimes I cared more for the sound of my rich voice than the results of my preaching. And to be carried through the village on the shoulders of the oppressed was my greatest joy. Even I, who preached mercy and righteousness, fear the Judgment Day. Now, Lou Schwartz was awake. And trembling. He rang for the steward. "Where are the Kol Nidre services?" he barked.

The steward looked confused. "Pardon me sir, I know of no services."

"Don't be an idiot. The Head Steward, Michael, just told me of them."

"Mr. Schwartz, there is no Head Steward of that name on this ship."The fire in Lou Schwartz's eyes dimmed. "Never mind, thanks," he said softly. Lou Schwartz knew when the Chairman of the Board had paid him a personal visit.

If the sheer force of Tesuvah, repentance could have been applied to the 20-ton rudder of the ship, it would have turned in mid ocean like a bathtub toy. But that would have been a miracle and we're only allotted one per life, which the penitent had already experienced. So instead, Lou Schwartz, the voyager, rushed to the communications room and booked the next flight back home from the Bahamas. A return in more ways than one.


Everybody knows about Yom Kippur and its repentance theme, even Jewish humorists who hang out at delis where you get a discount on corned beef ends that are turning green: Bright turquoise — 30% off, Green like parsley — 40% off. But a heavy smear of hot mustard hides the color, the odor. "This is a delicious Gefilte fish sandwich." "Yeah, it's the newest thing — the chef at the Tel Aviv Hilton came up with it."

Like I say, even we know about repentance, Whatta bargain — only once a year and you're clean as a new born babe. Even free of original sin — unlike Christian new born babes.

My son, who was newborn 52 years ago, calls every year right before Erev Yom Kippur. The phone ring sounds like a shofar blast. I can tell by his tone that this is an official call. No "hello, Pop". It's, "Father". "Yeeees," I answer with gravity and some trepidation. He couldn't have wrecked the car again since he's 52 years old, he has a car of his own, and he's 700 miles away.

"My father, have I done anything to offend you this past year?" His humility sounds like Isaac when he asked Abraham to forgive him for lagging behind, climbing up to the sacrificial site atop Mount Moriah. "No, no, Isaac, considering you were the offering and therefore depressed — you did just fine."

But my son continues, "If I offended you, I want to ask for your forgiveness".

Given the generality of the request, what can I say besides, "sure, you're forgiven". I'd prefer he'd tell me he was wrong when he tried to convince me that KPac (Kevin Spacey) was a great, great movie thereby aggravating me so badly that I re-rented it and wrote an 80-word critique proving conclusively that it was a "B" film. Besides that, he still didn't admit that I was right when I told him that Catherine Zeta Jones was spectacular in Chicago or that Sophia is the capital of Bulgaria.

That's the real spirit of Yom Kippur; the admission by the youth that an elderly, forgetful father (where'd I put the glasses?) is correct one time out of a hundred. Losing the glasses is a trivial oversight compared to a scholarly knowledge of the prophets, INCLUDING the name of Hosea's wife.

After I nailed that one in a father/son telephone conversation, I went back on the offensive; "OK then Rebbe, what's the name of Hosea's mother?"

He did not know. I neglected to tell him that her name is not mentioned. But since it's still my job to inspire, I tell him the oldest forgiveness joke on record — one that underlines an epic difference in Christian/Jewish theology. It didn't make the Talmud — maybe the next edition: A swindler ruins the life of his partner. Steals his money, frames him on a fraud charge. The partner, penniless and confined to an 8x8 foot jail cell, even loses his wife, the love of his life. He's lost everything. Years later the swindler hears the shofar's blast in his heart. He yearns for forgiveness by the proverty-stricken, lonely ex-jailbird. He seeks the elusive victim for years. Spends a fortune. Finally, here he is in a lonely monastery (Did you say Monastery?) in the Kamchatka Peninsula. The victim is in a monastery because he's a priest. He converted. He's Christian; a turner of cheeks. He not only forgives his Jewish ex- partner, but shares a bottle of 30 year old brandy that's worth maybe 50 bucks and writes his forgiveness on a 10x12 framed certificate. And has it notarized.

The sinner flies home. Straight from the airport he drives to his Rabbi's home. In a flush of ethical ecstasy he confesses the whole dirty episode to his rabbi — the sin, the repentance, the absolution. But as he paces the room, the rabbi gloomily stares into his cup of tea.

"What's wrong?" shouts the crook — don't you get it? HE FORGAVE ME!

"He's a good Christian — they forgive everybody," says the rabbi as he squeezes his tea bag with the spoon. "But you did tell ME. Between the two of us I think you're OK."


Rabbi Milton Steinberg, in his book, "Basic Judaism", tells an old rabbinic tale of three survivors in a lifeboat. Each huddled on his bench and fearfully eying a stormy sea that awaits their flesh like the whale awaited Jonah. One guy suddenly whips out a drill and starts boring a hole in the hull. The others scream and shout into the wind and rain, "Mishugenah, what are you doing?"

"Oh don't worry," he replies, "I'm only drilling under MY seat."

Such is the state of Judaism on the High Holydays of 2003. Somewhere in Proverbs it should say; "He who bores a hole in the Ark of Judaism will drown us all".

Now it's Yom Kippur and our tradition reminds us that forgiveness for transgressions against humanity comes only from humanity. Not G-d. We Jews, huddled on our frail raft, need to face our shipmates and ask their forgiveness for tons of Loshen Hara, for insults, and yes, even for violence.

Talking to HE who decreed the days of awe is praiseworthy. Prayer is balm for the sin-sick soul, but the problem is here in the boat — not in the heavens.

We don't get ten minutes into the morning service on Yom Kippur before we encounter a Talmudic precept that tells us, "But Yom Kippur can bring atonement for transgressions between one person and another only if the person offended has first been reconciled". the meaning is simple; ask forgiveness of your victims.

Therefore, I propose an exchange of pleas and pardons between the major branches of Judaism. The mechanics would be simple.

A) The rabbis of each of our branches would elect a single representative.

B) These 3 leaders would meet in a hotel room in Manhattan. (Rather than argue about which branch will pay for the room — put it on my credit card — before or after the Holidays, of course.)

C) The meeting, of course, will take place on a weekday in-between mealtime. (The last thing we need is a discussion of the menu.)

The room will only contain a round table surrounded by chairs for the peacemakers. Beside the table and chairs, however, the room is full of kavanah — the spirit of pious passion that rabbis typically urge upon us — from their High Holydays Bemah. I leave it to your imagination to deduce who would pump up the room with this essential ingredient.

A large poster above the door to the room and on each wall says, "WE ARE ALL JEWS". Agreement with these four words is the only precondition to the business of the meeting. It is not to be discussed, only affirmed.

Furthermore, there shall be no discussion of any ancient or modern issue in Judaism. Not the divinity of the Pentateuch, the Talmud, the Midrashim; nor the composition, origin, or authority of the oral and written law. There shall be no discussion of Halacha as it relates to Kashrus, Shabbos, gender or sexual practices.

In fact, there shall be no discussion of Judaic issues. However, if the rabbis like, maybe to reduce the tension, they can discuss rabbinical topics like salary, housing, fringe benefits, or the hyper- critical, unappreciative nature of their respective congregation. Surely, a safe point of commonality.

Now, gentled and inspired by the dew of kavanah that freshens the room, each in turn they beg supplication from their fellow Jew. Each petitioner for forgiveness — for that's what they are — will arise and address the following request to his fellow petitioners. "Please forgive me and those whom I represent for the sin which I have committed unto you and those whom you represent. We have sinned against You through foul speech, and we have sinned against You by not resisting the impulse to evil. We have sinned against You by fraud and by falsehood, and we have sinned against You by scoffing."

"Forgive me for the sin of slander. Forgive me for the sin of greed. Forgive me for the sin of pride."

How appropriate to the Yom Kippur purpose of repentance. The very act — the speaking of the words of repentance — gentles the rambunctious human spirit. The holy heart and the helping hand live in one body. They strengthen one another. One of our sages tells a rich man — don't give $1000 to charity — give $100 ten times. More repetitions. Like you build biceps in the weight room with ten reps rather than one.

So why not? Three leaders around a table sometime between Rosh Hashonah and Yom Kippur. Who would deny the rubric above the door? I'll pay for the hotel room and He who made Jew and Gentile will provide the kavanah.

It is time for such a reconciliation. If, as some Chasids believe, we only exist in the mind of G-d, about now we must be giving him an incredible headache.

Ted Roberts is a syndicated humorist. His essays appear in the Jewish press, web sites, and magazines. He is author of The Scribbler On The Roof, a book of short stories and commentary. Visit his websites at
http://www.wonderwordworks.com and

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, August 18, 2011.

Dear friends,

A combined attack from the Egyptian-controlled Sinai desert (probably by Gazan terrorists) against Israeli civilians has just been reported. The toll: Seven Israeli killed and dozens wounded.

Here are my thoughts for the day, first some facts to remind you of the general picture:

  1. The attack today took place in the Negev desert, far from Israeli heavy population centers. Now think of a "Palestinian" state 10 miles from Tel Aviv.

  2. Since 2005 not even one Israeli lives in Gaza from where the terrorists likely came today. Gaza today is a free field of action for any Arab and Islamic terrorist organization.

  3. The Sinai desert was completely evacuated by Israel in the 70s. It is today part of Egypt and therefore Egypt's responsibility. In all likelihood, following Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas' roof organization) is poised to take control of Egypt.

  4. 350,000 or more Israelis live today in Judea & Samaria. The "Palestinians" plan to ask the UN next month to unilaterally declare these territories a "Palestinian" state.

  5. The PA president, terrorist and war criminal Abu Mazen, promised that not one Israeli would remain inside his "Palestinian" state.

  6. Suppose for the sake of argument that Israel agrees to evict 350,000 Israelis from their homes in Judea & Samaria, as Israel did in Gaza, and re-settle them within the 1948 armistice lines as demanded by President Obama. Two Israeli prime ministers, Sharon and Olmert, were ready to do just that.

Now the consequences:

A "Palestinian" state in J&S will be a hot bed of terrorism right in the heart of Israel, some 10 miles of Tel Aviv. In most likelihood, Hamas will grab control of J&S as Hamas did in Gaza.

Tiny Israel is short of lands particularly in its center. If you are following the news from Israel, you know about the "tent demonstrations" by those who demand from the government cheaper housing, lower taxes and other social(ist) perks. Cuts, they demand, should come from the defense budget.

The terrorist attack today cannot be more timely and poignant:

  1. Israel's defense budget would need to increase in order to deal with the new security threats from Gaza, Egypt and Sinai. The Sinai and Egyptian borders were relatively calm until today.

  2. In no way can Israel risk a second (Jordan is the first) "Palestinian" state in Judea & Samaria.

  3. With the severe shortage of housing in Israel, how and where can 350,000 Israelis from J&S be settled within Israel's 1949 armistice lines?

  4. Resettling 350,000 Israelis would cost trillions of Dollars. Where will this money come from?


Israel must immediately, before September 2011, annex Judea and Samaria. It must also invest in more housing in J&S for all those Israeli demonstrators who wish to buy cheaper houses.

Making cheaper homes available in Judea & Samaria for Israelis, would help resolve the demographic threat, the pretext the Israeli left uses as their reason for evacuating J&S.

After Israel annexes J&S, the US President, the UN, the Quartet, the Liberal-Left, Academia, Boycotters, Peacenicks, anti-Semites and all those elements around the world who say they support the "Two States Solution" "Israel and Palestine living in peace side by side," will thus arrive at their promised land:

ISRAEL AND PALESTINE (JORDAN) would indeed be able to live in peace side by side with a good physical defensible border dividing them.

Do you, dear friend, see a better solution?

Your Truth Provider,

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il. Visit his website at www.truthprovider.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arutz-7, August 18, 2011.

Arab terrorists can add two children, ages 4 and 6 to their "victory" in maiming Israeli civilians in Thursday's quadruple terrorist attack.


Destroyed bus.

When Arab terrorists chalk up their day's "victory" against Israeli civilians they will be able to count two young children, ages 4 and 7, among Thursday's wounded. Two people died in the attacks against Egged Bus # 392 from Mitzpe Ramon to Eilat and a second bus. Four others were killed when a vehicle ran over a roadside bomb planted to maximize damage as IDF soldiers raced to the scene to defend and assist those who were hurt in the attacks. [youtube:125260]

The little ones were among the 33 Israelis initially taken to Eilat's small local Yoseftal Medical Center — the closest hospital — following the quadruple terrorist attack in Israel's southern region. Seven of the most severely wounded were later airlifted to Be'er Sheva's Soroka Medical Center.

Israeli radio stations spent the afternoon updating news reports and playing Israeli Zionist songs, a sign of national sadness in the Jewish State.

Israel has meanwhile taken the nation to its highest terror alert following the attacks, which took place along its border with Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. The terrorists apparently used automatic, anti-tank weapons, mortars and roadside bombs in the attacks that targeted on two Israeli buses and civilians and military vehicles.

All non-Palestinian Authority Arab United Nations personnel have allegedly been evacuated from Gaza due to fears that Israel will retaliate for the attack. Egypt reportedly has also closed the Rafiah crossing with Gaza.

Analysts speculate that the international Al Qaeda terrorist organization may have been involved in the multi-site operation due to its complexity and the fact that Egypt recently began to crack down on Bedouin and terrorist activities in the Sinai Peninsula, where the organization has developed training bases. The region has become a lawless territory since the fall of former President Hosni Mubarak during the Tahrir Square Revolution that swept the country earlier this year.

"It is unbelievable — the fence is several yards from the highway and when we were there on a field trip we saw a lone Egyptian guard in a tower, really less than 100 yards from the road," said an American immigrant who spoke with Arutz Sheva Thursday afternoon following the attacks.

The source, who requested anonymity, was blunt. "There is no problem to attack the highway from the Egyptian side, even with an M-16 rifle, let alone with a missle," he added.

Two weeks ago, terrorists from the Egyptian side shot and hit the jeep of a reserve battalion commander. The commander was not injured — but the jeep was attacked from the Egyptian side of the border, according to security sources.

IDF soldiers located and killed seven terrorists who were responsible for Thursday afternoon's attack on the two Egged buses outside Eilat, security sources said. However, IDF soldiers continued to comb the area for the terrorists who carried out the attack on the civilian and military vehicles, reportedly a group consisting of 20 terrorists.

Readers who need to reach Soroka Medical Center to inquire about loved ones are asked to call the hospital's emergency information hotline at: 1-255-177

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Fuah, August 18, 2011.

The tent city protests have now gone in the direction of solutions. In a certain way, we are facing an Oslo-like social danger. False messiahs are talking about "justice" and lofty goals, as if the State can cure all the ills of the human race. Affordable housing, mandatory education from birth (in other words, government funding of pre-school care from birth and up) free medical care and more are the slogans just barely concealing Socialist — and in some cases, Communist — policies.

History has proven that a welfare state is a state of servitude and tyranny. Just a small reminder of the socialist worldview that we have not yet managed to uproot from our country is the battle being waged by families right now over their right to bring their children home from kindergarten for lunch and not to leave them there against their will until 2 or 4 o'clock in the afternoon.

Capitalism, though, is not a cure-all. Individual liberty and the freedom to do just about anything easily descend into anarchy, in which the individual is concerned only with his own success while social responsibility crumbles away. In a socialist regime, the people are slaves to the government and the system; in a capitalist regime, they are slaves to work and the eternal drive for more and more material goods on the mistaken assumption that they will provide true happiness.

We would like to propose a social justice system based on Jewish heritage and culture: Let's call it "a Jewish society". The Jewish Society's economic method would be based on the Jubilee. In the Jewish Society, the citizens enjoy true liberty. They are free to do what they want, but shoulder personal responsibility for their livelihood, the education of their children, their family's health and for helping others who truly need help. As opposed to the "welfare state" in which the citizen is trained to expect the state to provide for everything with no responsibility on his part, the Jewish Society teaches its citizens to take responsibility for all that they can. No more focus solely on personal gain, trampling anyone and anything in the path to material success.

As a first step, and on the backdrop of the genuine housing shortage in Israel, we propose to give each citizen an initial economic base that really should be his, but was stolen from him. 93% of the land in the State of Israel is owned by the State. This phenomenon is unique to Israel, a remnant of the days when the socialist Mapai party ruled. Land is a resource that belongs to all the citizens of a state. The State of Israel must return it to its rightful owners. We propose to give — that's right, to give — every household in Israel half a dunam of land.

Another issue that we need to strengthen is the family structure. Both the capitalist and socialist approaches have wreaked terrible damage on the proper development of parental responsibility.

The prominent British Jewish journalist Melanie Phillips recently addressed this topic: (http://melaniephillips.com/goodbye-to-the-enlightenment)>

As I have been writing for more than twenty years, a society that embraces mass fatherlessness is a society that is going off the edge of a cliff. There are whole areas of Britain (white as well as black) where committed fathers are a wholly unknown phenomenon; where serial generations are being brought up only by mothers, through whose houses pass transitory males by whom these girls and women have yet more children, and whose own daughters inevitably repeat the pattern of lone and utterly dysfunctional parenting.

The result is fatherless boys who are suffused by an existential rage and desperate psychic need, who take out the damage done to them by lashing out from infancy at the world around them. And all this is effectively condoned, rewarded and encouraged by the welfare state which conceives of need solely in terms of absence of money, and which accordingly subsidises lone parenthood and the destructive behaviour that welfare fatherlessness brings in its train.

And the unutterably wicked thing is that this catastrophe has been deliberately willed upon Britain by left-wing politicians, well-heeled media feminists and other middle-class ideologues who wrap their utter contempt for the poor in the mantle of 'progressive' non-judgmentalism, witlessly prattling about poverty and social justice and hurling execrations at anyone who suggests that lone parenthood is in general a catastrophe for children (and a disaster for women) and that the state should stop subsidising family and social breakdown and start encouraging married parenthood instead.

It is urgent to regain our handle on societal norms, to strengthen the family unit instead of fostering its disintegration. It is time to free ourselves of foreign influences and return to our Jewish culture and heritage, developing and applying them to all facets of our lives.


This essay by Michael Fuah appeared in today's Manhigut Yehudit Weekly Update.

Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org. To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org. Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922 (cell).

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, August 18, 2011.

How long must we suffer the incompetent, stupidity of the coward of Lebanon, Ehud Barak? He is a disgrace to the nation. Why is he still Minister of Defence? He has no political standing whatsoever and shows competence only in attacking Jews and destroying their homes. Barak must go today!

This article was written by Chana Ya'ar and is archived at Arutz-7


Five are dead following a triple terrorist attack in Israel's southern region. IDF soldiers killed three terrorists, search for others.
UPDATE: Final count: 8 are dead.  

Attack on Bus 392. (Screen Shot Channel 2.)

Magen David Adom (MDA) has declared a mass casualty event and the State of Israel has moved to its highest security alert nationwide as hospitals report that five are dead following terror attacks that struck the country's southern region midday Thursday.

Authorities are calling for Israeli to donate blood at local MDA stations across the country. The area has been declared a closed military area and the IDF spokesman has asked people to keep away.

At Yoseftal Medical Center, 29 casualties were admitted with a range of injuries, including severe trauma. Seven of the most critically wounded were sent by medical helicopter to Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva.

Two Egged buses and an IDF vehicle were targeted by unidentified terrorist cells in what appears to be a coordinated operation. Several soldiers were also wounded when explosives went off at the security fence with Gaza.

In the first attack, three terrorists ambushed bus # 392 about 30 kilometers from Eilat as it traveled on Route 12 from Be'er Sheva towards the city, opening fire with automatic weapons. Most of the passengers in the first bus were IDF soldiers heading to the Red Sea resort city on leave. The troops engaged the terrorists in a shootout, killing at least two of the three operatives and leaving a third critically injured.

Terrorists targeted a second Egged bus less than an hour later, firing a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) at the vehicle and wounding more passengers just a few kilometers from Eilat.

An IDF military vehicle was blown up as it raced to the scene, driving over an explosive device planted on the road. A number of soldiers were seriously wounded in the attack.

A number of soldiers were seriously wounded in the attack.

Editor's Notes: One reader, Gerry from PA, noted:

If the US had opted for a political solution to our former problem with the Brits, we would still be a colony. And, WW2 would not have been won without inflicting massive casualties on both military and civilian targets. If you target the military, you buy yourself a little time before you have to battle your enemy again. If you target both the military and civilians, you not only buy time but you remove your enemies desire to continue fighting. Make your enemies sue for peace, not negotiate.

Donna Hadida wrote:

It is precisely when the Egyptians said that they had cleared the area of terrorists that you should expect a terrorist attack ... how many times have they used this tactic ... telling Israel that they are arresting terrorists and then attacking Israel ... this is the way of these enemies ... they lie always ... or 99% of the time ...

Israel ... you must learn that when they, the Arabs, talk about peace or anti-terror ... that is when they are planning an attack on Israel ... there are many who still do not want democracy and still want to destroy our country ...

God Bless The Eternal Existence of Israel ...



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. Contact him at zelasko@actcom.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, August 18, 2011.

This was written by Bill Levinson and it appeared yesterday in Israpundit


Canine Cruelty By Our 'Afghan Allies' reports how militant Muslims engage in sadistic cruelty to dogs, which they justify by calling dogs "unclean." From where we sit, militant Muslims resent dogs because of dogs' obvious superiority and greater utility to Civilization.

Wylie, the Afghan mutt, was rescued in February by a convoy of British soldiers on patrol in a Kandahar bazaar, where a dog-fighting crowd was beating the smaller dog with lumps of wood to force the last fight out of him.

...Two weeks later Jensz received another call. Local dog fighters had cut off Wylie's ears and had scalped him in the process, before using the same homemade knife to cut his muzzle wide open from his nose to under his eye. He was patched up again by Jensz and a team of Australian Defence Force doctors only to return from his perilous forays outside the base with new injuries — a stab wound to the chest and a savagely docked tail.

Why Dogs are More Useful than Militant Muslims aka Musloids

(1) Dogs can guide blind people, militant Muslims can only put out other people's eyes.
(2) Dogs can lead rescuers to people buried in rubble, militant Muslims plant bombs that create the rubble.
(3) Dogs can be trained to detect cancer by smell, militant Muslims ARE cancer.
(4) Dogs can be friendly and empathic companions, militant Muslims are (as shown by the reference) cruel and sadistic.
(5) Dogs are trustworthy, militant Muslims are treacherous (e.g. Nidal Hassan's alleged crime of first swearing to uphold the Constitution and then gunning down soldiers at Fort Hood).
(6) Dogs don't sodomize pre-teen boys. ISLAM = I Sodomize Little Androgynous Males, at least in Afghanistan
(7) Dogs don't stone women to death.
(8) Dogs don't fly passenger planes into buildings.
(9) When you see a dog in a public place, you KNOW the dog is not going to blow itself up and kill innocent people in the vicinity — although we would not put it past militant Muslims to implant bombs in innocent animals. They already plant them on children who don't know what is happening.
(10) Dogs like to fetch balls, militant Muslims like to throw rocks.

Our dog is allowed on our bed and furniture. We don't want militant Muslims on our continent.

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, August 17, 2011.

For centuries Jews have been accused of studying anti-Christian texts and materials supposedly contained in the Talmud. Such allegations are the staple fare of anti-Semitic organizations and web sites and a favorite calumny of Neo-Nazis.

But is there any truth to it?

First of all, just what exactly is the Talmud? It is an edited set of protocols of scholarly debate and discussions that took place in rabbinic "academies" operating between the second and late fifth centuries. There are in fact two Talmuds. The more authoritative one is the Babylonian Talmud, composed in Jewish academies located in what is now Iraq in the pre-Moslem era. It was composed in jurisdictions outside the Roman empire, and so also outside the realm of Christendom. The participants in the Talmudic discourse in "Babylon" lived under pagan rule and had no reason for reluctance in expressing criticism or dissent from Christianity, if they were of such a mind. The second, shorter Talmud is the Jerusalem Talmud, composed in academies in the Land of Israel, and so subject to the censorship and rule of Rome and later of the Byzantine Empire.

The subject matter of the Talmud is by and large Biblical law, ranging from laws about torts, property, court procedure, marriage, and divorce to rulings regarding religious ritual and custom. Because the Talmud is essentially the collection of protocols of debates, it also includes sections of digressions that were made by the participants in those debates, when they would meander off and discuss folklore, gossip, medical advice, legend, history, and humor. Some of the comments are biting insults by one scholar challenging another. Only parts of the Talmud have survived the ages; some other sections or "tractates" were lost. The language of both Talmuds is Aramaic, mixed with Hebrew, although each Talmud is in a different dialect of Aramaic, making their mastery an enormous challenge that requires decades of work and effort to accomplish properly. Of the traditional charges made by anti-Semites that the Talmud is somehow anti-Christian, all such accusations are directed at the Babylonian Talmud. None are directed at the Jerusalem Talmud.

A complete set of the Babylonian Talmud takes up several shelves in a library, and consists of thousands of pages and dozens of book volumes. There is more than one version of the Talmud, with minor differences in the text. The standard "Vilna" version, often considered the most reliable, has nearly 6000 pages, and versions including translations or additional commentaries can be longer. The "Schottenstein" translation of the Talmud into English consists of 73 volumes.

Traditional anti-Semitism has claimed that the Talmud is filled with derogatory comments about Jesus, Mary and Christianity. Such allegations have been made for so many centuries that even some civilized and fair-minded people accept them at face value. Because of such allegations, throughout the centuries volumes of the Talmud were often burnt, sometimes at the instigation of the Church. Talmudic texts were often subject to censorship in Christian nations, but usually not in Moslem countries — since the Talmud predates the Qur'an (Koran).

As it turns out, every single accusation and allegation about Talmudic anti-Christian texts is based upon creative "deconstructing" of Talmudic references to sinners or those who are punished, falsely alleging that these actually refer to Christian figures. The deconstruction operates even when the sinner in question has a completely different name, or no name.

In fact, there are no explicit references to Christianity at all anywhere in the Talmud. There are no specific references to Jesus or Mary although there are references to people who have names somewhat similar to theirs. Thus while the traditional Hebrew name for Jesus is Yeshua, there are mentions of several people named Yeshu, generally people who live in different eras, either long before Jesus or long afterwards. There is also a story about an immoral woman named Miriam, but again there is no reason why anyone should assume this is referring to the New Testament's Mary. The names Miriam and Yeshu appear in the Jewish Bible (the "Old Testament"), where they obviously do not refer to the Christian figures, and both names were evidently commonly used in the era of the Talmud.

Out of the massive volume of Talmudic text, traditional anti-Semitism claimed to find a handful of passages that refer to Jesus. The most lurid and common accusation involves a single passage in the Talmudic tractate Gittim, a section of the Talmud that generally involves laws of divorce. Anti-Semites claim the page describes Jesus in the Afterworld being punished by being boiled in excrement. Among current anti-Semitic web sites making this accusation are that of David Duke, that of Holocaust Denier Michael Hoffman II, and those of countless other Neo-Nazis and anti-Semitics.

There is a tradition among Jews of studying a full Talmudic page each day, a daunting challenge that takes up at least a full hour, or more if it is done properly. As it turns out, this week it was my turn to study Gittim page 57, that selection of the Talmud. So I am not relying on the reports by others who have studied the page in question but on my own eyes.

As it turns out Jesus is nowhere mentioned on the page, nor is there anyone with a name resembling that of Jesus, like Yeshu. What actually is on the page is a digression by the sages participating in a debate about land ownership law, who get sidetracked into a long discussion of legends concerning Roman Emperors, starting with Caesar and ending with Titus. The immoral behavior of Titus is discussed at length (he is said to have had sex with a prostitute inside the Holy of Holies of the Temple in order to desecrate it). The various indignities and punishments Titus suffers later in his life are described, with the presumption that these are divine retributions. Having discussed Titus's life at length, a relative of Titus is then discussed. The nephew of Titus was named Onkeles son of Kelonikos, and he converted to Judaism, becoming one of the leading scholars of his age. One of the earliest translations of the Bible (into Aramaic) was performed by this same Onkeles and is still an indispensable tool for understanding the Bible.

In the Talmudic legendary digression about the life of Onkeles, it is said that when he was at first contemplating converting from Roman paganism to Judaism but had not yet made up his mind, he conjured up his dead uncle, Titus, from the Afterworld. Titus describes his torments there to his nephew. Onkeles then conjures up two other dead sinners: one is the evil Balaam discussed in the Book of Numbers, who lived many centuries earlier, and the last is a nameless Jewish sinner who had mocked the teachings of the sages. Both are suffering torments in the Afterlife, with the last sinner being boiled in feces. The first two sinners advise Onkeles not to convert, while the last sinner advises him to embrace Judaism, in spite of the sinner's own posthumous sufferings.

Balaam is a symbol of evil used in Jewish texts going back many centuries before Jesus was born. Anti-Semites claim, somewhat inconsistently, that Balaam in this page of the Talmud is a secret code word being used to mock Jesus, and also that the nameless Jewish sinner being discussed is Jesus. They cannot both be referring to Jesus. Clearly neither are.

Balaam was a pagan priest in the Bible, serving the king of Moab. In later Jewish texts, when Jews living under Roman or Christian rule wished to criticize or protest the behavior of the rulers, they used "Edom" and the "descendents of Esau" as code for Romans or Christians. Never "Moab." In fact Moab gets some good publicity in Judaism because the great grandmother of King David is a Moabite woman, Ruth, and Moabites are descendent from Lot, the nephew of Abraham. The nameless Jewish sinner included in the story is clearly added to illustrate the somewhat different torment of a disrespectful Jew compared with the punishments of the pagan sinners.

In short, nothing on this page of Talmud refers to Jesus. There is also nothing that refers to Christianity or Christian figures. Dredging up this as "evidence" that the Talmud is anti-Christian is a bit like claiming that Cain or Dotan or Korach are secret Biblical references to Jesus in an attempt to paint the Old Testament as anti-Christian propaganda. It is very much like claiming that criticism of a Hispanic named Jesus, which is a common name among Latinos, is a secret form of anti-Christian blasphemy.

While that Talmudic segment may be the one most widely cited by anti-Semites as "proof" that the Talmud is little more than anti-Christian incitement, the other segments cited by anti-Semites in "evidence" are, if anything, even sillier.

There is a nameless person, called Plony, which is a Biblical term for an unnamed person — like John Doe, who is described in the Talmud as a bastard. Anti-Semites claim it refers to Jesus. It obviously does not. The John Doe in question evidently lived long after Jesus.

In a different Talmudic segment there is a reference to a nameless immoral woman, a descendent of princes, who hung out with carpenters. Evidently because of the carpenter reference, anti-Semites claimed this was referring to Mary. There are no Christian sources that claim that Mary was descendent from any princes. The woman in question is mentioned in the Talmud as someone who practiced sorcery like Balaam. Anti-Semites claim that the original text here, later removed by censors, named the woman "Miriam the Hairdresser." Just why anyone would think that a hairdresser descendent from princes was referring to the Mary of the New Testament is unclear.

There is indeed a Yeshu discussed in the Talmud, but he is the wayward pupil of a Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Perachiah, and they lived long before Jesus was born (under a Hasmonean King who ruled a century before Christ), spending much of their lives in Alexandria, Egypt. This Yeshu's sin was that he made a comment about the eyes of a married woman. The Talmud elsewhere says that this Yeshu had close ties with the government. No one thinks Jesus was politically well-connected with the Romans.

If this were to be some sort of Talmudic diatribe against Jesus, surely the sages involved could have come up with something better than disapproval of a comment made about a woman's eyes. And from the biographical details, it is clear that it could not be referring to the Jesus of Christianity. The only "evidence" here is the name Yeshu, which was a common one. There is even another Yeshu who is not Christ mentioned in the New Testament (Collossians 4:11). A different Yeshu is mentioned in the Talmud having five disciples, four of whom have names that do not resemble any of the disciples of Christ, and one is named Matai, a common name, which some claim resembles Matthew.

In other segments of the Talmud one can find references to a Son of Stada, who was a sinner executed on the eve of Passover in Lud after being judged by a Jewish court for sorcery. Anti-Semites have claimed this is a code reference to Jesus. But Jesus was not executed on the eve of Passover, the execution was not in Lud, his father was not Stada, he was judged by a Roman court and was not accused of sorcery, and the Son of Stada evidently lived a century after Christ. The Talmud cites a dissenting source that Stada was actually the name of the mother of the Son of Stada, and that she left her husband to have an affair with a man named Pandira. This is the section where Stada is also referred to as the Hairdresser Miriam. The first husband of this hairdresser is discussed elsewhere in the Talmud and is known to have lived a century after Christ. So none of this can reasonably be considered to be referring to Jesus.

None of this is to suggest that the Rabbis of the Talmud believed in Christ or were secret Christians. They had their theological disputes with Christianity, but these are not matters that are the focus in the Talmud. While in its earliest phases, Christianity was a minority theological movement of Jews who were practicing Judaism, the Rabbis who participated in the Talmudic debates were not part of that movement. In the debates in the Talmud they are preoccupied with other matters.

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Prowisor, August 17, 2011.

As the mystique of the unknown bears closer, the plot thickens, or more accurately said, sickens. I am speaking about "September", in all of its possibilities and lack of.

For today, (so far) it is official that the "Palestinian Authority" plans on seeking UN approval for statehood on September 20th.

Now that it is settled, all that remains is how to react, simple, right?

It has been said that man is most creative during desperate times, I would like to add that man also reaches new levels of lunacy during these same times.

Many have already heard of a few of the possible reactions to such a declaration, the cancellation of the Oslo Accords, Annexation of Judea and Samaria, yelling at them "Bad Boy then huffing away... and so on to name a few.

Indeed the IDF is working hard at preparing for the various numbers of possible scenarios. Mass public demonstrations, both "peaceful" and not, the outbreak of violence, the renewal of the "Intifada" on a far more intense and grand level than the previous years, are just a few of the more gentle examples.

I am less concerned about the actions the Arabs plan to take against the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, we have seen it before, we will not be surprised, I am alarmed and "concerned" at some of the solutions being discussed.

Solutions of appeasement and complacency rather than stopping the violence seem to be getting the attention and ear of Senior IDF and Knesset members.

A few days ago it was reported that one of the possibilities that a court jester offered up was to release prisoners associated with the Palestinian Authority who are being held on terror charges as a gesture of "Good Will" prior to the declaring of this new façade of an entity. Of course this also comes in a package, the other part being further taking down other security measures designed to protect Israel and the Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria.

To add to this masterpiece of comedy, it has now been suggested to further arm and release more weapons to the "P.A." Security Forces. This "confidence measure" is being discussed so that these "forces" will hold back the expected mass demonstrations from attacking Israeli checkpoints. No mention of course of holding back on Israeli communities in our heartland.

Despite recent history, and normal thought, and going against every logical understanding of the Arab world and mindset, there are actually people in key positions who back this idiocy.

I do not consider them to be naïve, nor ignorant. I truly believe that there are nefarious motives at heart. I am not being paranoid, nor am I harboring any conspiracy theory, it is not who I am. I feel this to be part of the ongoing fight that the "Left Wing" in Israel is waging against the Jewish communities and Jewish populous of the heartland of the entire Jewish people.

I'm sorry, no one, I mean no one can be that stupid as to think that if I further arm the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, take down more essential roadblocks, and more, that they will be so happy and confident in Israel that they will keep the "peace" as the Arab mobs sweep towards our communities and crossings.

I ask forgiveness if I do not have the verbal finesse and eloquence of the popular and talented writers and "bloggers" who frequent cyberspace. I admit from looking at these "solutions" from ground level, but I remember a decade ago. I remember dealing with the results and the same mistakes those who offer these solutions back in the year 2000.

I remember the daily firefights on our roads and the attempted infiltrations and attempts and successes at pure unadulterated murder, at the hands and by the weapons handed over by our own Israeli politicians and generals.

I stand witness today to those in the IDF and Ministry of Defense who wish to continue to protect and defend our people while a few doors down from their offices stand those who do not value nor wish to uphold that position.

One side stands up to our enemies, while the other motivates them, and worst, arms them... while we slumber.

Indeed, September holds to be an interesting time for all of us, where will you be?

Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And visit http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Yaacov Levi, August 17, 2011.

This was written by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post
(http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=234022). Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Her book "The Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad," is available at Amazon.com. Visit her website at www.CarolineGlick.com. Contact her by email at caroline@carolineglick.com.

Applying Israeli law to Judea and Samaria would be an appropriate reaction to Palestinian unilateralism.


The Palestinians' decision to place the issue of establishing a Palestinian state before the United Nations for a vote next month repudiates the principles of the 1993 Oslo peace framework, through which the Palestinian Authority was formed out of the PLO. The Oslo framework dictated that the final status of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem would be determined through direct negotiations between the PLO and Israel.

While brazen, the Palestinians' UN gambit is not the first time Israel has been confronted with unequivocal proof that the Palestinians have been operating in bad faith. From the outset, PLO leaders from Yasser Arafat down have made statements and taken actions that have demonstrated that from the PLO's perspective, the entire "two-state paradigm" of peacemaking upon which the Oslo process is predicated was nothing more than a ploy.

For instance, after coming under heavy pressure from then-opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu, in early 1996, then-prime minister Shimon Peres was forced to ask Arafat to convene the PLO's governing council in order to cancel the PLO Charter. The charter repeatedly calls for Israel's destruction. Recognizing that Peres's government was on the line, then-US president Bill Clinton flew to Gaza to "oversee" the Palestinian National Council's conference and its cancellation of the charter. Despite Clinton's presence, the charter was never abrogated or even amended. Yet the empty pageantry was enough to convince the leftist Israeli media that Israel had a credible partner for peace in Arafat, and so the show went on.

Arafat ended all pretense of good faith in the summer of 2000, when he rejected then-prime minister Ehud Barak's offer of Palestinian statehood and instigated the Palestinian terror war. Ever since Arafat chose terror war over peace, his followers' willingness to admit they reject Israel's right to exists has grown.

For instance, on July 13, Fatah's foreign relations boss Nabil Shaath gave an interview to a Lebanese television station in which he stated point blank that the PLO would never accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. As he put it, only the Palestinians have a right to a nation-state. The Jews of Israel must be subsumed into a "state of all its citizens" that would be dominated by Israeli Arabs and millions of foreign Arabs who would immigrate into the formerly Jewish state.

Shaath's statements, like similar recent statements made by Fatah chairman Mahmoud Abbas and chief "negotiator" Saeb Erekat were completely ignored by the Left. As opposition leader Tzipi Livni makes clear every time she has access to a microphone, the Left insists the full blame for the absence of so-called peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians rests on the shoulders of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Three weeks after Shaath gave his interview, Livni had a chance to respond to his statements in an interview with the Atlantic Monthly. Asked whether she was certain "there's no plan on the part of seemingly moderate Palestinians to try to take apart Israel in stages," Livni responded that even if there were, it was Netanyahu's fault. By asserting Israel's right to be recognized as a Jewish state, Netanyahu is weakening Israel, she said. In her words, "Israel is being weakened now by the way Netanyahu speaks. The stronger he speaks, the weaker Israel is."

Livni also claimed the best thing that could happen was for US President Barack Obama to put even more pressure on Netanyahu to make concessions to the Palestinians. As she put it, Obama's pressure made the government understand "that maintaining the status quo with the Palestinians means that there is no status quo with the United States. They understood that there is a price for not negotiating, or for not saying the right words. So this is the brighter perspective."

When Livni gave her interview on August 5, Netanyahu had reportedly agreed to participate in negotiations predicated on the Palestinian-US demand to base the talks on the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. Netanyahu reportedly stipulated, however, that the Palestinians must recognize Israel's right to exist.

By placing the blame for the absence of negotiations on Netanyahu, like the Palestinians, Livni rejected the prime minister's demand. That is, the leader of Israel's opposition effectively dismissed her government's demand that Israel's "peace partner" recognize its right to exist. Moreover, she asked a foreign power to coerce her government into setting that right aside.

Livni's position is consistent with the position the Left has adopted since Arafat destroyed the Oslo peace process 11 years ago. Whereas in 1995 the Left still expected the Palestinians to pay lip service to peace with Israel, after Arafat destroyed the peace process, the Left that had embraced the PLO needed to make a choice. Its leaders could either admit they were wrong to embrace the PLO, or they could adopt the PLO's position against Israel. They chose the latter.

The results of this choice have been devastating. For the past 11 years, the Left has been divorcing itself from Zionism. This began in the wake of the violent riots in the Arab sector in October 2000, when the Barak government formed the Orr Commission of Inquiry. The Orr Commission, for the first time, conferred extralegal communal rights on radicalized Israeli Arabs, and so denied the police the right to enforce laws equally on all Israelis.

Since then, the trend toward undermining Israeli democracy and the rights of the Jewish majority has been most pronounced in the leftist-dominated Supreme Court. From denying the right of Israeli Jews to develop Jewish communities within the 1949 armistice lines on Jewish privately owned land, to protecting Arab traitors from charges of treason, to striking down the government's legal right to determine immigration policies, the Supreme Court has led the charge in ending Israel's right to assert its right to exist as a Jewish state.

Many of these post-Zionist court decisions were authored by retired Supreme Court president Aharon Barak. In June 2009, Barak admitted, "I'm a big believer in 'a state of all its citizens.'"

In leftist activist circles, this trend of joining the Palestinians in rejecting Israel's right to exist has led to foreign funded local NGOs and activist networks instigating domestic and international campaigns to delegitimize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

On university campuses, expressions of Zionism and patriotism are increasingly demonized as racist or insensitive. For instance, at its recent graduation ceremony, Haifa University decided not to sing "Hatikva" out of concern for the feelings of the university's Arab students.

Recently several leading politicians have argued that Israel should respond to the PLO's UN initiative by abrogating its commitment to the Oslo peace accords and applying Israeli law to Judea and Samaria. This is certainly a reasonable response to the Palestinians' clear bad faith.

Far more difficult than responding to that bad faith, however, is conceiving and implementing a strategy for contending with the Left's decision to side with the Palestinians against its own country's right to exist.

Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, August 17, 2011.

George Soros, a wealthy currency gambler and a former Jew (he says he resigned) sponsors the anti-Jew policy broadcast by the indentured wonks slaving for the New York Times and PBS radio. And by anti-Jew I mean old George hopes to drive non-compliant Jews out of the Israeli government if he cannot buy it wholesale for to give Israel's riches to his poor poor "pali" arab friends. (That's how Christianne Amanpour characterizes Hamas — they're just "poor, poor, oppressed arabs.") What's at stake here? Well, for openers, there's billions and perhaps trillions worth of proven gas deposits within Israel's offshore waters.

Bloody Egyptian terrorist Yasser Arafat and the swine of his bosom, the notorious haggler, Shimon Peres, were well aware of these riches. The two SOBs set up NGOs in the Cayman Islands for to skim profits from the Gaza region that Peres schemed to bestow on Yasser, his dearest friend in peace. What was in it for Peres? A sip of the cream, all for himself — it was reported that the cream would have been an exclusive telecom franchise for Gaza just for Peres and his "peace project" claque. Looked to me as if Peres hoped to harvest the same sort of financial splendors reaped by the Lebanese immigrant to MX, Carlos Slim, Mexico's Telecom magnate and now the richest man in the world, according to the NYT.

There are more recent reports indicating that huge but deep oil deposits were found in Israel proper. You think the Saudis are behind the curve when it comes to winning the oil game? You think the Saudis don't spy on Israel? Put their operatives in place? Consider Christianne Amanpour's enthusiam for Yasser Arafat and how she helped Jimmy Carter and Yasser lie about Israel and Israelis? She's #1 gal on the Soros' payroll. You think Hillary isn't indebted to Abdullah? (Her blubby-hubby's prezzie library was built with Saudi funds.) If so, then I think you'll want to adopt of Gore's displaced polar bears as a family pet.
Here's the scoop on George Soros: http://www.mrc.org/bmi/reports/2011/ Top_Journalists_that_Serve_on_SorosFunded__ Boards_of_Directors_or_Advisers.html
P.S. I don't see Hanan Ashwari's name on Soro's list but perhaps I scanned it too rapidly.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 17, 2011.

This news is only hours old, and too important to be missed:

Prime Minister Netanyahu has informed Secretary of State Clinton that there will be no apology to Turkey for the killing of nine Turkish citizens associated with a terrorist group last year, when the Mavi Marmara — a ship flying under a Turkish flag — participated in a flotilla attempt to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza. When Israeli soldiers boarded the ship, Turkish members of IHH, a radical Islamic group with ties to Hamas, attacked them.


Clinton had been pushing our government to make that apology because it was ostensibly going to improve relations between Israel and Turkey — something that the US was eager to facilitate, in the face of the deteriorating situation in Syria.

(So eager was the US for Israel to apologize that, according to YNet, Israeli diplomats in Washington reported that US officials even suggested that without such an apology it would be difficult for the US to persuade other nations to reject the Palestinians' UN appeal for recognition as a state. One more bit of unmitigated nonsense.)

It should be noted that every serious analyst of the situation rejected any notion that an apology, which would have been limited and carefully worded in any event, would have had any effect on the Israeli-Turkish relationship. Turkey, which was once a secular Muslim state of some moderation, has gone significantly Islamist.

The evidence for this is clear: In response to the announcement, Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan declared, "As long as Israel does not apologize, does not pay compensation and does not lift the embargo on Palestine, it is not possible for Turkey-Israeli ties to improve." Lift the embargo on Palestine?


It is gratifying to know that the prime minister has stood his ground. Appeasement simply weakens us, and this is a time when the last thing we can afford is to appear weak. The fact is that we were right.

I would like to suggest that you thank Prime Minister Netanyahu for his resolve and his strength on behalf of Israel. (Folks, a very short message is best, please.)


This decision is gratifying for yet another reason. I've been watching the tug of war between the various ministers of the government on this issue — advising pro and con.

It was, unsurprisingly, Defense Minister Barak who had been promoting the idea of a limited apology. While Foreign Minister Lieberman and Minister of Strategic Affairs Ya'alon were adamantly opposed.

I do not know the degree to which the prime minister kept his own counsel in this matter, but I have hopes that those with their heads screwed on properly were the ones who held sway in making their case to Netanyahu. In my humble opinion, there is no ministerial office staffed with more intelligent, "with-it" people than the Ministry of Strategic Affairs. The more influence they have on the prime minister, the safer our nation will be.


I note this in particular today because it was with enormous disgust and trepidation that I read about Barak's suggestion that — if you can believe this! — Israel should offer the PA a series of "goodwill" gestures in an attempt to get Abbas to back down from going to the UN next month.

"This would be a way to get the Palestinians to understand that they have a lot more to gain by working together with us, as opposed to making unilateral moves," one defense official is quoted as having said.

I'm almost ashamed to write this, because I find it so pathetic. Just how many times are we supposed to offer those "gestures" — with removal of roadblocks, possible release of Fatah prisoners, and increase in the number of Palestinian Arab workers allowed daily into Israel proposed this time.

Can it really be that it hasn't dawned on Barak and company that the PA really doesn't want to work with us? Are their memories so short that they have already forgotten how such gestures in the past have ill served us — at the worst inviting increased terror attacks and weakening our position — to no real avail?


Much more on the mark is the campaign that MK Danny Danon (Likud) is about to institute, promoting unilateral annexation of the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria.

"The Palestinians need to know that they have a lot to lose by taking a unilateral approach."

In general terms, Minister Ya'alon has supported this approach, as has Minister of National Infrastructure Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) and Minister of Science and Technology Daniel Hershkowitz (Habayit Hayehudi).


The Quartet is not happy with Israel. Again. This time it's because of the announcement that we will be constructing 277 new housing units in Ariel in Samaria. We're at a "critical juncture," you see, in efforts to restart negotiations.

Let strength foster strength, here in Israel. And let the Quartet be unhappy. Again.

For the record, the city of Ariel, with a population of close to 20,000, is what is usually referred to as "one of the major settlement blocs" — although I shun the term "settlement." Under no circumstances is it something that would be turned over to the Arabs even if there were negotiations done in good faith. Established in 1978, it is known as the "Capital of Samaria," and today boasts a university with a diverse student body.

The building that is now approved will merely allow for the completion of an existing neighborhood where construction had been stopped due to US pressure. Ariel's mayor, Ron Nachman, says that, "It is the first time in 10 years that we received such a permit."

(Dare I feel some hope here? That after ten years of bowing to US pressure by various Israeli governments on this issue, there is enough backbone to proceed?)


The Palestinian Arab approach to this news — which can only be considered "cart-before-the-horse" or "point-the-finger-in-the-other-direction" spin — is laughable:

Nabil Abu Rudainah, a spokesman for Abbas, called the announcement "an Israeli attempt to obstruct and destroy what is left of any effort to revive the peace process."

"Once again, these Israeli settlement measures represent a strong reason calling on us to go to the United Nations and the Security Council to request membership for the state of Palestine and to halt these Israeli measures."

Is there anyone, anywhere, who really believes this stuff? Certainly Rudainah cannot.


Elliot Abrams has a viable suggestion with regard to the Quartet: Disband it.

"The last time the Middle East Quartet met, on July 11, it was unable even to issue a statement about the key issue before it — the Palestinian effort to get the UN General Assembly and Security Council to declare Palestine a state and admit it to membership. Nor has the Quartet been able to issue a statement about the attacks the Assad regime has been carrying out this week against Palestinian refugee camps in Syria, which have led thousands of Palestinians to flee their homes.

"But it did on August 16 get itself organized to address what it apparently saw as a graver issue and a greater threat to peace, Israel's announcement of plans to construct additional housing units in Jerusalem and Ariel.

"Nowadays the Quartet seems able to reach agreement on only one thing: criticism of Israel. This is the lowest common denominator among the United States, EU, United Nations, and Russia, and it is pretty low indeed. If this is the only function of the Quartet, the better path would be to disband it now — for the statements it is making and the statements it seems unable to make combine to bring discredit on all participants."
http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/08/16/ quartet-statements-and — quartet-silences/


This is something that cannot be ignored. It perhaps represents a new low for the Obama administration.

I've written already about the case of Menachem Zivotofsky, an American citizen born in Jerusalem, who was denied the right by the State Department to have a passport that read born in "Jerusalem, Israel." The passport reads only "Jerusalem," because the US refuses to recognize any sovereignty over Jerusalem. (This fact has always boggled my mind as we're talking about western Jerusalem within the Green Line — this means the US entertains Arab claims to Jerusalem within the Green Line.) The case will be heard by the US Supreme Court in November.

In anticipation of this, the Obama administration recently arranged for the term "Israel" to be removed from all pictures in a White House photo gallery showing Vice President Biden in Jerusalem.

Charges were then made by supporters of Obama, that during the Bush administration, there was no acknowledgement that Jerusalem was in Israel. That turns out to not be the case, as digitally archived and frozen documents indicate.

But what the Obama administration has done has been to alter Bush-era State Department reports stored on State Department servers to which the Obama administration has access. This is particularly the case with regard to the State Department's FY 2002 and FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Reports. As Omri Ceren describes in Commentary, "When they were originally written they both had appendices identifying the location of the Jerusalem consulate as 'Jerusalem, Israel.' Some time in the last two weeks that location was changed to 'Jerusalem.'"

How low can it get? Rhetorical question.

You can see the details, and the way to track this for yourself, here:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/08/16/ obama-bush-jerusalem/#more-764046


King Saud of Saudi Arabia has called on Syria's president Assad to "stop the killing machine."

What is more, he has re-called the Saudi ambassador to Syria, and Bahrain and Kuwait have followed suit.

And so, let me digress from the major point I had wanted to make here to ask a question: Has Obama recalled the US ambassador to Syria? Not last

I looked (though he was in the States recently for meetings).

How is it that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Kuwait are more pro-active on this issue? I am quite familiar with the US argument — that more influence can be wielded from inside by "engaging." You will notice how much influence the US has on murderous Syrian policies. Much-to-be-regretted evidence of the impotence of the US in this part of the world today.


Michael Singh, writing in Foreign Policy yesterday, says:

"When the story of the Arab Spring is written in Arabic, it is unlikely to reflect well on the United States. In his speech about the Middle East on May 19, US President Barack Obama attempted, and rightly so, to place his administration squarely on the side of pro-democracy activists. As seen from the region, however, US actions are hard to square with the message of May 19; instead, the hallmarks of US policy have been hedging and hesitation. (Emphasis added)
http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/16/ the_us_needs_to_speak_clearly_on_syria


Jennifer Rubin makes some very disconcerting additional charges with regard to Obama administration passivity today in her blog in The Washington Post: "Obama tolerates terror operations run out of Syria's embassy [in the US]."

"Syria is taking its war against President Bashar al-Assad's political opponents global, using diplomats in Washington, London and elsewhere to track and intimidate expatriates who speak out against the Damascus regime...

"Syrian embassy staffers are tracking and photographing antiregime protesters and sending reports back home... Syrian diplomats, including the ambassador to the US, have fanned out to Arab diaspora communities to brand dissidents 'traitors' and warn them against conspiring with 'Zionists.'

"What has the administration done about protecting its own citizens and those already in peril in Syria? Well the FBI has investigated. But all we've done, as far as I can tell, is — you guessed it — taken 'very seriously' these reports, according to a State Department flunky."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/ obama-tolerates-terror-operations-run-out-of-syrias- embassy/2011/03/29/gIQAEyUTLJ_blog.html


As to my major point: It may be that Israel and the Western world have a friend in Saudi Arabia (oh irony of ironies). There are reports indicating that King Saud is looking for an opportunity to cripple Hezbollah by taking down Assad, who has long been directly involved in arming the terrorist group. A weakening of Hezbollah would work against the strength of Iran, which the Saudis loathe and fear. What King Saud is said to be hoping for is a rise of Sunni power in Syria, which would shift the dynamic of the region.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, August 16, 2011.

Why is there such a fear of taking Jews to see Jewish minorities of Israel? Why fear of them meeting Russians, Yemenites, Moroccans, Ethiopians?

'I'm Japanese, but every time I go back to the home country, it's just boring, the whole story of the mythical samurai past. Finally I got an opportunity to visit Japan via a Japanese cultural association with the goal of studying and interacting with the 'other.' We met North Korean refugees seeking asylum, Chinese minorities, an American working in a corporate firm, a member of an indigenous minority from Okinawa and gay activists. Only through meeting all these people could I finally appreciate Japan. Japanese-Americans are tired of hearing just Japan's Japanese history; to relate to their ancient land, they must learn about the 'other.'"

Of course, these words were never spoken by a Japanese person. How many Japanese-Americans, if they care about Japan, can only relate to it if they relate to the Chinese minorities there? How many Indian-Americans can only relate to mother India by relating to the Parsi minority in Mumbai? How many Iranian-Americans find they can care about Iran only through learning about its Azeri and Baluchi communities? Yet some portion of the world's Jewish community finds that the only thing interesting in Israel is stories of Beduin, Israeli-Arabs, African refugees and Palestinians.

Israel is just downright boring, so long as it involves stories about the Jews.

Sarah Schonberg echoed these sentiments in an oped in The Forward: "American youth are indifferent to hearing just one story and being told to accept it without question." She tells how she had little interest in Israel until she attended a Hebrew College trip aimed at introducing American Jews to the "other" there, namely Israeli Arabs. "To overlook a population of this size is akin to ignoring the entire black, Asian, Native-American and multi-racial populations in the US," she wrote.

Her story is similar to many other stories of Jews who find Israel mundane, unless they can view the country through the prism of social justice and activism for minority rights.

Through generations of living as minorities in the Diaspora, Jews have been at the forefront of fighting for minority rights. It's no surprise that it was a Jewish philosopher, Emmanuel Levinas, who came up with the concept of the "other." So when Jews come to Israel, they immediately want to find the minorities, accustomed as they are to the concept that only minorities are interesting. Because Jews tend to view the concept of what constitutes a Jew through the prism with which they grew up, they also tend to homogenize the Jewish community in Israel. Thus, while Schonberg pays passing heed to the "cultural diversity that makes up the Jewish community in Israel," she doesn't mention any Jewish minorities.

The type of fact-finding trip that Hebrew College ran has become increasingly common. The New Israel Fund has been organizing them for a while, bringing Jews from the US to Israel to see the "other" on study tours. A standard trip consists of visits with Beduin, Israeli Arabs, African refugees, more Israeli Arabs, Palestinians, Palestinians in Hebron, and maybe, if people are lucky, more Beduin and, as an aside, an Ethiopian Jew.

In transit, the tour leaders point out the "Jews": hotels in Tel Aviv, wineries in Zichron Ya'acov, everything to present Jews as the wealthiest, "whitest" elite in the country, in contrast to the poverty-stricken, discriminated-against "black" minorities. This plays well to American Jewish sentiments. As veterans in the civil rights struggle, American Jews are used to the dichotomy of white and black, and as fighters for immigrant rights, they are used to the Manichean absolutes of the wealthy and the poor.

The types of trips now being sold, primarily to American Jews, seek to "connect" them with Israel the only way the trip leaders know how: through the "others" with whom Jews feel naturally comfortable.

Contrast this with the Zionistic tours that give Jews "one story."

But why is there no happy medium? Why is there such a fear of taking Jews to see the Jewish minorities of Israel? Why is there a fear of letting them meet Russians, Yemenites, Moroccans, Ethiopians and haredim, to name a few? The fear on the part of the birthright trips, and those like them, is that Jews might be shocked to see poverty and not think the country a success. The fear on the part of those like the New Israel Fund or Hebrew College is that they might not be able to push their agenda of the "other."

It isn't all the fault of the educators; people like Schonberg travel all over the world, and find most countries fascinating without spending all their time among the "other." In Iran they don't look for Baluchis, in Japan they don't look for Koreans, in South Africa they don't need Afrikaners, in Egypt they don't want to meet Nubians. They are fine with majority narratives for every country except Israel and America. The cultural milieu from which they come ascribes boring traits to Jews.

There is nothing wrong with introducing people to the "other" in Israel, but it is essential that they see all the others, not just a cookie-cutter image from the West into which Israel is forced to be subsumed so it can be understood

Seth J. Frantzman has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. Contact him at at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website:

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Mech'el Samberg, August 16, 2011.

This was written by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi and appeared in the Jerusalem Post

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is an intern at the Middle East Forum and a student at Oxford University. His website is www.aymennjawad.org


I was recently told by my aunt in Baghdad that there was a widespread belief among Iraqis that some external force was behind the protests and uprisings across the Middle East. What outside conspiracy, I wondered, could be responsible for the Arab Spring? Not to worry, however; George Saliba — the Syriac Orthodox Church's bishop in Lebanon — offers us a simple answer. In an interview with Al-Dunya TV on July 24, Saliba declared that "the source... behind all these movements, all these civil wars, and all these evils" in the Arab world is nothing other than Zionism, "deeply rooted in Judaism." The Jews, he says, are responsible for financing and inciting the turmoil in accordance with The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

These remarks are not an isolated case among Middle Eastern Christians. The anti-Semitic trend has become especially apparent in the aftermath of Iraq's assault last October on the Syriac Catholic Our Lady of Salvation Church in Baghdad, leaving 58 dead and 67 wounded in the worst attack on the Iraqi Christian community since 2003.

Two months after the atrocity, for example, the Melkite Greek Patriarch Gregory III Laham characterized the terrorist attacks on Iraq's Christians as part of "a Zionist conspiracy against Islam."

He further affirmed, "All this behavior has nothing to do with Islam... but it is actually a conspiracy planned by Zionism... and it aims at undermining and giving a bad image of Islam."

He then said the massacre "is also a conspiracy against Arabs and the predominantly Muslim Arab world that aims at depicting Arabs and Muslims in Arab countries as terrorist and fundamentalist murderers in order to deny them their rights, and especially those of the Palestinians."

While the patriarch has warned of the dangers of Christian emigration and the formation of a "society uniquely Muslim," he attributed the risk of "demographic extinction" solely to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Similarly, in an interview with NBN TV on November 9, 2010, Iraqi priest Father Suheil Qasha claimed that the Jews consider all gentiles to be beasts, and asserted that the "real danger" to Middle Eastern Christians came from Zionism. He went on to state that those who perpetrated the attack on the church in Baghdad were certainly not Muslims, but probably those trained and supervised "by global Zionism."

Anti-Semitism extends to the Coptic Orthodox Church, which, serving around 10 percent of Egypt's population, is the largest single church in the Middle East and North Africa. As liberal Egyptian blogger Samuel Tadros points out, a certain Father Marcos Aziz Khalil wrote in the newspaper Nahdet Masr: "The Jews saw that the Church is their No. 1 enemy, and that without [the] priesthood the Church loses its most important component. Thus the Masonic movement was the secret Zionist hand to create revolution against the clergy."

AT THIS point, many would no doubt be inclined to explain away this anti-Semitism by pointing to the anti-Jewish sentiments that are mainstream among the Muslim populations of the region. Living in such an environment — the reasoning goes — Christians would naturally be careful not to denounce deeply held convictions among their Muslim neighbors for fear of provoking persecution.

However, the cancer of hostility toward Jews among Middle Eastern Christians goes much deeper than that.

Indeed, it is telling that other non-Muslim minorities that have suffered discrimination and violence at the hands of Islamists — including the Yezidis, Mandeans and Bahá'ís — have never blamed Jews or Zionism for their persecution; their religions have not featured anti-Semitic doctrines.

The case of the Bahá'í community is especially important because, with the religion's global center located in Haifa, charges of collaboration with Israel can easily be leveled against Bahá'ís. Yet the Universal House of Justice has never complained of a Jewish/Zionist conspiracy against the Bahá'í communities in Iran and the wider region. Rather, it has always rightly identified the problem as enforcement of traditional Islamic law on the treatment of non-Muslims and apostasy, along with the supremacist attitudes fostered by the promotion of Shari'a.

Ultimately the malaise of anti-Semitism among Middle Eastern Christians is entrenched in charges of deicide (i.e., of killing Jesus) against the Jewish people as a whole. As Saliba put it, Jewish conspiracies are "only natural" because the Jews repaid Christ for his miracles by crucifying him. In particular, Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Orthodox Church lambasted the Western churches for exonerating Jews for Christ's death, in a televised interview on April 8, 2007. He argued that Jews were "Christ-killers" because "the New Testament says they are."

It is clear that in general, the Eastern churches have yet to move beyond the noxious anti-Semitic motifs repudiated by the Vatican in its Nostra Aetate declaration issued in 1965, after the Second Vatican Council. If anti-Semitism in the Middle East and North Africa is to be eradicated, the burden of theological reform will evidently not be a task for Muslims alone.

Contact Mech'el Samberg at mechelsambergnew@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, August 16, 2011.

Instead of putting the question as to "why" the jackasses focus only on Israel, we suggest adding another query: WHO, specifically, is singling out Israel for calumny (whilst ignoring the Jihadist slaughters)? Name them. Give us names and addresses. And if they're Jews, out them for they are the yellow-bellied running Jews who align with Cain, not Abel.

If the bullies are US officials and bureaucrats, out them. Even if one of them is married to a former president. If they are Russian or Spanish agents provacateurs, name them. Shame them. Ask them how they'd like to be on the receiving end of the same sort of vicious propaganda they spew against Israelis. Would the Belgians accept the same insults? Find out by trying the shoe on them. Would Belgians welcome MSM incitement to riot in their shopping centers or would Belgians like to be made the butts of the bullying they inflict on Israelis? Should not Belgium surrender its lands to its Muslim occupiers? C'mon. It's time to battle the anti-American, anti-Jew, anti-Christian Islamics and their running-rabbit rotten enablers.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Roberts, August 16, 2011.


They call us — well they used to call us "The People of the Book". Naturally, by "Book" they meant what they called the "Old Testament" — what we call the TANACH. Many of us are sensitive to the term "Old Testament" since it implies obsolescence like the old car at the junkyard, while a new Mercedes sits in the driveway. Which was the fastest, sleekest, more efficient car? Obviously, the new one. I've heard Jewish friends actually correct their Christian neighbors — "no, not the Old Testament — we call it the TANACH". I don't have that sensitivity since old implies "first" and definitely implies that the new is built upon the old, which is beyond dispute when it comes to the two testaments. No minister, priest, or even argumentative Sunday School student would argue that the story of Jesus; his times, his disciples, his creed could exist without the " Old" Testament foundation. Christianity is well aware of that now. Hard to believe that it took two millennia for that understanding to become universal. Strange, all the years that the church was sponsoring the persecuting of Jews they didn't recognize this debt or the fact that they were conducting a form of institutional suicide. They were putting the knife to their own throat. I speak, of course, of the old days — not today when Jewish/Christian relationships are as sunny as a Spring morning. Today, the two religions are in equal danger from an Islamic foe with an 8th Century conscience. And most of their leaders understand it. And neither medieval Christian mobs nor 20th Century Nazis yell for Jewish blood. Physically and philosophically it's plain that the death of Judaism is the death of Christianity. We will lie side by side in the same coffin.

Given this bond, it has often amazed me that the Christian world is so silent about the threat to their own institutions and membership in the Middle East. So different from the reaction of Judaism. So silent. In the old days, before universal anti Semitism reached its current murderous pitch, Jews were accused of loud, boisterous behavior — especially in public. "Waiter, are you gonna bring me a glass of tea or am I going to have to take a cruise to Ceylon, pick the tea leaves, and get back in time for my pastrami sandwich?" There was some truth to the generalization — we were vocal, outspoken, maybe even loud. We spoke up. Especially when we saw injustice. Maybe it was a virtue, not a vice. I wish Christianity was loud, boisterous.

It's my impression from the 2-column inch articles in the press or internet news sources, that Christianity in Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon — at least these three — is slowly being strangled. Data are hard to obtain, but intuitively I feel this to be true. Where are the Christians of Lebanon? Dead or fled. What about that sacred, ancient cult of Christians called Copts that formally prospered in Egypt? And why is the Christian community so mum as to this stranglehold by Islam? I guess, as a non-Christian I'm learning that they really believe this "turn the other cheek" routine. It certainly seems ineffective when it comes to world opinion. And why does the Pope have laryngitis — so quiet? Contrast that with longtime Jewish reactions. Even such a relatively mild injustice (compared to bombs and bullets) as the Russian repression of its Jewish citizens of the 70's — there was an explosion of Jewish wrath. Committees, headlines, legislation in the U.S. Congress. Now half of the Lebanese Christian population has been killed or stampeded out of town. And I see... I see nothing. If nothing else, it's an interesting contrast and so dramatically demonstrative of their worldview compared to us Jews. A current example comes to mind. The Islamic demands for parts of East Jerusalem. The section that contains the sites holy to Christiandom. Israel overran East Jerusalem during the '67 war. At that time Jordan controlled these sites with an iron hand. Christian access was limited. But not now under Jewish control. Wouldn't you think that Christian voices would be raised in a Hallelujah chorus in support of Israel guardianship? Where is the voice of Christianity? Why so faint?

And it's clear as crystal that the overall Muslim dream is not only a Judenfrei Middle East, but an empire free of Christianity. This is obvious in the foreign policy of Iran, who would like to reign over this empire. In a way it's an analogue of the situation where Arabs can live in Israel, but Jews cannot live in Arab land. No Jewish apartments in the Jerusalem suburbs of Jerusalem, which post-negotiations may end up in a new artificial Arab state. But 2 million Muslims can live in Israel and more millions in France, Britain. Yes, it's as clear as Mein Kampf, but we ignore it.


Visited my granddaughter last week in New Jersey — flew in from Huntsville, Alabama. The poor child. Not that the state doesn't have a few advantages; like a state income tax that would choke a healthy horse. Why is that an advantage? Well, it's deductible on your Federal 1040. And the weather is really mild — compared to Vermont. (Snow shovels are NOT deductible.) And the people are zealously spiritual. There's a traditional morning prayer — never missed — that begins: "Thank you, dear Lord, for not making me a resident of Vermont and thanks again for line 37-B regarding deduction on the Federal 1040". And there's more, but I've only got 800 words and I'm most anxious to get to regional cultural differences — especially when it comes to childrearing.

See, my trip unbeknownst to my paragon of a granddaughter, was really to check on her child-raising skills. She has three boys, aged 2 to 6 years, who would be most compatible in a maximum security federal penitentiary.

Don't get me wrong. These were bright, creative, imaginative children who had all the intellectual riches of their grandfather. But they had never encountered the civilizing "R" word ("rules") backed up by the cruel "P" word ("punishment") or the honey sweet "R" word ("reward"). Alarming reports had reached me a thousand miles away that the Russian revolution was only a preliminary compared to this undisciplined threat to Western civilization.

I was a skillful undercover agent — I never revealed my true mission. Upon arrival I remarked, "Oh, what a lovely kitchen". But out of the corner of my eye I scanned the Jr. World Wrestling Federation in action.

Mealtime was especially rewarding. Food served four purposes: A) nutrients, B) projectiles, C) toys, and D) paint — either for table, floor, or wall. And one never knew at what moment it would serve which purpose. This was dangerous unless you wanted an ear full of oatmeal.

I watched wordlessly — just like Richard Burton in The Spy Who Came In From the Cold. I even smiled when wolf cub No. 2 poured a full bowl of cereal on the floor. "How aesthetically creative," said his admiring mother. I must admit the mealy, white liquid and the golden flakes match the tan tiles of the kitchen floor. I grinned in agreement. "He'll be an artist for sure when he grows up." (Deep down inside, though, I'm doubting whether Van Gogh dumped his cereal and whether he was paid for it.)

Mama loaded up his cereal bowl and left the room to do an errand. What an opportunity!! Sure enough, Wildcat 2 did his artistic thing, again. I peeped around, Mama was gone. I loaded up the bowl — lots of milk. I, with a scary face, turned it upside down on his head. All three wildcats laughed and the other two did the same to their soggy brother. They loved it! The floor was a mess. Everybody was happy except me. We coulda sold tickets to half the juveniles in town.

"Oh dear," I wailed loudly, "I knocked over the table."

"No problem, happens all the time," replied my bustling daughter. What a bad sign, I thought. This must be a regular thrill. A breakfast vaudeville act. Good thing the child psychologist from Alabama is here to fix it.

Still, it was a failure. I had invented a game, not a disciplinary technique. Furthermore, the old one — though not old enough to write his first novel — could manage to communicate to his mama that I had given him an oatmeal shampoo. And he was clever enough for blackmail.

But I came 1200 miles to improve this breed and I wasn't about to surrender. "Hey, how about I take Simon for a walk?"

"Sure," says his busy mother. So, off we go. Things are going great. This child, age 3, is smart. He's got my skill in observing nature. Great walk featuring a butterfly, a stray cat, a big, red truck (why do kids love red trucks?) and a big, yellow school bus.

Now it's time to take the turn for home. Squeezing his little hand, I turn for home — he turns the other way. Slowly, I understand I'm either going to have to carry this 30 pounder eight blocks or drag him. And he doesn't even have on a motorcycle jacket.

I make the speech about corporal punishment to the pudgy hand. "Slap slap," I say. No comprehension. So, using the behavioral principle that one slap is worth a thousand words, I slap. Only one. And a love pat almost. His eyes show total consternation. What is this unpleasant thing? And he yields to my pulling arm. Waterloo, Iwo Jima, Gettysburg, D Day is over. We arrive home.

The following day, friends and my daughter observe, "Gee, Pop, you know he really listens to you". (No kidding.) Wonder what the statute of limitations is on child abuse. Isn't that what they call it now?

Ted Roberts is a syndicated humorist. His essays appear in the Jewish press, web sites, and magazines. He is author of The Scribbler On The Roof, a book of short stories and commentary. Visit his websites at
http://www.wonderwordworks.com and

To Go To Top

Posted by Laura, August 16, 2011.

This was written by Lt. Col. Howard and was printed in Israpundit


Lt. Col. Howard writes to advise:

I, with the help of others, posted these items at the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles:

Subject: Jerusalem some materials for background information — for distribution

(1) East Jerusalem. The so-called Arab sector of East Jerusalem was once heavily populated with Jews. In 1948 the British led British equipped British trained Jordanian Legion conquered that portion of the city of Jerusalem and murdered or expelled every Jew and destroy every vestige of Jewish presence.

Jews have indisputably been the majority in Jerusalem since at least 1853. It was a Jew-free area [in the eastern section] only during the brief period between 1949 to 1967, when Jordan ethnically cleansed East Jerusalem of Jews to interrupt a continuous 1,000-year Jewish presence. To consider East Jerusalem "Palestinian" an atypical 18-year historical blip as the baseline for negotiations.means rewarding Israel's Arab enemies, who aimed for exactly this goal when they leveled the Jewish Quarter.

Colonel Abdullah el Tell, local commander of the Jordanian Arab Legion, described the destruction of the Jewish Quarter, in his Memoirs:

"The operations of calculated destruction were set in motion. ... I knew that the Jewish Quarter was densely populated with Jews. ... I embarked, therefore, on the shelling of the Quarter with mortars, creating harassment and destruction. ... Only four days after our entry into Jerusalem the Jewish Quarter had become their graveyard. Death and destruction reigned over it. ... As the dawn of Friday, May 28, 1948, was about to break, the Jewish Quarter emerged convulsed in a black cloud — a cloud of death and agony. ..." The Jordanian commander who led the operation is reported to have told his superiors: "For the first time in 1,000 years not a single Jew remains in the Jewish Quarter. Not a single building remains intact. This makes the Jews' return here impossible."

The Jordanians then went on to destroy 34 out of the 35 ancient synagogues in the Jewish Quarter and to use them as hen-houses, to desecrate the ancient cemetery on the Mount of Olives and to use the gravestones as latrines, and to deny Jews access to the Western Wall and to turn the courtyard into a garbage dump.

But because they succeeded in doing that for almost 20 whole years — in contrast to 1,000 years of continuous Jewish life — the Obama administration insists that the Jewish State needs to cede portions of East Jerusalem to a future Palestinian entity on demographic grounds.

The idea that the "Jewish Quarter" should be off-limits to Jews incredible.

Worse things than those described above, happened. All of Jerusalem (including the entirely Jewish "New City") was totally surrounded for months by the Jordanian "Arab Legion" with the goal of literally causing the Jewish inhabitants to die of hunger and thirst.

Fortunately, a tiny Palmach garrison (led by Amos Horev) lifted the siege just in time to prevent mass starvation. The 1948 armistice agreement provided that there would be unfettered Jewish access to the two important Jewish institutions on Mt. Scopus, the Hebrew University and the Hadassah Hospital; but the first resupply convoy sent there after the armistice was savagely attacked and all its members (around 40) were killed; so for the next 19 years the Jews had constructed substitute buildings for these two institutions safely surrounded by "Jewish" territory. No doubt the Arabs are also demanding the "return" of Mt. Scopus, which they illegally and brutally occupied for those 19 years.

(2) President Obama has manufactured a crisis with Israel. On the same weekend that he took "offense" at one of what had been a series of approvals of housing in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem the Palestinian Authority named a square near Ramallah in the honor of a Palestinian terrorist (one of the worst) who had been responsible for the cold-blooded murder of a bus full of school children and an Israeli family. However, Pres. Obama not only was not offended that this took place during VP Biden's visit, but he didn't mention it at all. Rather his anger was solely directed against Israel.

Contact Laura at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu, August 16, 2011.

Hamas terrorists have arrested Gaza youth leader Abu Yazan, who has been using Facebook and other social media to call for political freedom.

He is one of the founders of the Gaza Youth Break Out group and was arrested Sunday after he returned from a speaking tour in France.

Yazan has been quoted as saying, "You used to look around to see if someone is listening, so we used to stay silent, not even think."

His group earlier this year published a manifesto that condemned Hamas, Fatah and other Arab political factions, as well as those in Israel. It called for freedom and "a normal life."

Yazan has been missing since he was questioned twice by Hamas, which confiscated his laptop and mobile phone before allowing him to fly to France. He was arrested when he went to Gaza security headquarters to retrieve them, a youth group official told the French news service AFP.

Gaza Youth Break Out sent a Twitter message Sunday, "#Gybo member, human rights activist, and blogger, Abu Yazan, arrested by the authorities in #Gaza."

He has been denied a lawyer and family visits, and a youth colleague, Abu Ghassan, told the news agency, "They knew him very well and ...it was an easy excuse for them to say he was involved in foreign interference or something. He was beaten up for a day or two and then released. We know nothing of his whereabouts."

Hamas and Fatah have come under increasing world criticism for executions and torture. Human rights groups, which previously have singled out Israel for military retaliation to terrorist attacks, have accused the rival Palestinian Authority factions of suppressing opposition rallies.

The youth group has used social media to call for unity among warring Arab factions, and Yazan has led anti-Israeli demonstrations in northern Gaza.

Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu is a writer for Arutz-7, where this article appeared today.

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, August 15, 2011.

Revival of infamous anti-Semitic book fuelled both by Muslim leaders, Christian clergy


The "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a short book concocted by the czarist police and presented as minutes of a secret meeting where Jews plotted world domination, is the biggest falsehood that refuses to die. It's the only book that has ever had the perverse distinction of being both globally influential and, at the same time, a forgery.

The "Protocols" are now prominently displayed not only in the Middle East, but also on the Western and Christian bookshelf. Books based on the "Protocols" are now available even in countries with hardly any Jews such as Japan. A Chinese bestseller entitled "The Currency War" and based on the "Protocols," describes how Jews are planning to control the world by manipulating the financial system. The book is reportedly read in the highest government circles. Recently, an Iranian stand at the Frankfurt Book Fair presented a copy of the "Protocols" published in English by the Islamic Republic of Iran in plain view. Thousands of Jews have been killed in Europe because of this infamous document. Hitler used it as a manual in his war to exterminate the Jews and Palestinian suicide bombers have been found with the "Protocols" in their pockets.

Renowned historian Bernard Lewis wrote that the "Protocols" were brought into the Islamic world by Christian authors who translated the book into Arabic. That shameful operation is still battering the Middle East. The "Protocols" rarely attracts Western attention, as we like to think that it is just a bad joke. But now some Christian sects and bishops are fomenting hatred against the Jews using traditional ant-Semitism — much of it theological.

Indeed, many bishops are quoting again from the "Protocols." In an interview with George Saliba, Bishop of the Syrian Orthodox Church in Lebanon, aired on Al-Dunya TV on July 24, 2011, he declared: "The source that finances and incites all these international organizations, in the East and West, and especially in the Arab world, they are led by a single, evil organization, known as Zionism."

"It is behind all these movements, all these civil wars, and all these evils, using the people of the West — whether in the US, in Europe, or their followers," he said.

Jews demonized again

The recent boom of anti-Semitic conspiracies, especially in the "new Egypt," is linked with the revival of the "Protocols", like the modern twist of accusing Israel of distributing drug-laced chewing gum and candy in the aims of killing children and sexually corrupting Arab women, or the lingerie soaked with invisible ink for coded Jewish messages.

The "Protocols" is being published with new editions in Arabic almost every year, and in Persian and Turkish as well. Listening to "moderate" Muslim leaders (never mind the Ayatollahs) and looking at the vile, racist cartoons in the strictly controlled Arab media (even in Egypt and Jordan, formally at peace with Israel), one sees a pathological hatred that may erupt in unconventional attacks.

Representing "Western corruption," Jews are demonized again as "vermin," "a cancer," intentional spreaders of AIDS through blood transfusion and prostitution. The conspiracy resembles that of Josef Stalin, who accused six Jewish doctors of plotting to poison the Soviet leader. Even the West Dunbartonshire Council, the Scottish council at the centre of a row over its boycott of Israeli books, admitted it had bought a copy of the "Protocols" in January.

The "Protocols" are now on prominent display at the Malaysian capital's International Airport, the Hamas charter includes citations of the "Protocols," and the book can be found in bookstalls on Cairo's streets. An Arabic translation of the "Protocols" can be also found on the website of the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Information.

Last year, renowned leftist Italian philosopher Gianni Vattimo declared that he had "re-evaluated" the "Protocols" and now felt they largely reflect the truth about the Jews. The Jewish Community Confederation of Venezuela has just lodged a protest with the country's attorney general, denouncing the promotion of the "Protocols" by a state-owned media outlet.

'The Jews are God killers'

A few months ago, The Australian revealed that the biggest mosque in central Sydney was selling copies of the inflammatory anti-Semitic book and the "Protocols" is prominently displayed on Edgware Road in the heart of London.

The constant use of the "Protocols" in the Arab media, especially in soap operas during the Ramadan, creates an atmosphere where any charge against the Jews is believed. It does not matter whether the "Protocols" are fact or fiction: their "predictions" have largely come true.

Last December the patriarch of the Antioch Church, Gregory III Laham, declared that there was a "Zionist conspiracy" behind al-Qaeda's attack on a Catholic church in Baghdad, where 58 innocent parishioners were slaughtered. Richard Williamson, one of four bishops ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and later rehabilitated by Pope Benedict XVI, said that the "Protocols" are "authentic" and that the Jews are fighting for world domination "to prepare the Anti-Christ's throne in Jerusalem."

Last year, Giacomo Babini, the emeritus bishop of Grosseto, said that he believed a "Zionist attack" was behind the criticism against the Church on sexual abuse. Babini was quoted by Catholic website Pontifex as saying: "They do not want the Church, they are its natural enemies. Deep down, historically speaking, the Jews are God killers." The Bishops' Conference later rushed to issue a statement quoting Babini denying he had ever given the interview. While there is in fact no Jewish conspiracy to submit the world, there is an anti-Jewish conspiracy that is infecting the minds and the hearts of millions of people, in the West and elsewhere. Next month Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who claimed to have distributed the "Protocols" to expose "the real visage of this satanic enemy" (Israel) and to "burn and wholly destroy this deadly, cancerous tumor", will speak at the United Nations' conference on racism in New York.

But most tragic is that an Iranian Shihab-3 missile fired from Tehran to Tel Aviv would take 12 minutes to hit the Jews. The greatest forgery and blood libel is again fomenting a Jewish catastrophe, now with the shameful complicity of some Christian bishops. The "Protocols" was first published in Russia in 1905 by a Christian priest, Sergius Nilus. One century later the word "Jew" has become again an accepted insult in the global square.

Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism This article is archived at YNet

To Go To Top

Posted by Gil Ronen, August 15, 2011.

Every single Palestinian Authority terrorist held in an Israeli jail receives a monthly salary from the PA. Terrorists who committed the most heinous crimes — and therefore received longer sentences — receive the most money, according to a report in Israeli paper Yisrael Hayom.

Citing a report received by a senior government official in Jerusalem, the paper says that the terrorists' salaries are paid from the PA's "public budget," which accounts for about 3.5 percent of its total budget.

The PA treasury receives cash from two main sources: the US pays about 50 percent of the money, and the rest is mostly from European Union member nations.

Prisoners who were jailed for periods of up to five years receive 1,400 to 2,000 NIS per month. However, terrorists serving 10 to 15 years receive 6,000 shekels, the ones serving 15 to 20 years receive 10,000 shekels, and those serving 20 to 30 years get 12,000 shekels. These are people who planned, directed and took part in the intentional sadistic slaughter of civilian men, women and children, at point blank range.

Since some of the victims of PA terror are American citizens, the information means that US taxpayers pay monthly salaries to the people who murdered their fellow citizens. The latest US citizen who was a victim of PA terror is Ben Yosef Livnat, who was gunned down in Shechem.

The terrorists' wives and children receive additional cash, and prisoners with Israel citizenship get a bonus.

Gil Ronen is a columnist for Arutz-7. This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, August 15, 2011.

This was written by Bill Levinson and it appeared yesterday in Israpundit

William A. Levinson, P.E. is the author of several books on business management, including content on organizational psychology as well as manufacturing productivity and quality.


Change the Paradigm of the Arab-Israeli Conflict to Win

Dr. Stephen Covey compares leadership to management as follows: if workers are chopping their way through a jungle, managers figure out how to help them to chop faster. A leader climbs a tree, looks around, and realizes, "We're in the wrong jungle!" Every discussion of how much land Israel must give up to have peace exemplifies this principle because the Islamic Middle East cannot tolerate the nearby presence of even one acre under Judeo-Christian control.
From William Levinson, American Thinker
(http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/israeli_land_ concessions_wrong_answer_to_the_wrong_problem.html).

I should have figured this out ten years ago. Israeli occupation of Arab land is not and has never been the root cause of the problems in the Middle East. Israel's surrender of land, even to the extent of withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders, will therefore not bring peace and must be taken off the table. The bottom line is that what passes for Islam in that part of the world cannot tolerate ANY Judeo-Christian and therefore superior role model in its midst. That needs to be made clear to the Palestinian, Syrian, Iranian, and other people in the region. Their leaders can, under color of Islam, offer them nothing but poverty, ignorance, superstition, violence, squalor, and filth while Judeo-Christian values offer them prosperity, affluence, peace, and safety. Let's cut to the chase and speak the truth that needs to be spoken.

We can in fact break the back of Islam in the Middle East by arguing that, "If God (or Allah) was on the side of your mullahs, imams, and ayatollahs, you and not the Jews and Christians would be living in the kind of economic prosperity depicted here" and include pictures of the typical Euro-American standard of living. "The fact that you live in squalor while the neighboring Jews in Israel live in affluence, even though they have no more natural resources than you do, proves that your mullahs and imams are self-serving charlatans — and, by the way, has any of THEM ever gone on one of the suicide missions to which they have urged your teenaged sons and now your daughters? — who probably do not even believe in the God they claim to represent."

Once you break the bond of trust and commitment between leaders and followers, it is all over for the organization in question.

Editor's Note: This was a Reader's Comment:

Martin says: August 16, 2011 at 6:28 am

I am so pleased to read so many people are coming round to the idea that annexation and transfer are not dirty words.

There is only one solution to Israel's problem and it is to be regretted that it has taken this long by intelligent observers to understand that is a problem defined by Israeli's enemies. They, not Israel, have defined the terms of engagement. Having stated clearly and courageously by Hamas and the Arab nations that they will never recognize Israel and will continue to strive by arms if necessary for it's elimination this clearly announced credo must be acknowledged as an objective fact that they mean what they say.

Therefore, Israel has no choice but to forcefully and defiantly annex and transfer rendering a dramatic insulting blow to their enemy's fantasies and conceit.

Failure to have undertaken this proposed action explains why Israel has never been able to get the attention of the Arabs — and will never get their attention — that Israel intends to survive as a Jewish Nation in the Middle East. Nothing else will make the Arabs come to their senses. Either that, or disband the State of Israel. The Arabs have given Israel no other alternative.

For decades the Arabs have been the dominate aggressor and the Israelis the passive defender. The relationship must be reversed to resolve the conflict. Is that not obvious?

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, August 14, 2011.

This was written by Evelyn Gordon and it appeared in Commentary Magazine
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/05/20/ obamas-speech-endorses-palestinian-state-at-war-with-israel/.


Several Contentions contributors commented yesterday on President Barack Obama​'s call for a Palestinian state "based on the 1967 lines," which they correctly identified as both radical departing from previous U.S. policy and severely undermining Israel's negotiating position. But that was far from the worst element of Obama's speech. Much worse was his endorsement of what Noah Pollak aptly identified this week as "moderate" Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas​'s real goal: not a Palestinian state at peace with Israel, but a Palestinian state at war with Israel.

The key passage comes just after Obama called for a "full and phased" Israeli withdrawal on a fixed timetable ("the duration of this transition period must be agreed") in exchange for "robust" security provisions:

I'm aware that these steps alone will not resolve the conflict, because two wrenching and emotional issues will remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.

In other words, Israel should withdraw fully to the 1967 lines and not get peace in exchange, because the two thorniest issues, Jerusalem and the refugees, will remain to be resolved.

Moreover, having done so, Israel will be left with no bargaining chips with which to obtain Palestinian concessions on these issues. Having already ceded the entirety of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians, what is it supposed to offer them in exchange for ceding their demand that all 4.8 million refugees and their descendents relocate to Israel so as to eradicate the Jewish state demographically? And what incentive would the Palestinians have for waiving this demand? Having already obtained every inch of post-1967 Israel for nothing, why shouldn't they think pre-1967 Israel is attainable too?

Obama didn't even promise that America would back Israel on these issues. He adopted the Palestinians' position on the 1967 lines, but he didn't adopt a single Israeli position in the speech. He didn't say the refugees would have to move to Palestine rather than Israel. He didn't say Israel should retain Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem or Jewish holy sites. He didn't say Israel should maintain a military presence along the Jordan River. He didn't say Israel should keep the major settlement blocs, or even imply it: He specified "mutually agreed swaps," meaning only those Abbas is willing to accept — and Abbas has consistently refused to agree to Israel retaining the blocs.

He didn't even insist that the new Fatah-Hamas unity government accept the Quartet's conditions: recognizing Israel, renouncing terror and honoring previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. He merely demanded an unspecified "credible answer" to the question of how Israel can negotiate with a party "unwilling to recognize [its] right to exist," thereby implying that such a "credible answer" is possible even if Hamas persists in this unwillingness.

His stated opposition to Abbas's plan to seek unilateral UN recognition a Palestinian state in September was also mere lip service. As Egypt's UN ambassador perceptively noted, the speech will actually help Abbas win support for this move. After all, if the U.S. president has just said a Palestinian state should be created in the 1967 lines without having to make peace with Israel or abandon its plans for Israel's destruction, why should other countries cavil at the notion?

In short, this speech destroyed any prospect of Israeli-Palestinian peace ever being achieved. If the president of the United States says peace isn't necessary for statehood, the Palestinians certainly aren't going to contradict him.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 14, 2011.

I've been writing for some time about how upside down the world is. But it seems, on reflection, that it was not upside down, it was only tilted sideways — and now the tilt is increasing. The state of the world is getting worse, and one must stop and ask, who notices? The failure of the Western world to pay attention is what is perhaps most frightening.

In my opinion, the recent riots in London represent some very serious handwriting on the wall of history. But I've yet to see wide scale recognition of this in the US.

Melanie Phillips wrote in her blog the other day, that "what we are seeing [among other things] is a culture of narcissistic selfishness on an epic scale and a general breakdown in education, morality and elementary codes of civilised behaviour, much of it deliberately willed on for the past three decades by a grossly irresponsible and politically motivated intelligentsia that set out to smash the west.

"And now London is being smashed as a result."


What I have begun to read about — and it's terribly politically incorrect to mention this — is a kind of mob influence in America, with black hate crimes against whites. The law, it seems, is not acting decisively enough in these cases, and, as lawyer J. Christian Adams wrote in Family Security Matters, "The mob is decisive when the law is not."

This is the America that was going to see new unity and hope under the leadership of its first black president. But now it's difficult not to link what is going with this president. Adams reports that one family in Ohio that was severely beaten by a mob of blacks received the taunts, "This is our world. This is a black world." But, he says, "The Justice Department under Eric Holder has little interest in bringing hate crimes charges to protect white victims."
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/ id.10140/pub_detail.asp


Should we be surprised?


Obama held a Ramadan break-the-fast dinner in the White House the other day, and thanked the Muslims for their contribution to America. Just one more deplorable instance of the president's pandering that reflects a clear bias.


Then, of course, there is Obama's abysmal failure with regard to foreign affairs — no where so more than in the Middle East, where the US is no longer respected as a player of significance. Obama is making it easier for the bad guys to win.

And the economy? Need I say it? The national debt, the unemployment.

And yet, I'm not hearing the cries. They should be loud enough to hear in Jerusalem: The American people should be on their feet shouting, "ENOUGH!" But they're not. And Obama's approval rating should be in the single digits. But it's not. It's down (by how much depends on the source reporting.). But not by enough.

Is this a sane world?


The economy of the European nations is in serious trouble as well — in many cases because of socialist welfare policies.

The "Arab Spring" turned out to be a January thaw, with the whole region embroiled in tensions and unrest that do not bode well for constructive development of the states involved.


What the Palestinian Arabs are up to depends on the day of the week, or the hour of the day:

They say they will reconcile with Hamas, but arrest members of Hamas in Judea and Samaria; Hamas says Fatah is not serious.

The PA sometimes talks about going to the Security Council, and sometimes to the General Assembly. They are promoting "non-violent resistance" for September (like they were ever non-violent), but say they want to keep things quiet because it will make them look better. Reportedly Fayyad and Abbas are at odds on how to proceed.

There is nonsensical talk about going to the UN and then coming to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile a whole lot of crystal balls are very cloudy these days: various columnists and pundits cannot get their acts together with regard to any clear explanation of what is likely to happen in September. Everything from a major crisis to almost nothing is being predicted. (I'm holding fast to my earlier prediction and will return to this in due course, rest assured.)

And the European nations keen on supporting that Palestinian state seem to ignore the fact they would own it — that is, the state leaders would come to them eternally with hands out. As the European states are struggling financially themselves, and this is something they can ill afford, can we say their support for a Palestinian state is rational?


Had enough? I haven't yet told you the worst. You know what's threatening world stability?

Israel's plans to build housing over the Green Line in Jerusalem.

How do I know? The Americans and Europeans say so. They are terribly upset by the announcement by Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) to put up 1,600 apartment units in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood of Jerusalem. If it weren't for this, the PA would undoubtedly come to the table. And if the PA came to the table, surely Iran would stop building the bomb. No?


In a sane world, Israel would be applauded for her stability in a very unstable part of the world. For her vibrant democracy where around her there is often violent autocratic rule. For her ability to thrive and develop, thereby benefiting the world at large with regard to medical and hi tech innovations.

In a sane world, Israel would be supported and praised and emulated.

And so the readiness of the world to bring Israel down is the final proof of the world's insanity.

We must pray for Israel's leaders, that they will stand strong against the pressures of the outside world, and the pressures (for a return to a welfare state) within, as well. Israel absolutely must stand strong.


Dear friends, for me, tomorrow begins "Kaitana Savta" — best translated as Camp Grandma. Over the next three weeks small groups of my grandchildren will be sleeping over, going to the Science Museum with me, eating pizza and ice cream, doing arts and crafts, walking in the Old City.

There is nothing that restores sanity and optimism like time with bright, eager and dearly loved grandchildren.

Cannot say there will be no postings in the next three weeks. But they will be diminished in number. Hopefully at the end of that time I will be refreshed and ready to deal more effectively with the insanity of the world and the ambiguities that abound.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, August 14, 2011.

In politics, the losers always blame the "broken" system. But if the system did not work those who deserved to lose would be still in power!

For years I have been claiming that there is nothing wrong with the American and Israeli political systems. Each works well in its respective set of conditions.

Whenever I tell my friends that Washington works very well and so does the Israeli political system, they roll their eyes and look at me as if I have completely lost my mind. But I insist!!!

The great American Constitution continues to cast its wondrous spell after so many years. Had it not allowed the checks and balances, failing presidents would have free hands to use the entire country and nation as their experimental laboratory.

In Israel, where there is no Constitution, the checks and balances manifest themselves in the form of coalitions, which is another form of ensuring checks and balances and even consensus. If Israel did not have a system that allowed a change of government even in mid-term, Israel would still have failing Prime Ministers such as Barak and Olmert at its helm. The instability of an Israeli government is in fact the country's salvation.

President Obama had two years to lead America into the largest deficit in its history, until, in November 2010, the Republicans and the so called "Tea Party" were sent in by the voters to put a stop to his madness.

Had Obama been the PM of Israel, he would have lost his power when coalition members would have brought his government down.

Would you not be pleased if you could send Obama home before the end of his term, before he caused even more damage?

As I said above, if you are on the losing side, blaming the system is your only pretext. However, in both the American and Israeli systems, there will always be a loser and a winner and that is precisely why the two democracies, each in its own way, are working so well.

One of America's greatest commentators, Charles Krauthammer, agrees with what I have been saying for years. Here is his insightful article from 12 August, 2011 in The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-system-works/ 2011/08/11/gIQAKPXc9I_print.html). It is called "The System Works."


Of all the endlessly repeated conventional wisdom in today's Washington, the most lazy, stupid and ubiquitous is that our politics is broken. On the contrary. Our political system is working well (I make no such claims for our economy), indeed, precisely as designed — profound changes in popular will translated into law that alters the nation's political direction.

The process has been messy, loud, disputatious and often rancorous. So what? In the end, the system works. Exhibit A is Wisconsin. Exhibit B is Washington itself.

The story begins in 2008. The country, having lost confidence in Republican governance, gives the Democrats full control of Washington. The new president, deciding not to waste a crisis, attempts a major change in the nation's ideological trajectory. Hence his two signature pieces of legislation: a near-$1?trillion stimulus, the largest spending bill in galactic history; and a health-care reform that places one-sixth of the economy under federal control.

In a country where conservatives outnumber liberals 2-1, this causes a reaction. In the 2010 midterms, Democrats suffer a massive repudiation at every level. In Washington, Democrats suffer the greatest loss of House seats since 1948. In the states, they lose over 700 state legislative seats — the largest reversal ever — resulting in the loss of 20 state chambers.

The Tea-Party-propelled, debt-conscious Republicans then move to confront their states' unsustainable pension and health-care obligations — most boldly in Wisconsin, where the new governor proposes a radical reorientation of the power balance between public-sector unions and elected government.

In Madison, the result is general mayhem — drum-banging protesters, frenzied unions, statehouse occupations, opposition legislators fleeing the state to prevent a quorum. A veritable feast of creative democratic resistance.

In the end, however, they fail. The legislation passes.

Then, further resistance. First, Democrats turn an otherwise sleepy state Supreme Court election into a referendum on the union legislation, the Democrats' candidate being widely expected to overturn the law. The unions/Democrats lose again.

And then last Tuesday, recall elections for six Republican state senators, three being needed to return the Senate to Democratic control and restore balance to the universe. Yet despite millions of union dollars, the Republicans hold the Senate. The unions/Democrats lose again.

The people spoke; the process worked. Yes, it was raucous and divisive, but change this fundamental should not be enacted quietly. This is not midnight basketball or school uniforms. This is the future of government-worker power and the solvency of the states. It deserves big, serious, animated public debate.

Precisely of the kind Washington (exhibit B) just witnessed over its debt problem. You know: The debt-ceiling debate universally denounced as dysfunctional, if not disgraceful, hostage-taking, terrorism, gun-to-the-head blackmail.

Spare me the hysteria. What happened was that the 2010 electorate, as represented in Congress, forced Washington to finally confront the national debt. It was a triumph of democratic politics — a powerful shift in popular will finding concrete political expression.

But only partial expression. Debt hawks are upset that the final compromise doesn't do much. But it shouldn't do much. They won only one election. They were entrusted, as of yet, with only one-half of one branch of government.

But they did begin to turn the aircraft carrier around. The process did bequeath a congressional super-committee with extraordinary powers to reduce debt. And if that fails, the question — how much government, how much debt — will go to the nation in November 2012. Which is also how it should be.

The conventional complaint is that the process was ugly. Big deal. You want beauty? Go to a museum. Democratic politics was never meant to be an exercise in aesthetics.

Not just ugly, moan the critics, but oh so slow. True, again. It took months. And will take more. The super-committee doesn't report until Thanksgiving. The next election is more than a year away. But the American system was designed to make a full turn of the carrier difficult and deliberate.

Moreover, without this long ugly process, the debt issue wouldn't even be on the table. We'd still be whistling our way to Greece. Instead, a nation staring at insolvency is finally stirring itself to action, and not without spirited opposition. Great issues are being decided as constitutionally designed. The process is working.

Notice how the loudest complaints about "broken politics" come from those who lost the debate. It's understandable for sore losers to rage against the machine. But there's no need for the rest of us to parrot their petulance.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il. Visit his website at www.truthprovider.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Daily Alert, August 12, 2011.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/ palestinian-engineer-admits-helping-hamas-develop- rockets-to-be-fired-at-israel-1.378205


Dirar Abu Sisi, who according to foreign reports was abducted in February in the Ukraine, tells Israeli interrogators he was tasked with extending the rockets' range.

Details emerged Thursday about the investigation of engineer Dirar Abu Sisi, who according to foreign reports was abducted by Israeli forces in the Ukraine last February. The information was made public after a Be'er Sheva court lifted a comprehensive gag order on Abu Sisi's interrogation.

Sisi told investigators he helped Hamas boost its rocket capabilities, including launch and range capabilities. He said he used "mathematical equations, which improve the ability of the iron rods to withstand pressure and heat."

Dirar Abu Sisi in court Monday, where he was charged with being an important part of the Gaza Strip's rocket-launching operations. (Photo: Pool)

In 2002 Abu Sisi began working with Mohammed Def, the head of Hamas' military wing who currently tops Israel's most wanted list. The two began developing a new rocket called Albana, yet according to Abu Sisi, they were unsuccessful.

"In 2003, Hamas asked me to extend the Qassam rocket's range by up to six kilometers," Abu Sisi told the interrogators. "In 2005 they asked me again to extend the range to nine kilometers, then 15." He added that eventually he was asked to extend the range by 22, 32, 37 and 45 kilometers.

In his investigation, Abu Sisi also said he started a new academy that taught "military tactics and techniques," as well as "human resources management, time management crisis management and general administration."

Abu Sisi expressed remorse for his activities, saying he was "sorry for being part of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas," and for his involvement in developing rockets. When he tried to leave Hamas, he said, he was threatened that "many warriors are killed in unusual missions." He said he sent a letter to Mohammed Def asking to discontinue his involvement, but never received an answer.

According to foreign reports, Abu Sisi, formerly a high-ranking engineer at Gaza's electric company and power station, was abducted by Israeli security forces after boarding a train in the eastern Ukraine city of Kharkiv heading for Kiev, where he planned to meet a brother who has been living in Amsterdam for several years.

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Ethan Bronner, August 12, 2011.

This is by Ethan Bronner and it appeared in the New York Times. This below appeared in Radiance Weekly
http://www.radianceweekly.com/268/7514/the-arab-autumn/ 2011-08-21/muslim-world/story-detail/us-threatens-gaza-aid- cutoff-if-hamas-sticks-to-audit.html


The State Department sent a message to Gaza's Hamas leaders on Thursday that it would withdraw some $100 million it is spending in Gaza on health care, agriculture and water infrastructure if they did not back off a demand to audit the books of American-financed charities operating there.

The threat, delivered via an intermediary, came after Hamas officials suspended the operation of the International Medical Corps on Sunday for its refusal to submit to a Hamas audit at the charity's site.

Early this year, Hamas asked all such groups to register with the central government, pay a fee and submit financial reports.

U.S. policy forbids direct contact with Hamas, labeled a terrorist group. As a result, on-site audits by Hamas officials would lead to suspension of aid, American officials said.  

This below appeared in Radiance Weekly
http://www.radianceweekly.com/268/7514/the-arab-autumn/ 2011-08-21/muslim-world/story-detail/us-threatens-gaza-aid- cutoff-if-hamas-sticks-to-audit.html

The US will cut $100 million in American aid money to Palestinians in Gaza if the territory's Hamas rulers continue with "unwarranted audits" of local American non-profit organisations, a UD State Department official said on August 12. The American threat came in response to a growing attempt by Hamas to exert control over the international organisations that support the many impoverished Palestinians among Gaza's population of 1.5 million people. This week, Hamas shut down the US-financed International Medical Corps after it refused to submit to a Hamas audit. The State Department informed Hamas on August 11 that aid worth $100 million would be halted if the International Medical Corps were not allowed to operate freely.

Hamas has told non-profit groups that they must be registered with the Gaza government and provide financial records. Mohammed Awad, the Hamas minister of planning in Gaza, said the organisations had agreed to have their accounts vetted through a Hamas-appointed accountant. "We are not saying there is corruption in these organisations but we are trying to put things in order and to ensure that these organisations are providing services to citizens," he said. "These organisations entered this land on this basis."

The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, August 12, 2011.

"A Historical Tour of the Holy Land"
by Beryl Ratzer
Jerusalem: Gefen Books
ISBN-10: 9652294926
ISBN-13: 978-9652294920
April 30, 2010


Beryl Ratzer combines her knowledge of Israeli archaeology,geography and history with her great love of the Land of Israel,

Beryl Ratzer, a veteran Israeli tour guide, has compiled in her book a concise and approachable history of the Holy Land. This is the third edition of the book and it is brought up to the present through a mention of 2009's Operation Cast Lead.

Ratzer writes that she desired not just to bring out a souvenir for tourists but a book "for those interested in, or intrigued by, the long and often turbulent history of the Holy Land." The monograph is organized chronologically by era, examining the history of the Land of Israel from the earliest discoveries relating to man, such as Natufian (23,500-9,5000 BCE) burial sites on the Carmel, to the present. Beautiful maps and photos illustrate the Israelite period (1200-56 BCE) and the helpful table shows a list of all the Kings of Israel and Judah and when they reigned. There seems to be a slight lack of information on the pre-Israelite cities such as Megiddo, Hatzor and Dan. The map of the conquests of the Hasmonean dynasty could be improved by an inclusion of indications of the sites of the interesting forts the Hasmoneans built in the Judean desert.

Ratzer's book is strongest when it comes to photos and the use of period quotes to guide the reader through the numerous sites. The reader is invited to see the Holy Land variously through the eyes of Mark Twain (1867) and the Sennacherib (704 BCE). For those looking for a short history of the Holy Land, perfect as a gift or for tourists, this is a wonderful volume and a welcome contribution.

Seth J. Frantzman has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. Contact him at at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website:
http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com This article appeared February 24, 2011 and is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Frimit Roth, August 12, 2011.

Frimet Roth lost her 15-year old daughter when an Arab terrorist bombed Sbarro 10 years ago.

This week marks a decade since my daughter, Malki, was murdered in one of the bloodiest terror attacks of the Second Intifada.

The day began for me with a crippling migraine.

While I lay down to recuperate, Malki came to my bedroom door. She and her friend, Michal, offered to take my youngest child, Chaya (who is blind and severely disabled) for a walk. Malki was devoted to her sister. but the heat was oppressive, so I said: "Thanks, but how about later on, when it's cooler?" The headache was so bad that I said good-bye to them without opening my eyes.

Malki phoned an hour later. "We've finished decorating our friend's room to welcome her home" she said, "Now I'm going to that camp counselors' meeting in Talpiot. I love you. Bye."

Her last words were routine. We often ended our chats that way.

Forty five minutes later, I heard a CNN newsflash about a terror attack in downtown Jerusalem. I burst into tears, but not out of fear for Malki's safety. After all, she had gone to Talpiot. And she had a cellphone, so I would be able reach her.

I was worried about my other two children, who had gone shopping in the capital's Givat Shaul neighborhood without a phone.

When they returned, I hugged them tightly. Then I dialed Malki's number again and again. I dialed while I drove to pick up my soldier son, who had been released for his first weekend furlough.

He pointed out that many cell connections were still down. Hopeful, I dialed some more.

After we returned, Michal's mother, Avivah, called us to say she couldn't reach Michal either. Soon afterwards, one of their friends notified us that the girls had stopped in at Sbarro's.

Dread seized my heart.

Avivah suggested we drive to Shaarei Zedek hospital to search among the wounded. On the way, Michal's sister called us to say Malki had not arrived at the counselors' meeting. I burst into tears. Hope waned.

Avivah and I separated on arrival at the hospital. I was ushered into an office where I was handed a phone. Somebody at the Abu Kabir morgue — the government pathology center in Yafo — wanted a description of Malki and of the clothes she was wearing. I told the woman I hadn't actually seen Malki that day. She said there was no-one there matching the description I gave.

I later learned that Avivah had found Michal dead on a gurney in a hospital corridor.

That night, my husband and sons worked the phones, contacting Jerusalem's other hospitals as well as people who might help. Some friends told me tales they had heard of trauma victims who wandered the streets in shock for hours. But I knew by then that Malki was not wandering anywhere.

Still, I recited Psalms along with our family and friends.

Toward midnight, my husband followed a lead that led nowhere and came home with the message that the city's social work department was arranging for someone from the family to go to Abu Kabir.

It fell to my two eldest sons. I have no idea why my husband and I did not go. It's a decision I still regret.

An hour later they phoned. I watched my husband answer the call, saw his face drop, and knew our world had been destroyed forever.

THE MOURNING of parents for a murdered child never heals or fades. Forget the hackneyed jargon: "reaching closure", "moving on", "making lemonade from lemons," "what doesn't break you only strengthens you," "celebrate the life rather than the death", etc., etc.

They just don't apply.

But in Israel, murder by terrorism engenders unique complications.

We know that Malki's murderer, Ahlam Tamimi — who planned the attack, and brought the bomb and the bomber to the target she had chosen — may one day return, triumphant, to her home in Ramallah. The act she committed, to which she confessed and of which she was convicted, is somehow not considered barbaric enough to ensure that the 16 life terms to which she was sentenced will stand.

The court's verdict is in danger of being overturned by a handful of Israeli politicians. Media reports say Hamas demands Tamimi's freedom, along with hundreds of other terrorists, in a deal to free kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit.

Tamimi decimated an entire family.

A mother, a father and three of their eight children were among the 15 she murdered. Another victim, in the fifth month of her first pregnancy, was her parents' only child.

Who can possibly fathom their pain? One victim, not even counted among the dead, has remained in a coma for 10 years. Her daughter, then two years old, has grown up motherless; her husband effectively widowed.

The demands of victims' families are too often dismissed as primitive vengefulness. Our voices carry little weight in negotiations for prisoner releases. The one "concession" made to us is the government's publicizing of the prisoners' names 48 hours before they walk free. High Court appeals filed by victims' families within such time constraints have always failed.

Since the Fogel family murders last March, capital punishment has been suggested as a means of combating the releases of barbaric murderers. I favor life imprisonment with harsh conditions and without parole for Tamimi, who cockily declared in 2006: "I'm not sorry for what I did. I will get out of prison."

Anything less trivializes the lives of her victims.

Will the knowledge that Malki's murderer remains behind bars ease the longing to hug my angel again, to caress her silky hair and kiss her soft cheek? No. But her release would intensify my pain immeasurably.

Frimet Roth is a freelance writer based in Jerusalem. Her daughter, Malki, was murdered at the age of 15 in the Sbarro restaurant bombing (2001). She and her husband subsequently founded the Malki Foundation (www.kerenmalki.org), which provides concrete support for Israeli families of all faiths who care for a special-needs child.

To Go To Top

Posted by Truth Provider, August 12, 2011.

This was written by Maayana Miskin and it appeared in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews).


Minister Uzi Landau calls to cancel 'absurd' Oslo agreements as PA seeks unilateral state. Israel must prepare for September violence.

The time has come for Israel to cancel the Oslo Accords, Minister of National Infrastructure Uzi Landau told Arutz Sheva. The "absurd" accords should be canceled both because of the Palestinian Authority's plan to seek unilateral statehood, and because they are harmful, he said.

"These agreements were absurd and grave, and did serious damage to Israel's security," he argued.

"No less importantly, they paved the way to give legitimacy to the existence of a Palestinian people and to the argument that they deserve a state in Judea and Samaria, the cradle of our society. These accords turned the leader of a terrorist gang, Yasser Arafat, into a supposed cultured leader worthy of joining the society of nations," he continued. When Israel gives legitimacy to the PA, "the organization that was established with the position that we turned them into poor refugees," it then struggles to present any alternative view, he said.

Israel must inform the PA that going to the United Nations to seek recognition of a unilaterally declared PA state will mean an end to any and all agreements reached between Israel and the PA until that point, Landau stated. In addition, "They must be informed that [Israel] will declare sovereignty over large territories in the national consensus, like Area C and the settlement blocs," he said.

"The reality [created] will be new and different."

PA State — Arab Suffering

If the PA does go to UN, it will win majority support, even if leading democracies are against its plans, Landau said. The PA must realize that if it does go to the UN, "the price they will pay will be very high," he said.

For example, he said, despite several dry years in a row, PA Arabs remain able to turn on their faucets and be confident that water will come out — a confidence not shared by their neighbors in Syria and elsewhere. If the PA cuts ties with Israel, the lifestyle enjoyed by those under its leadership will sink to meet the level of residents of other Arab states.

Israel Must Prepare for Violence

Despite the PA's public talk of non-violent protests, Israel must prepare for violence, Landau warned. "We look at our neighbors and we see what 'non-violent protests' look like in the Middle East. We will need to defend ourselves," he declared.

"Anyone who does not appreciate the danger is naive. For them, the distance between going out to protest and pulling a trigger is very short," he added. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il. Visit his website at www.truthprovider.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ralph Peters, August 12, 2011.

State Socialism's Ultimate Product is a Permanent Underclass of Entitled Thugs

It's been over three decades since the magnificent, rabble-rousing and ultimately silly English punk group, The Clash, recorded its stirring riot-anthem, "The Guns of Brixton." Now the streets of not-so-Merry Olde England have been trashed and torched again, but the similarity in thuggish behavior masks radically different inspirations and aims. The Brit riots of the 1970s and early 1980s arose from the death throes of labor-union tyranny over an entire nation; from the birthing pains of a post-modern economy, and from urban collisions between races. Today's Swinging-a-club London has been wracked by inbred street criminals with a sense of entitlement.

It's important to get the terminology right: The events earlier this week in London, Manchester, Birmingham and other English cities had nothing to do with capital-A Anarchy. Nutty as its view of the world may be, Anarchy has some intellectual heft, as well as theorists reaching back to Bakunin. The rampages in England certainly were the end-product of an ideology — state socialism — but there was nothing consciously ideological about the hooligans who looted, burned, broke, beat and ultimately killed. They were just out for a high old time, to burn off some unintelligible rage and grab a new pair of Nikes.

And credit where it's due: The leftwing Labor Party members of Parliament who howled that all this was the result of austerity measures in the wake of government budget-cutting were absolutely right. From Athens to Albany, a half-century and more of welfare "generosity" addicted multiple generations to hand-outs, to a drip-feed of economic narcotics. Well, when you cut off an addict's supply, he tends to get out of hand. The media rushed to note that, among those arrested in London, some lawbreakers were gainfully employed, even educated. But most weren't. These riots reflected the savage opportunism of a deeply embedded underclass that, with government assistance, has redefined poverty as a tolerable condition, complete with hi-def televisions, cell phones and flash street gear. They had been conditioned to believe that they were entitled to council flats, endless hand-outs, and lives of petty lawlessness. Now they want their "rights."

The cliché is absolutely correct: The problem with Socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money. Well, Britain ran out. To its credit, the Cameron government enacted serious budget cuts to begin to put its fiscal house in order (something our own Congress refuses to do). And in the wake of the riots, Prime Minister David Cameron, who just may have a strain of Mrs. Thatcher in him, stated firmly that there was no sociological excuse for the rioting; that hand-outs had created a permanent, parasitical underclass with an irrational sense of entitlement; and that his government would not be intimidated or deterred. (Can any reader imagine President Obama blaming our own underclass for anything?)

Still, the United Kingdom will face additional violence over the coming years — if not months. Nor were these riots isolated events. We've now seen successive years of paralyzing riots in Greece and other bankrupt Euro-zone states. The wealth-redistribution governments of southern Europe have run out of wealth and are in far worse shape than Britain. As austerity measures force deep cuts in giveaway programs, the pampered Lumpens from below and benefit-crippled government and unionized workers will generate far more disruption than we have seen to date. (Stir in Europe's hopeless immigration problems and you have the most-volatile political situation since 1933.)

Well, Europe remains my favorite museum, but I'm ultimately more concerned with the message the London riots have for the United States. In our own country, government poverty-peddling has created a vast, functionally illiterate, unskilled, unmotivated, amoral and often downright criminal underclass the size of which dwarfs the Lumpenproletariats of Europe. And the Democratic Party is going to fight to the brink of our economic destruction to keep urban minorities and poor rural whites narcotized and paralyzed.

I credit LBJ's Great Society programs with good intentions. A son of working poverty who lived through the Dust-Bowl years and the Great Depression, Johnson may have been a political scoundrel, but he genuinely identified with the poor. It was his misfortune to come to Senate seniority and then the presidency at a time when state-socialist solutions seemed viable and, indeed, had the blessing of the East-Coast intelligentsia that excited LBJ's jealousy as well as his spite. The Great Society's poverty-alleviation programs were supposed to lift the poor up into more-productive, better-rewarded lives.

The problem is that the programs didn't work as intended. Instead, they made poverty livable — while destroying the traditional black families that had been so great a strength in once-thriving communities, and turning poor-whites into food-stamp and disability-check junkies. Instead of furnishing incentives to climb out of poverty, state-socialist programs everywhere provided just enough comfort to make poverty a viable lifestyle choice.

Our revels now are ended. The money isn't there anymore. Worse, the competition for government hand-outs in our own, formerly self-reliant country has expanded exponentially, with my greedy fellow Baby-Boomers more articulate, organized and motivated to protect their own more-lavish welfare programs ("What? You expect me to shell out a two-dollar co-payment for my kidney transplant? I'm calling AARP and then my Congressman..."). In the coming Congressional duels-for-dollars, the Boomers will beat the underclass every time.

Think you saw rage in the heyday of the Black Panthers? They were Cub Scouts. Meth-head rural whites will be less of a problem because they're spread thinly, but poor urban populations are going to blow. It won't be tomorrow — but wait until the cuts begin to bite. There are few things more destructive of humans and their societies than a profound sense of entitlement. (And yes: Anyone who lived through the late 1960s knows that widespread rioting can happen here.)

I blame the Democratic Party (with which I otherwise side on a number of domestic matters, from safeguarding our natural heritage to closing tax loopholes). If Democrats really cared about the poor they consistently con and cajole into voting for them, they'd be leading the fight to provide good-quality, disciplined inner-city schools purged of incompetent teachers; they'd recognize that the brutality of lifelong poverty trumps spurious claims of police brutality; they'd fight to keep criminals off the streets; and they'd punish parents whose children run wild in the streets. (British political leaders have promised to evict the families of hundreds of rioters from public housing — can you imagine any American politician taking such a stand and making it stick?)

The Democrats don't care about the poor. They care about votes. And those poverty-stricken electoral plantations Democratic politicians oversee are sacrosanct. Education reform? Please. An objective course in American history would note that the Democrats backed the slave-holding South; supported or sympathized with the Confederacy; welcomed the rise of the Ku Klux Klan; drafted and passed every one of the South's Jim Crow laws, fought for rigid segregation into the last third of the twentieth century, and still foster racial separatism, if with a new "liberal" face. The poor? Let them eat Doritos, bought with food stamps.

Democrats make a great to-do about "jobs, jobs, jobs," but, in a globalized economy, competitive workers need "qualifications, qualifications, qualifications." And you won't get qualifications in inner-city schools. Oh, and if any minority members escape the slums through hard work and perseverance, do what you can to suck them into those graduate-level welfare programs called "teachers' unions."

What the Democrats have done to poor Americans is a grotesque and massive crime against humanity. And they're up in arms about Guantanamo.

So where are we? Budgets will be cut. State-socialist programs will bear some of the pain. When the spoils are divided, the Boomers will beat the boys down in the 'hood. And the permanent underclass the Democrats have created, expanded and exploited will make its sense of entitlement plain — in the streets.

To paraphrase yet another cliché: We are all Londoners now.

Family Security Matters Contributing Editor and Fox News Strategic Analyst Ralph Peters is the author of the soon-to-be-released "greatest hits" collection, Lines Of Fire (September 19), as well as of 26 other books. This article appeared today in Family security Matters (FSM)
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/ id.10149/pub_detail.asp

To Go To Top

Posted by Martin Sherman, August 12, 2011.

Once again the nation is being lured into disaster by the "pied-pipers of Oslo," this time playing a new tune.

"Poor Menachem [Begin]... I got back... the Sinai and the Alma oil fields, and what has Menachem got? A piece of paper" — Anwar Sadat on the Peace Agreement with Israel, The New York Times, October 19, 1980.

There is something profoundly perverse in the conduct of the Jewish people as a national collective.

Tactical brilliance, strategic imbecility

The rebirth of Jewish nationhood and the annuls of Zionist endeavor are undoubtedly one of most stirring chapters of modern history.

It is an enterprise that has achieved remarkable feats against impossible odds. Indeed, Zionism has arguably been the most successful of national freedom movements in the last century. It has attained a combination of political independence, economic prosperity and individual liberties for its people unmatched in any other country born of the dissolution of the European empires.

Beyond its borders, Israel has made amazing contributions to humanity — in medicine, agriculture, computing, communications... Some of these more recent accomplishments have been ably chronicled by books such as the bestselling Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel's Economic Miracle.

Yet something is clearly rotten in the State of Israel. There is an almost unfathomable disconnect between its capacities for techno/tactical brilliance and for staggering strategic imbecility.

Indeed a deeply troubling pattern is emerging: Whenever dramatic successes, entailing long-range reconstructive strategic potential, are secured, their fruits are frittered away for short-term — at-best intermediate-range — benefits.

Whether military or economic, successes seem to give rise to illogical forces — self-induced and self-destructive — to willfully forgo them.

The strategic value of... paper

Thus, the sweeping strategic advantages, won in victories of the Six Day War, have been foolishly squandered.

The Sinai Peninsula with its strategic depth, mineral wealth and economic potential is now deteriorating into a lawless "no-go" region, rapidly falling under the control of the most ruthless extremists on the face of the globe. In the wake of the "Tahrir tsunami," Israel is facing an emerging lose-lose strategic predicament which will soon force it to decide between:

Allowing Sinai to degenerate into an Afghanistan-like haven for al-Qaida and other jihadi organizations,

Allowing a Muslim Brotherhood-controlled Egypt to remilitarize the area in order to reestablish law and order, and

Reasserting Israeli control of Sinai, effectively repudiating the peace agreement.

Admittedly, the three decades of Egyptian prickly nonbelligerence provided Israel with significant benefits — in return for considerable strategic sacrifices. But from here on in, the challenges will be daunting to say the least. All options are gravely menacing... After all, all poor Menachem got was "a piece of paper."

This was neither unpredictable nor unpredicted.

However, the sober voices who warned against the wisdom of or the need to make such sweeping concessions to the depleted and disintegrating regime in Cairo were dismissed as deranged warmongers. It seems that future generations will yet be called on to pay the price of this strategic myopia, a price, which could far outweigh the temporary benefits of the acrimonious and relatively brief interbellum.

The triumph of irrationality over reason

If it took about a generation for the folly of relinquishing Sinai to become tangibly evident, with 2005's disengagement it took a matter of weeks.

In a stunning triumph of irrationality over reason, Israel six years ago surrendered all for nothing, erasing 30 years of Zionist endeavor in Gaza in a fortnight. With dizzying speed all ominous warnings of dangers came true; all promises of benefits proved false. But worse of all, it conveyed an unmistakable strategic message to the Arabs: With the Jews, no concessions are necessary! If confronted with adequate resolve and violence, they will capitulate unconditionally.

In a stroke, Ariel Sharon's mendacious promise that "the fate of Netzarim will be the fate of Tel Aviv" was inverted. Now the Arabs had every reason to believe that "the fate Tel Aviv will be the fate of Netzarim."

With demands for surrendering the Golan temporarily on hold due to the butchery of Bashar Assad, efforts are now focused on how to divest Israel of the remaining vestige of its 1967 military gains — the strategic highlands between the Jordan Valley and the coastal megalopolis.

Despite the benefit of hindsight, the nation is being led into another episode of strategic insanity: The establishment of an adversarial Arab entity on the territories that overlook the country's major population centers, control its only real international airport, border the length of the trans-Israel highway and command much of the county's infrastructure.

With all of these in range of weaponry already used against Israel from territories relinquished to the Palestinians, only the brain-dead or the blatantly biased could fail to recognize the strategic dementia of such a move. Reassuring promises of demilitarization are either infantile or insincere. Even with the armament currently available to the Palestinians, allegedly "renegade" elements could "bring Sderot to Tel Aviv," making social and economic routine in the country impossible to sustain.

The clamor for economic hara-kiri

Which brings us to the present "middle Israel" protests. Once again the perverse pathology seems to be kicking in.

Just when the economy is demonstrating remarkable resilience, winning warm international praise and outperforming much of the industrial world, we are witnessing an almost incomprehensible self-engendered "declaration of economic war against Israeli prosperity," as Jerusalem Post Senior Contributing Editor Caroline B. Glick deftly put it.

Suddenly, in a nation where all the macroeconomic data reflect a flourishing economy in the midst of a global economic crisis, and both statistical and anecdotal evidence indicate that much of the general populace is benefiting, a incongruous wave of discontent seems to be engulfing the public.

After all, poll after poll, both foreign and local, shows extremely high levels of satisfaction with life in the Israel, well above that in most industrial countries.

Out of a population of 7.7 million, millions of Israelis travel abroad regularly, spending billions of dollars on overseas trips. A cursory stroll through urban Israel reveals that restaurants are full, cafes are crowded, pubs are jampacked; the recreation industry appears to be booming, with beaches teeming in summer, ski slopes crammed in winter, rural byways swarming with off-road cyclists on the weekends.

Against this backdrop of popular plenty — the eruption of middle-class wrath seems oddly misplaced. After all, surely not all these diners, latte drinkers, late-night revelers, surfers, skiers, bikers, vacationers can be parasitic ultra-Orthodox, privileged settlers, or plutocratic tycoons? To be sure, injustices and distortions abound — and have done so for years. So why now, on the cusp of economic success, this clamor for economic hara-kiri.

Admittedly, plausible claims can be made for restructuring the tax system, making markets more competitive, streamlining bureaucracy, raising salaries for specific professions — topics the government appears to be responsibly addressing. But little of these are reflected in the emerging demands of protesters. These are no more than a motley mélange of politically correct mantras, betraying the underlying political bias of the organizers: meaningless generalities expressing goodwill to mankind, haredim, settlers and tycoons excluded; and a few actionable proposals that would put evermore citizens at the mercy of an evermore bloated bureaucracy, reinstitute of a command-economy of the kind that sealed the fate of the Soviet bloc; and resurrect an all-invasive/ pervasive welfare state that has brought the specter of calamity ever closer for much of the industrial world.

From appeasement to entitlement; from 'New Middle East' to "Social Justice?"

So how are we to account for the widespread manifestation of this lemming-like psychosis? The reason is not hard to find. The same mendacious, manipulative media, with its ideological compliant and complicit cliques that comprise the "bon-ton" social elites are once again leading the people astray. Whipping up emotions by exploiting primal traits of avarice and envy, the flimsily disguised objective is to destabilize the government coalition and delegitimize its electoral base.

It is difficult of overstate the potential danger of initiative. Having in the past convinced a gullible public that appeasement is a workable security doctrine, they now seem bent on persuading it that entitlement is a practical economic one. Unchastened at having made Israel virtually indefensible militarily, they appear to have no compunction in trying to make it unsustainable economically.

The very same fraudulent "guild" that deceived the country with the false promise of a "New Middle East" Eldorado, are now egging it on to pursue an equally deceptive dream of a "New Social Order" Nirvana. The very same "pied-pipers of Oslo" who seduced a misinformed nation into disaster with the lure of "Peace Now," are now trying to coax it into another debacle — this time with a new tune, "Social Justice."

They must be exposed, confronted and discredited.

The stakes are high, the cost of failure incalculable.

For with all its defects, Israel is still in many ways an inspiring fulfillment of Theodor Herzl's famous dictum "If you will it, it is no dream."

But we dare not lose sight of the fact the converse can also be true: If you will it not, it is indeed a dream. Martin Sherman is the academic director of the Jerusalem Summit. He lectures at Tel Aviv University, served in Israel's defense establishment and was a ministerial adviser to the Yitzhak Shamir government.

To Go To Top

Posted by Giulio Meotti, August 11, 2011.

Special: UN's cultural body seems to be engaged in inquisition-like campaign against Israel


The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) adopted a decision calling on Israel to immediately cease all archaeological works in the Old City of Jerusalem. In particular, UNESCO, one of the UN's most prominent and influential agencies, attacked the renovation of the Mughrabi Bridge that links the Western Wall plaza and Temple Mount.

The decision, initiated and promoted by Arab states, was adopted by consensus of the Western members of the commission. Indeed, the vote is the latest anti-Jewish initiative launched by the UN office meant to promote culture, education and science around the world. In fact, UNESCO's robber barons are sanctifying the current global campaign aimed liquidating the legitimacy of the Israeli regime.

In 2009, UNESCO designated Jerusalem as "capital of Arab culture," working with Palestinian Authority officials and key Arab figures to protest against what they described as "the Israeli occupation of Holy Jerusalem." Other cities granted the title overthe years were Algiers, Damascus, Cairo, Tunis, Amman, Beirut and Khartoum.

The Arabs find it difficult to convincingly portray Israel as usurper of the land as long as the world believes there is a huge connection between the people of the Bible and the land of the Bible. UNESCO is denying this connection by depicting Jewish history in the Middle East as no more than an insignificant, brief sojourn by arrogant colonizers.

UNESCO appears to deny that the Jewish people has laid its roots in Israel more than 4,000 years ago, or that 1,000 years before Christ, King David made Jerusalem the Jewish city par excellence, never entirely abandoned even in times of deadly persecution.

The City of David in Jerusalem, a major target of UNESCO's anti-Jewish fury, is now the hottest open archaeological site in the world, with biblical artifacts, ancient burial spots and royal seals. There, UNESCO is using archeology to bash Israel and treats Israeli archeologists as nationalistic martinets.

In recent years, UNESCO increased its collaboration with ISESCO, the cultural body of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. According to ISESCO's propaganda, the Biblical story and the Jewish temples are only fiction, Jewish monuments are Islamic treasures stolen by the Zionists, and Israeli archeological works are criminal acts against Muslims.

UNESCO's ideology portrays the Jews as no more than invading colonizers, while the Muslims who invaded the country and ravaged it in the Seventh Century are, by some inexplicable leap, the descendants of the so called "indigenous Canaanites."

In 2010, UNESCO decided that Rachel's Tomb and Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs are "Muslim mosques." Western countries didn't raise any protest. UNESCO never mentioned that in addition to the famous Tomb of the biblical Patriarchs, Hebron contains also the tomb of the first judge (Otniel Ben Kenaz), the tomb of generals and confidants to Saul and David and the tombs of Ruth and Jesse, David's great-grandmother and father. There is also no word by UNESCO about the fact that Rachel's tomb is unanimously revered as the burial site of one of the Bible's great women, the wife of Jacob, the Jewish blessed mother.

During the Second Intifada, UNESCO condemned Israel for "the destruction and damage caused to the cultural heritage in the Palestinian territories" as "a crime against the common cultural heritage of humanity." However, UNESCO remained silent when a Palestinian mob destroyed Joseph's tomb, a major Jewish religious shrine, and built a mosque on the site.

Upon the outbreak of the Second Intifada, Palestinian terrorists also attacked Rachel's tomb, and for 41 days Jews were prevented from visiting the compound. UNESCO never condemned it. Recently, dozens of graves at the Mount of Olives cemetery in Jerusalem were vandalized, the latest in a series of attacks on Judaism's oldest cemetery, where Jews have been buried since biblical times. Again, UNESCO remained silent.

UNESCO also "boasts" a long list of decisions to boycott and isolate the Jewish State. On November 7, 1974, UNESCO voted "to withhold assistance from Israel in the fields of education, science and culture because of Israel's persistent alteration of the historic features of Jerusalem." On November 20, 1974 UNESCO voted also to exclude Israel from its European regional group. This anti-Jewish ostracism was not abandoned until 1978, after the United States withheld $40 million in payments from the organization in protest.

UNESCO's war on Israel and the West continued and was so blatant that in 1984 the US, UK and others Western countries left the organization. In 1989 UNESCO made the claim that "Israel's occupation of Jerusalem" was destroying the holy city by "acts of interference, destruction and transformation" (then-mayor of Jerusalem, Teddy Kollek, expressed "deep disgust at UNESCO's attitude.")

In 1990, UNESCO attacked what it described as the "irreversible" changes to Jerusalem's architectural heritage resulting from Israeli "occupation." UNESCO's apparatchiks decried the "lost loveliness" of the city. In 1993, then-UNESCO director-general Frederico Mayor boycotted an international conference on science in Jerusalem, despite Israel's history of scintillating enlightenment, like the highest production of scientific publications and museums per capita in the world.

In 1996, UNESCO organized a symposium on Jerusalem at the body's Paris headquarters. But no Jewish or Israeli groups were invited. When in 1998 a UNESCO delegation visited Jerusalem, it refused to meet with Israeli officials. In the past, UNESCO also has called for "financial sanctions against Israel" and passed hundreds of resolutions criticizing Israel's activities in Judea and Samaria.

In 2001, UNESCO promoted the "Cairo Declaration Document for Jerusalem Antiquities Preservation," which falsely accused Israel of destroying Islamic antiquities on the Temple Mount and in Jerusalem's Old City in an attempt to divert attention from Palestinian crimes against archeology and history. When the United Nations celebrated its 50th anniversary, UNESCO refused to mention the Shoah in its World War II resolution, intentionally ignoring Israel's request to include a reference to the destruction of European Jewry.

On a final note, a recent UNESCO report on science, Jewish physician and theologian Maimonides is classified as a Muslim named "Moussa ben Maimoun." So the Rambam — for Rabbi Moshe Ben Maimon — has been forced to "convert" to Islam by the UN's revisionist historians.

During the Middle Ages, the French Inquisition confiscated and burned Maimonides's books. From the elegant Parisian boulevards, UNESCO's inquisitors are now following the same dreadful solution of rendering history and the Holy Land "Judenrein."

Giulio Meotti, a journalist with Il Foglio, is the author of the book A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism

To Go To Top

Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, August 11, 2011.

One of the central messages of Tisha Be'av, which took place yesterday, is the consequences of Sinat Hinam or baseless hatred. During the period of the Second Temple Jews quarreled so much among themselves that it brought ruin upon the Jewish people.

Today, with the housing protests that have swept the country, it is worthwhile to pause and ponder one type of baseless hatred that is often not acknowledged: hatred of the Ultra-Orthodox or haredi community.

The savage hatred of haredim comes in many forms. It begins with the things people say; how the haredim are "parasites" who don't pay taxes and don't go to the army, that they beat their wives and create a "mini-Tehran" in their communities, that they are dirty, smelly "dosim" and that they "infiltrate" the wonderful utopian secular neighborhoods. Oh, and of course, they are ignorant donkeys who hate Zionism and are intolerant of homosexuals, Arabs and blacks.

This hate is on display everywhere in symbolic acts.

Swastikas sprayed on a synagogue in Kfar Yona, where the secular residents fear a haredi "takeover". The Eruv (wire surrounding a religious community that allows them to carry items on Shabbat) is cut in Kiryat Yovel by self-proclaimed secular resistance fighters. The huge signs erected by Meretz during its campaign for Jerusalem city council in 2008 that read "End the Haredization of Jerusalem." A student at Hebrew University does doctoral work analyzing how the haredim invaded Kiryat Yovel, as if anyone can imagine an open minded university sponsoring the work of someone wanting to analyze how Arabs "took over" the Wolfson neighborhood in Acre.

THE HATRED of the haredi population is greatest among those who preach tolerance. Meretz, a far left political party, campaigns to end the haredi infiltration of Jerusalem's secular bastions, but at the same time it complains of racism when Jews don't want Arabs moving into Pisgat Zeev. Righteous people denounce the "acceptance committee law" that allows small communities to reject applicants, but the same people don't seem to mind if a secular community opposes haredim moving to the area simply because they might change the character of the neighborhood. There was an outcry in the country when Rabbis signed a letter asking people not to rent apartments to Arabs in Safed, but there is no outcry among the 'civil rights' lobby when Ram Fruman created the Forum for Secular Communities, whose sole goal is to prevent haredi people from moving to "secular" areas. Fruman says "Our association works on two levels — at the local level, in sharing experience, knowledge and resources; and at the national level, in creating a political lobby that can take the lead with public action." One imagines if the haredim just disguised themselves as Arabs they would be welcomed by the "open minded" secular elites and their rights to move where they want would be defended at the highest levels.

The hatred of the haredi population transcends all political and ethnic groups in Israel; Arabs, leftists, the national religious, free market liberals, even Ethiopians, all have a generally visceral dislike for the black hat.

Nechamia Stressler, the usually level headed columnist at Haaretz says they offer only "rotten goods, rife with ignorance, superstition." Ron Huldai, mayor of Tel Aviv, described them as "aloof and ignorant people who are growing at an alarming rate." Yuval Tumarkin, artist and winner of the Israel Prize, once said "when one sees the haredim one understands why there was a Holocaust."

HAREDIM KNOW they are hated. Aharon Yakter, who lives in Bnei Brak, recalls that "I grew up near Sheinkin street in Tel Aviv until the age of 18. They never yelled 'dos' back then." But nowadays if a hated haredi shows his face on the trendy street the secular community would feel no qualms about banding together to oppose the "infiltration." Every Israeli should be ashamed that they speak of the haredim the way they do. There is nothing honorable in denying religious Jews the ability to live where they want.

The myths used to justify baseless hatred of the haredim are legion. One accuses them of not going to the army, but there are an equal number of secular draft dodgers as there are haredi ones, and the secular draft dodgers aren't forced to attend Yeshiva in lieu of army service. Yet we don't call the secular population "parasites."

The student unions and other social organizations rail against funding for Yeshiva students, but that funding, about NIS 135 million for 13,000 students in 2010, provides less than $250 a month to the religious students, similar or less than most secular student scholarships.

The student union complains about equality, but the reality is that the secular public drains the state's coffers and drinks at the same trough as the haredi public.

And what about hatred of the state, do certain haredi groups (i.e Neturei Karta) hate the state at a greater rate than, say, university lecturers in the Cohn Institute of History and Philosophy at Tel Aviv University? At least the haredi public is not at the forefront of all the 'human rights' organizations that support boycotts and accuse the country of apartheid.

BASELESS HATRED didn't disappear this Tisha Be'av, but it is essential that, at least every once in a while, people search their souls and ask why they acquiesce so easily to canards about the ultra-orthodox community and statements made against it. The haredim aren't angels, and their community is not a utopia, but then again, neither are any of the communities in Israel. Recognizing that as a starting point will increase tolerance, for the better.

Seth J. Frantzman has a PhD from Hebrew University, and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies. Contact him at at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website:
http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com This essay was publlished in the Jerusalem Post

To Go To Top

Posted by Gavriel Queenann, August 11, 2011.

Arab states will be chairing the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly in September as the Palestinian Authority makes its statehood bid.

Lebanon is slated to preside over the Security Council in September while Qatar will head the General Assembly.

Israel's Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor refused to address any possible moves Lebanon's Hizbullah-backed government may make during its tenure in the presidency.

"This is the daily reality we face in the UN. It requires double the effort in an arena which has an automatic majority against us," Prosor told reporters.

Qatar begins its one-year General Assembly presidency term in September, where Arab states enjoy an automatic majority.

The General Assembly, however, cannot admit a new state to the United Nations without the consent of the security council.

There, Lebanon's Ambassador to the UN Nawaf Salam will have the customary privilige of raising one one special topic for discussion by the Security Council.

Beirut may raise the issue of PA statehood for a vote in the Security Council even without serving as president if the Arab League and the PA follow through on their plans to raise the issue.

It may also raise other subjects, however, such as the oil fields Israel is developing of its northern coast, on which the Hizbullah-backed government in Lebanon has made a counter-claim.

Iran came out in support of Lebanon's claims on Monday, prompting the IAF to deploy drones over the disputed gas fields in the event of attack.

It is unclear whether the Security Council president has the authority to invite a speaker who is not its citizen, such as Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

But observers say it may not matter what Lebanon decides to do, or who it invites to speak, as the US has telegraphed the use of its veto in the Security Council should the PA statehood bid be brought to a vote.

The Security Council has five permanent member states with veto power (The United States, Russia, China, France and Britain).

Gavriel Queenann is a columnist for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com).

To Go To Top

Posted by Barbara Taverna, August 11, 2011.

While for Israelis they are proof of the extent of Jewish roots here, for many Palestinians, who reject Israel's sovereignty in the east Jerusalem, they are a threat to their own claims to the city and represent an exaggerated focus on Jewish history."

No mention of the Waqf long standing practice of destroying Jewish artifacts... see:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/waqf-temple- mount-excavation-damaged-archaeological-relics-1.362332

This is by Matti Friedman and it is available at
http://news.yahoo.com/jerusalem-tunnel-glimpse- ancient-war-111649346.html


Dan Balilty — In this picture taken Tuesday, Aug. 2, 2011, Eli Shukron, an Israel Antiquities Authority archaeologist cleans stones making part of an underground section of the Western Wall at the end of what archaeologists say is a 2,000-year-old drainage tunnel leading to Jerusalem's Old City. The excavation of an ancient drainage tunnel beneath Jerusalem has yielded new artifacts from a war here 2,000-years ago, archaeologists said Monday, Aug. 8, 2011, shedding light on a key episode of the past buried under today's politically combustible city. (AP Photo/Dan Balilty)

JERUSALEM (AP) — The excavation of an ancient drainage tunnel beneath Jerusalem has yielded a sword, oil lamps, pots and coins abandoned during a war here 2,000 years ago, archaeologists said Monday, suggesting the finds were debris from a pivotal episode in the city's history when rebels hid from Roman soldiers crushing a Jewish revolt.

The tunnel was built two millennia ago underneath one of Roman-era Jerusalem's main streets, which today largely lies under an Arab neighborhood in the city's eastern sector. After a four-year excavation, the tunnel is part of a growing network of subterranean passages under the politically combustible modern city.

The tunnel was intended to drain rainwater, but is also thought to have been used as a hiding place for the rebels during the time of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. That temple was razed, along with much of the city, by Roman legionnaires putting down the Jewish uprising in 70 A.D.

On Monday, archaeologists from the Israel Antiquities Authority unveiled a sword found in the tunnel late last month, measuring 24 inches (60 centimeters) in length and with its leather sheath intact. The sword likely belonged to a member of the Roman garrison around the time of the revolt, the archaeologists said.

"We found many things that we assume are linked to the rebels who hid out here, like oil lamps, cooking pots, objects that people used and took with them, perhaps, as a souvenir in the hope that they would be going back," said Eli Shukron, the Israel Antiquities Authority archaeologist in charge of the dig.

The archaeologists also found a bronze key from the same era, coins minted by rebels with the slogan "Freedom of Zion," and a crude carved depiction of a menorah, a seven-branched Jewish candelabra that was one of the central features of the Temple.

The flight of the rebels to tunnels like the one currently being excavated was described by the historian Josephus Flavius, a Jewish rebel general who shifted his allegiance to Rome during the revolt and penned the most important history of the uprising.

As the city burned, he wrote about five years afterward, the rebels decided their "last hope" lay in the tunnels. They planned to wait until the legions had departed and then emerge and escape.

"But this proved to be an idle dream, for they were not destined to escape from either God or the Romans," he wrote. The legionnaires tore up the paving stones above the drainage channels and exposed their hiding place.

"There too were found the bodies of more than two thousand, some slain by their own hands, some by another's; but most of them died by starvation," Josephus wrote. The victors proceeded to loot, he wrote, "for many precious objects were found in these passages."

The new tunnel, lit by fluorescent bulbs and smelling of damp earth, has been cleared for much of its length but has not yet been opened to the public. Earlier this month, a team from The Associated Press walked through the tunnel from the biblical Pool of Siloam, one of the city's original water sources, continuing for 600 yards (meters) under the Palestinian neighborhood named for the pool — Silwan — before climbing out onto a sunlit Roman-era street inside Jerusalem's Old City.

The tunnel is part of the expanding City of David excavation in Silwan, which sits above the oldest section of Jerusalem. The dig is named for the biblical monarch thought to have ruled from the site. It is funded by a group affiliated with the Jewish settlement movement and has drawn criticism from Palestinian residents who have charged that the work is disruptive and politically motivated.

Israel and the Palestinians have conflicting claims over Jerusalem that have scuttled peace efforts for decades. Both sides claim the Old City, which includes sites holy to Christians, Muslims and Jews.

The excavation of the tunnel began in 2007. Last month, a worker found a tiny golden bell that seemed to have been an ornament on the clothing of a rich man, or possibly a Temple priest, and which could still ring 2,000 years later.

When the tunnel opens to the public sometime in the coming months, underground passages totaling about a mile (1.6 kilometers) in length will be accessible beneath Jerusalem. The tunnels have become one of the city's biggest tourist draws and the number of visitors has risen in recent years to more than a million in 2010.

The tunnels remain, however, a sensitive political issue. While for Israelis they are proof of the extent of Jewish roots here, for many Palestinians, who reject Israel's sovereignty in the east Jerusalem, they are a threat to their own claims to the city and represent an exaggerated focus on Jewish history.

The 1996 opening of a new exit to a tunnel underneath the Old City's Muslim Quarter sparked rumors among Palestinians that Israel meant to damage the mosque compound, and dozens were killed in the ensuing riots. In recent years, however, criticism has been muted and work has largely gone ahead without incident.

Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Isaac, August 11, 2011.

Who could forget the dramatic meeting in May when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told President Obama in no uncertain terms that Israel would not go back to the 1967 lines? When he said "that a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality"?

Netanyahu received much deserved praise for his performance. He was firm and unequivocal. It was a welcome change. Previously he had caved to American pressure, 'freezing' Jewish construction in the territories and adopting weak-kneed policies he had criticized when in opposition.

Alas, the change did not last. Last week Netanyahu reversed himself, lining up his policy with President Obama's as he signaled his willingness to negotiate based on the 1967 borders. An unidentified Israeli official admitted to the Wall Street Journal that Mr. Netanyahu's formula is "similar to the language used in Obama's speeches."

The Journal article suggests that this is part of Mr. Netanyahu's strategy to avert a UN vote for a PLO state. It's a peculiar strategy to say the least. If Mr. Netanyahu says Israel can never go back to the '67 lines because they are indefensible, then that's it. You can't say the borders are indefensible one minute and then say they're OK the next. For Netanyahu to reverse himself for any reason, least of all a UN vote, which former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton says has no practical meaning anyway, only demonstrates to the world that the resolve of Israel's leadership is just so much empty rhetoric.

Unfortunately, Netanyahu joins a long list of backpedaling Israeli leaders whose talk doesn't match up with their walk. In "Surrender to Washington" (The Jerusalem Post, May 20, 1983), Shmuel Katz gives a rundown of the more prominent examples of Israeli collapse in the face of American pressure.

In 1973, in spite of the disastrous opening of the Yom Kippur War, Israel was on the brink of overwhelming victory and, as then foreign minister Abba Eban asserted, the government was not even thinking of a cease-fire but only of victory. It nevertheless accepted a cease-fire resolution dictated — via Moscow — by U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger.

Then it abandoned its proposal (generously put forward in spite of Israel's tremendous advantage in the field) to restore the status quo ante, and agreed to withdraw both from the large enclave it held inside Egypt and from the canal — all for good relations with the U.S., which was seeking Egyptian favours.

Several months later, it repeated the performance on the Syrian front. After weeks of resistance to Kissinger's demands, the Golda Meir government caved in, returned to Syria the captured enclave and, for good measure, a slice of the Golan Heights captured in 1967.

Here was manifestly — in both cases — acceptance of the posture of defeat in the field — where Israel had lost 3,000 dead — all for those good relations.

A further price was yet to be paid — in 1975 — by further withdrawal in Sinai. The Rabin government at first refused to hear of surrender of the vital Mitla and Gidi passes and the Abu Rudeis oilfields — but in the end it capitulated, demonstratively as a favour to Washington.

Now came the turn of the Likud. The allegedly formidable, intransigent Mr. Begin turned out to be formidable and intransigent only temporarily. Throughout the negotiations on the "peace plan," he finally accepted nearly every American formulation — which he had declared in the process unacceptable, jettisoning cherished and long proclaimed principles.

At the Camp David conference, which came after nine months of preparatory negotiations with Washington, only an emasculated remnant remained of his original autonomy peace plan. Nor did the agreement contain a hint of Zionist purpose, of the Jewish relationship and right to the Land of Israel; on the contrary, it quashed (if it were to be consummated) any hope of future Israeli sovereignty in Judea and Samaria.

In the negotiations for the subsequent peace treaty, President Anwar Sadat at the last moment demanded the nullification of the clause which would prohibit Egypt from going to war with Israel in fulfillment of previous pacts with the other Arab States. Begin — correctly — proclaimed this would make the treaty a "sham treaty." President Jimmy Carter, however, anxious for a foreign policy success, pressed Begin, and an annex satisfying Sadat was introduced into the text.

Big words followed by little deeds is a hallmark of Jewish leadership extending to pre-state days. Vladimir Jabotinsky, Shmuel's mentor and hero, remarked on the phenomenon in a satirical feuilleton he wrote in May 1939, under the pen name Echad Rosho (the Bad One). Jabotinsky avoided ad hominem attacks and denied that the title of the piece "Mr. Ben Bouillon" referred to Mr. David Ben-Gurion. (Similarly, any resemblance to Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu is purely coincidental.)

In Joseph B. Schechtman's Fighter and Prophet (Thomas Yoseloff Ltd., 1961), the second volume of his Jabotinsky biography (not to be confused with Shmuel's own two-volume biography of Jabotinsky), the author describes the origin of "Mr. Ben Bouillon."

"At that time — it was after the publication of MacDonald's White Paper — Ben Gurion and other Zionist leaders were busy making militant speeches against British policy in Palestine and pledging themselves to fight relentlessly against any attempt to 'freeze' the Zionist effort."

Schechtman, quoting Jabotinsky, writes:

"Everywhere you meet people making patriotic speeches, full of blood and thunder. ... You listen, and you shiver. But later, when you examine the contents more closely, you realize your error. You realize that all this was merely a superficial impression, a manner of presentation, at most — a phraseological definition. In your ears it sounds like 'blood,' but the meaning is — 'bouillon.' This is the origin of the name Ben Bouillon."

"[Jabotinsky] stressed that this was 'not the name of an individual: on the contrary, nowadays this is a type. ... They can be seen on every platform. They publish their speeches in every paper. And the tune is always the same: 'To the last drop! We will not let it pass! We are ready to sacrifice ourselves! We will not yield one single inch!' ... They spit fire, and echo answers: 'Blood, blood!' ... And then all of a sudden it becomes apparent that it is all a misunderstanding. Who spoke of 'blood'? Me? God forbid! Ben Bouillon is more than a type. Ben Bouillon is perhaps a race. There are people (among the Gentiles they constitute the majority) in whose arteries warm or hot blood flows. And there are also people in whose arteries bouillon flows. This bouillon might even boil, and its temperature might be not 37 degrees but 100 degrees. In our midst the Ben Bouillons are the ruling caste.'"

The Jewish people still love their bouillon. But they must acquire a taste for stronger stuff if the hearts of their leaders are ever to pump more than chicken broth. The Ben Bouillons must make way for a leadership with blood in its veins — blood and iron.

David Isaac is editor of the Shmuel Katz website: www.shmuelkatz.com. Contact him at david_isaac@shmuelkatz.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Fred Reifenberg, August 11, 2011.

My brother is bringing the brandy

Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. Go to
http://freifenberg-newblog.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art.

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, August 11, 2011.

This was written by Kurt Streeter and it appeared in Jewish World Review.

Leon Weinstein, 101, survived the Warsaw Ghetto. But it is the story of the little girl that he wants to tell



She was Jewish, but to live she needed a Christian name.

She could not be Natalie Leya Weinstein, not in wartime Warsaw. Her father wrote her new name on a piece of paper.

Natalie Yazinska.

Her mother, Sima, sobbed.

"The little one must make it," Leon Weinstein told his wife. "We got no chance. But the little one, she is special. She must survive."

He fixed a metal crucifix to a necklace and hung it on their daughter. On the paper, he scrawled another fiction: "I am a war widow, and I have no way of taking care of her. I beg of you good people, please take care of her. In the name of Jesus Christ, he will take care of you for this."

A cold wind cut at the skin that December morning, so Leon Weinstein bundled Natalie, 18 months old, in heavy pants and a thick wool sweater. He headed for a nearby apartment, the home of a lawyer and his wife. The couple did not have a child. Weinstein hoped they wanted one.

He lay Natalie on their front step. Tears ran down his cheeks. You will make it, he thought. She had blond locks and blue eyes. They will think you are a Gentile, not one of us.

Walking away, he could hear her whimper, but forced himself not to look back until he crossed the street. Then he turned and saw a man step out of the apartment. The man read Weinstein's note. He puzzled over the baby.

Cradling Natalie in his arms, the man walked half a block to a police station and disappeared inside.

Weinstein was beside himself.

What if the Gestapo took her from the police?

What if they decided that she was a Jew?

Today, at his small Spanish-style home in Mid-City, Los Angeles Weinstein, 101, recalls in agonizing detail what it was like to give up his baby in 1941 amid the Nazi juggernaut. He is frail, but his wit and memory are keen. He remembers well what followed: killing Germans, dodging death, hunting for Natalie.

Holocaust scholars vouch for his account, calling him one of the last living fighters from the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, almost certainly the oldest.

For years, Weinstein kept his memories buried.

No more.

It is important to tell about Nazi horrors, he now says, so they are never forgotten. It is, he says, important to tell the story of his search for his little girl.

Weinstein was born in the Jewish village of Radzymin, Poland. As a child, he was independent, even stubborn. His family adhered to Orthodox Judaism. He defied his elders and grew into something of a tough. Eyes gleaming, he recalls those who called him a "dirty Jew."

"They'd meet my fists," he says. "Then they'd be picking their teeth from the ground."

By 15, he had run away from home and was living in Warsaw, where he worked as a tailor's assistant, then for a clothing company. In his 20s, he married Sima. After Hitler invaded Poland in 1939, they were forced to live in Radzymin with other Jews.

Natalie was born the next year. When she was a year old, Weinstein heard a Nazi guard say that German troops would soon send everyone in Radzymin to a death camp. He prepared to flee and begged his extended family to leave too. They refused, saying Germans would never do such a thing. But Weinstein had seen Nazi cruelty first-hand. So he slipped away, with his wife and daughter, into the nearby forest. It was far from a haven: anti-Semitic Polish thugs roamed there.

Using forged papers that identified him as a Christian, Weinstein and his family headed to Warsaw. They hoped that the sprawling capital would be a good hiding place. Sima had no papers; if the Nazis caught her, all three might be killed.

A Polish couple promised to hide Sima, but Weinstein and the baby would draw too much attention. They decided to leave Natalie on the lawyer's doorstep. Weinstein would head for the confines of the Warsaw Ghetto, where fellow Jews would give him shelter.

"This was a place completely unimaginable," Weinstein says. "A place worse even than the hell that Dante described."

The ghetto was surrounded by an 11-foot-high brick wall, barbed wire and guards. More than 400,000 Jews had been forced inside the 3.5-square-mile area. By early 1943, an estimated 300,000 of them had been shipped to Treblinka, a death camp in northeast Poland.

Nazis rationed food for those who remained and many died of starvation. Disease killed thousands more. Weinstein feared constantly for Natalie and Sima and was certain he would die.

He joined the ghetto resistance. "If we were going to die," Weinstein says, "we would do it on our own terms. We would die standing proud, on our feet, making a statement to the world. We would take as many of those bastards as we could kill."

He helped organize and train resistance fighters. On occasion, using his forged papers, he talked his way out of the ghetto and smuggled weapons back inside.

On April 19, 1943, the first night of Passover, the Nazis began their final push to wipe out the ghetto. When German tanks rolled forward, Jewish fighters appeared at windows, on rooftops, along street corners. They hurled grenades, Molotov cocktails, bricks and rocks. Weinstein ran along rooftops in a fury, strafing Nazis with a machine gun.

The resistance held, but only for a while.

"When could I have been killed?" Weinstein says. "Every five minutes." He says it again, pausing between each word. "Every ...five ...minutes."

One day he was crouched on the second floor of an abandoned building when he heard the footsteps of Nazi troops on the stairs.

It's over, he told himself.

He looked out a window. A solitary soldier stood guard below.

Weinstein leaped. His steel-toed boots slammed into the soldier's head. "He fell like a sack of stones," Weinstein says. "I could see his skull, his blood, brains. For killing a man who hunted me, I felt nothing but good ... and I was so excited I felt no pain.

"I was alive at least for another day."

Weinstein hid in sewers that swarmed with rats and human waste. He eventually found a way out that seemed safe, but was too weak to lift the iron cover.

Was this how he would die?

He fell asleep and dreamed of his grandfather, a deeply religious man. " 'You must keep going,'" his grandfather told him. "'You must. Don't stop.'"

Weinstein awoke with new energy. He hunched his back against the manhole cover, gathered all of his strength and pushed. It opened.

In the early morning darkness, he hunted for someone who would shelter a fleeing Jew who stank of sewage and looked as though he might collapse and die.

A Warsaw couple he had known before the war took him in.

Weinstein asked after his relatives who had stayed behind in Radzymin. All were dead. He looked for Sima. He learned she was dead too.

By spring 1945, the war was over, and surviving Jews began to leave the country. Weinstein was not among them. He had to find Natalie.

His first stop was the street where he'd left his little girl. It was mostly rubble, but one building stood untouched — the police station.

He walked in. "Do you remember hearing about an abandoned girl who was taken here?"

One officer did. The girl had been taken to a nearby convent.

The nuns there remembered, too. The baby was among several they tried to shelter. Disease claimed some, but the baby named Natalie survived. When the fighting drew near, she was sent to a cloister in the countryside.

Over bombed-out roads, pedaling hard on his bicycle, Weinstein made his way there. But Natalie was gone, sent to another group of nuns. On he went, to convent after convent, sometimes sleeping in fields.

The story was the same. Natalie had been there, but nobody knew where she was now. Nobody knew if she was alive.

After six months, Weinstein returned to the city, exhausted.

Then, against all hope, he decided to visit a convent near the ghetto. He walked past a statue of the Virgin Mary, then into a hall where dozens of pale, thin orphans stood.

"Mister, mister." They grabbed at his tall, brown boots. "Mister, mister, take me, take me."

As he drew away, frustrated, a nun walked past, carrying a bony, blond girl, who looked about 4. He looked into the child's eyes. They were blue.

This, he said, was Natalie.

"She is yours?" the nun asked. "How can we know?"

"If she is," Weinstein said, "then she has a little brown birthmark, the size of a pencil eraser, just near her right hip."

The nun lifted the girl's dirty gray shirt and they looked.

He had found Natalie.

Weinstein and Natalie moved to France.

In time, he married Sophie, another Holocaust survivor and they had a son, Michael.

In 1952, the family took a ship to New York, then a train to L.A., where Weinstein became a successful clothing manufacturer. In 1993, Michael died in a car accident. Twelve years later, Sophie died of heart disease.

Weinstein remains full of life. He recites the Torah at Congregation Atzei Chaim, the Beverly Grove synagogue he has attended for seven decades.

He reads three newspapers and sips at least one glass of Chivas Regal, on the rocks, every day.

He rarely goes more than two waking hours without telephoning the woman who fusses over him, who tends to his every need. She is a psychologist known by her married name: Natalie Gold Lumer.

Every Friday night, father and daughter share a Sabbath meal. They gather with family and friends, light candles, hold hands, tell stories and offer lengthy prayers of thanks.

"It was terrible, what I went through," Weinstein said at a dinner not long ago. "But it was worth what I came away with: my beautiful daughter."

Natalie looked at him, shaking her head. There was a long silence.

"To have a father with such courage," she said, finally. "Well, I owe everything to him...I owe him my life."

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 10, 2011.

This comes from the Creeping Sharia website
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/08/10/ british-royal-air-force-academic-head-a-muslim-convert- says-holocaust-gas-chambers-british-propaganda/


The head of studies at the Royal Air Force pilot training college is a convert to Islam who has criticised Nato air strikes on Libya in a Muslim magazine.

Dr Joel Hayward is dean of the college at Cranwell, the RAF's equivalent of Sandhurst, and has taught many of the pilots spearheading the military operation against Colonel Gaddafi.

But, to the dismay of defence chiefs, he has cast doubt on the widely held belief that the Nato actions averted the mass killing of civilians in Benghazi. He also warned against the RAF becoming 'the air corps of a rebel army'.

RAF role: Dr Joel Hayward teaches at the RAF's pilot training college

Dr Hayward has previously expressed remorse after appearing to claim that far fewer Jews were killed by the Nazis than generally thought and that the gas chambers of the Holocaust were British propaganda.

In another article recently he likened Churchill to Mohammed.

Lectures: Dr Hayward (left) at an Armed Forces Muslim Association event last year

His views and behaviour have caused disquiet among senior officers at RAF Cranwell, Lincolnshire, where he is the most senior academic and taught Prince William. In a letter to The Mail on Sunday entitled The Air Force Ayatollah, one senior officer expressed concern that Dr Hayward was focusing more on 'Islamist activities that are nothing to do with the RAF'.

High-flying student: Prince William was taught by Dr Hayward

He also accused him of giving Muslim cadets preferential treatment and making other students take a 'softly, softly line when writing about Muslim terrorists/Islamist extremists'.

Another officer claimed cadets and lecturers 'are in fear' of expressing anything that might be construed as anti-Muslim sentiment. 'Anyone who fails to follow the line that Islam is a peace-loving religion is hauled into his office for re-education,' he said.

Last night Dr Hayward said he did not 'recognise' the allegations.

The Mail on Sunday understands that Dr Hayward's views have embarrassed RAF chiefs, who feel that while he is entitled to his opinions, it was unwise for him to air them in a Muslim magazine.

Conservative MP Patrick Mercer, former chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism sub-committee, said: 'I am delighted that the dean is not restricted in what he can say, as he would be in Islamist societies.

'However, I very much hope that his views don't conflict with any of his professional duties when teaching Her Majesty's officers.'

It is not the first time the New Zealand-born academic has attracted controversy. In 2000, he was accused of denying the Holocaust after the publication of a thesis he had written in 1993 questioning the number of Jews killed. He claimed the idea of gas chambers being used was propaganda invented by Britain, the US and Jewish lobbyists. He has since expressed remorse over the 'mistakes I made as an inexperienced student'.

Dr Hayward has frequently challenged claims of Islamic aggressiveness. Most recently, he wrote on the subject for the Cordoba Foundation, described by David Cameron as a front for the Islamist group, the Muslim Brotherhood. In that article, Dr Hayward likens the prophet Mohammed's inspirational qualities to that of Sir Winston Churchill. He said Mohammed had to go to extra lengths — just as Churchill did in the Second World War — to exhort his people to believe in victory and fight for it.

Dr Hayward was appointed to RAF Cranwell in 2007, but was investigated the following year over complaints of 'harassment and bullying'. It is not clear what became of the investigation. He is employed not by the RAF but by King's College, London, which runs academic courses at Cranwell.

Dr Hayward defended his article on Nato airstrikes and said he wants a free Libya without Gaddafi. He added: 'I write articles on a range of subjects for various scholarly journals and consistently the publications are anti-extremism, anti-terrorism and encouraging of a closer bond between the West and the Arab world.

'In no sense am I anti-Western, I am proud to be Western, I strongly believe in the value system that we have in Britain. I believe in equality, democracy, freedom, plurality, human rights, women's rights.'

An RAF spokesman said: 'Dr Hayward writes for a number of publications. These activities are conducted in his own time and do not impinge on his duties in support of the RAF.'

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC] (http://eufunding.org.uk)
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, August 10, 2011.

This was written by Bill Levinson and it appeared yesterday in IsraPundit

Norman Finkelstein eyewitness to male Palestinians' selection of young female activists for sexual gratification


We previously reported that the function of female peace activists (or "piece activists") from the International Solidarity Movement and similar organizations is to serve as what the Imperial Japanese Army called "comfort women" for Palestinian males. Norman Finkelstein, who is hardly a friend of Israel, confirms in writing that this is in fact the case.

Having just spent several months perusing Mahatma Gandhi's collected works, and deeply inspired by his commitment to living the life of the impoverished masses, I had resolved to rough it in Gaza. But this was easier said than done. Along with several other delegates I volunteered to stay at a Palestinian family's home rather than a hotel. Dressed to the nines, hair gelled, and reeking of cologne, several Palestinian youths met our group to select their home-stays. They departed with first one young female member of our delegation, then another, then another. The only candidates left hanging at the end of the evening were middle-aged men. We checked into the hotel.

This reinforces our contention that Rachel Corrie may well have used involuntarily as a comfort woman by Palestinian men (that's "raped" for short even though Sharia as practiced in "Palestine" defines it as totally acceptable), and then peer-pressured into keeping quiet about it lest the bad publicity harm the Palestinian cause. Cartoon (circulation encouraged) to illustrate this to would-be female piece, er, peace activists.

The International Solidarity Movement's Comfort Women

Note that the picture below (by Frederic Remington no less) played a major role in helping to start the Spanish-American War even though the Spaniards were innocent of the indicated conduct, and also probably of the sinking of the Maine.

The Palestinians are GUILTY of the conduct depicted in the cartoon above, so it ought to be pretty effective.

More here on rape of Scandinavian women by "immigrants" whose purported religion says they are free to sexually assault any woman who does not wear a sack over her head and preferably her body.

"There are even reports of Swedish girls being attacked and cut with knives on the dance floor. A 21-year-old man who came to Sweden a couple of years ago admits that he has a low opinion of Swedish females — or 'whores' as he calls them. He is now prosecuted, suspected of cutting eight girls in several pubs. He is also charged with raping a girl at a private party, and with sexually harassing another girl in the apartment. Several witnesses claim that the 21 year old has said that he hates Swedish women.

"Some Muslim immigrants admit their bias quite openly. An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently, he's not the only one thinking this way. 'It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,' says Hamid. 'The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably f****d before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.'"

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Hadassah Levy, August 10, 2011.

This was written by Alex Joffe and it appeared in Jewish Ideas Daily
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/2011/8/10/ main-feature/1/the-new-sinai Alex Joffe is a research scholar with the Institute for Jewish and Community Research.


The Sinai Peninsula is known for its aura of stillness. But amid the timeless mountains and endless dunes, the great crossroad between Africa and Asia is more active today, and potentially more explosive, than at any time in history.

In July, the natural-gas pipeline across the Sinai from Egypt was blown up for the fifth time this year, causing major disruptions to both the Israeli and Jordanian economies. Unidentified gunmen also attacked a police station in the northern Sinai town of El-Arish, leaving five dead. Egyptian authorities were quick to assert that the attackers were waving black flags and carrying the Quran.

This surging unrest has serious implications for Israel, and not just because of the hundreds of thousands of Israeli tourists traveling each year to Sinai in spite of official warnings of possible terrorist attacks. The Egyptian authorities and some outside observers periodically attribute the escalating unrest to al-Qaeda. Given earlier evidence for Hizballah squads in Sinai, and the frequent official Israeli alerts imploring citizens to return, there is little doubt that the security vacuum is allowing more Islamists groups to operate in the region. A recent video posted by "al-Qaeda of the Sinai Peninsula" (most likely Palestinian Salafis opposed to Hamas) demonstrates the power of the al-Qaeda name, if nothing else.

The great unknown is how many outsiders from al-Qaeda and other Islamist groups have taken up residence in Sinai. But another great unknown is how many Sinai Bedouin have joined them.

Forty years ago, Sinai Bedouin numbered under 40,000. Today the peninsula is home to between 100,000 and 200,000 Bedouin, along with native Egyptians who have been resettled into the northwest area or who work at the southern resorts, plus tens of thousands of Palestinians in northeast Sinai near Gaza. Thousands of Africans refugees are also crossing the Sinai annually en route to Israel. Whatever their origins — most Bedouin tribes are relative latecomers to Sinai, having arrived between 300 and 500 years ago from Arabia or to a lesser extent from Egypt — the Bedouin typically proclaim their loyalty to Egypt, at least when in the presence of Egyptian officials.

Of course, there are also Bedouin within Israel, where many increasingly identify themselves as Palestinians — an identity that helps them publicize their many claims against the Israeli government. For the moment most Sinai Bedouin seem to regard themselves as loyal primarily to their particular tribes, with their subtle politics and swirling allegiances.

The history here is instructive. After Israel returned Sinai to Egypt in 1982, the region languished until the 1990's, when a series of Islamist attacks at major sites in Egypt proper, like Luxor in the Nile Valley, cut deeply into tourism. In response, Egypt began investing massively in tourist infrastructure in Sinai, particularly at Sharm el-Sheikh and other Red Sea resorts. Europeans streamed in for scuba diving, casinos, and beach life, and the area achieved minor significance as the site of international meetings and conferences.

Local Bedouin benefited from this buildup, primarily as unskilled laborers. But systematic discrimination on the part of Egyptians kept them from filling the ranks of the army, police, or civil service, as well as from jobs in the tourist establishments themselves. When major bombings at Red Sea resorts in 2004 and 2006 killed 130 people, including Egyptians and foreign tourists — Palestinian Islamists appear to have been responsible — thousands of Bedouin were rounded up and imprisoned. Further attracting Egyptian ire was the willingness of Bedouin smugglers to transport weapons to Hamas in Gaza, smuggle drugs to Israel, and engage in human trafficking of African refugees. In recent years, relations have been poisoned by accusations that Egyptian security officials tortured and murdered Bedouin suspects.

But now the Egyptian security presence has dramatically diminished. One immediate consequence is that arms struggling across Sinai into Gaza, a longstanding problem and an enterprise in which the Bedouin have historically played a central role, has intensified. More arms, including heavy weapons and explosives from, allegedly, as far away as Libya, have been transported to Gaza. After the pipeline bombing in February, Egypt received permission from Israel to modify the terms of their peace treaty and deploy two additional army battalions in Sinai. This has contributed little to the region's safety. But the recent news that Bedouin have been hired to guard the gas pipeline point to another explanation for at least some of the violence, a protection racket.

Looking to their own security, the Bedouin are also arming themselves and preparing for confrontations on all sides. To what extent are they also being radicalized by the forces of global jihad, and attaching themselves to the Islamists? That is still unknown. What is all too clear is that the sudden withdrawal of Egyptian security has permitted Sinai Bedouin to return openly to the raiding, smuggling, kidnapping, protection rackets, and feuding that are their historic avocation, successively and only temporarily suppressed by the Ottoman Turks, the British, the Israelis, and the Egyptians.

Even if they are not becoming radicalized, Sinai Bedouin have long been willing to sell their services to Islamists, who are now ascendant in Egyptian politics and throughout the post-Arab Spring world. If the teetering Egyptian economy collapses further and more Egyptians are pushed toward Islamism, the tide will carry along more Sinai Bedouin as well. This year, Israel announced that it would build a fence along the entire length of the 160-mile border between the Negev and the Sinai. Fence or no fence, that rising southern tide is bound to imperil the security of the Jewish state.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, August 9, 2011.

We sat in the community room at a major LA shopping center. Over sixty people gathered on a beautiful Sunday afternoon to hear two members of the Flotillas to Palestine.

One of the speakers was an Israeli, Yonatan Shapira, a helicopter pilot who co-founded Combatants for Peace and is a member of Boycott from Within; the other Mary Thompson, an American-Canadian who co-founded the Free Gaza Movement.

Thompson in her own words: "I underestimated the power of Palestine." It is a constant call of action to her, ever since she saw "a little boy [al-dura] shot and killed in front of my eyes." For Yonatan it was "when you see families crush and evaporate in the bombs ... horrible things start happening."

Except, the boy's "death" was made for international consumption (he changed his position after pretending to be dead for 45 minutes; his father protecting him under constant fire was not even scratched) and Israel is the one country that goes to lengths like no other country to ensure civilians are kept out of harm's way, even when terrorists hide at schools, mosques and hospitals.

They fight to end Occupation and against Apartheid in Israel, although they have never met before. They came to speak in front of a coalition promoting non-violent resistance against Israel. [The label "non-violent" is misleading to us and quite flexible for them, for it justifies practically any means, including knowingly breaking the law.]

I have spent much time over the past three years covering Gaza that the event sparked my interest. I finally got to meet members who were on the boats determined to break the blockade over Gaza. The fact there was never a maritime route to Gaza is inconsequential to them.

I was eager to listen, and I was not disappointed, it was a loony-land (lunatic + Hollywood) delusional extravaganza, an exciting production even I had not seen before. Well except perhaps in Sunset Boulevard when reality got so blurred when Gloria Swanson said, "I am ready for my close up, Mr. De Mille," and walked toward the cameras.

I often write about the failures of the Israeli public relations machine and the prospect of Israel's downfall as a result. Little did I know how wrong I was until that event. According to the speakers, the Israeli Hasbarah (propaganda machine) is doing so well that only Israel's position is heard (including, apparently, on the front pages of the major international papers). Israel itself is so strong that it is able to twist the arms of countries to do its bidding, whether it is Greece or Egypt, not to mention the US of A which acts as Israel's outsourcing arm.

Some readers may wonder if the three billion dollars the USA gives Israel each year are also a result of Israel's persuasive powers. Is Israel holding the US hostage, forcing it to give the money?

Those Jews must be very powerful indeed! Or so one would think.

What sounded like a story made into a movie turned out to be two solid hours of straight Israel-bashing. A good Jewish boy in a very affluent part of Israel, son of a squadron commander who became a helicopter pilot himself, volunteers his time with new immigrants in crisis and helps disabled children. Then he wakes up one day and realizes Israelis are brainwashed and he must help them to awake as well. "We do horrible things" he says and becomes a one-person mission to correct all of Israel's supposed evils.

"Gaza is a cage of animals, not people, the majority of whom are children, that once you open it, ..." says Yonatan thus explaining why Israelis are afraid of the Gazans.

"One million of the 1.6 million Gazans are the original inhabitants or their direct descendants of now Occupied Palestine. Israel keeps them locked up since they are a LIVING WITNESS of that era (1947 — 1949) ..." it was explained to those in the audience who did not follow. If Israel had not caged them, how would the world know the truth? Perhaps Israel should have prevented the passage of 15,523 patients and accompanying individuals who exited the Gaza Strip for medical care in Israel in the past year.

"The Blockade is not a recent thing, it has been going on for 30 years. [Our struggle] is not about humanitarian aid, it is about freedom." Falsehoods notwithstanding, one must be very careful, since the "freedom" sought is freedom from Israel's very presence.

What does Israel want? "The West Bank has water. Gaza has offshore natural gas. Israel wants these resources." [I was ashamed: Israel only wants material things, gas and water. What about the very air the Gazans breathe — has Israel not tried to deplete it too? Has Israel not thought yet to prevent the Gazans from their most basic human right of free and limitless air in addition to thirsting them and stealing their reserves?]

Israel keeps the Gazans "locked in a huge open air prison, a ghetto, and bombs them all the time."

I was aghast. What type of military succeeds to hold 1.6 million innocent civilians in an extraordinarily dense open-air prison, constantly bombarding-to-kill them and yet their numbers keep growing? What are the brutal occupiers bombing the Gazans with — candy? Flowers? Love letters? What a lousy military indeed!

The battle lines are drawn: "Race laws, Apartheid, Occupation; Justice, Human Rights." Lady justice must be blind to reason, logic and facts.

The truth eventually emerged during the presentation, because as a pro Zionist propaganda organization (Stand With Us) has shown, there are thriving and bustling shopping malls, hotels and restaurants throughout Gaza. Their businesses are flourishing. There is no shortage of supplies. Interestingly, initially it was a "humanitarian crisis of the worst kind," until exposed, so naturally the narrative needed to be changed. Not a problem, TAKE II or III or IV or V.

The story is so fantastic that I was astonished. Israeli soldiers were apparently deeply disappointed that Greece stopped the most recent Flotilla from leaving, since it prevented them from killing some of the participants and stealing their computers and money. Allow me to use the speaker's own words. She said, "We knew Israeli pirates [naval soldiers] were ready to commit violence and kill us." Taken directly out of the Pirates of Penzance.

An opportunity of a lifetime: steal money from those aboard the ship and kill them, knowing they advocate only non-violent resistance. Are Israeli soldiers so destitute their only wish in life is to be pirates on the high seas, targeting peace activists for their money and lives? Apparently, the $3b a year is not enough to appease the bloodthirsty Israelis.

Yonatan, the pilot, explained that a "pilot does not hover if you think someone is going to shoot you." Israel had full knowledge that those on the Mavi Marmara were not armed, he claims. He can even prove it, if Israel were to release everything (hundreds of hours of tapes) that was confiscated. I still am at a loss: Why stop at (killing) nine, when there were hundreds (unarmed and benign peace activists) on the Mavi Marmara? Why not just sink the ship and let the people drown in agony?

Since many in the audience call themselves "Jews" and given that at least two of the co-sponsoring organizations have the word "Jew" in their name, I was wondering about their purpose. My question answered in a most amazing manner by Yonatan who said:

"We opened the door a bit, other people are inspired." "We must be very creative." "Engage." "I am part of a non-violent struggle to do ASIAT NEFASHOT" (to bring other souls closer to one's cause)."

To the Boycott, Divest and Sanction Israel movement in Los Angeles (BDS-LA) he offered the following advice: "Use our voice of Israelis and Jews supporting BDS and magnify and raise the awareness. There is a huge gap between reality and what is said in the media."

This last statement, said for the mth time, was the tipping point; I could not stop laughing. "Our" side has the very same complaint; the media portrays only the other side and is biased and misleading. Apparently, the "other" side thinks the same.

Laughing aside, I became very serious: There was nothing in the presentation about the evils of Israel's enemies, as if they are not part of the picture in any way. In the presenters' most perverted world perception, it is all Israel's fault.

There was not a single positive things said about Israel, like free press, the ability to assemble without fear and to freely express one's opinion (even if it is against Israel), the medical, agricultural and other help Israel provides to the Gazans, the equality in its society to all, irrespective of one's religion or skin color, the ability of Arabs to serve in the Supreme Court or the Knesset, as Ministers and Judges.

Nothing. Not a single positive thing is associated with Israel. I thought I was watching a Klan meeting discussing black people, I was that outraged.

My friend and I were singled out at the very beginning, when Yonatan said, "maybe this whole event is for you." It mattered not what we would have said — history, facts or logic — nothing would resonate unless we bashed Israel and protested (non-violently of course) its so-called Occupation and Apartheid Regime.

So we had our pictures taken from all sides, videos rolling, and became the constant center of attention for the two hours of Israel-bashing. It was a circus of perverts who make money and attracts attention by luring audiences to enjoy two hours of non-stop mockery of reality and good sense, a non-stop attack on human kindness and everything good the world has to offer.

I was ready to shout, "this is not the Israel Defense Forces you are talking about; this is NOT Israel you are describing," but it would have been useless. If one lie is exposed, like Gazans are not starving under the Blockade as shown by Zionist-evil-propaganda-machine Stand With Us, then just make up another lie.

Yonatan did not stand for the IDF, nor did he stand for Israel. He is the example not of goodness but ungratefulness; how a person can lie in a soft voice, all legitimately done, in his eyes, to reach his end.

He is neither ashamed nor humble about his plans. State them clearly and explicitly and be specific, sixty some people will gather on a beautiful Sunday afternoon to support you. You are fighting a fight to annihilate Israel, a just and noble cause, and you have described the means you employ to achieve this goal.

It was indeed a private showing for my friend and me. All others were part of the choir, part of a sick movement to destroy Israel. I doubt they mean good, for their hatred knows no bounds, driving them to insanity sugar-coated as "peace activists."

Discourse will do little, for it is not possible to persuade a heart and mind filled with hatred. Those so blinded by anger and hatred that anyone who dares to say "I am Israeli (who does not hate his country's very existence)" will be automatically blocked out and instantly scorned.

I am an Israeli and a Jew, and I am very proud of Israel. What I witnessed today, Israelis and Jews masquerading as "concerned liberals and progressives" who seek good, would be terrifying and upsetting to any reasonable person.

Israeli soldiers do not spend their days training to murder people and their nights salivating and fantasizing on murders not committed. Israelis do not view Gazans as animals that must be caged or Arab women as sub-human thus not worthy of being raped. Israelis spend their time creating medicines and technologies to extend lives, not erase them.

One needs only look to Syria today, that is a government that murders rivals and opponents for the sake of murder. Where bodies are thrown into the water due to an inability to bury them. Why do these purveyors of good not protest that sort of evil, voice inequality of women in Arab society throughout the Middle East and countless other injustices?

No — Israel is at fault. It is their pet hatred and their own self-loathing sickness. I am a Jew who hates myself, ergo I also hate Israel. Israel rules the world. Israel is Evil (and by extension the USA that enables Israel's dirty deeds).

I left there sad and upset to my very core. It is a sad day indeed for the Jewish people. These twisted minds are trying to make Israelis into the new Nazis.

Those fighting for our very existence are the products of the two freest societies in the world; the United States of America and Israel. Where else but in a free society could these people spew their venomous lies? Perhaps they should fly to Syria and give rebellion a shot. Shot is exactly what they would get.

Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Hadassah Levy, August 9, 2011.

This was written by Elliot Jager and it appeared today in Jewish Ideas Daily
http://www.jewishideasdaily.com/content/module/ 2011/8/9/main-feature/1/the-palestinian-mandela


To his Israeli backers, Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti is the "Palestinian [Nelson] Mandela." That image — of a principled, graying freedom fighter with the courage to move his people toward reconciliation — is promoted by political and cultural figures on the Israeli Left, from Uri Avnery and Amos Oz to the politicians Haim Oron, Benjamin Ben Eliezer, and Amir Peretz. To these men, when Mahmoud Abbas leaves the scene, Barghouti is the redeemer to lead "Palestine" to peace with Israel.

Who is Barghouti? He belongs to a prominent Palestinian clan and was a youthful activist in the first intifada that beginning in 1987 sought to force Israel out of the West Bank and claimed nearly 200 Israeli and over 1,300 Palestinian Arab lives. Israel jailed and deported Barghouti twice, only to see him return as a senior Fatah leader after the 1993 Oslo Accords were signed. Fluent in Hebrew, he was a favorite participant at Israeli "peace camp" events (the New York Times once described him as "charming, articulate and intelligent, even if a bit of a showboat").

Barghouti served as a ranking member of the Al-Aksa Martyrs' Brigade and provided West Bank terror gangs with cash and guns to stoke the second intifada that began in September 2000. Still, he never stopped insisting that he opposed terrorism, especially within pre-1967 Israel. Even while proclaiming his commitment to peaceful coexistence (contingent on an Israeli withdrawal to the vulnerable 1949 armistice lines), he led openly violent demonstrations against the "occupation" and clandestinely co-founded Tanzim, a new Fatah-aligned terror faction. Culpable in the murder of tens of Israelis (and a Greek Orthodox monk mistaken for a Jew), he is now serving a life sentence in an Israeli penitentiary.

In prison, Barghouti has honed his gift for dissimulation, swiftly reinventing himself as a "dissident" and a scholar. In a recent interview, Barghouti, master of the oxymoron, called for "peaceful resistance ... at this point in time." For Time's Karl Vick — who corresponded with Barghouti through his lawyers — the "setting" (which the reporter could only conjure up) recalled Robben Island in apartheid South Africa. Having disingenuously smeared Israel with the analogy, Vick promptly backpedaled: "Comparisons with Arafat are more apt."

Unsurprisingly, prison has made Barghouti ever more popular with the Palestinian masses who — like him — are ambivalent about the utility of yet another paroxysm of intifada violence. Barghouti is a strong advocate of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah and would defeat Hamas's Ismail Haniyeh in any Palestinian leadership contest. He also is adept at telling Palestinians what they want to hear: that they are the "generators of the longest armed revolution in modern history" facing a colonialist enemy whose cruelty "is unparalleled"; that peace talks are futile in the quest to push Israel back to the old armistice lines; that Palestinians should march in the millions this September to demand the UN unilaterally declare a Palestinian state on the PLO's terms.

In point of fact, there was never much evidence to substantiate the notion that the Palestinian Arabs want a Mandela-like leader. Certainly, their xenophobic war against Zionism is no parallel to the African struggle against apartheid. As for the straw man argument that Israelis reject Barghouti because of his violent history, it's worth recalling that in shaking hands with the insalubrious Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin calculated (wrongly, it turned out) that "you make peace with your enemies — not the Queen of Holland."

But there is no evidence that Barghouti has shown a capacity for being able to move from enemy to peace partner. His two-state solution is ominously reminiscent of Arafat's 1974 scheme for the phased destruction of Israel — which underpinned the PLO's approach to Oslo.

Two years after Barghouti's capture, Oslo architect Yossi Beilin recounted Barghouti's telling him that his purpose in unleashing an orgy of violence against Israel was to capture the Palestinian street, which would otherwise fall to Hamas. Beilin found Barghouti's explanation "cynical" and "frightening." But, having evidently gotten over his sense of betrayal, he has joined other Israeli leftists in advocating Barghouti's release.

The truth, as most Israelis realize, is that the Palestinian Arabs have no realistic plan forward and Barghouti is incapable of providing them with one. Rather than leading his people to a sustainable two-state solution, coexistence with Israel, and, ultimately, reconciliation, he trails behind them toward one more dead end. In The Long Walk to Freedom, Mandela wrote that "If you want to make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becomes your partner." By this and other definitions, Barghouti is no partner.

Ellen on August 9, 2011 08:51 am:

Good piece, Mr. Jager. More to the politically incorrect point — Arab culture could never produce a Mandela or a Gandhi, as some on the infantile left have dreamed of for decades. Why they cannot produce such a person from the cultural milieu in which they are embedded, should be pretty obvious after watching 60 years of 18 Arab states producing nothing but leadership composed of squalid, tyrannical and thieving hereditary dictatorships.

Even more decisive is the current wave of Arab revolts, misnamed the Arab Spring by deluded Western journalists. So far, what we are seeing is revolts aimed at overturning horrible dictatorships (a good and justified action) be followed by sectarian civil wars or — in the cases of Egypt and Tunisia — the revolt of the backward mobs against the internet savvy elites who have no plan and no power to reconstruct these societies after 60 years of scorched earth.

The Palestinians, as Arafat once opined to Oriana Fallaci, cannot jump out of their Arab skins. What he meant was, why should anyone expect them to be more civil, more competent and more realistic in their political behavior than 18 other Arab states that have produced such poor results? They can't and won't change their spots, like the proverbial leopard, just because legions of Western leftists and Arabists are desperate to vindicate 40 years of supporting a failed cause.

DF on August 9, 2011 02:44 pm:

The engineer of the intifada which cost so many lives and stooped to sending even pregnant women and mentally handicapped children to blow themselves up in crowded marketplaces and restaurants is no Mandela.

Beyond that, there are many Palestinians who have proposed workable plans for a two state solution. To cover this up with political rhetoric like "realistic", meaning "good-to-go-just-sign it as is" is cynically calculated to support the delusion that Israel can hold on to the West Bank, rule over 4 million Arabs who hate them and still be a Jewish state.

Ellen on August 9, 2011 03:04 pm:

DF, There are 1.6 million Arabs on the West Bank (real numbers, not the make-believe PLO population statistic) and yes, Israel can rule over that population as it has ruled for 45 years over 200,000 Arabs in East Jerusalem as resident aliens with Jordanian citizenship.

As Caroline Glick has written, the challenge Israel faces with this population is no different than the challenge democratic European states face with their non-citizen Muslim populations who pose a potential security and demographic threat to them. Perhaps that is why European rulers have ceased to wag their fingers and give so many lectures to Israel about how it treats its Muslim minority, as they used to do in the 1980's.

daat y on August 9, 2011 08:23 pm:

The Israeli left practices "psychotic denial. "It does not matter what terrorism the Palestinians do, the left lives in a fantasy world. The sad part is they control the newspapers,TV, and radio. The Supreme Court run by leftists has the power to control the country.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, August 9, 2011.

"This land is the Jewish Nations' land, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea"

The Jewish People were given two Deeds to the Holy Land of Israel:

One Deed given to their Forefather Abraham, by G-d, in a Covenant, a Deed that was not lost, rather passed from generation to generation by those who kept G-d's Covenant, the Jewish People.

And now, 5000 years later, the proof of this First Deed was affirmed and became a witness for the world to see by the Second Deed, which is the Mandate For Palestine, issued in the San Remo Conference, in 1920. The Mandate For Palestine was issued to make sure that the entire world, unequivocally understands that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People. The Mandate For Palestine is the only legal document that defines the rights of the Jewish People to the Holy Land of Israel. Therefore, the entire Jewish Nation must adhere to and uphold the Mandate For Palestine in order to secure the survival of the sovereign State of Israel in the Holy Land.
Reference: http://www.mythsandfacts.org/

Genesis 35:12: And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac to thee I will give it and to thy seed after thee will I give the land

The time is now for the Jewish People to declare their independence from the imbued dialogue of hate and deception

  Jewish People's Declaration of Independence

Establishing the line which serves as a Hedge of Protection Around the Nation of Israel

A proclamation of disengagement from any policy which would compromise the defense of the sovereign Nation of Israel.

Israel, unlike any other democracy in the world, has an obligation that she must honor that is no less sacred in its decree than that which consecrates Liberty's just purpose and cause. It is the Pledge that, Never Again will the Jewish People be victims of a Holocaust perpetrated by those whose mandate of hate would cause them to abandon their own humanity in pursuit of absolute power and/or world domination.

This is why Israel, in the name of the victims and survivors of the Holocaust, and as a freedom-loving people, must never be bound to any agreement which would hand over any land for the promise of a "peaceful" co-existence with nations and people who embrace tyranny and fascism as their protocol, or adhere to any requests from those in the international community who ask her to show restraint in the face of an impending nuclear Holocaust.

Contact Nurit Greenger by email at nurit.nuritg@gmail.com. Visit her blog:

To Go To Top

Posted by Stephen Schecter, August 8, 2011.
Below is the start of an essay that can be read in full here.

His Sword Drawn In His Hand Stretched Out Over Jerusalem

He took us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and great fear. And what is great fear, the Hagaddah asks, if not the Divine Presence that had the presence of mind to take one nation out of another and bring it to the promised land? The Passover story redoubles Creation. Once again difference asserts itself in the human story, the irreversible story of difference that can only produce more. And so we say: in memory of the beginning, in memory of the exodus from Egypt.

But how can difference emerge when the old order resists, refuses, hardens its heart as the old order is wont to do? Then come the plagues and the miracles, violence and hallelujah, so that peace can come into the land and its inhabitants not be afraid. But even if the old order's chariots went down in the parted waters, and its soldiers' corpses watered the desert in one defeat after another, the hearts of the enemy stay hardened. They have not been subdued with the delights of commerce and literature. They have not read the Old Testament which they claim their holy book has superseded. They know nothing of the Divine Presence which once promised Abraham a great nation, which foretold of their slavery in Egypt and foretold their redemption, like a bride with her full breasts and her thick hair, startling in her nakedness. And because they do not know and will not recognize, the Lord stands with His sword in His hand outstretched over Jerusalem.

Thank God the Lord stands with His sword in His hand outstretched over Jerusalem. For too many Jews and too many Israelis do not. Jerusalem is trouble, they say, and stay away. Jerusalem is haredi, they say, and so they abandon it, as the haredi abandon the state of Israel that watches over them, its sword drawn in its hand outstretched over their seder tables. I am in the land of Israel and happy to be here. I think the land should be bigger. It should stretch all the way to the Jordan and swallow up Gaza. Those are its natural frontiers. Also its strategic ones. Also its eternal ones, promised over and over by whatever it is humans believe in: God, law, the spoils of just wars. But too many Jews and too many Israelis abandon the people who would settle the land and neglect the land that is theirs by any conceivable right. Theirs to rule and theirs to cherish, as they do when left alone in peace.

I have come to Israel for two months. I know just about nobody here and those I do know I do not contact because I no longer know what we shall say. We would argue into the wee hours of the morning about what they cannot see and no one will come to tell us it is time for morning services. They will call me a racist. I would tell them I would sleep with an Arab if he were a Zionist. They will tell me I ask for too much. All my life I asked for too much. Now I ask for so little, only the simple things, like the simple truth a Jewish poet once wrote about. I ask that the Palestinians lie down with the Israelis as the kid is supposed to lie down with the lion. I ask that they embrace the Jewish state and bless it. I ask that if they must have a state they welcome Jews who wish to live there to do so. I ask that their state be democratic, liberal, pluralist, open. Then I could sleep with an Arab even if he were not a Zionist. But that too apparently is too much.

I cannot describe Israel because I cannot describe the people. I know so few and even if I knew more, what would that say? Neither can I describe the land even though I am happy to be here. All I can do is make observations. Luhmann once wrote a book, Observations On Modernity. Luhmann is my favourite sociologist. Was. He is dead now. But he lives on in my memory and every now and then I understand something more about his theory. Today I understand just what it means to say I am an observer. Here I am, an observation post, offering up my observations. Not like Moses, who answered the call of the burning bush with here I am. Nor like Abraham, always eager to get up early and answer the voice. Only I; ego as observer, as point of observation. Spinoza would have understood. Vincent will understand. A few others, too. It is no big deal.

I rented a place in Yafo. Last time I was here I also rented a place in Yafo. Old Jaffa. Right next to the flea market. A real one. Full of junk, odds and ends, stove top espresso makers missing the basket, although I did buy a leather belt for six dollars. Yafo is like a lot of Tel Aviv. Part of it is crumbling: the bottoms of buildings, edges of sidewalks, apartments that seem ruined from the day they were built. But right next to it much goes up that is spanking new: residences nestled into the landscape, restored sea walls, refurbished stores inside buildings as old as the Ottoman empire. Jews and Arabs seem to share the neighborhood without really sharing it. They use the same beach, fill the same air with their noise, honk needlessly as they drive through the streets. Modern indifference at its best. I would take it. I do take it. It is safe to walk the streets, even at night. There are stores where I cannot figure out if the owner is Arab or Jew. It makes no difference; the dissolving beauty of commerce. Once again Marx had it wrong. There is something good to the universal equivalents. But I can also sense distrust, if not hostility. There is a silent war going on between Arab graffiti and Israeli flags. To whom does Yafo belong? Is it too a settlement? The signs of the 1948 war abound. I can imagine what it was like, the fierce street to street fighting as the Yishuv fought for its life. Now there are plaques to commemorate the victory; but then, the victory was not a foregone conclusion. It still is not. Yet as long as the murderous impulse is contained one is grateful.

In Itamar it recently burst forth. Itamar is a small settlement in the Shomron, known as Samaria to the Gentiles. About a month ago Arabs from a town under 'moderate' Palestinian control broke into a Jewish home and slaughtered five members of a family: father, mother, two children and a baby. Slit their throats. The media called them intruders. Recently the intruders were arrested by IDF personnel. They turned out to be two youths who boasted of their exploit, said they would do it again, regretted they missed two youngsters asleep in another part of the house. The youths were protected by their families and beyond their families, embraced by the web of kinship and Jew hatred that has thoroughly criminalized Palestinian society. To which the world and half of Israel would give a state. Mindless and hopeless is the peace process, yet the leading lights of Israeli television talk as if nothing else is, much like John Donne's sun rising on the bedchamber of his love.

Read the rest of this essay here.

Stephen Schecter is a sociologist, poet and teller of Hebrew Bible stories. Contact him at shabbtai@gmail.com. This essay was published in New English Review.

To Go To Top

Posted by Ari Bussel, August 8, 2011.

"And what does the Lord God require of you? But just to do justice, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6:8

Jewish People are often called the "Chosen People." They, alone of all people, are held to a higher standard, for they are the People of God. The world loves to hate Israel and the Jewish People, but the world continues to demand more of Israel, much more than it demands of itself. While the world uses an electron microscope to judge at everything Israel does, the expectation of "a higher standard" seems to be shared by all.

God, however, only expects the very basic from His people, to be good, just and righteous. If they do, they serve as an example and set the standard. If they do not, they depart Him and His ways.

A Jewish legend tells the story of two brothers. One was married and had children the other still looking for a wife. The brothers loved and appreciated each other. One night, the younger brother, not yet married, was sleepless and was worried about his older brother. So he took most of his fortune to his brother's house and left it there.

Unbeknown to the younger brother, the older brother could not sleep either. He knew his younger brother was not yet married and had no children and thus, he was determined to do a deed. In the middle of the night he took most of his fortune and hid it in his brother's place.

God, so impressed with the love of the two brothers and their actions, decided that His house should be built there, where people care about one another, do good deeds unselfishly, act justly and live according to the tenants of the Torah. According to our legend, the Temple was built there, in Jerusalem.

The Temple was twice destroyed, and it is said that the destruction came about from frivolous hatred, one among brothers. Both the First and Second Temples were destroyed on the Ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, which since has been a day of fasting and deep mourning. [This year it falls on Tuesday, the ninth of August.] How can the Temple or the City of God be destroyed when God Himself is said to be dwelling there? Will God not protect His people?

Israel on its own cannot survive its enemies. They are too numerous and much more powerful. They have a crystal clear goal to destroy Israel. They could overwhelm Israel without much effort, but for the past 64 years of Israel's existence as a modern, independent country in the Land of Israel, they did not succeed destroying her.

As long as God Himself, the Almighty Lord of Hosts, resides among the Israelites in the Land of Israel, they will exist. They are invincible, as His presence protects them. However, like a spoiled child who is too privileged and gone astray, too many in Israel have left the path of light, justice and righteousness. For that, for angering God, Israel is about to lose the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. For that, Israel will fall in the hands of its sworn enemies.

The answer is very simple, and is given by the Prophet Isaiah in his opening chapter. According to Isaiah, God has saith that sons He has reared and raised have sinned.

Isaiah continues: The situation is so severe that Judea and Jerusalem is described a whore and her ministers rebellious, companions of thieves, love bribes and pursue personal monetary favors. They do not judge the orphan, and the injustice done to the widow does not reach them. No one seems to be pleading any longer on behalf of the weaker elements in society. Life is full of iniquity.

Our very actions can bring about the best in life, God's dwelling among us, when the actions are just and righteous, when we seek justice and look beyond ourselves. We, no one else, can bring about our very destruction, and subsequently our redemption and salvation.

God Lord of Hosts in His speech saith: "And I will return your judges as at the first and your counselors as at the beginning, and then you will be called the City of Justice, a Complex of Devotion / Loyalty. Zion in justice will be redeemed, and those returning to her by righteousness." (Isaiah 1:26-27)

At times we look at life and we feel immune. Nothing can reach us, as we are wealthy, healthy and all powerful. We give homage to God, go the synagogue and behave as expected, as if on cue at all the right times and places. Then comes Isaiah and tells us we fool no one by our outwardly actions. As long as our behavior is devoid of meaning, or worse yet is completely evil, our appeasement toward God succeeds in doing exactly the opposite than we expect, it simply angers God who knows the truth and sees all.

Isaiah compares us, both the Jewish nation and our modern-day leaders, to Sodom and Gomorrah. Remember, they sinned so that the cry reached God and He came down to see if indeed their evil ways were so outrageous (Genesis 18:20-21).

The two cities were "like the Garden of the Lord" (Genesis 13:10), before God has destroyed them. Abraham was astonished: Will you destroy a righteous person with an evil one, he asked God (Genesis 18:23). Abraham stands and literally argues with God: Maybe you will find fifty righteous people, or even 45, 40, 30, 20 or ten, and then you must not kill them. Is it possible You, God who rules the country, will not do justice?

God tells Abraham that He will not destroy the cities if he finds ten good people, but as we know, these were not to be found. God did spare Lot, his wife and two daughters (Genesis 19:16).

The society was so corrupt that no one else was saved.

As the Jewish people ask ourselves over the millennia WHY? Why did we suffer the Destruction of the First and Second Temples, the Exiles, the Inquisition, the persecutions, the hatred? Why the Holocaust, Arab wars to destroy us, and an abiding Muslim hatred? We understood deep down every time we asked WHY — with painful recognition beyond human ability to bear — that we should not be asking God, but ourselves.

Times are good and Israel is financially strong. Israel's military might is extraordinary, so indeed, we feel invincible. So why is it that politicians are corrupt, from a former Israeli President to prime ministers to ministers, generals and everyone underneath? Why is the social fabric of Israel so rotten, the ultra-rich so distanced from their brethren the have-nots? This co-existence is unhealthy for it indicates the moral fabric is corrupt.

Education in Israel is failing. Israelis do not know their Bible. Hatred is building to a boiling point. This is all internal, between and among Jewish people. The "progressive liberals," those affluent Tel-Aviv-and-vicinity residents who like to lecture to others about social justice and human rights, were the first to withdraw their children when Ethiopian children arrived in their neighborhood schools.

When it comes to them, the revealed truth is ugly and disgusting. An experiment was carried out: Sudanese refugees, illegal immigrants to Israel, were bought bathing suits and paid fifty Shekels each (some $15) to go to

Division inside Israel is so worrisome that one is frozen in utter astonishment: Secular Israelis "hate" the religious Jews, but even more so they "hate" the "Settlers." It is the Hareidi (ultra-orthodox) and the "Settlers" who bring about all the problems in Israel. It is because of "THEM" that young couples are suffering. So the commentators and columnists point the finger in broad daylight and blame elements within Israeli society. Alas, they do not look at themselves.

Israel is a house divided. Instead of uniting and fighting its enemies, Israel is embroiled in an internal debate on which way to go. The energies and attention that should be focused on defeating its enemies are wasted on internal disagreements.

Israel will suffer greatly and have no one else to blame. It is not Israel's enemies that will cause her downfall, although they will be the instruments of destruction. If Israel were strong within she could survive and prevail, but inside she is weak and deteriorating. Remember that outwardly the offerings to God continue, the wonderfully enticing smells, the visages and mirages most lucrative; all devoid of content.

There are sinners, murderers with hands dripping Jewish blood of their own, Israelis who time and again stab Israel, their own country, their motherland, enjoying their brutality. They are Israel's destroyers. On that matter said Isaiah (49:17): "Thy devastators and destroyers will emerge from thee."

As we look around we must focus, as God obviously did so many years ago, on Sodom and Gomorrah: Maybe we will find a few good people? Surely, there are those who do not sin, who are righteous and just? Undoubtedly. The question though becomes: Is society beyond repair? Have the transgressions transformed and mutated every good portion of Israeli society? Exactly like a cancer that spreads throughout the body and attacks the liver and the lungs, brining the end so near.

Are Israel's days numbered, possibly down to hours?

Once there were two brothers, more concerned with each other than their own selves, their comforts and wellbeing. This was the case so long ago. Now each brother fends for himself to the detriment of the other. What a sad point in time, what a horrible reflection of what happened to the good that once resided in Judea and Jerusalem that is now gone. How easy we are making it for our enemies.

All will be destroyed and just a tiny portion will remain: "your cities are burned with fire; your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by foreigners. And the daughter of Zion remains like a booth in a vineyard, like a dog's house in a field of watermelons, as a besieged city." (Isaiah 1:7-8)

Wake up Oh, Israel, and improve your ways. Israelis, compromise and reignite your bonds. Your wealth and strength are only temporary, and their "power" can dissipate in milliseconds. The weak elements in society are those you must hear, and you must act upon what happens.

The "Settlers" and the religious Jews are not your enemies. They are part and parcel of your very being, the road signs and the stoplights calling attention to your inner self. Devoid yourself of goodness and you will be destroyed, mark the words of the Almighty.

Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at busselari@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, August 8, 2011.

This was written by Josh Ahrens, a senior at Portland State University studying History and Judaic Studies and President and founding member of Portland State's CUFI on Campus chapter. This article is archived at http://israel-commentary.org/?p=1098 and it appeared in the July 2011 issue of The Torch Magazine.


In 1896, Reverend William Hechler unexpectedly knocked on Theodor Herzl's front door. Herzl had never met this bearded man, who frankly announced, "Here I am...Now I am going to help you." Herzl, the quizzical and secular Jewish journalist and Hechler, the eccentric and well-connected Christian theologian went on to form a relationship through which Herzl gained the recognition needed to promote his idea of a Jewish state.

This improbable contact is considered by many as the beginning of the Zionist relationship with Christianity, and essential in the subsequent recognition of a Jewish state. It has grown from these two men to hundreds of thousands of men and women.

When you meet with students, advisors, faculty, and when you speak up in class, you are participating in this history of unlikely individuals who felt a strong connection with the state of Israel and its citizens, and chose to act accordingly. You are a messenger with potential to impact the future of Israel in a similar way to Reverend Hechler.

I love asking fellow CUFI on Campus members how they heard about CUFI. Nearly every story is of a messenger who arrived unannounced and invited them into this growing, living relationship. To explain the importance of this relationship, consider the effects of the Goldstone Report. After Israel retaliated in 2008-09 against Hamas' rocket attacks from Gaza, The U.N. Human Rights Council investigated the conflict and charged Israel with launching a, "deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population."

It has since been shown to be a false accusation. This charge was repeated day after day in the headlines of the most respected newspapers in the world. Justice Richard Goldstone recently wrote in the Washington Post, "We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Commission... If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document."

Yet for over a year in our class discussions about Israel, students accepted the Goldstone Report with a stunning lack of curiosity, and dismissed Israelis as war criminals. It fit so perfectly into their presuppositions about Israel because it was a product of the same environment — an environment virtually absent of Christians properly equipped with the knowledge and courage to counter it. No value system other than Judeo-Christian can reasonably be expected to counter such attacks.

I remember a moment in class when I asked the students to put themselves in the place of Israelis who endured Hamas' rocket attacks on their communities. Several of them laughed in my face. Everyone else was silent, including the professor. Those who compiled the Goldstone Report could confidently (yet based only on pure, biased speculation) accuse Israelis of deliberately killing innocent Palestinian civilians because they developed their attitudes and perceptions of Israel in this environment.

They have never apologized. Palestinians and Israelis truly suffered because of this failure to distinguish between terrorism and legitimate defensive action. These laughing students will go on to teach your children, write your news, your legislation, your history, and no doubt more documents as flawed as the Goldstone Report.

How has this happened? The answer is very simple; documents like the Goldstone Report are products of this academic climate, which are then ingested by new generations of students who go out into the world and allow this attitude about Israel to color their work, which makes its way back into the classroom, insulated from moral or factual challenges.

This is all changing. There are millions of Christians who are potential Israel advocates on campus, and we in CUFI on Campus are at ground level of unlocking that potential. Anti-Semitism does not stand a chance in the American University against us, if we for once realize the urgency of the problem.

It relies on our inaction. With each event and personal conversation, we are focusing the lens through which srael is viewed for future Goldstones, members of the U.N. Human Rights Council, teachers, pastors and voters. These may be the only chances students and professors have for someone to challenge false images of Israel. With your presence, warmth, and knowledge on campus you play nothing less than a direct and essential role in the survival of a vibrant and secure Jewish state.

This is a moment in history I can't wait to tell my future children and grandchildren about when I take them to walk the streets of Jerusalem, bicycle in the Negev, and stand on the shores of the Galilee, under the very same flag that flies in Israel today.

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Martin Sherman, August 8, 2011.

With little political steam left in the "peace process," the left-leaning opposition is looking desperately for a new card to play. Their unlikely, inappropriate and outdated choice: "Social justice." With commendable professional integrity, Uzi Benziman, editor of the Israel Democracy Institute's blog The Seventh Eye, posed this candid question: "There is a puzzling discrepancy between the bitterness expressed in the housing protest and the satisfaction with life in Israel expressed in recent polls. Could it be that the way the rebellion is depicted in the media is influenced by the journalists' personal identification with its objectives?" It is question that must be addressed both in the specific context of the ongoing protests and in the general context of how the public discourse is manipulated in this country, and why certain issues are accorded prominence, while others are consigned to obscurity.

Grounds for genuine grievances

Don't get me wrong! Israel's socioeconomic fabric is far from unblemished! Social workers' salaries are scandalously low — and dangerously shortsighted. An underpaid, overworked police force is a guaranteed formula for the spread of corrosive and crippling corruption and lawlessness. The meager remuneration for teachers and doctors is wildly out of sync with their value to society.

Yes, there is little room for social complacency.

This is a country whose only significant productive resource is the human resource. Widespread social iniquities would entail huge economic costs. Accordingly, outlays on health, education and public safety should not be considered unproductive welfare expenses, but investments in capital maintenance. Without a healthy, well-educated, motivated workforce, the economy would be unable to compete as a modern wealth-generating entity. This is not bleeding-heart socialist doctrine, merely hardheaded capitalistic realism.

In this regard, criticism can reasonably be leveled at the Finance Ministry — under both the current and past governments. This is particularly true of its influential Budgets Division, which is often afflicted by both short-sightedness and tunnel-vision, consistently subordinating long-term, systemic considerations to a short-term, "penny wise, pound foolish" dogma of fiscal austerity.

The Budgets Division has made the deficit the overriding criterion for providing — or rather, not providing — resources for sorely needed national enterprises, thus delaying projects clearly capable of eventually generating revenues that would have easily covered the initial budget outlays — and conceivably prevented much of the current outcry.

Down with daily difficulties

That said, the sudden rash of country-wide protests has a distinctly unauthentic ring. It is one thing to decry exorbitant overpricing by private corporations in uncompetitive, centralized local markets and/or chronic deficiencies in supply induced by bureaucratic gridlock. It is quite another to demand sweeping restructuring of the entire socioeconomic edifice with a "back-to-the-future" reinstatement of a "socialist paradise" and an unaffordable, anachronistic welfare state.

As such, the protests smack more of political frustration on the part of the opposition and its media cronies, than of genuine economic deprivation of the middle class. They are being seized on as tool for social division rather than for social solidarity, to ferment — with the use of incendiary innuendo — resentment against the "settlers" and the religious.

With business slow in the "peace industry," they are increasing being exposed as a flimsy pretext to denigrate the government rather than in a sincere endeavor to reform society.

Suddenly, perennial proponents of Palestinian statehood have morphed into socially sensitive activists, advocating the elimination of difficulty in daily life, and demanding the enhancement of everything. Suddenly, everything in country — from housing through medical services to food prices — is a legitimate target of revolutionary rage.

From the picture painted by protesters — and eagerly conveyed by a brazenly biased press — one might think that life in Israel was an unbearable ordeal for most of the downtrodden masses. It is a picture that sits uneasily with the facts.

Meanwhile, back on planet Earth

Last year, Israel was admitted to the prestigious OECD group of the world's most-developed nations, and while the inequality index in Israel is somewhat higher than the OECD average, its is just slightly above that of the UK, Australia and Italy and not that different from that of Japan and New Zealand.

So it seems that Israel's impressive economic development has not been accompanied by any inordinate socioeconomic iniquities, relative to other OECD members. Indeed, there is compelling evidence that the Israeli economy — and many Israelis — are faring considerably better than their counterparts in much of the developed world.

Last April, in a Gallup survey to gauge "well-being" in 124 countries, Israel scored remarkably well. In only 19 countries, a majority defined themselves as "thriving," rather than "struggling," or "suffering."

Israel ranked seventh, with 63 percent seeing themselves as "thriving," tying with New Zealand, close on the heels of Finland and Australia and ahead of the Netherlands, US, Austria and UK.

These findings closely parallel those in a study by the OECD itself, assessing the quality of life in member countries. Again Israel fared well. Seventy-two percent of Israelis were satisfied with life, well above the OECD average. They were also better educated and enjoyed higher life-expectancy, reflecting favorably on the general level of health care in the country.

Locally conducted polls reinforce this picture.

A Central Bureau of Statistics survey published in mid-2009 showed Israelis greatly satisfied with their lives, their professions, their places of employment... and their income.

Pampered, pompous and politically partisan

Looking at the Israel economy overall, especially in the light of the teetering fates of several other OCED nations, the sudden outburst of outrage is difficult to comprehend.

As the polls referred to above attest, it certainly cannot be attributed to years of simmering dissatisfaction. The outrage can, perhaps, be traced to what the BBC diagnosed as the frustration caused by aspiring to Swiss living standards on Greek-level incomes. Largely untouched by the world economic crisis and accustomed to increasing consumption, Israelis are refusing to tailor their expectations to their means. Keeping up with the Joneses is becoming increasingly onerous, inducing many to live stressfully beyond their means.

But justified or not, the frustration is real, and is being hijacked for political ends.

Claims that the protests are non-partisan are patently ridiculous. To accuse the government of pandering to the wealthy is wildly unjustified. Arguably more than any of its predecessors, it has been willing to challenge the monopolists/oligopolists and to confront the "tycoons" — even incurring plutocratic wrath by retroactively raising royalties on the profits from the newly discovered natural gas fields.

The left-wing bias is clearly evident not only from what the protesters are demanding, but from what they are not.

Indeed, their demands appear to be a hodge-podge of poorly thought out proposals for a cradle-to-grave welfare state that has brought several EU countries to the verge of collapse. In a risible attempt at economic alchemy, the protesters specify no discernable source of finance for this package of "social justice" other than reducing indirect taxes.

But even more revealing is what is not on the protesters' agenda. Conspicuous by absence is any suggestion of consumer boycotts against the avaricious private monopolies/ oligopolies, the real culprits for much of the excessive price hikes. (After all, high prices can only be maintained if consumers are willing and able to pay them.) Nor do they advocate assertive measures to decentralize the economy, or reducing prices by encouraging more competitive imports — perhaps out of fear of alienating the agricultural sector that runs large dairy farms supplying the "cottage-cheese" producing oligopolies.

Likewise, there are no proposals to reduce rampant tax delinquency in the Arab sector, or to end the general lawless in the Negev.

While they berate the low cost of real estate the "settlers" allegedly enjoy, there is no word about the illegal takeover of state land by the Beduin in the South, and the attendant cost to deal with it.

Apparently that would be too politically incorrect for the "new social order." While they bewail funds for the ultra-Orthodox, they are silent on the scandalous expenditure of tax revenues that sustain polygamy among the Beduin, involving multiple marriages to women brought in from Gaza and the Palestinian Authority.

Described by police sources as a pervasive "social trend," this is a growing iniquity funded by welfare payments from the National Insurance Institute that seems to leave the protesters' social sensibilities un-offended.

Last but not least, the cost of housing.

Surely any non-partisan body genuinely concerned with high housing prices would embrace the most obvious and proven measure for reducing them: an end to the building freeze in the "territories" and accelerated construction there to increase the supply of accommodation so as to arrest the upward pressure on markets in the Dan region.

And surely if the protesters have no political affiliation, they would not eschew such an immediate remedy. After all, this is precisely what the Rabin government did! Despite 1992 electoral pledges to freeze construction across the Green Line and "dry up" the settlements, it quickly realized that this produced skyrocketing real-estate prices.

The prompt response was to approve — in mid-1994 — massive construction in the "settlements," which kept price rises in check.

There is little doubt that current constraints on building in "the territories" are a major factor contributing to the exorbitant prices of housing in country — but one the protesters studiously eschew mentioning.

In conclusion

Genuine non-political social protest? Give me a break! This was published August 5, 2011 in the Jerusalem Post.

To Go To Top

Posted by Lee Caplan, August 8, 2011.

This was written by Yehuda HaKohen and distributed to Am-Segula yahoo.group.



Throughout most of the year, we are satisfied and grateful as we appreciate the miraculous Redemption taking place before our eyes. The return of Jewish self-determination following nearly two thousand years of exile, the Land of Israel bearing its fruits after being barren for so long and the revival of the Hebrew language as a spoken vernacular are only three of the many wondrous feats that have graced us in the modern age. And although the re-born State of Israel is still far from perfect and often requires a deeper vision to recognize the Kingdom of G-D developing to fruition beneath the surface despite all of the current problems that exist, our general attitude must be positive as we acknowledge the historic significance of our generation and thank HaShem for the miracles that He performs on our behalf.

But once a year we take time to recognize how much of the Redemption is still incomplete as we mourn the destruction of G-D's Temple and the Jewish people's lack of complete national freedom. On the one hand, we see the goal — that amazing revolution in reality that is moving the world towards what it was always meant to be. We see the Divine Ideal from before Creation sprouting forth as Israel experiences a national renaissance on our native soil. At the same time, however, during these sorrowful days, we remember how much of that absolute goal is still missing — how the Temple has yet to be rebuilt, how much of our country has yet to be liberated from foreign rule, how submissive our leaders behave to the demands of foreign powers, how rampant corruption seems in our political system and how many of our people still choose to reside in the exile.

This recognition of what is currently lacking is in itself part of the appreciation we feel throughout the entire year. The true understanding of Redemption can only be perceived when we are able to view where the process is going, what great historic goal is about to be attained and how much we still have to work and pray for its completion. This understanding of the State of Israel's deficiencies is what gives us the ability to value our achievements — to appreciate the foundations that have already been built. Three weeks, nine days and then finally one day a year we remember and experience anguish for what is still not complete and how much of a struggle still awaits and makes demands on us in the future. Because of how much the world is suffering today and how great and amazing Israel's complete Redemption will be, we are overcome with grief for what the world is still waiting for — that perfect, ultimate rectification of existence that will bring this world to levels of blessing and harmony beyond what humankind has until now experienced.

In his introduction to Musar Avicha, Chief Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak HaKohen Kook writes that "As long as a person does not learn for himself the lofty essence of the soul of man and the loftiness of the soul of Israel and the elevated value of Eretz Yisrael, as well as the longing and yearning every Jew must feel for the building of the Temple and the Redemption of Israel, it is almost impossible to experience the taste of Divine worship."

If one does not understand the true essence of Am Yisrael or feel a burning desire for the return of G-D's Temple, he probably cannot help but find daily prayers somewhat dry. All of the prayers in the Amidah are directed towards superior ideals — the full expression of the Nation of Israel in our land and the entire system of everything in this world as it was always meant to be. But if one does not understand the significance and true grandeur of these things and only says the words because they are written in the book, he may justifiably wonder why prayer feels so monotonous. If he has not learned and clarified for himself the value of these vehicles — what they do for the world and reality and all of humanity, then the words of the prayers will feel meaningless, as they do not genuinely stem from the depths of his soul.

When speaking about serving G-D with all of our hearts, the Torah is referring specifically to prayer. As it would be ridiculous to assume that HaShem actually needs our prayers, the obligation to engage in the activity three times a day is clearly for the sake of something beneficial to us. Prayer serves as a thrice-daily workout for our will power and an examination for the true quality of our lives. It is the essential instrument for measuring how much we link up to the Divine — how much our will is aligned with the will of HaShem.

By exercising our will three times a day, prayer helps us to properly internalize and direct our lives towards the national aspirations of the Jewish people. The true intensity and quality of our lives as Jews can be determined successful when that which we pray for is close to our hearts. When healing for the sick, the ingathering of our exiles, the restoration of G-D's justice, the rebuilding of the Temple and universal peace are the concerns that regularly occupy our thoughts and deeds, we can be confident that we truly want what G-D wants and we are then able to pray with true attachment and devotion.

Sincere prayer logically stems from the emptiness we feel at the absence of what we pray for. If one occupies himself with deep Torah study and clarifies for himself what is yet to be achieved, he will begin to feel pain for what is missing from the world. He will become thirsty with yearnings for the Redemption and recite the prayers from the depths of his heart. In order to feel this emptiness, however, one must know and appreciate the true value of Israel's Redemption and what blessing and refinement it brings to Creation.

Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzatto writes in Mesillat Yesharim that a person should feel constant, almost physical pain for the destruction of the Temple and the exile of Israel. How many of us are so consciously unified with Israel's collective soul that in these days before the ninth of Av we feel the suffering of the Hebrew Nation and what is missing from our world? How many of us are so sensitive to the humiliation of Israel and to the lack of G-D's honor that we feel this torment in the depths of our being? If only we could understand the reality of what the world is missing, we would not be able to concern ourselves with what we can or cannot eat, buy or listen to during this period of mourning. To truly feel the deficiency in the world around us, we must be able to understand the magnitude of the Redemption unfolding in our generation and be able to appreciate that which we do have. Only with this appreciation are we able to comprehend what is still absent from the process and only through this lofty comprehension can we help to transform the ninth of Av from a day of mourning to unparalleled joy.

With Love of Israel,
-Yehuda HaKohen

Contact Lee Caplan at leescaplan@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Ted Belman, August 7, 2011.

This was written by Bill Levinson and it appeared today in Israpundit.


Fundamentalist Islamic (aka Musloid) behavior speaks for itself

Propaganda pictures of the Spanish-American War and World Wars usually featured cartoonist-drawn and highly exaggerated pictures of the enemy. Examples included Grant Hamilton's "The Spanish Brute" which transformed a Spaniard into a brutal ape, Germans with exaggerated Teutonic features, and Japanese with fangs, claws, and exaggerated Asian features. Militant Islamic behavior, featuring pictures of genuine Musloids being themselves, are perhaps even more effective because the viewer does not need to have any faith in a cartoonist's or artist's veracity. The photograph speaks for itself.

Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Naomi Ragen, August 7, 2011.

If you have been keeping up with the mass demonstrations in Israel and are scratching your head to figure out exactly what's going on, you are not alone. Many Israelis, myself included, are similarly perplexed.

I'll give you an example. I had the following conversation with my grown kids. My son and daughter-in-law, both hardworking Israelis raising four small children, and burdened with house, car, and childcare payments, thought the whole thing was laughable.

" Did you see who is leading the 'baby carriage' protest?" My daughter-in- law said. "Two mothers who have ONE KID each who live in Herzliya. Yeah, they want the government to give them more stylish baby buggies! And who is going to pay the taxes for it, me!"

The general gist of what I'm hearing from my kids is that: "They're out there smoking and drinking in Tel Aviv, playing their guitars. When the summer is over they will all go back home."

Apparently, along with many others, they seem to feel the protests are politically motivated, just another Leftist plot to overturn the will of the people who elected Benjamin Netanyahu.

And indeed, when a popular Sephardic singer who is identified with the poorer classes announced that the demonstrators were "a bunch of spoiled North Tel Avivians who are angry their grandparents didn't leave them an apartment on (fashionable) Rechov Bazel," her statement was met by a storm of protest that reminded me of the way the Peace Nowers reacted to anyone suggesting the Oslo Accords wasn't going to bring peace on earth and good will towards all men. Indeed, there is a preponderance of left-wingers involved, including all the usual suspects in the arts.

But then I went to shul on Shabbat, and my very learned and truly pious rabbi, with whom I agree on almost every issue, told the Bar Mitzvah boy: "Don't let anyone tell you that these protests are fake. They are in the name of social justice."

Well, that made me think again.

It is certainly true that for the last year I have been looking at the bill coming out of the supermarket cash register with greater and greater amazement. How can it be? I ask myself shocked, when the bottom line for a week's food seemingly doubles and triples from week to week. And we are just two people who don't eat that much, admittedly with a grown son who does, but still.

I often wonder how a normal Israeli family can afford to put food on the table and keep a roof over their heads on Israeli salaries. And the truth is, the price of cottage cheese, bread, and other staples is higher than that in the U.S. or Europe, with no earthly justification.

On the other hand, we have an enviably robust economy, with very low unemployment rates, and no housing bubbles or disasters. It is true that the gap between the tycoons that run the Israeli economy and the middle class who support their billionaire status has widened, and the burdens that the Israeli public shoulder are heavy because of our defense budget. And I certainly do sympathize with the medical interns who are quitting en masse because of low pay — 29 NIS an hour. I pay my cleaning lady 40 NIS.

But I resent any public gimmick to unseat our duly elected government. And I resent the atmosphere of self-appointed leaders threatening anyone who opposes what they are trying to do.

I think Bibi together with Stanley Fisher have done a magnificent job in keeping Israel's economy booming.

That is not to say I don't sympathize with young families and students who are finding it hard to make ends meet. But the list of demands by the so-called leaders "leaders" of this social protest, have been downright silly. Public education starting at age three months? Huh?

This has inspired many segments of society to issue their own demands.

Take the Single Ladies Protest:

We served in the army. Pay our taxes. Paid hundreds of shekel to JDate, and thousands in gifts for other people's weddings. WE DEMAND SOMETHING IN RETURN. It is not right that for every unemployed single drekky guy in Tel Aviv there are seven hot girls with a Master's Degree!

It isn't right that even our grandmothers are hoping already that we're lesbians! At this rate we are never going to make the Young Couples Protest!

We demand a telephone call after every date and the re-education of bitter divorced men. Girls, the sperm bank is not the answer! We want a solution now!!"

When the weather cools down, and the tent cities disappear, we hope the government we elected and still support will figure out some way to make things better for everyone, whenever possible.

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 Zvi November, August 7, 2011.

When I was about four years old my father read the story of Pinocchio to me and my sister. Every time Pinocchio told a lie his nose grew longer. Later on, in school I learned about George Washington who told the truth and confessed to chopping down a cherry tree. So, I learned at an early age that 'honesty is the best policy'. Then, in high school, I was introduced to science which is a never-ending search for truth based on facts and provable theories.

Even though philosophers such as Isaiah Berlin speak about multiple truths, one cannot deny that objectivity is fundamental to our way of life. Other cultures, however, do not place the same value on truth, honest research and accurate reporting.

Click on www.palwatch.org to access the Palestinian Media Watch's website. This organization monitors the Palestinian press, TV and radio broadcasts on a daily basis. Palwatch translates Palestinian "truths" and libels from Arabic into English. Palestinian Arab media consumers learn, for instance, that Jesus was a Palestinian Moslem even though the Roman term Palestina was coined about 130 years after Jesus died on the cross. Palestinian TV frequently interviews historians who assert that Jews have no substantive connection to the Land of Israel despite the existence of literally thousands of archaeological sites that attest to a rich ancient history long before the Arab invasion in 632. This why Palestinian representatives object to archaeological surveys and have successfully enlisted UNESCO to negate the Jewish connection to the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron and Rachel's Tomb outside of Bethlehem as well as the original City of David in Jerusalem.

I have a small guidebook entitled Al-Aksa Mosque that was published by the Islamic Wakf [the Islamic trust controlling the Temple mount] Administration which declares (on page 3), "Some believe it was the site of the Temple of Solomon, peace be upon him, destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC, or the site of the Second Temple, completely destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, although no documented historical or archaeological evidence exists to support this."

In other words, the books of the Old and New Testaments as well as secular Roman historians in addition to massive archaeological evidence that can be seen by any visitor to Jerusalem are, according to the Moslems, just myths. By contrast, as far as the Wakf is concerned, Mohammed's celestial journey from Mecca to Jerusalem on the back of "al-Buraq, a white winged beast" (page 4 in the guidebook) around 620 is a fact.

We know that Jerusalem in not mentioned even once in the Quran and the real al-Aksa (literally "furthermost mosque") is actually in Arabia. Indeed, Jerusalem's al-Aksa was built some 60 years after Mohammed's death.

The Wakf has carried out unauthorized (they don't recognize Israeli sovereignty) infrastructure work on the Temple mount using heavy equipment. Enormously important archaeological debris was removed and dumped because the Wakf does not respect Jewish traditions or sensitivities.

Mahmoud Abbas who is referred to alternately as "chairman" or "president" of the Palestinian Authority wrote his doctorate dissertation on the Holocaust which he claims never really happened. Today, he and his followers refuse to recognize Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

In 2002, at the height of the last INTIFADA war, Israeli army units carried out counter-terrorism operations in the center of the Jenin refugee camp. Palestinian Authority spokesman Saeb Erekat announced to the world that 500 Palestinians were killed and the international media instantly disseminated this lie without checking the facts. Actually only 53 Palestinians, most of whom were fighters, died.

More recently, after the last round of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations during the previous Olmert-led government, Erekat averred that the Palestinians made no concessions. However, al-Jazeera got hold of documents from Erekat's office proving that some (minor) concessions were made to the Israelis. Embarrassed, Erekat immediately resigned. But he has recently bounced back as the main Palestinian negotiator/spokesman.

Lying in Islam by Abdullah Al Araby is a short essay I found on www.islamreview.com. This is a Christian website that reaches out to moderate Moslems in an effort to help garner respect and safety for Christian communities in the Middle East. It also welcomes Moslems who have converted to Christianity which is often an expression of their rejection of radical Islamic jihad/violence. This article cites the Quran and other Moslem sources that actually support and encourage lying if it serves to advance Islamic causes. The writer explains that the principle of al-Takeyya (literally "to prevent" or "guard against") allows Moslems to lie so as to protect Moslems. In Al Araby's words, "Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie anytime that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened."

The Moslem/Arab aversion to truth is, no doubt, a significant factor in the never-ending Arab-Israeli conflict. However, there is a positive side to this cultural trait. And I found it while reading Arabs at War by Kenneth M. Pollack (University of Nebraska Press 2004). [This 706 page book is an exhaustive study of Arab military performance between 1948 and 1991. Pollack examines, in detail, the twenty-eight military campaigns of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia which, in a word, range from ineffective to dismal.]

According to Pollack, one major problem these six Arab armies have concerns honest reporting. He writes:

"A constant among Arab armed forces during this period was consistently exaggerated and even falsified reporting by military personnel to higher echelons. Simultaneously, superior officers routinely withheld information about operations from their subordinates. These reinforcing tendencies meant that Arab forces routinely operated in a thick fog of ignorance and half-truths. Lower echelons sent inaccurate reports to strategic commanders, who then made plans based on misinformation. Since the higher authorities rarely provided all available information to lower formations, many units had to execute operations with little knowledge of the enemy, the terrain, or the larger mission. Field units then either had to try to execute the operation — which was often suicidal because of the limited and inaccurate information available to the planners — or to lie and report that they did perform it when they did not." (Page 561)

An increase in accurate and honest communications between field commanders and headquarters would improve Arab military performance and thus make life harder for Israeli soldiers. But, on the other hand, objectivity and truth may well lead Arab soldiers and officers to ask why they are fighting Israel in the first place.

Of course there are Arabs throughout the Middle East and in the West who do value truth and honesty. Even Saudi TV 1 back in 2006 allowed Dr. Ibrahim Al-Buleihi, a member of the Saudi Shura Council, to emphatically speak out against violence in the name of Islam. (This interview can be accessed at www.MEMRI.org.il). Unfortunately, clear-thinking, moderate Arabs are few in number and when they do speak out they put their lives on the line because radical Islam is in ascension and does not tolerate dissenting voices.

Contact Tsvi November at tsvinov@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Laura, August 7, 2011.

This article was written by David Solway, a Canadian poet and essayist. He is the author of The Big Lie: On Terror, Antisemitism, and Identity, and is currently working on a sequel, Living in the Valley of Shmoon. His new book on Jewish and Israeli themes, Hear, O Israel!, has just been released by Mantua Books. It appeared in Pajamas Media
(http://pajamasmedia.com) and is archived at
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/anti-semitism-the- same-old-lies-since200-b-c/


When it comes to Israel and the Jews, the defamatory impulse never dies. The Iranians and their supporters claim there was no Holocaust. The Jews just made it up. Or if some magnanimously concede that the Holocaust did take place, then the death toll was unconscionably exaggerated for political and financial gain. Arabs and Muslims insist that the Jews have no lien on the Holy Land and are recent interlopers. Indeed, in clear violation of the historical muniments and the canonical texts, it would appear there never was a Temple in Jerusalem, as the director of the Al-Aqsa Mosque categorically states [1].

Anti-Zionists falsely contend that the Palestinians are an indigenous people displaced by European Jews who colonized the territory by force and that the Israeli war machine ethnically cleansed the original inhabitants during the 1948 so-called Nakba [2]. There is no recognition of the fact that the Arabs were the instigators of the conflict and were mainly responsible for the flight of their own people, as attested in Mitchell Bard's Myths and Facts [3] and many other authentic sources.[*] There is no awareness or acknowledgment of the 4000 year-old Israelitic connection to the land, the continuous settlements even after the Roman expulsion, and the Mizrahi [4] and Sephardi Jews who together outnumber their European Ashkenazi cousins.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas, dismissing the Jews as "incidental in history," absurdly asserts [5] descent from the Canaanites, a people who long ago disappeared from the historical record. Popular opinion in many Muslim countries blames the Israeli Mossad for 9/11. "Israel Apartheid Weeks" abound on university campuses, targeting the only true democratic and non-apartheid nation in the entire Middle East. Suppressing most of the relevant context and playing fast and loose with the facts, the notorious Goldstone Report [6] and the UNHRC [7] accuse Israel of human rights crimes in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead. According to a Swedish newspaper [8], Israelis harvest the bodies of Palestinian youths for the lucrative trade in organs — the contemporary form of the ancient blood libel. The litany of lies, slanders and fabrications continues to proliferate without end as part of the "Palestinian narrative," which has now become the anabolic locus of the campaign against the Jewish state. But such libels and denunciations are as old as the Judean hills. The ecstatic crusade against both Judaism and Zionism remains a historical constant.

In effect, the Palestinians and the antisemitic left have merely revived the ancestral libels going back at least as far as 200 B.C. when, as Raymond Scheindlin documents in A Short History of the Jewish People [9], "Egyptian writers circulated distorted and insulting accounts of Jewish history," claiming that the Jews "originally came to Egypt as alien conquerors, set fire to Egyptian towns, destroyed their temples, and mistreated their inhabitants." As usual, history proves otherwise. These putatively conquering Israelites who were said to have despoiled Egypt in fact constituted a slave population, notably under the Pharaoh Ramses II (c. 1290-1224 B.C.)

The obloquy didn't stop there. The Seleucid emperor Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who desecrated the Temple in Jerusalem in 167 B.C., was the first historical figure to persecute the Jews for their religion as such, and the antisemitic virus has been gathering momentum ever since. Josephus tells us in Against Apion[10] of a certain first century A.D. grammarian of that name who apparently started the hoary blood libel on its global career. Apion writes that "at a set time every year [the Jews] used to catch a Greek foreigner...and kill him, and sacrifice with their accustomed solemnities, and taste of his entrails." Josephus comments: "Now this is such a most tragical fable as is full of nothing but cruelty and impudence."

The "tragical fable" has traveled through the centuries and bred far more than "cruelty and impudence." Whether considered as members of a religion, a "race," or an ethnic group, Jews have rarely ceased to be persecuted, traduced, attacked, murdered, and portrayed as a malignant people bent on treachery or world domination or insidious designs of one kind or another. Today it's the same old, same old as Jews are castigated as fiscal sorcerers or unrepentant colonialists and Israel as a Nazi state redivivus turning parts of the Holy Land into an open-air concentration camp. This is pure mendacity. Such visceral hatred as is discharged against Israel and Jews, along with the chamomile treatment reserved for the Palestinians, is predicated on a willful and near-universal ignorance of history, a reluctance to disambiguate the evident facts, including the dispensations of international law, and a sordid eagerness to adopt every "fable" and canard cooked up by the Arab and Palestinian propaganda factory and compliantly circulated in the mainstream media. Minds of this stripe, according to Robin Shepherd in A State Beyond the Pale [11], are principally "energized by the need to hate. The discourse, therefore, is hateful."

These are people who stubbornly refuse to accept that Hezbollah and Hamas are violent terrorist organizations — radical Berkeley prof Judith Butler ludicrouslydefines [12] them as "social movements" — that the Iranian leadership is admittedly genocidal [13], or that the Muslim Brotherhood is planning to transform America into a Sharia-based Islamist state, as its manifesto [14] reveals. As noted above, they have embraced wholeheartedly the myth that the Palestinians constitute a separate people — when, as Barbara Lerner correctly observes [15] in National Review Online, there were no "Palestinians" in 1948, only a congeries of clans, tribes and settlers who "adopted the nationality of whatever Arab state claimed sovereignty over the part of Israel they lived in at the time — Jordan, Egypt, or Syria." These pro-Palestinian "activists" are busy launching flotillas and flytillas against a threatened country like Israel rather than setting out to embarrass the vicious theocracy in Gaza or the tyrannical and bloodthirsty regime in Syria.

They do not deign to notice the 180,000 Arabs [16] from Palestinian-controlled territories who have received medical care at Israeli hospitals in the last year alone. They do not see that the West Bank and Gaza are professionally mendicant entities living largely off Western munificence, devoid of a viable middle class, an industrial base, and a legitimate electoral process — deprivations for which the Palestinians have only themselves to blame. Israel has embarked on an economic partnership program with the West Bank in an effort to build peace from the ground up via commercial incentives, but the most recent survey [17] shows that Palestinians are not impressed. Sixty-one percent of respondents rejected the two state solution, 72% denied "the thousands of years of Jewish history in Jerusalem," and 80% endorsed the Hamas charter calling for the annihilation of Israel. The major functioning concern in this region is the practice and export of terror.

Palestinians speak constantly about "the river and the sea" but they are wholly an estuary society. Of course, the blinkered left and miseducated liberal Democrats, along with their Palestinian cohorts, will turn their eyes away from the obvious to focus balefully on a reliable, vigorous, entrepreneurial, technically advanced, and world-contributing [18] Israel which they perversely regard as the sum of all evils. "They limit themselves," writes [19] Belladonna Rogers in Pajamas Media, "to so few sources of information" that they resemble cult members "whose involvement forbids contact with anything that isn't cult-approved." They have their Index Expurgatorius by which they faithfully abide.

Nor will they recognize that there already exists a de facto Palestinian state, namely Jordan, ruled by a Hashemite minority. Mordechai Nisan's recent Only Israel West of the River [20], in which he argues not only for the advantage of the Israelis but for the benefit of the Palestinians, would clarify and dispel much of their confusion — but this would require actually weighing the data rather than automatically vetting the narrative.

One can perhaps understand that ignorance, stupidity, and blind prejudice were features of less "enlightened" times. Grinding poverty and its resentments, the absence of education, and the tendency to scapegoat an innocent people to account for inexplicable suffering or to further the intrigues of unscrupulous authorities may partially explain the atrocities heaped upon Jews since time immemorial. But in a world united by instant communications, in which knowledge can propagate freely, with multitudes attending university, and with easy access to travel, books, archives, objective documentation, and legal instruments, there should be no excuse for such deliberate darkness and utter imbecility.

Instead, the means for disseminating knowledge and insight and for creating a vibrant tradition of historical literacy have succumbed to a paradoxical inversion, allowing themselves to be corrupted and applied to establishing the prevalence of the Lie. It is this aberration that stands out most starkly. A potential force for good has become a technology of deception and a cognitive malpractice. It is like using the breakthrough methods of medical science to produce poisons rather than cures, to infect rather than heal. Owing to the long-standing degeneration of the Academy, both at the primary and higher levels, and the philistine shallowness and bad faith of the media, a crisis of historical stupefaction has been visited upon the West, which gives rise to lethal thoughtlessness and free rein to inveterate prejudice. Certainly with respect to Israel and the Jewish people, the animus, irrational and unfounded as it may be, goes too deep, it seems, to be disinterred by scholarship, genuine attention, and plain common sense.

An "argument from knowledge is better than an argument from ignorance," writes [21] Richard Fernandez. "Yet there are some," he continues, who hold the view "that a lot of knowledge, not just a little, is supremely dangerous." The reason for this mental allergy is not hard to discern, for knowledge might prevent or at least inhibit such people from investing in and promoting an obscene agenda. The truth would not set them free, as the Gospel promised; it would shackle them and demand restitution for the culture of epistemological aversion they have nurtured and served. It would exact an indemnity they cannot afford. Clearly, knowledge is not a guarantee of right action in the case of the most devious and unscrupulous of Israel-haters, for whom truth is not an obstacle to villainy. But, ideally at any rate, it can operate as an antidote or remedy for the merely deluded, who therefore instinctively avoid it.

It has been said that truth is the first casualty of war. It is also the first casualty of hatred wedded to ignorance and confirmed by intellectual laziness. And yet history is an open book. The voice that Augustine heard in the garden, as he tells us in Book VIII of The Confessions [22], tolle, lege — "take, read" — can still be heard, if we would only listen. The truth is readily available to anyone who prides himself on moral probity and intellectual rigor, who is willing to see with his own eyes, consult real documentation, examine evidence, and check the facts against the agitptop and disinformation that floods the zeitgeist. Intelligent people with a strong ethical commitment should have no trouble penetrating a fraudulent narrative. Thankfully, such people can still be found. Regrettably, there are too few such honorable individuals amongst us.


[*] * Listed in my Hear, O Israel! [23], these latter would include the head of the Arab Legion Sir John Glubb, who wrote in the London Daily Mail for August 12, 1948, "The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war"; secretary of the Palestinian Higher Committee Emile Ghoury in the Beirut Telegraph for September 6, 1948, stressing that "these refugees [are] the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state"; an article in the Jordanian daily Falastin for February 19, 1949, blaming the "Arab states which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes"; the Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station in Cyprus which reminded its listeners on April 3, 1949, that "the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes"; and the Syrian Prime Minister Khaled el-Azm in his 1973 Mudhakkirat, or Memoirs, admitting "it is we who made them leave"; among a surfeit of such affidavits.


[1] states: http://www.danielpipes.org/84/ the-muslim-claim-to-jerusalem

[2] Nakba: http://www.americanthinker.com/ 2011/05/the_big_lie_called_nakba_day.html

[3] Myths and Facts: http://www.amazon.com/ exec/obidos/ASIN/0971294518/pajamasmedia-20

[4] Mizrahi: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org /jsource/Judaism/mejews.html

[5] asserts: http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi= 157&doc_id=5042

[6] Goldstone Report: http://www.thegoldstonereport.com/

[7] UNHRC: http://justjournalism.com/media-analysis/ unhrc-accuses-israel-of-war-crimes/

[8] Swedish newspaper: http://www.huffingtonpost.com 2009/08/19/swedish-article-suggestin_n_262787.html

[9] A Short History of the Jewish People:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195139410/ pajamasmedia-20

[10] Against Apion:
http://www.amazon.com/Against-Apion-38- Flavius-Josephus/dp/1406953903/ref=sr_1_2?s= books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310469904&sr=1-2

[11] A State Beyond the Pale:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0297856642/ pajamasmedia-20

[12] defines:
http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/ 07/13/the-enduring-dangerous-legacy-of-the-60s-new-left/

[13] admittedly genocidal:
http://www.iran-press-service.com/articles_2001/ dec_2001/rafsanjani_nuke_threats_141201.htm

[14] manifesto:

[15] observes:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ 269836/israel-palestine-and-peace-pieties-barbara-lerner

[16] 180,000 Arabs:
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/ look-how-israel-treats-palestinian-arabs

[17] recent survey:
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/ Article.aspx?id=229493

[18] world-contributing:
http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Test-George- Gilderdp/0980076358/ref=sr_1_1_title_0_main?s= books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310561435&sr=1-1

[19] writes:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-unbearable- smugness-of-liberals-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/

[20] Only Israel West of the River:
http://www.amazon.com/Only-Israel-West- River-Palestinian/dp/1461027268/ref=sr_1_1?s= books&ie=UTF8&qid=1310489283&sr=1-1

[21] writes:
http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/ 2011/07/13/the-opacity-of-hope/

[22] The Confessions:
http://www.amazon.com/ Confessions-Oxford-Worlds-Classics-Augustine/dp/ 0199537828/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid= 1310475174&sr=1-1

[23] Hear, O Israel!:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/ obidos/ASIN/0973406534/pajamasmedia-20

Contact Laura at LEL817@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Barry Rubin, August 7, 2011.

Several recent polls purport to show the Muslim Brotherhood is unpopular in Egypt. An article in the Atlantic is particularly laughable, claiming the Brotherhood is less popular than Richard Nixon when he resigned!

The most important single point is this: the Brotherhood isn't at an "unpopular" 17 percent but a very popular 34% from Egyptian voters who declared support for a party that might win seats. In other words, one in every three Egyptians who have decided and will have a real role in the outcome are ready to cast their ballots for the Brotherhood. It is the largest single party. And it has advantages that make it likely to get more than 33 percent of the seats.

That isn't bad in an election with more than 20 parties. With 20 political parties would you call the one supported by one-third of decided voters "unpopular"? In the United States you need 50 percent plus one vote to win but the current ruling parties in multi-party Israel, Holland, and Turkey came to power with that level of direct support. In the last German elections, the Christian Democratic Union won with 27 percent of the votes (which yielded 31% of the seats); the Socialists have won French parliamentary elections with 39 percent.

Here are my adjusted figures for parties based on voters who back a party likely to win seats (more than 5 percent support in the polls). I am not saying this analysis is perfect (for example, a party with 5 percent might get 2.5 percent of the seats due to half being elected on a national level) but it does give a good general idea of the situation.

1. Islamists: 34% Muslim Brotherhood (Freedom and Justice Party). Note that Salafist (even more radical) Islamist groups don't do well. Islamist voters are uniting behind the Brotherhood despite all the talk of splits.

2. Pro-Old Regime: 14% National Democratic Party, Mubarak's old party.

3. Liberal, pro-democratic: 14% Free Egyptians Party, a liberal, anti-Islamist party founded by big businessman Naguib Sawiris.
10% Justice Party. This is the party most associated with the Facebook kids and well-known opposition leaders.
22% Al-Wafd Party, historic liberal party.

Total for liberals: 46% That is impressive but far less than it seems. Keep in mind, though, that it is better to have 34% for one candidate than 46% for three. In a district with that outcome the Brotherhood would win.

Moreover, liberals are badly divided. The Wafd has at times toyed with a Brotherhood alliance, while the Justice Party has some far left leanings. The Free Egyptians seem to be a really serious anti-Islamist party but it is largely dependent on the largesse of one man. If liberals got one-third of the seats they could block the Brotherhood from power but not from having tremendous influence. By the same token, the Brotherhood would block a liberal majority. These three parties don't like each other though if they cooperate and make election agreements that are implemented this might really change things.

So far i've left out the divided radical left, four parties combining hardline anti-American, neo-Marxist and radical nationalist views: Egyptian Labor, ElGhad Party, Tagamoe, and ElKarama. All together, they take 19 percent. But since they are rivals they would probably get about 10% of the seats.

The bottom line is that the Brotherhood will be the most powerful party in Egypt's first election. There are a number of reasons to think it would get more than 34 percent:

It is quite likely that just five parties — Brotherhood, Wafd, Justice, Free Egyptians, New Democratic Party — will have any significant representation. With many votes "wasted," the Brotherhood will have the advantage as the largest single party and might well take 40 percent of the seats.

— The Brotherhood could win in many districts merely by coming in first albeit with only a minority of overall ballots. Liberal parties will "steal" votes from each other and put Brotherhood candidates into office in many places. Hamas only won the Palestinian elections because Fatah candidates ran against each other.

— Egypt's first elected government will be very unpopular within a year or two. The economy is going to collapse; promises cannot be kept. The Brotherhood might prefer to be in the opposition during this period to reap more support in future.

— The Brotherhood can coopt independent candidates using ideology, offers of electoral backing, or rewards in parliament (such as — if you excuse the expression — "pork" projects for their districts). Thus, the Brotherhood in parliament could command seats outside of its own official delegation more easily than its rivals.

— Given its better organization, the Brotherhood will get its voters out on election day. Intimidation and the pressure for conformity so powerful in Egyptian society will also count, especially in the many tradition-oriented villages and poor areas of the big cities.

— Don't assume the far left and Brotherhood won't cooperate. They have similar views on foreign policy.

— Presumably the National Democratic Party will be a pariah and neither liberal nor Islamist blocs will work with it. Thus, another 14 percent of the seats will be irrelevant in forming any coalition, proportionately increasing the Brotherhood's numerical edge. Liberals cannot deal with the hated old regime party but leaders of the National Democratic Party could make a deal with the Brotherhood in order to keep their privileges. Brotherhood supporters would support such a bargain if it helped obtain their main priorities.

I never thought the Brotherhood will get a majority. My concern is that it will control around 40 percent of the seats, be the largest single bloc, and get most of what it wants in a new constitution. The president will most likely be Amr Moussa, a radical nationalist who opposes Islamism but will probably buy off the Brotherhood, Salafists, and radical left with a militant foreign policy.

(Fun Fact: In my parallel analysis of the Palestinian elections, I predicted the same thing about Hamas, that it would be the largest party and most powerful single bloc. In fact, it won. Perhaps I'm being too cautious over the Brotherhood's prospects in Egypt, too.)

In such a situation, the idea that the Egyptian government would be friendly to the United States is laughable. At most it would do the bare minimum to keep U.S. aid. The Obama Administration is likely to be easy to please so it can claim a diplomatic success with Egypt.

Of course, I will have plenty of time to revise my analysis as the campaign develops. But the key factor that would soundly defeat the Brotherhood — unity and good organization on the liberal side — just isn't there. As usual, note that literally none of the points suggested above has appeared in a mass media determined to prove that there's nothing to worry about.

Methodology: Taking the Newsweek poll, I've recalculated by dropping the no opinion and "other" categories as well as the support for parties with less than 5 percent. I assume that small party votes will be largely wasted and that undecided voters will choose along the same lines as decided voters.

This was written by Barry Rubin, who is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. This article is archived at
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2011/08/ polls-prove-strength-of-islamists

To Go To Top

Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, August 5, 2011.

This comes from the weaselzippers.us/ website and the article is archived at


ROME — The use of the death penalty to implement the Sharia, Islamic law, continues to increase year by year: in 2010 there were at least 714 executions, against 658 in 2009 and around 585 in the previous year, in 13 countries with a Muslim majority, many of which ordered by religious tribunals.

The sentences were carried out by hanging, decapitation and execution by firing squad. These figures emerged from the 2011 report presented today in Rome by the association 'Nessuno tocchi Caino' (Hands Off Cain).

Worldwide 24 of the 47 countries with a Muslim majority practice capital punishment; 18 of these have a judicial system that explicitly refers to the Sharia. There is only one Islamic country, Iran, that applied the death penalty in 2010 and in the first six months of 2011 to minors who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crime. Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Mauritania and Egypt also sentenced minors to death, but did not execute the penalty.

The Sharia has been applied through hanging, decapitation and execution by firing squad. In Iran, Nigeria and Pakistan people have been sentenced to death by stoning, but there are no reports of actual executions by this method, though stoning is used without regular trials in Somalia, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Hanging, often in public, is the most widespread method. The Iranian version is particularly cruel: in this country a crane or a low platform is used that causes the convicts to die a slow and painful death. The only country to apply decapitation is Saudi Arabia. In 2010 there were 27 executions, less than half of the number recorded in 2009 (at least 69), but the number of decapitations increased significantly in 2011.

Gabrielle Goldwater is a Member of "Funding for Peace Coalition" [FPC] (http://eufunding.org.uk)
http://eufunding.org.uk/FPC2004Report.pdf She lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Hands Fiasco, August 5, 2011.

How he's shrewdly succeeding in his battle against the Middle East's sole democracy

Hyperbole? Hardly

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


Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has explained repeatedly over the years that Israel has no Palestinian partner to negotiate with. So news reports this week that Netanyahu agreed that the 1949 armistice lines, (commonly misrepresented as the 1967 borders), will be mentioned in terms of reference for future negotiations with the Palestinian Authority seemed to come out of nowhere.

Israel has no one to negotiate with because the Palestinians reject Israel's right to exist. This much was made clear yet again last month when senior PA "negotiator" Nabil Sha'ath said in an interview with Arabic News Broadcast, "The story of 'two states for two peoples' means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this."

Given the Palestinians' position it is obvious that Netanyahu is right. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that Israel and the PA will reach any peace deal in the foreseeable future. Add to this the fact that the Hamas terror group controls Gaza and will likely win any new Palestinian elections just as it won the last elections, and the entire exercise in finding the right formula for restarting negotiations is exposed as a complete farce. So why is Israel engaging in these discussions?

The only logical answer is to placate US President Barack Obama. For the past several months, most observers have been operating under the assumption that Obama will use the US's veto at the UN Security Council to defeat the Palestinians' bid next month to receive UN membership as independent Palestine. But the fact of the matter is that no senior administration official has stated unequivocally, on record that the US will veto a UN Security Council resolution recommending UN membership for Palestine.

Given Congressional and public support for Israel, it is likely that at the end of the day, Obama will veto such a resolution. But the fact that the President has abstained to date from stating openly that he will veto it makes clear that Obama expects Israel to "earn" a US veto by bowing to his demands.

These demands include abandoning Israel's position that it must retain defensible borders in any peace deal with the Palestinians. Since defensible borders require Israel to retain control over the Jordan Valley and the Samarian hills, there is no way to accept the 1949 armistice lines as a basis for negotiations without surrendering defensible borders.

Say what you will about Obama's policy, at least it's a policy. Obama uses US power and leverage against Israel in order to force Israel to bow to his will.

What makes Obama's Israel policy notable is not simply that it involves betraying the US's most steadfast ally in the Middle East. After all, since taking office Obama has made a habit of betraying US allies. Obama's Israel policy is notable because it is a policy. Obama has a clear, consistent goal of cutting Israel down to size. Since assuming office, Obama has taken concrete steps to achieve this aim.

And those steps have achieved results. Obama forced Netanyahu to make Palestinian statehood an Israeli policy goal. He coerced Netanyahu into temporarily abrogating Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. And now he is forcing Netanyahu to pretend the 1949 armistice lines are something Israel can accept.

Obama has not adopted a similarly clear, consistent policy towards any other nation in the region. In Egypt, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Libya, and beyond, Obama has opted for attitude over policy. He has postured, preened, protested and pronounced on all the issues of the day. But he has not made policy. And as a consequence, for better or for worse, he has transformed the US from a regional leader into a regional follower while empowering actors whose aims are not consonant with US interests.

Syria is case and point. President Bashar Assad is the Iranian mullahs' lap dog. He is also a major sponsor of terrorism. In the decade since he succeeded his father, Assad Jr. has trained terrorists who have killed US forces in Iraq. He has provided a safe haven for al Qaeda terrorists. He has strengthened Syrian ties to Hezbollah. He has hosted Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terror factions. He has proliferated nuclear weapons. He reputedly ordered the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.

Since March, Assad has been waging war against his fellow Syrians. By the end of this week, with his invasion of Hama, the civilian death toll will certainly top two thousand. And how has Obama responded? He upgraded his protestations of displeasure with Assad from "unacceptable" to "appalling." In the face of Assad's invasion of Hama, rather than construct a policy for overthrowing this murderous US enemy, the Obama administration has constructed excuses for doing nothing. Administration officials, including Obama's ambassador to Damascus Robert Ford, are claiming that the US has little leverage over Assad.

But this is ridiculous. Many in Congress and beyond are demanding that Obama withdraw Ford from Damascus. Some are calling for sanctions against Syria's energy sector. These steps may or may not be effective. Openly supporting, financing and arming Assad's political opponents would certainly be effective.

Many claim that the most powerful group opposing Assad is the Muslim Brotherhood. And there is probably some truth to that. At a minimum, the Brotherhood's strength has been tremendously augmented in recent months by Turkey.

Some have applauded the fact that Turkey has filled the leadership vacuum left by the Obama administration. They argue that Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan can be trusted to ensure that Syria doesn't descend into a civil war.

What these observers fail to recognize is that Erdogan's interests in a post-Assad Syria have little in common with US interests. Erdogan will seek to ensure the continued disenfranchisement of Syria's Kurdish minority. And he will work towards the Islamification of Syria through the Muslim Brotherhood.

Today there is a coalition of Syrian opposition figures that include all ethnic groups in Syria. Their representatives have been banging the doors of the corridors of power in Washington and beyond. Yet the same Western leaders who were so eager to recognize the Libyan opposition despite the presence of al Qaeda terrorists in the opposition tent have refused to publicly embrace Syrian regime opponents that seek a democratic, federal Syria that will live at peace with Israel and embrace liberal policies.

This week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a private meeting with these brave democrats. Why didn't she hold a public meeting? Why hasn't Obama welcomed them to the White House?

By refusing to embrace liberal, multi-ethnic regime opponents, the administration is all but ensuring the success of the Turkish bid to install the Muslim Brotherhood in power if Assad is overthrown. But then, embracing pro-Western Syrians would involve taking a stand and, in so doing, adopting a policy. And that is something the posturing president will not do. Obama is much happier pretending that empty statements from the UN Security Council amount to US "victories." If he aims any lower his head will hit the floor.

Obama's preference for posture over policy is nothing new. It has been his standard operating procedure throughout the region. When the Iranian people rose up against their regime in June 2009 in the Green Revolution, Obama stood on the sidelines. As is his habit, he acted as though the job of the US President is to opine rather than lead. Then he sniffed that it wasn't nice at all that the regime was mowing down pro-democracy protesters in the streets of Teheran and beyond. And ever since, Obama has remained on the sidelines as the mullahs took over Lebanon, build operational bases in Latin America, sprint to the nuclear finishing line, and consolidate their power in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On Wednesday the show trial began for longtime US ally former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and his sons. During last winter's popular uprising in Egypt, Obama's foes attacked him for refusing to abandon Mubarak immediately.

The reasons for maintaining US support for Mubarak were obvious: Mubarak had been the foundation of the US alliance structure with the Sunni Arab world for three decades. He had kept the peace with Israel. And his likely successor was the Muslim Brotherhood. But Obama didn't respond to his critics with a defense of a coherent policy. Because his early refusal to betray Mubarak was not a policy. It was an attitude of cool detachment.

When Obama saw that it was becoming politically costly to maintain his attitude of detachment, he replaced it with a new one of righteous rage. And so he withdrew US support for Mubarak without ever thinking through the consequences of his actions. And now it isn't just Mubarak and his sons humiliated in a cage. It is their legacy of alliance with America.

Recognizing that Obama refuses to adopt or implement any policies on his own, Congress has tried to fill the gap. The House Foreign Affairs Committee recently passed a budget that would make US aid to Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen and the PA contingent on certification that no terrorist or extremist organization holds governmental power in these areas. Clinton issued a rapid rebuke of the House's budget and insisted it was unacceptable.

And this makes sense. Making US assistance to foreign countries contingent on assurances that the money won't fund US enemies would be a policy. And Obama doesn't make policy — except when it comes attacking to Israel.

In an interview with the New York Times on Thursday, Muammar Qaddafi's son Seif al-Islam Qaddafi said he and his father are negotiating a deal that would combine their forces with Islamist forces and reestablish order in the country. To a degree, the US's inability to overthrow Qaddafi — even by supporting an opposition coalition that includes al Qaeda — is the clearest proof that Obama has substituted attitude for policy everywhere except Israel.

Acting under a UN Security Council resolution and armed with a self-righteous doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect" Obama went to war against Qaddafi five months ago. But once the hard reality of war invaded his happy visions of Lone Rangers riding in on white stallions, Obama lost interest in Libya. He kept US forces in the battle, but gave them no clear goals to achieve. And so no goals have been achieved.

Meanwhile, Qaddafi's son feels free to meet the New York Times and mock America just by continuing to breathe in and out before the cameras as he sports a new Islamic beard and worry beads.

If nothing else, the waves of chaos, war and revolution sweeping through Arab lands make clear that the Arab conflict with Israel is but a sideshow in the Arab experience of tyranny, fanaticism, hope and betrayal. So it says a lot about Obama, that eight months after the first rebellion broke in Tunisia, his sole Middle East policy involves attacking Israel.

Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Lademain, August 4, 2011.

The NIF set up the supposedly "grassroots" complaint for "social Justice" in order to attack the Netanyahu government, hoping to make it fall. There are problems that need to be fixed but NIF isn't interested in working for Israel's benefit. After a few days, the Israeli public saw that it was only a political ploy.


The Israelis you NIF-ers helped the arab invaders drive out of Israel's Gaza need a place to live and that place is Judea and Samaria.

The entire free world knows that international law stands by Israel and not with the Jewish handmaidens of the Saudi imperialists. (BTW — the Saudis hope the NIF-ers will help them obtain US nuclear technology to be used, most likely, on Jews like yourselves. Eventually. After you betray your brethren in the manner that Cain destroyed Abel, no?

Judea and Samaria were accorded to the Jewish Homeland last century by the San Remo Resolution, the Balfour Declaration, the League of Nations and thereafter ratified by the UN. Jews who know this and who are still scheming to cheat the homeless Israelis by driving them from their lands in Judea and Samaria are inciting treason against the State of Israel and worse still, doing this devious deed in order to foment war and discord in Israel while to currying favor for themselves with the oily Islamic imperialists. Curious minds want to know what tantalizing promises were made to the NIF-ers by the Saudis, who covet Israel's untapped oil fields. NIF-ers should confine their do-goodery to rebuilding New Orleans, salvaging the Mississippi basin, and rebuilding US farmland destroyed by flooding. Arabs have plenty of money to take care of all their own needs. They only want traitors and seditionists. Is that YOU?

NIF-ers should be reminded that they are perfectly free to cease being Jews through renouncing their faith and then they will be free to show their true colors by moving out of Israel and away from the US and taking up citizenship in Riyadh where the arabs need fresh dhimmi-breeders and male slaves.

Viva to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z.

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, August 4, 2011.

Many of them eventually "graduate" into Government jobs.

So exactly what would you call a person who receives pay from a foreign country to promote the agenda of that foreign county even against the vital interests of his own country?

This was written by Gil Ronen and is from Arutz-7 and is archived at
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/ News.aspx/146393


Are Israel's leftists pure ideologues or guns for hire? Yotam Feldman, who was born into the leftist camp — his father is liberal lawyer Avigdor Feldman — believes the latter.

In a Hebrew language post at the "Eretz HaEmori" blog, Feldman says that in his life, he has witnessed how Israel's "human rights movement" became a source of income for its activists. He relates how his father's old Subaru "gradually turned" into a BMW, and how the family moved from a rented apartment in Yafo to a spacious Tel Aviv apartment.

"When it came time to provide for myself, I also turned to fields that were somehow connected to the state of democracy in Israel," Feldman writes. These fields "gave me an interesting vocation and a salary that was not bad. Then I began to understand that there is something irreversible about belonging to this community. It seemed to me that whoever tied his fate — whether because of family lineage or a private decision — with the fate of the NGOs in Israel, guaranteed himself a livelihood... for most of his adult life."

Nor is his case extraordinary. "It is a well known but seldom stated fact that a very large part of the leftist activists in Tel Aviv earn their salaries in different ways from the human rights branch. Many of the prominent — and often most vocal — activists in the demonstrations are paid spokespeople, PR people, producers and organizers and of course, lawyers who man the tip of the pyramid in these groups."

"This is a pretty confusing situation because when you are standing in a demonstration or even just engaging in idle talk, it is not clear if the person next to you is expressing his opinion as a result of inner conviction or as an inseparable part of his job..."

The leftist circle that lives off of political activism includes journalists and students who write about and research the field, he says. "Therefore, if it were not for the plethora of neo-colonialist European Union initiatives for solving disputes, safeguarding human rights and establishing good governance, it is likely that many of my acquaintances would find themselves without an income."

This is probably why leftist groups are so concerned about proposed committees of inquiry into the sources of their NGOs' funding, he adds.

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. Contact him at zelasko@actcom.co.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Kushner, August 4, 2011.

I want to return to the issue of the housing demonstrators, because there continues to be a good deal of misunderstanding — in no small part because of media coverage — regarding who they are and what they are about.

Let me begin with a description by Sarah Honig from her column in last Friday's Jerusalem Post magazine. Honig — who is far closer to the situation than I am — pulls no punches:

"News flash: There's cheap rental housing in Tel Aviv. Dirt cheap. So cheap, in fact, that illegals from Ghana and Nigeria, Guatemala and Columbia, Thailand and Outer Mongolia, can afford it. But that's not where the privileged children of the well-heeled classes wish to fulfill fantasies..."

Their preference, she explains, is for the equivalents of fashionable, upscale Manhattan: "'Heart-of-Tel-Aviv' neighborhoods...But topping it all for prestige and desirability is Tel Aviv's 'Old North,' radiating from the upmarket Habimah Theater-Mann Auditorium hub.

"At that posh pivot, trendsetters and groupies pitched their tent city to campaign for lower/subsidized rents. We, wage-earners in the rest of the country, are presumably required to foot their extravagant bills and make Israel's Manhattan ambiance more affordable...

"I personally know some of the Rothschild Boulevard protest-instigators. I also know their affluent families (whose incomes far exceed my own meager salary)...

"Several of the tent-happening's ringleaders are my daughter's erstwhile schoolmates and friends to this day. Their exceptional good tastes have always meant shopping for the most impressive brand-names and running up bills that annoyed even their prosperous parents. They also gravitate to pricey eateries, drinking holes and clubs...

"Some are chronically 'between jobs' and/or between schools, seeking to find themselves and their true calling. Some dabble in showbiz...Some smoke funny things, and all, without exception, are trendily left-wing — as befits rebels against bourgeois mom and dad (who nonetheless help pay the rent and provide laundry services)...

"They flaunt political affiliations like Hadash — the largely Arab remnant of the local Communist Party...

"Political patrons purchased nifty tents for the sons and daughters of our well-to-do compatriots. These pampered radicals, with less-moneyed hangers-on, hanker after thrills...Note the pervasive anti-Bibi/bring-the-government-down slogans chanted by the mobilized/manipulated thousands who joined their march last weekend."
http://sarahhonig.com/2011/07/28/ another-tack-between-tunisia-and-tel-aviv/


Meir Indor, head of Almagor, a terror victims association, has spent time visiting the tent cities and has this additional information to provide:

"...having discovered who the lead protesters are, I am not surprised by their antidemocratic tendencies. The disturbances were initiated by Daphne Leef, an employee of the New Israel Fund, which is known for funding organizations that work to stigmatize Israel and the IDF, and to promote boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel.

"Another leader is Stav Shafir, a self-avowed semi-anarchist in the employ of the news company Yediot Aharonot, which opposes Netanyahu and has been covering the protests nonstop.

Other prominent participants include Asaf Nadiv, who was convicted in 1989 of membership in the Trotskyite terrorist group Derech Hanitzotz; writer Anat Rosilio, who in December 2008 strongly opposed Operation Cast Lead against rocket fire from Gaza; Tzvika Besor, a self-described devotee of communist Dov Khenin; and more than a few other communist and anarchist activists."


I want to reiterate here what I wrote about earlier: there really is a housing problem, both with regard to availability and cost. I don't know any one who would dispute this. And some of those who have joined the demonstrations truly are hurting and hope for redress of their housing situations.

However, the problems with these demonstrations include:

[] An ideological predisposition toward bringing down the government rather than negotiating for an understanding that would ameliorate the situation. With this has come a tendency to take on more and more issues, so that it is not just about housing and it becomes near impossible to resolve problems.

[] The unreasonable expectation of the demonstration leaders that — as so forcefully put forth by Honig — they have a right to housing they can afford in upscale population centers. The protest leaders claim to represent the middle class, not poor people.

[] Some notion of totally restructuring the Israeli economy in accordance with leftist/communist ideology — a restructuring that would destroy the free market economy that has brought Israel to such financial success.

Their demands, in line with this, are counter-intuitive and non-productive:

Because they are ideologically opposed to private builders making a profit, they insisted that Netanyahu had to withdraw proposed legislation that was intended to ease the situation. (He didn't and more on this follows.) They don't want contractors to construct new housing in a free market situation; they want the government to step in and provide rent supports for that upscale housing. They are adamant that housing construction should not be permitted in Judea and Samaria, even though this would go a good way to solving the housing shortage. And they are pushing for more refugees/illegal immigrant workers from Africa to be brought into the country even as they are charging that there is insufficient housing for Israelis.


Caroline Glick's most recent video satire, Latma, addresses this same issue. In her introduction, she writes:

"...a consortium of the New Israel Fund, various other leftist pressure groups, the Communist party, the media, Israeli celebs, and Tzipi Livni have been organizing large protests replete with NIF-funded props including tents to bring down the government..."

The video —
(http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/07/ sraels-social-justice-protest.php) — pokes fun at the fact that the poor who are most in trouble are being left out of the current housing demonstrations.


As to the housing bill, after lengthy and contentious debate, it passed in the Knesset yesterday, the last day before the summer recess, by 57-45.

The prime minister, addressing the Knesset, said that Israel was enjoying unprecedented growth, with the average Israeli salary higher than that of many European countries. The socioeconomic problems, he maintained, are caused by high prices, and it is this that the reforms instituted by the legislation are meant to address. There will be reforms, but the market will remain free.

A key element of the bill is the formation of six temporary national housing committees, for different regions of the nation, that would work over the next 18 months to bypass the bureaucracy that stalls housing projects. These committees will provide all authorizations necessary for beginning construction for projects with more than 200 units to be built on state land. Some of the homes will be designated for rentals for the next 10 years.

The tent city leaders responded by announcing their intentions of continuing to protest; a mass rally is scheduled for Tel Aviv on Saturday night.


Just today, the Interior Ministry announced that approval has been finalized for 930 units in Har Homa C, on a hill adjacent to the current Har Homa neighborhoods. It had been two years since approval for this project was originally sought. Twice final approval was delayed for political reasons, as Har Homa is beyond the Green Line. It is solidly within the municipal boundaries, in a strategic location, and built on Jewishly owned land.

Even with this approval, it will be something like two years before the apartments are constructed: tenders have to be published and a contractor approved, and then infrastructure must be set in place.

Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) has announced that 20% of the apartments will be smaller ones, making them more accessible to young couples. (It is my understanding, which I am unable to confirm as I write, that the new housing bill is supposed to encourage this same approach — with some priority given to those contractors who will build smaller or more accessible apartments.)

Peace Now has objected to the project.


Within a variety of forums, a number of Palestinian Arab spokespersons responded almost immediately and most negatively to news about the new offer being worked on by the US and Israel to bring the PA back to the negotiating table. They are bound for the UN, they declared decisively.

However, Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in the JPost, now reports that the US administration has invited PA officials to discuss the resumption of negotiations. For the second time in a matter of weeks, chief PLO negotiator Saeb Erekat and Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for PA President Mahmoud Abbas, will soon travel to Washington.

According to an PA official cited by Al Hayat (London), the US is searching for a formula that would bring the Arabs back to the table, but has not found it.


What can we assume from this information, when so there is so little transparency? Netanyahu was said to be considering a package that would involve Israeli compromises. Has it moved beyond "considering" to "has agreed to"? Does that package, as is frequently indicated in press reports, include '67 lines with land swaps — a formula that is not acceptable? Has it been put into a written document? Or is Obama first sounding out the other side?

What we have been told is that Netanyahu is linking the concessions he's made to a demand that the PA recognize Israel as the Jewish state.


A report done for the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on the possible repercussions of the declaration of a Palestinian state in the UN is due to be published next week. But the Committee has already been advised that findings were inconclusive, with different defense experts and professionals offering different opinions.

Why am I not surprised?


Steve Rosen, director of the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum, has written a piece, "The Palestinians' Imaginary State," that is enlightening with regard to this issue.

Rosen outlines the legal standard for determining a state, as spelled out in 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Says Rosen, "From a narrowly legal point of view, the Hamas Gaza entity could become a state, another miserable addition to a very imperfect world." It "controls a permanent population in a defined territory (i.e., Gaza within the armistice lines of 1949). Gaza has a functioning, if odious, government. And Hamas-controlled Gaza already conducts international relations with a large number of states. "

"The Fatah Palestinian entity in the West Bank also could meet the legal requirements for statehood...It has a functioning government in the Palestinian Authority (PA), a permanent population, and international relations with a very large number of states. It also controls a defined territory, which comprises what are called areas A and B as defined under the Oslo II agreement of September 1995, plus additional territory subsequently transferred by Israel in agreed further redeployments. (Area A is the zone of full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority, and Area B is a zone of Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.) The Fatah West Bank entity within these lines also could be recognized as a state under international law."


However, Rosen goes on to say:

"Fatah, the PA, and the broader PLO do not seek statehood for this West Bank entity that arguably could meet the legal requirements. Their minimum demand is a state that includes Gaza along with the West Bank, the eastern part of Jerusalem, and all the other parts of mandatory Palestine that were under Jordanian and Egyptian control before 1967. Fatah, the PA, and the PLO are demanding title to lands and authority over populations they do not control...as they are under the rule of Hamas and Israel. (Emphasis added)

"Unlike the two Palestinian entities that already exist...the Palestinian entity that a General Assembly majority will recognize as a state this September does not actually exist on Earth. It is imaginary and aspirational, not real. And it does not meet the legal requirements. (Emphasis added)

"First, it will have two rival presidents pursuing incompatible policies. Mahmoud Abbas is presenting himself as the president of the Palestine that is pressing the claim in the U.N. General Assembly, but he is not considered to be the president anymore by Hamas, the largest political party in the putative state."

When Abbas's term of office expired in 2009, he unilaterally extended his term by a year. Hamas did not recognize that extension, but it has expired, in any event. "...the legally empowered president of Palestine, since January 2009, has been Palestinian Legislative Council Speaker Abdel Aziz Dweik," who represents Hamas.

"Second, the Palestine that the General Assembly will recognize also will have two rival prime ministers pursuing incompatible policies. Hamas denies that Abbas has the authority to appoint Salam Fayyad as prime minister, because Abbas is not legally the president..." Ismail Haniyeh, a senior political leader of Hamas, is viewed by Hamas as prime minister, and, says, Rosen, "has the law on its side."

"Third, this putative state of 'Palestine' will also have a legislature that never meets..."

"Fourth, this Palestine that the General Assembly will recognize will also lack the ability to hold presidential or legislative elections as required by Article 47 of its Basic Law...because the rival Palestinian rulers will not allow them to happen...Neither of the rivals wants an election to be held under the electoral rules recognized as legally binding by the other, and neither will permit the other to compete freely on territories it controls as required by both sets of regulations.

"So there you have it. The General Assembly will make a remarkable decision about all this in the next few weeks. Instead of recognizing either of the two state-like entities that already exist...the General Assembly will create an imaginary state that has two incompatible presidents, two rival prime ministers, a constitution whose most central provisions are violated by both sides, no functioning legislature, no ability to hold elections, a population mostly not under its control, borders that would annex territory under the control of other powers, and no clear path to resolve any of these conflicts. It is a resolution that plants the seeds for civil and international wars, not one that advances peace."
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/03/ the_palestinians_imaginary_state?page=full

How crazy can it get? We've got an inkling here.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Marc Caroff, August 3, 2011.

Dear members,

What a magnificent commentary (see below)! It shows unanimous agreement among the great Hebrew sages of antiquity that, according to the Torah, the Jewish people must strive to settle and assert exclusive sovereignty over the Land of Israel. This is an eternal commandment for every generation. The only difference of opinion is over whether to drive out the non-Jews who dwell in the land (Rashi), or allow them to remain as resident aliens (Ramban).

Two states for two peoples? No way, Mr. Obama!


This below is by Yehuda HaKohen.



"You shall possess the land and you shall dwell in it, for to you have I given the land to possess it." (BAMIDBAR 33:53)

The Ramban, Rabbi Moshe Ben Nachman, offers a lengthy explanation of this verse, asserting that the mitzvah for the Jewish people to conquer and reside within the Land of Israel is a positive commandment of great consequence.

"In my opinion this is a positive commandment, in which He (HaShem) is commanding them (Israel) to dwell in the land and inherit it, because He has given it to them and they should not reject the inheritance of HaShem. Thus if the thought occurs to them to go and conquer the land of Shinar or the land of Assyria or any other country to dwell therein, they would be transgressing the command of G-D. And that which our rabbis have emphasized (Ketubot 110b), the significance of the commandment of dwelling in the Land of Israel and the prohibition against leaving it, and that they even considered a woman who does not want to ascend with her husband to live in the Land of Israel [as a 'rebellious wife'] and likewise the man — the source of all these statements here (in this verse) where we have been given this commandment, for this verse constitutes a positive commandment. And this commandment is repeated in many places, such as 'Come and possess the land' (DEVARIM 1:8). Rashi, however, explains the statement 'You shall possess the land' as you shall possess it from those who have already settled there, and only then will you be able to inhabit and survive in it. Otherwise you will not be able to survive in it. Our interpretation of the verse, however, is the central understanding."

While the Ramban acknowledges Rashi's warning that Israel's ability to survive and prosper in our homeland depends on the nation's willingness to disinherit the foreign peoples who possess the country prior to our return, he clarifies that the main idea being taught by this verse is the eternal mitzvah for the Jewish people to exert sovereignty over the Land of Israel and to reside within its borders.

In his supplement to the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvot (Positive Commandment #4), the Ramban emphasizes that the mitzvah of Hebrew sovereignty over the Land of Israel is an eternal commandment for every generation.

"This (a war to liberate Eretz Yisrael) is what our Sages call milchemet mitzvah (obligatory war). In the Talmud (Sotah 44b) Rava said, 'Yehoshua's war of liberation was an obligatory duty according to all opinions.' And do not err and say that this precept is the commandment to vanquish the seven nations... this is not so. We were commanded to destroy those nations when they fought against us and had they wished to make peace we could have done so under specific conditions. Yet we cannot leave the land in their control or in the control of any other nation in any generation... Behold, we are commanded with conquest in every generation... this is a positive commandment which applies for all time... And the proof that this is a commandment is this: 'They were told to go up in the matter of the Spies: 'Go up and conquer as HaShem, G-D of your fathers, has spoken to you. Do not fear and do not be discouraged.' And it further says: 'And when HaShem sent you from Kadesh Barnea saying, Go up and possess the land which I have given you.' And when they did not go up, the Torah says: 'And you rebelled against the Word of G-D, and you did not listen to this command.'"

The Ramban states irrefutably that the conquest and settlement of Eretz Yisrael is a mitzvah for Israel in every generation and that we are forbidden from allowing any part of our country to fall into — or remain under — gentile control. It is found in the Shulchan Aruch that all of the arbitrators of Torah Law (Rishonim and Achronim) agree with the Ramban concerning this issue.

"All of the Poskim, both Rishonim and Achronim, decide the Law in this fashion on the basis of the Ramban." (Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer section 75, Pitchei Tshuva 6)

The Ramban also offers a more lenient approach regarding the actions Israel must take against gentile nations inhabiting our country. While Rashi and others assert that upon our return home from exile, Israel must drive out the gentiles in possession of our land, the Ramban insists that peace could be achieved between Israel and these nations under certain conditions so long as the Jewish people possess exclusive and undisputed sovereignty over our entire ancestral homeland. Rashi disputes this position, noting the following verse:

"But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land before you, those of them whom you leave shall be pins in your eyes and a surrounding barrier of thorns in your sides, and they will harass you upon the land in which you dwell." (BAMIDBAR 33:55)

On this verse, Rashi explains that "pins in your eyes" means "liteidot ham'nakrot eineichem" — that sticks will be driven into your eyes, meaning that the wisdom of Israel's leadership will be neutralized, such that they will be unable to see or understand what a child can clearly see and understand. There will be a situation in which Jews protect themselves behind fences and walls, which "enclose and imprison them such that none can come in or leave."

The holy Ohr HaChaim supports Rashi's explanation of this verse, commenting that:

"Not only will they hold on to the part of the land that you have not taken, but the part which you have taken and settled as well. They shall cause you trouble regarding the part that you live in, saying 'Get up and leave it.'"

A reconciliation of these positions with that of the Ramban could be possible through making a distinction between foreign nations exerting sovereignty over the Jewish homeland and those who merely dwell within its borders. This would explain the multiple references throughout the Torah regarding the kindness Israelis must display towards the Ger toshav (gentile resident alien) living in Eretz Yisrael. By attempting to steal portions of the Land of Israel, however, a gentile can move himself from one category to the other.

This raises the obvious question of the "Palestinian National Movement," which claims to speak in the name of all Arab inhabitants of our country while seeking to appropriate the Land of Israel from the Jewish people.

The Gaon of Vilna sheds light on this question in his commentary to CHABAKUK. Here he explains the concept of Peleshet and the uniqueness of its national function in this world. The Gaon points out that the verse in BEREISHIT 10:14, which introduces the Philistines to the stage of history, does not describe their birth as the Torah describes the birth of other nations.

"And Mitzraim begot Ludim, Anamim, Lehavim, Naphtuhim, Patrusim, and Casluhim, whence the Pelishtim (Philistines) came forth, and Caphtorim." (BEREISHIT 10:13-14)

The Vilna Gaon teaches that the birth of the Philistines was completely unnatural and that they are entirely absent from the stage of world history except for when it is time for them to serve their sole function. When the Nation of Israel enters our homeland in order to build G-D's holy Kingdom — the Kingdom that will bless and uplift all of humanity to previously unimaginable heights — the Philistines appear on the scene to try and prevent this Hebrew Kingdom from being established. This was true when our patriarch Avraham first entered the land (there was a "land-for-peace" deal proposed by Avimelech of Grar), it occurred when his son Yitzhak was faced with Philistine aggression and it was true throughout the period of the Judges up until the secure establishment of the Davidic dynasty when Israel finally implemented full Hebrew sovereignty.

The Philistines then inexplicably disappear from history until modern times where they (or their ideological descendents) once again attempt to hold up the construction of G-D's earthly Kingdom. The Gaon explains that without the necessary force of Peleshet, Israel would be unable to rise up to our essential mission and realize the true significance of Jewish statehood in Eretz Yisrael. HaShem places this nation into our world as a catalyst for Israel to reach our true national potential.

The truth in the Gaon's words is evident today. As a result of our difficult struggle with the "Palestinians" — a nation that materialized only upon our return home — Israel has failed to simply exist as a normal country but has instead been confronted with grueling questions of identity. The brutal conflict has forced us to examine who and what we truly are, as well as the inner reason for returning home and establishing a Hebrew state. Israel's troubles with the "Palestinians" force us to question not only our innate connection to our soil, but also our national function in Creation. By forcing out the bigger answers to the difficult questions they create, the modern day Philistines cause Israel to understand what it is that we are fighting for. And by the time we are psychologically prepared to appropriately deal with those who threaten our sovereignty, we will have already grasped the true purpose of establishing a Jewish state and blessing the world with HaShem's Divine light.

Shabbat Shalom
With Love of Israel,
-Yehuda HaKohen
Am Segula

Marc Caroff heads the Brandeis chapter of the ZOA.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, August 3, 2011.


New York Times "Public Editor" Arthur S. Brisbane is called the "readers' representative." His June 12 review of readers' complaints on Mideast coverage, instead, shields the newspaper from accusations of bias.

I have written hundreds of Internet articles about Times bias on that subject; others have written books on it. Publishers there have been anti-Zionist for decades. Their editorials' bias extends beyond opinion and into the facts and into news coverage.

The newspaper exhibits many different techniques for deceit. Examples:

(1) Consult predominantly anti-Zionist American experts and Israeli leftists;

(2) Quote false but emotionally strong Arab propaganda, such as that Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Arabs, and quote tepid and terse Israeli statements that make little impression;

(3) State Israel's position, if at all, much briefer than the Arabs';

(4) Place Israeli explanations later in articles, where fewer readers reach;

(5) Depict the Arab-Israel conflict as territorial and subject to a peace process, whereas to Muslims it is part of their global jihad, not amenable to compromise;

(6) Call people "extremist" and "moderate" without definition, giving the false impression that "settlers" are extremist and Arab leaders, moderate;

(7) Fabricate distinctions between Fatah and Hamas, whereas both factions are terroristic and seek to conquer and destroying the Jewish state whatever its size;

(8) Cite historical background from 1967, when Israel "seized" the Territories, not from the earlier, international recognition of the Jewish people's historical territorial and Arab terrorism and aggression;

(9) Select photographs and headlines that generate sympathy for the Arabs and antipathy for Israel;

(10) Ignore most terrorism against Israel, and then assert that it is waning;

(11) Fail to analyze political statements' lack of facts, logic, and justice. Hence the paper asserts without supportive explanation that Abbas' Palestinian Arabs "deserve" sovereignty and want peace.

The public editor ignores those serious problems, and falls back on the old ploy of stating that since both sides criticize the Times, evidently it is fair. This assertion assumes that each side is equally unfair. Actually, criticisms of Times bias against Israel are valid, whereas most Arab criticism demands what amounts to bias. The Arab, or jihadist, side is totalitarian, imperialist, bigoted, and unscrupulous. So were the Nazi and Soviet sides. Should newspapers have given the Nazi and Soviet sides the same credulity as the American side? Of course not. Then why the jihadist side?

Although the Times generally supports the Arab side, it eschews blatant anti-Zionism. Instead, the newspaper claims that its recommendations are for Israel's own good. What it suggests, however, would render Israel vulnerable to destruction.

Besides dismissing minor complaints, the editor considered a headline referring to the Golan Heights as being on Israel's side of the border with Syria. The editor called it a mistake. But it is not a mistake.

After capturing the Golan Heights in self-defense, Israel annexed it for national security. International law permits this prudent practice against aggressors. Anti-Israel government and media resent this principle being used by Israel. So they deny the legality of the annexation. The editor explains that the Arabs contest that border. What of it? Border claims are not justification for denying where the border is. Actually, the Arabs claim all of Israel. Does that mean Israel has no borders? Remember, the Arabs deny it on the basis of jihad, which targets the U.S.. Many countries claim many territories, but the Times does not deny those borders. Why just in the case of Israel? HAMAS DENOUNCES UN FOR OPPOSING BLOCKADE-RUNNING

UN Secretary-General Ki-moon declared against foreign naval attempts to break the partial Israeli blockade of Gaza, lest further violence result and peace prospects recede.

Hamas denounced Ki-moon for that. According to Hamas, the Secretary-General's exhortation renounces UN principles and violates international laws authorizing humanitarian aid through safe corridors. Further, the proposal also is said to encourage Israeli violence, which Hamas freely accuses Israel of committing extensively
(Independent Media Review and Analysis, 5/28/11, www.imra.org.il }.

Hamas cited no authority for its claims of UN violations and of wrongful Israeli violence. Time after time, the Arab side attempts to base its complaints or demands upon international agreements or claims about Israel that the facts do not support.

Israel does authorize shipments to Gaza, but through Israel, so it can inspect them for arms smuggling. Hamas does smuggle in arms for the violence it inflicts on Israel. Israel does not attack Hamas except in retaliation against Hamas violence. To avoid conflict, Israel removed its people from Gaza. But the Arabs attack Israel, anyway.

The UN mostly sides with the Arabs against Israel, but in the few instances that it doesn't, the Arabs denounce the UN.

If Secretary-Gen. Ki-moon imagines there are peace prospects, he is too imaginative. Jihadists do not make peace. They may lick their wounds, but they do not give up. They resume armed conflict when ready.


Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP) supposedly is an Israeli organization, but it receives significant funding from European sources, especially governments.

CWP sponsored a rally on "Naba Day," the day of Israeli independence, and against "Occupation [that has] lasted for 63 years..." Among the protest slogans were "the intifada will win." By calling Israel an occupier for 63 years, the rally was against the State of Israel, not just the Territories that Israel acquired more recently. By encouraging intifada, the rally was encouraging war.

That NGO also works for boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel.

Obviously, Coalition of Women for Peace is a deliberate misnomer for a jihadist organization. The question is why Oxfam and the governments of Switzerland, Netherlands, Norway, and Germany finance a religious war [the same jihad that attacks Europe].

CWP has become so morally unacceptable, that the New Israel Fund has removed the organization from its list of beneficiaries
(www.ngo-monitor.org in www.imra.org.il,5/16/11).

NGO-Monitor gave New Israel Fund overly generous credit for terminating grants to CWP. CWP long has been morally unacceptable. New Israel Fund knew that. But the Fund waited until CWP became publicly embarrassing for its moral unacceptability. At least, that is the pattern of the Fund constantly seeming blind to the subversion of its beneficiaries and constantly resisting initial protests against subsidies to such beneficiaries.

NGO-Monitor has proved that the New Israel Fund, like EU governments, specializes in financing anti-Zionist subversives under the pretense of constructive reform.


Are moderate, peace-seeking people a major part of the Palestinian Arabs? The Israel Project sponsored a Palestinian Center for Public Opinion poll, run by an American, Stanley Greenberg. Findings (as reported in Jerusalem Post, 7/15/11):

53% favor school songs about hating Jews in Palestinian Authority.

62% approve of kidnapping Israeli soldiers as hostages.

72% would deny Jewish history and connection to Israel;

73% accept the Islamic tradition requiring Muslims to kill the Jews;

92% insist on Jerusalem being only their capital, 1% think it should be the Israeli capital, 3% believe it should be the capital of both, and 4% believe it should be a neutral international city.

On statehood:

61% would not make peace if they had their own state;

64% favor a unilateral UN declaration of Arab statehood;

66% would use an Arab state as a base for taking over Israel. That is Arafat's old plan for the phased conquest of Israel.

80% accept the call, in the Hamas Charter, for forming Arab and Islamic military forces to "fight the Jews."

What can be the point of Israel negotiating with Palestinian Arabs, who overwhelmingly want to conquer and even kill them? And when those Arabs prefer negotiations to terrorism, their intent remains imperialistic (ZOA press release, 7/19/11).

The New York Times often urges Israel to make concessions to the Arabs to strengthen moderates among them. Now we see there are precious few moderates, and not among their leaders. U.S. leaders and journalists who keep proposing land for peace are not realistic. Their premises are mistaken. They need to devise a strategy for an Israeli victory.

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 Susana K-M, August 3, 2011.

This was written by Rachel Raskin-Zrihen. It is entitled "The New York Times' true colors". in


In a recent article, the New York Times appears to blame the Jews — or more specifically, one particular Jew — for growing sentiment against Shariah law in the United States. It's a bizarre stand to take, and illustrates, in my opinion, the weird, self-destructive tendencies of entities like the Times.

I mean, an American newspaper championing Shariah law (which would put it out of business as its own third order of business if it gained power, right after exterminating all the Jews and intellectuals and enslaving all the women,) flies in the face of normal self-interest. It's like gays or women fighting for Shariah law.

As illustration, a recent Reuter's story said women in Saudi Arabia, a study in schizophrenic law, must buy their underwear from male clerks, because women can't work in public places. But this is a problem, since women also can't fraternize with non-relative males.

This makes things like going to the doctor a problem.

It is also, evidently, a conundrum for buying skivvies.

Saudi society is trying to reconcile the issue by ordering lingerie stores to hire and train women.

But, the story says, "shops that hire females must bear the cost of training them, cover their display windows to block the view into the stores and hire a male security guard, for at least 3,500 riyals ($930) a month, during work hours to keep men from entering."

Obviously, Shariah law would be no problem at all here.

And the Times story not only seems to suggest Americans might be giving the Muslim code of morals and ethics short shrift; it suggests "the Jews" are behind this for some nefarious purpose.

The story begins by saying that despite its real problems, like the housing and economic crises, a Republican representative from Tennessee has chosen to focus on Islamic law as a threat to his constituents' way of life.

Guffaw! Snort! What rubbish, the author suggests.

This representative, a former fighter pilot, "claims," the reporter says, to have read the Koran, and "declares the Islamic code that guides Muslim beliefs and actions, is not just an expression of faith, but a political and legal system that seeks world domination."

What a loon, the writer suggests.

The writer claims that warnings like this are springing up nationwide as "Republican presidential candidates, elected officials and activists mobilize against what they describe as the menace of Islamic law in the United States."

More than two dozen states have passed laws in the past year restricting judges from "consulting Shariah or foreign and religious laws more generally."

A terrible thing, obviously.

The writer blames "a confluence of factors" for fueling what she calls "the anti-Shariah movement," and points most specifically to the so-called Ground-Zero Mosque.

An interesting idea — that the movement to erect a huge Islamic middle finger overlooking the site of the worst terrorist attack in this country's history, would backfire on proponents by sparking a general defensive action.

But, the Times assigns a sinister meaning to it, saying, "The campaign's air of grass-roots spontaneity, which has been carefully promoted by advocates, shrouds its more deliberate origins."

Guess what its "deliberate origins" are...

David Yerushalmi, "a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew" lawyer from Crown Heights, Brooklyn.

Evidently, according to the New York Times, without this 'New York Jew lawyer,' the American people would be just fine with the Islamization of the United States.

"Despite his lack of formal training in Islamic law," the Times says, "Mr. Yerushalmi has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about Shariah."

And there you have it — the Jews and their "striking influence" over The Fatherland, ooops, I mean America.

The Jews are evidently in league with conservative Republicans, Christians and others in this plot to deny the American people the right to be dominated by Shariah law, according to this article.

"Working with a cadre of conservative public-policy institutes and former military and intelligence officials, Mr. Yerushalmi has written privately financed reports, filed lawsuits against the government and drafted the model legislation that recently swept through the country — all with the effect of casting Shariah as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the cold war," the Times story says.

The Times tells us, though, that "for all its fervor," any perceived threat is a figment of our imagination.

"Even its leaders concede that American Muslims are not coalescing en masse to advance Islamic law," the story says. "Instead, they say, Muslims could eventually gain the kind of foothold seen in Europe, where multicultural policies have allowed for what critics contend is an over-accommodation of Islamic law."

And what could possibly go wrong with that?

So, the story tells us that what this Jew-led, anti-Muslim movement is actually accomplishing, "is the spread of an alarmist message about Islam — the same kind of rhetoric that appears to have influenced Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in the deadly dual attacks in Norway on July 22."

So, the terrible massacre in Norway also is the fault of the Jews — or, at least this one, seemingly extremely powerful Jew — a proposition the Norwegians are likely to glom onto, since they have an unfortunate tendency to anti-Semitism, anyway,

The story suggests the Jews' "anti-Shariah campaign,... appears to be an end in itself, aimed at keeping Muslims on the margins of American life."

The president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council offers proof of this, saying:

"The fact is there is no Shariah takeover in America," said a spokesman for the group, reportedly one of several Muslim organizations that have begun "a counteroffensive," according to the story. "It's purely a political wedge to create fear and hysteria."

For Yerushalmi, the story says the purpose "was to get people asking this question, 'What is Shariah?'"

And we wouldn't want that, now, would we?

Shariah, the author says, means "the way to the watering hole." It is "Islam's road map for living morally and achieving salvation" — a translation of "God's will into a system of required beliefs and actions."

The story notes that in the U.S., Shariah law opponents usually focus "on aspects that are unfavorable to women," — to put it mildly — like the case last year in New Jersey in which a Moroccan woman's restraining order against her husband, who repeatedly assaulted and raped her, was denied because the husband believed the Islamic statute that a wife must comply with a husband's sexual demands. Obviously, a minor glitch we should all ignore, the Times story implies.

But "Mr. Yerushalmi's focus is broader," the story says. And, just in case anyone may have missed the point that he is a Jew, with the attendant Israeli connections, it goes on to say, "His interest in Islamic law began with the Sept. 11 attacks, he said, when he was living in Ma'ale Adumim, a large Jewish settlement in the Israeli-occupied West Bank."

No agenda, here, no, sir. Completely objective, just like journalism should be. In Saudi Arabia, maybe.

So, despite having earlier claimed the man has no formal training, the Times story says Yerushalmi "said he began studying Arabic and Shariah under two Islamic scholars," whose names he refused to supply. The author suggests this means he's lying. But, maybe the man prefers not to endanger the lives of his teachers, who would, almost certainly, become the targets of a Fatwa. Just saying.

Nevertheless, this article says Yerushalmi's research led him to conclude that Islamic radicals had not hijacked Islam, but "were following an authoritative doctrine that sought global hegemony — a mission, he says, that is shared by Muslims around the world."

An obvious fantasy, the story suggests.

To illustrate his point, however, "Yerushalmi cites studies in which large percentages of Muslims overseas say they support Islamic rule."

The Times story counters that "Islamic scholars disputed Mr. Yerushalmi's claims," saying that "although Islam... aspires to be the world's reigning religion" (all its leaders) don't all agree with the methods used to attain that goal.

Am I crazy or does that not that sound like they're saying Islam is all about taking over the world and the only dispute is over how? Seems to back up Yerushalmi's point. But what do I know?

Yerushalmi's contentions paint Shariah with too wide a brush, the story quotes a Yale Islamic law professor named Andrew March saying. Not everyone who practices some version of it is an "automatic adherent" to its "medieval rules of war and political domination," March reportedly says.

Maybe so, but I'd prefer to have no adherents to its medieval rules of war and political domination active here.

The Times story then goes on to attempt to further impugn Yerushalmi's character, by mentioning a 2006 essay he wrote in which he suggests that political correctness is getting in the way of our answering certain longstanding questions and solving certain longstanding societal problems.

The story notes that the Anti-Defamation League "a prominent Jewish civil rights organization," says Yerushalmi has "a record of 'anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry.'" It notes that his legal clients include Pamela Geller, who the Times story describes as "an incendiary blogger who helped drive the fight against the Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero."

The story implies that without Geller, no one would have had a problem with this mosque going up in the 9/11 crater. I don't buy that. I can't believe I'm the only person who was offended by the idea long before ever having heard of Geller.

The story goes on to cite studies suggesting that only a small percentage of American Muslims feel Islamic groups represent them, which is nice, since the Times author also cites a 1991 document from the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States outlining a strategy of "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within."

This is nothing to worry about, the article's author says, because the same report suggests that all Islamic groups are not working together for this purpose.

"Imagine," the report is quoted saying, "if they all march according to one plan."

I feel much safer, now, knowing they only hope to strive to cooperate to destroy us from within.

Clearly, we should all be much more concerned about this New York Jew lawyer.

The story says Yerushalmi started his "movement" in January 2006 with the founding of "the Society of Americans for National Existence, a nonprofit organization that became his vehicle for opposing Shariah."

The story says the group's website suggests, among other things, funding a study on whether there is a link between "Shariah-adherent behavior" in American mosques and support for violent jihad."

Sounds like a good idea to me. Wouldn't knowing the answer to that question help us know how to proceed vis-à-vis this issue?

A study was undertaken, using undercover researchers in 100 mosques, which found that 82 percent of their imams recommended texts that promote violence, the story notes.

The story describes Yerushalmi's efforts as seeking a statute that would "prevent state judges from considering foreign laws or rulings that violate constitutional rights in the United States."

And while that sounds kind of OK to me, the Times story says "the law was intended to appeal not just to the growing anti-Shariah movement, but also to a broader constituency that had long opposed the influence of foreign laws in the United States," as though this were a bad thing.

The Times story says there is collusion in this effort among "Tea Party and Christian groups as well as ACT for America, which has 170,000 members and describes itself as 'opposed to the authoritarian values of radical Islam.'" The story says the conspirators "fanned out across the country to promote the law, recruiting dozens of lawyers to act as legislative sponsors."

Obviously, a Jewish plot of the most vile kind, made all the worse by its using the blood of gentile babies to make matzoh, oops, I mean recruiting Christians.

I suggest everyone Google, copy and save this story, and if you ever find yourself wondering if the New York Times has a particular agenda, just refer back to it for your answer.  

Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Manfred Gerstenfeld, August 3, 2011.

Despite claims to contrary, Norway has indirectly promoted Palestinian terrorism


After the horrific Oslo and Utoya killings, we see increased media attention to the multi-faceted anti-Israeli incitement by the Norwegian government and the country's cultural elite. However, the Norwegian Ambassador to Israel, Svein Sevje, has not yet grasped this. After the murders, he implied that Palestinian terror against Israelis is more justified than terror against Norwegians. Alan Dershowitz reacted: "I can't remember many other examples of so much nonsense in such short an interview." A few days later, Sevje told Haaretz: "The history of Norway vis-à-vis Israel is one of great support." To expose the fallacy of Sevje's last statement, one can provide many examples of Norway's accommodation of anti-Israeli terror, with this is being executed in three ways. The first method entails applying double standards and being soft on terror by criticizing Israel, while mentioning little or nothing about murderous Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians and Hamas' genocidal program. The second entails statements that indirectly encourage terrorism. The third method is financing organizations that do the same.

Regarding the first method: In 2002, several members of the 1994 Norwegian Nobel Committee who granted the Nobel Peace Prize to Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Yasser Arafat — i.e. Bishop Gunnar Stålsett, Sissel Rønbeck, and former Norwegian Prime Minister Odvar Nordli — expressed their disappointment in Peres. A fourth member, Hanna Kvanmo, said she wished there was a way to take the prize back from Peres. She also said Peres was on the verge of being considered guilty of war crimes.

Kvanmo was jailed after World War II, as a Nazi collaborator. Nevertheless, the Socialist Left party had selected her for the Nobel Prize Committee, which is comprised of political appointees. Then-bishop of Oslo Stålsett described the involvement of Nobel Laureate Peres in human rights abuses as absurd. He remained silent about Yasser Arafat, who had continued to order the murder of Israeli civilians even after he had received the Peace Prize. In 2004, the Jerusalem Post published an article noting that the members of the Nobel Committee still stood by their choice of Arafat. By that time, Israel had publicized a list of the terrorist operatives Arafat financed and showed that his signature was on the page listing the amounts paid to the murderers."

Modern-day blood libel

Last month, a day before the murders in Oslo and Utoya, Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere spoke at the anti-Israel incitement camp of the AUF, the youth organization of his Labor party. He called for the dismantling of Israel's security barrier. Stoere knew well that it was built to prevent further murderous Palestinian terror attacks. He was thus indirectly promoting terrorism against Israelis, one day before some in his audience would become terror victims themselves.

In the past, even while acknowledging the threat of terror against Israel, the Lutheran Church demanded that Israel's security barrier be dismantled. This State Church can thus also be considered an indirect promoter of Palestinian terrorism. Norwegian Church Aid (NCA) receives major funding from the Norwegian Foreign Ministry. One can debate whether it is only soft on terror, or an indirect terror promoter. Following Hamas' takeover of Gaza in 2006, the NCA criticized the Norwegian government for "withdrawing economic support" for the "Hamas government."

Norwegian People's Aid (NPA) did the same. It is one of the largest and most highly regarded of Norway's humanitarian and development NGOs and is funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Its website promotes the "Stop the Wall Campaign" in Norway.

Mads Gilbert and Erik Fosse, two extreme left-wing doctors, came to Gaza during the Cast Lead War in 2008-2009, claiming that they wanted to provide medical assistance to the Palestinians. After the September 11 attacks, Gilbert stated that he supported the terrorist attacks on the United States. He and Fosse were interviewed extensively by the Norwegian and world press, and made serious accusations against Israel. According to Norway's largest paper Verdens Gang, their trip to Gaza was paid for by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry.

Gilbert and Fosse failed to mention that the Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza where they worked had been used for military purposes by Hamas. Later it became known that Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and other Hamas executives took over an entire ward of that hospital during the war.

Gilbert and Fosse later wrote a best-selling book on their stay in Gaza. They were once again silent about the Hamas military presence in the hospital. Their claim that Israel had gone into Gaza in order to kill women and children is a contemporary mutation of the classic blood libel. This book, with its anti-Semitic message, had back cover comments written by Stoere and former Conservative Prime Minister Kare Willoch.

Finally, there is Deputy Minister of the Environment, Ingrid Fiskaa, who delights in visions of terrorism against Israel. A year before she entered the government, Fiskaa told a newspaper that she sometimes dreams about the United Nations firing rockets into Israel. One should pay attention to similar statements in the future, in order to identify those Norwegians who have learned nothing from the horrific murders of so many of their fellow citizens by "one of their own."

Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld has published 20 books. Two of these address Norwegian anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism This article appeared in YNET News

To Go To Top

Posted by Efraim Halevy, August 3, 2011.

This is the Abstract. The full article is available here.

  • The options for Israel and the Palestinians basically can be boiled down to these: a permanent agreement, an interim agreement, a de facto interim agreement, and a situation of no agreement. The best possible option — a permanent agreement — is not operable at this time and is the least probable.

  • Since the leaderships of Israel and the Palestinians are faced with the reality of a no-solution situation, one in which a permanent solution is not workable, both sides will have to do what people often do in life — they settle for less, settle for something which is less permanent, less perfect. There will have to be an interim solution.

  • In the year 2000 I paid a clandestine visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, to what is called Solomon's Stables, where I saw beautiful, 2,000-year-old columns. They do not exist anymore because they were destroyed by the Muslims, believing that if they destroyed the remnants of the Temple area, they would destroy Jewish rights there.

  • There can only be an ultimate reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians if there is a mutual acceptance of rights. I believe we have a right to Jericho, and they believe they have a right to Jaffa. I would say that if they recognize my right, I will recognize their right, and now let's see how we can live together.

  • It is a mistake on our part to cringe every time the Palestinians say they are going to do something unilaterally. The end of all this might be a de facto dual unilateral process. After the UN vote in September, the PA will say that Israel is now an army of occupation in a sovereign state. Let them go to the International Court of Justice and, in the meantime, Israel will not cooperate. Israel needs a bit of stamina, strong nerves, and not to take them all that seriously. We should exercise more self-respect.

Efraim Halevy is currently Head of the Shasha Center for Strategic Studies at the Hebrew University. He served as National Security Advisor and Head of the National Security Council (2002-2003), Head of the Mossad — The Israel Secret Intelligence Service (1998-2002), and Israel Ambassador to the European Union (1996-1998). This Jerusalem Issue Brief is based on his presentation at the Institute for Contemporary Affairs of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs on April 7, 2011.

To Go To Top

Posted by Paul Rotenberg, August 3, 2011.

Next time someone question whether Israel can trust the various Christian organizations that support Israel, think about Irena.

There recently was a death of a 98 year-old lady named Irena. During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the Warsaw Ghetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an 'ulterior motive' ... She KNEW what the Nazi's plans were for the Jews, (being German.)

Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack, (for larger kids..) She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.

Irena recruited 10 friends, all women, to help her in her effort to save Jewish children. During her time of doing this, she and her friends smuggled children out in boxes, suitcases, sacks, and coffins. In all, they managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. She was caught and tortured. The Nazi's broke both her legs and feet and beat her severely.

Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it and reunited the family. Most had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.

Irena was not well known until 1999, when 4 Kansas students wrote and performed a play called "Life in a Jar".

In 2007, Irena was up for the Nobel Peace Prize.

She was not selected.

Al Gore won, for a slide show on Global Warming.

In April 2008, Irena died in Warsaw at the age of 98. Let us not forget her courage and compassion.

Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Matthew M. Hausman, August 2, 2011.

While attending shiva for a family member, a Reform rabbi felt moved to share a few thoughts regarding the Jewish views on life, death and the grieving process. Although his words about the deceased were eloquent, his doctrinal observations were quite disturbing. He lamented, for example, the absence of Jewish belief in an afterlife, apparently unaware that traditional Judaism believes in spiritual immortality and the world to come — essential tenets included in the Thirteen Principles of Faith articulated by Maimonides in his commentary on the Mishnah. However, the early reformers abandoned traditional belief when they rejected halacha (Jewish law) and the concepts of messianic redemption and Jewish nationhood. In so doing, Reform broke with normative Judaism, attempting to fill the ideological void with a belief in Israel's universal mission. Unfortunately, this universalism has come to reflect secular, liberal and left-wing priorities that often conflict with traditional Jewish values, historical rights and interests.

Reform rabbis and congregants today champion "social action" to the exclusion of traditional observance, claiming that the humanistic values shaping their understanding of the concept represent the fulfillment of the Jews' spiritual mission. Ironically, the movement's activist wing, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, engages in little that can be called "religious," but instead focuses on secular political and social causes. Given the movement's history of liberal political activism, it is not surprising that Rabbi Richard Jacobs was chosen to head the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ), in spite of his affiliations with J Street and the New Israel Fund.

Despite the artful claims of their supporters, J Street and the New Israel Fund (NIF) are not pro-Israel. Rather, they are left-wing organizations at cross purposes with the Jewish state. Their antipathy for Israel is evident in their validation of a Palestinian national myth that repudiates Jewish history, their failure to emphasize the Jews' historical connection to the land of Israel, and their blind support for the establishment of a Palestinian state regardless of the persistent Arab-Muslim refusal to acknowledge Jewish historical claims. Moreover, they advocate dialogue with Arab-Muslim groups that will not concede Israel's right to exist. After his affiliations were publicized, Rabbi Jacobs went on record to proclaim his support for Israel, but his associations with J Street (he serves on its Rabbinic Cabinet) and the NIF (he's a member of the board) certainly raise concerns about the nature of his commitment.

The support Rabbi Jacobs received from a cross-section of the Reform Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) — itself a politically liberal body — suggests that his acceptability as a leader was predicated more on his liberal credentials than his scholarship or affinity for Israel. In the opening paragraphs of a letter published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, a group of CCAR officials and past presidents came to Jacobs' defense, stating the following:

We are past presidents and leaders of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the largest and oldest rabbinical organization in the world. We are ardent Zionists, deeply committed to a Jewish democratic State of Israel in secure and recognized borders.

Some of us identify ourselves with J Street, others with AIPAC and others with neither. However, one should not doubt the firm commitment of each of us to the welfare of the Jewish state and Jewish people. In that respect, we are typical of the broad spectrum of pro-Israel involvements that characterize the Reform movement.

We enthusiastically support the choice of Rabbi Richard Jacobs to succeed Rabbi Eric Yoffie as president of the Union for Reform Judaism and are deeply dismayed at the unwarranted attacks that have been leveled against him... ("Supporting Rabbi Richard Jacobs," Jewish Telegraphic Agency, May 5, 2011.)

At the very least, this letter reflects confusion within the Reform rabbinate as to what constitutes "commitment to the welfare ... of the Jewish state." Or it shows an institutional ambivalence in which superficial exclamations of devotion to Israel are used to parry any criticism regarding the rabbinical embrace of an agenda that promotes the Palestinian cause at Israel's expense and which fails to condemn brazen expressions of antisemitism from the political left. It is beyond reason how these rabbis could vouch for J Street despite its clear pro-Palestinian bias; its dishonesty in concealing its funding sources, including the big lie that George Soros provided no financial assistance (its IRS Form 990 showed substantial contributions from Soros); its opposition to sanctions against Iran; its duplicity in providing speaking opportunities to Israel bashers and antisemites; and its lobbying efforts undercutting Israeli interests in Congress and the U.N.

The implication by these rabbis that J Street is simply an alternative to AIPAC was disingenuous, but their failure to address Jacobs' NIF connection was astounding. The NIF is known for funding organizations that seek to delegitimize Israel and which are in the forefront of the boycott, divestment and sanctions ("BDS") movement. Through its funding it has promoted anti-Israel "lawfare" and supported groups seeking to undermine Israel, including Adala, Mossawa, and the Arab Human Rights Association. It seems incongruous that one could serve on the NIF board and yet claim to support Israel. Clearly, this was too much for Rabbi Jacobs' boosters to defend in their letter of support, which simply ignored his NIF affiliation.

Considering the CCAR's own record of advocating the creation of a Palestinian state, condoning the eviction of Jewish "settlers" from Gaza, Judea and Samaria, and seeking dialogue with Muslim-Arab groups that do not recognize Israel's right to exist, its tolerance for a leader associated with organizations that demean Israeli integrity, sovereignty and security should not be surprising. The only surprise is that anybody was shocked at all.

The selection of Rabbi Jacobs to head the URJ, and the earnest defense of his nomination, indicates a larger philosophical conundrum within Reform. Specifically, its leadership's tolerance for a left-wing that demonizes Israel reflects the tendency to exalt a secular, liberal agenda despite the inclusion of policies that contradict traditional values and encourage political alliances that threaten Israeli security and continuity. This was amply demonstrated when Jacobs' predecessor, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, announced an alliance between the URJ and the Islamic Society of North America ("ISNA") in 2008, after the ISNA had supposedly renounced terrorism. Despite claims to the contrary, the ISNA has never recognized Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state; and it was identified as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the Holy Land Foundation trial. According to Jorge Solis, the presiding judge at that trial, the prosecutors "produced ample evidence to establish the associations" between ISNA, among other groups, and NAIT, the Islamic Association for Palestine, and Hamas. Thus, its designation as moderate seems inconsistent.

The URJ's willingness for dialogue with such groups — and its refusal to acknowledge the doctrinal basis of mainstream Islamic rejectionism — evidences either inexcusable ignorance or willful self-rejection. Furthermore, Reform rabbinical involvement with groups that disparage or delegitimize Israel suggests an intrinsic discomfort with Jewish identity and sovereignty. Not all Reform congregants feel this way, but clearly many of their leaders do. Historically, this unease comports with Reform's early repudiation of Jewish nationality and the belief in national redemption, as well as the expression of both in modern political Zionism.

Starting with the first Reform rabbinical conference in Wiesbaden in 1837, the early reformers introduced theological changes that deviated profoundly from traditional thought and practice. They rejected the Talmud and traditional observance, as well as the beliefs in a personal messiah and the restoration of Zion — core doctrines that had sustained Jews through two millennia of persecution and exile. In proclaiming that "Berlin is our Jerusalem, and the [synagogue] is our Temple," the original German reformers embarked on a quest to reconceive Judaism as a "religious persuasion," instead of a unique identity in which religion, ancestry and heritage play distinct, integral roles.

At its Philadelphia Conference in 1869, the American Reform movement followed suit, articulating its rejection of traditional messianic hope by stating that:

The Messianic aim of Israel is not the restoration of the old Jewish state under a descendant of David, involving a second separation from the nations of the earth, but the union of all the children of God in the confession of the unity of God, so as to realize the unity of all rational creatures, and their call to moral sanctification.

This pronouncement was shocking to Jewish national hopes and aspirations, and audacious in its denial of the centrality of the ancient homeland in belief and worship. The early reformers did not simply posit an authentic, alternative understanding of redemption. Rather, they created a new concept that abrogated the scriptural, historical and ethnographic foundations of Jewish nationhood. Their transparent purpose was to facilitate acceptance into Gentile society by making Jewish culture seem less alien, and to present Judaism as merely a theological preference instead of an all-encompassing ethno-religious identity that sets Jews apart.

Undaunted by the disparity between its assimilationist goals and traditional Judaism, the early American Reform movement went even further at its Pittsburgh conference in 1885, where it formally expunged nationhood from its restatement of Jewish identity. The Pittsburgh Platform, which constituted the manifesto of classical Reform Judaism in America, attempted to redefine Jewish identity thus:

We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community; and we therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning a Jewish state.

With these and similar declarations, reformers in Germany and America advocated a deracinated identity based not on common history and descent, but instead on a purely ethical creed that deviated significantly from classical Jewish thought. Whereas traditional Judaism always defined the Jews as a people whose unique religious obligations were incumbent upon them precisely because of their ancestry, the early reformers proclaimed themselves to be Germans or Americans of "the Mosaic persuasion" to suggest common roots with their Gentile host societies instead of descent from forebears exiled by the Romans from Judea.

The early reformers rejected Zionism because it conflicted with their aim of redefining Judaism solely as a faith community rather than as the religious and cultural expression of an extant people with ancient roots. Those who sought to construe Jewish identity this way believed they would promote their integration into Gentile society. Indeed, the fathers of American Reform — Rabbi Kaufman Kohler in particular — opposed Zionism specifically because it reinforced the sense of Jewish nationality they sought to consign to the dustbin of history.

There were certainly Orthodox Jews who rejected Zionism, but they were not motivated by a desire to deny nationhood. Traditional Jews always regarded themselves as a nation in exile and never ceased praying for the deliverance of their homeland. To the extent there was religious opposition, it reflected the fear that secular Zionism would weaken the belief in messianic redemption, not the repudiation of Jewish nationality. However, many religious Jews supported Zionism from the start; and in fact some of the earliest proponents of reestablishing the homeland were Orthodox rabbis and mystics. These "proto-Zionists" included Rabbi Yehuda Alkalai and Rabbi Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, who actively preached national regeneration before Herzl was even born, and whose ideological descendants participated in the Zionist movement. Indeed, Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook, a renowned scholar and the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of the Yishuv, concluded that holiness could be found even in the acts of secular Zionists in redeeming the land of their ancestors.

While not all Reform Jews rejected Jewish nationality, their movement did not officially re-embrace it until the Columbus Platform of 1937. This retrenchment reflected the affinity of much of the laity for the Jewish community in the Yishuv and for the persistence of belief in the shared heritage amongst all Jews. It also recognized that the rejection of Jewish "otherness" had failed to secure acceptance in Germany, the birthplace of Reform Judaism. The failure of acculturated German Jews to achieve social integration was pointedly illustrated by the success of Nazism, and by the recognition that the Nazis did not invent antisemitism, but merely capitalized on what had been part of German culture for generations. That antisemitism continued to thrive regardless of how loudly Jews proclaimed themselves German showed they would never be permitted to assimilate.

Consistent with the Columbus Platform's reaffirmation of Jewish nationhood, American Reform officially dropped its anti-Zionist stance in 1937. This was partly an acknowledgment that many Reform congregants had already endorsed Zionism (though many others remained opposed). Nevertheless, tension remained whenever Jewish interests were perceived to conflict with "social justice," which as presented in the Columbus Platform became synonymous with the progressive politics of the era. When given the choice of supporting Franklin D. Roosevelt or lobbying for European Jewry, many Jewish progressives chose FDR, often rationalizing that such devotion would facilitate Jewish survival overseas. Some progressives were simply meek regarding their own Jewish identities; however, others felt compelled to attack more assertive Jews who boldly challenged the administration's indifference to Jewish suffering.

Nowhere was progressive duplicity clearer than in the treatment of Peter Bergson by Reform Rabbi Stephen Wise and Jewish supporters of Roosevelt. The Bergson Group was aligned with Zev Jabotinsky, Revisionist Zionism and the Irgun, and worked tirelessly to raise awareness about the unfolding Holocaust. Despite apologetic post-war claims to the contrary, the Final Solution was common knowledge in the United States in 1942, and the Bergson Group organized rallies and produced a travelling pageant to stimulate a national call to action. The pageant, entitled "We Shall not Die," was staged in major cities across America, including New York and Washington. Rabbi Wise, the American Jewish Committee, and other establishment organizations maligned the Bergson Group and attempted to suppress the show. Some of Rabbi Wise's associates even urged the IRS and FBI to investigate the group, though no improprieties were ever found.

Jewish progressives denigrated Bergson and his colleagues by impugning their integrity and portraying them as provocateurs. Even some who identified as Zionists, including Rabbi Wise, showed greater interest in undermining Bergson and the Revisionists than in uniting against a common enemy. Rabbi Wise's shameful treatment of Bergson's people was no doubt influenced by his affinity for Labor Zionism, which opposed the Revisionists in the Yishuv, and by his blind allegiance to Roosevelt — despite the antisemitism that tainted his administration and riddled the State Department.

Today there are certainly Reform organizations that support Israel. However, t