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

Posted by Bernice Lipkin, December 31, 2006.

These are some photos by Fred Reifenberg.

See these and other imaginative and delightful photos at

happy new year

With Feathers


After The Rain


Against The Tide


To Go To Top

Posted by Family Security Matters Foundation, December 31, 2006.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan is a British based writer and artist who has written for Western Resistance since its inception. He also writes for Spero News. He has previously contributed to various publications, including the Guardian and New Scientist and is a former Fellow of the Royal Anthropological Society. This is archived at

The Muslim Brotherhood is the group most associated with originating Jihad as a political act, and as such, it has continued to this day as a terrorist-sponsoring organization. So why, asks FSM Contributing Editor Adrian Morgan, does Britain allow Mockbul Ali, an employee of Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to promote and grant visas to members of the Muslim Brotherhood? Members of Congress and President Bush: what do you have to say to this? The Muslim Brotherhood And The UK Government

Britain and the United States have a "special relationship" which I hope shall continue indefinitely. Despite this special relationship, there are things going on within Britain's Foreign Office which should raise alarm for anyone who believes that Britain is singing from the same hymn-sheet. Instead of acting to prevent the influence of terror-supporting organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a young Islamist within the Foreign Office is actively promoting cordial relationships with this group.

Formed by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt in 1928, the Brotherhood began as a youth group but rapidly became political. Hassan al-Banna was killed in 1949, a year after the group was first outlawed in Egypt. Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966) took over the group's propaganda unit in 1952 and began to advocate armed jihad as a justifiable political act. Along with Ala Maududi, Quttb's philosophy, as described in books such as Milestones on the Road (Ma'alim fi'l-Tariq), has been a motivating force in the international jihad as mounted by Al Qaeda and others. The group made several attempts to kill Nasser, and in 1966, Qutb was hanged.

The group is still banned in Egypt, though it is tolerated, and 55 members of the group became members of parliament in last year's election. But the Muslim Brotherhood is still a supporter and instigator of terrorism. In 1987, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin of the Gaza wing of the Brotherhood formed Hamas, whose objective is to use terrorism to abolish Israel as an entity.

Mahdi Akif, leader of the Brotherhood in Egypt, announced in August this year that he would train his followers to fight with Hezbollah in Lebanon and join Palestinian terror groups in Gaza. The "spiritual leader" of the Muslim Brotherhood is Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar. He supports Hamas' terrorist attacks against Israel and armed resistance to coalition forces in Iraq. Qaradawi is justifiably banned from ever setting foot in the United States.

Last September it was revealed that Mockbul Ali, who works in Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office, had recommended that Yusuf al-Qaradawi should be allowed to enter Britain. Mockbul Ali wrote a long letter explaining that the radical sheikh posed no threat. The letter was written 10 days after four Al Qaeda-sponsored British citizens blew themselves up on July 7 in London, killing 52 and injuring hundreds.

Mockbul Ali's advice came in response by an invitation for Qaradawi to make a return visit to Britain. The invite had been proffered by London's ludicrous leftist mayor, Ken Livingstone, who has said: "Of all the Muslim leaders in the world today, Sheikh Qaradawi is the most powerfully progressive force for change and for engaging Islam with western values." Livingstone also compared the Islamist sheikh to Pope John XXIII, who introduced the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

So who is Mockbul Ali, and what does he do? The answers are disheartening. Firstly, he is an anti-Semite. In his letter about Qaradawi, he said criticisms of the Islamist sheikh had come from "tainted Jewish sources", going on to name Memri and the British Board of Jewish Deputies. The former is a media monitoring group, founded by Colonel Yigal Carmon, who served for 22 years in Israel's military intelligence service. The Board of Jewish Deputies is a highly respected and long-standing British institution.

Secondly, Mockbul Ali is a former student radical, who is only 26 years old. He was a member of the Union of Muslim Students (UMS), where he edited its newspaper. One of the articles he edited was about Aayat al-Akhras, an 18-year-old Palestinian suicide bomber, who killed two Israeli civilians in a Jerusalem supermarket. The article, entitled "A bride in the dress of martyrdom" described her attack as a "heroic operation... in the heart of the Zionist entity."

After 9/11, Mockbul Ali wrote in the newspaper: "If you are not white, you are most likely to be 'liberated' through bombings, massacres and chaos. Welcome to terrorism as a liberating force. Welcome to civilization - western style."

Mockbul Ali now heads the FO's "Engaging with the Islamic World Group (EIWG)", founded three years ago. This group has an annual budget of $15.8 million. And its mission? To engage with groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamic factions. These include groups such as Jamaat-i-Islami, the party founded in Pakistan by the other godfather of Islamism, Sayyid Abul A'la Maududi (1903 - 1979).

In July this year, Mockbul Ali approved the granting of a visa to Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, a member of the Bangladesh Jamaat-i-Islami. During Bangladesh's war for independence from Pakistan, Sayeedi was responsible for killing Hindus and Bangla citizens. He has been involved in persecutions of the Ahmadiyya sect in his native country, and has said that US soldiers in Iraq should convert to Islam or die: "...let all the American soldiers be buried in the soil of Iraq and never let them return to their homes." Sayeedi has compared Hindus to excrement. He is also linked to the terrorist group JMB, which has carried out numerous bomb attacks and suicide bombings. But Mockbul Ali let him come to Britain, where he visited the Saudi-funded East London Mosque. So warped is Mockbul Ali's mindset that he claims Sayeedi is a "mainstream Muslim figure".

Mockbul Ali's "Engaging with the Islamic World Group" has also entertained Qaradawi and other Islamists at the expense of the British taxpayer. In July, it funded an Islamic conference based in Istanbul, which cost $550,863. Qaradawi and his wife were paid to fly to the conference and back, and to stay in a luxury hotel. 180 other Muslim leaders from various Middle East locations were paid to travel to the conference, which was held in the Ceylan InterContinental Hotel.

Mockbul Ali remains in his job, engaging with the terror supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood and others. Even Britain's elected representatives can not ask questions about him. On May 8, Conservative MP Michael Gove asked questions in the Houses of Parliament about Mockbul Ali. He wanted to know "in what capacity Mr. Mockbul Ali is employed to advise the Foreign Office; what level of security clearance he has; and what vetting procedures were undertaken before he was offered employment." Kim Howells, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office told him that such information was classified.

Britain should remain as a friend and ally of the United States. But it is the duty of a good friend to point out where someone is going wrong. As a good friend of Britain, the United States government should pressure the United Kingdom to explain why it continues to hire this traitor to both countries' mutual interests.

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, December 31, 2006.

For years, I have heard there really are women who fake organisms. I wonder if faking enthusiasm is the same. Because, folks, I am a woman, who is having trouble even faking a flicker of enthusiasm for the leadership we have in this country. But, today? I haven't a clue. I consider myself neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I'm certainly not a Green, a Libertarian or a Peace party follower as any of these are votes that do not count. Does that make me sort of a donkey that is neither a mule nor a horse? Like so many out there now, I am confused. Lately though, I have begun to feel like a lovelorn old maid who never had a date for the prom. I am looking for leadership and feel like one of those lounge lizards who is looking for love in all the wrong places.

Our Jewish organizations are looking for love by pouring money ... money such as the millions raised in the United Jewish Communities Emergency Campaign that was supposed to go to the Jewish Agency but instead went to Arabs in Israel. I couldn't believe it and still can't! To Arabs who want the Jews of Israel dead? The Left find it fitting because they cop the plea that "Israel is a democracy" so the funds for restoring the north should be handed out in a "democratic fashion" to these moronic anti-Zionist? They have used much of the $3,000,000 to send a lot of non-Jewish children, mainly Arabs, to camp. Why am I surprised? The same thing happens here, in this country when people give to the Federation and they call for my donation with the lead-in.. "Let me tell you about our inter-faith program" and then proceed to preach to me on the benefits of the Hispanic and black programs they have. When did Hispanics and blacks ever give back to Jews? Never, as far as I can tell. It's gotten to the point where I can't stand it anymore.

Never thought I would see the day when I disliked everyone running my government or aspiring to high office so much that I dread a trip to the polls. Me! Arlene Peck, woman who in her entire life has never missed a chance to vote!

Let's focus on Israel and her various "goings-on". While keeping the faith when it came to the decisions Israel made, I have now come to a point when nothing they do makes any sense. In retrospect, frankly, I think that the last time I trusted the "powers that be" was when Yitzhak Shamir was running Israel. Now, I shake my head in amazement at the mentality or lack of it that is seemingly running things. For instance, Gaza is once again receiving massive amounts of anti-tank missiles to be used against Israel. If that weren't enough, the Hamas terror organization recently ordered and received Soviet-made SA-7 surface-to-air missiles. What are the Israelis going to do? Wait until they fall onto a Tel Aviv dicso before doing something? Now would be the time to have an offensive but, naw..they'll wait. In the meanwhile, the terror group Hezbollah are busy little bees using their broadcaster TV station, Al Manar, to recruit homicide bombers, have fund-raising campaigns to gather money for terrorist operations, conduct pre-attack surveillance and oh, did I mention, incite violence in various ways. Hamas is not far behind. However, who in the liberal media is paying attention to any of this? Do they even care?

Frankly, I don't give a diddly-squat about public opinion and press approval anymore anyway. I care about survival ! Lapsing into denial isn't going to help. Bush and Olmart and Peres can praise their "road-map' to peace all they want if they don't want to realize that this is a culture that wants to kill us...everyone who is not them! Not only the Jews! They are gearing up for the next war and have no doubt, the next war is coming. However, I"m afraid they're so busy trying to win the hearts and minds of everyone that the issue of survival will get lost along the way.

TRANSFER is something that should already be in the making. When there is a cancer, and Gaza is a cancer, it has to be cut out. Holistic measures by negotiation and hugs aren't the answer.

And, then if something is finally done with Israel's weird penchant for apologizing for even things they didn't do, they'll rush to have a press conference and say, "we've been bad". Hell, I "almost" don't even have the energy to say I told you so with issues like "the security wall" that Israel built to the tune of raging protest and resolutions in the United Nations and the EU and voices against them in The Hague.

That topic has died down though. Not because it was instrumental in stopping homicide bombers from entering their malls, restaurants, busses and schools to kill Jewish children. Why? Because we, in the United States, are chomping at the bit to start building a fence on our Southwestern border to stop the onslaught of illegal aliens invading our country into Arizona and California every day. China has already erected a massive fence along its border with North Korea India on its borders with Pakiastan, Saudi Arabia next Yemen and so on. You probably didn't even know about those though, as not even anyone from the liberal left are out there protesting.

I am not alone. Even in Israel, the Arab residents of Judea and Samaria are faking terror attacks. By carrying weapons or bringing knives to IDF checkpoints, they hope to be arrested. Then, they will have the opportunity to study in peace for a high school diploma and it is all free! I'm tired of hearing fake stories about 'massacres' instead of the truth being told about the battles that caused these deaths. The Main Stream media (MSM) and our State Department obviously don't get it or don't want to realize that the conflicts that Israel is constantly pushed into would be over much faster if the Jewish State were as barbaric as their Arab Muslim enemies and used civilians as shields instead of having the concern for civilians and non-combatants that they do.

The Arabs have long faked 'oppression' by the IDF. I have seen dozens of films documenting the fake damages that the poor deprived Palestinians suffer at the hands of "The Jews". What I find really disturbing about that topic is that the Jews are losing their Jewish identity at a rapid rate. The Jewish High Holidays came and went and I was astounded at how many around me either were either not aware, did not care and never even bothered to go to synagogue. The way I see it, since there are many out there who want to kill you because you are Jewish, you might as well know what you are dying for.

I have given up in crying out to the Liberal Left and preaching to those on the Right, that Bush is not the friend of Israel that they think he is. I cannot tolerate stupidity. Jews, a minuscule dot in the world census, have made and continue to make an enormous contribution to the benefit of humankind as reflected by the dozens and dozens of Noble Prize winners. We excel in medicine, arts, science, and political science, among others, yet are blind to the dangers that face us. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Bush's mouthpiece, made a speech at the American Task Force of Palestine's inaugural dinner in Washington. The world clapped when she stated, "There could be no greater legacy for America than to help to bring into being a Palestinian state." This, folks, gives me shivers when the so-called Palestinians go all out to prove themselves to be the most overtly pro-jihad, terrorist society in history and no one in our government is willing to see reality for what it is. These "people" are clearly evil, genocidal and terrorists, whether active in Fatah, Force 17, or a supporter. Yet Dubya and Condi see no evil and hear no evil but speak evil. It brings back shades of Neville Chamberlain. Yet, where are the cries from either the Jewish or the Christian communities (other than the Zionist Organization of America), for that matter fighting against what is the beginning of the end of the Jewish State?

As a matter of fact, where are the marches and strong actions which need to be taken by the Israeli government? I have long been lamenting how there are, in my opinion, no "moderate"... Muslims. If there were, we would be seeing at least fifty of them out of 1.4 BILLION, marching and shouting at demonstrations that theirs is NOT a violent and dysfunctional culture. But silent they remain. We should be hearing that theirs is not a sick society that beheads people and does not represent them. The so-called moderates say nothing because they are either too terrified to speak or living in the squalor of apathy.

Silence is not golden and in their case, it is evil and destructive to their people.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, December 31, 2006.

These are two separate and independent reviews of Robert Spencer's important new book: The Truth about Muhammad, Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion (Regnery Publishing, 2006). The first essay was written by Bruce Thornton is called The Wolf Pack; it appeared in www.victorhanson.com/articles/thornton102606PF.html. The second is by Andrew G. Bottom and is called Scrutinizing Muhammad's example and teachings; it appeared in the Washington Times, www.washingtontimes.com
Bostom (www.andrewbostom.org) is the author of "The Legacy of Jihad" (2005) from Prometheus Books.

Bruce Thornton, The Wolf Pack

Ambrose Bierce once quipped that war was God's way of teaching Americans geography. He could have said "teaching us history," for the enemy is emboldened by our ignorance not just of where he lives but of how he lives, his beliefs and values, and to understand these traditions we must understand their history. Unfortunately, in the current war against Islamic jihad we persist in ignoring the documented history of Islam and its beliefs, accepting instead the spin and distortions of various propagandists, apologists, and Western useful idiots.

This imperative to know the enemy's beliefs is particularly important for understanding the jihadists, for Islam is a fiercely traditional faith, one brooking no deviation from the revelation granted to Muhammad and codified in the Koran, Hadith, and the sira or biography of the Prophet. As Robert Spencer shows in his invaluable resource The Truth about Muhammad, in these sources Muhammad is presented as "an excellent model of conduct," as the Koran puts it, his words and deeds forming the pattern for all pious Muslims to follow. "Muslims," according to Muqtedar Khan of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, "as a part of religious observance, not only obey, but also seek to emulate and imitate their Prophet in every aspect of life." The facts of Muhammad's life, then, are paramount for understanding the beliefs that warrant and validate jihadist terror.

Presenting those facts clearly and fairly is precisely what Spencer accomplishes in his new book. Spencer has been for years a bastion of plain-speaking truth. Through books like Islam Unveiled, Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West, and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades), and as director of Jihad Watch , Spencer has courageously presented the simple facts of Islamic history and thought that too many Americans, including some in the current administration, ignore or distort. Spencer's new book continues this important service of arming us with the facts we need in order to understand an enemy who wants nothing from us other than our conversion, death, or subjection.

Basing his description of Muhammad on the same Islamic sources revered by believers themselves, Spencer paints a portrait of the Prophet unrecognizable to any who have been deceived by the idealizations of apologists like Farida Khanam, whom Spencer quotes as claiming that Muhammad's "heart was filled with intense love for all humankind irrespective of caste, creed or color," or the British religious writer Karen Armstrong, who claims that "Muhammad eventually abjured violence and pursued a daring, inspired policy of non-violence that was worthy of Ghandi." Such fantastic delusions cannot stand up to the relentless quotations and facts Spencer gathers from Islamic sources, all of which show us a Mohammad justifying and practicing violence in the service of the faith he invented.

As Spencer traces Muhammad's life, we see the behaviors practiced by today's jihadists, who continually cite the Prophet as their justifying model. The arrogant intolerance of any other religion finds its source in Muhammad's assertion to Muslims, "Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah." The rationalization of violence by invoking the hostility of unbelievers is also warranted by Muhammad: because of the rejection of him by his tribesmen the Quraysh, Allah "gave permission to His apostle to fight and to protect himself against those who wronged them [Muslims] and treated them badly." Hence the various offenses fabricated by today's jihadists to justify their aggression against the West. But Muhammad justifies not just defensive warfare but also violence in the service of the faith: "'Fight them [unbelievers] so that there be no more seduction,' i.e., until no believer is seduced from his religion. 'And the religion is God's,' i.e. until God alone is worshiped." We see here the jihadist's hatred of the West and globalization, whose political freedoms and hedonistic prosperity "seduce" believers from the faith.

As Spencer concludes, "The Qur'an . . . commands much more than defensive warfare: Muslims must fight until 'the religion is God's' -- that is, until Allah alone is worshipped. Later Islamic law, based on statements of Muhammad, would offer non-Muslims three options: conversion to Islam, subjugation as inferiors under Islamic law, or warfare." So much for the protestations of tolerance and co-existence constantly peddled by jihad's Western publicists.

Every aspect of Islamic practice and belief finds its basis in Muhammad's words and deeds. When Muhammad's lieutenant Abdullah attacked a Quraysh caravan during a month when fighting was prohibited, Muhammad's initial displeasure was changed by a "revelation" [i.e. from the angel Gabriel, who dictated the Koran to Mohammad] saying "persecution [i.e. of Muslims] is worse than killing," and Abdullah was forgiven. "This was a momentous incident," Spencer concludes, "for it would set a pattern: good became identified with anything that redounded to the benefit of Muslims, and evil with anything that harmed them, without reference to any larger moral standard. Moral absolutes were swept aside in favor of the overarching principle of expediency."

As Spencer progresses through the Prophet's life, the evidence for Muhammad's model as the source of modern jihadist practice becomes overwhelming. The penchant for beheading enemies displayed by jihadists is validated by Muhammad's decapitation of his enemy Abu Jahl after the battle of Badr against the Quraysh. A "revelation" after the battle codified this practice and linked it to the terrorizing of the enemy that would help Muslims prevail: "'I [Allah] will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.' This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment." Given that "contend against" can be defined as any activity that "seduces" believers or stands in the way of Muslim interests, the divine justification for the violence and terror perpetrated by jihadists from Indonesia to Africa, Israel to England is obvious.

So too with the practice of making tactical treaties and truces only to break them later. "If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah lovest not the treacherous," a statement also revealing of the double-standard many Muslims take for granted when dealing with non-believers. Armed with this loophole, Muhammad moved against the Banu Qaynuqa, a Jewish tribe who had resisted Islam but with whom Muhammad had a truce. As Muhammad famously said, "War is deceit." This precedent of deceit is obviously pertinent today, particularly for Palestinian Arab dealings with Israel. We have seen agreement after agreement signed by Arafat and others, only to be violated when circumstances seem to favor force.

The mistreatment of women, polygamy, child-marriage, stoning of adulterers, cutting off the hands of thieves, mutilation of enemy corpses, the sentence of death for apostasy, the subjection of dhimmi or Christians and Jews, even the killing of writers who displease the faithful -- remember the sentence of death against Indian novelist Salman Rushdie, still in force -- all have their precedents in the things Muhammad said and did. And as Spencer documents in his conclusion, this invocation of Muhammad is continually made by the jihadist terrorists themselves, who accurately link their violence to incidents and sayings from the life of Muhammad. To pretend that these devout Muslims are ignorant of their own religion's traditions or are "hijacking" them is willful blindness.

Perhaps the most important precedent established by Muhammad, however, and one at the root of modern jihadist violence, is the demonization of Christians and Jews. Centuries before the existence of Israel, the actions and words of Muhammad legitimized the hatred of Jews. As Spencer shows, this disdain and resentment reflected the powerful barrier the Jews of western Arabia presented to Muhammad's new faith and ambitions, not to mention the extent of Muhammad's borrowings from Jewish scripture and traditions. But the continuing refusal of the Jews to accept that Muhammad was the "seal of the prophets" eventually led to his war against these potent rivals, including the Qurayzah of Medina, 600-700 of whom were beheaded. This hatred was justified by calling the Jews along with the Christians "renegades" who had turned against God and the true faith of their ancestors. Thus throughout the Koran one finds codified an intolerance and hatred of Jews still infecting the Islamic world today. The notion of apologists that Islam offers tolerant accommodation to Jews and Christians is belied by verses in the Koran such as, "Oh ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors," and in Ibn Ishaq's biography by comments about the Jews such as, "You brothers of monkeys, has God disgraced you and brought His vengeance upon you?" Given all this evidence, as Spencer writes, "It is nothing short of staggering that the myth of Islamic tolerance could have gained such currency in the teeth of Muhammad's open contempt and hatred for Jews and Christians, incitements of violence against them, and calls that they be converted or subjugated." And this historical evidence is ratified by contemporary events that show modern Muslims following to the letter the example of Muhammad, from continuing persecution of Jews and Christians in Muslim lands, to the riots and calls for violence that attended (and validated) the Pope's quotation of a Byzantine emperor's observation that violence in the service of religion is Islam's sole innovation.

Spencer concludes with some common-sense suggestions, most importantly demanding that so-called "moderates" condemn jihad and teach against religious intolerance in their schools and mosques. Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen, given the power of Muhammad's example of enmity against unbelievers, and given the arrogant intolerance and unwillingness to compromise that typify too many Muslims. The anxiety about appearing "racist" and the sentimental idealization of the "other" dominating American society make it even more unlikely that any politician will challenge Muslims about the facts of Mohammad's words and deeds that jihadists today use to justify their actions. Unless we heed people like Robert Spencer, it seems that only another graphic example of jihadist violence within our borders has a chance of teaching us the history of the enemy.

Andrew G. Bottom Scrutinizing Muhammad's example and teachings

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the former Dutch Parliamentarian and secular Muslim reformer, has courageously identified the taboo discussion which must take place to understand, and defuse, the scourge of modern jihad terrorism:

"In their thinking about radical Muslim terrorism most politicians, journalists, intellectuals, and other commentators have avoided the core issue of the debate, which is Muhammad's example."

This taboo is all the more puzzling, and dangerously delusional, given the public pronouncements of Muslim Brotherhood "spiritual" leader, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential contemporary Muslim thinkers.

The immensely popular Qaradawi reaches an audience of tens of millions of Muslim sympathizers across the globe with his regular appearances on Al-Jazeera television. During a June 19, 2001 broadcast, Qaradawi delivered a sermon entitled, "The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model," proclaiming: " . . . Allah has . . . made the prophet Muhammad into an epitome for religious warriors [Mujahideen] since he ordered Muhammed to fight for religion . . . "

Consistent with the hadith (words and deeds of Muhammad recorded by pious followers), and earliest Muslim biographies of Muhammad, Qaradawi further acknowledged that Muhammad launched aggressive jihad campaigns, and also maintained that there is in fact a "jihad which you seek," i.e., invading other countries in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove, by force of arms, "obstacles" standing in the way of this coercive Islamization.

More ominously, Qaradawi has made specific unabashed appeals for Muslims to wage a "jihad re-conquest" of Europe, recalling the millennial legacy of jihad wars waged by Arab, Berber and Ottoman Muslim conquerors and colonizers.

Disregarding murderous threats, and the prospect of social ostracism, the intrepid author Robert Spencer -- a serious independent scholar of Islam for the past two decades -- has taken up Hirsi Ali's challenge in his compelling new book, "The Truth About Muhammad."

Mr. Spencer's stated purpose in writing the book was to elucidate, in particular, those aspects of Muhammad's life used by Muslims today to rationalize violence, or other behaviors incompatible with Western constructs of human rights and dignity. And Mr. Spencer, whom I have come to know through my own independent research on Islamic doctrine and history, fulfills admirably his pledge not to "deride," "lampoon" or "mock" Muhammad, but instead compose "a scrupulously accurate account of what he [Muhammad] said and did" regarding these critical matters.

A salient feature of "The Truth About Muhammad" is its exclusive reliance on pious Muslim sources: the earliest (and most respected) Muslim biographers of Muhammad, Ibn Ishaq (died 773), Ibn Sa'd (845), and the great historian al-Tabari (923); the "gold-standard" canonical hadith collections of Bukhari (870), and Muslim (875); and the Koran itself.

As Mr. Spencer notes, these are the same sources contemporary Muslim biographers have relied upon, both respected scholars (such as the late Martin Lings, aka Abu Bakr Siray Ad-Din), and popularizers (Javeed Akhter, Yahiya Emerick).

Despite his caveat that the book is "not a comprehensive biography" of the Muslim prophet, Mr. Spencer's concise, pellucid narrative (which includes both a succinct chronology and a glossary of key Arabic names and places) has remarkable breadth, chronicling Muhammad's evolution from a proselytizer, to a prototype jihad conqueror and ruler.

The final chapter is a brilliant analysis of Muhammad's disturbing modern legacy. Mr. Spencer provides understated, scrupulous documentation of the consequences of Muhammad's status as "an excellent example of conduct" (Koran 33:21), invoked by contemporary Muslim clerics, governments, journalists and jihadists alike: exploited child brides and general misogyny, sanctioned by law; Draconian, mutilating punishments such as stoning for adultery and amputation for theft; jihad violence against non-Muslims and Shari'a (Islamic Law)-sanctioned oppression of non-Muslims under Muslim rule.

He concludes with a series of logical, unflinching recommendations for non-Muslim governments, all of which hinge, ultimately, upon an honest recognition of Muhammad's bellicose example: Stop insisting that Islam is a religion of peace; initiate a full-scale Manhattan Project to find new energy sources; make Western aid contingent upon renunciation of the jihad ideology; call upon American Muslim advocacy groups to work against the jihad ideology; revise immigration policies with the jihad ideology in view.

Nearly 25 years ago, the late Richard Grenier wrote "The Marrakesh One-Two," a trenchant fictional account of a doomed effort to film the life of Muhammad. Grenier characterized the filmmaker's basic predicament with biting wit.

Even after reading a series of modern Muslim hagiographies, Muhammad left the impression of being " . . . a gamey figure for a religious leader . . . sort of a blend of Saint Teresa of Avila, Jane Addams of Hull House, William the Conqueror, and Casanova . . . Allah is merciful, but not necessarily Muhammad, I guess."

Of course such an impious, if accurate presentation, was impossible. Following a conference with the clerics of Al Azhar (the leading Sunni Islamic institution of religious education) in Cairo, Grenier's fictional filmmaker laments:

"The only thing they would give me was I could have P.V. Muhammad. That is I could script shots from Muhammad's Point of View, subjective camera. I could have faces reacting and people talking to Mohammed. But Muhammad couldn't answer them because his voice would be too holy."

Today, "P.V. Muhammad" putatively "non-fiction" accounts prevail, while the authoritative biographies of Muhammad written in the mid 19th through early 20th centuries -- by scholars such as William Muir, David S. Margoliouth and Leone Caetani -- are now almost unknown to the public and chattering classes. These elegant analyses -- like Mr. Spencer's -- also relied exclusively upon the earliest Islamic sources, such as Muhammad's first pious Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq.

Margoliouth's biography recognized Muhammad as " ... a great man, who solved a political problem of appalling difficulty -- the construction of a state and empire out of the Arab tribes." Margoliouth recounted this accomplishment without "apology" or "indictment," summarizing faithfully the picture of Muhammad that emerges in Ibn Ishaq's biography:

"In order to gain his ends he recoils from no expedient, and he approves of similar unscrupulousness on the part of his adherents, when exercised in his interest. He profits to the utmost from the chivalry of the Meccans, but rarely requites it with the like. He organizes assassinations and wholesale massacres.

"His career as tyrant of Medina is that of a robber chief, whose political economy consists in securing and dividing plunder . . . He is himself an unbridled libertine and encourages the same passion in his followers. For whatever he does he is prepared to plead the express authorization of the deity. It is, however, impossible to find any doctrine which he is not prepared to abandon in order to secure a political end . . .This is a disagreeable picture for the founder of a religion, and it cannot be pleaded that it is a picture drawn by an enemy ..."

"The Truth About Muhammad" eschews contemporary "P.V. Muhammad" hagiography, reviving the highly informative, unapologetic genre of biographical narratives of Muhammad epitomized by the works of Muir, Margoliouth and Caetani.

Transcending even these seminal biographers, Robert Spencer's perspicacious modern analysis makes clear how Muhammad's sacralized behaviors continue to motivate and direct the contemporary global resurgence of jihad, in all its cultural as well as military manifestations. Policymaking elites must heed Mr. Spencer's urgent concluding admonitions:

"It is difficult if not impossible to maintain that Islam is a religion of peace when warfare and booty were among the chief preoccupations of the prophet of Islam. Sincere Islamic reformers should confront these facts, instead of ignoring or glossing over them, and work to devise ways in which Muslims can retreat from the proposition that Muhammad's example is in all ways normative. If they do not do so, one outcome is certain: bloodshed perpetrated in the name of Islam and in imitation of its prophet will continue . . .

"If no Western politicians can be found who are courageous enough to grasp this nettle, Western countries will eventually pay a stiff price, when the jihadists they have admitted carry out successful jihad attacks, or inspire native-born Muslims to do so -- or when they advance Shari'a [Islamic Law] provisions by peaceful means, as in the campaigns in the United Nations and several European countries for the adoption of Islamic blasphemy laws in the wake of the Muhammad cartoon riots."

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Jake Levi, December 31, 2006.

This article was written by Dr. David Lazerson December 11, 2006.

Psychology has long dealt with the social phenomenon known as "co-dependency." It's a term often used to describe the dynamics that occur in a family that has to deal with an alcoholic or drug addict. In a nutshell, this type of illness involves both the addict and the surrounding well-meaning "significant others." Although the addict plays the victim card to the hilt, it is those around him or her who become the pawns in this destructive game, and thus, parents, friends and spouses all become the real victims.

Unless the addict is dealt with in a professional way - usually at a locked down facility that offers rehab and counseling - the cycle of perpetuating the disorder simply goes on unabated. In fact, without the "tough love" approach, it gets worse. Left to everyone's good wishes and hopes, the dysfunctional behaviors not only repeat themselves, but they occur with greater frequency and intensity. The addict is no longer dangerous to himself or herself, but to all those around. Eventually, the addict destroys all around him, including those who invested so much time and energy to help; even those who were considered loved ones.

Without insisting on absolute accountability and very specific, concrete changes, the behaviors go on unabated until the addict and all in the circle are swept away in a whirlpool of destruction. In effect, since love doesn't work, everyone has been loved to death.

Tough problems take tough solutions. Even though we'd prefer to go easy and use the kid-glove approach, it simply won't work with addicts involved in this co-dependency relationship. The same notion, unfortunately, applies very well to Israel and her militant Islamic neighbors. That relationship, too, has deteriorated into one of co-dependency.

Israel is the well-meaning significant other, always trying to talk nicely and be so politically correct. Israel keeps asking this question, always hoping and praying it will be true: 'Oh, you want more land, and more dialogues and more concessions, and then you will change? Then you won't throw rocks at us, or shoots missiles at our communities, or bomb our buses? Then you will love us?' Yet, these militants have only demonstrated worse behaviors over time. They showed, in fact, the worst of addictive behaviors. Not to drugs, of course, but they've become addicted to hatred, racism and violence. And yet, it is Israel, along with the rest of the Western world, that has become a co-dependent partner, and thus actually has served to perpetuate and reinforce this deadly, destructive cycle.

A major factor that enables the destructive cycle to continue is that no real consequences are placed upon the perpetrator. The principal doesn't make concessions to a harmful bully. He suspends the bully, and sends him to a special training school if the bully becomes a repeat offender. Drug addicts and alcoholics don't need love pats on the back or free reign over the family car; they need to be admitted to a rehab facility. If need be, a responsible and concerned adult uses the Baker Act, and puts them in against the addict's will, for the addict no longer has self-control to stop the addictive pattern.

There has to be real consequences for behaviors. Without these, even if they seem harsh at first, the addict has no chance whatsoever at rehabilitation.

So, too, with Israel's neighbors. The situation in Gaza has become an absolute nightmare, with daily missile shootings into civilian areas in Israel. There is no other country on the planet that consistently bends over backwards to accommodate and tolerate this type of violence.

But this allowance, this co-dependent behavior from Israel, is not some nice gesture of tolerance leading to some sort of mutual relationship and understanding. Rather, it is seen by the attackers as an open window. It's like the mother who begs her drug addict son, "Please! I gave you $50 yesterday. Don't take my furs to the pawn shop!" The addict is way beyond words or motherly tears. In fact, if allowed to carry on without some drastic interference, the addict would kill his own mother to get to that purse.

Israel needs to stop this co-dependent nonsense. Killing the missile shooters one by one is an enormous waste of time, energy and, mainly, it constantly puts Israeli civilians and soldiers at tremendous unnecessary risk. This tactic plays right into the hands of the Islamic militants, allowing them to simply carry on as usual without any real consequences. And it also backfires. Just like an addict, the Arabs continually play the poor victim to the rest of the world.

Israel gave up the entire Gaza area to the Palestinian Authority. The rules were laid out very clearly: 'Here's a big chunk of real estate. Get busy making your own country and don't destroy the leftover synagogues, and definitely don't use the area to shoot at us.' But as soon as they got Gaza, the Arabs immediately desecrated and burned down the remaining synagogues. Once they saw that Israel and the world did nothing in return and that there were no major consequences, well, they set about putting the next phase into operation - daily Kassam rocket attacks into Israel. Thus, while Israel kept its side of the bargain, the Arabs are spitting all over the "peace" deal and laughing at the entire world.

Israel gave them a huge opportunity to stop the destructive cycle, but the other side was probably never really too interested in making peace and sitting side-by-side anyhow. They have broken peace deals over and over and over again. The only solution is for Israel to take it all back, clean up shop and stop this ridiculous, self-destructive, co-dependency. If not, I'm afraid the current Olmert government will continue to lead the country down the dark whirlpool of co-dependency - being loved to death.

Jake Levi can be contacted by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Alex Grobman, December 31, 2006.

In an exclusive interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's Minister for Strategic Affairs said that the primary way to achieve peace in the Middle East would be for Jews and Arabs - including Israeli-Arabs - to live separately. "Minorities are the biggest problem in the world," he claimed. Asked if Arab Israeli citizens should be removed, he said: "I think separation between two nations is the best solution. Cyprus is the best model. Before 1974, the Greeks and Turks lived together and there were frictions and bloodshed and terror. After 1974, they constituted all Turks on one part of the island, all Greeks on the other part of the island and there is stability and security."

When reminded that they were removed forcibly from their homes, he replied, "Yes, but the final result was better." Later, he explained, "Israeli Arabs don't have to go... But if they stay they have to take an oath of allegiance to Israel as a Jewish Zionist state."

Lieberman's remarks set off a firestorm of criticism in the Knesset and around the country. Whether you support Lieberman or find his proposals abhorrent, they should be seen with a historical perspective. After World War I and II, transferring populations was considered legal and moral, and the most favored response to inter-ethnic strife. This is no longer true. Population transfer is now seen as illegal and a crime notes Eyal Benvenisti, professor of Law at Tel Aviv University.

As Benvenisti points out, the first population-exchanges involved Bulgaria, Greece and Turkey. The Treaty of Nueilly of November 27, 1919 provided for 46,000 Greeks from Bulgaria and 96,000 Bulgarians from Greece to switch countries. After the defeat of the Greek army in the Greek-Turkish War following World War I, and the Turk assault against Greek communities in Turkey, Greek refugees began fleeing their homes in Turkey. Greece and Turkey exchanged of populations with about 2,000,000 Greeks, who were Turkish citizens, and about 500,000 Turks, who were Greek citizens.

The exchange of populations had worked so effectively, Benvenisti observed, that in post-World-War II, the Allies decided to transfer 15 million Germans living in Eastern Europe, primarily in the Eastern part of Germany, after it had been granted to Poland. According to the Potsdam Declaration, Germans living in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Austria were to be transferred to Germany "in an orderly and humane manner." Although the West attempted to ease the transition, there was much distress suffering and large numbers of deaths. After the borders in Europe were redrawn, smaller transfers were made in parts of Central and Eastern Europe.

Population transfer was also used to settle the inter-religious enmity between Hindus and Muslims in British India in 1947. Once it became clear the communities could not live together, the sub-continent was partitioned into two states -- India and Pakistan -- requiring the resettlement of millions of people.

Mass transferring of populations by states is no longer acceptable. When Turkey invaded Cyprus in July 1974, Turkey was condemned for the large numbers of Greek and Turkish Cypriots who were displaced after being forced to flee from their homes. After atrocities were committed in the former Yugoslavia, people began using the term "ethnic cleansing" to describe the uprooting and displacement of populations, which was identified as a war crime. A process that was sanctioned, if not legal in 1948, is now regarded as criminal.

The most recent example of forced mass transfer, Benvenisti continues, occurred in Cyprus with the Greek-Cypriots and the Turkish-Cypriots. After Turkey invaded and occupied the northern part of the island, more than 200,000 Cypriots fled or were relocated across the "Attila Line," set up by the Turkish military. Greek-Cypriots left the Turkish-occupied zone, while Turkish Cypriots escaped to the north, where they moved into homes abandoned by Greek-Cypriots. The Greek-Cypriot refugees resettled in the southern part of the island, a number on property owned by Turkish-Cypriots. The right to recover property and the right to return are two of the key obstacles to settling this dispute.

The need to separate Arabs and Jews or transferring Palestinian Arabs to another Arab state is not a new idea. In 1937, the Peel Commission concluded, "An irrepressible conflict has arisen between two national communities within the narrow bounds of one small country. There is no common ground between them. Their national aspirations are incompatible... Neither of the two national ideals permits of combination in the service of a single State."

If partition is to succeed, the Commission said, drawing new boundaries and establishing two separate states will not be sufficient. "Sooner or later there should be a transfer of land, and as far as possible, an exchange of population."

For numerous reasons, transfer never took place. In his book on the international proposals to transfer of Arabs from Palestine, Chaim Simons found that a number of leading Zionist leaders entertained such ideas, as did president Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover, Czechoslovakian President Benes, and three Nobel Peace Prize winners Sir Norman Angell, Christian Lange and Philip Noel-Baker.

Dr. Grobman's book Nations United: How the UN Undermines Israel and the West will be published by Balfour Books will be in late November. Contact Dr. Alex Grobman by email at Agrobman@nj.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Amil Imani, December 31, 2006.

Is there anyone left in the world that does not know the president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hates the Jews? His welcoming of representatives of an extremist branch of Orthodox Judaism to his conference denying the Holocaust reminded us of the Nazis' use of some Jewish community leaders to facilitate the deportation of the Jews to the death camps.

This devout man of Allah, Ahmadinejad, known affectionately by Iranians as "The Monkey" for his non-stop silly and embarrassing antics should be given a fair hearing, never mind the fact that he would not even think of doing the same for others. What makes The Monkey more than a laughing stock is what he represents and the power he wields at arousing millions of his co-Islamofascists against the "undesirables" of the world.

For some reasons, Jews are on the top of The Monkey'ss hit list as they have been in the same position of "honor" with other past fascists of the world. Perhaps precedence by itself constitutes the basis for arriving at a verdict, as is sometimes the case in the law.

And when it comes to the Jews' guilty verdict, there is no shortage of precedence. Jews have been around for a long time and have been a convenient target of scapegoating. People being people have a difficult time looking at themselves for their problems. It is by far easier to find others to blame than to try to mend one's own ways. So the Jews became convenient scapegoats for bigots, the fascists, and all manners of malevolent louts.

This is neither the place, nor is it necessary for the purpose of this article to provide an exhaustive documentation of the historical suffering of the Jewish people. The main purpose of this article is to tell the world that Iranians are proud of their historical friendship with the Jewish people. The bond of friendship goes back to the landmark action of King Cyrus the Great of Persia. In 537 B.C., having conquered Babylon, the benevolent King Cyrus freed the Jews from captivity and empowered them to return to the Promised Land and build their temple.

For his acts of kindness, Cyrus the Great is immortalized in the Bible in several passages and called "the anointed of the Lord." The Jews throughout the recorded history looked to Cyrus's people, the Iranians, as their friends and protectors against oppressors such as the Seleucids and the Romans. There existed, in the ancient world, a universal admiration for the beliefs and practices of the Persians as enshrined in Cyrus Charter of Human Rights. Even the Greeks, the traditional adversaries of the Persians, called Cyrus "The Lawgiver."

The return of the Jews to the Promised Land did not mark the end of their ordeal. Successive waves of ill-wishers, notably the Romans and then the savage Muslims unleashed their unjustified wrath on the Jews.

The Jewish people, in spite of suffering huge losses at the hands of their enemies, remained resilient and, with one exception, outlived their tormentors. The Pogroms in Russia, the ghettoization in much of Europe, and even the genocidal Hitlerism failed to wipe out the Jews.

One diehard enemy, Islam, has been hard at work for some 1400 years to complete the work of finishing off the Jews that Muhammad himself had started.

Iranians are saddened and ashamed by the appearance of Ahmadinejad on the international scene and his declared intent to wipe out the Jewish homeland from the face of the earth. Ahmadinejad is not an Iranian. Numerous photos show him proudly donning the Arab headscarf around his neck -- a Palestinian headscarf that presently stands as a symbol of Arabo-Islamic genocidal hate campaign against the Jews as well as non-believers of all stripes.

Ahmadinejad does not represent the Iranian people any more than his turbaned-colleagues presently ruling Iran do. What needs to be understood is that in fact Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs, above all else, are true Muslims and despise anything "Iranian" and its ancient "pre-Islamic" heritage.

You can tell a true Muslim by the ferocity of his hatred. Islam is driven by hate. And the Islamic hate is so intense and blind that it consumes even its own adherents. Just consider, for instance, the rocketing of mosques full of Friday worshippers by one sect of the religion of peace against another sect of the same religion. Or, the raging gun battle between the Hamas thugs and the Fatah murderers in the Palestinian territory.

Iranian Muslims are victims of the Islamic virus that has destroyed in them their traditional respect for diversity. It is the Iranian ancient fundamental belief in the validity and value of diversity that has held the nation together over the millennia.

The diverse people who give Iran its enduring strength include Persians, Azaris, Kurds, Baluchis, Torkemans, Arabs and more: one and all have their allegiance to Iran as an idea and a nation. Iranians are spiritual children of Cyrus the Great and adherents of his Charter -- the first Charter of Human Rights -- that clearly proclaims the equal rights and worth of the beliefs and practices of all people.

Islam overtook Iran and brutally strived to replace the traditional lofty Iranian belief in human rights with its barbaric exclusionary dogma of the primitive Bedouin Arabs. Regrettably, the forced subjugation of the Iranians succeeded to some degree in transmitting the Islamic psychosocial virus to many Iranians. The virus transforms the person into a bigot -- one who sees only his way and his belief as the right way and the only right mandate. Any and all people who do not see things his way are wrong and must be reformed by whatever means, including eradication, if the bigot sees fit.

True Iranians have remained friends of the Jews by both belief as well as deeds. During the shameful Hitlerian campaign of exterminating the Jews, for instance, Iranian missions in Europe, notably the one in France, issued Iranian passports to facilitate the flight of French and other European Jews from the claws of Nazis and their gas chambers -- the very gas chambers that the true Muslim, disgracing Iranians, Ahmadinejad, denies ever existed.

Iranians stand for the right of the Jews as well as the equal rights under the law for any and all religious and secular people. Iranians believe that Islamofascism is a present and imminent danger and call on all free peoples of the world to do all they can to frustrate its "Pogrom," heeding Martin Niemoller's warning:

"They came for the communists, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a communist; They came for the socialists, and I did not speak up because I was not a socialist; They came for the union leaders, and I did not speak up because I wasn't a union leader; They came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up for me."

Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy activist residing in the United States of America. He maintains a website, http://www.AmilImani.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 31, 2006.

The very fact that the so-called Palestinian Israeli conflict infiltrates so many debates concerning far removed Islamic issues, invariably used as a cudgel to indict the Jewish State as an abusive even Hitleresque occupier of hapless Palestinian waifs, suggests that Israel is the all purpose effective scapegoat conveniently showcased to divert attention from relevant facts mostly unfavorable to movers and shakers of Muslim policies. Exploitative fundamentalist governments, both Sunni and Shiite, in say polar opposite jihad friendly regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, do not differ in their willingness to bash Israel/Jews in educational textbooks, media broadcasts, public pronouncements, newspapers, and in general all forms of communication. Likewise, propagandizing leaders manipulating naïve populations in Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, Libya, chaotic Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sudan, many more Islamic nations, Muslim neighborhoods throughout Western Europe and in fact throughout the world vilify the far removed Jewish shlamazal and homeland mostly to divert attention from real localized concerns that otherwise would threaten the credibility of those leaders perhaps leading to their demise.

Logically, the so-called Palestinian Israeli conflict has as much tangible bearing on all other planetary enclaves and nations as the constellation Orion has on their gross national products, except perhaps for neighboring Jordan and a few other nations who refuse to repatriate their morphed citizens, however the humiliation inflicted upon the psyches of so many programmed Muslims worldwide by this skillfully exploited conflict transcends physical reality and the rational reasoning process, the latter apparently not the strongest suit of that duped populace. Amazingly, hand wringing non-Muslim intellects, some anti-Semitic some not, accept the duplicitous arguments of Machiavellian Muslim manipulators, annexing the concept of Middle East peace to that limited conflict. The recent Baker Hamilton 'how to fix Iraq' proposals to the Bush Administration is an example of such skewed thinking, as if one instigating factor for a Sunni Shiite war, dating back to the 7th century, somehow was based on a prophesy extending into the far future circa 1948. Then again perhaps Muslim scientists of the 7th century were privy to time travel, beamed down on the birth of modern Israel circa 1948, got their turbans in such a twist watching all those scurrying Jordanian Arabs their minds became poisoned, lines of succession after their prophet Mohammad bifurcated into opposing viewpoints respectively adopted, hostility broke out between the time travelers who returned to century 7 spreading the infection into Sunni and Shiite strains. That scenario makes about as much sense as today's worldwide 'blame Israel for everything' sentiment, but no one ever said we live in a logical world.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Join the Boycott, December 31, 2006.

A woman passes The Body Shop store at the UBS Center on Liverpool Street in London - photo:JtB

Why shouldn't you shop at the Body Shop?

Because during the Lebanon War the Body Shop founder broadcast that there was "No Justification" for Israel's actions In Lebanon.

The founder of The Body Shop and now a consultant to it, Anita Roddick, signed and promoted a letter of an extremist anti-Israel Coalition that said Israel had "no justification" for its actions in Lebanon and did not even mention Hezbollah. This is what she wrote on her website:

Join me in signing Stop The War Coalition's urgent letter to Tony Blair calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire in Lebanon, to stop Israel's attacks on Lebanon and Gaza and to end Tony Blair's support for Bush's wars.

You can sign the letter online -- on Stop The War Coalition's website, so you don't even have to get out of your chair -- you can be a 'sittist' as I call an activist that gets informed, outraged and active sitting down. This letter will be handed to Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street on Saturday 5th August during Stop The War Coalition's Emergency National Demonstration, which commences at midday at Speakers Corner, Hyde Park, London and will end in Parliament Square with a rally. More details on the demonstration, should you want to take part, can be found on Stop The War Coalition's website.

Do also check out the very moving 6 minutes video 'More Time To Bomb'.

That same Coalition now accuses Israel of "barbarism" in Gaza and ignores PLO rocket attacks on Israeli civilians.

We urge you to shop elsewhere and, if you have not yet done so, please sign The Body Shop Petition by clicking here

Contact Join the Boycott by email at jointheboycott@inbox.com or go to their website:

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 31, 2006.

Joseph Farah is a Christian Arab American of Lebanese origin. He writes about the extreme idiocy of some western journalists who regurgitate whatever anti-Israel line their Arab Moslem Palestinian stringers give them.....uncritically, often enthusiastically. They don't even bother to check the material for the most obvious of errors.

The Jewish Mary, Holy Mary, Mother of God...a "Palestinian refugee"...even as the Muslim Palestinians torch Christian villages, gang-rape Christian women, stone churches and church leaders, and drive Christians from the West Bank with their terrorist threats and intimidation.

Farah says it is "silliness". I call it hate-mongering.

The journalists know that such blatant mendacious manipulation of history for current political propaganda is a sacrelegious bald-faced lie which will stir hate for Israel and Jews.

They present it to their publishers anyway.

The publishers know that such blatant mendacious manipulation of history for current political propaganda is a sacrelegious bald-faced lie which will stir hate for Israel and Jews.

They publish it anyway.

and millions of un-informed read it, believe it, and hate Israel (and in some cases hate Jews too) because of it. That's hate-mongering.

If one would ask the question honestly: what would Mary encounter if she tried to enter Bethlehem today?...the answer would be more akin to:

She would be delayed at a check-point until the IDF could determine that the bulge in her abdomen was indeed her pregnancy, and not explosives or a suicide bomber belt; and then she would get in to Bethlehem where either:

a.) she might get a face-full of acid from the Palestinian (mostly Hamas) modesty police if she was not wearing a veil....or....

b.) if they found out she was a Jew, Palestinian terrorists would kill her, making sure to put half-a-dozen rounds from their kalatchnikof rifles in to her abdomen, to make sure that her unborn was dead.

But such images do not play well with the western media's commitment to support the terrorists in their vilification of Israel. So they publish the anti-Israel black fantasy instead.

This article is called "Mary, 'Palestinian refugee'" and it was written by Joseph Farah, Editor of World Net Daily (WND). It appeared in WND December 30, 2006

When it comes to the politicization of the Christmas story, I thought I had seen it all.

But the London Independent's shameless mischaracterization of Mary, the mother of Jesus, as "a Palestinian refugee" takes the proverbial cake.

The story by Johann Hari published Dec. 23 begins: "In two days, a third of humanity will gather to celebrate the birth pains of a Palestinian refugee in Bethlehem -- but two millennia later, another mother in another glorified stable in this rubble-strewn, locked down town is trying not to howl."

It goes on to describe a 5-year-old tale of an Arab woman who claims she was stopped from entering Israel to deliver her twins and forced to go 20 minutes in another direction to an Arab hospital.

It's amazing. It's bizarre. It's breathtaking at what passes for Western journalism in the Middle East today.

First of all, was Mary "a Palestinian refugee"? No, Mary was a Jew, living in the occupied territory of Israel. She wasn't trying to get to a Roman hospital to have her child. She was traveling with her husband from her home in Nazareth to Bethlehem, where the Roman authorities decreed those from the House of David would pay their taxes.

By the way, neither the area of Bethlehem nor Nazareth had ever been considered Palestine or, more appropriately, Philistia, up through the time of Mary, Joseph and Jesus. In fact, it was not for another 100 years that the Romans would think about renaming Israel as Palestine in an effort to make the world forget about the Jews who had been slaughtered and dispersed.

There no were Philistines or Palestinians around. They hadn't been heard from for over 500 years.

It's beyond silliness.

Who are these anti-Israel activists the Western press dispatches to cover the Middle East? Where do they come from? Where are they trained? Where are they educated? How is it possible that such drivel is actually published?

What is it exactly that the so-called Palestinians want? Do they want their own homeland or not? It seems to me they've got it. But now they want to be able to travel into Israel for medical care? What's wrong with their own hospitals? Why is it that they don't decide to buy more medicine and fewer guns?

Don't get me wrong. I don't blame "the modern-day Mary" in this fable for wanting first-class medical care in Israel. And had Bethlehem remained under Israeli governance, that's exactly what the people of Bethlehem would have received. But the so-called Palestinians demanded their own country. Unfortunately for them, that means Palestinian hospitals, too.

The Palestinian authorities are also demanding that no Jews be permitted to live in their territories. Yet, there is shock that Arab Palestinians should not be able to cross into Israel at all hours of the day and night without facing checkpoints and security.

Is this a tragedy?

Yes, it is. I would much prefer to see these poor Arabs live freely, as they did under Israeli governance. But, for heaven's sake, they rejected that option with extreme violence and terrorism.

Is that context not important for people unfamiliar with the region to understand? Is it not important for reporters covering the region to understand?

Let's call this what it is: Deliberate deception. It is the worst form of propaganda. In another time, we labeled it agit-prop. What is the purpose? Is it to stir up more hate and violence? Is the purpose of such lies to immunize those serving them up from terrorist attacks?

One can only speculate. But one thing is certain: This is not journalism.

On a side note, as one of those Christians referred to in the reporter's lead paragraph, I wasn't aware that one-third of humanity celebrated Mary's birth pains on Christmas. Silly me. I was under the impression we celebrated the birth of the Savior.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, December 31, 2006.

Should auld accomplice be forgot,
And never brought to trial?
Should auld Osloids, friend, be forgot,
In days of auld lang Zion?

For betraying auld lang Zion, my dear,
For debasing auld lang Zion.
Should their accomplice be forgot,
In days of auld lang Zion?

We yids hae run aboot the world,
Under fire the whole time.
We've wandered mony a weary foot,
To reach auld lang Zion.

Save auld land Zion, my dear,
Save auld land Zion,
Indict those Oslo blaggards, dear,
For the sake of auld lang Zion!!!

2. To the Tune of "Cheers to the Bus Driver"

Cheers to the Hangman
The Hangman, the Hangman
Cheers to the Hangman
And many more happy returns! 2."Jimmy Carter's Book: An Israeli View"
by Michael B. Oren
December 26, 2006;

Several prominent scholars have taken issue with Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," cataloguing its historical inaccuracies and lamenting its lack of balance. The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg also critiqued the book's theological purpose, which, he asserted, was to "convince American Evangelicals to reconsider their support for Israel."

Mr. Carter indeed seems to have a religious problem with the Jewish state. His book bewails the fact that Israel is not the reincarnation of ancient Judea but a modern, largely temporal democracy. "I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures," he recalls telling Prime Minister Golda Meir during his first tour through the country. "A common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of the Labor government."

He complains about the fact that the kibbutz synagogue he enters is nearly empty on the sabbath and that the Bibles presented to Israeli soldiers "was one of the few indications of a religious commitment that I observed during our visit." But he also reproves contemporary Israelis for allegedly mistreating the Samaritans -- "the same complaint heard by Jesus almost two thousand years earlier" -- and for pilfering water from the Jordan River, "where ... Jesus had been baptized by John the Baptist."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, December 31, 2006.

This article comes from the CounterTerrorism Blog
(http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterrorism_blog/2005/07/ interview_with_.html). It is an interview with Pierre Rehov, documentary filmmaker, on the psychology behind suicide bombings It was posted by Andrew Cochran.

Counterterrorism's new blogsite is

On July 15, I appeared on MSNBC's "Connected" program to discuss the 7/7 London attacks. One of my fellow guests was Pierre Rehov, a French filmmaker who has filmed six documentaries on the intifada by going undercover in the Palestinian areas. Pierre's upcoming film, "Suicide Killers," is based on interviews that he conducted with the families of suicide bombers and would-be bombers in an attempt to find out why they do it. Pierre agreed to my request for a Q&A interview here about his work on the new film. Many thanks to Dean Draznin and Arlyn Riskind for helping to arrange this special interview.

What inspired you to produce "Suicide Killers," your seventh film?

I started working with victims of suicide attacks to make a film on PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) when I became fascinated with the personalities of those who had committed those crimes, as they were described again and again by their victims. Especially the fact that suicide bombers are all smiling one second before they blow themselves up.

Why is this film especially important?

People don't understand the devastating culture behind this unbelievable phenomenon. My film is not politically correct because it addresses the real problem -- showing the real face of Islam. It points the finger against a culture of hatred in which the uneducated are brainwashed to a level where their only solution in life becomes to kill themselves and kill others in the name of a God whose word, as transmitted by other men, has became their only certitude.

What insights did you gain from making this film? What do you know that other experts do not know?

I came to the conclusion that we are facing a neurosis at the level of an entire civilization. Most neuroses have in common a dramatic event, generally linked to an unacceptable sexual behavior. In this case, we are talking of kids living all their lives in pure frustration, with no opportunity to experience sex, love, tenderness or even understanding from the opposite sex. The separation between men and women in Islam is absolute. So is contempt toward women, who are totally dominated by men. This leads to a situation of pure anxiety, in which normal behavior is not possible. It is no coincidence that suicide killers are mostly young men dominated subconsciously by an overwhelming libido that they not only cannot satisfy but are afraid of, as if it is the work of the devil. Since Islam describes heaven as a place where everything on earth will finally be allowed, and promises 72 virgins to those frustrated kids, killing others and killing themselves to reach this redemption becomes their only solution.

What was it like to interview would-be suicide bombers, their families and survivors of suicide bombings?

It was a fascinating and a terrifying experience. You are dealing with seemingly normal people with very nice manners who have their own logic, which to a certain extent can make sense since they are so convinced that what they say is true. It is like dealing with pure craziness, like interviewing people in an asylum, since what they say, is for them, the absolute truth. I hear a mother saying "Thank God, my son is dead." Her son had became a shaheed, a martyr, which for her was a greater source of pride than if he had became an engineer, a doctor or a winner of the Nobel Prize. This system of values works completely backwards since their interpretation of Islam worships death much more than life. You are facing people whose only dream, only achievement is to fulfill what they believe to be their destiny, namely to be a shaheed or the family of a shaheed. They don't see the innocent being killed, they only see the impure that they have to destroy.

You say suicide bombers experience a moment of absolute power, beyond punishment. Is death the ultimate power?

Not death as an end, but death as a door open to the after life. They are seeking the reward that God has promised them. They work for God, the ultimate authority, above all human laws. They therefore experience this single delusional second of absolute power, where nothing bad can ever happen to them, since they become God's sword.

Is there a suicide bomber personality profile? Describe the psychopathology.

Generally kids between 15 and 25 bearing a lot of complexes, generally inferiority complexes. They must have been fed with religion. They usually have a lack of developed personality. Usually they are impressionable idealists. In the western world they would easily have become drug addicts, but not criminals. Interestingly, they are not criminals since they don't see good and evil the same way that we do. If they had been raised in an Occidental culture, they would have hated violence. But they constantly battle against their own death anxiety. The only solution to this deep-seated pathology is to be willing to die and be rewarded in the after life in Paradise.

Are suicide bombers principally motivated by religious conviction?

Yes, it is their only conviction. They don't act to gain a territory or to find freedom or even dignity. They only follow Allah, the supreme judge, and what He tells them to do.

Do all Muslims interpret jihad and martyrdom in the same way?

All Muslim believers believe that, ultimately, Islam will prevail on earth. They believe this is the only true religion and their is no room, in their mind, for interpretation. The main difference between moderate Muslims and extremists is that moderate Muslims don't think they will see the absolute victory of Islam during their life time, therefore they respect other beliefs. The extremists believe that the fulfillment of the Prophecy of Islam and ruling the entire world as described in the Koran, is for today. Each victory of Bin Laden convinces 20 million moderate Muslims to become extremists.

Describe the culture that manufactures suicide bombers.

Oppression, lack of freedom, brain washing, organized poverty, placing God in charge of daily life, total separation between men and women, forbidding sex, giving women no power whatsoever, and placing men in charge of family honor, which is mainly connected to their women's behavior.

What socio-economic forces support the perpetuation of suicide bombings?

Muslim charity is usually a cover for supporting terrorist organizations. But one has also to look at countries like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran, which are also supporting the same organizations through different networks. The ironic thing in the case of Palestinian suicide bombers is that most of the money comes through financial support from the Occidental world, donated to a culture that utterly hates and rejects the West (mainly symbolized by Israel).

Is there a financial support network for the families of the suicide bombers? If so, who is paying them and how does that affect the decision?

There used to be a financial incentive in the days of Saddam Hussein ($25,000 per family) and Yasser Arafat (smaller amounts), but these days are gone. It is a mistake to believe that these families would sacrifice their children for money. Although, the children themselves who are very attached to their families, might find in this financial support another reason to become suicide bombers. It is like buying a life insurance policy and then committing suicide.

Why are so many suicide bombers young men?

As discussed above, libido is paramount. Also ego, because this is a sure way to become a hero. The shaheeds are the cowboys or the firemen of Islam. Shaheed is a positively reinforced value in this culture. And what kid has never dreamed of becoming a cowboy or a fireman?

What role does the U.N. play in the terrorist equation?

The UN is in the hands of Arab countries and third world or ex-communists countries. Their hands are tied. The UN has condemned Israel more than any other country in the world, including the regime of Castro, Idi Amin or Kaddahfi. By behaving this way, the UN leaves a door open by not openly condemning terrorist organizations. In addition, through UNRWA, the UN is directly tied to terror organizations such as Hamas, representing 65 percent of their apparatus in the so-called Palestinian refugee camps. As a support to Arab countries, the UN has maintained Palestinians in camps with the hope to "return" into Israel for more than 50 years, therefore making it impossible to settle those populations, which still live in deplorable conditions. Four-hundred million dollars are spent every year, mainly financed by U.S. taxes, to support 23,000 employees of UNRWA, many of whom belong to terrorist organizations (see Congressman Eric Cantor on this subject, and in my film "Hostages of Hatred").

You say that a suicide bomber is a 'stupid bomb and a smart bomb' simultaneously. Explain what you mean.

Unlike an electronic device, a suicide killer has until the last second the capacity to change his mind. In reality, he is nothing but a platform representing interests which are not his, but he doesn't know it.

How can we put an end to the madness of suicide bombings and terrorism in general?

Stop being politically correct and stop believe that this culture is a victim of ours. Radical Islamism today is nothing but a new form of Nazism. Nobody was trying to justify or excuse Hitler in the 1930s. We had to defeat him in order to make peace one day with the German people.

Are these men traveling outside their native areas in large numbers? Based on your research, would you predict that we are beginning to see a new wave of suicide bombings outside the Middle East?

Every successful terror attack is considered a victory by the radical Islamists. Everywhere Islam is expands there is regional conflict. Right now, their are thousands of candidates for martyrdom lining up in training camps in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan. Inside Europe, hundreds of illegal mosques are preparing the next step of brain washing to lost young men who cannot find a satisfying identity in the Occidental world. Israel is much more prepared for this than the rest of the world will ever be. Yes, there will be more suicide killings in Europe and the U.S. Sadly, this is only the beginning.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by The Reality Show, December 31, 2006.
How to win the global war

The picture of global terror with Iran as a major player


2006-2007 The major political talk is all about Iraq, on the most brutal violence the world has seen in recent years one group of Muslims inflicts on the other, the major target as civilians, the heinous crimes in which the way these people are killed, the torture squads, the death squads, the mass kidnapping, etc.

It is evidently clear that Iran, the Shiite 'super power' is arming and pushing it's proxy: M. Al-Sadr mehdi army in the major chunk of the bloodshed, the recent arrest of Iranians (December 25, 2006) of Iranians in Iraq is of course nothing but a a tip of the iceberg, US officials say he is the major culprit.

Yes, it is more about Muslim sectarian violence and mutual Arab ethnic cleansing as most describe it but you can't ignore the factor of the moderate government backed by the west battling the radical Islamists, which is exactly why the radical mullahs of Iran keep pushing it even further, aside from their interest in the Shiite vs. Sunni factor.

Last but not least in Iraq, there is little talk about the mass persecution of Iraqi Christians and of mass exodus.


The same militant Iran that uses Huzbullah in its war on Israeli and Lebanese civilians (2006) or together with Syria, assassinating top Lebanese officials that seem to be anti-Syrian, or rather anti-Syrian-dictatorship, spelled: pro west. I doubt that many were surprised at the documents showing Hezbullah's pledge for mullahs in Iran to establish an all Islamic Lebanon.

The horn of Africa

The same Iran with its mighty long arm, that uses Hezbullah extremists to arm and help Islamists in places far way as Somalia, shedding the blood of so many over there too, in the name of Islam.

"We might have another Taliban situation in Somalia", Vincent Mugabi on BBC (December 25, 2006).

When you see worrying non-Muslim Ethiopia attacking Islamists (December 25, 2006), As Islamists in Somalia call for all Muslims to help them in a "holy war" (Jihad) against Ethiopia, as well as their declaration of a 'greater Islamic Somalia' galvanizing Somalis in Eastern Ethiopia, Djibuti & in parts of Kenya, in other words more Islamization in Africa, you see the globalism of it all, reaffirmed again in basically every corner of this planet.

'Palestinians' vs 'Palestinians'

Though the core "Palestinian" violence on their own is their old tradition, however, when you see lately (December 2006) more and more 'Palestinians' fighting 'Palestinians', or civil war, what do you see?

Whether you were for or against the idea of Sharon's agreeing to a 'disengagement plan' (2005), even though it involved rewarding 'Palestinian' terrorists, you have to content that it has some logic in the 'war on terror' as well.

The logic of taking it from purely western hands to them, of transferring the battlefield to its natural/original place if you will, as in the (Egyptian) 'Muslim brotherhood' the almost direct father of today's modern Islamic sword, or militant Islam, which is Muslim fighting Muslim extremist. Guess who is helping the 'Palestinian' Islamo-facsist Hamas and its call for genocide? Iran, again, and again.

The war on the 'evil ideology'

Of course Sunni Al Qaeda is no better than Shiite Iran, which is why radical Islam is the issue. Congratulate those that keep reminding us that the 'war on terror' is mistakenly spelled, terror is only ONE tool Islamists use in their war on the world, think of more methods by them like: rape used by Arab Muslim racist militias on Sudanese that practice a different branch of Islam (asides from the Arabization - Arab racism motive there), if nukes in the hands of mullahs are the most horrific nightmare of humankind, the power of oil for example is used by Iran already.

Some Muslim leaders get offended at 'spelling it out', 1) Too bad, and mainstream Islam does have a part in it, especially in providing excuses (directly or indirectly) for terrorists as 'legitimate issues against the west'. 2) Spelling it out is so important, identifying the enemy is the first important thing in fighting it.

Islamofascism means, the violent intolerance on all that is not Muslim or not AS Muslim enough or 'not my kind of Muslim' (Shiite VS Sunni), no one can argue against this global (blown in their face) factor.

In this harsh factor, it matters little if you are Shiite Iran that wants to wipe off non Muslim nations, Huzbullah's Nassrallah or 'Palestinian' Hamas' admission on 'war on all Jews', or as Hamas put it "we are a nation that drinks blood, and we know there's no better blood than the blood of the Jews", Sunni Al Qaeda's Bin Laden on the "crusaders" (i.e. Christians), Islamic protesting to honor Muhammad's name (cartoons, 2005) threatening with a 911 attack on Europe & praising Hitler, Muslims' attacking innocent Jews in Paris, Jemma Islamiya's war on Australian youth in Bali (2002), militant Islamists massacring in Madrid, in Jerusalem, in Bombay, or in London, Arab Muslim gang raping Christian Australians & shouting Allah Akbar, beheading Christians in Indonesia, offended 'Palestinians' at pope's branding Islam as violence - killing Christians, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Abu Hamza types that teach that all non-Muslims are cows, Bakri's permission to slaughter non Muslim civilians, Saudi Arabian teaching that Christians are pigs and Jews are apes, that it's OK to rape women or 'unveiled meat', that it's OK to enslave still today in age (Sudan, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, etc.)

And just who can ignore their ambition and plan for global Islamization, for world domination, the Caliphate? One might want to take more notice when they tell you 'Islam will dominate the world'.

This entire global war is exclusively in the name of Islam, whether moderate Muslims (fortunately) disagree with their interpretation is irrelevant. Moderate Muslims should worry less about being "offended" -- that actually interferes with success that's in everybody's interest in the 'war on terror' -- and more about cleaning it out.

Wider moderate Muslims vs radical 'brothers'

So is the Pakistani war on terror, the Afghani, the Saudi, the Yemenite, the Jordanian, the Egyptian, and even Iranian internal political fight, etc. You can not disconnect the phenomenon of the Algerian war that claimed more than 100,000 dead.

Clean up YOUR act!

The west shouldn't do it alone, it can back up moderates but: The message is clear: Clean up your own act!

After all, radical Islam is a 'Muslim' thing, by Muslim in the name of Islam and in many cases backed by so many Muslims, yet it is only natural that it will involve Muslim vs Muslim atrocities, too bad that the extreme case of it, is what it takes to wake up the mainstream Muslim governments.

Islamists come home to roost

Actually, Islamic terrorism was nourished by "moderate" Islamic governments like Saudi Arabia themselves, now they 'come back home to roost', Just what did these Wahabbists think? or What did the Jordanians - that have been rationalizing for too long the crimes of Palestinian butchers - expect, when Zarqawi turned on his fellow Jordanian Muslims in bombing Amman?

And if you ever thought that these leaders learned the lesson, think again, Saudi support for Sunni killers inside Iraq is still going on to this day.

Still shooting themselves in the foot

It's not bad to see moderate Muslim countries fighting terrorists, as well as Saudi Arabia standing up against Iran, although in a cowardice way so far.

The bigger problem is of course Muslim mainstream, official and government run media that still demonizes the west, especially the Zionists, Will these tyrants in the Islamic world ever see the danger this campaign possesses to their own security, or they'll just continue to lose any logic and even basic sense of survival when it comes to their cult of hate?

Locating/spotting (taking on) the enemy - victory

Don't forget that the war is on its venemous ideology. Start with 'what they teach in their madrasas' what they show on TV, That's where the seeds of evil are planted.

When the day will come and you will see a significant overhaul change in the textbooks and TV programs that an average Muslim child is exposed to, a significant reduction in the hate & rationalization of violence on non-Muslims in the sermons of the Mullahs/Imams, you will know that the battle is where is it should be thus bringing with it the tangible hopes for victory.

Contact The Reality Show at therealityshow@mail.com. Or visit his website: http://lightonthings.blogspot.com

To Go To Top

Posted by The Reality Show, December 31, 2006.

Facts & Causes

The obvious, or the 'should be obvious'

This is not really all about the Arab Muslim world, who's anti Israel feeling and action is motivated (not by any feeling to help fellow Arab Muslims, fact is, the Arab "Palestinians" are persecuted all throughout the Arab world) by Arab racism (just as the Kurds, Maronites, Sudanese and other non Arabs suffer from the global Arabization) & Islamofascism or Islamic-Fascism, the evil ideology as Tony Blair calls it (just as non Muslims in general, dhimmi or kuffars, non-believers suffer, global wide, take it straight from the horse's mouth, the Iranian fanatical Islamic leader Ahmadinejad's call for genocide & ethnic cleansing on Israel that though has no regional or territorial disputes with Iran of course, "doesn't belong on 'Muslim land', in the all Muslim middle east", this anti-Israel facsism still infects most moderate Muslim countries that blindly refuse entry to anyone with an Israeli passport).

Nor is it about the few neo/old Nazis that hate all Jews (even those that tell you they hate "only Zionists"). But this is about the bigotry of anti-Israel infected in the mainstream.

Jumping to conclusion before knowing the facts

This happens on a regular basis, but a few examples might serve as highlights if you wish:

The rush into harsh words by UN's Secretary general Kofi Annan (before he semi-apologized for it) when some UN officials got hurt in the cross fire between Huzbullah terrorists and Israeli defense forces (Hezbullah initiated war and invasion 2006), even after realizing that the UN post was used by the Huzbullah as a tool.

The overwhelming bashing Israel in Arabs' deaths, like the very icon the "Palestinian" propaganda machine used, as in the Arab kid Muhammad al-Dura (2002), which we all know by now, was nothing more than staged by Arabs themselves, and it was Arab shooters that killed that boy.

The rushing media in "blaming Israel" for the death of an Arab family on Gaza beach (2006), again Israel promised/asked to wait until a full investigation is complete, that concluded it was the "Palestinian" Hamas' led mines that brought about that incident.

No matter how many times the media sees the transparency in the fake images produced and invented by the 'Palestinians', "PALLYWOOD" (http://seconddraft.org), it seems to "forget", each time a new case appears.

Demanding from Israel the victim of terror more than from the perpetrator

The words an anti-Israel 'activist' told me, resonates throughout this conflict: "I can't expect from the Arabs any better, but Israel/ should know better!".

In other words, it is part of demanding from the west ever more then from the Islamic world, when it comes to morality.

The only problem is that it is not presented in this open way, it is presented as Israel is the "bad" guy, period.

As opposed to endless condemnations by the UN on Israel's self defense, When was the last time the UN has condemned the very Arab "Palestinian" crimes on their own people that they try to pin on Israel, like:

Using its kids as human shields (which Huzbullah, in 2006, picked up very quickly, copied them in their war on Israeli civilians, using Arab civilians) and as human bombs?

Legitimizing and even glorifying mass murder and genocide as a 'good holy act' in their mainstream and official media?

The Lie of "natives" is bought

How many have fallen prey to the powerful sell of "indigenous" Arabs in the land of the Judea?

The picture of an all out 'Arabs in the middle east', is one of the misconception misleading clarity of history, never forget that most today's 'Palestinians' have no more than 3 generations "history" in this ancient land of the Jews.

Absolutely no one has disputed the fact of Arab immigration that saw an upsurge with Zionists' immigration (the latter only, limited by the British) in the late 1800.

The fact that the most "Palestinian" - icon of all time: Yasser Arafat was an Egyptian born fighting for "his homeland" in Israel... is so classical. By the same token, it is not well known the fact that over 50% Israeli Jews are of children of indigenous Jews in the middle east (http://jimena.org).

The Global Goliath Islamo Arab power

The very fact that there was so much talk and selecting/picking on one lobby out of so many different types and different interests - lobbies that operate in Washington but the utter silence on the enormous Islamo Arab lobby that basically occupies, threatens, incorporating so many in their anti-Israel racist boycott, uses oil as a weapon and dictates the international arena, including the UN, shows you just how great of bully they are. So is the fear of European nations for unrest by the Arab Muslim (immigrant) population, (terrorism works!) that effects or rather impairs their stand on the middle east conflict.

The wrong picture of seeing Israel as the "aggressor" and the 'Palestinian Arabs' as the "underdog"

Question #1

Who has more power, the cynical Arab adult shooting behind a kid's back, behind a woman's squirt, or the Israeli humane soldier facing a terrible dilemma?

Question #2

When you see the biased media showing a tank vs. kid, A) do you ever stop and think what the message is behind it? B) Does this suggest that the Israeli soldier is really after an unarmed person? C) Did you ever stop to think that the very fact that you can see the Israeli soldier but you can NOT see the Arab terrorist makes the invisible much more of a menace?

Nothing more like the situation in Iraq (2003-2007) demonstrates that you might have the most powerful army in the world, you are weaker (in many ways) than the invisible coward terrorists hiding among civilians that has no rules of basic regards for ANY human lives.

Outrageous use of baseless drama language and hollow bombastic terms on Israel's multi-racial beautiful democracy

Take for example the admission of anti Israel Arabist: Jimmy Carter that (on December, 2006 - CNN) has admitted that Israel is a great democracy with freedom and equal rights for all, and that (in an interview to Larry King he said that) he used provocative words like "apartheid" (only) in order to provoke discussion.

All those bombastic empty words like "racism' or "apartheid" the anti-Israel Arab racist propaganda machine is selling, has of course no support in facts on the ground, there is nothing "racist" about fighting terrorists for being terrorists, there is nothing "apartheid", especially that they are the same Arab race and group, Israeli Arabs and "Palestinian" Arabs, with different identification cards that has nothing but security implications. Since when is concern for security considered "racism"?

The same "Judenrein - Palestine" that is trying to ethnic cleanse all Jews, that does not even permit any Jew to live in their 'territories', is lecturing multi-racial, multi-religion, multi-color Israel, that has all colors and races from the darkest black to the whitest blond, that has a whopping 20-25% Arabs in its population, with equal rights and representations in high offices (and even more rights than Jews, giving the fact that Israeli Jews are obligated to serve in the army whereas Israeli Arabs are not).

The racism behind "questioning" Israel's right to exist

Can you name one other country that is subject to even a question of being 'recognized'?

Why do you think it is?

If you want to talk about history as a supposed reason, 1) Even if you are a naiive student of 'Palestinian' propaganda in revising history, You don't see anyone denying the unmistakenly settlers like most European, or American or Australians right to exist. 2) speaking even about history, for the record: No matter on which political side you are on, you have no right to deny rights of a nation to exist, no one can ever erase Jews' history to the land of Israel, at the same breath no one can claim that there was ever a sovereign Arab-Muslim "Palestine", in fact, the same nazis or Jew-haters that used to tell the Jews in Europe: 'Go back where you came from, go to Israel-Palestine', the ones continue the evil torch of Nazism today ironically deny the Jews coming back to their original roots-origin.

The dehumanization of Israeli victims

Seeing Israel as nothing but a "tank", is another racist element coming through, in brushing off Israeli victims as a "side details" at best.

When was the last time the BBC (for example) has shown any drama pictures of injured Israeli kids at a fraction of the time, passion dedicated to any Arab kid that was killed (usually) because of an Arab adult's fault?

Can you remember reporters of the mainstream media visiting Israeli hospitals as much as you can remember them strolling down Arab ones? And Why not? Numbers are not the reason, percentage wise you will see time and time again, Israel loses by far in media's favoritism. --

Contact The Reality Show at therealityshow@mail.com. Or visit his website: http://lightonthings.blogspot.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bernice Lipkin, December 31, 2006.

These are new blogsites that are definitely worthwhile:

1. OUT OF THE BOX THINKER -- http://www.NGThinker.typepad.com

A new website by Nurit Greenger

She writes:

Dear Friends:

After much encouragement from many of my friends and colleagues, I am pleased to announce my new blog http://ngthinker.typepad.com

You are cordially invited to view my comments and writings all in one place. I invite you to make your comments and to send me any material that you would like me to consider for posting.

As you all know me and are well aware, my overwhelming (sometimes very overwhelming) passion, not in any particular order, is Israel, the Jewish people and the free world. My voice will never be silenced on these issues. Steve Emerson, The Investigative Project, has referred to me as "a one woman Hasbarah army."

The blogosphere is the place to make our voices heard around the world - by our friends and by our enemies.

Please join me at http://ngthinker.typepad.com

Best regards,
Happy New Year
Nurit Greenger

2. GOOD NEWS FROM ISRAEL -- http://jrichman.blogspot.com/

A new blog from Jacob Richman. He also has a blog with photos of some major events in Israel.

He writes:

As the name implies, I hope to post 1-3 messages a week about good things happening in Israel.

Please visit the site and pass this message to relatives and friends who may be interested. Thanks!

Shavua Tov,


This is run by Soccer Dad. It's not a new website but it is always different. Ya'aqov Ben Yehudah will host it in a week or so.

Ya'aqov writes:

To check out what's going on in the Jewish Blogsphere, check out this week's edition of the "Haveil Havalim" Blog Carnival. Currently, it's:

Hosting changes hands weekly.

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 30, 2006.

I had a conversation recently with an intelligent, concerned, well-educated non-Moslem person about Islamofascist intollerance.

She could not understand how it is that so many leaders in the Moslem world will make Islam look ridiculous (her word, not mine) by behaving so immaturely (her word, not mine).

After all, don't they (the Muslim leaders) see that when they tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and then threaten to genocide Denmark because of some cartoons, they are making Islam look like a religion of violence and hatred and intollerance and genocide (her words, not mine)?

After all, don't they (the Muslim leaders) see that when they issue death warrants against writers and TV producers and political leaders because they (the Muslim leaders) don't like the message that these people are giving about Islam, they are making Islam look like a religion that fosters intollerance and hatred, and making Muslims look like a people who are so weak in their faith and so lacking confidence about their religion and their culture that they cannot tolerate any, even the mildest and most well-intended, criticism (her words, not mine)?

After all, don't they realize that when they riot and run amok on college campuses, intimidating facutly and students and governance, in order to prevent free speech and free inquiry, even as they demand the right not only of free speech but also of hate speech for themselves, they make themselves and their religion look not just foolish and hypocritical, but downright paranoid (her words, not mine)?

So....why do they do all that?

my answer to what I think are some pretty intelligent and insightful questions:



they (the Muslim leaders) don't care what we think of them (them = the Muslim leaders and the rank-and-file who do the aforementioned stuff). We are infidels, we are either current or future dhimmi. Either way we are inferior. According to them (I'm paraphrazing here from a speech by Ayman ez-Zawahiri on el-Jezeera) we are "harbi" (residents of dar-el-harb, the realm of war where Islam is not paramount; and the Muslims living in the dar-el-Islam, realm of Islam where Islam is paramount, must make war agiant dar-el-harb until Islam is paramount). The lives of "harbi" are forfeit. Harbi have no rights, not even the right to life.....unless they convert to Islam.


their purpose in doing all that stuff is not to curry favor with us or to educate us so that we better appreciate the sanctity of the Qur'an and their delicate sensibilities regarding Islam....no more than the Duke seeks to curry favor with his butler. Their purpose is to teach us, the non-Muslim world, and various parts of the not-Muslim-enough Muslim world, a very important lesson: the dhimmi does not criticize Islam, the dhimmi does not disrespect the Qur'an, the dhimmi does not insult Mohammed (ABUH), the dhimmi does not demean the Holy Shari'a, the dhimmi does not criticize Muslims (even terrorist child-murderer mass-murderer Muslims), the dhimmi does not offend Allah (a tough job since by virtue of his being dhimmi his very existence is an offense to Allah)...........the dhimmi does not criticize -- period!


So if/when the dhimmi (or soon to be dhimmi, i.e., you and me and the rest of the non-Muslim world) dares to criticize, there is hell to pay with Muslim wrath, wrath which puts the dhimmi in his place, and puts the future dhimmi on notice about how a good dhimmi behaves. This wrath drives home the point of our own inferiority as dhimmi by means of violence and threats of violence -- hence violent steet riots, churches burned in Iraq and West Bank, nuns and priests murdered, embassy buildings burned throughout the Muslim world, and murders of those offenders who can be reached by the long arm of Saracen wrath.


There are, of course, many fine, honest, up-standing, ethical, nice, peaceful, equinimious, egalitarian Muslims world-wide who condone nothing of the above and want nothing more than to live a normal life, raise crops and a family, give their kids as good a start as possible in life, and leave the world a bit better off than they found it -- same as most of us. But they are not running things in the Muslim world. And they seem to lack either the power or the will, or both, to challenge the Muslims who are running things [did anyone ever see a Muslim street demonstration against bin-Laden, or Muslim women in green demanding an end to suicide bombers, or a petition demanding an end to the funding of terrorists (with thousands of signatures) nailed to the door of the Saudi Embassy in Washington?]. We are NOT talking about those Muslims.


We are talking here ONLY about the Muslim leaders who are NOT fine, honest, equinimious people.


And, last but by no means least, THEY DO IT BECAUSE IT WORKS!!. Now newspapers and publishing houses and TV producers and authors and journalists and teachers and university faculty and political spokespersons all over the Western world (no need to worry about Muslim Asia and Africa, they were dhimmified centuries ago) are so frightened of any adverse Muslim reaction to anything (drama, opera, movie, book, speech in parliament, etc.) that they rewrite movie scripts, refuse to publish 'controversial' books, distance themselves from offensive writers or teachers or politicians.....in short: WE ARE LEARNING TO BEHAVE LIKE GOOD DHIMMI.


and, the purpose of making the lessons in dhimmitude work, be effective, achieve the desired result of our submittion, or as important or moreso, the submissioin of our intellectual and political and religious leadership, is to make sure that there is a broad and heavy mantle of silence on the truth about Islam and the truth about its Islamofascist leaders. With no one to raise a voice of protest, the Islamofascists and their apologists can inculcate us, our leaders, our children, with the lie that Islam is a religion of peace, and a religion that respects other religions. then, with at least a critical number of our leaders silenced and most of us lulled in to the complacent mind-set that really we don't need to worry about Islam, the Islamofascists can more easily advance their agenda of "Islam uber Alles" -- just as Hassan el-Banna and Sayed Qtub and the Ayatolla Ruhola Khoumeini and Ali Akhbar Rafsanjani and Osama bin-Laden and Ayman az-Zawahiri and Abu-Yusuf el-Qaradhawi and Sheikh Akhmed Yassin and Abdul Aziz Rantizi and Yassir Arafat and Isma'il Haniyeh and Khaled Masha'al and a host of other Islamofascist terrorist leaders have told us in words and deeds for the past 75 years.

Bottom Line:

As more and more of our leaders and those who are influenced by them learn that they must behave like good dhimmi, or else, our society will be, step by step, deprived of the freedoms and benefits and advances in social justice that we have worked toward for almost 1000 years; that we have fought for on battlefields and in street demonstrations and in courts of law to canonize in to our laws and constitutions. From the Magna Carta to the US Constitution's 22nd amendment, our society in the west has, through evolution and revolution and education and legislation, created the rubric (we are not there yet, but we are going in the right direction, following the right instructions) for a truly egalitarian society in which all of its members have equal opportunity of access to its resources and positions of power and leadership.

And how do we know that we have done such a good job (despite the fact that we are far from where we want to be)?.....because some ten million people every year swarm to our gates and clamour to get in, so that they too can benefit from our society's advances and equal opportunity of access. And many of these millions are from the countries were Shari'a is the law and Jihad is the priority.

We lose a bit of what we have worked so hard and so long to gain, we are pushed a step back, driven in the opposite direction, every time a cartoonist must now think twice or thrice before composing a lampoon on some aspect or another of Muslim hypocricy.

They do it because it works. And if it works, they will win.

David ML

From: "Campus Watch" Reply-To: "Campus Watch" To: david_meirlevi@hotmail.com

"Is a Professor's Job to Teach or Obstruct? [on Kathryn Babayan]"
by Winfield Myers, Director of Campus Watch
The Washington Examiner
December 7, 2006

For the University of Michigan community, it must come as some relief that the three people arrested by campus police for repeatedly disrupting a lecture on Iran last Thursday by Michigan professor of politics emeritus Raymond Tanter have no connection to the university.

But the role played by another Michigan professor leaves little room for celebration: Kathryn Babayan, an associate professor of Near Eastern studies, sat with the demonstrators as a sign of solidarity and insulted Tanter personally from the floor.

Speaking by telephone from his home in Washington, where he now teaches at Georgetown University and oversees the Iran Policy Committee, which he founded, Tanter stressed that Babayan didn't disrupt his talk: "She didn't prevent me from speaking," he said.

But he found her actions "particularly disturbing," because, "she aided and abetted a group that prevented the scholarly transmission of knowledge."

"The paradox is that a scholar from Princeton [where Babayan earned her Ph.D.] would be part of a group that denies free speech on a university campus," Tanter said, adding that, "students have rights, and faculty have an obligation to teach, not to obstruct the teaching of others."

"The issue," insisted Tanter, "is freedom of speech for students."

Tanter's topic was "Stalled International Diplomacy and Problematic Military Options for Iran," but hecklers prevented him for delivering his talk as he had planned. A Power Point slide show was rendered useless by constant interruptions and shouts, which included "Tanter is a pig."

Students in attendance were disappointed that Tanter was unable to speak, and that a Michigan professor would ally herself with protesters whose goal was to shout down a lecturer.

Tamara Livshiz, a sophomore majoring in history and anthropology-zoology who attended the lecture, said in a telephone interview that Babayan held a poster protesting Tanter's appearance. Later, as Tanter attempted in vain to accommodate the hecklers by answering their questions, Babayan stood up, raised her hand, and gave a "long narrative" before asking an insulting rhetorical question.

Livshiz said that "a speaker should inform, but the protesters charged him with trying to enforce his views on everyone else."

According to Tanter, Babayan accused him of knowing nothing about the Shia in Iran and of being condescending, and claimed that she had "too many young students" at the lecture who she feared, "could be misled" by his views.

Josh Berman, who graduates next week with degrees in psychology and political science, is chairman of American Movement for Israel, a student group that sponsored the talk. Speaking by phone, Berman said that Michigan students who are harsh critics of Israel "tend to be more respectful" of speakers with whom they disagree than were the off-campus hecklers. Yet he was more disappointed in Babayan than in the protesters, whom he says numbered around seven.

"Faculty have an obligation to be respectful toward their colleagues," said Berman. "You might not agree with a speaker, but students have a right to hear a lecture by an invited guest, who ought to be given the opportunity to speak without being interrupted."

Tanter seems an unlikely target for such protest. He speaks twice weekly with the Arabic language branch of Al-Jazeera and appears often on the Lebanese Broadcasting Corp. and Al Arabiya, a Saudi-controlled news station based in Dubai. He says he's on good terms with many scholars with whom he disagrees, including controversial Michigan historian Juan Cole and former Carter administration official Gary Sick.

But his sponsorship by Jewish students was sufficient to send self-professed "anti-Zionist" agitators into action. Livshiz, the sophomore who attended the lecture, said that one protester held aloft a poster that read "No More Wars for Israel," with the "s" in the word Israel written as a swastika.

Tanter mentioned Israel only tangentially by noting that it may preempt American policy by striking Iranian nuclear facilities on its own.

Tanter's efforts to be polite in the face of unprovoked rage were noted by an Ann Arbor police officer in attendance who told him: "I found your lecture interesting and informative. It is unfortunate that we had to take action relative to the disruptive individuals at the event. ... I felt you addressed the concerns and questions in a respectful manner, despite the harshness and negativity expressed by some of those in attendance."

But neither Tanter's irenic nature nor his decades spent in university life, matter to hecklers bent on denying students their right to hear scholarly lectures on university property, nor to professors like Kathryn Babayan, whose behavior so violated the obligations of her vocation.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Evelyn Hayes, December 30, 2006.

Imagine all the world as Gush Katif,
Gan Eden everywhere.
No golus around us,
Miracles surround us.
Imagine all the people
living as the sages did.

Imagine the Jewish nation
Unified once more.
No more pogroms; no jihad.
Just Hashem, One Lrd.
Imagine all the peoples,
in perfect harmony.

Imagine! Gush Katif redeemed,
Gush Katif redeemed,
Jews back from Egypt and Yemen,
Iraq,Iran, Syria, Lebanon,
to the kingdom that was Solomon's.
Barren land fertile once more,
by the Jews restored.

Imagine no imperialists,
Imagine no politics.
No more easements, no more appeasements.
The way it was willed to be:
Imagine Jewish people
at peace in their homeland...

Imagine all the world like Gush Katif,
such a light for all nations,
No more rockets. No more grenades...
truth not lies, love not hate, plowshares not war!
Plowshares not war!
Imagine all the world as Gush Katif, (not divested of Gush Katif.)

You may say this is a dream,
Bounty in a desert? Jews where Jews were rid?
But Gush Katif is a reality.
Hope some day there'll be
Hope some day there'll be
Such a place for every race
and peace and justice for all mankind.

Evelyn Hayes is author of The Plague Series: "The Eleventh Plague, TWINS, because their hearts are softened to accept the unacceptable" The Twelfth Plague, GENERATIONS, because the lion wears stripes." and "Thirteen, REDEMPTION, if" Contact her

This was written May 29, 2005. Lyrics written by Evelyn Hayes, Music and Vocal by Riva Schertzman, winner of RCRF Music Writing Contest for Gush Katif.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 30, 2006.
In all likelihood, our snooty elites do not to have the slightest clue how devastating it will be for ALL OF US to come under Islam customer and rules that will destroy our Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization. It is increasingly clear that the snooty elites don't know the difference between an Islamic order and Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization -- or even that there is a difference! We must make sure they know there is a difference and, in any way possible, teach them the difference. Placating Muslims' anger at the West and or those who are criticizing Islam with West silence is DANGEROUS for the West! Meaning, the Muslim continues uproar has ONE goal: to prohibit Christians and others criticism of Islam, thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should WE, the Westerners, accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. US retaining free speech about Islam represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order or becoming a Dhimmi of Islam! The thought itself is sickening to me! Islamic immigration brings Islamic law! To preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America, we need to immediately adopt strict immigration policies that will greatly restrict Muslims immigrating to the USA. The gross intolerance of the Islamic tradition and their callous tactics, designed to shut up free speech, brings us to ONLY ONE conclusion: when is comes to Islam, the word tolerance does not exist! In the year 2007, our motto should be,"Enough is enough! We are fighting 'Islam Order' and we will WIN!?

This article is called "A question for 2007" and was written by Diana West. It appeared December 29, 2006 in the Washington Times

Happy New Year

Taking a whack at prognostication at the end of 2005, it wasn't hard to imagine, as I did, that 2006 would be a rotten year for freedom of speech. Both inside the Islamic world and, more alarmingly, outside the Islamic world, Shariah laws prohibiting criticism of Islam were already working smoothly. When in 2005 we watched the death -- penalty-seeking prosecution of editor Ali Mohaqeq Nasab for "blasphemy" in U.S. -- liberated Afghanistan, we could see we were dealing with a Shariah state. When in 2005 we watched the early stages of what later became known as "Cartoon Rage" in Denmark, we could see we were dealing with a Shariah state of mind. It wasn't exactly going out on a limb to predict things would only get worse.

And, of course, in 2006, they did. Just ask Abdul Rahman if you can find him. The "apostate" fled Afghanistan for his life last spring. Or Robert Redeker, if you can find him. The teacher who published a critique of Islam in September still lives in hiding in France. Or maybe Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. The Bangladeshi journalist faces the death penalty when he goes on trial in January for "blasphemy" and treason for writing favorably about Israel and unfavorably about Islamic terrorism. Of course, such censorship is "Over There" and beyond, not in the United States of America, right? And it can't, as they say, happen here. Right? Please, right?

I called 2006 "The Year of Speaking Dangerously," and that was before anyone likely imagined seeing "Behead Those Who Insult Islam" placards on jihadist display outside the Danish Embassy in London. What kind of year will 2007 be? What I fear most is that it will turn out to be "The Year of Shutting Up." As in: Why speak dangerously when you can simply not speak at all?

In fact, the Year of Shutting Up probably began back in September when Pope Benedict famously argued that the practice of forced conversion -- key to Islamic expansion over the centuries -- is inimical to both faith and reason. The eruption of anger among Muslims at such criticism was instantaneous and severe. Just shut up, the umma exclaimed. Basically, the Pope did exactly that.

At the time, Daniel Pipes explained why placating such anger with silence was dangerous for the West: "The Muslim uproar has a goal -- to prohibit criticism of Islam by Christians and thereby impose Shariah norms in the West. Should Westerners accept this central tenet of Islamic law, others will surely follow. Retaining free speech about Islam, therefore, represents a critical defense against the imposition of an Islamic order."

Mr. Pipes' language -- "shariah norms in the West," "the imposition of an Islamic order" -- evokes a potential transformation of our culture that is nothing short of revolutionary. Our elites seem not to have the slightest clue how devastating such a change, which comes under the rubric of Islamization, would be to our Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization. Indeed, it is increasingly clear that they don't know the difference between "an Islamic order" and Judeo-Christian-rooted civilization -- or even that there is a difference.

There are exceptions. In November, there was Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Republican, who stood up for constituents' free speech under CAIR pressure. Now Rep. Virgil Goode, Virginia Republican, has become both the lone standard-bearer of free speech about Islam and the favorite whipping boy of the PC elites. In a letter to constituents about the decision of Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, Minnesota Democrat, to use a Koran at his swearing-in ceremony, Mr. Goode expressed what I take to be his recognition that the laws of Islam -- which prohibit religious freedom, freedom of speech and conscience, equality before the law and women's rights -- do not augment but rather contravene the founding principles of the United States.

He also wrote: "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America." It's difficult to argue with Mr. Goode's logic. Indeed, the test case of the age -- Europe -- demonstrates that Islamic immigration brings Islamic law, which is demonstrably at odds with American values and beliefs. Forgoing debate, however, Mr. Goode's critics have resorted to name-calling and platitudes about "tolerance," failing utterly to notice the gross intolerance of the Islamic tradition. Worst of all, their tactics seem designed to shut up Mr. Goode, and anyone else who might follow his bold example. Will they?

It's the question of 2007.

To Go To Top

Posted by Joseph Puder, December 29, 2006.

While the current hot topic in Israel is whether or not to respond to the alleged "peace overtures" from Bashar Assad - the Syrian dictator, a serious existential threat to Israel is being ignored. Egypt's strategy of weakening Israel has been systematically overlooked by Israel's political elites, not however by Likud Knesset Member Dr. Yuval Steinitz.

Steinitz, former chairman of the Security and Foreign Affairs Committee of the Knesset, has been a consistent critic of Egypt's military build up against Israel. This week, Steinitz riled against Egypt's attempts to question Israel's sovereignty in Eilat and the Southern Negev region. Steinitz has demanded that the Israeli government decline to meet with Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit in Jerusalem until he is ready to declare Egypt's recognition of Israel's sovereignty over Eilat-Israel's southernmost city.

Recent reports of a special discussion in the Egyptian Parliament concerning Eilat and, Foreign Minister Gheit's subsequent declaration that "Eilat is Palestinian territory," is a direct attempt to undermine Israel's sovereignty, according to Steinitz. He added, "Israel cannot be silent in the face of a Foreign Minister that cannot recognize Israeli sovereignty over Eilat - it is the same as not recognizing Israel sovereignty over Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Beersheba. It is unbelievable that after 25 years of peace, an Egyptian Foreign Minister would question Eilat's status. If he had questioned our sovereignty over Nablus, it would have been one thing, but Eilat?"

Egypt's strategy of eroding Israel's sovereignty goes back to 1995 when Egypt's President Mubarak secretly assembled experts to build a case for Egypt's right to the Southern Negev. These subservient "experts" provided Mubarak with "proof " that Egypt could demand large portions of Israel's Negev. The Israeli Foreign and Security ministries knew about it and kept it to themselves, fearing a storm in Israel. Ultimately, President Clinton pressed Mubarak to drop the whole idea, and the matter received no publicity.

Steinitz is concerned that this attempt by Egypt to build territorial claims on the Southern Negev will serve as a pretext for an Egyptian military attack on Israel. He therefore insisted that Israel demand Gheit set the record straight regarding Eilat.

During Gheit's visit to Israel this past Wednesday he praised Israel's restraint in the face of continued Kassam rockets raining on Israel. He excused the transfers of money from Egypt to Gaza by Hamas operatives. The ever-pliant Israeli politicians including Prime Minister Olmert, Foreign Minister Livni and Defense Minister Peretz, failed to raise the Eilat issue, or Egypt's military build up and the Egyptian aid to Hamas in their meetings with Gheit. Prime Minister Olmert has eagerly accepted President Mubarak invitation to meet him next week in Cairo in spite of the fact that Mubarak has never accepted an invitation to visit Israel.

Steinitz has been vocal about Cairo's aid to Hamas, and regards Egypt as Hamas' most reliable long-term supporter. "They do it cleverly, while covertly supporting Hamas they appear openly as supporting the moderate Palestinians." He accused Egypt of looking the other way and allowing 20,000 automatic rifles to be smuggled into Gaza, enough he said to arm four to five divisions every year. Egypt provides 99% of the weapons that reach Gaza. Steinitz further noted that, "While Jordan has the longest border with Israel, there has been no weapon smuggling from Jordan. Egypt on the other hand, is intent on arming the Palestinians to fight against Israel."

In various international forums, and especially at the U.N., Egypt, more than Iran or Syria is the lead attacker of Israel. Egypt's educational programming is replete with anti-Semitism, which is being reinforced by television productions that screen variations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a Tsarist forgery more than 100 years old. School children in Egypt are taught that the Jews are the source of all the evil in the world. Egyptian school maps substitute Palestine for Israel and little is taught about the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace or Camp David Peace Accords.

Secular-leftist Israeli politicians are more interested in maintaining the façade of peace than recognize the facts on the ground. The Israeli architects of the Oslo Accords protected their "peace" in spite of obvious breaches of the accord by Arafat's incitement of the Palestinian masses to murder Israelis. The Palestinian schools taught and continue to teach hatred towards the Jewish State and its people, and still the Israeli leftists persisted in claiming that peace must be given a chance. Western Europeans found out after two bloody world wars, that teaching tolerance and outlawing hate propaganda are prerequisites for a real peace.

Egypt's constant hate propaganda against Israel does not promote true reconciliation much less a permanent peace. American administrations are not blameless either. America has provided Egypt with over $70 billion in aid, including military. If America seeks a meaningful peace in the Middle East, it is time to hold regimes such as Mubarak's in Egypt and Abu Mazen's of the Palestinian Authority accountable. Peace requires more than a signature on a piece of paper - it is a state of mind and hinges on the values youngsters learn.

While Israel's military planners are focused on Iran, Egyptian military exercises have Israel as its declared target. In the last five years Egyptian military units, including logistical support services and infrastructure, have been transferred to the Suez Canal area, on both the eastern Sinai and the western sides of the Sinai. They have transferred anti-aircraft units, aircraft, and missile batteries -- an enormous expense - that the U.S. largely underwrites through our aid packages. Recognizing that Egypt does not face an external threat, there can only be one explanation for Egypt's massive build up. It is time for Israelis and Americans to listen and react to Dr. Steinitz timely warnings.

Joseph Puder (jpuder2001@yahoo.com) is ITAI Executive Director. The Interfaith Taskforce for America and Israel (ITAI) provides information and education on the threat to America from Jihadist Islam and the religious nature of the Arab-Muslim world war currently against Israel to mainline Protestant and Catholic clergy and congregants directly to their churches. Make a tax-deductible contribution to: ITAI 123 S. Broad Street, Suite 1832, Philadelphia, PA 19109.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 29, 2006.

Simple formula: the less funds the terror organizations Hamas, Fattah and Hezbollah have the less Jews they can kill!

Nitsana Drashan, esq., Director of the Israel Law Center-Shurat Ha'Din wrote this explanation.

Under the Oslo Accords Israel agreed to collect the taxes and duty on goods brought through Israeli ports and imported into the PA. The PA has no ports. Israel also collects taxes on PA workers in Israel and gives the funds to the Palestinians. It amounts to something like $50 million a month. Since 1995 Israel has been transferring the funds every month. During the intifada PM Barak and Sharon would periodically freeze these transfers of tax money and then eventually be pressured by the EU and the US to turn them over to the PA.

We, and other law firms, have been successful in placing pre-trial liens on about $250 million of this money. However, the funds that aren't attached by terror victims are given each month to the PA. When Hamas took office Olmert again froze these tax money transfers. Olmert told everyone he would not allow the terrorists to receive the money. Now this week under US pressure he did indeed agree to provide Abu Mazen with $100 million of the frozen tax money. They are trying to distinguish between the funds going to Hamas and to Abu Mazen's office to be supervised by Abu Mazen. Fatah is okay, Hamas isn't. They also claim there are all sorts of guarantees about the money being used to essential humanitarian items like food, gas and medical supplies for the Palestinians.

The lawsuits we are doing against the PA have primarily placed liens on Palestinian money outside of Israel. We have many hundreds of millions of dollars in PA money frozen with post-judgment liens in banks around the world. We assisted in tying up almost all of their funds in the US and other places. Until they pay off all the terror victims with judgments they will be unable to utilize US banks and many of them in Europe as well because the court ordered the banks to freeze the PA funds until all of our collection cases are sorted out.

The short answer is that even though Israel from time to time agrees to transfer some funds to the PA, we are managing to freeze large amounts of it. The pursuit of terror funding never ends and all that can be done is to constantly chase after it and attempt to seize as much of it as possible. The Israeli intelligence branches acknowledge that some funds get through to Hamas and other terrorists but their job is to vigilantly try to block as much as possible. In this way the terror organizations' abilities are greatly reduced. The less funds they have the less Jews they can kill.

Nitsana Drashan, esq., Director
Israel Law Center-Shurat Ha'Din

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

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

Father Paul Maddison of St Ives (frpaul@sacredheart-stives.org) was kind enough to send me a response to my initial email.

Below is the sequence: My initial letter to him, his response and my own response to his response.

Since he is using a form letter, it is clear that he is getting many complaints about the creche and crib scenes and the "wall". So, feel free to add your own, making whatever use of my material you may feel will be constructive.

David ML

From: David Meir-Levi [mailto:david_meirlevi@hotmail.com]
Sent: 29 December 2006 7:36 PM
To: frpaul@sacredheart-stives.org
Subject: FW: "wall" in nativity scenes vs rational thought and historical fact per Tom Carew

Most honorable Father Maddison:

Would you be kind enough to confirm your receipt of Mr. Carew's letter [See below.], and CC me in your response to him?. I report to tens of thousands world-wide on my email list, and I have received many queries as to how you will answer Mr. Carew.

Your church's creche with a wall symbolically representing Israel's defensive barrier is an obscene affront to rational thought and to human history. To fault Israel for protecting itself against the constant invasion of suicide bombers is not only unjust, it is beyond irrational, and most assuredly unchristian.

Do you not know that many of the Arab world's leaders, and Iran, are committed to a second genoicde of Jews -- another six million, the Jews of Israel?

Do you not know that Hamas still enthusiastically endorses the commitments of its founding document to utterly annihilate every Jew in the world?

Do you not know that Israel has offered peaceful resolution to the conflict dozens of times, and every olive branch that Israel proffered has been torched by Arab leaders who prefer to destroy Israel and build their "Palestine -- from the river to the sea'', on the corpses of Israel's six million?

Do you not know that there was never a wall, nor a fence, nor a barrier until after almost 1,600 Israelis were blown up or burned alive or shot or stabbed (and more than 6,000 wounded) by the terrorists whom Arafat unleashed, in a terror war that has averaged more than 6 attacks per day (almost 28,000) since 1993; and this despite the fact that he signed the Oslo Accords in which he promised to seek diplomatic and negotiated resolution to all grievances?

Do you not know that the fence/wall/barrier has effectively stopped c. 90% of the terror attacks since even before it was completed, thus saving un-numberable Israeli lives?

Do you not know that Muslim terrorism is aimed at Christians in the Holy Land as well?

Have you never heard the Muslim taunt that intimidates and terrifies the Christians of Bethlehem: today is Saturday, but tomorrow is Sunday (i.e., when we finish with the Jews, the Saturday people, we start on the Christians, the Sunday people)?

Does it not seem obvious to you that if Holy Mary Mother of God, big with God as a child in her womb, were to attempt to enter Bethlehem today, she would face only minor inconvenience from the Israeli forces; but she would be threatened by far far more danger from the Islamofascist modesty police who would throw acid in her face if she did not wear a veil and a full-body burqa to cover her 'condition'? Or worse, since she was a Jew, they would simply shoot her outright, being sure to aim for her abdomen to kill the unborn, behead her, mutilate her body, and hang her naked from a lamppost for all to see....as they have done to other Jews, and "collaborators", who ventured into their territory.

Father Maddison, can you not see that by condemning Israel's defensive barrier which stops terror attacks, you are supporting the terror attacks?

Where do you want the casualties, Father Maddison? With the "wall", the casualties are the inconvenienced and delayed Palestinians. Without the "wall" the casualties are the tens or scores or hundreds, or maybe thousands, of Israelis blown up or burned alive or shot or stabbed by all the terrorists whom the wall would have stopped.

When you decry the "wall" with your church's creche, you tell the world that you prefer that more Jews should die. Is that what you want to tell the world on the birthday of the Prince of Peace?

Are you not aware that the Christian population of the West Bank is fleeing because of the threats and murders and arson and rape and kidnappings perpetrated against them by the Arab terrorists. Today there are more Lebanese Christians living outside of Lebanon than inside of Lebanon....because of the anti-Christian attacks of the Lebanese Muslims.

The same is happening now to the Christians of the West Bank....because of the threats and attacks from Hamas.

Have you forgotten Lev. 19:16, "stand not idly by when your brother is in mortal danger".

Silence in the face of evil is complicity. Complicity with evil is evil.

I hope you recall too your Savior's admonition in Matthew 25: " ... to the extent that you did not do this for the least of My brethren (the Jewish people under attack in Israel, or the Christian Arabs under attack in the West Bank), then you did not do it for Me."

Remember Jeremiah: "Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord deceitfully", (Jeremiah 48:10). Do not fall prey to the deceit of the Arab spin-meisters. "Blame the Jew" is one of the oldest of Jew-hatred ploys.

Remember Isaiah: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness...., Who justify the wicked for a bribe, And take away justice from the righteous man!"(Isaiah 5:20-23).

Terrorism is evil. Mass murder is evil. Genocide is evil. Incitement to genocide is evil. Teaching children to hate is evil. The Palestinian national movement is the only one of its kind in the entire world and across all of world history whose sole defining paradigm is terrorism, and whose unique and unrelenting goal is the destruction of a soveriegn state and genocide of its Jews.

That, sir, is evil.

If you love God, you must hate evil (Psalm 97:14).

David Meir-Levi
Menlo Park, CA USA

Father Maddison's reply, via the form letter below, to my email.

From: "Fr. Paul Maddison" To: "'David Meir-Levi'" Subject: RE: "wall" in nativity scenes vs rational thought and historical fact perTom Carew
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2006 20:05:34 -0000

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your email. Mr Carew and I have exchanged emails. The wall did not feature in any crib scene in this church, it is in fact wrong to do so. May I, by way of explanation, set out what we have done and the reasons behind it in order to hopefully allay your fears. Each year at Christmas we raise money for a Christian community elsewhere in the world and have, for the past four years, done so by presenting a "live" nativity tableaux outside the church here in St Ives. This year the community decided to provide financial support to the community in Bethlehem. After speaking with some of the Christian community in Bethlehem we felt it important to not only raise funds for humanitarian assistance but also to try to raise awareness of the situation in that part of the world in the hope that more people would engage in the process of working for peace, specifically with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

We erected a life-size replica of one portion of the wall as a symbol of the desires of the two peoples it separates; the Israelis and their unalienable desire for safety and security, along with the Palestinians desire for statehood. Along with this we have a presentation, in pictures and words, of the present situation for the Christian community in Bethlehem; and an appeal for all people to work for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. This display was in place from the 21st to 27th December. I acknowledge that the barrier does not consist entirely of a wall, but around Bethlehem this is the reality.

No one can condone the actions of those who murder innocent civilians; suicide bombers must never be allowed to succeed; their success allows fanatics to justify their stance and encourage others to engage in irrational and unjustifiable actions. The wall/barrier has indeed saved many lives and no one can do anything but rejoice in that fact.

The number of Christians living in the holy Land has indeed declined, from some 17% in 1900 to less than 2% today, this decline is as a result of a number of factors. The Christian presence in Jerusalem -- according to statistics from the Committee of bishops of the Holy Land -- has increased since the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967.

Christians in Israel and the Occupied Territories are often prevented from freely worshipping by the system of permissions and passes that are required for them to visit their holy places. At Easter this year, over 3,000 Christians were prevented from following the traditional path of Christ from the Mount of Olives into Jerusalem; despite the fact that they had obtained the necessary permissions.

Israel, and indeed every citizen on earth, has the right to defend themselves from "human bombs". As I said above, one can never condone actions which take innocent lives and the wall has indeed significantly reduced the occurrence of suicide bombers. The presence of the wall is without question saving lives, its route -- especially around Bethlehem -- is destroying lives and livelihoods of the people who live there. What is unacceptable, and has been declared so by the International Court of Justice in the Hague, is that Israel has chosen to build its security wall on Palestinian land, in places making detours of up to 14 kilometres to the east of the 1967 "Green line". In these circumstances it is difficult to see the wall as little less than an exercise in redrawing internationally accepted boundaries, an action which can only lead to further frustration, anger and possible violence.

My frequent visits to the Middle East and discussions I have had with both Israelis and Palestinians convince me that not only do we all need to wake up to the very dangerous situation affecting Israel and Palestine, we also need to wake up to the very dangerous situation that the continuing conflict in the Holy Land presents to all of us, wherever we may live. May I quote from another email I received this morning: "Surely the world just can't keep ignoring this situation, please let's hope and pray that these people see an end to the suffering on both sides." The huge number of letters and emails of support that have been sent to us here, not only from within the UK but from around the world, encourage me in the hope that what we have done has raised awareness of the situation for both Israelis and Palestinians; making a small contribution to the desire for peace which will eventually prevail over those who resort to violence.

I feel that we are both working for the same end and I certainly agree with you that lies often appear more attractive than the truth, but it is truth and justice which must underpin our working for peace. I hope that what I have written will reassure you that our actions are concerned with the promotion of peace for ALL the people who live in the region. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to write, I hope that 2007 brings us all many blessings and that we may all work towards peace for all those who suffer in the Middle East.

With every good wish
Fr Paul

Dear Father Paul,

Thank you very much for your very prompt and comprehensive response to my emails of this morning.

My admiration for your so very quick and very long response was somewhat mitigated by the fact that it soon became apparent that you are using a form letter....a fact that became obvious when one of my own email addressees sent me a copy of your so very prompt and comprehensive identical reply to his missive to you on the same topic.

None the less, I appreciate your taking the time to compose even a form letter for replies to what I am sure are many querries about this issue.

It is most gratfying to learn that you are in contact with Mr. Carew; and that your church does not feature the "wall" in any crib scenes. I am also very pleased and greatly re-assured to learn of your sentiments regarding Israel's right of self-defense, and the need to find a way to assist both sides in reaching agreements that will allow for everyone to live in peace and in mutual cooperation and constructive co-existence.

I have no doubt that you are right when you say: "...that we are both working for the same end and ...it is truth and justice which must underpin our working for peace...(such that) ... our actions are concerned with the promotion of peace for ALL the people who live in the region".

You can rest assured that you and I are in true partnership regarding those goals.

However, there are two points in your letter that are in need of re-formulation, in my opiniion.

One is misleading by innuendo, and the other is factually incorrect.

So I have taken the liberty of offering you some input that I hope will be of value to you.

I most sincerely urge you to read carefully my comments below, and incorporate them in to a re-formulation of your letter. Knowing, as I now do, that you are as committed as am I to a just and peaceful resolution for both parties in the conflict, I trust that you will take the temerity of my imposition of this commentary in the spirit of good will and an honest quest for truth and accuracy which it is intended.

1.) Innuendo and unclarity

You wrote:

"The number of Christians living in the holy Land has indeed declined, from some 17% in 1900 to less than 2% today, this decline is as a result of a number of factors. The Christian presence in Jerusalem -- according to statistics from the Committee of bishops of the Holy Land -- has increased since the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1967".

Your first paragraph is correct, but it omits important information. Among the "number of factors" for the very precipitous decline in Christian population between the 19th century and 1967 is the constant harrassment and intimidation of Muslim Arabs against Christian Arabs in all areas of the Holy Land NOT under Israeli control. In Israel, Christians, as well as Muslims and members of the c. 70 other faiths practiced in Israel, are free to worship as they choose. The Christian population in Isrel grew rapidly under Israeli sovereignty and tolerant governance.

However, between 1967 and 1994, when Israel held legal sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the Christian population there too began again to grow....for the first time in almost 100 years. This was due to the Israeli government's extending its tolerant and supportive laws regarding religious freedom to the territories that it conquered during the Six-Day war. Israeli presence prevented the Muslims from harrassing the Christians.

Conversely, from 1994 until now, under the sovereignty of the Palestinian Authority, the Christian population of the West Bank has plummetted from c. 85% of Bethlehem in 1993 to less than 15% today. The Christian population of the Gaza strip has almost completely disappeared. The single most powerful impetus for Christian flight is the threat of Islamofascist anti-Christian terrorism which I described in my first email.

Ironically, many Christians flee the West Bank and come to Israel for religious freedom.

By omitting these facts, your paragraph quoted above, when read in conjucntion with the paragraph that follows (see below), can be easily misconstrued to indicate that it is Israeli security measures that are causing Christian flight.

In your second paragraph, you wrote:

"Christians in Israel and the Occupied Territories are often prevented from freely worshipping by the system of permissions and passes that are required for them to visit their holy places. At Easter this year, over 3,000 Christians were prevented from following the traditional path of Christ from the Mount of Olives into Jerusalem; despite the fact that they had obtained the necessary permissions."

This is a true statement. But it is de-contextualized. I most sincerely urge you to beware of de-contextualization. De-contextualization is one of the prime tools of the demagogue and diatribalist.

As I am sure you must know, from the earliest days after the June, 1967 war, and until Israel ceded sovereignty to the Palestinian Authority per the Oslo Accords of 9/1993, Christians and Muslims traveled freely throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip and all of Israel. And Israelis traveled freely in the West Bank and Gaza strip.

During those years, the economy of the West Bank and Gaza Strip grew by leaps and bounds, with an average annual GDP of almost 13%, 300,000 Arabs crossed the "green line" daily to work in the Israeli infrastructure, seven universities built where none had existed before, up-graded sewerage and water purification, 20th century telephone and radio and TV, sky-rocketing tourism, and a moer than tripling of population (from c. 950,000 Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967 to c. 3,200,000 in 1993). And this was all due to Israel's "Mini-Marshall" plan which infused hundreds of millions of dollars in to West Bank and Gaza Strip development for its Arab populations.

All of this prosperity and freedom came to a grinding halt when Arafat took over in 1994. And as soon as he took over, he started his war of intimidation and threats against Christians, and he also started his terror war agianst Israel.

It is ONLY in the context of Israel's restrained and measured defensive responses to the Palestinian Authority's terror war that Christians find their access to holy sites limited. Prior to the terror war, there was no such limitation. Were the terror war to end, the limitations too could end.

With regard to this year's 3000 Christians denied access to the Via Dolorosa, you must surely know that Israel did that because its military intelligence learned of Palestinian terrorist plans to attack Christian pilgrims and religious sites during Holy Days. To not place restrictions on religious traffic in East Jerusalem at that time would have been a severe and illegal and immoral abdication of the government's responsibility toward its Christian citizens. Happily, a number of planned attacks were nipped in the bud thanks to timely arrests in a variety of West Bank and Gaza Strip terror centers (primarily Qalqiliya, Jenin, and Hebron). There is evidence, too, that planned attacks were cancelled when the terrorists became aware of the Israeli security measures.

I most sincerley urge you to include some cogent summary of this information in your revised letter. Otherwise, you are blaming the victim, confusing the fire fighter with the arsonist, and misleading your readers.

2.) Erroneous data

You wrote:

".... (the wall's) route -- especially around Bethlehem is destroying lives and livelihoods of the people who live there. What is unacceptable, and has been declared so by the International Court of Justice in the Hague, is that Israel has chosen to build its security wall on Palestinian land, in places making detours of up to 14 kilometres to the east of the 1967 "Green line". In these circumstances it is difficult to see the wall as little less than an exercise in redrawing internationally accepted boundaries, an action which can only lead to further frustration, anger and possible violence."

The question you pose here, why is the fence built on "Palestinian land", has built into it a number of hidden and fallacious assumptions, which must be addressed and evaluated before the answer can be understood:

Incorrect assumptions:

a.) that the green line means something.

Recall that the green line is an armistice line (per Rhodes armistice conference, 2-7/49), not an internationally recognized border. There is no internationally recognized border between the West Bank and Israel because the majority of the Arab world (all of the Arab world before 1967) refused to make peace, negotiate borders, and recognize those negotiated borders. Egypt and Jordan, upon making peace (1979 and 1994 respectively), specifically excluded issues of the West Bank from their agreements with Israel.

Thus per international law and UN resolutions (Chapter VI: UNSCR 242 and 338), there is no political or legal relevance to the green line. In the absence of a willingness of the belligerents on one side of the conflict to make peace, the armistice line is a temporary and convenient line to divide belligerents. It says nothing at all about sovereignty or ownership.

Therefore, there is no legal reason to use the green line as a base line or bench mark in the definition of Israel's boundaries vis-à-vis the west bank.

b.) That Israel has no right to land east/south/north of the green line on the west bank.

Despite the rantings of pro-Palestinian propaganda (which, by the Goebels principle have taken on the mantle of axiom), Israel's sovereignty in the West Bank is completely legal. Before 1917 the sovereignty was under the Ottomans. From 1917 to 1947, the sovereignty was under the British mandatory government by virtue of the peace agreement that ended belligerence between the Ottoman Empire and the UK, and by virtue of the preamble to the League of Nations founding documents. On 11/29/47 the UN voted (UNSCR Resolution #181) to partition the land into two states, Israel for the Jews and an Arab state for the Arabs. The Arab world's leadership rejected the partition and successfully occupied the Arab territory, but was not successful in occupying the Israeli territory.

Having accepted the partition plan, Israel's legal sovereignty over the land allotted to it by the UN was enshrined in international law (Balfour declaration, League of Nations charter pre-amble, UN charter pre-amble, and UN resolution, chapter VI, #181 of 11/29/1947).

Regarding the land meant for the new Arab state, Israel captured some in the context of its defensive war of 1948-9. At the Rhodes Armistice talks, Israel offered to return the captured land in exchange for recognition, negotiations, and peace. The Arabs said no. Then Jordan occupied the West Bank, and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip: both were areas intended by the UN to be part of the new Arab State in former British Mandatory Palestine; and both territorial occupations were illegal and flagrant violations of UN 181 and international law. These illegal occupations were not recognized by the world community (only UK and Pakistan recognized Jordan's annexation of the west bank) nor legalized in any way.

In the absence of a peace treaty, and in the presence of continued belligerence and threat of belligerence, Israel's continued holding of those parts of the UN-designated Palestine that were in its control after 2/49 is legal. With the continuation of belligerence via terrorism for 19 years, it has been long clear to the world community that Israel's sovereignty over these UN-designated Palestinian lands captured in 1948-9 has become permanent. None but the most rabid anti-Zionists suggest a retreat by Israel to the 1947 partition lines.

The same is now true of the Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank and Gaza strip. After 37 years of continued terrorism, warfare (1973), and refusal to make peace, Arab leadership has lost any rational claim to any sort of sovereignty over that territory. And keep in mind that, as in 1949, Israel offered to give the West Bank and Gaza strip and Sinai back to the Arab countries that had illegally annexed them, per Abba Eban's speech in the UN in late June of 1967.... but the Arabs said NO (Khartoum conference, 8-9/67).

It is only because of Arab obduracy and Jew-hatred, and the cherished Arab dream of destroying Israel and genociding its Jews, that Israel maintained its control of the West Bank and Gaza strip.

We are talking international law...not real life. In real life, the leadership of Arab countries can vociferously make just such claims, as does the PA. But in light of the above, it is clear that these claims are not based in law or morality or history. They are motivated by a goal of political gain via revisionism, mendacity, and the strategy of deceit with the tactic of serial lying.

So, any land in the West Bank and Gaza strip that is not privately owned is de-facto and de iure legally owned by the State of Israel. The highly publicized and stridently advanced claim that Israel is stealing Arab land is simply false.

It is great PR against Israel, but it is false.

c.) that the west bank land belongs to Palestinians, or Arabs:

Per #b, West Bank and Gaza Strip land that is not privately owned belongs to the State of Israel. Only land that is privately owned can be rationally referred to as Arab land or Palestinian land (although currently under Israeli sovereignty).

Private land ownership has been thoroughly, copiously, and fastidiously documented since the 15th century under the Turks, British, and Jordanians. Both the British and the Jordanians created special programs to encourage the registry of land ownership by those who lived on and/or worked that land. In 1967 when Israel took over the west bank, it made the formal announcement that it was not going to annex that territory. It was going to give the territory back to Jordan when/if Jordan was willing to make peace (per above). So it did not, initially, do anything with or to private Arab land.

Re claims by the PA (used to be known as the PLO) to "historic Palestine" and assertions that the West Bank should be considered PA land, one need only look at the hundreds of years under Ottoman and British rule when there was no Palestinian people, no Palestinian state, no claim to Palestinian statehood, and no movement with or against the sovereigns (legal or illegal) of those territories before 1967, to create any sort of 'national self-realization" for the Palestinian people.

The Palestinian national movement began only when the territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip fell under Jewish control, and the concept of a Palestinian people deprived of its land became another PR whip with which to flagellate Israel.

Thus, West Bank land that is not privately owned is legally Israel's land now, not Palestinian or Arab land.

d.) that Israel should be considerate of Arab belated (like 35 years belated) re-considerations of UN resolutions and peace offers long rejected by Arab leaders and to which Arab response was war and terror, murder and intimidation. Especially UN 242:

It is beyond dis-ingenuous for Arab leadership to now claim that Israel should conform to UN 194, 242, and/or 338, when the Arabs then rejected these resolutions and expressed their rejection in war and terrorism and continued belligerence. Such assertions that after 55 or 35 years the Arab leadership should have the right to force Israel to abide by the resolutions that Israel accepted and the Arabs rejected are palpably belated political opportunism.

Moreover, Israel has, technically speaking, already fulfilled 242's and 338's requirements re territorial concessions. 242 calls for return of '...territories' (not THE territories); and this in the context of peace agreements. World-class international jurists Lord Carendon and Eugene Rostow (the drafters of 242) assumed that there would be peace talks, and then there would be some border adjustments while Israel gave back most of the land. In the absence of peace talks, no land was given back and no adjustments made. When there were peace talks, land was given back (Sinai to Egypt in 1979, and area south of Sea of Galilee and south of Dead Sea to Jordan in 1994) and adjustments made.

So Israel has actually lived up to the letter of 242; and while in spirit some or much or even most of the West Bank should have gone to some entity (Jordan had no legal claim on it), in the absence of any entity willing to talk peacefully about this issue, the land remained under Israel's legal sovereignty...known in international law as "disputed territory".

No nation in the world would acquiesce to such egregiously outrageous demands as are made now by the Arab nations and terrorist leaders of the PA -- give up everything that you gained in your defensive war (i.e., go back to the 're-67 armistice line) by which we sought to annihilate you; and do that in exchange for nothing at all.... just do it and then we'll see what happens. But this is the essence of what the Arab world and the PA demand.

e.) that Israel is forever barred from taking unilateral steps to resolve the issue of borders:

Arafat and his minions had 9 years since Oslo to settle via negotiations the issue of borders (per Oslo). Instead, he chose to wage a terror war that reached its acme with the 2nd Intifada. Having failed in that war, he has no legal, moral or rational right, now, to go back and say -- wait guys, I really do want to do what I said I would do 9 years ago, before 1300 Israeli dead and 6000+ wounded (not to mention c. 4,000 of my own people dead and tens of thousands wounded).

f.) that the fence creates a political reality:

In 1979, when peace was made with Egypt, Israel removed the 6 settlements in Sinai, and carried out its recalcitrant Israeli settlers in handcuffs. Ariel Sharon, who completely supported the peace treaty with Egypt, was in charge of the military units that dragged out those settlers.

In 1994, when peace was made with Jordan, Israel gave back to Jordan several hundred square miles of land in the Arava (south of the Dead Sea) and in areas east of the Jordan river to the south of the Sea of Galilee: land that was hitherto owned and worked by Israeli kibbutzim. To allow the kibbutzim to continue their livelihood (since they had reclaimed the land from desert and build up a successful farming enterprise on hitherto unarable swamp land), Jordan agreed to let the kibbutzim continue working the land, but pay rent to Jordan. Israel agreed. A peaceful resolution that benefited both sides.

Bottom line: with a political entity that is willing to make peace, and to enforce and maintain that peace, Israel makes peace, dismantles settlements, gives back land.

In the presence of a Palestinian leadership that can, and is willing, to put a stop to terrorism, run its society by rule of law, stop incitement and Jew hatred, and negotiate honestly and openly, face to face, peace can come into being. Then the fence can be moved, in accordance with whatever final legal recognized borders are decided upon in the negotiations.

Today, more so than ever before, it is beyond ridiculous to assert that the fence creates political reality. After Israel's unilateral and unconditional withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in August, 2005, with the dismantling of 21 communities and the exile of 9000 people (some of whom had to be overpowered by police and soldiers and dragged from their homes in handcuffs), it should be obvious that if there were a leadership that could lead its people to peace with Israel, the fence could be moved to accord with the peace agreement.

Now that the hidden assumptions are exposed, we can address the erroneous nature of your paragraph cited above.

Israel builds the fence where it feels the fence will be most effective in protecting its citizens from the endless, relentless, brutal terror war that Arafat and his cohorts, and now Hamas, have waged and continue to wage even as I write.

There is no legal, historical, rational or moral reason for the fence to go anywhere except where the Israeli government thinks it should go in order to be most effective as a deterrent to terrorism.

The fence convolutes torturously in many places to avoid trespass on private Palestinian land, but where privately owned farmland is traversed, 'farmer gates' are created in order to not deprive Palestinians of their livelihood. In the context of a peace agreement, the fence may be moved, or may not, depending upon the negotiations; and if land that was formerly owned by a Palestinian ends up on Israel's side of the border, compensation can be made in the form of money or land elsewhere, as decided upon by the peace treaty.

Such actions are consistent with morality, international law, the history of similar territorial resolutions world-wide, and a rational review of the absence of any willingness on the part of the leadership of the Palestinian people to advance any peace plan other than genocide of Israel's Jews.

Israel has declared its willingness to dismantle the fence when there is peace. It must build the fence now where it sees fit, to protect its people in time of war.

As I noted in my first email, the fence does cause pain and suffering on the Palestinian side. But what is the alternative? Where do you want the casualties?

I encourage you to mention as well, in your revision of your form letter, the reason why the fence is a wall around Bethlehem (and several other segments, making up a total of only c. 6% of the barrier being wall, and the remainder being chain-link fence).

In the areas around Qalqiliya and Bethlehem, there is high ground to the east of the barrier. Prior to the construction of the wall, Arab terrorist snipers used to sit on the hillside and shoot randomly down in to Israeli homes, cars, pedestrians. Many were killed. Many more wounded. The 30-foot high wall, made of 6-foot thick concrete, stops the snipers. Elsewhere, 94% of the barrier's length, the land contour does not favor such sniper activity, so there is no need for a wall.

Finally, the fact that the ICJ condemned the "wall" has absolutely no legal or moral valence. The ICJ acted completely outside of its realm of legal jurisdiction. Any jurist familiar with international law and the founding documents of the ICJ will confirm that. The ICJ can adjudicate ONLY where both sides in the dispute agree to its adjudication. Israel did not agree because the ICJ insisted upon excluding from its considerations all of the factors that I have discussed above. Such a de-contextualization of the issue renders the ICJ's findings not only moot, but deeply bigoted and legally impaired.

Your conclusion of this paragraph, that ".....it is difficult to see the wall as little less than an exercise in redrawing internationally accepted boundaries, an action which can only lead to further frustration, anger and possible violence..." is understandable. You have been mis-informed by many sources (media, politicians, academics, Arab propagandists). The goebellian tactic (tell the same lie often enough, and people will believe it) really does work.

The issue is complex, and it is not easy to unravel the many levels of lies and de-contextualization and half-truths in order to get a realistic picture of the true dynamics of the fence.

I most humbly suggest that my input above may be useful to you in doing exactly such an unravelling.

So, again, I most sincerely urge you to review my input, and incorporate some abbreviated form of it in to your revised form letter.

If you need additional information, or references to sources, let me know.

David Meir-Levi
Menlo Park, CA USA

UPDATE December 30, 2006

Father Maddison of St. Ives (UK) was thoughful enough to send me a response to my email of yesterday.

From: "Fr. Paul Maddison" To: "'David Meir-Levi'" Subject: RE: "wall" in nativity scenes, your thoughtful letter, and some corrections
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:25:07 -0000

Dear Mr Meir-Levi

It would seem from the several emails I have received overnight that I am not the only one making use of a "form letter". I made clear in my reply to Mr Carew's first email, we chose to replace our nativity scene outside with the display concerning the situation in Bethlehem. To mix the two would have been wrong; and I feel protests that have done so -- like the Christmas cards sold by certain charities depicting the Holy Family being stopped by IDF soldiers -- are deeply offensive to all sides. I hope that the source of the information that has prompted these recent emails accurately reflects what we have done. Inside the church we have our traditional crib in front of the altar, as we do every year.

I have tried to answer emails and letters I have received on the subject, to not do so would be rude and I have no wish to offend people; I have to say that I have chosen not to reply to some messages which have been particularly offensive on a personal level and to those which have made threats of violence against me, something I find rather strange from those who say in the same message that the barrier is an attempt to reduce violence!

He expresses his openness to input, interest in getting the facts straight, and willingness to change his form letter.

All very commendable.

Since most of what he and I wrote in our last exchange is already known to y'all, I have not reproduced it here.

More important, however, are the following observations:

1.) note his reference to hate mail. anyone who wrote him (wihether as a result of my email, or independently), using inappropriate language or hateful accusations, has done a disservice to father Maddison, to Israel, to Jews, to other of our allies, and to those who are open to honest dialogue (and to me, in this case, since the hate mail makes him warry of all input, thus making my work with him all the harder).

hate mail is never a constructive response. It merely lowers the writer (and, by extension, others who can be associated with the writer, like me, in this case) to the level of diatribe and demagoguery.

2.) he took the time to research my assertions, found contrary statements, reported those to me, and left an opening for me to respond....that is civil dialogue ( and certainly no proper target for reprehensible accusations or harsh language).

3). he revised his form letter in response to my input.

#2 and #3 are exactly the responses that I want from an interlocutor: openness to dialogue, willingness to engage in Q & A, respnsiveness to input, enough interest in the issue to motivate his taking the time to read and think and research and write back to me, and an honest approach to facts and logic.

David ML

Dear Father Maddison, Thanks again for your prompt response. I have entered my comments IN CAPS inside of your text, and beneath the selections from the fco.gov.uk site to which you sent me. I very much appreciate your openness to input, and your taking the time to inform me of your considerations and research. I hope we can stay in touch for future dialogue. David Meir-Levi Menlo Park, CA USA

SELECTION FROM THE www.fco.gov.uk under "Countries and Regions", "Middle East Peace Process", "FAQ's" LITERATURE TO WHICH YOU REFERRED ME.



What is the Government's view on Israeli settlements?

Settlements are illegal under international law.


Phase One of the Quartet Roadmap calls on Israel to freeze all settlement expansion, including natural growth, and to dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001.







Settlement activity around east Jerusalem, and throughout the West Bank, threatens the territorial contiguity of any future Palestinian state, and combined with the construction of the barrier on occupied Palestinian land, is an obstacle to peace.





The Foreign Secretary has said on many occasions that settlements are illegal and that it is wrong for the Israeli Government to continue to extend them. We continue to call on the Israeli Government to end settlement expansion.

Maaleh Adumim/E1

The Israeli press reported on 21 March 2005 Israeli Government plans to build 3,500 housing units in E-1 -- an area between Jerusalem and Maaleh Adumim (a large settlement just East of Jerusalem). The implementation of this plan would effectively split the northern and southern West Bank in two. We continue to raise our concerns with the Israeli authorities and will monitor the situation closely.



How has the Government responded to the construction of the barrier?

We fully recognise Israel's right to self-defence and agree that a barrier is a reasonable way to achieve this. However, we call for the barrier to be built either on or behind the Green Line. The route, which the Israeli Cabinet approved on 20 February 2005, takes in a number of Israeli settlements, whose presence is illegal under international law.







It also threatens to split the West Bank in two,


which in turn undermines the prospects for a two-state solution. We are profoundly concerned at the impact the barrier has on the lives of Palestinians, and deplore the destruction of Palestinian homes and the confiscation of land associated with its construction.





We have made our concerns extremely clear to the Israeli government and will continue to do so.



Does the Government support the International Court of Justice ruling on the barrier?

The International Court of Justice published an Advisory Opinion on 9 July 2004 stating their view that the building of the barrier on occupied territory is illegal. This echoes the consistently held position of the UK, European Union and United Nations. The UK voted in favour of United Nations General Assembly Emergency Session-10/15 acknowledging the receipt of the Advisory Opinion and making clear that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority must abide by international law. The UK will continue to urge Israel to route the barrier away from occupied territory.



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

To Go To Top

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

I have long asserted that Israel is the only country in the world, and across all of world history, to value the lives of its enemy civilian population more than it values the lives of its own citizens.

The article below makes it official.

The main thrust of the argument is the opposite: killing palestinian civilians in the course of stopping an arab terrorist attack is OK, if the number of paletinan civilians killed is likely to be smaller than the number of Israelis who would have been killed by the attack.

Hence: "When you are in a tragic situation where you have to choose between the lives of your own people and the lives of others, you choose Israeli citizens first."

And, indeed no nation has ever done otherwise....especially when that nation is a victim of agression and its military actions are self-defense.

However, note the opening paragraphs:

"The government's policy of restraint regarding Kassam rocket launchings from Gaza is legitimate from an ethical perspective, Prof. Asa Kasher said this week in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post.

"The chances that a Kassam rocket will kill are relatively low compared to a suicide bombing," said Kasher, co-author of the IDF code of ethics.

"Therefore, use of targeted killings to prevent terrorist attacks that threaten the lives of dozens of Israelis (i.e., a suicide bombings, DML) is an obligation of the state that has nothing to do with political policy decisions. But the decision to exercise restraint against Kassam rocket launchings is a legitimate policy decision."

The essense of these paragraphs is: Israel's military ethicist recommends to the government and the IDF, and to all the Israelis who will die or suffer injury in future qassam attacks, that it is better for a few Israelis to be killed (and hundreds wounded) than for the IDF to engage in retaliatory or preventative strikes that may kill Palestinian civilians....because a smaller number of Israelis is likely to die from qassams than from other forms of more lethal terror attacks.

So, the amazing, and I believe unique, message that the IDF ethicists have just given to the IDF, the Israeli government, and to the world is:

If the number of dead is likely to be smaller on the Israeli side than on the Palestinian side, we prefer to have the Israelis die.

This is called "IDF ethicist: Restraint policy is legit" and was written by Matthew Wagner. It appeared in The Jerusalem Post Dec. 28, 2006.

David ML

The government's policy of restraint regarding Kassam rocket launchings from Gaza is legitimate from an ethical perspective, Prof. Asa Kasher said this week in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post.

"The chances that a Kassam rocket will kill are relatively low compared to a suicide bombing," said Kasher, co-author of the IDF code of ethics.

"Therefore, use of targeted killings to prevent terrorist attacks that threaten the lives of dozens of Israelis is an obligation of the state that has nothing to do with political policy decisions. But the decision to exercise restraint against Kassam rocket launchings is a legitimate policy decision."

Kasher, professor of professional ethics at Tel Aviv University and academic adviser at the IDF College of National Defense, added, however, that each Kassam rocket that landed on Israeli territory was an attack on the State of Israel. He also said the government had a moral responsibility to combat the fears of its residents in the south who were threatened by the Kassam rockets.

Kasher who, together with head of Military Intelligence Maj.-Gen. Amos Yadlin authored the IDF's doctrine on the war against terror which is taught to high-ranking officers in the IDF College of National Defense, commented on the recent Supreme Court decision on targeted killings and other issues involving military ethics and the war against terrorism.

Is the IDF too careful?

There was a case a few years ago in which seven members of Hamas's military arm were together in one place. But they were in a residential building. So we shot a missile through the window instead of destroying the entire building. The missile blew up the wrong room and they all got away. You have to calculate how many Israelis were killed because we did not kill those terrorists. How many people were killed because we were compassionate with the neighbors of those Hamas terrorists?

Do these mistakes happen often?


Is there any contradiction between last week's Supreme Court decision on targeted killings and the ethical code you and Yadlin wrote?

No. We analyzed the issue from an ethical and moral perspective while [former president of the Supreme Court] Aharon Barak and the Supreme Court used legal criteria. But we reached the same conclusions.

What are your conclusions?

We said that as long as a person, whether he is a civilian or a soldier, is endangering me and is involved in enlisting terrorists, gathering explosives, giving orders to other terrorists, he is considered someone directly involved in the war effort and can be killed.

What about the inadvertent killing of civilians?

I have to try very hard not to hurt civilians. If necessary I will delay the targeted killing if I can do it later in a way that will not harm civilians or at least in a way that will reduce collateral damage to civilians.

Research is done to determine what is possible to minimize collateral damage. People in operation research sit and plan exactly how to kill the terrorist. What type of bomb or missile to use, whether to shoot from a helicopter or a drone, what angle to send it in, at what time of day, whether to destroy the whole building or only the room where the terrorist is, whether to send the missile through the window etc.

Barak mentions in his decision the necessity to refrain from using targeted killings if it is possible to arrest the terrorist. Does the IDF code also demand this?

Yes it does. Arrest is better for two reasons,

First, because you refrain from killing in recognition of his human dignity. That is what the right to human dignity means - that I cannot kill him unless he is endangering me. We need very good reasons to carry out a targeted killing. Keeping him alive is in itself a value.

Second, keeping him alive allows you to interrogate the terrorist and gain important information.

What about endangering the lives of soldiers to arrest him instead of killing him? Are you obligated from an ethical perspective to do that?

No. He is a terrorist. He is in the process of planning a terrorist attack. He is endangering me right now. I do not have to endanger my own soldiers to protect his right to human dignity.

Barak says in his decision that the killing must meet the criteria of proportionality. Does the IDF have the same demand?

The most problematic criterion when deliberating a targeted killing is proportionality. What benefit do I derive from a military attack as opposed to the damage I cause? It is very difficult to compare the benefit to the damage.

In our article we write that the state is more responsible to its own citizens morally speaking than it is to citizens of other countries.

That point does not come across in the Supreme Court decision.

True. The Supreme Court does not mention this point. But the decision does not challenge this assumption. We learn this principle from the accepted practice of states. We see that the state has a special responsibility to its own citizens in times of famine, epidemics etc. When Israel buys medication against a certain disease and there is a shortage you don't see Israel passing out the medication to citizens of Italy or some other foreign country before it gives to its own people. When you are in a tragic situation where you have to choose between the lives of your own people and the lives of others, you choose Israeli citizens first.

Does that mean that in theory it is morally acceptable to stage a targeted killing even if more civilians are killed on the Palestinian side than the number of Israelis that would have been killed by that terrorist?

Yes. But the reality is much different. We have reached the point where in most cases the civilians that are inadvertently killed in a targeted killing are fewer than the number of Israeli citizens that would have been killed if that terrorist was not stopped. We are talking about no more than a few people who are killed together with the terrorist in most cases.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 29, 2006.

The year was 1970 and the picture appeared on Life Magazine cover page...

"New Pride and Unity...Changing 'Careers in the Middle East'..."

Never more true!

For sure the Palestinians "changed" careers they never really had!

Already in 1970, on Life Magazine Cover, a picture that rattles us all each time we see it.

The date, over thirty years ago -- 1970 -- is worth 1000 words!

How many more words and/or pictures do we have to see jumping at us, or repeatedly heard, before we finally believe what is happening all over the world?

Is it that terrifying that most people simply do not have it in them the courage to admit or believe the simple truth looking right at them?

I am aghast! Are you?

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

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

This letter is Tom Carew's 14-point analysis of the current Arab-Israeli conflict and the "wall" that is now part of the nativity scene in front of some churches in Ireland and England. It was sent to Fr. Paul Maddison, Sacred Heart, in St. Ives.

Dear Father Paul,

I am deeply troubled at the ongoing, indeed increasing pattern of very one-sided attacks on Israel from more and more Christian leaders. The Cardinal and Anglican Primate in the UK, like yourself with a wall in your Crib, and this morning, Bishop Raymond Field [Chair of the Irish Commission for Justice and Social Affairs, a commission of the Bishops Conference] in both an article in our largest selling daily, the Irish Independent, and in a letter to all Parish Priests.

Hardly a whisper about the systematic Palestinian suicide-bombing of civilians, in cafes, discos, buses, etc, which led to the Barrier in the first place, and which the leader of the European Fatwa Council, Qatar-based Sheikh Qaradawi supports; their secretariat is at Clonskeagh Sunni Mosque in Dublin.

The same predictable one-sided chorus comes from some academics, who never think of a boycott of any other State, of eg Iran, or mention the "religious freedom" in Saudi Arabia, or boycott Sudan over their Darfur genocidal massacres.

There is also a general principle, that to endorse ANY controversial particular judgment by associating it with the Crib, is a gross abuse of the Gospel - the certainty of any moral judgment decreases as you move from the general principle to detailed, contingent applications. As an Irishman, and the proud son of a police officer who policed that Border during WW II, I rejoiced at [a] Border Checkpoints with Northern Ireland, and [b] at body-searches in Belfast Stores, when IRA gangs were deploying their car-bombs and nail-bombs against civilian "legiitimate targets", and [c] at the Belfast "Peace Line" which hindered sectarian assassins and riots.

And if you were to place a wall in your Crib, apart from the fact that it is not aa wall for most of its length, but a fence, where in the Crib have you the shatterd limbs of a young Arab or Jewish child, the fruits, no, the very purpose, of every suicide-bomb atrocity? Balance? Or equating the perpetrator with the victim? In life, you are either with the Arsonist or the Firefighter, with the Drug Gang, or the Drug Squad, with the Car-bomber, or the Bomb Squad. The Good Samaritan knew who was the aggressor.

The following are my considered thoughts on the situation, and I have carefully studied it for very many years. I am also a member of SPME - Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.

1. I never mention the line of the new Barrier, or of any border for Israel. - And never discuss that point in public. And scarcely ever even mention it in private.

2. I happen to regard that issue as one total "red herring". In 1947, the Arab world [ both the Govts in the new, 2 year-old Arab League, and Arabs in Palestine] refused to either [a] co-operate with the UN Committee, or [b] accept the subsequent Nov 1947 UN resolution. That Arab double refusal was never about the line of the border, or wall, or refugees, but always about the very existence of a State of Israel. And the UN had proposed both an Arab and a Jewish state.

When the joint Arab response to the UN decision was war to exterminate Israel, the Arabs cannot demand a re-play of the game when they lost. They freely choose, and in fact initiated, one method of "conflict-resolution", war, and the consequences of that criminal option were, and are, their responsibility alone. They ended up with less land than the UN had proposed. Plus displaced Palestinian Arabs.

3. The displaced Palestinian Arabs are only half the story. Some 1 million Jews in the Arab world in 1947 are now under 1% of that. Most fled to Israel, with others to USA, and many in Algeria to France. As with India and Pakistan at the same time, 1947, there emerged a de-facto population exchange. The "Arab Jews" were integrated into Israeli society, their number equal to the Palestinian Arabs going the other way, but the latter were given no status by the Arab regimes, but left to fester in camp/slums.

4. That continuing Arab refusal to recognise Israel has meant that while demanding everything, they got nothing, as after their Autumn Khartoum Summit in 1967, with their notorious "Triple Negative", of No Negotiations, No Recognition, and No Peace. The same unaltered Hamas and Hezbollah [and Irano-Syrian] line to-day. There is peace along both the Egyptian and Jordanian frontiers since both recognised Israel. Both Hamas and Hezbollah know what to do. The choice is theirs, but they cannot legitimately complain about the consequences of their aggressive choice, nor complain that their strategy of confrontation, rejection and genocide never failed before.

5. The ideal, ultimate, EU-style Levant Region would be one where all Jewish residents would have full security and rights, irrespective of the line of the border, just like Arab and Druze citizens of Israel, and where every State would co-operate together, to their mutual enrichment. This was the Jan 1919 vision in the Weizman-Feisal agreement. But Fatah both [a] failed to curb Hamas, and also [b] continued to engage in terror itself - via its "Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade". So who to-day among the Palestinian Arabs, can be trusted to engage in more than a temporary, purely tactical truce - waiting until they are ready for their next round of war on Israel? Where is the Palestinian Sadat? He knew what to do to get back Sinai. Sinai, like the rest of Egypt, remains safe from IDF operations - because the Egytpians reversed their failed and agressive permanent campaign of direct and indirect attack. Other Arabs can do likewise - if they so choose.

6. The phrase "collective punishment" is a false analogy. A teacher or parent may punish a child, but punishment is not necessarily depriving the target of the capabilty of repeating the offence. A convicted criminal punished by imprisonment is only prevented from repeat offences while inside. The present IDF use of force involves 2 distinct elements, neither of which are aimed at a temporary, transient result, or at "punishment", but at permanently altering the Arab reality, both their mentality and their capability. It's about de-clawing that dangerous tiger.

[a] The standard, globally-recognised military doctrine of "battlefield isolation", whereby the conflict zone is cut off to prevent further weapons, ammunition, supplies and people either joining the conflict, or moving within the conflict zone. Without IDF troops on the ground at the sea & air ports, manning bridges, and along the Syrian-Lebanese border, the IAF air support is the only tool available for that mission, supported by a Naval blockade of ports.

[b] While securing this containment corridor, the second element is the destruction of the massive Hezbollah arsenal [initially 13,000 rockets, with over 2,000 fired recently], underground bunkers and tunnels, logistics, training and HQ facilities, in short their entire war-machine. To stockpile 13,000 rockets in South Lebanon cannot be defensive in any sense, but purely aggressive. And why were no less than "60,888 Iranian Tourists" officially recorded as visitng Lebanon in the first half of 2006? How many were really "Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps"?

[c] That IDF operation is concentrated on the immediate, cross-border threat from within South Lebanon. It is not about conquering any Lebanese, or other Arab territory, or degrading the military or economic capabiity of any Arab state as such. It has a precise, limited focus, in both geographical extent and in time. And its "proportionality" is to be evaluated in that actual context.

7. The settlements in the territories are also rather another "red herring". These began, in any significance, only many years after June, 1967. The initial Israeli willingness in 1967 to exchange "land for peace" was abortive, and then destroyed internally, due solely to Arab intransigence.The collapse of the whole "Oslo Process" shows that the Arabs are still not ready to accept any Jewish state on what they regard as once "Muslim-occupied land", no matter how tiny. This absolutist mentality also explains Arafat at Camp David in 2000, and his response regarding Jerusalem in particular.

8. The crucial strategic issue to-day is whether the IDF needs a substantial buffer-zone. Both the recent example of resumed attacks from South Lebanon, and the ongoing Hamas aims, answer that very decisively. Even without considering the grave "Terror Octagon" of Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, DFLP, and Islam Jihad.

9. The Arab grievances started neither with their 1967 defeat, nor with the later arrival of some Jewish settlements in the territories, and to now surrender to Arab demands about the continuing presence of either the IDF, or any settlements, without real, verifiable and permanent Arab acceptance of the rights of Israel, would only encourage further Arab aggression. And guarantee yet another round of war before long.

10. The recent 18-point "Prisoners Agreement" [ embraced by Abbas as PA President ] not only fails to recognise Israel, but provides for "OTURC" - the "Occupied Territories Unified Resistance Command", to unite Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, DFLP, and Islamic Jihad to "focus" { but not even "confine", as Abbas wanted } their joint "resistance" [=terror] on the territories. As "OTURC" shows, it is merely a temporary, tactical device to secure a base for further Arab aggression in future.

11. [a] Who exactly "recognised" the 1949 "Green Line" as the permanent border for Israel? No-one in the Arab world.

[b] There is no Israeli claim on any part of Egypt, Jordan, or Lebanon, or on Gaza, or any part of it. The frontier lines are clear and undisputed there.

[c] Gaza was from 1949 Egyptian-occupied, or else Israeli-occupied, but never incorporated as part of Egypt itself, or of Israel, but remained "state-less", and is now officially PA territory. Nonetheless, it has continued as a base for rocket attacks on the State of Israel after the August 2005 complete Israeli withdrawl, and also after the Hamas election victory. Neither Israel, nor any other State, disputes the current position of Gaza as PA territory, or the line of the frontier.

[d] Jordan does not claim any land to the west of the River Jordan; that area remains "state-less" in international law, with the June 1967 occupying power, Israel, administering it. Israel has no obligation whatever to "return" it to any Arab or other Govt, as it is state-less, and how can the sovereign, democratic State of Israel have a duty [or even any right ] to hand it over to a Hamas regime that remains committed to its triple strategy of [a] eliminating Israel, [b] creating a dictatorial, theo-cratic Islamic Republic from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, and [c] achieving its aims by force, including terror against civilians? The EU, US and international isolation of Hamas since the PA election is for that very reason.

12. I do wonder which [a] facts quoted, and/or [b] which principles and values quoted above, opponents of Israel can dispute?

13. In the light of the above outline analysis, I wonder how Uri Avnery and Gush Shalom, or B'Tselem, justify theirr "unconditional and immediate Israeli withdrawl" line?

If the Hitler-proxy that was Franco from July 17, 1936, or the Japanese Imperial aggression from Sept 18, 1931 in South Manchuria, had been confronted in time, or Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia {Ethiopia] from Oct 3, 1935, would WW II have been prevented, or at least less bloody? In any event, appeasement is indefensible, and disastrous. 1,000 Jewish volunteers joined 13,000 other Americans in 1936 [a great over-representation of their level in the US population ] to fight Franco in Spain. Another 0.5m joined the US Forces in WW II, vastly more than their share, with more than that [maybe 550,000] in the Soviet Forces, and 30,000 Jewish volunteers from Palestine alone, not forgetting Col. Chaim Herzog from Dublin in the British Army Intel Corps, and 130,000 from the Island of Ireland in the UK Forces alone. Like Anielewicz and 700 brave fighters, from both Irgun and Haganah sympathisers, in the Warsaw Ghetto Revolt in 1943, they saw that at times, you have to be "either the Hammer, or the Anvil". The whole of humanity is the beneficiary when the Jewish People, or any other, live that lesson, and defend freedom against tyranny.

14. Or maybe some of those who criticise Israel are pacificists? And how are any laws, international or domestic, ever enforced without "tough love"? An un-armed democrat is soon a dead or a defeated one. [And I do not mean that democrats can be without firm, ethical principles]

It has cost Israelis since 1947, over 20,000 lives to defend their freedom and existence, against both regular and irregular Arab forces, with over 6,000, or 1% of the then population, lost in 1947-49 alone. Do those criticising Israel to-day read their Isaiah but forget Joshua?

With best wishes,
Tom Carew

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, December 29, 2006.

New York Times syndicated columnist, Thomas L. Friedman, has gained some wisdom over the years.

For a journalist, he has achieved a level of knowledge on matters pertaining to the volatile Middle East that most others in his profession seldom achieve.

Having said that, what I have forgotten over the decades at professional and academic levels, Tom will never come to know--regardless of how many free trips his boss sends him on.

First, let's look at the good side...

He's correct when he states in a recent op-ed that America must end its oil addiction as it attempts to exit Iraq and presumably try to solve other issues in the region as well. And, in another recent article, he proclaimed that Iraq is so severely fractured, that it is beyond being the Arab Yugoslavia anymore.

I can agree with all of that and have written the same things much earlier in many of my own widely-published articles--including ones showcased by the Kurdish Regional Government itself in Iraq.

But Tommy fails to make necessary connections to what he himself writes.

While repeatedly expecting Jews to bare the necks of their kids in a return to the Auschwitz/armistice lines (which made Israel a mere 9-miles wide at its strategic waist)--not borders--of 1949 with an Arab enemy sworn to the destruction of Israel no matter who is at the helm of the Arabs' proposed state # 22, here's what he had to say to some 30 million truly stateless Kurds, who have been slaughtered and displaced by the hundreds of thousands over the last century by Arabs both in Syria and Iraq (and many more by others as well) in a March 26, 2003 op-ed. Friedman advised that the Kurds in Iraq should be told point blank:

"What part of 'no' don't you understand? ... You Kurds are not breaking away."

Just imagine if Israel was to say that under no circumstances would another state be permitted to be created for Arabs in "Palestine" (Jordan having been carved out, in 1922, of some 80% of the original borders of Mandatory Palestine as Britain received it on April 25, 1920).

Tommy would have a bloomin' fit.

Yet he told Kurds, who were repeatedly massacred by Arabs, that they were not entitled to even one of what he claims Arabs are entitled to some two dozen of--most created, by the way, by the conquest and forced Arabization of non-Arab peoples and their lands.

I guess, for Friedman, imperialism is only nasty when non-Arabs are engaged in it.

But I will give him his due. In another op-ed which appeared in my local Florida paper on March 12, 2006, he finally came around a bit and stated that we should now tell the Kurds, "You've behaved most responsibly...If Iraq falls apart, we will make sure you're taken care of."

Notice, however, he still doesn't call for a roadmap for Kurdistan. That's still only reserved for his Arab buddies.

You know...such a Kurdish state would be "destabilizing" and all that stuff.

Of course, we all know that a murderous Fatah or Hamas-run state (makes no difference--despite what the Foggy Folks say), set up in Israel's very backyard after its forced return to its nine-mile wide existence, won't be destabilizing...

And would you also like to buy a bridge I'm selling?

Now, I'm sure Tommy knows that, besides the Jews, the Kurds are the one people in the region whom Foggy Bottom has shafted over and over again the most...with often bloody results. And since President Truman was correct regarding where the buck stops, that means American Presidents have gone along with this as well. Which brings us at least partly back to Friedman's correct observation regarding petroleum politics.

While it's well known that the very rebirth of the Jew of the Nations was opposed by the Foggy Folks, it perhaps is not as well known that British petroleum politics--in collusion with Arab nationalism--put the kiss of death on the one best chance Kurds ever had--before right now--at independence with the break up of the Ottoman Turkish Empire after World War I.

Kurds were indeed promised that independence, but after the Brits received a favorable decision from the League of Nations regarding Mosul and the oil around it in 1925, Kurdish hopes and dreams were aborted. A British-supported, united, and Arab-ruled Iraq emerged in all of the Mandate of Mesopotamia instead.

While the Brits' other Mandate, the Mandate of Palestine (which was smaller than Mesopotamia) could undergo successive partitions and partition plans to address the needs of competing nationalisms, the Kurds were told that their cause was not worthy. And it has remained this way for three quarters of a century now.

Where have Friedman's op-eds been over the decades regarding this tragic issue?

After all, he likes to write from an alleged position of morality, ethics, and such.

He's not afraid, for example, to demand that Jews return to those Auschwitz lines, while anyone truly familiar with the goings on after 1949 (after Israel survived a massive Arab attack on its miniscule rebirth) would realize that this just ain't so.

A reading of the U. N.'s Ralph Bunch's '49 armistice dealings would help Tommy as would readings of Under Secretary of State Eugene Rostow, U. N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, Britain's U. N. Ambassador, Lord Caradon, and other architects of U. N. Security Council Resolution # 242 after the Six Day War in '67. They all explained why Israel was not expected to return to the status quo ante and was entitled to secure and real borders--not indefensible armistice lines. Yet that's what Tommy continues to chastise Israel for.

Here's Lord Caradon, for example...

" It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial. After all, they were just the places where the soldiers of each side happened to be on the day the fighting stopped in 1948. They were just armistice lines. That's why we didn't demand that the Israelis return to them."

In Friedman's most recent op-ed which appeared locally on December 26, among other things, his Rule #11 ( Mideast Rules For U.S. to Live By) proclaims that the Arabs have really "...been hurt by Jewish settlements on Palestinian land." True, he also mentions the Arabs own faults here as well.

So, there's Tommy's continuing problem...despite some admitted improvements.

Forget the fact that most of his so-called "Palestinians" were newcomers themselves into the Mandate--to the point that the very word refugee had to be redefined by the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) to accommodate all of the Arab newcomers...some only arriving a mere two years before the combined Arab assault on Israel.

But, just where does Friedman think those territorial rectifications (allowed by 242, etc.) of the travesty of Israel's 1949 armistice line existence are to be made if not in Judea and Samaria---aka, only via British imperialism in the last century, now known as the "West Bank?" Israel has already totally withdrawn from Sinai and Gaza.

Again, Tommy needs to read Rostow & Co. very carefully. And if he has already done so, why does he act otherwise?

And why has he repeatedly championed the Arabs' twenty second state and still has not come out for even one for tens of millions of victimized, stateless Kurds--who predate the Arabs in both Syria and Iraq by millennia?

I can understand--but not like--the real politik, use and abuse, games of the Foggy Folks and such.

But for a justice for poor Arabs (who now have "only" over six million square miles of territory under their rule) Friedman to take this hypocritical stance is beyond nauseating.

He perpetually worries about Jewish settlements in Judea ("land of the Jews"), but is mum about the majority of Arabs who were newcomers there themselves, i.e. Arab settlers setting up Arab settlements.

A look at the Records of the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission only tells part of this story. Indeed, there is plenty of evidence and solid documentation for this if one is truly interested.

And has Tommy read Ismet Cherif Vanly's The Syrian (Arab) Mein Kampf Against the Kurds (Amsterdam, 1968), accounts of the Arabs' ANFAL Campaign against Kurds in Iraq, the Arabs' decades' old genocide against black Africans, their continuing subjugation of Assyrians, Berbers, Copts, native kilab yahud "Jew dogs," etc. and so forth in what Arabs proclaim as purely Arab patrimony?

While Mr. Morality complains about colonialism as well as settlements in his latest op-ed, why does he ignore all of the Arabs' own victims mentioned above who were and are still subjected to the same thing--but only far worse--at the hands of his alleged Arab "victims" of injustice?

Where are Friedman's op-eds about them and their share of justice?

He's written many articles--reaching millions of readers--taking Israel to task for not unilaterally caving in to Arab demands regarding disputed territories which he incorrectly calls "Palestinian." Again, a reading of Rostow on this is a must.

Well, this article must now come to end (while there's still much more to write)--or my publishers will have a fit.

But I think you get my drift.

Tommy has improved...a dose of reality seems to have set in. But he still has much to learn.

One day he'll arrive at being able to point the finger of blame in the right direction without trying to look politically correct by "balancing " it with defaming the Jew of the Nations' mere attempts at survival as well.

Few nations--if any--would show the restraint Israel is repeatedly expected to display to those who deliberately try to kill and maim its people and destroy its very national existence.

One day, perhaps...but as of December 26, 2006 Tommy obviously isn't there yet.

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

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

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


Thanks to Democratic partisanship, Ambassador Bolton's nomination for reappointment did not get confirmed by the Senate nor even put up for full debate and vote. At least one corrupt UNO official whom he had tried to reform publicly was jubilant.

So was the NY Times. It reiterated one of the original arguments against him, that since he thinks the UNO should be disbanded, he would not be effective in reforming it. The editors did not come up with any indication that he was counter-productive in that effort. Their omission is telling. If they had anything to cite in that respect, they would have. There were left with a theoretical argument that subsequent events disproved.

He tried hard to reform the UNO, like trying to solidify a cesspool. Who could succeed with a UNO collection of vicious and corrupt governments and a bureaucracy geared to non-accountability? He got some movement. His efforts were complicated by a general hostility to the US, largely due to confronting jihad while the rest of the word averts its face. The Times, like many Democrats, doesn't understand that. It imagines that the US is wrong to confront a war being made on it. It supposes that the rest of the world is virtuous, but it is vicious or cowardly.

Boltan had been depicted as readily losing his temper. At the UNO, he didn't. Let us remember him as the one who did accomplish something there, for a while, in an earlier period, when he shamed the UNO into rescinding its "Zionism is racism" resolution.


After writing about the Baker panel report's absurdities, and noting that the Times gave it little coverage and no analysis, I found that the Times thinks the report is practical. It particularly commended a suggestion that I particularly ridiculed. The suggestion is that the US use diplomacy to persuade Iran and Syria to stop supporting the Iraqi insurgency. We can't "persuade" fanatical rogue states bent on national and Shiite hegemony, global jihad, and genocide against the Jews. The supposition that we can disqualifies the Times from editorializing about international jihad.


It is a pity that in an era of increasingly destructive weapons and declining natural resources, some major powers still act like traditional warlords, seeking foreign territory and influence abroad. But they do, and the US and Israel, which do not seek territory, must figure out how to stop them.

The imperialists size up the risk in challenging us. If they find we are consistent in rebuffing their advances, they desist. If they find we negotiate, they negotiate advances, and then try again, nothing solved for us, score one for them. If they find we let them advance, they set out again.

What do they think of us? They think of us as paper tigers, or at least as old and tired ones. We threaten them, but they don't believe we would fulfill our threats. That means more war than otherwise. Thus our pacifist instincts induce war.


In 1938, Turkey seized the Alexandretta/Hatay region from the Syrian Mandate. Syria has claimed that region ever since, until now. Now Syria relinquished its claim and agreed that the area is to remain Turkish. That is precedent for the Golan (IMRA, 12/8).


Israel was set to sell Venezuela missiles and to upgrade its fighter jets. The US demanded that it not do so. Israel seems to be going along (IMRA, 12/7).

That's strange, the Harvard study alleged that Israel dictates what is in its interest to the US, but in this case, the US is dictating to Israel.

I agree with the US, in this. Venezuela is an enemy of the US. Israel should refrain from building up Venezuela's military.


After having denied intent to ship defensive missiles to Iran, Russia now has announced that it already shipped some, and others are to follow. The missiles would protect the country's nuclear facilities (IMRA, 12/7).

What do they mean, "defensive" missiles? Their purpose is to protect the development of nuclear weaponry, that would be offensive. Does Russia want Iran to launch a-bombs?


Conservative talk host show Dennis Prager belongs to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council. He asserted that the first Muslim elected to Congress should be sworn in on a Bible, not a Koran. He proposed it in the name of national culture.

Affirmation without a religious book is acceptable, just as it is for jurors. Congress usually swears in groups of members without individual resort to holy books.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called Mr. Prager's remark "bigoted, intolerant and divisive," rendering him unfit to serve on the Council that educates Americans against bigotry. Speaking of bigotry, CAIR has links with terrorist fronts, three of its officials have been convicted for terrorism-related crimes, and has denounced almost every prosecution of terrorists (Josh Gerstein, NY Sun, 12/5, p.4).

I think Prager meant well, and was not bigoted, but didn't understand the issues here. The remedy of dismissal is too severe for his mistake. Any mistake, and someone demands firing. That is excessive. Now, the purpose of swearing in on a holy book is to put one's religious ethics behind the oath. The Bible would be meaningless affirmation for a person who does not see it as holy, and it would amount to an unconstitutional religious test for office. Muslims, should be allowed to use their own holy book. Problem is, they do not consider their word to infidels binding and they may work against the US.


An Institute reports warns the Administration against complacency on Iranian nuclear development. It advises persuading Iran that we mean to stop it by force if necessary, and suggests various ways. The idea is to convince Iran's leaders that their regime would not survive further threats to use such weapons.

We should plan strikes and follow-up strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. "The report, authored by Michael Eisenstadt and Patrick Clawson, urged the administration to enhance the U.S. military's ability to counter Iranian naval mine, small boat and submarine warfare capabilities, halt smuggling of special materials and dual-use technologies, identify and neutralize Islamic insurgency cells and detect and interdict weapons of mass destruction shipments to Iran." The last recommendation should involve the help of the Gulf Cooperation Council. "The United States and its allies can more aggressively prosecute individuals and firms that provide Iran with dual-use technologies that can be used in its nuclear program."

The Gulf Cooperation Council needs improvements "in an air and missile defense early warning system as well as command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence architecture. "This means bolstering the littoral warfare and aerial precision-strike capabilities of these states, particularly their ability to counter Iran's mine, submarine, and naval special-warfare forces. Countering these Iranian capabilities will also require a significant U.S. military presence in the Gulf for the foreseeable future." (IMRA, 12/7.)

The report contributes much, but like most, assumes that the US would act unopposed. Seldom is discussed potential counter-measures or other problems. A US presence there arouses antagonism among Muslims and is vulnerable to Iranian attack. It becomes untenable as the Shiite majorities in some of the sheikdoms gain power. U.S. technology may fall into Islamist hands.


Israel has given about a thousand Palestinian Arab children heart operations, and treats about a thousand P.A. patients a month. The EU partially subsidizes this. Sometimes terrorists use the program to get inside Israel and kill Jews (IMRA, 12/7).

The Europeans know about this humanitarian operation. How can they think that the same Israeli government deliberately attacks civilians in Gaza and Lebanon?

I oppose this program, because it helps a population that wholeheartedly supports its governmental goal of destroying Israel. They are at war.


Prof. Kenneth Stein of Emory U. remains on university faculty but has resigned as Middle East Fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University, which he helped shape. He does not want to be associated with Carter, whose book reiterates statements at meetings that Stein witnessed and did not occur as stated. The book is inflammatory and meant to provoke, but suffers from lack of sources and understanding (IMRA, 12/7).

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 29, 2006.

These days, I regularly feel nauseous, and the discomfort rarely subsides. What makes me feel so ill? I am simply disgusted with the world!

I had expected the "fight for what is right" to be difficult, but I am surprised by how lonely a battle it is. I had hoped that by now many more people, even millions, would have joined the struggle to preserve our way of life, which might have turned the tide in our favor. Instead, the struggle has gotten tougher. All the while, the danger has gotten and will continue to get closer.

Here at home, the behavior of American politicians scares me. The "public servants" we elect to represent us wind-up serving only their own interests. They, regardless of party affiliation, are paralyzed and inept. Politicians fail to keep the endless promises they make. They are nothing more than lying bureaucrats perpetrating an agenda of duplicity. Our supposed leaders fight for what is expedient not for what is right. They are misguided, which clearly implies that the nation is misguided as well.

I have burning and seemingly obvious questions that do not get the attention they deserve. Why, for instance, does the US not demand that the Saudis stop muddling with terror? Does our insatiable need for oil outweigh our personal safety? Why are US efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons so very meek? After taking such a strong position against terror, is the administration softening on Islamo-fascism and the war against terror? Will anyone on Capitol Hill tell us the truth about anything?

I watch with terror the continuing Islamization of the United States. Some American institutions, such as banks, have already adopted principles of Sharia'a law as part of their daily operations rather than standing firmly by American values. No one seems to be doing a thing to stop Islam from steamrolling us.

I feel so horribly knowing that America will not survive the Muslim onslaught if it continues to do nothing. We are watching Europe succumb through inaction. We will suffer a similar fate unless we take the present threat seriously and realize that is worthwhile to fight.

If the United States does not prevail, the world will become oppressive and hellish for everyone but the few Arab elites, and even they will not always be safe from the radical lunatics. If the radicals should prevail, I shudder to imagine the consequences. The world we know today will certainly plunge into the Dark Ages again, if not worse. This speaks nothing of what may arise should Iran make good on its desire to incite a nuclear holocaust.

I wonder why the US has stopped shipments of armaments to Israel. What will weakening Israel accomplish? Should Israel still depend on the US as a friend and ally? It is becoming apparent that the vaunted United States is turning against Israel for its own lack of fortitude.

Jews are culpable too. I am unhinged by those Jews who lack faith, who choose secularism over Judaism, who assimilate, who deny Israel, and who are passive and complacent. Oh, strong Jews of old, where have you gone?

The behavior of Israel sickens me too. What has happened to the soul of Ahavat Erez Yisrael? It has been replaced with secularism and a decline in patriotism. Israel has forgotten the value of its turbulent history. And the poster child for this degeneration is Ehud Olmert. If his words ring true, then Israelis have indeed lost their will to persevere. They, under these circumstances, are losing their right to the ancient land of Israel, and pathetic Israeli leadership appears intent on selling them and Israel down the river.

Israel is lonely. Does Israel need to find new friends? Definitely not! First, Israelis must befriend one another. They must rediscover national unity. Then, nations will be seeking Israel's friendship and leadership out of respect rather than mock sympathy and self-interest.

Israel must now show concern for its mere survival. Without Israel and with rising anti-Semitism, Jews may not find safe places to hide as they have done in the past. The **Yiddish song "Tell Me Where Shall I Go" that was written prior to the establishment of the State of Israel should be given more weight now.

The devil is at play with humanity, and survival is at stake. Friends, the current state of world affairs is truly nauseating. While I may be feeling ill now, everyone will sicken if things continue as is. The goal of war, in which we are certainly engaged, is to have the enemy lose more of its soldiers for their country than us. Fighting for survival requires us to destroy our enemy. We did not start this war. We are being blamed for the failings of the Muslim world. We are under constant attack, whether we like it or not, and we are taking more casualties than we are inflicting.

Fighting for others and for myself by myself is a daunting challenge. Walking through the darkness is much harder by one's self than with friends. I sincerely hope that more people will wake up to the dangers all around us and see fit to join me in our fight for survival.

**First line: Tell me, where shall I go, there's no place I can see
Subject: Hope/Statehood/Home
Genre: Zionist/Holocaust
Authors: Leo Fuld and Sonny Miller
Composers: Oscar Strok and Sigmunt Berland.
Language: Yiddish/English

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, December 29, 2006.

This article was written by Serge Trifkovic and it appeared December 10, 2006 in Front Page Magazine (www.frontpagemag.com). It is one in a series of articles adapted by Robert Locke from Dr. Serge Trifkovic's new book The Sword of the Prophet: A Politically-Incorrect Guide to Islam.

Serge Trifkovic received his PhD from the University of Southampton in England and pursued postdoctoral research at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. His articles have appeared in many of the major news media. He is foreign affairs editor of Chronicles.

Our political and intellectual elite is remarkably inflexible in its secular liberal ideological assumptions. Having no serious religious faith of its own, its members refuse to take seriously the faith of others. Instead of pondering the complex problem of the relationship between the world's great religions - the West and the rest - they assure us that no religious problem exists.

The most outspoken character witnesses for the hastily nicknamed "Religion of Peace and Tolerance" were, unsurprisingly, non-Moslems, Sunday-morning popular entertainers, academicians steeped in political correctitude, and politicians. Their hasty claims about the distinction between "real" Islam and its violent aberrations were crudely ideological. They were based on their simple conviction that all faiths, having equal legal privileges, must in some sense be equally good, and "true," and hence capable of celebrating all others in the spirit of tolerance.

Why is the liberal elite so eager to vindicate Islam? It is a sign of the infinite arrogance of this elite that it imagines even at this late date that it can use and manipulate Islam to its own purposes. The rulers of the British Empire, in the days when more Moslems lived under British rule than under any other government, were arrogant enough to think they could "manage" Islam and get it to do things like accept the establishment of Israel. But even they never had the idea of using Islam as a tool to do their bidding outside itself, and they never suffered from the delusion that Moslems were really Englishmen under the skin.

Today, having enlisted militant Islam in the destruction of the communist threat to its world-wide dominance, our ruling establishment aspires to use it to erode the reliquiae reliquiarum of the Christian culture in the Western world, which it despises and would like to replace with a multicultural globalism that trivializes all cultures and thus liquidates the possibility of any resistance to a world organized solely for its profits. The twin spearheads of this attempt to co-opt Islam as a tool are multiculturalism and mass immigration. It is the dirty little secret of our present global civilizational conflict that large sections of our own elite are ambivalent about which side they are on because Islam is an objective ally in their own struggle for globalism. (Of course, this marriage of convenience won't work for the globalists in the long run, but as with all doomed policies, this doesn't stop them from trying in the short run.)

Let's take immigration first. Leeds and Leicester have acquired the sight and sounds of Peshawar and Rawalpindi, Marseilles and Toulon the suburbs of Dakkar or Algiers, Berlin and Stuttgart a growing slice of Istanbul or Adana. This social experiment -- Britain's Roy Jenkins, a liberal Home Secretary in the mid-sixties, admitted slyly that his contemporaries "might have considered matters more carefully" -- antedated America's Cold War expedients, but the consequences of the experiment and the expedient have fused. The assumption all along has been that the Islamic genie released by Carter National Security Adviser Dr. Brzezinski's "excellent idea" -- enlisting radical Islam to fight the USSR in Afghanistan -- could be controlled. Supposedly, it would be reduced to yet another humanistic project in self-celebration through its adherents' immersion in the consumerist subculture and through their children's multicultural indoctrination by state education. We were going to use Islam to fight Marxism, then destroy it by means of McDonald's and MTV.

Liberal Christianity, i.e. intellectually-bankrupt forms of Protestantism like the fast-declining "mainline" protestant denominations like the Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians, has collaborated in the whitewashing of Islam. They have been abetted by post-Vatican-II Catholics. The World Council of Churches shares the same worldview. It seeks "dialogue" with Islam "in order to learn from each other and to accept one another."

How have Western attempts to co-opt and manipulate Islam fared? Decades of covert and overt support for "moderate" Islamic movements, countries, and regimes, whenever they were deemed useful to Western foreign policy objectives -- and especially if they have lots of oil, or prove willing to make peace with Israel, or both -- have been an unmitigated moral and political disaster.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Morocco, the Gulf states, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Nigeria, Indonesia, and a few others have become the darlings of U.S. policy, valued as supposed bulwarks against "fundamentalism" of the Saudi or Iranian variety (Iran itself having formerly been a member of the favored group.) Operationally, this means not only overlooking the radical activities of the supposedly "moderate" Moslem states -- for example, Saudi Arabia's and Pakistan's support for the Taliban regime in Afghanistan and assistance by virtually all Islamic nations to the thinly disguised radical regime in Sarajevo -- but also a consistent American bias in favor of the Moslem party in virtually every conflict with a Christian nation.[i]

So we bombed Serbia, a nation that has never done anything to the US, in support of the Bosnian Moslems. Among its sorry preconditions of the Bosnian war was the capture of the leadership of the Moslem people by a group of untypical Islamist bigots: Izetbegovic was an extremist in any sense of the word; the Chechen leadership were far worse: unhinged fanatics who forced Russia into a war she was extremely reluctant to fight. The Kosovo UCK (a.k.a. KLA) were brigands financing their warfare by drug smuggling and slavery-prostitution rackets whom the Americans had on their official terrorism list until just a few weeks before going to war on their behalf.

Appeasement of Saudi Arabia in particular, and the string of related little despotic sheikhdoms along its eastern rim, is continuing even in the aftermath of September 11. It is as detrimental to peace and democracy in all affected regions as it is detrimental to the long-term security of North America and Europe. It does nothing to help the Moslem world come out of its state of deep denial about its responsibility for the worst terrorist outrage of all time, the denial as irrational as the culture that breeds it.

The beneficiaries of three decades of Western appeasement have been Osama bin Laden, his ilk, and his co-religionists all over the world. Conceivers and executors of Brezhinski's "excellent idea" paved the way for September 11 by failing to grasp Islam's inherent link with violence and intolerance. The unspoken assumption of the architects of failed Western policies, that generosity would be rewarded by loyalty, is mistaken: loyalty to unbelievers is not a Moslem trait. Cynical pragmatism, however, is -- and, as Yohanan Ramati has remarked, "pragmatism prescribes that when dealing with fools one milks them for all one can get, demoralizes them until they are incapable of protecting their interests, and then deprives them of any influence they have left."

Islam might have been made much less threatening if the West had not conciliated or sponsored its most threatening exponents. Islam was exposed to a devastating collapse in credibility within the Arab world itself in the middle of the twentieth century. The forces of secularism were very strong indeed. But America opposed them every time because they were socialist, communist, or simply anti-American nationalist. America gave whole-hearted support to the worst fascist freak-show in the region: Saudi Arabia. As the economies of real states faltered and halted in accord with Islam's eternal difficulty in establishing a viable economy upon a predator mindset, the Saudi petrodollars were poured into establishing violent fanaticism as the big alternative. Inexorably, the people who could have moderated Islam have been pushed aside by raving sheiks congratulated by US diplomats.

The Moslem world today has no love and very little respect for the Western powers in general and for the United States in particular. It was for many years a bitterly divided world, where individual rulers competed with each other for wealth, influence and sometimes territory. This was why the wealthy states of the Gulf Cooperation Council were ready to accept protection from American and other Western forces. But four decades of prattling about decolonization and "globalism" have made their mark. If globalism is a good reason for uniting Europe, preventing it is a better reason for uniting Moslem states (which have much more in common than the Europeans) on a policy to wrest power from the unbelievers.[ii]

The Moslem states are aware of Western greed and its political repercussions, and they trust that they will not be hindered in increasing their military, political and economic capacity to a point at which they can blackmail the West into accepting their political, cultural, or religious demands. After September 11, they are hoping that the US will settle for destroying Bin Laden and the Taliban and gradually resume its oil-dictated pro-Moslem policies. The crack whore of Western petro-consumerism will always return to her john for her next fix, however much she complains about how he treats here.

Such policies, drastically manifested in the "great game" under Presidents Carter and Reagan, have had their apologists in each subsequent American administration. Under Bush I, they were summarized in a statement by then-Assistant Secretary of State for Near East and North African Affairs, Edward Djerejian, who declared that the United States did not regard Islam or Islamic movements as the enemy, and recognized their right to participate in the political process.[iii] The spirit of the statement was reiterated and expanded upon by his successor, Robert Pelletreau, under Clinton. Pelletreau lamented in 1996 the fact that the "image of Islam in the minds of the average newspaper reader is often one of an undifferentiated movement hostile to the West and ready to use violence and terrorism to achieve its ends."[iv] He distinguished the many "legitimate, socially responsible Moslem groups with political goals from Islamists who operate outside the bounds of law."

A generation ago it was understandable, even excusable, for bone-headed God-fearing CIA bosses of the low-Church Protestant kind to work up a hatred of atheism and enjoy dealing with believers. They used Moslems in just the way they used the Roman Catholic Church in the early 1950s, the time of the Gladio. But appeasement by their feeble successors in our own time only breeds the contempt and arrogance of the Islamic radicals and fuels their limitless ambition.

Changing the self-defeating trend demands recognition that the West is in a war of religion, whether it wants that or not and however much it hates the fact. This war is being fought, on the Islamic side, with the deep and unshakeable condition that the West is on its last legs. The success of their demographic deluge enhances the image of "a candy store with the busted lock," and that view is reinforced by the evidence from history that a civilization that loses the urge for biological self-perpetuation is indeed finished. Even after its unfinished victory in Afghanistan, America is viewed as a paper tiger, with F-16s and dollars but no strong heart and no long-term stamina. Indeed, it is uncertain that anything significant has taken place in Afghanistan: the Afghan Talibs were forced to change their coats as one set of Islamists took a lot of money for replacing another.

Mr. Bush may be hoping to domesticate Islam under the aegis of the non-denominational deism that is professed in his rhetoric. In the last century Americans, inspired by Protestant missionaries, conceived the ambition of getting closer to the Arab world and the Chinese than the imperialist Europeans. The attempts failed, but they left echoes in American thinking. The wish to patronize Islamic modernism is one. Hence the enduring fantasy of an American-Islamic alliance against extremism. The Islamists are often quite worldly and some have accommodated themselves to the appropriation of great wealth. Nevertheless, the alliance Mr. Bush may be looking for is less available than ever. There may be no homo Islamicus - a Moslem is certainly not a programmed fanatic - but saying so is too often a preface to evasive talk about tiny minorities with no power.

There is need for a new policy. The West cannot wage "war on terror" while maintaining its dependence on Arab oil, appeasing Islamist designs around the world, and allowing mass immigration of Moslems into its own lands. It risks being the star actor of a Greek tragedy in which the Gods make the unfortunate rulers mad before they destroy them.

On the ground, the reversal of existing policies means, inter alia, active Western help, diplomatic and when necessary military, to relieve Indonesia of West Papua and the Christian parts of the Moluccas, to expel Syria from Lebanon and create a Christian state in part of Lebanon, to create an independent Christian state in southern Sudan, to detach the Serb-populated and Croat-populated parts from Moslem-dominated Bosnia-Herzegovina, to stop Albanian attempts to take over Kosovo or Macedonia and to force the Arabs to give "land for peace" to Israel. It also means supporting India against Pakistan and independence for oil-producing, Christian provinces of Nigeria.

The inevitable argument against such a policy reversal will be that it will set off Islamic terrorism "on a never before experienced scale." It is as spurious as the logic that combines "globalization" and "promotion of democracy" with support of Moslem dictatorships. Islamic terrorism has been thriving because the existing policy is perceived as a sign of Western weakness. The real problem facing the United States and Western democracy is not how the Moslems will respond to a policy hostile to their interests but whether the West still has the moral strength to adopt any policy causing its power-wielders temporary financial losses. Curbing their greed -- this doesn't mean you personally, Pres. Bush, but it does mean some of your slimy oil-patch friends whispering in your ear -- is a prerequisite for success in the inevitable conflict with Islam and indeed for maintaining US superpower status at all, as a nation that can be put on the run by these people simply is not a superpower.[v]

Just as in 1936 with the Nazis, checking appeasement requires a revolution in the West's political thinking. It requires a realization that safeguarding Western elites' economic interests from Moslem encroachment or confiscation may become impossible if such encroachments continue to be tolerated or encouraged. It also requires understanding that, as Reagan impolitely observed about Marxism, Islam regards lies, violence, and threats of violence as legitimate means of gaining political ends and that the only capacity Islam respects in an unbeliever is the capacity to use diplomacy or military force successfully against it.

Pandering to Islam's geopolitical designs, and sacrificing smaller Christian nations -- Timorese and Sudanese yesterday, Serbs and Orthodox Cypriots today, Bulgars and Greeks tomorrow -- is counterproductive: such morsels will only whet the Islamic appetite, paving the way to a major confrontation some time in this century.

The price of delusions is going up. The time to sell off is now.


[i] James Jatras, Chronicles (1999), op. cit.

[ii] Yohanan Ramati: The Islamic Danger to Western Civilization http://www.westerndefense.org/special/TwinTowers2001.htm

[iii] http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/briefing/dispatch/1993/html/Dispatchv4no21.html

[iv] http://www.usis-israel.org.il/publish/press/state/archive/august/sd2_8-28.htm

[v] Yohanan Ramati, op. cit.

Contact Janet Lehr at janetlehr@veredart.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, December 28, 2006.

This article was written by Ricki Hollander and it appeared yesterday. It is archived at

Since a cease-fire between Israel and Palestinians in Gaza was announced on November 26, 2006, Palestinians have violated it on a near-daily basis, launching over 65 Kassam rockets toward Israel. These rockets attacks have caused building and car damage, sent several people into hospital for shock and shrapnel wounds, caused a blackout as a result of a direct hit on an electrical substation in Kibbutz Nir Am, directly hit a strategic facility in the industrial area of Ashkelon, and on December 26, severely wounded two 14-year-old Israeli boys in Sderot.

For nearly a month, media coverage of these steady violations remained limited as Israel refused to respond to the attacks against its civilians. Even after Adir Basad was critically wounded and Matan Cohen seriously injured in the Dec. 26 attack, coverage remained scant. The New York Times, for example, referred only briefly to the Palestinian violation at the end of a December 27 article entitled "First Settlement in 10 Years Fuels Mideast Tension," which highlighted instead Israel's announcement that it intends to settle an army base in the Jordan valley.

It was only when Israel announced it would allow pin-point attacks against rocket launchers, that the media sprang into action, running AP headlines and story leads holding Israel responsible for "threatening" the supposed cease-fire.

"Israel to renew attacks against Gaza rocket launchers, puts truce at risk" blared a headline to an AP article on USA Today's Web site. According to the article lead, Israel's announcement that it would target Palestinian rocket launchers firing at Israeli citizens "threatens to send a shaky, month-old truce into total collapse."

Other AP story leads to articles by reporters Josef Federman and Amy Tiebel, carried by numerous media outlets, similarly blamed Israel for "threatening to derail an already shaky, month-old truce."

These AP news headlines and leads imply that the definition of a "ceasefire" is that Palestinians "fire" while Israel "ceases." Palestinian violations just "shake" the truce, while Israeli intention to target rocket launchers would "derail" it. And the story becomes newsworthy only when Israel can be blamed for trying to protect its citizens.

News consumers cannot and should not put up with the media's immoral double standards.

The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) monitors the news and TV media for how fair they are in reporting on Israel. The website address is www.camera.org.

To Go To Top

Posted by Zalmi, December 28, 2006.

It seems that Santa Olmert has lots more in his sack of free goodies for our enemies.

On top of the $100 million dollars he paid for the photo-op with Abbas, and the gift of thousands of automatic rifles for the unrepentant Holocaust-denier's 'Force 17' presidential guard, there now looks to be a unilateral release of hundreds of security prisoners.

All of this bonhomie - as usual - for nothing in return. Not the release of our kidnapped soldiers. Or even the release of a letter or tangible sign of life and wellbeing.

Apart from being the most incompetent and arrogant prime minister that Israelis never elected, Ehud Olmert has demonstrated, within his few short months in power, how very little he cares for ordinary Israelis: be they citizens or soldiers. No caring prime minister would have gone to the lengths of unleashing a bloody Cossack attack on pliant settlers in Amona just to impress his wife and to show us how he could be tougher than even Ariel Sharon. And no caring commander-in-chief would announce the future surrender of settlement towns to our enemies even as their residents were fighting his disastrous war in Lebanon.

What caring prime minister could contemplate releasing Marwan Barghouti? An unrepentant murderer of our people, sentenced to 5 life terms. It is a near-certainty that the release of this animal will not only bring about more killing but will also embolden other killers to take ever-greater risks in terrorizing our people, knowing that they can be assured of due process and a life-sentence that means nothing.

But why should Olmert care? He doesn't ride buses. He doesn't go to discos or buy pizzas. In fact he doesn't go anywhere that hasn't been sanitized by his security detail. And that security protection will be with him long after he has been kicked out of office.

So, I challenge Mr Olmert to prove that he does care about the security of ordinary Israelis. Let him convince us that he is prepared to take the same risks as his citizens.

If he is so foolish as to release Mr. Barghouti ... let him free one other prisoner the same day: Yigal Amir.

Contact Zalmi at zalmi@zalmi.net or go to the website: www.zalmi.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, December 28, 2006.

This was written by Barry Shaw and it appeared in Front Page Magazine
(www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26175). Barry Shaw writes the "View from Here" columns from Israel. To sign up to receive his emails, contact him at netre@matav.net.il

OK. So I understand that you are ticked off at Israel, and in love with the Palestinians.

That's fine with me, as long as you have truly weighed up all the facts.

So, you want to boycott Israel?

I'll be sorry to miss you, but if you are doing it - do it properly.

Let me help you.

Make sure that you do not have tablets, drops, lotions, etc., made by Abic or Teva.

It may mean that you will suffer from colds and flu this winter but, hey, that's a small price for you to pay in your campaign against Israel, isn't it?

While we are on the subject of your Israeli boycott, and the medical contributions to the world made by Israeli doctors and scientists, how about telling your pals to boycott the following....

An Israeli company has developed a simple blood test that distinguishes between mild and more severe cases of Multiple Sclerosis.

So, if you know anyone suffering from MS, tell them to ignore the Israeli patent that may, more accurately, diagnose their symptoms.

An Israeli-made device helps restore the use of paralysed hands. This device electrically stimulates the hand muscles, providing hope to millions of stroke sufferers and victims of spinal injuries.

If you wish to remove this hope of a better quality of life to these people, go ahead and boycott Israel.

Young children with breathing problems will soon be sleeping more soundly, thanks to a new Israeli device called the Child Hood.

This innovation replaces the inhalation mask with an improved drug delivery system that provides relief for child and parent.

Please tell anxious mothers that they shouldn't use this device because of your passionate cause.

These are just a few examples of how people have benefitted medically from the Israeli know-how you wish to block.

Boycotts often affect research.

A new research center in Israel hopes to throw light on brain disorders such as depression and Alzheimer's disease.

The Joseph Sangol Neuroscience Center in the Sheba Medical Center at Tel HaShomer Hospital aims to bring thousands of scientists and doctors to focus on brain research.

A researcher at Israel's Ben Gurion University has succeeded in creating human monoclonal antibodies which can neutralise the highly contageous smallpox virus without inducing the dangerous side effects of the exisiting vaccine.

Two Israelis received the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Doctors Ciechanover and Hershko's research and discovery of one of the human cells most important cyclical processes will lead the way to DNA repair, control of newly produced proteins, and immune defense systems.

The Movement Disorder Surgery program at Israel's Hadassah Medical Center has successfully eliminated the physical manifestations of Parkinson's disease in a select group of patients with a deep brain stimulation technique.

For women who undergo hysterectomies each year for the treatment of uterine fibroids, the development in Israel of the ExAblate 2000 System is a welcome breakthrough, offering a non-invasive alternative to surgery.

Israel is developing a nose drop that will provide a five year flu vaccine.

These are just a few of the projects that you can help stop with your Israeli boycott.

But let's not get too obsessed with medical research, there are other ways you can make a personal sacrifice with your anti-Israel boycott.

Most of Windows operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel.

So, set a personal example. Throw away your computer!

The Pentium NMX Chip technology was designed at Intel in Israel.

Both the Pentium 4 microprocessor and the Centrium processor were entirely designed, developed, and produced in Israel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 in Israel by four young Israeli whiz kids.

Both Microsoft and Cisco built their only R.& D facilities outside the US in Israel.

So, due to your complete boycott of anything Israeli, you now have poor health and no computer.

But your bad news does not end there. Get rid of your cellular phone!

Cell phone technology was also developed in Israel by Motorola, which has its biggest development center in Israel.

Most of the latest technology in your mobile phone was developed by Israeli scientists.

Feeling unsettled? You should be. Part of your personal security rests with Israeli inventiveness, borne out of our urgent neccesity to protect and defend our lives from the terrorists you support.

A phone can remotely activate a bomb, or be used for tactical communications by terrorists, bank robbers, or hostage-takers.

It is vital that official security and law enforcement authorities have access to celluar jamming and detection solutions.

Enter Israel's Netline Communications Technologies with their security expertise to help the fight against terror.

A joint, non-profit, venture between Israel and Maryland will result in a 5 day Business Development and Planning Conference next March.

Selected Israeli companies will partner with Maryland firms to provide innovation to the US need for homeland security.

I also want you to know that Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita - 109 per 10,000 - than any other nation.

Israel has the highest number of start-up companies per rata. In absolute terms, the highest number, except the US.

Israel has the highest ratio of patents filed. Israel has the highest concentration of hi-tech companies outside of Silicon Valley.

Israel is ranked 2 in the world for venture capital funds, behind the USA.

Israel has more museums per capita.

Israel has the second highest publication of new books per capita.

Relative to population, Israel is the largest immigrant absorbing nation on earth.

These immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom or expression, economic opportunity, and quality of life.

Believe it or not, Israel is the only country in the world which had a net gain in the number of trees last year.

So, you can vilify and demonize the State of Israel. You can continue your silly boycott, if you wish. But I wish you would consider the consequences, and the truth.

Think of the massive contribution that Israel is giving to the world, including the Palestinians - and to you - in science, medicine, communications, security.

Pro rata for population we are making a greater contribution than any other nation on earth.

We can't be all bad....

Contact Michael Travis at Michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, December 28, 2006.

Dear President Bush;

It is most troublesome that your administration, that condemns Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad for organizing "The World without Zionism" conference, that labels the Holocaust a myth, and suggests Israel must be "wiped off the map," is the same U.S. administration that sees nothing wrong in considering a plan to declare an independent Palestinian state with provisional boarders within the next 2 years.

The administration is also entertaining handing hundreds of millions of dollars to Fateh, an entity that refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, denies the Holocaust ever happened, calls for the obliteration of Zionism, opposes compromise, justifies support for terrorism, champions the use of violence, and just like Hamas, defies in words and deeds, 'the inadmissibility of use of violence'

Fateh, the main faction of the PLO to which Mahmoud Abbas belongs and was one of its founding members -- displays its constitution on its website. It calls under Article 12 for the "Complete liberation of Palestine, and obliteration of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence."

As for how it will achieve its goal to wipe Israel off the map, Fateh's constitution, Article 19, minces no words:

"Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab People's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated"

In light of the Palestinians' history of violence, and their poor performance coping with limited freedom or autonomy -- the equivalent of a "half-way house" to test their readiness to join the Family of Nations should be devised. Because of the support (rather than pressure to 'toe the line') that Palestinians enjoy in the international arena, Palestinian's independence could very well turn into a genuine nightmare.

Palestinian promises continue. Palestinian hostility continues. Rejectionism and violence remain the most salient features of Palestinian discourse. Palestinians believe that terror works and expect U.S. support for the creation of a Palestinian state. This Palestinian state is likely to become a rogue state -- the kind of polity our country is currently grappling with in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere.

The U.S. administration's model in evaluating Palestinian readiness for statehood, should parallel the European Union's yardstick for Turkey, a peaceful country, asking to join the EU. It demands [of Turkey] far-reaching political and social reform "on the ground", and 10 to 15 years of negotiations while Turks prove democratic change is "irreversible."

The fundamental freedoms the EU cites, and which the Palestinians should be required to match, include "women's rights, trade union rights, minority rights, and problems faced by non-Muslim religious communities" and "consolidation and broadening" of legal reforms including "alignment of law enforcement and judicial practice with the spirit of the reforms" and a host of other demands. In fact, the EU demands a complete 'makeover,' from women's rights to recycling of trash.

United States yardstick for Palestinians, a hostile society, demanding to join the Family of Nations should start with the demand to execute the letter and intent, of the first set of requirements as spelled out in the " Performance-Based Roadmap," and "10 to 15 years of negotiations" while Palestinians prove genuine democratic changes is irreversible; No short cuts. No discounts. Any other approach will promote Arab support for terrorism and the belief that 'terrorism pays off.'

The conflict between the Palestinians and Israelis is not the only adversary Israel faces. Historically, anti-Zionism has been the glue behind Arab nationalism. It has provided a convenient scapegoat for deflecting Arab states' frustration over unsolved domestic problems, but it also stems from a deep innate intolerance that exists throughout the Muslim world to any non-Muslim presence. Israel has no alternative but to remain strong enough to fend off the combined capabilities of all Arab states -- a reality that leaves little room for risk-taking or margin for error in establishing another independent Arab state with provisional boarders in 2 years' time.

An end to violence and democratic reform, that Palestinians have not even begun, is intolerable. Establishment of a Palestinian state now would be a genuine danger to a free and democratic Israel and a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security.

Wishing you and your family a happy and healthy New Year.

With trust,
Eli E. Hertz

Contact Eli Hertz by email at today@mythsandfacts.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Itimar Marcus and Barbara Crook, December 28, 2006.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his cabinet have found a unique way to celebrate the Islamic holiday of Id al-Adha, the "Festival of the Sacrifice," that commemorates the willingness of Abraham to sacrifice his son. But instead of slaughtering lambs or goats, as millions of Muslims throughout the world will do starting Sunday, Israel's leaders are prepared to sacrifice the lives of countless innocent Israelis.

Olmert's willingness to free terrorists in exchange for our kidnapped soldiers, along with his newest plan to release terrorists as a goodwill gesture to PA President Mahmoud Abbas before the Muslim holiday, will cause more Israeli deaths than if he were to hand a terrorist a loaded gun.

Freeing terrorists by giving in to blackmail empowers an entire generation of terrorists with the knowledge that their actions have no lasting consequences, and that even the toughest Israeli prison sentence will never be permanent. They just have to wait for their fellow terrorists to kidnap another Israeli hostage, and kill a few more in the process. Then freedom will just be a matter of time.

It's important to recognize that Israel's past behavior has repeatedly proved the effectiveness of these murder-kidnappings and caused them to become an integral component of Palestinian policy and strategy.

WHEN ISRAEL released 400 terrorists in exchange for the freedom of Israeli businessman Elhanan Tannenbaum and the bodies of three soldiers kidnapped by Hizbullah, PA leaders were quick to recognize the effectiveness of Hizbullah's strategy:

"Fatah's military branch organized a civilian and military parade yesterday... in gratitude for the efforts Hizbullah made for the release of Arab and Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails as part of the prisoner exchange deal with Israel. In a public statement...Fatah's military wing emphasized the need to follow Hizbullah's example to achieve the release of all prisoners." (Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, January 29, 2004).

The recurring theme of public proclamations in the months before the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev confirms that Israel's previous surrenders to blackmail have made kidnapping a cornerstone of PA policy:

"Islamic Jihad: Kidnapping of Israeli soldiers - the fastest way to the release of prisoners" (Al-Ayyam, May 9, 2006).

Said Siam, PA Minister of the Interior: "In the past, Hamas managed to kidnap many Zionist soldiers... I believe that there is no other choice than kidnapping soldiers and exchanging them [for prisoners]" (Abu Thaib TV, January 2006).

"[PA Foreign Minister] Mahmoud Zahar, said that his movement [Hamas] would not hesitate to kidnap soldiers in order to exchange them for prisoners" (Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, March 7, 2006).

IF ISRAEL releases more terrorists this week there will be four waves of Israeli victims - starting with Gilad Shalit.

Israel hoped that Hamas would eventually lower its demands for Shalit's release and be satisfied with the symbolic victory of securing the freedom of a modest number of terrorist prisoners. By releasing terrorists to Abbas without getting anything in return, however, Olmert is forcing Hamas to raise the stakes and lessening Shalit's chance of early release.

As part of its escalating power struggle with Abbas and his Fatah faction, Hamas must be seen to win more concessions from Israel than its rival. Whatever number of terrorists Abbas receives gratis, Hamas will have to hold out for many times that number. Whatever the crimes committed by the terrorists released to Abbas, Hamas will demand the release of even more dangerous criminals.

The result will certainly be much longer and harder negotiations, with Hamas's demands possibly becoming higher than even Olmert can accept. If Shalit is lucky this will merely extend his ordeal by months or years. If Olmert's goodwill gamble fails, Shalit could well become the next Ron Arad.

The second wave of victims will be the dozens, perhaps hundreds, of Israelis who stand to be killed and maimed by these released terrorists. According to a September 2006 report by the Almagor Terror Victims Association, at least 14 major terrorist attacks in recent years - accounting for 123 murdered Israelis - were carried out by terrorists released from prison through various "goodwill gestures" and Israeli prisoner deals.

These terrorists may not have had "blood on their hands" when they were first released, but they were quick to sign their freedom with the blood of Israeli citizens. So will some of the terrorists Olmert is poised to release this week.

The third wave of victims will be all those killed by a new generation of terrorists empowered and emboldened by the images of "heroic" prisoners carried aloft as they step to freedom, laughing and cheering Israel's weakness and surrender.

And the fourth wave will be those soldiers and civilians who fall victim to the kidnappings and murders that will continue as long as Israel keeps proving to terrorists and their handlers that this tactic works.

OLMERT HAS a unique opportunity to break this cycle of killings, kidnappings and ransom by rejecting all attempts at this kind of blackmail, thereby depriving Palestinian terrorists of one of their favorite weapons.

But instead, he appears so intent on demonstrating what he describes as "flexibility and generosity" that he ignores the reality of the deadly consequences his actions will inevitably have.

"It is customary to make such a gesture on Id el-Adha," Olmert said of his desire to time the prisoner release to coincide with Islam's Festival of the Sacrifice. But it's time for Israel's leaders to stop doing what is "customary," and start doing what is right.

As Olmert and his cabinet prepare to make the ultimate sacrifice - with the lives of other people's children - they might want to recall that at the end of the biblical story, at the very last moment, God called off the sacrifice and saved an entire nation. It's not too late for them to do the same.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 28, 2006.

This article was written by Yosef (Tommy) Lapid and it appeared yesteday in the Jerusalem Post
(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881991966&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull). Lapid is a former Knesset member.

Does anyone really think it is possible to reach a settlement with the Palestinians that will guarantee peace between us?

I can understand that there are those who believe it may be possible to reach a settlement. And I can understand that there are those who hope it is possible to reach a settlement. But does anyone really think it is possible to make peace with the Palestinians - I mean, really think so?

How can one not see the rift among them, their inability to administer their own lives, Fatah's helplessness, Hamas's abysmal hatred, the murderousness of the popular resistance organizations, the destructive influence of radical Islam, the interference of Iran and the belief - so deeply rooted in almost every Arab heart - that, sooner or later, Israel will disappear off the map?

How can anyone see all that and still think there is a chance for a peace settlement? Or that all the different Palestinian factions, so hostile not only to us but to each other, will somehow find a way to cooperate in order to reach a settlement with Israel?

EVEN IF Israel agreed to withdraw to the 1967 borders (and it doesn't); even if Israel agreed to allow the refugees to return to Israel within the 1967 borders (and it doesn't); would Hamas ever recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist in the heart of the Muslim Middle East?

After all, Hamas's entire raison d'etre is founded on its refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. Its members would sooner convert to Judaism than relinquish that principle.

True, anything is possible. But not in the foreseeable future. Not in this generation. And if not the Palestinians, then radical Islam will make sure there is no peace agreement with Israel.

Iran on one side and al-Qaida on the other are threatening not only Israel, but the regimes in Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt as well. Israel isn't even their first target, it is their last.

WHAT SHOULD we conclude from all this? That the time has come to emigrate from Israel? Maybe give in to the Arabs' demands? Perhaps put an end to the Zionist enterprise and close up shop?

Never. Israel will continue to exist and flourish, as it has existed and flourished since the establishment of the state, thanks, among other reasons, to the Arab boycott, which forced it to export computer software to America and Europe instead of making plastic toys for the market in Damascus. (Did any of us ever imagine that the shekel might one day become stronger than the dollar, or that we would export more than we import?)

Yet, while the leaders of the Islamic countries have not accepted Israel's existence in principle, they have accepted it in fact - and only because they know they cannot wipe Israel off the map without themselves being wiped off as well.

And that, rather than any pie-in-the-sky, illusory hope for the brotherhood of nations, is the basis for the relationship between us. In the entire Muslim world, numbering over a billion people, one would be hard-pressed to find even a dozen willing to stand up and justify Israel's existence.

THIS DOES not mean we should forget about striving for peace. We must behave as if we believed that it was possible to achieve a peace settlement. Why? Because if we do not strive for peace, the result will be war. And we do not want war.

But even as we strive for peace, even if we follow the road map, we mustn't delude ourselves. We won't arrive at peace, not here.

But it may be possible to reach a modus vivendi, a balance of terror and a balance of mutual interests that will enable us to lead our lives more or less normally. And not just for a year or two, but for generations.

If we foster no illusions, we won't be disappointed.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Bryna Berch, December 28, 2006.
You have to admit America is consistent. The Palestinian Arabs mourn Saddam's death and can't wait till they can kill more "foreigners." But America can't wait to carve them a state out of Israel? And how does the Bush administraton treat Israel, her only reliable friend in the Middle East? Read this article written for Arutz-Sheva by Hillel Fendel.

The Bush administration and State Department are blocking arms and technology transfers to Israel, Middle East Newsline (MENL) reports.

Quoting "Israeli and U.S. sources," MENL reports that the State Department has blocked the transfer of weapons and technology to Israel over the past three months, reflecting deteriorating relations between the two countries since the war in Lebanon in August of this year.

The unofficial suspension of U.S. arms deliveries, beginning in late September, halted the airlift of air-to-ground and other munitions that had been ongoing since the war - despite Israel's continuing need for them. Israel says it needs the equipment in order to replenish munitions and other stocks in preparation for a larger war that might include Syria in mid-2007.

"Nobody will say openly that there is a problem," a government source said. "But there is a serious problem that reflects the marginalization of Israel in U.S. strategy... The administration has not rejected any Israeli request. Instead, the State Department and Defense Department have said that all requests must be examined."

Military cooperation between the two countries has also been hampered in other areas. The State Department recently prevented Northrop Grumman from providing Israel with details of its Skyguard laser weapon, which the company wanted to sell Israel. In turn, Israel suspended negotiations to procure the system, which is designed to intercept short-range rockets and missiles.

Two reasons have been given for the deterioration in relations. One is the perceived Israeli loss, or at least non-victory, in the war with Hizbullah, which has undermined U.S. confidence in Israel's military and government. In addition, the U.S. may be trying to assuage Saudi Arabia, whose help the U.S. seeks in Iraq. "There's nothing like stopping the weapons flow to Israel to show the Saudis that the United States means business," a diplomatic source told MENL.

To Go To Top

Posted by Hillel Fendel and Hana Levi Julian, December 28, 2006.

IDF officials are not happy with Prime Minister Olmert's new exclusive policy of "pinpoint operations" against Kassam launching cells. Some 27 security checkpoints in Yesha are set to be removed.

A senior officer slammed the new anti-Kassam policy, which Olmert decided upon after two boys were seriously wounded in a Tuesday night rocket attack. The government resolved to continue the ceasefire with the terrorists, despite the increasing violations by terrorist rocket crews, but to take action against specific Kassam cells when they are detected.

Maj.-Gen. (ret.) Yiftah Ron-Tal told Voice of Israel Radio Thursday morning, "Pinpoint operations are a step in the right direction, but really just partially so. Security forces must be allowed to control the area in a more effective manner."

He said the new policy would not even help reduce the number of rockets fired at western Negev communities, let alone end them.

Ron-Tal warned that it is extremely difficult to spot terrorists in the act of launching rockets, and almost impossible to attack them once they are identified.

The senior officer was discharged from the IDF in October, shortly before his official retirement, after criticizing IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz.

Removing Checkpoints, Despite Past Negative Experience

Another of Olmert's gestures towards Abu Mazen is also about to get underway. After a delay of a few days, a program to remove 27 military checkpoints in Judea and Samaria has been approved by the IDF. The amount of entry permits for PA Arabs into mainland Israel has also been increased.

"The proposed plan is likely to contribute to an improved atmosphere, to the strengthening of moderate forces and the distancing of the civilian population from the circle of terrorism," Prime Minister Olmert said. "This does not mean that we are backing off from our war with terrorism, which we will continue to fight with the same determination."

Terrorists have taken advantage of previous gestures in the past to travel freely and perpetrate attacks. Arutz-7's Kobi Finkler reports that just two weeks ago, after the removal of the east-of-Shechem Eyn Bidan checkpoint, a terrorist cell was caught after having passed through that very area with a large amount of explosives. Furthermore, nine months ago, after the same checkpoint was removed - only to be replaced later - a terrorist passed through the area, and later murdered four Jews when he dressed up as a religious Jew and got into a car as a hitchhiker.

Senior IDF officers have also criticized the government for turning down a proposal to allow forces to cross the Gaza border and create a security buffer zone.

"We have no other way but to control the northern Gaza Strip using [IDF] forces," added Ron-Tal. "Not for a long time, but for a limited time... If our soldiers aren't there, the terrorists will continue to fire from there."

Two boys were severely injured on Tuesday night by a Kassam rocket attack on Sderot, one critically. Adir Moshe (ben Bruriah) Basad, who was listed in very critical condition, is no longer considered in immediate danger. He is still listed in serious condition in Barzilai Hospital in the southern coastal city of Ashkelon, where Kassam rockets hit a strategic target this week as well. His friend, Matan (ben Koren) Cohen, suffered moderate wounds - including the loss of four toes - and is being transferred to Shneider Children's Hospital in Petach Tikvah.

Released for publication:

On April 22 of this year a suicide bombing was thwarted because the Bethlehem terrorist who was supposed to supply the explosives was wounded and arrested in a clash with undercover Border Guard forces. The would-be killer himself was arrested in Halhoul, near Hevron. The next day, three wanted terrorists tried to escape an undercover Border Guard force in the region by shooting at their car, but they themselves were hit, and two were killed.

It has also now been publicized that two months ago, another attack was thwarted when the suicide terrorist was arrested by Israeli forces near the Jenin refugee camp.

Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News). Hana Levi Julian is a writer for Arutz-Sheva.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 28, 2006.

"In a nationally-televised address in Tel Aviv on July 31, the Prime Minister declared, 'We will stop the war when the threat is removed... our captured soldiers return home safely and you are able to live in safety and security.'" (Arutz-7, 12/6.)

He stopped without them. He has made all sorts of strong-sounding policy statements, only to back down from them. That is common there. What credibility do they retain?


Speaking of ISM, "The new recruits are called on to stand as human shields before arms caches or shooter hideouts. If through some mishap a young foreigner should be hit, all the better: fuel for international outrage."

ISM complains that Israel destroys civilian houses, but in fact the "civilian homes" are weapons depots; or else they are outlets, sometimes with complicit families still in them, concealing tunnels dug from Egypt to Gaza. The tunnels smuggle guns, rocket launchers, explosives; and the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) is there to stop the flow of arms intended for assaults on Israeli citizens, and to uncover the launchers secreted in olive groves and farms, where the gunmen also hide, or in the houses, where the gunmen hide among women and children (12/6, forgot the source).


His plan is to induce the Muslims to spare Americans by betraying Israel. What does that teach the Muslims?

(1) The US lacks honor and brains. (2) Better to be an enemy of the US than a friend.

(3) If Baker succeeds in forcing Israel to give up the Golan, in the (vain) hope of stopping foreign support for the Iraqi insurgency, he will have taught the Muslims that the best way to conquer Israelis is by killing Americans (Mark Steyn, NY Sun, 12/4, Op.-Ed.).

Baker suggests negotiating with Iran and Syria. That would be as useful as negotiating with Hitler. Just as Hitler sought to take over other countries, and negotiations advanced him into Czechoslovakia, so, to, Iraq and Syria seek to take over other countries, among which is Israel, that Baker would hand them on their way to other countries. He thinks they want stability in Iraq, but it is they who are fomenting instability there!

There is no logical linkage between the jihad in Israel and the jihad in Iraq, except that both are jihad and the West needs to win in both. Baker is fabricating a linkage on the theory that if we are easy on the Muslims in Israel, they would be easy on us elsewhere. But Jihad is not a matter of trade-offs. The struggle goes on, wherever Muslims can wage it and whatever some of them have "promised." Baker's notion is unrealistic and stems from his bias against Israel if not also ignorance. He does the US and civilization a disservice.


Hamas has received more than three hundred million dollars from abroad, during the boycott of it. It smuggles millions at-a-time from Sinai into Gaza. With these funds, it has been able to pay most of the administrative salaries (half of which goes to terrorists). It remits the funds through Abbas.

Meanwhile, Hamas officials secretly have been meeting with the Europeans supposedly boycotting it. Apparently, the Europeans are satisfied with a long-term truce Hamas proposes instead of recognizing Israel as legitimate.

The Democratic Party, of the US, also has been conferring with the Islamist enemy (IMRA, 12/6).

Conferring with such an unrelenting enemy is treasonous. It undermines the boycott. The boycott would be tight, if Israel did not, as demanded by the US, abandon the Gaza border now unguarded. It hardly is accurate to portray the entry of suitcases of cash as "smuggling." They just go right through, with some paperwork. Nobody stops cash or arms.

Abbas cooperates with Hamas. He acts far from the candidate to repress Hamas that the US is arming him as.

A long-term truce at best means renewed war later, when Hamas is capable of doing well at it. That is no solution to anything. But the Arab Muslims don't keep truces long. They violate them. The violate agreements, because they think that their religious cause permits them to use any means, including deceit. Europe is deceiving itself, if it imagines otherwise. However, Europe does not care what happens to Israel or itself.


US pressure is an old excuse by Israeli politicians for working against Israeli national security. Shimon Peres once asked a Secretary of State to pretend that some unpopular and hazardous measure by Peres was done under US pressure. It is a poor excuse. There may be pressure, but it does not have to be yielded to. Israel often has acted in its own behalf, despite US pressure (Dr. Aron Lerner, IMRA, 12/6). Let Israel get word out just what means of pressure the US exerts. We have a right to know.


Israel teaches little geography in high schools, which have low ratings. Education Minister Tamir decreed that Israel's textbooks should show everything outside the old Green Line, the 1967 armistice line, as not within Israel. PM Olmert supports this.

Her decision is part of several to promote a Far-Leftist agenda. The old Green Line excludes the Golan and to the New City of Jerusalem, although Israel officially applied Israeli law to them, in effect, annexing them. A companion decision is for Israeli schools to commemorate "Nakba Day," Arabic for catastrophe, meaning Jewish defeat of the Arab attempt to annihilate them in the 1947 war (IMRA, 12/6). Israel now is pro-Arab.


Syria has become an enemy of the US. Pres. Bush is trying to isolate Syria. Defying him, some Democratic Members of Congress have gone to Damascus to confer with the dictator supplying forces fighting our own in Iraq. GOP Senator Specter indicated he would go. Sen. Nelson, who went, says "he was optimistic Syria's stance on Iraq could be turned around. 'Assad clearly indicated the willingness to cooperate with the Americans and/or the Iraqi Army to be part of the solution.'" (NY Sun, 12/14, p.6).

The photograph of a US Senator sitting with a terrorist dictator is a pathetic indication of naivete in the highest reaches of our government. Syria is aligned with the jihadists. It would not reverse its policy unless its regime were overthrown, if even then. The Senators are making America appear divided and indecisive. They harm our national security.

Pres. Bush is like democracy. Democracy is a poor form of government, but the rest are worse.


"Israel condemns Tehran's Holocaust denial conference...but what about Mahmoud Abbas?" (David Bedein, 12/13.)

When the head of Iran denies the Holocaust, Israel condemns him. What about Abbas, who wrote his thesis denying the Holocaust? Why doesn't Israel denounce him?

The answer is that the anti-Zionist and appeasement-minded world, which includes Israel's leaders, wants to pretend that there is a Palestinian Arab leader with whom Israel can make peace. Otherwise, Israel would have to respond with all-out war to the war being made on it by the P.A., including Abbas.


The US will modernize Egypt's self-propelled howitzers (IMRA, 12/13).

Now tell me that the US is pro-Israel!


Israel has made special arrangements to let Israeli citizens visit relatives in the Gaza Strip during an approaching Muslim holiday (IMRA, 12/13).

How considerate of Israel! The Arabs of Gaza more or less forced the Jews out, which ruined them. The Arabs stationed rockets where the Gaza Jews used to live, near Israel, and fired them into Israel. But Israel lets Muslim Arabs in Gaza be visited by their relatives from Israel. If Jews are not allowed to live in the P.A., why should Arabs be allowed to live in Israel, which they detest and undermine?

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 Andras Bereny, December 28, 2006.

This is crazy. Reading this article I hold my head in my hands in disbelief. That the olmerts should allow the egyptians to supply 2.000 rifles and 20.000 magazins through an unnamed border crossing to our enemies is just as crazy as allowing them to smuggle untold thousands of rifles and bombs under the border, in tunnels.

It is clear that the olmerts are selling out this country to the enemy. They must be removed from power now, before they do further damage, and replaced by people who have a connection to the Jewish people, the Torah and to the Land of Israel.

This article is entitled "Israel approves Egyptian arms shipment to Fatah" and it was written by Hanan Greenberg Published today in Ynet News

PM Olmert heeds calls by President Mahmoud Abbas to allow Egypt to transfer arms to Fatah in attempt to counter Hamas' armament drive

Two thousand rifles were transferred from Egypt to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party, a move approved by Israel in an attempt to boost moderates in the Palestinian Authority.

The rifles, as well as 20,000 magazines were shipped in to the Gaza Strip through an unnamed border crossing.

Israel is concerned over Hamas' rising military power as the Islamic group continues to smuggle explosives and arms into Gaza from Egypt through underground tunnels.

On Wednesday Abbas called for a new chapter in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, expressing his readiness to discuss the thorniest of issues with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert .

Abbas made the comments following a meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo.

Following his meeting with Mubarak in Cairo, Abbas said serious talks behind closed doors are imperative, adding that the Quartet should participate as well.

"For some time now we've been considering the option of opening another channel of communication between us and the Israelis with the participation of one or all of the Quartet members (United States, Russia, European Union, United Nat ions) to discuss issues related to a permanent agreement," he said.

Abbas said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to arrive in the region once again on January 13. The two met in Jericho in late November.

The Palestinian president arrived in Cairo on the heels of his meeting with Olmert in Jerusalem last Saturday.

The leaders agreed that Israel would release USD 100 million in frozen Palestinian tax funds, and also discussed Abbas' request to permit the transfer of arms from Egypt and the transfer of forces from the Jordan-based Badr Brigade to the Palestinian Presidential Guard, this within the framework of the Dayton Plan.

Andras Bereny lives in Kfar Tapuach, Shomron 44829 Israel. Visit his websites: www.jewishyisrael.com and www.jewishyisrael.org. Or contact him by email at bereny@tin.it

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 27, 2006.

Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert attempts to raise Mahmoud Abbas' reputation among so-called Palestinians by releasing 100 million dollars worth of desperately needed tax revenues and removing over two dozen check points thus improving the flow of goods through the Gaza Strip. How nice. No doubt, the two name double game presumably moderate Abbas Mazen and his Fatah brigade seem to be the better option to deal with than Hamas fanatics obsessed with annihilating the Jewish State. Thus ceding Israeli land justifiably secured in 1967 to morphed Jordanian Arabs, better known to the world as Palestinians, is more likely to happen if Abbas' reputation is enhanced so he might break meaningful bread with Olmert. Hmmm! Does that also mean peace in our time will reciprocally occur as a result of that land transfer? Perhaps Olmert should first remove his rose colored glasses, look Abbas squarely in the eye, and insist he apologize for suggesting no gas chambers were used by Nazis in The Holocaust, merely one of his many horrifically false assertions about the most chilling sadistic systematic attempt to destroy an entire people, indeed the most subhuman event of the twentieth century. That's right, multi-decade Arafat understudy Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen (or whatever he calls himself) is a kindred spirit to the other Mahmoud Iranian madman AhMADinejad when it comes to Holocaust denial or trivialization. In 1982 Abbas completed a doctoral thesis, truly an intellectual abomination, 'The Secret Connection between the Nazis and the Leaders of the Zionist Movement', in 1984 published bearing the title "The Other Side", revising details of the Holocaust by estimating the number of Jews killed during World War II to be under one million, raising doubts that Jews were murdered in gas chambers, and most despicably stating Zionist leaders collaborated with Nazis to "facilitate the wide-spread destruction" of Jews, asserting those Zionists were interested in convincing the world that a large number of Jews were killed to "attain larger gains" and divide the "booty", in effect insuring the creation of a Jewish homeland by guilt ridden world citizens. No retraction has ever been made by Abbas in regards to his ignominious slanderous work no doubt precipitated by his hatred for Jews and Israel.

How soon some Prime Ministers and cronies forget or perhaps forgive! Might Israeli movers and shakers of policy really believe this well dressed 'moderate' leader would be able or even willing to disarm Hamas and other Arab extremists under his 'presumed' jurisdiction, insuring Israeli citizens a life free from Qassam rockets and homicide/suicide bombers? Would the Jew hating forked tongue smoothie even care about such things once Olmert and his naïve crew cede the farm; namely Judea, Samaria, east Jerusalem, and perhaps even accede to an insidious right of return? Before any negotiations even begin or further concessions are made to succor Abbas, let Olmert demand that the Fatah leader condemn his abominable work, unequivocally and loudly stating to all Muslims that more than six million Jews were butchered by Nazi filth during The Holocaust, that gas chambers were indeed used, and that any mention of a Zionist Nazi conspiracy is anti-Semitic propaganda so vile that it blasphemes Islam's holy Koran. Furthermore, let Olmert demand that Abbas beg Allah to forgive him for crafting such a heinously sinful work. Once that is accomplished, let Olmert demand that any sovereign Palestinian state allow all ethnicities, including Jews, to dwell in peace within negotiated borders, be honored with respect and protected by government authorities, be allowed to engage in political discourse and run for political office, much like non-Jewish ethnicities including Muslims are treated in Israel. If Abbas agrees to all this, perhaps the State of Israel will have a true negotiating partner. Otherwise, there is no point in conducting a charade that would only result in tzuris for beleaguered Israel.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Zubry, December 27, 2006.

For years I hear of ideas coming from every corner of the world and claiming the solution to the Middle East problem. Some of these ideas were not too bad and a number of good people tried to work on them. Well, unfortunately, all of them failed so far ending with huge set backs. It never was pretty usually quite bloody. What ideas did I hear over the years? Let me see. No Israel, no Jews, no Palestinians, no Arabs, one-state solution, two-states solution, the Iranian solution, the Hezbollah solution, the Hammas solution, the Hitler's solution and a few more. Did I miss any? Did they work? Did any of them work? Well, not exactly.

Jews would not go anywhere. There is no where to go. Why should they go anywhere when this is their land and for a few thousand years already? It does not sound right. Arabs would not go anywhere. There is no where to go. Why should they go anywhere when this is their land and for a thousand years already? It does not sound right either. Palestinians are relatively new comers in that region and they result from the Ottoman Empire's policies and the lack of them. Are they entitled to this land? No and yes. Historically they are not entitled to anything but they are there already and there is no other place for them to go to. Turks irresponsibly made it that way. Arabs hate Palestinians more than they hate Jews and would not take them in. Arabs want to get rid of them and rather pay for Palestinians to become martyrs. Palestinians are being sold a fairytale heavily supported by the false religion values and the non-existing passages from Koran. Great. Definitely something worth to die for. Would not you say so?

So, no one goes anywhere and killing has to stop. That's a must. The one-state solution does not work due to tremendous internal problems it presents and the two-state solution would not work due to tremendous external problems it would present. We can't grant the status of the state to terrorists. This is wrong, very wrong. Even more -- crazy. But Arabs and Palestinians would not leave Israel alone. Iranians are salivating already in anticipation of the mass murder of Jews. After all, why not to kill a few million helpless Jews just to cover your country's internal problems, the leader's political impotence and the numerous religious shortcomings? The show must go on. Is not the way it's been always done? Yes, it was but no more. This time many of us, if not all would fight back. There is a good chance that some of us would be "the last standing" and not some of you. I'll bet on that. Who is with me?

But still this is not the answer. At the end, no one wins in wars. Each side loses so much that the little gains are worthless. No, we need something else. We need something more tangible, something that would give peace a chance. We need something that would create alliances powerful enough to hold the enemies at bay but yet be economically wise and feasible. We need a totally new arrangement for what may sound as an old accord. What if Israel becomes a member of the European Union? As a full member of this powerful organization Israel would be protected and at the same time controlled by the full might of it. Arabs would have to think twice before financing the anti-Israeli terrorism again. Russians would think twice before supplying weapons and the explosives to fuel the terror. Israel would have to control its anger and curb down the violations Israel has been guilty of. Economy? The whole world would benefit from integration as this. Brains previously forced to stay local and in a very small and quite limited locality would once again become accessible to the whole world. So, if Israel becomes a member of the European Union, the Middle East terror would start to slow down and eventually die. Peace would get a chance because some other very powerful forces would be included in to negotiation process. The economic situation of the region would improve dramatically and the whole world would benefit from it. Is not it what we want?

Am I missing anything? Am I wrong in any assumption? Is this better that everything else we tried and that failed before? Shell we try this one? This could be the right answer. Shell we present it to our leaders helping them to navigate this process? Do you see a better option?

Contact the author at BorisZubry@comcast.net or visit his website: www.boriszubry.us

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 27, 2006.

The following is the greatest description of our foolishness that has already come to hunt us NOW, in real time!

Who likes to be a fool? Not me and not you! So why do we let our [no] leadership make us look the biggest fools ever lives?!

President Bush now stands alone, as Churchill did, but unfortunately, President Bush does not have what Churchill had: 101% conviction that he was the ONLY one RIGHT...and boy was he RIGHT!

President Bush, you have the final opportunity to change history and make it RIGHT...We, Americans WANT TO WIN and this is a war we can proudly WIN with the WILL to WIN! So all that remains to say: Mobilize the minds of ALL Americans, ACT decisively and DO IT RIGHT!

This article was written by Khaled Abu Toameh and the Jerusalem Post Staff. It appeared in the Jerusalem Post December 19, 2006.

Hamas gunmen killed two Palestinian policemen loyal to the rival Fatah movement early Wednesday, just hours after the sides agreed to a new cease-fire meant to end more than a week of factional fighting...

President Bush has repeatedly asserted that we are in a war, although he shrinks from naming the enemy: totalitarian Islam. However, his State Dept. and Defense Dept. seem to have a peculiar understanding of what "war" means. Our Generals and our diplomats all seem to have been trained in the art of therapy rather than the art of war. They take enormous pride in their cultural sensitivity, rather than in their killing skills. Not a Patton or a Curtis LeMay among them. No way someone like Patton could rise in today's military bureaucracy. The model of a modern General is Colin Powell. His bureaucratic skills helped him get to the top of the State Dept., an organization of therapeutic wordsmiths who believe we have no real enemies, only people who misunderstand our good intentions.

Let us perform a thought experiment: imagine that assorted State Dept. bureaucrats wake up tomorrow and realize we're in a war to the death and that our enemies are jihadists of every stripe -- Sunnis and Shia, Fatah and Hamas, ayatollahs and sheiks and their assorted followers. Our networked enemies are bound together in a death cult whose aim is a perfect sharia world. In its pursuit, they have been killing one another for 14 centuries. Now they've turned their sights on us. Our foes are barbarous and are incompetent at most life tasks -- hence their envy and hatred of Israel and the Jews. It's humiliating to be smacked in the face by reality; fantasy is far more comforting. While these backward fantasists appear to be skillful at waging guerilla war, that is illusory. It takes no great warrior talent to hide among civilians, detonate bomb belts while disguised as women, launch RPG's into hospitals, and blow up small children on playgrounds. The correct word to describe such behavior is 'cowardice'. We collude in the illusion that our foes are terrifyingly powerful, our therapeutic mindset resembling the stance of a masochistic wife "explaining" that her violent alcoholic husband had a difficult childhood. We play by Marquis of Queensbury rules, pulling our punches while our foes hide in mosques, disguise themselves as civilians and hide their weapons in apartment buildings. Anyone who grew up dealing with playground bullies knows that bullies are cowards. They're weaklings whom we are treating as if they were strong men, thereby supporting their delusions of adequacy.

Until now we've fought with one hand tied behind our backs as if we were afraid someone we targeted might get angry. How awful, we could blow up a mosque serving as a munitions dump! We carefully avoid targeting one of their designated "Holy Cities." Incidentally, what makes their 'holy' cities more sacred than my city, New York? Instead of issuing pathetic appeals for Hamas and Fatah and Islamic Jihad to stop killing each other, we should be encouraging this internecine war among our foes.

If we simply used the word 'war' as it has been used before our Post-Modernists gave it a kinder, gentler meaning, we would stop our endless attempts to intervene when our enemies are killing each other. Then we might cease referring to our "war on terror", an absurd p.c. way of disguising the true enemy: totalitarian Islam. Why is Condi Rice begging Hamas to stop shooting at Fatah and vice versa? Why are we endlessly palavering with Shiite ayatollahs and Sunni clerics when both of them regard us as infidels to be killed or forcibly converted? Why is our State Dept. eager to talk with the Iranian leadership, instead of encouraging revolution against it? All of these absurdities are the product of our Post-Modern therapeutic view of the world, which is really a symptom itself of our wavering confidence. Do our advanced military thinkers now read Lacan and Derrida instead of Clausewitz and Sun Tzu?

"If the enemy is to be coerced, you must put him in a situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make. The hardships of the situation must not be merely transient -- at least not in appearance. Otherwise, the enemy would not give in, but would wait for things to improve."- Karl Von Clausewitz

Notice, Clausewitz does not suggest that the enemy's grievances need to be sympathetically addressed. Nor does he urge a multi-cultural egalitarian approach to conflict. All of James Baker's and Lee Hamilton's deep thinking produced nothing as useful as those two sentences of Clausewitz. Clearly, we have not made the situation unpleasant enough, nor have we convinced the enemy we are going to stay. Quite the opposite. Our latest plan -- to "surge" more troops to Iraq is offered with the implicit promise that it will be followed shortly by a drawdown of troops. Furthermore our troops fight within the constraints of rules of engagement that seem designed to persuade our enemies that we are delicate and sensitive souls, more concerned with avoiding collateral damage than with defeating them.

If we could rediscover our martial vigor, then we could win this war rather quickly. President Bush now stands alone, as Churchill did, against the counsel of all his cautious advisers. This is probably his final opportunity to change history. And in truth it's not that difficult to discern what he ought to do. If we grasp the nature of our enemy -- 8th century minds, steeped in fantasy, then we know where to strike them. Notice how enraged they become when their symbols are mocked or destroyed. Their rage is the rage of the frightened and vulnerable. They are more afraid of women than the average member of the BLGT alliance. The great Heavyweight champ Joe Frazier told how to win a fight: "Kill the body and the head will die." That should be our motto for the war against totalitarian Islam. Horsefeathers has observed human nature closeup and personal for many years, and the kind of infantile rage emanating from Islam is not -- contrary to the great Mark Steyn -- a mark of self assurance and growing confidence. It is the collective tantrum of vulnerable and frightened children unable to keep up with the other kids who've mastered arithmetic and are moving on to more difficult subjects. The further and further Islam has fallen behind the rest of humanity, the more fearful and humiliated its practitioners have come to feel, and the more they collectively retreat into fantasy and symbols. Thus an attack on those symbols, the body of Islam (reminding them they attacked our secular ones at the WTC), would constitute a blow to their primitive collective faith and a corrective to their grandiose utopian fantasies. As a further "reality check" we hope the President puts aside political correctness and emulates Churchill, not with words but with deeds. All he need do in his national speech is explain that we are in a World War, that Iraq is one battlefield on which we have suffered defeats, just as we did many times in World War II, but from this defeat we've learned the nature of our enemies and will use the full range of our power, up to and including nuclear weapons to utterly annihilate them. Furthermore, the United States, as the guardian of Western civilization will not permit a second holocaust. Then let us hear that our air power has removed the symbols the jihadis worship, the mosques they make pilgrimages to in Mecca and Medina, as well as the nuclear program undertaken by the Iranian Hitler, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If the President acts decisively the country will support him. The media typically misunderstands the results of the recent elections. Americans want to win. This is a war that can be won, but only if we possess the will to fight. Hurry up, please Mr. President.

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, December 27, 2006.

This was written by Dr. Anis Shorrosh, D.Min, D.Phil and a member of Oxford Society of Scholars. He has traveled in 76 countries and is a Palestinian Arab Christian American who is an author, lecturer and producer of TV documentaries. Islam Revealed is a best seller which has been printed eight times already. His forthcoming tenth book will be available spring 2003 entitled Islam: A Threat or a Challenge.

When we immigrated from Jerusalem, Jordan in January, 1967, little did I imagine that Islam would become center-stage in world news. As my sincere interest in the growth of Islam in America intensified, I began to discuss, dialogue, and then debate Muslim leaders throughout the world from an Arab Christian's view of Islam. So far, I have had the privilege of participating in over 20 debates and discussions on every continent plus T.V. and radio. Islam Revealed was released in 1988 and is now in its 8th printing. The True Furqan is now in its third printing in the three years it has been published. It is the only book which challenges the Quran in substance, style, language and contents. The True Furqan can be located on www.answers-to-islam.net or www.islam-exposed.org.

The following is my analysis of Islamic invasion of America, the agenda of Islamists and visible methods to take over America by the year 2020! Will Americans continue to sleep through this invasion as they did when we were attacked on 9/11?

1. Terminate America's freedom of speech by replacing it with hate crime bills state-wide and nation-wide.

2. Wage a war of words using black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Rev. Jesse Jackson and other visible religious personalities to promote Islam as the original African-American's religion while Christianity is for the whites! Strange enough, no one tells the African-Americans that it was the Arab Muslims who captured them and sold them as slaves, neither the fact that in Arabic the word for black and slave is the same, "Abed."

3. Engage the American public in dialogues, discussions, debates in colleges, universities, public libraries, radio, TV, churches and mosques on the virtues of Islam. Proclaim how it is historically another religion like Judaism and Christianity with the same monotheistic faith.

4. Nominate Muslim sympathizers to political office for favorable legislation to Islam and support potential sympathizers by block voting.

5. Take control of as much of Hollywood, the press, TV, radio and the internet by buying the corporations or a controlling stock.

6. Yield to the fear of imminent shut-off of the lifeblood of America -- the black gold. America's economy depends on oil, (1000 products are derived from oil), so does its personal and industrial transportation and manufacturing -41% comes from the Middle East.

7. Yell, "foul, out-of-context, personal interpretation, hate crime, Zionist, un-American, inaccurate interpretation of the Quran" anytime Islam is criticized or the Quran is analyzed in the public arena.

8. Encourage Muslims to penetrate the White House, specifically with Islamists who can articulate a marvelous and peaceful picture of Islam. Acquire government positions, get membership in local school boards. Train Muslims as medical doctors to dominate the medical field, research and pharmaceutical companies. Take over the computer industry. Establish Middle Eastern restaurants throughout the U.S. to connect planners of Islamization in a discreet way. Ever notice how numerous Muslim doctors in America are, when their countries need them more desperately than America?

9. Accelerate Islamic demographic growth via:

1. Massive immigration (100,000 annually since 1961)
2. No birth control whatsoever -- every baby of Muslim parents is automatically a Muslim and cannot choose another religion later.
3. Muslim men must marry American women and Islamize them (10,000 annually). Then divorce them and remarry every five years -- since one cannot have the Muslim legal permission to marry four at one time. This is a legal solution in America.
4. Convert angry, alienated black inmates and turn them into militants (so far 2000 released inmates have joined Al Qaida world-wide). Only a few have been captured in Afghanistan and on American soil. So far -- sleeping cells!

10. Reading, writing, arithmetic and research through the American educational system, mosques and student centers (now 1500) should be sprinkled with dislike of Jews, evangelical Christians and democracy. There are 300 exclusively Muslim schools with loyalty to the Quran, not the U.S. Constitution.

11. Provide very sizeable monetary Muslim grants to colleges and universities in America to establish "Centers for Islamic studies" with Muslim directors to promote Islam in higher education institutions.

12. Let the entire world know through propaganda, speeches, seminars, local and national media that terrorists have high-jacked Islam, not the truth, which is Islam high-jacked the terrorists. Furthermore in January of 2002, Saudi Arabia's Embassy in Washington mailed 4500 packets of the Quran, videos, promoting Islam to America's high schools--free. They would never allow us to reciprocate.

13. Appeal to the historically compassionate and sensitive Americans for sympathy and tolerance towards the Muslims in America who are portrayed as mainly immigrants from oppressed countries.

14. Nullify America's sense of security by manipulating the intelligence community with misinformation. Periodically terrorize Americans of impending attacks on bridges, tunnels, water supplies, airports, apartment buildings and malls. (We have experienced this too often since 9-11.)

15. Form riots and demonstrations in the prison system demanding Islamic Sharia as the way of life, not American's justice system.

16. Open numerous charities throughout the U.S. but use the funds to support Islamic terrorism with American dollars.

17. Raise interest in Islam on America's campuses by insisting that freshman take at least one course on Islam. Be sure that the writer is a bonafide American, Christian, scholarly and able to cover up the violence in the Quran and express the peaceful, spiritual and religious aspect only.

18. Unify the numerous Muslim lobbies in Washington, mosques, Islamic student centers, educational organizations, magazines and papers by internet and an annual convention to coordinate plans, propagate the faith and engender news in the media of their visibility.

19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

20. Applaud Muslims as loyal citizens of the US by spotlighting their voting record as the highest percentage of all minority and ethic groups in America.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dawntreader, December 27, 2006.

This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post yesterday.

You have to wonder what thoughts passed through the minds of Bethlehem's Christians as Palestinian Authority Chairman and Fatah commander Mahmoud Abbas appeared at the Church of the Nativity for Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve.

On April 2, 2002, as IDF forces swept into Bethlehem to root out the terrorists who had taken control of the city, between 150 and 180 Fatah terrorists under Yasser Arafat's command shot their way into the Church of the Nativity. For the next 39 days they held the sacred site and some 150 clergymen hostage.

Three weeks into the siege, three Armenian monks escaped from the church through a side entrance and revealed what was happening inside. Friar Narkiss Koraskian told reporters: "They stole everything. They stole our prayer books and four crosses. They didn't leave anything."

When the siege ended, the released hostages told of frequent beatings of clergymen. The terrorists, they told The Washington Times, "ate like greedy monsters," gorging themselves on food and slurping down beer, wine and Johnny Walker scotch they stole from the rectory as their hostages went hungry.

CATHOLIC priests said that the terrorists used their bibles as toilet paper. Franciscan priest Nicholas Marques from Mexico reported: "Palestinians took candelabra, icons and anything that looked like gold." Thirteen of the ring-leaders of the siege were deported to Cyprus and then dispersed to European countries. Twenty-six were sent to Gaza.

Bethlehem's Christians could not hide their relief at the expulsions. They spoke of a "reign of terror," of rape, murder and extortion that the men had waged against them over the previous two years. Helen, a Christian woman, told The Washington Times, "Finally the Christians can breathe freely. We are so delighted that these criminals who have intimidated us for such a long time are going away."

On Saturday night, as part of his massive effort to "strengthen" Abbas, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert agreed to convene a joint committee to discuss the return of these terrorists to the city.

Speaking of his good friend Mahmoud on Sunday afternoon to a Kadima audience in Ashkelon, Olmert allowed that "Abu Mazen [Abbas] is an adversary." But, he explained, he is an enemy Olmert can do business with.

IT IS TRUE that business sometimes can be done with enemies. But what business can Olmert do with Abbas? And how does any of this business advance Israel's national interests?

At the cabinet meeting Sunday, Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin embraced Olmert's decision to "strengthen" Abbas, by, among other things, giving him $100m. and agreeing to release terrorists from Israeli prisons even without receiving so much as a sign of life from IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit, who has been held hostage by Abbas's underlings and their Hamas pals in Gaza for the past six months.

Diskin warned the ministers that if elections were held today in the PA, Hamas would win hands down. Not only would they retain their control over the PA government, they would no doubt rout Abbas himself and take over his presidency.

In light of the Palestinians' apparent satisfaction with their lot at being governed by genocidal jihadists from Hamas as opposed to corrupt genocidal jihadists from Fatah like the ones who took over the Church of the Nativity, the government believes that it needs to make the PA irrelevant - a mere school district - as one government official put it. In the meantime, the real power will be placed in the hands of the Fatah-controlled PLO.

There are of course, two problems with this. First, that "mere school district" will be armed to the teeth and controlled by an Iranian- (and Saudi-) trained, funded and armed regime that is overwhelmingly popular among its "students." This little backwater will continue to serve as a nexus for global jihad that is little different from Somalia.

Hamas has made clear that it will fight to the last man to protect its regime. Yet in the interest of "strengthening Abbas," Israel is doing nothing to weaken Hamas either militarily or politically.

THE SECOND problem with the "school district" strategy is that the edifice of power the Olmert government seeks to replace the PA with has no interest in making peace with Israel. To the contrary, far from seeking to transform the PA into a liberal, pacific democracy committed to peaceful coexistence with Israel (or for that matter, just freeing Shalit from captivity), Abbas seeks to strengthen the terrorist character of Palestinian society.

Abbas's demands of Olmert make this fact perfectly clear.

If Abbas were interested in peace he would not be demanding that Israel release terrorists from prison; stop arresting wanted terrorists; make it easier for terrorists to operate in Judea and Samaria by suspending IDF counterterror operations and taking down roadblocks; bring more terrorists into the areas from Jordan; arm terrorists through Egypt; and give him money to pay the salaries of terrorists.

If Abbas wanted peace he would be asking the IDF to escalate its fight against the terrorists. He would prefer that they rot in jail and not be released to enjoy the freedom to kill again.

In other words, if Abbas were interested in peace he would be doing precisely the opposite of what he is doing.

THERE ARE three reasons why Olmert and his government are acting as they are. First, they are doubtless bowing to pressure from the Bush administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stated several times over the past week alone that the US has decided that its interest is advanced by Israel giving things to Abbas. But is US pressure a reasonable justification for Olmert's treatment of Abbas?

Olmert justifies his refusal to negotiate with Syrian dictator and Iranian toadie Bashar Assad by noting that the Bush administration strenuously objects to holding such talks. Yet this is a flimsy excuse for not negotiating with Syria. Even if the US were pressuring Israel to negotiate with Syria it would make no sense to engage Assad because Israel has absolutely nothing to gain from doing so.

As is the case with Abbas, by holding talks with Syria Israel would be conferring unwarranted legitimacy on Assad while receiving nothing of value in return. If Syria agreed to the handover of IDF hostages Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser and to ending Syrian sponsorship of Palestinian terror groups and Hizbullah in return for negotiations with Israel, it might make sense to confer such legitimacy on Assad even if the US objected. But Assad will do no such thing, and so there is nothing to be gained from talking to him.

So too, were Abbas to agree to fork over Shalit and end Fatah terrorism and indeed cooperate with the IDF in fighting Hamas and Islamic Jihad, there would be something to be gained by meeting with him - regardless of the US's position.

Although US pressure is real, it would be relatively easy to brush off simply by publicly pointing out the obvious. Aside from Washington's carping, Olmert's decision to "strengthen" Abbas stems from the fact that his government has no strategic vision whatsoever. Cast adrift, Olmert is moved by the prevailing winds.

FOR THE PAST two weeks or so, since Assad began chirping about his wish to negotiate, the leftist-controlled Israeli media has been excoriating Olmert for bowing to Washington by refusing to meet with Assad. The weekend papers were full of condemnations by the chief diplomatic commentators in the major papers demanding that Olmert give the Golan Heights to Assad regardless of what the fuddy duddies in Washington think.

And so, Saturday night's kissy-kissy meeting with Abbas was aimed, among other things, at shutting them up. And it worked quite nicely. Both Ma'ariv and Yediot Ahronot merrily proclaimed in their Sunday editions that Abbas was a stand-in for Assad - but he'd do for now.

Finally, it is impossible to ignore the contribution the apparent stupidity of Israel's leaders made to Olmert's decision to embrace Abbas.

Sunday morning, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni exposed this idiocy when she asked Diskin whether he thought that Hamas was strong enough to stop the rocket attacks on Sderot and the Western Negev. In response, Diskin gently pointed out that Hamas is a terror group that is dedicated to destroying Israel, and so while it could stop the rockets, it has no interest in doing so.

GEE, HOW COME she didn't think of that? But then Diskin inanely opined that if Israel responds to the rocket attacks on Sderot's kindergartens, elementary schools and apartment blocks, Hamas will get really mad at us for breaching the cease-fire that only the IDF upholds and will continue to attack us.

In light of his schoolhouse analysis, Diskin concluded that there's nothing we can do except pretend that the terrorists will change their minds about attacking us after we reward them for doing so by giving them money to pay themselves, bullets and rifles to shoot us with, send their terrorist buddies home from prison to join them in attacking us, and maintain the imaginary ceasefire to enable them to shoot at us with impunity.

In the meantime, while Olmert is planning to spring terrorists from prison next week in honor of the Islamic holiday, Gaza's Christians were too terrified to go to their Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve. So the mass was cancelled.

And in Bethlehem, as the dwindling Christian population reeled with the news that their tormentors may soon return to rape, murder and extort them again, Manger Square stood near-empty on Christmas.

But at least the peace process is getting back on track.

Contact Dawntreader at Dawntreader3@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, December 27, 2006.
This article was written by Ruth King of AFSI. It appeared in Outpost November 20, 2006.

Here is a brief quiz. Who said the following and when?

"Peace will require compromises by all. The solution is the return of occupied lands in exchange for security and recognition of Israel's right to exist..."

Secretary of State Richard Rogers said it first on December 9, 1969 while President Nixon was bedeviled in his efforts to end the Vietnam War.

It became a mantra repeated by every consecutive administration... invoked especially when other policy initiatives failed.

Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, flush with betrayal of Vietnam, the Kurds and Israel, whose victory in the 1973 war he aborted, repeated it often. During the brief administration of Gerald Ford, Kissinger threw in crude threats about "reassessing" the America-Israel relationship.

Jimmy Carter whose presidency was a shambles due to the Iran hostage crisis and the failure of his tragic-comic opera military operation to free them, put all his efforts into cementing Camp David on Sadat's terms.

Ronald Reagan and Secretary of State Schultz repeated the magic formula in 1982, naming it "The Reagan Plan," which they announced to great fanfare while James Baker was chief of staff. They vainly scrambled to implement the plan after the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon to cover over the undignified and cowardly American exit from Beirut.

In 1992, with James Baker as secretary of State, George Bush Sr. made the mantra the cornerstone of his heavy handed demands on Israel following America's withdrawal from Iraq following Gulf War I and the embarrassing slaughter of those who responded to what President Bush would later claim was an "ad lib" invitation to rise against Saddam, which he never thought Shiites and Kurds would take seriously.

Bill Clinton restated this policy in the "Parameters for Peace" drawn up in 2000 when the Oslo Accords were flouted by Arafat and his legacy was clouded by scandal.

We have here true bipartisan idiocy. Madeleine Albright, Dennis Ross, Sandy Berger, Tony Blair, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell have all repeated the axiom ad nauseum and Thomas Friedman has been reciting it since his birth on July 20, 1953.

And now, James Baker, stuffed shirt and pomaded hair intact, fresh from his "Iraq Study Group" fact finding mission, has let it be known that his recommendations will also "explore" a broader U.S. initiative for tackling the Middle East conflict. Anyone fail to know what that means? As a senior observer of Baker during the presidency of the first President Bush notes: "There is no Arab dictator or terrorist that James Baker will not talk to. The only country he will never have a reasonable discussion with is Israel."

Never mind the chaos in Iraq; never mind a militant, nuclear and mad North Korean dictator; never mind an even madder Iranian apocalyptic disciple of the 12th Imam; never mind the strife in Africa which has killed, injured and dislocated millions; never mind Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega; never mind the growing bellicosity of Putin; never mind that a Chinese sub has been stalking our navy in the Pacific.

Faced with the abject failure of the President to pursue victory (dissipated in the effort to achieve a delusory "democracy" in Iraq) and stymied by the intractable problems listed above, Jim Baker is dusting off the "do it yourself peace kit" -- solve the world's problems through Israel's surrender. Believe it or not, Mr. Ripley, this is being touted as a "new" initiative.

Doctors, scientists, businessmen, even lawyers, are all expected to retool and change strategy when old theories and modalities fail. So called statesmen, when it comes to the Middle East, no matter how often the plan fails, are incapable of entertaining any alternative other then territorial withdrawal.

What makes it more frustrating is the fact that no Israeli leader, not a single one, has had the courage and the principles to say that the Rogers Plan and all its subsequent clones reside in cloud cuckoo land.

To his credit Prime Minister Menachem Begin initially tried (he was accused of lecturing to his hosts for his pains), but his efforts were upended by the international romance with Anwar Sadat whose "peace" initiative with respect to the Arab Palestinians can only be likened to Admiral Tojo and the architects of Pearl Harbor demanding autonomy for Samoa after World War II. Nonetheless, Sadat got every concession he demanded from a bedazzled Israel and American public and an insistent Jimmy Carter.

Since that time, Israel has agreed in both principle and practice to the territorial surrender mantra. Her leaders have scuttled Israel's historical, religious and strategic rights, endlessly recycling the "land for peace" nonsense. Now it is called a two state solution when, in fact, it is a three state solution: Jewish Palestine, Arab Palestine aka Jordan, and a putative Palestinian Arab terrorist state between them.

And what did Israelis gain for their acquiescence in Camp David, Oslo, Wye, the removal from Gaza? Terrorism, death, destruction, escalating demands and the terrible knowledge that they must face the same enemies all over again.

Emboldened by Western acquiescence, Arabs are spreading jihad and barbarity in the Middle East and Africa. But the media only announce "breaking news," which turns out to be the same old "broken news," of a new initiative which is always an old initiative... almost four decades old. Even the headlines are the same: "signs of moderation" mixed in with reports of Arab nations "exploring ways to break the impasse; stop the cycle of violence; end the occupation; form a unity government... blah, blah, blah...

Most ridiculous of all, pundits, statesmen, academics, media all agree on one thing: If Israel commits suicide, Arabs will recognize Israel's right to exist. It is actually hilarious.

Well, as a member of the executive committee of Americans for a Safe Israel, I declare herewith we will not recognize France's right to exist unless and until France agrees to make Provence an independent Sharia Moslem state, with Paris as its capital, in the interest of bringing stability to Europe as it faces the increasing threat of Islamic jihad.

Just kidding folks... but think... Israel is as legitimate a state as India, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, and a host of other post-colonial states whose "right to exist" is never questioned. It is a democracy with advanced institutions and a staunch ally of the very nation which sought to bring democracy to Iraq...but seems determined to weaken the only real democracy in the entire Middle East.

All this in the name of a failed, outmoded and dangerous policy which gets dusted off and trotted out every time an administration's other policies falter.

It is astonishing that this endlessly resuscitated "plan" is not met with contemptuous belly -laughs, but no, here we go again, and again, and again.

1623 Third Ave, Suite 205
New York, NY 10128

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 27, 2006.


What Israeli propaganda? Hizbullah fought its war with Israel mainly by the two chief kinds of war crimes. One is to attack civilians outright. The other is to fight from among civilians, using them as human shields.

Not realizing this, most W. Europeans, whose media does not inform them of it, hate Israel. Israel does not publicize these war crimes. It carries out no public education about this, to speak of. It lets itself be thought the war criminal.

The Muslims have found a decided advantage in warring criminally. The West needs to find a way to counter it. One way is to apply the remedy within international law of war. That would mean firing back at the attackers, regardless of civilian casualties. Israel did so only to a limited extent.

First, Israel has a suicidal notion of human rights and ethics. Second, the world would think it is committing war crimes. Israel fears world public opinion, which in this case would become sincerely but mistakenly enraged. Thus the remedy is out of reach. It is beyond reach because Israel does not use the propaganda weapon.

Part of the propaganda Israel needs to make should describe the human shields as willing participants in the war crimes. The Muslim population wholeheartedly supports this. Casualties among those civilians are not to be lamented. To lament them is to go too far for people who support genocide. (On 12/5, the NY Times described an Israeli video that shows Hizbullah using human shields, etc..)


The free world needs a leader against jihad. The Pope seemed to be the bold candidate. Instead of warning of the danger, however, he has called for dialogue based on truth, logic, and discussion, and not on violence.

There is no chance for his kind of rational dialogue with the hate-bearing, violence-prone, exclusivist Muslims. Islam doesn't operate that way. Doesn't the Pope know this? Perhaps he does, and is making the Muslims' lack of truthful, rational, non-violent discussion apparent, before leading a campaign against their jihad.


Democrats want to withdraw from Iraq; the Bush Administration thinks it can sacrifice Israel to buy peace there. They don't get it. This isn't ordinary war, and Islam isn't an ordinary culture one can trade diplomatically with. This is holy war. A Muslim victory anywhere strengthens the jihad everywhere. A Muslim defeat anywhere weakens jihad everywhere. Therefore, the US needs to win in Iraq and Israel needs to win in the Territories; a victory in either place would help attain victory in the other.

Syria tries to induce the US to think it may help calm Iraq, even as it panics Lebanon. Assad has taken in the State Department's present and past leaders.


Egypt is cited as exemplifying Arabs' ability to make peace with Israel. After the leading Arab state did it, why did only one other, Jordan, follow that example? The answer is that Egypt pressured them not to (IMRA, 11/4 from MK Steinitz).


Iran has accelerated nuclear development, building of bunkers at those sites, and replacement of older anti-aircraft equipment with advanced Russian equipment and lots of it. The effort seems to be close to fruition. The International Atomic Energy Agency has found evidence that what Iran is working on is weapons development. It downplays the finding. The details in the news brief support this conclusion (IMRA, 12/4).


"The world has gone mad." Syria is engineering a takeover of Lebanon by Hizbullah. The P.A. is progressing in its buildup for an Iranian-sponsored war on Israel. What do US and British officials suggest? They suggest that the US let Iran take over Iraq, too. What does Israel do, with US encouragement? PM Olmert plans to release hundreds of terrorists for one Israeli and expel thousands of Israelis from Judea-Samaria and let Hamas take over their land. This is in addition to Olmert's decision not to counteract terrorist cease-fire violations in the form of firing rockets into Israel. He doesn't want to end the ceasefire that they are breaking and using to start a bigger war, later.

Olmert seems to be doing this for the same reason Sharon did. It is to avoid being prosecuted for corruption. By embarking on appeasement, the media ignores his corruption and the prosecutors do not charge him with it. As with Sharon, they don't want to upset the ship of state that he is scuttling (IMRA, 12/5 from Caroline Glick).


Environment Min. Gideon Ezra (Kadima Party) proposed exchanging prisoners for promises. The P.A. would promise to stop arms smuggling and to destroy the terrorist infrastructure.

The interviewer did not ask him how wise it would be to release prisoners in return for the very promises that the P.A. has made and broken before.

Min. Ezra did suggest that for enforcement, Israel could shut off the flow of water and electricity from Israel to the P.A.. The interviewer did not ask him whether Israel would do that, given that it kept the Army from carrying out full military operations, because the government was afraid of negative world public opinion (IMRA, 12/5).

IMRA raises good questions. They show that officials are rationalizing or are failing to think matters through. They also show that the media is too easy on them. At least, let the Arabs destroy terrorist militias, before Israel gives them anything -- since the Arabs never have fulfilled their promises, so why should Israel go first. Another question is how many Israelis would the thousand terrorists, released for one Israeli, slay?


If the US attacks Iran, Iran would sink the heavy, non-maneuverable US warships, attack US troops on their vulnerable bases in the Gulf, mount suicide attacks (didn't say where), and call for a general Iraqi uprising (IMRA, 12/5 from MEMRI).

The nominated Defense Secretary said that the US would not attack Iran except as a last resort and only involving nuclear development. He does not think that Iran would start a nuclear war against Israel. On the other hand, he admits not knowing what the religion-obsessed President of Iran would do. A US attack would cause an upwelling of warfare against the US in the Mideast. Iran has not made the most trouble for us that it could. He finds credible their threat to close off the oil sea lanes (IMRA, 12/5).

He may be right, but consider this. Shall we let Iran fight us successfully in one country after another, lest they fight us harder?


Democratic-minded reformers have brought peaceful regime change in dictatorships. Should the US help such dissidents, or would US support alienate their followers?

The record indicates that legitimate dissident groups that have built themselves up welcome US moral and financial support. It is their dictatorial governments that portray their acceptance of foreign aid as unpatriotic (Michael Rubin, MEF News, 12/5).

Mr. Rubin writes essays about jihad and foreign policy frequently. They usually are well thought out, factual, original, and useful. That is scholarship!

I think that US support for dictatorial regimes or partisan groups backfires, but not for genuine reform.


The Office of the Prime Minister announced a policy of investing in the Arab business sector so that it can integrate into the national business environment and the Arabs can reach their potential in Israel (IMRA, 12/5).

This is discriminatory. It treats all Arabs as needy and all Jews as not. Many Jews have difficulty in business in Israel. The government over-regulates, runs or allows monopolies, and over-taxes. Let it remove those obstacles that harm all.

It is harmful to the Jews and to stability to be well-meaning towards the Arabs in Israel. The Arabs are a lawless fifth column. They are moving for community independence in Israel. They take the side of the external Muslim enemy. In various cities they attack Jews; in the forests they commit arson. Their Islamist Movement is a major organization for jihad. Anything that strengthens their hold in the country helps them to take over the country or to enable invaders to do so. Government policy should be to enforce the law and ultimately to get the Arabs to leave.


For years, Arabs within Israel have been after a Jewish cattle rancher's land. They tore down his fences and burned his crops. The police did nothing about it.

Recently, three Arabs approached him under some pretext, clubbed and shot him. He survived. Now the police are investigating.

The rancher points out that local Arabs, defeated in the 1947 war, never abandoned their goal of taking over the country. Now that Israel makes concessions to its enemies in the hope of having temporary peace, the Arabs more boldly resort to violence, within Israel, itself (Arutz-7, 12/5).

Israel made a big mistake in allowing a large number of the defeated Arab enemy to stay, others to come in, violate the law, and import radical imams.

How ironic that while the Arabs complain that their rights are not sufficiently recognized in Israel, they don't recognize Jewish rights! That is the Muslim way.


Meshal said that the truce is not a step towards peace but a way of managing the war effort (ie., it lets Hamas bring in enough arms for a major war). He warned that unless there is an international plan to transfer from Israel to the P.A. all the land it acquired in 1967 and let all the refugee descendants in (to destroy the Jewish state), Hamas would launch a major war (Arutz-7, 12/5). In other words, surrender and die, or war.

PM Olmert and Sec. Rice thought that the truce with Gaza should be extended to Judea-Samaria, and would lead to a peace agreement. What do they say, now? If they were honest and intelligent, they would suggest that Israel end the truce and smash Hamas, before it is able to inflict more casualties upon Israel.


Thousands of professors "'...think the university is a political platform to teach anti-American, racist, sectarian creeds'...." "They teach that 'their country is the enemy and that terrorists are freedom fighters." (NY Sun, 12/6, p.2.)

The US doesn't have a perfect record, but what those professors teach is not factual or scholarly. It is indoctrination, not academic. Does academic freedom give them a right to pervert our history? Why do universities hire these non-scholar enemies? What kind of higher education do we get for the $70 billion a year the federal government spends on it?


Magen Yehuda is a privately funded, volunteer organization that is training "first responders" and people who live along the line of likeliest terrorist attacks, in how to deal with those attacks (Arutz-7, 12/5).

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 Jan Willem van der Hoeven, December 27, 2006.

The Bible (Tanach) states that God battles with Amalek from generation to generation.

"Because the Lord has sworn: the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." (Exodus 17:16)

Most Israelis believe that in some way they must in the end be for peace with their enemies. Nothing ­ at least in the eyes of Israel's God ­ is further from the truth.

There have been many instances in the course of Israel's history as told in the Tanach where God's word and advice to Israel's leaders was the very opposite.

I remember my son one day saying to me in refreshing honesty after another dastardly terrorist attack: 'Daddy, I don't want to live in peace with such people.' And when Shimon Peres often quipped, making the seemingly true ­ but highly deceptive ­ statement that "Peace one makes with one's enemies," ­ thereby excusing all the massacres, cruelties, lynching and lying committed by those enemies ­ he in fact made a historical blunder.

Throughout history, peace has been made with conquered enemies OR with enemies who underwent a change of heart and mind, and were therefore willing to live in peace with their former foes. But none of this is true insofar as virtually all of Israel's present enemies are concerned. They have never been truly defeated and they have shown no change of heart. They are eaten up by al all-consuming hatred f the Jews.

For Israel to stretch out her hands to them is not the way to go and certainly not the way to peace! Just as the Nazis were soundly defeated by the Allied forces, so Israel's enemies need to be defeated before there is even a chance of living in peace with them!

And this is precisely what God repeatedly spells out in the Tanach throughout Israel's history: Do not make an alliance or a peace treaty with those who have shown again and again that they are your sworn enemies. Here are some of the words:

Cursed is he who does the work of the Lord deceitfully, and cursed is he who keeps back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10)

"The Lord his God is with him, and the shout of a King is among them. God brings them out of Egypt; He has strength like a wild ox. "For there is no sorcery against Jacob, nor any divination against Israel. It now must be said of Jacob and of Israel, 'Oh, what God has done!' Look, a people rises like a lioness, and lifts itself up like a lion; it shall not lie down until it devours the prey..." (Numbers 23:21b-24)

Even contemporary history abundantly bears out the truth of this, God's wisdom. Churchill, not Chamberlain, became the instrument that secured peace for Europe through the total defeat of Nazism. For where Chamberlain's way was a treaty with Adolf Hitler that was full of holes, Churchill's was to bring a complete victory over the evil of the Nazi's philosophy.

In that way the living God of Israel has shown right throughout history that He knows what is best for His people. And it is not to trust the untrustworthy, as even Joshua, -- Israel's Sharon-like commander ­ allowed himself to be deceived into trusting the Gibeonites enough to make a peace treaty with them. God firmly upbraided him for doing so.

And yet this has been Israel's modern history through the outcome of the suicidal foolishness of OSLO, when Israel's leaders made "peace" with the instigator of all terrorism, Yasser Arafat ­ trusting him enough to give him guns and weapons to guard this lie ­ a peace that never was his intention nor that of his Palestinians.

For this treaty Arafat, together with those Israeli leaders, was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in Oslo!!

This, then, is the end result, as Israel has sadly and bloodily experienced in all the years that followed OSLO: death and destruction and the breaking of all promises made to Israel by Arafat and the Palestinian leadership.

For peace, Mr. Peres, is not made with sworn enemies but with conquered enemies as we in Europe experienced after, not before, the Nazis were defeated!

May peace then come to Israel these days, not in man's way, but in God's way as expressed in the ancient ­ but still true and appropriate ­ words of the Psalmist:

A Song. A Psalm of Asaph. Do not keep silent, O God! Do not hold Your peace, and do not be still, O God! For behold, Your enemies make a tumult; and those who hate You have lifted up their head. They have taken crafty counsel against Your people, and consulted together against Your sheltered ones. They have said, "Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation, that the name of Israel may be remembered no more." For they have consulted together with one consent; they form a confederacy against You: The tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites; Moab and the Hagrites; Gebal, Ammon, and Amalek; Philistia with the inhabitants of Tyre; Assyria also has joined with them; they have helped the children of Lot. Selah

Deal with them as with Midian, as with Sisera, as with Jabin at the Brook Kishon, who perished at En Dor, who became as refuse on the earth. Make their nobles like Oreb and like Zeeb, yes, all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna, who said, "Let us take for ourselves the pastures of God for a possession." O my God, make them like the whirling dust, like the chaff before the wind! As the fire burns the woods, and as the flame sets the mountains on fire, so pursue them with Your tempest, and frighten them with Your storm. Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek Your name, O Lord. Let them be confounded and dismayed forever; yes, let them be put to shame and perish, that they may know that You, whose name alone is the Lord, are the Most High over all the earth. (Psalm 83)

For, as Isaiah already prophesied, there comes a day when for the sake of His people and because of "the controversy of Zion," God will inflict His judgment on all these enemies. And when He does then, as so often in the past ­ as even in Europe ­ that will bring the hoped for peace, at last!

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, December 27, 2006.

This article was written by Marc Sheppard and it appeared January 03, 2007 in the American Thinker
(http://www.americanthinker.com/marc_sheppard/) Marc Sheppard is a technology consultant, software engineer, writer, and political and systems analyst. He is a regular contributor to American Thinker. He welcomes your feedback. Send comments to: mshep@optonline.com

Remember when fear of flying was a normal, human response to an inner doubt that a 3 quarter million pound hunk of metal had any business being 30,000 feet in the air? Of course, that was before 19 men - all Mideast Muslims - ended their miserable lives on September 11, 2001 and took nearly 3,000 innocent victims along for the ride. Since that dreadful day, it's doubtful that even the most ardently PC liberal has boarded any airplane without carefully evaluating all fellow passengers - and not to evade inebriated conventioneers.

It is that same indelible angst of their brothers' making which a group of Muslims exploited last month to perpetrate a hideous apparent hoax. And the soon-to-be empowered Democrats and their gullible accomplices in the media proved the perfect patsies for this odious plan to make the skies ever more dangerous for Americans.

In a swindle blending the shakedown tactics of Jesse Jackson with the outright fabrications of Al Sharpton, the flying imams helped provide Democrats the perfect cover to breathe life into a deservedly dying bill -- The End Racial Profiling Act. Passage of this absurd waste of paper would all but assure terrorists unfettered access to our greatest of vulnerabilities - particularly airlines.

Step 1 -- The Plan

Our story begins in Minneapolis on November 18th, where approximately 150 imams attended the annual conference of the North American Imams Federation. The stated theme was "Towards Improving Imams Professionalism and Community Outreach." But their immediate and visible effect was an event that would dupe their enemies into enacting law which would be tantamount to suicide.

It's clear that modern Jihadists have learned to utilize liberal intolerance to inflict collateral damage and civilian casualties when waging public opinion wars abroad. But here at home, they know the secret lies in exploiting liberal intolerance of, well -- intolerance.

With just that in mind, this pack of terror-sympathizers hatched the perfect plot to outrage their weak-kneed allies on the left into a quite predictable course of action. These architects of fear included such stand-up "American" Muslims as:

* Siraj Wahhaj - an unindicted co-conspirator in the 1993 plot to blow up several New York Landmarks and a "character witness" for Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman. The "Blind Sheikh," now reportedly on his death bed, is serving a life sentence in the U.S. Medical Center for Prisons in Springfield, Mo. He was the "spiritual leader" of the terror cell that carried out the first World Trade Center bombing and was planning to blow up the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.

* Ashrafuzzaman Khan -- who is alleged to have run the Jamaati executioners death squads during the Bangladesh war. He escaped prosecution for the murders of a group of Bengali intellectuals when he fled that country in 1971.

* Imam Dr. Omar Shahin - who has been linked to fund raising activities for both al-Qaeda and Hamas. He's currently the President of NAIF and served 3 years as Imam and director of the Islamic Center of Tucson. The ICT's former president, Wael Hamza Jalaidan is believed to be a founder of Al Qaeda. Alumni of the mosque read like a whose-who of Islamo-terrorists, including Hani Hanjour, the Saudi who flew American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon on 9/11.

Of definite note was the presence of guest speaker Rep. Keith (Hakim Mohammed) Ellison, the first Muslim ever elected to Congress. The Minnesota Democratic freshman and unrepentant radical Muslim - he has announced he will be sworn in next month with his hand on the Koran - is, not surprisingly, a strong backer of the ERPA.

Rounding out the conspirators were the Shills -- including CAIR and innumerable other Islamic activists and web-sites, which were strategically placed to play their parts in fueling the impending arsonists' media fire. Bunko Team ready -- Let the games begin.

Step 2 - The Setup

On November 20th, Shahin led 5 fellow Imams to the U.S Airways gates at Minneapolis-St Paul International airport purportedly to catch a flight to Phoenix. Once there, they quickly set the stage for their flim-flam. In the words of Patrick Hogan, a spokesman for the airport, the six assembled in the gate area prior to boarding and

"were praying loudly and spouting some kind of anti-US rhetoric regarding the war in Iraq and Saddam Hussein."

Witnesses reported that they shouted "Allah" loudly and repeatedly. Imagine the anxiety this disturbance caused ticket-holders who were all too aware of the historic last words shouted by lunatic suicide bombers - including the 9/11 murderers.

Upon boarding the plane, the imams each sat in separate sections. But according to passengers and flight attendants, they then moved without crew permission from their assigned seats to 2 in the front row of first-class, 2 in the middle of the plane on the exit aisle, and 2 in the very rear of the cabin. Those paying attention reportedly recognized this as the identical seating pattern used by the 9/11 hijackers. Commenting on this dispersion model, a federal air marshal who asked to remain anonymous told reporters,

"That would alarm me. They now control all of the entry and exit routes to the plane."

Frankly, it's difficult to imagine any reasonable person not being alarmed by this now-familiar stratagem. Sure, liberals would have us treat Muslims behaving strangely on airplanes the same as we'd treat similarly misbehaving frat boys returning from spring-break. It's the very fact that such lunacy goes against every human survival instinct that moves them to legislate us into their quixotic and suicidal world.

Now, there appears to be some controversy as to whether 3 or all 6 had one-way tickets and no checked baggage. Also in dispute is whether 1 or none had been legitimately bumped to first class, where 2 of them eventually sat.

No matter -- once the flight was delayed due to their outrageous behavior they moved about the cabin and conspicuously spoke Arabic in a deliberate effort to further heighten passenger terror. They also requested seat-belt extensions from the flight attendants, though neither necessary for nor actually used by any of them. Instead, they were placed on the floor for all to see, brandished as potential weapons or restraints.

As expected, at least one horrified passenger opted to obey the now familiar airport sign demanding "If you see something, say something!" Surely, everyone on flight 300 had seen more than enough.

Once notified, the pilot calmly asked the six to disembark for further screening. They refused. Again, likely according to plan, police were called onto the plane and the men were forcibly removed, taken into custody and quickly released when no weapons or bombs were found by the FBI. Setup complete -- the pigeons were cooped.

Step 3 - The Sting

Within hours, Muslim-rights groups, readily available, launched complaints of "religious harassment" which were quickly and obediently gobbled up by eager media. The complicit MSM predictably carried out their their duties by depicting the 6 as innocent imams returning home from an Islamic conference in Minneapolis, who were persecuted for praying prior to flying. Yeah, and Hyman Roth was just a retired investor on a pension returning to the U.S. Nonetheless, cries of "Islamophobia" were stridently shouted from the rooftops and the outrage immediately morphed into a plethora of proposed remedies.

CAIR quickly issued a statement demanding Congressional hearings to investigate this and other incidents of "flying while Muslim." And, according to Investor's Business Daily, just 2 days after the mock-hijacking, incoming Judiciary Chairman Conyers (D-MI), whose district includes one of the largest Islamic populations in the country,

[had] already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.

This was an addendum to an already security-weakening bill Conyers had promised his Muslim constituency he'd see passed. What's more, taking political correctness to the verge of mental illness -- Pelosi (D-CA) and Ellison publicly called for criminalizing the act of profiling. The potentially compromised Speaker had already promised Muslims in 2004 to end racial profiling, limit the reach of the Patriot Act, and make immigration safe and accessible, adding that,

"Racial and religious profiling is fundamentally un-American and we must make it illegal"

Exactly one week after what looks a lot like a mock-hijacking, and in an effort to heighten visibility and thus liberal outrage, an "interfaith pray-in" was staged at the U.S Airways ticket counter in Reagan Washington National Airport. The event gave ringleader Shahin another opportunity to proclaim his version of the incident. Claiming it to have been the "worst moment of [his] life," he again flatly denied that any of the imams had done anything suspicious.

Shahin then called upon Muslims to boycott the airline, which might have an ironic impact - knowing that Muslims are avoiding U.S Airways has caused many to believe it to be the safest method of air travel.

The next day, Mahdi Bray, Executive Director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, attempted to seal the terror-abetting deal when he told IslamOnline.net that,

".. we are desirous of large financial compensation for the imams, civil and federal sanctions for their conduct, and new broad-sweeping legislation that will extract even larger financial and civil penalties for any airline that participates in racial and religious profiling"
Such legislation is exactly what Pelosi, Conyers, et. al. had in mind - for starters anyway.

Step 4 - The Expected Payoff: The End Racial Profiling Act of 2007

S. 2138 provides federal funding defaults and potential civil penalties for any agencies which, when challenged, cannot prove that they did not racially profile anyone they questioned, detained, searched, or seized contraband from. It broadly defines the offense as (emphasis mine):

relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities or deciding upon the scope and substance of law enforcement activity following the initial investigatory procedure....

It further requires that law enforcement agencies keep records as to the race, ethnicity, national origin and religion of all stops and searches. This data will be analyzed regularly by designees of the DOJ to determine if that agency is engaging in profiling. These inane determinations will be made based upon percentages of encounters compared to percentages of the population.

Such folly would keep our courts busy entertaining frivolous lawsuits driven by cherry-picked data and our law enforcement agencies more concerned with sticking to quota than solving and preventing crimes. Daniel Horan of the LAPD, who spent 6 years at the Los Angeles airport on profiling-related issues agrees:

"A law that would compel security professionals to focus on keeping their statistics within certain norms rather than on their mission keeping airline travel safe would have a devastating effect on our ability to ensure airline safety."

Moreover, such a law would ultimately provide exclusionary cause for captured terrorists, as well as yet another "blame the victim" modus for ACLU-molded lawyers to confuse low IQ juries.

Coincidently, in a July article exploring the same inherent flaws in the gathering of racial information at traffic-stops for analysis by Suffolk County, NY cops, I sarcastically concluded:

What next - a similar program at airports to affirm that Muslims, who comprise nearly 100% of the terrorist population, are not searched in numbers greater than the percentage they represent of the flying population? Has this country gone completely mad?

Last month's election results may both create the hypothetical and answer the rhetorical questions in that paragraph. Of course, even should the idiocy and mind-blowing danger of this legislation somehow manage to escape both Houses, it's unlikely that the president's veto pen would remain MIA. Surely Pelosi, Conyers, and even Ellison know this - they're likely laying the groundwork for what they predict as a post 2008 power Troika.

And that's exactly why this bill, which has been terminally ill for over 4 years, must be killed once and for all, along with those it would ultimately help to destroy us,. Furthermore, if Conyers wants special consideration for Muslims, he should have it. Specifically -- legislation must be considered which would make the actions perpetrated by these Imams at least comparable to crying "fire" in a crowded theater or otherwise inciting a riot.

The Next Speaker of the House of Games

Finally, nothing which took place on that airplane even remotely qualifies as religious or racial profiling. What was "profiled" -- to use the ridiculously misleading term du jour -- was intentionally suspicious behavior. Indeed, if 6 men walked into a bank wearing ski-masks, an alert teller would not wait to see their weapons before tripping the silent alarm: They were, after all, behaving in a manner highly consistent with that of armed robbers. Now that Islamic males of Mideastern extraction have defined manners equally consistent with murderous plane-hijackers, behaving as such should and must be met with similarly appropriate defensive maneuvers.

Whether the eager-to-oblige co-sponsors of the original act, Rep. Conyers and Speaker-to-be Pelosi were merely "marks" or something more is still open to conjecture. Then again, which would be worse - control of the House by those who would conspire with our enemies or those who would be so easily duped by them?

That's some choice.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Kaustav Chakrabarti, December 27, 2006.

If the current state of violence between the Palestinian groups is any indication of breakdown, then perfect lawlessness could be said to reign in the P.A. territories.

The Hamas, the Fatah and other groups competing for control over resources and ideology (of hatred)seem to have lost all sense of direction or purpose. Ever since the inception of Palestinian autonomy mooted by the Oslo Accords of 1994, the territories administered by the PA have been subject to mis-government,corruption, extortion and kidnappings. Arafat, the god-father of Intifada,was said to have embezzled millions. Sometime back a research scholar trying to dig up relevant information of the scam was severely roughed up by Fatah men. This being the current state of affairs, it's little wonder that there is very little to do on the part of the PA bigwigs except keeping up the tempo of hatred of Israel among the disenchanted unemployed young Arabs.

So whenever, protests against malpractices seem to be in the offing, the attention is diverted to Israel.

The result is that the frustrations among the youth are carefully needled to encourage suicide bombing and other acts of terrorism. The situation bears a stark similarity to the Kashmir problem, where Pakistan plays on religious and ethnic sentiments to foment terrorism against India. Unemployment among the youth in Pakistan is utilised by the military rulers and clerics,in ways similar to Palestinian radicals, to foster the culture of jihad. Just as Afghanistan under the Pak-sponsored Taliban became the training ground for countless jihadis, so the PA territories are being subverted with the willing collaboration of its rulers to launch terrorist attacks on Israel.

The International community has so far being one-sided,using the UN for Israel baiting while turning a blind eye to Palestinian terrorism. Even the US is believed to have suspended crucial arms shipments to Israel sorely needed during the Lebanon war. Thus indirectly, it gives concessions to its new found allies in the Middle East, who are making the most out of the war on terror, but keeping up the heat on Israel to give more and more concessions. A consensus is thus being cooked up in which the complicity of major powers and international bodies cannot be overlooked.

Contact Kaustav Chakrabarti by email at kaustav12000@yahoo.co.in

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Jerome S. Kaufman, December 26, 2006.

Evidently the newspaper, the Forward, is cooperating with the American State Department and the recently demolished Bush Administration in sending up a trial balloon article written by Nathan Guttman in the December 22, 2006 paper. The article presents the possible formation of a "Provisional Palestinian State!"

In utter disbelief, I read in the article that such an idea has been "kicked around" by the American State Department for several weeks. But, why should I be surprised? Has not the American State Department opposed the creation of a Jewish State, attempted to weaken its influence and power, hindered its development and obstructed its ability to defend itself since its rebirth in 1948? Was this trial balloon not just an extension of the immediately discredited Baker Iraq Study Group? Is this not just another shot by the Let's Get Rid of Israel Study Group?

Israel, the United States and the immediate world have been unhappy with the outcome of the January 2006 Palestinian election. The relatively moderate, and let us use that phrase advisedly, Fatah party, was virtually destroyed by the Palestinian electorate in their January 2006 election. The results - Fatah is now in a death struggle with Hamas for survival or more accurately, is now in its death throes. The newly anointed political party, (aka terrorist organization), Hamas badly defeated Fatah in an open and ostensibly legitimate election. The vote gave Hamas 74 seats in the Palestinian parliament while the 40-year-old Fatah party with Mahmoud Abbas, the "moderate" Holocaust denier and long-time Yasir Arafat second in command, received only 45 seats.

Hamas did allow Abbas to remain as President despite the election but only because they had not a clue as to how to run a government themselves - not that Abbas does either. Palestinian governance under Arafat, Abbas and the like has always consisted of simply extorting money out of an insane Israel and a naïve frightened West. These Palestinian "leaders" then give all the Fatah Arafat/Abbas henchman a made-up job and a "salary" of graft to temporarily buy their loyalty - at least until the next paycheck. Those further up the hierarchy of graft also receive government contracts for public works programs that have been designated as such by the donors to benefit the general population. Of course, these funds never see the light of day - more often ending up in personal Swiss Bank accounts. Now that the graft money from Israel and the West has stopped, the phony jobs have disappeared and the whole system has deservedly collapsed.

But, instead of allowing events to take their natural course and allowing the Palestinian electorate and the warring factions to make their own decision and thus allow the true colors of the conflict to present themselves, the misguided State Department, the Bush Administration and the frightened, dutiful Israelis are again getting in the way. And, as usual, they are backing the wrong horse. Abbas and Fatah were the ones resoundingly defeated in the last election and bearing gargantuan interference from the US, will be defeated even worse this next time. Nevertheless, the Bush Administration is trying to get $100 million dollars released by the Congress to aid Abbas while the destructively inept and totally unprincipled Ehud Olmert is about to do the same thing - coercing the Knesset to release another 100 million in PA tax collected dollars to shore up the rejected Abbas. Again the United States and Israel are interfering with the Palestinian electorate because they cannot handle the truth. The Palestinians hate our guts and are delighted to elect Hamas, a party dedicated to destroying the little Satan Israel first and then doing the very same to the Great Satan, us, as soon as Allah presents that glorious day.

As far as Israel is concerned, the trial balloon quotes an unidentified "diplomatic official" (how convenient a news source!) who rejects Israeli leaders' demand that the PA renounce terror and dismantle their terror infrastructure before any peace overtures are considered. How unreasonable and inconsiderate! The official says these demands are no longer relevant since it is clear that there is no Palestinian leader who can deliver on the issue of fighting terror! And that is the reason the Israelis should go along with a "Provisional Palestinian State." Could you vomit?

Then, the final indecent, preposterous proposal for Israeli acquiescence: Another un-identified "diplomatic source" in the Forward article said "last week that the most significant advantage the plan has is that it would allow President GW Bush to achieve his goal of a two-state solution within a reasonable time frame." So, Israel is to lie down and die to improve upon GW's historical legacy ala the Bill Clinton/Ehud Barak suicidal plan or allow GW to join the completely overrated achievements of the pathetic anti-Semite, Jimmy Carter at Camp David.

Hopefully, the Israelis will quickly find a Prime Minister - certainly not Ehud Olmert - that will have the brains and courage needed by both Israel and the United States to tell the originators of this latest "plan" exactly where to put it.

Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America. and host the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org).

To Go To Top

Posted by Harry W. Weber, December 26, 2006.

Recently the Iraq Study Group, that august collection of Democratic and Republican politicos brought together to find a graceful U.S. exit out of the Iraqi quagmire, came up with its recommendations. At first glance, and even before getting into its detailed recommendations, it seems highly suspect that any political problem, whose recommended solution requires no less than 79 steps, has any chance of being solved via those steps. For no political problem is that murky, that fuzzy and that dependent on so many lateral and/or sequential steps.

So what went wrong with Bush's Iraq war initiative, and more generally with his entire foreign policy -- post 9/11/2001? Firstly, the President must be given full credit for the proper diagnosis of the "disease". The September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center was the post-World War II version of the December 7, 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor. It revealed to all that the West has been attacked by a new and heretofore misunderstood enemy -- Islamic jihad, or holy war -- bent on no less than the military and economic defeat of Western civilization. The signs that radical Islamic terrorists were out to disrupt and de-stabilize the West were already out there earlier -- witness the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, the bombing of the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Salaam in 1998, and the attack on the S.S. Cole in 2000. Actually, the first clue to the existence of Islamic terrorist cells in the U.S. should have been detected after the 1990 murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane. But ironically, the man most closely associated with the platform for expelling Moslems out of Israel because they threaten its existence, was murdered by them in the U.S., and even in his death was unable to wake up the U.S., or anyone else for that matter, to take the global Islamic terror threat seriously.

After belatedly identifying the threat, President Bush looked for Islamic terrorist targets to attack in order to prevent future 9/11s on American and European soil. The primary hiding place of Al-Queda -- Afghanistan -- was the natural first target, and correctly so. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda and Bin-Laden had local support in Pakistan, and there was scarce cooperation from the Pakistani government in hunting down Al Qaeda on its side of the border. This lack of cooperation prevented the U.S. and its allies from hermetically sealing off Al Qaeda from all directions and slowly moving in for the final kill. The war there goes on and on, because the U.S. and its allies refuse to cross into Pakistan in pursuit of Al-Qaeda.

Bush's next step in the war against Islamic terrorists, was, in hindsight, very flawed. He confused the secular dictator in Iraq, who for all his blustering, was no Islamic ideologue ready to march on the West, with his neighbors next door. They, the Iranians, are radical Shiites who fervently believe in the coming of their "Messiah" -- the twelfth Imam -- after they begin the global war to subdue all infidels under Islam. The Iranians are the terrorists Bush should have taken on next -- not Saddam Hussein.

Had President Bush allowed the U.S. commanders in Iraq to pursue the terrorists entering Iraq from Iran to their bases in Iranian territory, he would have corrected his initial strategic error of failing to identify Iran as the logical next terror target, by means of a simple tactical decision that should have been inevitable.

This was Bush's big blunder -- and that is clearer today than ever before. Today Iran is on track to manufacture nuclear weapons within six months. Iran's number one foreign policy objective is to become firstly a regional, and then a global military force that will lead the war on the "satanic" West. Iran's immediate plan is to eliminate Israel, the West's proxy in the Mideast. That is why Iran supported Hizbollah, Lebanon's Shiite terrorist party, with billions of dollars in arms since Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000. And that is why it is collaborating with Syria in its joint efforts of sending terrorists into Iraq. Iran's plan is to cause maximum sectarian bloodshed in Iraq, thereby forcing the U.S. to withdraw. So far the plan is working very well, witness James Baker's recommendation that the U.S. engage diplomatically with Iran and Syria -- the two greatest exporters and supporters of Islamic terrorism.

The inevitable conclusion so far is that Mr. Bush had the proper diagnosis of the problem and the proper goals to deal with it, but botched up the execution of the strategy to solve the problem. In contrast, the Iraq Study Group is focused solely on the tactical issue of a graceful exit from Iraq, and completely ignores the huge strategic problem facing the West -- the World War declared on it by radical Islam. The Iraq Study Group does not see the wave of radicalization that is sweeping the entire Moslem World. Sunni and Shiite Moslems in Africa, Asia and Western Europe are united in their antipathy of all that is Christian and Jewish. They are prepared to kill and be killed, to murder and commit suicide for their "lofty" goal of Islamic global domination. Mr. Baker didn't understand or simply ignored that reality, thereby earning his Study Group an F. Had his group read the Koran, had it interviewed Western experts on Islam -- not Islamic apologists or Islamic clergymen -- it would have learned the truth about the political goals of Islam, that peace is not a value in Islam, nor is democracy, and that all peace treaties with "infidels" are meant to be broken as soon as pragmatically feasible.

So the question still remains: where did President Bush go wrong? The answer is ironic, for the President is a born-again Christian, and as such a person who should be familiar with the Bible, for whom the Bible is not just a history book, but the book of life -- a book relevant at all times in all places. The Book, in Genesis 16:12, says of Ishmael, the ancestor of all Arabs: "And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him." Maimonides and other sages interpret that to mean that he will prey on others and others will prey on him, and that his descendants will grow and will be at war with all the nations. That is Ishmael and this is the eternal character of the Arab-Moslem world, forever. Such a nation has no need for democracy, has no interest in peace, for it is at war with everyone, forever. Mr. "F--- the Jews" Baker may be forgiven for not knowing or wanting to acknowledge that, but Mr. Bush should have read the Bible with more present day insight, and should have understood the Moslem world as described eternally in God's book.

With that understanding it is now clear that the plan to bring democracy to Iraq in particular, and to the Arab world in general, was doomed from the start. Democracy is not for everyone, and certainly not for the Arabs. The proof: there is not one Arab state in the entire world that is democratic. However, Bush's biggest mistake occurred when he invented his "roadmap" for peace between Israel and a future "Palestinian democratic state". A more ridiculous oxymoron cannot be imagined. Firstly, there are no "Palestinian" people. The Moslems living today in Judea and Sammaria are simply descendants of Arabs who came to populate the area, looking for work among the Jews, after the latter began their historic return to their ancestral homeland about one hundred and twenty years ago. Secondly, even if there is a "Palestine", Jordan was established as the Arab successor to it on 76% of historic "Palestine". So there is a Palestinian state already, today -- Jordan! Thus Bush's "roadmap" is really a plan for three states for two peoples.

It's high time the President realized that Israel, sitting on land that Moslems once controlled, was the first target of radical Islam. Israel is simply the forerunner victim of Islamic terror, preceding the U.S. and Europe by some fifty years. And just as all Moslems are religiously precluded from making permanent peace with Israel (they are forbidden by Islamic law from accepting a treaty or ceasefire with infidels for a period of more than ten years), so are they incapable of making peace with the West.

It is interesting to note that the war in Iraq was started on March 20, 2003. The President declared his "roadmap" for Israel and the "Palestinians" on April 30, 2003. The idea then was to bring forth Arab support for the Iraqi invasion by forcing Israel to make life-threatening concessions to an implacable enemy -- and call it peace. The moral and geopolitical disconnect the President committed between America's war on terror and Israel's war on terror was untenable -- and unbearable. For whom? For Him - for God Almighty!

Even putting aside the Bible and the Koran as keys to understanding human history, what about learning from recent history itself? What about World War II? Then Britain tried to placate Hitler by offering up Czechoslovakia. Bush, in his "roadmap", and Baker in his Iraq Study Group recommendations, are repeating the same colossal mistake -- this time offering up Israel. Mr. Baker and Mr. Hamilton propose no less than the immediate destruction of Israel -- geographically by carving it up, demographically by allowing the Arabs to overrun it via the right of return, and completely, by allowing Iran to build the bomb on the excuse that it is needed for its defense against Israel's bomb. Hitler was unappeasable and so is Ahmadinejad! And not just Ahmadinejad, all Arabs! God will not forgive Mr. Bush or America if they ever accept the Baker Holocaust plan.

I stated in March 2003, with the publication of President Bush's "roadmap", that there is a geopolitical rule in effect since 1948 -- the Israel Principle. The principle states that any U.S. president who takes actions that intend to violate the territorial integrity of land held by an Israeli government as part of its divinely ordained boundaries, or acts to threaten its security, will be ranked as a bad U.S. President by the American people -- the more anti-Israel, the lower his ranking, the more pro-Israel, the higher his ranking. The principle has been proven statistically valid for all elected U.S. presidents since World War II. On that basis, I alone predicted, in March 2003, when the President's approval was nearly ninety percent, that the "roadmap" will be his undoing, and that he will be ranked extremely low among post-World War II presidents. Unfortunately, I was right -- and I take no pleasure in it.

What can President Bush do in the last two years of his presidency to reverse course and save the West, save Israel and save his legacy? In a nutshell, he should reject the Iraq Study Group proposals outright; he should attack Iran's nuclear facilities, and then, and only then, get out of Iraq. America's current job is to make the world safe from Islamic Jihad, not bring democracy to Arabs who inherently reject it on religious and national character grounds. He should abandon the "roadmap", call Jordan "Palestine", help Israel break up the Palestinian Authority, and help financially in the resettlement in Jordan of all Arabs living in Israel and Judea and Sammaria. The president has two years to implement this plan. It is the only plan worthy of a great president, a Churchillian president, a president who knows the truth, wants true peace, and is prepared to bring it forth --- for now and for generations in the future.

Harry W. Weber is a C.P.A. (U.S., Israel) and a political commentator whose articles have appeared on many websites. Contact him at @sandyirv@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 26, 2006.

Daniel Pipes has resurrected a theme that the Wall Street Journal (and I) dealt with last year: what happens if we lose this war?

Pipes quite accurately puts his finger on three characteristics of social malaise and over-confidence that could render us prey to the depredations of the Jihadist Islamofascist imperialist supremacist triumphalist tyrannical totalitarian terrorist Muslims who are currently waging war against us.

The articles below his, dating back to March of this year and December of last, all explore different aspects of this war, what defeat will look like, and why we may be defeated if we do not, as a nation, take more seriously the need for our own defense. My 10-step program is detailed in the last article of the group.

It is important to keep in mind that no nation in the entire world, across all 1,374 years of Muslim history, has ever successfully withstood the two-pronged assault of Islamofascist Jihad described by Pipes and myself.

If we want to be the first, we need to get our act together, pull together, work together to support our government, and address the three pitfalls that Pipes describes.

If we do not do that soon, we may live to see our grand-daughters in full-body burqas.

"How the West Could Lose"
Daniel Pipes
December 26, 2006
The New York Sun

After defeating the fascists and the communists, can the West now defeat the Islamists? On the face of it, the West's military predominance makes victory seem inevitable. Even if Tehran acquires a nuclear weapon, Islamists have nothing like the military machine the Axis deployed in World War II, nor the Soviet Union during the Cold War. What do the Islamists have to compare with the Wehrmacht or the Red Army? The SS or Spetznaz? The Gestapo or the KGB? Or, for that matter, to Auschwitz or the gulag?

Yet more than a few analysts, including myself, worry that it's not so simple. Islamists (defined as those who demand to live by the sacred law of Islam) might do better than the earlier totalitarians. They could even win. That's because, however strong the Western hardware, its software contains some potentially fatal bugs. Three of them -- pacifism, self-hatred, complacency -- deserve attention.

Pacifism: Among the educated, the conviction has taken hold that "there is no military solution" to current problems, a mantra applied to Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, the Kurds, terrorism, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. But this pragmatic pacifism overlooks the fact that modern history abounds with military solutions. What were the defeats of the Axis, America in Vietnam, or the Soviet Union in Afghanistan if not military solutions?

Self-hatred: Significant elements in several Western countries -- especially America, Britain, and Israel -- believe their own governments to be repositories of evil and see terrorism as just punishment for past sins. This "we have met the enemy and he is us" attitude replaces an effective response with appeasement, including a readiness to give up traditions and achievements. Osama bin Laden celebrates by name such leftists as Robert Fisk and William Blum. Self-hating Westerners have an outsize importance due to their prominent role as shapers of opinion in universities, the press, religious institutions, and the arts. They serve as the Islamists' auxiliary mujahedeen.

Complacency: The absence of an impressive Islamist military machine gives many Westerners, especially on the left, a feeling of disdain. Whereas conventional war -- men in uniform; ships, tanks, and planes; and battles for land and resources -- is simple to comprehend, the asymmetric war with radical Islam is elusive. Box cutters and suicide belts make it difficult to perceive this enemy as a worthy opponent. Senator Kerry and too many others dismiss terrorism as a mere "nuisance."

Islamists deploy formidable capabilities, however, that go far beyond smallscale terrorism:

--A potential access to weapons of mass destruction that could devastate Western life.

--A religious appeal that provides deeper resonance and greater staying power than the artificial ideologies of fascism or communism.

-- An impressively conceptualized, funded, and organized institutional machinery that successfully builds credibility, good will, and electoral success.

-- An ideology capable of appealing to Muslims of every size and shape, from Lumpenproletariat to privileged, from illiterates to Ph.D.s, from the well-adjusted to psychopaths, from Yemenis to Canadians. The movement almost defies sociological definition.

-- A nonviolent approach -- what I call "lawful Islamism" -- that pursues Islamification through educational, political, and religious means, without recourse to illegality or terrorism. Lawful Islamism is proving successful in Muslim-majority countries like Algeria and Muslim-minority ones like Britain.

-- A huge number of committed cadres. If Islamists constitute 10% to 15% of the Muslim population worldwide, they number some 125 to 200 million, a total far greater than all the fascists and communists, combined, who ever lived.

Pacifism, self-hatred, and complacency are lengthening the war against radical Islam and causing undue casualties. Only after absorbing catastrophic human and property losses can left-leaning Westerners overcome this triple affliction and confront the true scope of the threat. The civilized world will likely then prevail, but belatedly and at a higher cost than need have been.

Should Islamists get smart and avoid mass destruction, sticking instead to the lawful, political, nonviolent route, and should their movement remain vital, it is difficult to see what will stop them.

Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of "Miniatures" (Transaction Publishers).This column will be on hiatus until mid-April while Mr. Pipes teaches at Pepperdine University.

This very astute Wall Street Journal editorial (below) prompted me to add to it the letter from the Air Force officer below, and my own essay written last year.....all relating to the consequences of not taking this war seriously enough.....and not doing what it takes to win this war.

A few nations have been victorious in traditional High Intensity wars against Islam (France 736, Tri-country alliance in Austria led by Jon Sobieski of Poland 1682).

Most nations coming in to Islam's high intensity warfare cross-hairs have fallen (all the Arabian peninsula nations, north african nations, spain, Israel, syria, mesopotamia/iraq, turkey, iran/persia, most of the Hindu-Kush sub-continent and Pakistan, gujarat, and Kashmir).

No nation has ever been victorious over the Islamic PR/infiltration/low-level terrorism- take-over war. that's why Indonesia, Malaysia the various 'stans' of what was once Soviet Central Asia and central Asian countries further south and east....are all Moslem today.

Western civilization is currently engaged in a multi-tiered war with Terrorist Islam.

PR, political maneuvers, Academia, media outlets, high schools, all are now subject to growing Islamic pressure to present Terrorist Islam in a positive light.

Demographic expansion most visible in Europe, but happening in the USA too, subject the host populations to pressures to accept a Moslem independent entity as Shari'a-ruled enclaves in an otherwise democratic western country ..

and the more high-profile terror war that began in November of 1979, reached its apogee on 9/11/2001, and continues to this day.............

.......all add up to the unpleasant reality that we in the West (Christians and Jews and Hindus and aetheists..etc) are at war with Terrorist islam, just as were spain and Persia and India. they and many others lost that war.

So we need to take the possibility of our defeat in this war very seriously.
David Meir-Levi

"What if We Lose? The consequences of U.S. defeat in Iraq."
Wall Street Journal
March 22, 2006

The third anniversary of U.S. military action to liberate Iraq has brought with it a relentless stream of media and political pessimism that is unwarranted by the facts and threatens to become a self-fulfilling prophesy if it goes unchallenged.

Yes, sectarian tensions are running high and the politicians of Iraq's newly elected parliament are taking a long time forming a government. But the attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra several weeks back has not provoked the spiral into "civil war" that so many keep predicting. U.S. casualties are down over the past month, in part because Iraqi security forces are performing better all the time.

More fundamentally, the coalition remains solidly allied with the majority of Iraqis who want neither Saddam's Hussein's return nor the country's descent into a Taliban-like hellhole. There is no widespread agitation for U.S. troops to depart, and if anything the Iraqi fear is that we'll leave too soon.

Yet there's no denying the polls showing that most Americans are increasingly weary of the daily news of car bombs and Iraqi squabbling and are wishing it would all just go away. Their pessimism is fed by elites who should know better but can't restrain their domestic political calculations long enough to consider the damage that would accompany U.S. failure. A conventional military defeat is inconceivable in Iraq, but a premature U.S. withdrawal is becoming all too possible.

With that in mind, it's worth thinking through what would happen if the U.S. does fail in Iraq. By fail, we mean cut and run before giving Iraqis the time and support to establish a stable, democratic government that can stand on its own. Beyond almost certain chaos in Iraq, here are some other likely consequences:

-- The U.S. would lose all credibility on weapons proliferation. One doesn't have to be a dreamy-eyed optimist about democracy to recognize that toppling Saddam Hussein was a milestone in slowing the spread of WMD. Watching the Saddam example, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi decided he didn't want to be next. Gadhafi's "voluntary" disarmament in turn helped uncover the nuclear network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and Iran's two decades of deception.

Now Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons, a prospect that might yet be headed off by the use or threat of force. But if the U.S. retreats from Iraq, Iran's mullahs will know that we have no stomach to confront them and coercive diplomacy will have no credibility. An Iranian bomb, in turn, would inspire nuclear efforts in other Mideast countries and around the world.

-- Broader Mideast instability. No one should underestimate America's deterrent effect in that unstable region, a benefit that would vanish if we left Iraq precipitously. Iran would feel free to begin unfettered meddling in southern Iraq with the aim of helping young radicals like Moqtada al-Sadr overwhelm moderate clerics like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani.

Syria would feel free to return to its predations in Lebanon and to unleash Hezbollah on Israel. Even allies like Turkey might feel compelled to take unilateral, albeit counterproductive steps, such as intervening in northern Iraq to protect their interests. Every country in the Middle East would make its own new calculation of how much it could afford to support U.S. interests. Some would make their own private deals with al Qaeda, or at a minimum stop aiding us in our pursuit of Islamists.

-- We would lose all credibility with Muslim reformers. The Mideast is now undergoing a political evolution in which the clear majority, even if skeptical of U.S. motives, agrees with the goal of more democracy and accountable government. They have watched as millions of Iraqis have literally risked their lives to vote and otherwise support the project. Having seen those Iraqis later betrayed, other would-be reformers would not gamble their futures on American support. Nothing could be worse in the battle for Muslim "hearts and minds" than to betray our most natural allies.

-- We would invite more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Osama bin Laden said many times that he saw the weak U.S. response to Somalia and the Khobar Towers and USS Cole bombings as evidence that we lacked the will for a long fight. The forceful response after 9/11 taught al Qaeda otherwise, but a retreat in Iraq would revive that reputation for American weakness. While Western liberals may deny any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, bin Laden and the rest of the Arab world see it clearly and would advertise a U.S. withdrawal as his victory. Far from leaving us alone, bin Laden would be more emboldened to strike the U.S. homeland with a goal of driving the U.S. entirely out of the Mideast.

We could go on, but our point is that far more is at stake in Iraq than President Bush's approval rating or the influence of this or that foreign-policy faction. U.S. credibility and safety are at risk in the most direct way imaginable, far more than they were in Vietnam. In that fight, we could establish a new anti-Communist perimeter elsewhere in Southeast Asia. The poison of radical Islam will spread far and wide across borders if it can make even a plausible claim to being on the ascendancy, and nothing would show that more than the retreat of America from Iraq.

We still believe victory in Iraq is possible, indeed likely, notwithstanding its costs and difficulties. But the desire among so many of our political elites to repudiate Mr. Bush and his foreign policy is creating a dangerous public pessimism that could yet lead to defeat--a defeat whose price would be paid by all Americans, and for years to come.

"This WAR is for REAL!"
MG Vernon Chong, USAFR
March 22, 2006

Our country is now facing the most serious threat to its existence, as we know it, that we have faced in your lifetime and mine (which includes WWII).

The deadly seriousness is greatly compounded by the fact that there are very few of us who think we can possibly lose this war and even fewer who realize what losing really means.

First, let's examine a few basics:

1. When did the threat to us start?
Many will say September 11, 2001. The answer as far as the United States is concerned is 1979, 22 years prior to September 2001, with the following attacks on us:

* Iran Embassy Hostages, 1979;
* Beirut, Lebanon Embassy 1983;
* Beirut, Lebanon Marine Barracks 1983;
* Lockerbie, Scotland Pan-Am flight to New York 1988;
* First New York World Trade Center attack 1993;
* Dhahran, Saudi Arabia Khobar Towers Military complex 1996;
* Nairobi, Kenya US Embassy 1998;
* Dares Salaam, Tanzania US Embassy 1998;
* Aden, Yemen USS Cole 2000;
* New York World Trade Center 2001;
* Pentagon 2001.

(Note that during the period from 1981 to 2001 there were 7,581 terrorists attacks worldwide).

2. Why were we attacked?
Envy of our position, our success, and our freedoms. The attacks happened during the administrations of Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2. We cannot fault either the Republicans or Democrats, as there were no provocations by any of the presidents or their immediate predecessors, Presidents Ford or Carter.

3. Who were the attackers?
In each case, Muslims carried out the attacks on the US.

4. What is the Muslim population of the World?

5. Isn't the Muslim Religion peaceful?
Hopefully, but that is really not material. There is no doubt that the predominately Christian population of Germany was peaceful, but under the dictatorial leadership of Hitler (who was also Christian), that made no difference. You either went along with the administration or you were eliminated. There were 5 to 6 million Christians killed by the Nazis for political reasons (including 7,000 Polish priests). Thus, the Nazis, killed almost the same numbers of Christians as the six million holocaust Jews who were killed by them, and we seldom heard of anything other than the Jewish atrocities. Although Hitler kept the world focused on the Jews, he had no hesitancy about killing anyone who got in his way of exterminating the Jews or of taking over the world - German, Christian or any others.

The same, exactly, with the Muslim terrorists. They focus the world on the US, but kill all in the way -- their own people or the Spanish, French or anyone else. The point here is that just like the peaceful Germans were of no protection to anyone from the Nazis, no matter how many peaceful Muslims there may be, they are no protection for us from the terrorist Muslim leaders and what they are fanatically bent on doing -- by their own pronouncements -- killing all of us "infidels." I don't blame the peaceful Muslims. What would you do if the choice was shut up or die?

6. So who are we at war with? There is no way we can honestly respond that it is anyone other than the Muslim terrorists. Trying to be politically correct and avoid verbalizing this conclusion can well be fatal. There is no way to win if you don't clearly recognize and articulate whom you are fighting.

So with that background, now to the two major questions:

1. Can we lose this war?
2. What does losing really mean?

If we are to win, we must clearly answer these two pivotal questions.

We can definitely lose this war, and as anomalous as it may sound, the major reason we can lose is that so many of us simply do not fathom the answer to the second question - What does losing mean?

It would appear that a great many of us think that losing the war means hanging our heads, bringing the troops home and going on about our business, like post Vietnam. This is as far from the truth as one can get. What losing really means is:

We would no longer be the premier country in the world. The attacks will not subside, but rather will steadily increase. Remember, they want us dead, not just quiet. If they had just wanted us quiet, they would not have produced an increasing series of attacks against us, over the past 18 years. The plan was clearly, for terrorists to attack us until we were neutered and submissive to them. We would, of course, have no future support from other nations; for fear of reprisals and for the reason that they would see we are impotent and cannot help them.

They will pick off the other non-Muslim nations, one at a time. It will be increasingly easier for them. They already hold Spain hostage. It doesn't matter whether it was right or wrong for Spain to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Spain did it because the Muslim terrorists bombed their train and told them to withdraw the troops. Anything else they want Spain to do will be done. Spain is finished.

The next will probably be France. Our one hope on France is that they might see the light and realize that if we don't win, they are finished; too, in that they can't resist the Muslim terrorists without us. However, it may already be too late for France. France is already 20% Muslim and fading fast!

If we lose the war, our production, income, exports and way of life will all vanish, as we know it. After losing, who would trade or deal with us, if they were threatened by the Muslims?

If we can't stop the Muslims, how could anyone else?

The Muslims fully know what is riding on this war, and therefore are completely committed to winning, at any cost. We better know it too and be likewise committed to winning at any cost.

Why do I go on at such lengths about the results of losing? Simple. Until we recognize the costs of losing, we cannot unite and really put 100% of our thoughts and efforts into winning. And it is going to take that 100% effort to win.

So, how can we lose the war?

Again, the answer is simple. We can lose the war by "imploding." That is, defeating ourselves by refusing to recognize the enemy and their purpose, and really digging in and lending full support to the war effort. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. If we continue to be divided, there is no way that we can win!

Let me give you a few examples of how we simply don't comprehend the life and death seriousness of this situation.

President Bush selects Norman Mineta as Secretary of Transportation. Although all of the terrorist attacks were committed by Muslim men between 17 and 40 years of age, Secretary Mineta refuses to allow profiling. Does that sound like we are taking this thing seriously? This is war! For the duration, we are going to have to give up some of the civil rights we have become accustomed to. We had better be prepared to lose some of our civil rights temporarily or we will most certainly lose all of them permanently.

And don't worry that it is a slippery slope. We gave up plenty of civil rights during WWII, and immediately restored them after the victory and in fact added many more since then.

Do I blame President Bush or President Clinton before him?

No, I blame us for blithely assuming we can maintain all of our Political Correctness, and all of our civil rights during this conflict and have a clean, lawful, honorable war. None of those words apply to war. Get them out of your head.

Some have gone so far in their criticism of the war and/or the Administration that it almost seems they would literally like to see us lose. I hasten to add that this isn't because they are disloyal. It is because they just don't recognize what losing means. Nevertheless, that conduct gives the impression to the enemy that we are divided and weakening. It concerns our friends, and it does great damage to our cause.

Of more recent vintage, the uproar fueled by the politicians and media regarding the treatment of some prisoners of war, perhaps exemplifies best what I am saying. We have recently had an issue, involving the treatment of a few Muslim prisoners of war, by a small group of our military police. These are the type prisoners who just a few months ago were throwing their own people off buildings, cutting off their hands, cutting out their tongues and otherwise murdering their own people just for disagreeing with Saddam Hussein.

And just a few years ago these same type prisoners chemically killed 400,000 of their own people for the same reason. They are also the same type enemy fighters, who recently were burning Americans, and dragging their charred corpses through the streets of Iraq. And still more recently, the same type enemy that was and is providing videos to all news sources internationally, of the beheading of American prisoners they held.

Compare this with some of our press and politicians, who for several days have thought and talked about nothing else but the "humiliating" of some Muslim prisoners -- not burning them, not dragging their charred corpses through the streets, not beheading them, but "humiliating" them.

Can this be for real?

The politicians and pundits have even talked of impeachment of the Secretary of Defense. If this doesn't show the complete lack of comprehension and understanding of the seriousness of the enemy we are fighting, the life and death struggle we are in and the disastrous results of losing this war, nothing can.

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world. Neither we, nor any other country, can survive this internal strife. Again I say, this does not mean that some of our politicians or media people are disloyal. It simply means that they are absolutely oblivious to the magnitude, of the situation we are in and into which the Muslim terrorists have been pushing us, for many years.

Remember, the Muslim terrorists' stated goal is to kill all infidels! That translates into ALL non-Muslims -- not just in the United States, but through out the world.

We are the last bastions of defense.

We have been criticized for many years as being 'arrogant.' That charge is valid in at least one respect; we are arrogant in that we believe that we are so good, powerful and smart, that we can win the hearts and minds of all those who attack us, and that with both hands tied behind our back, we can defeat anything bad in the world!

We can't!

If we don't recognize this, our nation, as we know it will not survive, and no other free country in the world will survive if we are defeated.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that allow freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, equal rights for anyone -- let alone everyone, equal status or any status for women, or that have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

This has been a long way of saying that we must be united on this war or we will be equated in the history books to the self-inflicted fall of the Roman Empire. If, that is, the Muslim leaders will allow history books to be written or read.

If we don't win this war right now, keep a close eye on how the Muslims take over France in the next 5 years or less. They will continue to increase the Muslim population of France and continue to encroach little by little, on the established French traditions. The French will be fighting among themselves, over what should or should not be done, which will continue to weaken them and keep them from any united resolve. Doesn't that sound eerily familiar?

Democracies don't have their freedoms taken away from them by some external military force. Instead, they give their freedoms away, politically correct piece by politically correct piece.

And they are giving those freedoms away to those who have shown, worldwide, that they abhor freedom and will not apply it to you or even to themselves, once they are in power.

They have universally shown that when they have taken over, they then start brutally killing each other over who will be the few who control the masses. Will we ever stop hearing from the politically correct, about the "peaceful Muslims"?

I close on a hopeful note, by repeating what I said above. If we are united, there is no way that we can lose. I hope now after the election, the factions in our country will begin to focus on the critical situation we are in, and will unite to save our country. It is your future we are talking about! Do whatever you can to preserve it.

"What does victory look like? More important that we recognize the price of defeat and make surewe win."
David Meir-Levi
December 23, 2005

Concern about Bush's wire tap and other possibly illegal actions is well meaning and well founded. We do not want to see our liberties eroded. And one of the very good questions that comes up when one argues (as I have) that we can put these liberties back into place after the war is.......how will we know when we have won? How do we know what victory looks like in a strange new war such as this?

Here's my answer:

Since this is a new kind of war for us in the West, one that western nations have never experienced, it is difficult to describe exactly what victory at the end of this war will look like.


a.) this is not a new kind of war for many countries that faced Islamofascist aggression in the East. Most of what we once called Soviet Central Asia is Moslem today because they faced this kind of war centuries ago....and we'll never know what victory would have looked like, because they lost.

b.) Malaysia and Indonesia are majority Moslem countries run as Moslem societies with little tolerance for non-Moslems, because they too faced this type of aggression a century or so ago....and lost.

c.) In western history, the conflicts were earlier and of the traditional war character. Charles Martel stopped the Islamic invasion of France at Poitiers, south of Paris, in 736, in a traditional battle of army against army...and as a result, France won and stayed a Christian nation. Spain lost....and became Moslem for 800 years.

d.) A thousand years later, John Sobieski, king of Poland, led a three-nation army to stop the Moslem Ottoman armies at the gates of Vienna...and won...so Germany, and Austria, and much of eastern Europe stayed Christian....while Greece and the Balkans and Hungary and part of Rumania came under Ottoman rule and suffered brutal anti-Christian repression until the late 19th century.

e.) India experienced a brutal conflict which displayed characteristics of both the traditional army vs. army, and the more amorphous and insidious terror conflict. For more than 200 years in the 11-12th centuries Moslem armies from Iran invaded, in wave after wave. Indian historians suggest that the total Hindu casualties were more than 100,000,000 (one hundred million!!). Hindustani victory was of the traditional variety of army vs. army, thanks in large part to the success of the newly formed Sikh warrior class. Meanwhile, over the centuries, the Moslem population of India grew within the tolerant Hindustani society, and became a force that the invading Moslems could use against the Hindustani....a textbook example of the fifth column. We will never know what that victory would have looked like, because the Hindustani lost....Ultimately, much of India fell under Moslem rule, and only hundreds of years later liberated itself from what it looks back upon as a primitive, brutal repressive religious apartheid oppression, and this only with the aid of the British in the 19th century.

So what will it look like here?

I'm not sure. there has never been a victory against this type of amorphous terrorist guerrilla Moslem imperialist supremacist triumphalist Islamofascist Jihad. Never...So right now no one knows what such a victory would look like.

But describing the victory is an issue that we have plenty of time to resolve. And its resolution may change with the nature of the conflict. A victory over a massive Jihad army, with innumerable enemy casualties and the leaders dead or in jail and the survivors prisoner or disarmed and scattered ... may look very different from a victory over an amorphous terror guerrilla warrior gang that is driven by considerations of religious extremism and sincere belief in an afterlife where Jihadi are rewarded with virgins.

But...bottom line....the question of victory's demeanor is not the question that we should be worrying about now.

Now we are faced with a much more sobering and dangerous problem.....

we may indeed lose this war.

So I suggest that we turn our attention not to what victory may look like in the future, but to what are the consequences of our defeat now.

go back to my 'a' through 'e' above.

Look carefully at what life is like for Jews, for women, for Christians, for any non-Moslems, and even for Moslems, in most of the Arab world today. Look at the impact of Moslem imperialist triumphalist supremacist aggression on the Byzantine Empire, the civilizations of north Africa (Coptic, Berber) and Spain, the eastern civilizations of the Mesopotamian area, the Sassanians (ancient Persia), and India.

None of those thought that they would fall to the brutal barbaric and culturally retrograde Moslem invaders.....but they all did. And a great darkness descended upon them....their cultures lapsed into a dark age for hundreds of years following their defeat.

So, I'm much more concerned that our defeat will look a lot like theirs....and I suggest therefore that we concentrate on not being defeated. That is far more important as our immediate concern now than is what our victory may look like later.

so...to increase the likelihood of our victory, and reduce the likelihood of our defeat, our military and law enforcement groups must indeed do wire taps, surveillance in mosques, infiltration of groups that are openly supportive of Jihad and Arab terrorism, strict border controls to catch the terrorists entering our country from Mexico.....because if we do not do these things, we increase the chances of their winning. And if they win, then all the liberties that one may be fearful of loosing now, and much much more, will be lost....unless you are male and Moslem.

So I suggest that:

1.) as soon as Osama and zawahiri and qaradawi and mash'al and masawi and nusralla are all either dead or in jail,

2.) and the 63 terror training camps in Syria have been carpet bombed or otherwise shut down, their terrorist trainees dead or in custody or scattered,

3.) and the 12-15 ocean-going oil-tankers that Osama hijacked since 1996 and has hidden in the nooks and crannies of the eastern Arabian coast are recovered so he cannot put nuclear WMDs in them and float them into our harbors,

4.) and Iraq is a self-sufficient democratic entity that can defend itself against Islamofascist attacks and make sure that Zawahiri does not establish his Caliphate there

5.) and the billions of dollars that flow into el Qaeda and related groups' coffers every year from fake charities in the west, and from oil sheikhdoms, and from Iran, and from illegal drug trade, have been redirected to better uses

6.) and the c 800 mosques in the USA that are owned by various mega-millionaire Saudi supporters of jihad are closed down and their wahhabi hate-and-Jihad-and-make-the-USA-Moslem-preaching imams are in jail or deported

7.) and the c 5000 (conservative guess) illegal Arab and Iranian operatives, now hiding in the USA's Moslem community as sleeper agents trained and waiting to carry out acts of terror (perhaps with dirty bombs or suitcase bombs or hi-jacked gasoline tanker-trucks) against us, are either dead or in jail

8.) and Saddam's WMDs in western Syria and eastern Lebanon are recovered and destroyed

9.) and both the North Korean and Iranian nuclear WMD ambitions have been thwarted

10.) and the rogue nuclear devices floating around the third world after the demise of the USSR are recovered ...

......then, we can engage in a fruitful argument about whether or not we stand at the threshold of victory (and can thus pull the plug on the wire taps et al), or whether or not we need to continue the pursuit of those Jihadi who want us either dead or Moslem.

That is a good topic for discussion then.

But for now, let's concentrate on winning.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, December 26, 2006.

Perhaps the idea of forcing Jews from their Land, first implemented by Arik Sharon with Ehud Olmert and Dan Halutz is a method worth considering with modifications as follows:

Having set the precedent of forcibly removing Jews from their homes, presumably, Olmert would find it acceptable to use this example to forcibly remove himself, Amir Peretz, Halutz and all others who wish to de-Judaize the Jewish State of Israel and turn the Land that G-d gave to the Jews over to the Muslim Arabs. These should be emergency measures put before the Knesset, given that IDF Intelligence forecasts a two-front war against Israel as early as this coming spring.

After all, Olmert, Peretz and Halutz anointed themselves as role models for what Jews should do to each other. I recall that "The Olmert Plan of Disengagement" was foisted upon Ariel Sharon (when he was probably ill already) to keep his seat as Prime Minister instead of being indicted for the criminal use of his official powers to cut illegal deals as he was charged and his subsequent removal from power.

I recall Chief of Staff Dan Halutz posing arrogantly during a TV interview. While leaning on a Jeep, he told all that driving out the Jews of Gush Katif from Gaza would be "no problem". A nation and her people have first rights of survival when their leaders repeatedly prove that their incompetence is killing the people whom they were voted into power to protect. Instead, Olmert, Peretz and Halutz are putting all of Israel at risk.

All the time Dan Halutz should have been training the IDF (Israel Defense Force) soldiers to defend the country from the surrounding hostile Muslim Arab countries, including even Iran who may to soon have nuclear weapons. Halutz was misusing 55,000 soldiers by training them to forcibly drive 10,000 Jews from their homes in Gush Katif and Northern Samaria. This planning was initiated by Sharon and Olmert, plotting together with Halutz.

Then there was his plan, with the help of Olmert, to viciously attack the Jews of Amona, trampling them huge imported German horses ridden by Russian Cossack Jews, swinging long clubs and breaking the heads of unarmed boys and girls, men and women defending the homes they built. They even trampled members of Knesset, thereby establishing force as their chosen method of how government affairs were to follow the methods of fascists and dictatorships.

Here again, Olmert and Halutz were role models in teaching the Israeli public to hate the government as they behaved like latter-day Nazis - making force the rule of Law.

Now Defense Minister Amir Peretz is pushing to drive the Jews from Migron (near Beth El) by attacking these Jews and forcibly driving them from their Land. Keep in mind that wherever Jews were forcibly removed, that vacuum was quickly filled by incoming Terrorists and increased flow of advanced weapons.

We are again reminded of Sharon-Olmert-Halutz misusing the limited resources of the IDF to plan, train and then attack Jews who, unlike them, believe in the Land G-d gave them.

Amir Peretz, an unschooled thought-impaired Defense Minister, appointed by a twisty lawyer, is planning to leave his mark by driving Jews from their own Land and homes. Even as Hezb'Allah and Hamas are filling their weapons' depots, digging more bunkers, Olmert and Peretz are focusing on forcing more Jews from their Land.

Olmert is still sub-dividing the Gush Etzion area with fencing so in the near future he can set the IDF upon the Jewish communities outside of his Ghetto Fence/Wall. Here again, Olmert is creating a role model to follow, mainly in the techniques to use force to evict Jews. Clearly, Olmert and his collaborators believe in using force to empty the Land of real Jews who are dedicated to their Jewish Heritage. Therefore, if they believe in using force against their fellow Jews for whom they are responsible, under common law, then force should apply to Olmert's fellows in his Government.

As they say: "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." IF forcible removal of Jews is Olmert, Peretz, Peres Doctrine and, since they are part of the Jewish nation, their removal by force should apply within common law - as established by them. IF they removed Olmert from the PM's office, that is merely what would be called common sense. As is often said, Israeli Jews have no obligation to commit national suicide because of current aberrant leadership.

The Jews killed and those to be killed in the near future due to the inability of government leaders makes those corrupt leaders co-conspirators to murder and fratricide - killing their own brothers and sisters. Assisting the enemy by restraining the Peoples' Army can only be defined as treason for their own political and financial benefits. Why the people do not march to the Knesset and remove this suicidal government is baffling.

Why the Knesset sits quietly and allows this to happen is the mark of a people desperately in need of a gigantic Freudian couch. Allowing greedy political incompetents, to direct their very existence with the equivalent of the life-threatening policies, tells us that "Never Again" is happening again!

The suicidal and grossly incompetent government of Olmert and his rag-tag party of Kadima, the defeatist Left must be evacuated immediately. Time is of the essence - as Iran and Syrian Proxies: Hezb'Allah and Hamas - are arming under the plain view of Olmert and his bumbling Minister of Defense Peretz.

Israelis cannot wait to pull Olmert and his gang out of their "spider hole" hiding places after perhaps (G-d forbid) thousands are killed in the forecast coming war.

Putting Olmert and Kadima members on trial after Mahmoud Ahmadinejad drops a nuclear bomb over Tel Aviv may be satisfying to the survivors but it will not help the dead and dying. It's long past time to eject the Olmert gang for placing Jewish Land and the Jews they are elected to protect in clear and present danger.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@interaccess.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 26, 2006.

Simon Schama is a great British historian. You may have been fortunate to watch his brilliant BBC/PBS series on The History of Britain.

This superb scholar is not prone to inaccuracies nor to sweeping statements. Whatever he writes is always thoroughly researched and exceedingly accurate, unlike our former peanut farmer President Jimmy and his ridiculous and laughable recent book (I hope you did not spend any money on this trash).

Together with Anthony Julius, Prof. Schama published an article in The Guardian newspaper (it is amazing that this usually biased paper printed it), dealing with the accusations of Israel as an Apartheid state and the comparison made by charlatans, the kind of Jimmy Carter, between Israel and South Africa.

I urge you to read this very important article and keep a copy of it for future reference. It was written by Anthony Julius and Simon Schama and it is called "John Berger is Wrong." It appeared December 22, 2006 in the Guardian

Wishing you a great new year, free of bias and prejudice.

Your Truth Provider,

Recent call by John Berger and others
(http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_berger/2006/12/john_berger.html) to boycott Israel is banal, gestural, and morally compromised. For those properly passionate about promoting the interests of Palestinians, there is much scope for morally uncompromised action. Edward Said, who in retrospect seems one of Israel's better enemies, understood this clearly enough, and understood also how self-defeating boycotts can be. "What have years of refusing to deal with Israel done for us?" he asked. "Nothing at all, except to weaken us and weaken our perception of our opponent."

Advocates of the boycott of Israel repeatedly invoke the boycott of South Africa. The parallel they draw between Israel and apartheid South Africa is false.

The Palestinian, Druze and other minorities in Israel are guaranteed equal rights under the basic laws. All citizens of Israel vote in elections. There are no legal restrictions on movement, employment or sexual or marital relations. The universities are integrated. Opponents of Zionism have free speech and assembly and may form political organizations. By radical contrast, South African apartheid denied non-whites the right to vote, decreed where they could live and work, made sex and marriage across the racial divide illegal, forbad opponents of the regime to express their views, banned the liberation movements and maintained segregated universities.

In any event, the relations between Israel and the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank are not governed by Israeli law, but by international law. "Apartheid," as a set of discriminatory laws governing the nationals of one state, is simply not the appropriate model here.

Last, and very importantly, since the 1920s, a substantial component of the Palestinian war against the Jewish community has been terrorism, that is, the intentional harming of civilians. The second intifada consisted of nothing more than terrorism. By contrast, the South African ANC expressly repudiated attacks on civilians. As the authors of a recent study of the parallels and differences between Israel and South Africa point out, not one suicide attack was committed in the 30 year armed struggle against apartheid.

The boycott call has several unappealing characteristics.

First, it has no stated objectives, other than a vaguely expressed hope for a "just peace." This is a phrase without ascertainable content. Do the boycotters wish for a single state, in which Jews will be an embattled minority? If they do, let them frankly say so, and openly champion the cause of the anti-Semitic Hamas. (A PA minister recently told students at Gaza University, "the conflict with the Jews is a religious, existential struggle and is not a conflict over borders"). Or do the boycotters wish for a two-state solution? If they do, they endorse the views of a majority of Israelis and, according to most polling, Palestinians too - and the boycotters thereby expose the absurdity of their call for a boycott. One does not boycott the efforts of majorities in each community as they struggle for peace.

Second, it is one-eyed. It complains of violations of the Lebanon ceasefire by Israel but says nothing of the cause of that war nor the violations of the Gaza ceasefire by Palestinian terrorists, who continue to fire their rockets into Israel's villages, deliberately targeting civilians. It says nothing about the kidnapped soldiers. It ignores the Israeli children murdered by suicide bombers. It puts in quotation marks "Israel's legitimate right of self-defence," as if to deny that right. It is utterly ahistorical. It casts the Palestinians as pure victims, the Israelis as pure aggressors. The very language it uses when addressing Israeli casualties is obfuscatory. "Ten Palestinians are killed," they write, "for every Israeli death." And from what is it that these Israelis have died?

Third, though the call purports to affirm universal, human rights values, it is incapable of explaining why it seeks a boycott of Israel, alone among the nations of the world. It says nothing about the abuses and human rights breaches inflicted on Israel's citizens. It says nothing about the egregious human rights abuses committed elsewhere in the world (Darfur, Chechnya, and many other places). The boycotters are incapable of generalising the principles that govern their call. They cannot - they will not - universalise it. They will not, that is, apply it to every other nation that acts in a comparable manner to Israel - let alone, to those many nations that behave far worse than Israel. A boycott would thus punish disproportionately; it would make pariahs of the citizens of one state alone in the entire world.

Fourth, in its own trivial way, by putting up barriers between Israelis and Palestinians it weakens the prospects for peace. Paul Frosh, in a posting on the admirable Engage website, has listed many examples of co-operation between Israeli and Palestinian institutions. It is also worth recalling that Terje Larsen, a Norwegian social scientist, facilitated the 1993 Oslo Peace Accords, signed following secret talks between Israeli academics and senior PLO officials. Larsen is just the kind of person exhorted by the boycotters to have no dealings with Israel.

Last, it has a creepy desire to demonstrate its pro-Jewish credentials - especially in support of its most defamatory allegations and implications. A Primo Levi quotation insinuates that most obscene of anti-Israel tropes, that relates Zionists to Nazis; a reference to "the Jewish Ronnie Kasrils" supports the apartheid analogy. What possible relevance, we ask, is Kasrils' religion of birth to his stance on Israel? Ethnicity is not a criterion of competence in moral judgment. In any event, history is full of examples of Jews who have made common cause with anti-semites.

This is not the first boycott call directed at Jews.

On April 1, 1933, a week after he came to power, Hitler ordered a boycott of Jewish shops, banks, offices and department stores. In 1945, barely 12 years later, the Arab League initiated a boycott of Jewish Palestinian businesses. One year later, the ban was extended to prohibit contact with "anything Jewish" (as the Palestine Post reported, quoting a League announcement). This economic warfare continues to the present day. Of course, while self-declared enemies of the Jews imposed the 1933 and 1945 boycotts, the 2006 boycotters are anxious to demonstrate that they have Jewish support.

But this does not free this latest boycott of the taint of anti-semitism. Indeed, the boycotters' language is drawn, as if irresistibly, toward anti-semitic formulations. As one supporter put it, "Let [Israel's] citizens feel the rejection from Europe." Well, Europe's "rejection" has been experienced once before - lethally - by many Israeli Jews, and many more of their immediate forebears. In the very week when the President of Iran hosted a conference promoting Holocaust denial and once again anticipated with pleasure the end of Israel (events which apparently escape the notice of our boycotters), we do not shrink from the conclusion that any boycott of Israel is reprehensibly deaf to those practices of stigmatization and exclusion that characterized anti-semitism's offence against Jews for two millennia.

The Palestinian cause, still less the cause of peace, is not served by promoting discrimination against Jews. It is indecent to call for the shunning of the Jewish state.

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 26, 2006.


The Democrats at first approved of the wars, but failed to make it a bipartisan effort. They waited until it ran into trouble, then carped at it. They failed to authorize more money for troops instead of for boondoggles. Now they complain that it doesn't have enough troops and simultaneously want to withdraw the troops. The problems there are almost as much theirs as the Republicans'.

They make the problem worse, with their defeatism. If not for Democrats' defeatism, the enemy might have quit, but the enemy holds on, counting on American public opinion to back down, as it did in Vietnam.

What is Democratic public opinion but media reflection of European opinion? The US and Israel are supposed to be democracies, but Democrats and Israeli leftists insist on abiding by foreign non-voters (and laws and courts). They call Pres. Bush stupid, especially for running afoul of foreign public opinion. I think their reliance upon the opinion of Europe, which is letting the uncivilized Muslims take it over for lack of faith in their own civilization, is stupid. The Democrats are partisan in the face of, and oblivious to, the Islamic threat to our own civilization. What could be more stupid than that?


The Pope still talks in Vaticanese code. Journalists struggle to make meaning of it. His consistent point -- have religious dialogue with truth and tolerance instead of violence -- is lost upon the Muslims. Meanwhile, the Muslims are scrutinizing everything the Pope says, to see if he shows them an inkling of the disrespect they show him.

A point not lost, however, was his recommendation that the EU admit Turkey. If Turkey were admitted, millions more Muslims, increasingly Islamist (or Kurdish criminals), would flood into Europe. No political correctness should allow that.

To save Western civilization and Christianity, he would have been justified in intervening to recommend that the EU not admit Turkey. That recommendation should not be made in Turkey and not yet. The Pope has to build credibility in Europe, which is more anti-Christian secularist than Christian. The secularists focus on emancipation from Christianity to an extent disgusting in its hedonism and suicidal in its failure to reproduce its population. They fail to focus on the rising Islamic flood, because it is easier to keep beating a fading foe than to start beating an approaching one.

Actually, the Pope merely sympathized with Turkish Westernization, but the Prime Minister deliberately misrepresented that as support for EU membership and the media failed to note the falsehood (Daniel Johnson, NY Sun, 12/4, p.5).


The NY Times displayed a photograph of Sec. Rice smiling alongside Abbas, terrorist chieftan. She acts as if he were a decent person instead of Arafat's former "bag man," who should be on criminal wanted lists. At what point to US officials soil their hands and stain ours by shaking the hands of such dirty criminals?


Their study claimed that Israel was invulnerable. Hizbullah demonstrated Israel's vulnerability. Iran has missiles, is developing nuclear weapons, and threatens to annihilate Israel. (But also claims its nuclear development is just for electricity.)

Does Iran mean it? Pres. Ahmadinejad is not kidding. He is a fanatic, who denies the Holocaust and that Jews ever lived in the Land of Israel. Where does Iran think Christianity arose from Judaism? Unlike the USSR, which could be deterred, because it wanted to survive, Iran cannot be deterred, because it thinks that death in religious war is martyrdom and eternal life (Amnon Rubinstein, NY Sun, 10/31, Op.-Ed.).

Part of the antisemitism syndrome is the myth of an all-powerful Jewry. Ironically, Jews get persecuted more than most other groups. Where is our power when we need it?


She wants to persuade Hamas to give up terrorism and just govern. "But I see no alternative than to continue to press the democratic enterprise and to try and deal and mitigate against some of its most -- some downsides." The same situation preceded Hamas, when Arafat and Abbas had terrorist militias and official polices (IMRA, 11/6.)

She studiously ignores that and the jihadist purpose of Hamas. Nor has the US persuaded Muslim terrorists to behave civilly. How could it? Islam doesn't believe in civilized standards. It believes in total, unrelenting, even terrorist war. If the US did any mitigation, the Republican candidates would have touted it. She is giving democracy lip service, while giving the P.A. arms that will end up being used against Israel.


Muhammad Foda, who works for the Egyptian government evening newspaper Al-Masa', said, "I Am Very Happy When I Learn That an American or British Soldier Has Been Killed." (IMRA, 11/6 from MEMRI.) But Britain prefers the Arabs to Israel. Fools!

Americans should protest that. The Egyptian government would deny responsibility for what the press publishes. But Egypt lacks press freedom. Even it if had it, the culture is almost monolithic. That is why democracy there wouldn't be good, if they had it.


Western politicians uneducated about Islam and illiterate in Arabic have been defining Islam for us (as a religion of peace and having a few bad apples). What are the differences among the three related religions? Judaism seeks national salvation -- the Jews in their own country ruling themselves, serving God, and setting an example. Christianity wants to save every individual from his sins and has other benign goals. Islam: "Allah sent Mohammad with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions." (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2006, p.49 from Ezra HaLevi in Arutz-Sheva, 9/15). There it is, conflict is built into Islam. Those are over-simplifications but the crux of Islam is violent rivalry.


Israel ended its stay in Beit Hanoun, a pro-Hamas city in Gaza. It achieved its objectives, not expecting to eliminate all rocket-firing at Israel. Indeed, soon afterwards, more rockets from Gaza struck Ashkelon in Israel.

The terrorists concentrated on using schools, mosques, residences, women, and hospitals to attack the troops. The troops concentrated on sparing civilians and on restocking the hospital.

"Besides the destruction of eight Kassam rocket squads and several launchers ready for use - a one-week result without precedent in the last two years - the commander said the army destroyed vast quantities of RPGs, bomb making materials, assault rifles, grenades, and other contraband. In addition, 'high quality' fugitives had been handed over to the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) for further interrogation." "'There is almost no house in Beit Hanun that we did not reach,' he said."

"He said the troops did not enter sensitive civilian sites but that there were large quantities of weapons and fugitives hidden there." (IMRA, 11/7.) "Almost no house?"

The IDF should have liquidated the "large quantities of weapons and fugitives." That is what war is for. Are their future Israeli victims not "sensitive?" I think the government of Israel is criminal towards its own people, in a misguided attempt to be civilized. Misguided, because the law of war doesn't require it. Nobody appreciates it. The few civilian Arab casualties, that Israel minimizes, leads to criticism of Israel. Let Israel minimize its own casualties by maximizing enemy military casualties!

How dare Israel urge foreign Jews to immigrate to a country that is so "sensitive" to alleged Arab civilians that it lets many terrorists and their arms supplies stay!


The Pope's controversial message was about the relationship between reason and belief. He said they should be in balance. Otherwise, mankind suffers from fanaticism. He explained that reason is integral to the Christian concept of deity. He questioned whether Islam had a balance of reason and faith. He asked for dialogue based on acceptance of reason and rejection of irrational violence. In the course of his thesis, he quoted a Byzantine Christian emperor's reference to Muhammad's "command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Muslims and others took that quotation out of context, emphasizing the first part of the quote that Muhammad's theory was evil, such as that command. They then engaged in violence, which is what the Pope warned against (Jewish Political Chronicle, 9/2006, p.45 from Wall St. J. Ed., 9/19). Violent challenge is central to Islam.

Most people reacted to the quotation without hearing the full message. They jumped to conclusions. I think the Pope should have been plainer for the masses and the media, but his message was valid and, by subsequent Muslim and other reaction, validated. I hope he pursues his theme, just as firmly but more clearly.

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 Noam Arnon and David Wilder, December 26, 2006.

Amnesty International
Fax: 44-20-79561157
1 212 463 91931 212 627 1451

Dear Ms. Khan,

Amnesty International's declared objective is a "vision of a world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards". [http://web.amnesty.org/pages/aboutai-index-eng]

Accordingly, we have no choice but to express our deep dismay at the fact that during your recent visit to Hebron (December, 2006), you did not see fit to visit the Jewish Community of Hebron and speak with representatives of the community.

As we are sure you are aware, Hebron's Jewish community dates to the days of antiquity, with a continuous Jewish population for thousands of years. In August of 1929 sixty-seven Jews were slaughtered and over 70 injured by their Arab neighbors. The survivors were expelled from the city. Men, women and children were butchered, raped, burned and tortured. The ancient Jewish quarter was destroyed and its holy sites desecrated.

Some 25 years ago Hebron's Jewish community was renewed in parts of the destroyed Jewish neighborhoods and Jewish families returned to live in Jewish homes following transfer of ownership deeds by the property's owners to the community.

The Hebron Jewish community has suffered tremendously as the result of constant attacks by Arab terrorists belonging to terror organizations. Unfortunately, it seems that you are unaware of this fact, as a result of your decision to see Hebron from a very prejudiced point of view, speaking with one side only, thereby ignoring the human rights and suffering of the city's Jewish residents.

You write [http://blogs.amnesty.org/blogs/israelot_dec06/2006/12/08/1165575600000.html]: "the movements of tens of thousands of Palestinian residents depend entirely on the decision of the Israeli soldiers. Often the Palestinian residents are placed under curfew, which do not apply to the 500 Israeli settlers who live in the area."

This is untrue. An overwhelming majority of Hebron and Hebron's Arab residents are under rule of the Palestinian Authority. Arabs have free access to the entire city, whereas Jews have access to only about 10% of Hebron. Also, Hebron's Arabs have not been placed under curfew in years. Curfews are imposed only following massive terror attacks in the area. When there is no terror, there are no curfews.

You write: Wire nets have been placed over the narrow alleys, separating Jewish settlers from Palestinian shops, to prevent the settlers hurling objects and excrement at the Palestinian and international visitors.

Perhaps the wire nets have been placed to prevent Arabs below from hurling rocks, hand grenades, and bombs into Jewish homes, or to prevent terrorists from easily climbing into the Jewish neighborhoods?

You write: We keep our visit short because it is past sunset and it is not advisable to stay in the area after dark.

Why is it not advisable to stay in the area after dark? Who are you afraid of? Who told you that night is dangerous in Hebron. When was the last time an Arab was shot at or attacked by Jews in Hebron, during the day, or at night?

We strongly protest the description of your visit in Hebron, the conclusions you so arbitrarily reached, and the fact that you refuse to meet and discuss the issues involved with representatives of Hebron's Jewish community. Should you decide to fulfill Amnesty's "vision," as quoted above, and objectively examine current issues in Hebron, we would be happy to invite you to meet with us in order to show you, first-hand, the hardships that Hebron's Jews have to deal with on a daily basis.

It would be advisable for Amnesty International to remain a neutral, objective organization and not act so irresponsibly as to draw conclusions before carefully examining the facts and hearing all the parties involved.


Noam Arnon and David Wilder
The Jewish Community of Hebron
P.O. Box 105, Kiryat Arba 90100 Israel

David Wilder and Noam Arnon are spokesmen of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Derry Ledoux, December 26, 2006.

I caught the Roger Stern interview on CNBC. Like the young woman interviewing him I was completely startled by the implications that he had made about Iran's oil industry falling apart at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/5/1650. It's eight pages and provides a different perspective on matters.

If he is right it opens up an entire range of possibilities for American policy in the Middle East. In any case it is a point that should be more carefully examined in view of the situation in Iraq and the price of oil. Take the time to read it.


Contact Derry Ledoux at DLedoux30@comcast.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Daryl Temkin, December 26, 2006.

It's time for America to enroll in a graduate course in advanced logic. The professor presents the following problem. You have two terrorist enemies, Fatah and Hamas, and both hate you and most of what you stand for. Both terrorist groups support the nations that will be capable of achieving destruction upon your shores. Furthermore, both organizations are known leaders and supporters of international terrorism and suicide bombers. Both groups danced in the street and passed out cake and candy when your Twin Towers were aflame and your 3,000 citizens were killed. Now, here is the difference, one group, Fatah, was in power for years and was financially corrupt beyond the expected level of corruption for a terrorist organization. The other terrorist group, Hamas, is extremely popular, won a landslide election victory and gained even more popularity following its victory. Although the Fatah Party has a major military force from past years of development, somehow, the relatively new Hamas party has smuggled enough additional military equipment to build its own armed force which is now considered a threat to Fatah.

Both groups hate each other and murder each other daily. They live with a clan-like hate-filled rivalry among their families and social groups. They refuse to cooperate and stop their inter-group killing, even though they both have in common their "greater enemy", Israel's existence, and they share the dream of Israel's ultimate destruction. One small sore point for the normal rhetoric -- this deadly rivalry among the Arabs has nothing to do with Israel's alleged "occupation", "oppression of human rights", "the fence", or "checkpoints".

The logic professor asks, "America, how do you want to proceed?" America, demonstrating its "logic", responds, "We will support Fatah. Our logic is that Fatah is the lesser of the two enemies." The professor then asks, "Why would you chose to support your enemy?"

To the disbelief of many concerned, it has been reported that America is preparing to send to Fatah, $100 million dollars. Let's say that again, "$100 million dollars" plus hundreds of assault rifles and thousands of bullets, plus American military trainers to help Abbu Mazan strengthen his army. The American hope is that with a strengthened Fatah army, Abbu Mazan will be able to destroy the "impossible to negotiate with" Hamas military and will then gain control of Gaza. Once Hamas is defeated, the hundreds of millions of dollars waiting to be sent to Gaza from America and the EU will be allowed to flow through an open spigot.

The guaranteed bloodbath between Fatah and Hamas will be like the "good old days" in the Roman Coliseum. As sure as gravity exists, Israel and America will be blamed for this blood letting, just as Israel was blamed for the 1982 Muslim slaughter or massacre of Christians in Lebanon. But in this case, America will be responsible for actively arming the unpopular minority political terrorist party, as well as bank-rolling Fatah in order to cause the defeat of the "democratically" elected people's choice, the Hamas government. In Lebanon, we just saw how Iran and Syria supported Hezbollah. If America supports Fatah, would not Syria and Iran, come to the aid of Hamas? This does sounds somewhat explosive.

So, the logic professor questions, "Why are you claiming to the world that you encourage democratic elections and then you support the military defeat of the people's choice? What will this do for your attempt to be respected other than give the majority of the Arab populace another reason to hate you for your hypocritical behavior and what they will call your "imperialistic" intervention? Have you considered how your behavior will inspire the feelings or rather the wrath of the surrounding 22 Arab states? Why do you feel an obligation to interact with, support, and strangely befriend the very people who frequently declare their disgust with your existence?"

Then, the logic professor concludes, "Supporting the lesser of the two enemies who both hate you but do want your money has significant consequences. By supporting the minority power, it will guarantee that you will be hated and blamed by the remaining Gazan majority. The only certainty is that whoever survives this bloody battle will still hate you. In time, they will even blame you for "making them kill" their family. And, once their brethren are killed, just as was done in the past, they are bound to turn on you and your "friend" Israel. Again, your kind gifts of guns and ammunition as well as the military training you expertly provided, will be used against your interests. How many Israelis will then be killed by your weapons? Your logic is unsound, fallacious, and potentially catastrophic.

How do you expect to get a passing grade if this is your logic?"

"Logic would prevail if your premise could protect your friends as well as your own citizens; however, your logic fails to recognize that your support of your enemies who want to destroy you will only lead to their success!"

Now, within hours of your model of this type of failed logic, the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, followed in your footsteps, and offered another $100 million dollars to Mr. Abbas. A stunned Israeli populace learned that not only was this financial gift presented, but also, that Palestinian flags decorated the Jerusalem home of Mr. Olmert in order to properly and graciously welcome Mr. Abbas to a fully kosher dinner. And, what did Israel get for the $100 million dollars? Did Mr. Olmert require that the kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit be freed? Did Mr. Olmert require that the daily rockets shot onto Israel be totally and immediately stopped? Did Mr. Olmert demand that the barrage of teaching anti-Israel hatred be stopped?

The logic professor states that when a significant question is answered by silence or by changing the topic, it can be concluded that the answer is "no".

We are witnessing America, as well as Israel, display deeply troubled logic and there is a most serious and critical need for this insanity to be stopped.

Daryl Temkin, Ph.D. is the director of the Israel Education Institute which is devoted to teaching history and contemporary issues of Israel to Jews and Non-Jews throughout the world. He can be reached at: DT@Israel-Institute.com.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 25, 2006.
The "elite" American Jews of German descent opposed the establishment of a Jewish State, before, during, and after WWII. They aligned with many European Jews and favored assimilation as a way of (hoping) stopping anti-Semitism. They believed that an independent Jewish State would lead to more anti-Semitism elsewhere in the world. In support of universalist elements in Jewish belief, they preferred "Cultural Zionism" and "True Zionism", under which only Jewish cultural institutions in Eretz Ysrael should be developed.

The sabotage the idea of an independent Jewish state then, by Jews like Martin Buber**, and the sabotage of the State of Israel today, by Jews like MJ Rosenberg and organizations like Israel Policy Forum (IPF) continues and is relentless.

Today, when we have a flourishing Jewish State, perhaps, Buber could be forgiven for his views that precede the Holocaust but MJ Rosenberg, living in the 21st century, simply cannot be forgiven for stressing Israel's surrender. He cannot be allowed to do what he is doing, which is killing Israel.

MJ Rosenberg and Israel Policy Forum (IPF) -- www.ipforum.org -- are dangerous and scare me. I hope they scare you too! Israel Policy Forum represents the greatest threat to Israel emanating from the USA

For your not so leisure reading: http://www.jewishindy.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6283

**Martin Buber: a philosopher and Hasidic theologian stressed Jewish universalism and did his utmost to sabotage the idea of an independent Jewish State;

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Dafna Yee, December 25, 2006.

Thomas Friedman's article appeared December 24, 2006 in the International Herald Tribune

These is Friedman's article, which was entitled "Mideast Rules To Live By - Holiday Present For Bush And Olmert."

For a long time, I let my hopes for a decent outcome in Iraq triumph over what I had learned reporting from Lebanon during its civil war. Those hopes vanished last summer. So, I'd like to offer President George W. Bush my updated rules of Middle East reporting, which also apply to diplomacy, in hopes they'll help him figure out what to do next in Iraq.

Rule 1: What people tell you in private in the Middle East is irrelevant. All that matters is what they will defend in public in their own language. Anything said to you in English, in private, doesn't count. In Washington, officials lie in public and tell the truth off the record. In the Middle East, officials say what they really believe in public and tell you what you want to hear in private.

Rule 2: Any reporter or U.S. Army officer wanting to serve in Iraq should have to take a test, consisting of one question: "Do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?" If you answer yes, you can't go to Iraq. You can serve in Japan, South Korea or Germany ­ not Iraq.

Rule 3: If you can't explain something to Middle Easterners with a conspiracy theory, then don't try to explain it at all ­ they won't believe it.

Rule 4: In the Middle East, never take a concession, except out of the mouth of the person doing the conceding. If I had a dollar for every time someone agreed to recognize Israel on behalf of Yasser Arafat, I could paper my walls.

Rule 5: Never lead your story out of Lebanon, Gaza or Iraq with a cease-fire; it will always be over before the next morning's paper.

Rule 6: In the Middle East, the extremists go all the way, and the moderates tend to just go away.

Rule 7: The most oft-used expression by moderate Arab politicians is: "We were just about to stand up to the bad guys when you stupid Americans did that stupid thing. Had you stupid Americans not done that stupid thing, we would have stood up, but now it's too late. It's all your fault for being so stupid."

Rule 8: Civil wars in the Arab world are rarely about ideas ­ like liberalism vs. communism. They are about which tribe gets to rule. So, yes, Iraq is having a civil war. But there is no Abe Lincoln in this war. It's the South vs. the South.

Rule 9: In Middle East tribal politics there is rarely a happy medium. When one side is weak, it will tell you, "I'm weak, how can I compromise?" And when it's strong, it will tell you, "I'm strong, why should I compromise?"

Rule 10: Middle East civil wars end in one of three ways: a) like the U.S. civil war, with one side vanquishing the other; b) like the Cyprus civil war, with a hard partition and a wall dividing the parties; or c) like the Lebanon civil war, with a soft partition under an iron fist (Syria) that keeps everyone in line. Saddam Hussein used to be the iron fist in Iraq. Now it is America. If America doesn't want to play that role, Iraq's civil war will end with A or B.

Rule 11: The most underestimated emotion in Arab politics is humiliation. The Israeli-Arab conflict, for instance, is not just about borders. Israel's mere existence is a daily humiliation to Muslims, who can't understand how, if they have the superior religion, Israel can be so powerful. Al Jazeera's editor, Ahmed Sheikh, said it best when he recently told the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche: "It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about seven million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West's problem is that it does not understand this."

Rule 12: The Israelis will always win, and the Palestinians will always make sure they never enjoy it. Everything else is just commentary.

Rule 13: America's first priority is democracy, but the Arabs' first priority is "justice." The warring Arab tribes are all wounded souls, who really have been hurt by colonial powers, by Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, by Arab kings and dictators, and, most of all, by each other. For Iraq's long-abused Shiite majority, democracy is first and foremost a vehicle to get justice. Ditto the Kurds. For the minority Sunnis, democracy in Iraq is a vehicle of injustice. For Americans, democracy is about protecting minority rights. For Arabs, democracy is about consolidating majority rights and getting justice.

Rule 14: The Lebanese historian Kamal Salibi had it right: "Great powers should never get involved in the politics of small tribes."

Rule 15: Whether it is Arab-Israeli peace or democracy in Iraq, you can't want it more than they do.

Dafna Yee writes,

While many of [Friedman's] rules make a great deal of sense when dealing with Arabs, his Rule 13 contains such a glaring piece of false propaganda that I felt that a response was absolutely imperative. Especially because I read this article on a pro-Jewish website and the person who sent it in, completely missed it.

Friedman stated: "The warring Arab tribes are all wounded souls, who really have been hurt by colonial powers, by Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, by Arab kings and dictators, and, most of all, by each other."

There are -- and were -- NO JEWISH SETTLEMENTS ON PALESTINIAN LAND! The Land of Israel has NEVER been "Palestinian land" and the Jews did not displace or replace "Palestinians" who were living there! This fact would be obvious if you learn the true history of Israel, what constitutes a Jewish "settlement" (a term used very indiscriminately), the parameters and stated purpose of the Palestine Mandate, and the creation of the Arab Palestinians as a separate people which was done in 1967 by Yasser Arafat and recognized by the Arab countries in 1974 at the Rabat Conference. In fact, if you lived in Palestine under British rule before 1948, ONLY JEWS were referred to as Palestinians!

Another reason why this statement is false is that Jewish immigration (keeping in mind that some Jews had always lived on the Land) and the creation of the State of Israel did not "wound" the Arabs at all. In fact, the standard of living for Arabs living in Israel has always been higher than anywhere else in the Middle East with far more opportunities for advancement through both education and politics. This was true right up until the Israelis turned over JEWISH land to the Arabs for self-rule. The economic hardships have come about directly because their own people buy weapons instead of industrial implements and the "wounded Palestinians" would rather have their children grow up to be "martyrs" than productive members of society.

No one has to take my word for my statements; there are many excellent sites that you can use to get absolute evidence of Israel's (and the "Palestinians") true history instead of the current mythology that is too readily accepted because it's been repeated so frequently and people have read it in so many places. I have gathered together the names of several dozen of them on the Friends of Israel pages of the JWD - Jewish Watch Dog website. These websites and organizations are run by people from all sorts of political/religious backgrounds (including Muslim and Christian ones) and I do not get any sort of kick-back by recommending them. By all means check out their credentials before you read their data.

For the record, I have no more sympathy for the "wounded Palestinians" after their collective decision to use their "wounds" to destroy Israeli lives. The Israelis who have been wounded by decades of terrorism aimed at their civilian population, betrayal by their own government in the name of "peace" and "negotiation," constantly having to defend their right to live on their own land and having their history stolen from them by the lies perpetrated by the world media and by those who accept these lies as facts are the ones who have my sympathy.

Incidentally, if you never read a response letter that I wrote after Friedman's outrageous piece about the "settlements" and "extremist settlers" in Gaza, I suggest that you do so now. You can find it at: http://www.crisisisrael.com/display_commentary.php?cid=50 or you can read excerpts at: http://www.masada2000.org/Tom-Friedman.html

Dafna Yee is director of JWD - Jewish Watch Dog

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 25, 2006.


Israel's security cabinet decided that the IDF shall not attack Arab crews seen about to launch rockets at Israel, in violation of the truce, nor to attack them after the launching. PM Olmert said there are "other considerations." He did not elaborate (IMRA, 12/3).

Israeli leaders usually offer abstract justification for concrete concessions. The concessions mean death for Israelis. The justification has no meaning.


"Vice Premier Shimon Peres said Israel should talk with moderates in the Palestinian Authority as if there was no Hamas, and fight Hamas as if there were no moderate elements in the Authority." (IMRA, 12/4.)

Other Israeli leaders have uttered other such Churchillian statements that seem balanced like that. Analyze them, however, and one finds illogic. If Hamas is the main power there, then moderates can not make decisions for their people. Why negotiate?

What "moderate elements" among the Muslim Arabs? Certainly, Abbas, the Holocaust-denying terrorist, is not moderate. The Left and the US, both hostile to Zionism, pretend he is, so there would be someone to whom Israel could offer dangerous concessions. What point to negotiating with jihadists, who use negotiating for paving the road to war?


The Socialist candidate for the presidency of France, Segolene Royale, made two observations. One is that she can understand the need for some IDF reconnaissance flights over Lebanon. The other is that she can understand the need for Israel's security fence, but that the route should be planned by both sides (IMRA, 12/4).

It would make no sense for the P.A. to help set the route of the fence that is supposed to provides provide security against the P.A.!

The route is planned by anti-Zionists in the leftist regime, the leftist Supreme Court, and the anti-Zionist US. Zionists have no say in it.

If Royale understands the need for some IDF reconnaissance flights over Lebanon, then she should urge the French commanders of UNIFIL to stop threatening to shoot them down. She also should demand that UNIFIL stop the arms smuggling that the overflights monitor. Otherwise, UNIFIL simply is giving Hizbullah time to rearm for another round of war.


It would signal weakness. Iraqis would join up with the Islamists, seen as the winning side (Barry Rubin, MEF News, 12/4).


"Knesset Members of the National Religious Party-National Union visited Acco a month ago, warning of the deterioration (of security) in the city. The police claimed at the time that the violence and clashes were of a criminal, not nationalistic nature." "it was claimed that we are provocateurs and looking for trouble."

"Several days ago, a band of Arab youths attacked and cruelly beat a Jewish girl. Six months ago, local Arabs burned trees standing at the entrance to the Talmud Torah, and during the recent Simchat Torah holiday, Arabs surrounded students from the local Yeshivat Hesder [who combine Torah study and army service] and threatened them, until one student was forced to fire in the air to disperse them."

Most recently, the school was the victim of hate-vandalism -- holy books strewn about, valuable equipment stolen, and pro-Hamas graffiti smeared on the walls.

The police should be asked how come Arabs feel confident enough to confront Jews as they do (Arutz-7, 12/4). Because, as in France, police prefer to blame the Jews.

Is it up to the police? Perhaps, since they try to pass off antisemitic jihad as ordinary crime. The student fired into the air, not at the menacing Arabs. The Jews are inhibited; consequently, the Arabs are not. Jihadists are vicious. The answer is more than law-enforcement. It is to ease the Arabs out of the country.


Defense Min. Peretz said it is critical that Egypt act to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza (Op.-Cit.).

Year after year, Israeli and US officials state what the Arabs should do. But the Arabs don't do it. Decent and intelligent officials would stop depending on urging the Arabs to do what it is obvious the Arabs won't. They would not pretend that futilely asking the Arabs to comply is equivalent to Israeli compliance, but would plan policy on the basis of the Arabs not doing it. Jihad makes no compromises and keeps no promises. The answer here is for Israel to re-take Gaza and guard the border, itself.

With State Dept. prompting, Israel makes snowballing concessions that start small and gain in momentum, until they become difficult to turn back. It would be difficult to re-take Gaza, now that the world is used to the status quo. Every antisemite, except the ones running the State Dept., believes that the State Dept. acts in Israel's behalf at Israel's behest. The outside antisemites never ask why, if the State Dept. is controlled by Zionists, are its policies anti-Zionist? They don't ask why the State Dept. doesn't denounce the Arabs for their violations, encourage Israel to crush Muslim terrorism, stop plumping for Arab statehood and for minimal utility for the security fence, and start suggesting that the answer is to move out the Arabs instead of the Jews. Antisemitism is a kind of willful obliviousness to reality. Unfortunately for America, it combines with the oil industry and indirect Saudi bribing of our diplomats to embed dual loyalty in officials just when we are losing a world war of jihad.


PM Olmert won't let the Army fire upon terrorists about to fire a rocket in violation of the ceasefire (and the rules of war) or even after they launch it. He claims that this Israeli restraint saves Israeli lives. He thinks he is clever in letting the Arabs fire at Israelis.

Here is how he rationalizes it. The Army raided various points in Gaza, but the rockets continued to be launched at Israel anyway. Therefore, he agrees to a ceasefire during which the Arabs shoot somewhat less than before it, and fewer Israelis get bombed.

Here is the fallacy in his premise. The IDF raids were scattered, not thorough. Arms continued to pour into Gaza from the Sinai, because Israel did not re-take the border and did not raze houses alongside it, to render arms-smuggling tunnels impractical. He thus cites restrained Army raids that are impractical, as evidence that fighting back is ineffective. That is not logical. All he cares about is for the time being to avoid complaints that he is not curbing Muslim aggression (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 12/4).

Another fallacy in his premise is to assume that when the ceasefire ends, as the Arabs always threaten to end it and do, the strategic situation would revert to what it was before the ceasefire. Before the ceasefire, Israeli forces could roam through Gaza almost at will. During the ceasefire, the Arabs have been building bunkers and importing weapons under Iranian tutelage. They would be able to obstruct an Israeli advance somewhat as well as did Hizbullah, their role model. They also would have many more rockets and of a more devastating caliber. Then they would take many more Israeli lives. They would kill many more Israelis later, due to Olmert's "restraint," now.


The Saudi king told V.P. Cheney that his country would need a reward if it were to help stabilize Iraq. Pres. Bush linked Iraq to Israel (linkage being the reward), by saying, "There's no question that if we were able to settle the Palestinian-Israeli issue, it would help bring more peace to the Middle East. And therefore our government is focused on helping develop the two-state solution." (Eli Lake, NY Sun, 12/1, p.5.) Nonsense!

Iran is leading a Shiite bloc that threatens to turn areas originally controlled by Sunnis against the Sunnis. S. Arabia is quaking over this threat. It needs to have Iraq stabilized as a neutral country. If it can help achieve that, it would. It does not need to be rewarded beyond stabilizing its own region. But the Muslims like to get paid for doing what is in their own interest. Payment would be Israel's head on a platter. If Israel fell, the terrorists there would be free to pour into Iraq.

Bush has described this so-called "two-state solution" as a democratic P.A. co-existing with Israel. That would require a complete re-education of the entire, hate-filled Muslim populace. They are getting deeper into war with Israel; their entire religious creed is based on intolerance, violence, and deceit. There is no reform in sight, just non-stop indoctrination in jihad. Bush appears to be deluding himself, but probably is seeking an excuse for a respite in Iraq so Iraq won't fall while he is in office and his successor would be blamed when Iraq does fall. He puts a false reputation before our national security.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, December 25, 2006.

Yesterday morning I was getting ready to leave our Beit Hadassah apartment. It was just after eight. At 8:30 I usually spend about half an hour learning with my friend Rabbi Yisrael Shlissel in the Ohr Shlomo Kollel (Torah study hall) in Tel Rumeida. My cell phone rang. It was Rabbi Yisrael: "We won't be able to study together this morning. The police are all over the neighborhood. I think they're looking for my wife. They were wandering around on our porch. I don't want to leave the house." I, of course, asked: "Why do they want Tzippy?" "I have no idea," he responded.

I drove up to Tel Rumeida to see what was happening. On the way up the hill the police car was making its way down. However, two cops were still in the neighborhood. "Who are you looking for today," I queried? Their answer: "Who are you? Where is your ID card? Show me your driver's license." After carefully examining them, they ignored me. Someone else started yelling at them: "Who are you looking for today -- our children. When was the last time you caught a terrorist, a murderer?"

After I while I left, and a few hours later drove up to Kiryat Arba. Who was just inside the town gate, waiting to greet me? You guessed. Another police car, signaling me to pull over to the side of the road. The cop gave my car and my passenger a good once-over, and then, not having discovered what, or who, he was searching for, smiled a cute smile and told me to have a good day. Thanks a lot.

I later heard that the police were swarming around the outside gate of the girl's religious high school building.

Early afternoon. My daughter's friend and classmate, Bitya Shlissel, fifteen years old, was walking from the high school to the lunch room, a few minutes away. Together with a couple of other girls they walked past a group of plain-clothed detectives. Suddenly a police car stopped behind them and one of the detectives yelled, "Batya, get over here fast!" Bitya's two friends, being experienced in such matters, quickly grabbed her arm and started pulling her, just as the detective caught her other arm and too began tugging. Bitya had enough. She told her friends, "why should they arrest you too?" and they let her go. The detective threw her into the back of the car and sped off with his criminal of the day. A fifteen year old tenth grader.

Not just any tenth grader. Bitya is the grand daughter of Rabbi Shlomo Ra'anan, who was murdered by terrorists in Tel Rumeida over eight years ago. Sixty three at the time of his death, Rabbi Ra'anan was the grandson of Israel's first Chief Rabbi, Rabbi Avraham Kook. Her parents, Rabbi Yisrael and Tzippy, moved to Hebron following the killing and the Rabbi became the dean of the new study hall, opened in his father-in-law's memory.

The Shlissels lived in the Mitzpe Shalhevet neighborhood, formerly the "Arab Shuk" or market. Until they were expelled, with eight other families almost a year ago. A short time later they moved into the newly purchased Beit Shapira, not far from their old home. There too, they were expelled by the police, with several other families. One can image that the kids haven't had an easy time of it. And yesterday, Bitya found herself being dragged away by the police.

At the Kiryat Arba police station, when asked her name, Bitya responded. However, when they police started with other questions, she ignored them.

As a rule, a person who is to be interrogated is presented with an official request to appear for questioning. No such order had ever been issued to Bitya or her parents. She had no idea why she had been swooped up by the police while on her way to lunch.

The police packed her into another car and drove the fifteen year old to Jerusalem for further questioning. Only then did Bitya understand why she'd been kidnapped by the police.

Last summer three Hebron girls, Bitya's friends, were being held in prison as the result of a demonstration in Hebron. One night Bitya and a few of her friends staged a demonstration by the home of Supreme Court Justice Ayala Prokatchia, who was instrumental in keeping the girls in jail. The girls hung some signs outside and chanted some slogans before being chased away by the police. As a result of this demonstration, an arrest warrant was issued against Bitya Shlissel on July 2, 2006 and charged her with: threatening and offending a public servant, trespass, and inciting violence or terror. It seems that yesterday the police suddenly remembered that the warrant had been issued a half a year ago and decided to act quickly, before the terrorist criminal could escape. So, Bitya was arrested. Of course, her parents weren't notified until after the fact, when she was already in Jerusalem.

Bitya told me that during the interrogation she kept her eyes on one of the plants in room and refused to say anything. When the police woman questioning her became bored with her answers, she told her she could go home after her parents came and signed a bond note guaranteeing her appearance in court. Bitya told her: "No way are my parents coming here to sign anything." The police woman then called Bitya's mother, Tzippy, who, as you might imagine, had nothing good to say to her. So the police finally agreed to allow Bitya to sign for herself, and then led her to the door.

"Wait," she exclaimed, "how am I supposed to get home? I don't have any money or anything. You swiped me from the street on the way to lunch." The police response: Our only responsibility is to notify your parents. It's your problem how you get back home. Period!

After a while one of the Shlissels' neighbors, who was in Jerusalem, picked Bitya up and drove her home for a belated lunch and dinner.

A day in the life of a girl from Hebron.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Gerald A Honigman, December 25, 2006.

Eilat will become Egyptian when... Egyptian Arabs, who conquered Egypt in the 7th century C.E. from native Copts and Nubians (who predated Arabs by millennia) return Egypt to the native peoples whom they continue to subjugate, murder, and forcibly Arabize.

And we won't even mention anything about Egypt's ancient Jewish population--who also pre-dated the Arabs by millennia--and which is virtually non-existant today. Most of Egypt's last 100,000 Jews were forced to flee during the last century. The Egyptian Jewess, the historian Bat Ye'or, is one of the leading experts to especially consult on such matters.

One of my favorite journalists, David Bedein, had a piece in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin (see Bedein, below) on December 22nd which reported that, in the course of a debate over Eilat in Egypt's parliament, among other things it was stated, "Eilat belongs formally to Egypt and administratively to the Palestinians."

Eilat, the southernmost city of Israel, is located on the north shore of the Red Sea, and is named for the Hebrew Bible's Elath, which is believed to have actually been located across the gulf in Aqaba in what is now Jordan. Eilat's importance to the Jews came via its connection to King Solomon: King Solomon also built a fleet of ships at Etzion-Geber near Elath on the shore of the Red Sea...(1 Kings 9:26) It was (and is) an important port located on the trade route to the East. The 1956 and 1967 wars largely started over Egypt's blockade of Eilat.

Several facts related to all of this are worth noting...

First of all, the Ottoman Turks ruled the entire area in question from 1517 until after World War I when the Sinai was awarded to Egypt. Prior to that, the Roman and Byzantine Empires ruled it from the 1st through early 7th century C.E.

There were others as well. And the Arabs only acquired Egypt via their own massive imperial conquests, after exploding in all directions out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E...the same time and way they came to acquire the land of Israel.

So, for Egypt to pretend as if the Sinai itself is its assumed birthright--let alone adjacent Eilat--is a stretch, especially since nations and empires who have waged war against their neighbors and lost territory as a result rarely get rewarded with a return to the status quo ante.

But the Jews did just that--and after developing oil fields, some of the world's most advanced air bases, etc. and so forth in the Sinai. Egypt lost Sinai in '67 because of its blockade of Israel--a casus belli--and other blatant and overt hostile actions.

In return for a very cold peace after President Sadat's assassination in which Israel gave up all of the above, it got a massive Egyptian arms build-up (largely courtesy of the United States), huge quantities of arms being smuggled into Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and other terror groups via the Egyptian Sinai, government-sponsored anti-Semitism which ranks with Hitler's propaganda machine, etc. and so forth.

As the PLO was created in Egypt under Nasser's watch back in 1964 (Arafat was born in Cairo) as a tool to further the latter's agenda, Egypt continues to bleed Jews via the same and other proxies today.

Eighty million Egyptians. Hundreds of millions of other Arabs--not to mention non-Arab Muslims.

Five million Israeli Jews.

Do the math...The Arabs certainly are.

Egypt, like the others, is merely biding its time...and the results in Lebanon not long ago don't help matters any. Reports have it that the Syrians are already making their moves--and not only in Lebanon.

Unfortunately, new rabbits must repeatedly be invented by Jews to be pulled out of their collective hat of survival.

The new year ahead will certainly be no exception.

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

This article is archived at

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, December 25, 2006.

The NFC web site is a Hebrew internet newspaper that is one of the sites with the most traffic in Israel, ahead of the Maariv Hebrew web site, the web sites for some Israeli banks and for most Israeli universities, and even ahead of Hebrew porn sites.

While there has been some coverage to date in Hebrew on the Gordon-Plaut legal battle, they were relatively brief Op-Eds and news items. NFC runs today a long in-depth analysis of the battle and the disgrace of the Holcoaust-denial Arab woman "jihad judge" in the case and her colluding with Gordon:

It is the first full expose of the entire story. And it comes a month before the appeals hearing.

It is entirely pro-Plaut. It is written by Alon Dahan, a wheelchair bound IDF vet who is a doctoral student at the Hebrew university, who is a regular columnist on NFC, and who authored the book in Hebrew "A Guide for a Blind Dove" (an excellent book) in Hebrew. As far as I know, he ONLY writes in hebrew.

To date, Gordon was able to hide because while he had been repeatedly "outed" in the English media, most recently in the article by Prof. Dershowitz that comes close to calling Gordon a neo-nazi, this was really the first full-length expose in Hebrew!

Write Professor Plaut for information on a tax-exempt route to donate. Contact him by email at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il and/or splaut@gmail.com

Or mail donations to
Steven Plaut,
Graduate School of Management,
University of Haifa,
Haifa, 31905, Israel.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Boris Celser, December 25, 2006.

You must have heard of Sue Blackwell of the University of Birmingham, who is always promoting anti-Israel boycotts and a lot more. I don't have much time for her, but when a Jewish friend in the UK sent me Sue's last poem (see below), I thought she deserved an answer from me.

Therefore, after reading her poem, I decided to write her one, with a preamble. You will find both just below.

I hope you all enjoy it.


The Israeli Major-General's Song
by Sue Blackwell
December 2006

I am the very model of a military criminal:
I am the very model of a loony raving animal

I'm serving in an army where morality is minimal.
Whenever I hear "Zionist"

I know the rules of combat, and can quote the fights historical
From Sinai to Entebbe, in their order categorical.
I'm very well acquainted with conventions by the million:
I understand Geneva re. both soldier and civilian.
The Principles of Nuremberg are intimately known to me -
It's just that I can't recognise a war crime when one's shown to me.

I'm very good at raising funds for kids with disabilities:
I help Israeli charities in need of new facilities.
In short, in matters ethical, I emanate pomposity:
I am the very model of all manner of monstrosity.

I know our mythic history, from Herzl to Ben Gurion:
They made some hard decisions, which inspire our troops to carry on.
I quote ad infinitum all the crimes of Israel's enemies,
Which means that when in Rafah I can flatten any house I please.
I can tell undoubted terrorists from kids and other innocents;
And if we get it wrong, I'll say the targets were all 'militants'.
Then I can face the press and sing the song you've heard ad nauseam:
"I much regret the loss of life". Am I sincere? Of course I am!

Then I can go to sleep at night with conscience unassailable
And governments protecting me with every lie available.
In short, in matters moral, in a modern-day democracy,
I am the very model of the ultimate hypocrisy.

I like to travel widely, using Heathrow as a stopover,
But that's no longer easy thanks to meddling Mr. Machover.
I'm wanted on a warrant citing crimes against humanity:
It's making my quite nervous, and could undermine my sanity.
El Al have good security, they've always been reliable,
While Britain and the USA ensure my visa's viable;
But there are those who view me as a menace to society,
And want to try me in The Hague, which heightens my anxiety.

When I face prosecution for non-combatant fatalities,
I'm great at special pleading and can bore them with banalities.
In short, I can be confident my sentence will be minimal.
I am the very model of a military criminal.


Dear Sue,

I've received a copy of your nice poem "The Israeli Major-General's Song", so I decided to look you up on the net, and I found a cute picture of yours above, and a bit of a bio, too: "Sue Blackwell has an MPhil in English from the University of Cambridge and is currently writing up her PhD on the acquisition and use of personal pronouns."

Was the poem your PhD dissertation, dear? It is full of pronouns, and important proper names too, like Herzl and Ben-Gurion. Mind you, I think Ben-Gurion was a bit of a clown myself, he missed the chance to push the Gaza Arabs into Egypt, two decades before they found out that in reality they were Palestinians. Darn! So close!

But I digress. Did you pass your dissertation? Have you acquired all those pronouns? If your poem wasn't it, may I ask when you wrote it? At your own spare time, or at taxpayers' expense, in a country where so many already live on the dole, doubtless due to the Zionist entity's existence?

I am actually writing mine, and I thought I'd share bits and pieces of it with you, in the hope of getting some feedback. Unless you want to be part of the panel when I defend my thesis. I don't know, there may be a conflict of interest, because of my topic. You see, you've never come across anyone like me before.

A Love Poem to Sue Blackwell
Boris Celser
December 20, 2006

Friends of mine do consider you a bitch.
I don't know you, so I won't make the switch.
But I have enough material to refer to you as a witch.
Even a serial killer found it safer to leave Birmingham to "work" in Ipswich.

In your pic you're wearing a lovely PA dress.
I hope it didn't cause you undue stress.
You were pregnant, and it did make me feel somber.
It looks like your child may be the next suicide bomber.
Isn't it against the law to take to his tomb?
A child barely out of your womb?

Although you're fat, you're not a cow.
Otherwise you could call foul.
But you must have taken a vow.
You're the British answer to Piss Now.

Everybody wants out of the UK, even the hooligans.
Among so many fake Palis they'd rather move to any of the Stans.
In your case, in order not to starve you may prefer Iran.
Illegal sex does not exist, but customers marry harlots by the hour in Teheran.

If you lived in Gaza, you would dig a tunnel, like a good termite.
Even though you would not admit to being an anti-semite.
Please, Sue, run to Rafah, take a lorry.
It would be a great sequel to Rachel Corrie.

You may be proud of being a British universalist.
This is why you can never understand a real Zionist.
You comprehend Nurenberg, you understand Geneva, but not the Holocaust.
How could you, when you're the devil who signed the pact with Faust?

If we ever meet, let's go for tea, I prefer Twin.
I don't really like it, but it reminds me of your bloody queen.
The "empire" messed up way before Balfour.
And it will go on doing so long after Darfour.

I hope you don't mind you're not my type.
Nor did I mean this poem to be used as hype.
But I'm honest enough and can not let you go astray.
So feel free to use this e-mail as foreplay.
Afterwards you can tell me over the phone.
How it helped you conquer Ken Livingstone.
If you were ever in cloud seven.
It's because of this, a match made in heaven.

From the river to the sea, there's nothing to buy or sell.
From the Golan to the Negev, it's the land of Israel.
But, if you insist, I have something to tell.
You may call it the romantic toiling of the bell.
We, men, we most likely all deserve to go to hell.
With the exception of the one who lives with Sue Blackwell.

Contact Boris Celser at celser@telusplanet.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, December 25, 2006.

A media milestone of sorts took place last week, with nary a mention by the press. A conference entitled: The Media as a Theater of War, the Blogosphere and the Global Battle for Civil Society, opened up opportunities and possibilities as big as its ambitious title suggests.

I'm not a blogger, nor am I a political strategist or government mouthpiece. I write when the spirit moves me, and these days it doesn't come easily. Nevertheless this not-very-disciplined commentator reluctantly took a front row seat at a symposium sponsored by the Institute for Policy and Strategy of the Interdisciplinary Center of Herzliya (IDC)

The ghosts of the Oslo Accords and Disengagement Plan haunt these types of forums. I'm reminded that more often than not, these hallowed conference halls echo with the enormous egos which bred devastating errors. And this writer longs for the day when excessive public dialogue will be replaced with the kind of private monologue and introspection that will produce wise and thoughtful results (and perhaps some competent leadership as well).

But I attended in a work-related capacity - an observer -assigned with the simple task of reminding the speakers when their 12 minutes of presentation time was up.

I must confess that the prospect of silencing some of my less-than-favorite personalities, with the mere flash of a 2 minute warning sign, was inviting. But rather than revel in my new-found power, I found that I, as well as many of the attendees, wanted to hear more.

I was inspired by the charged atmosphere and appropriate sense of urgency, and moved by the sense of sincere reflection and remorse that I saw among several of the conference participants. The conditions for real cooperation and correction on the Israel hasbara front were palpable.

A general theme throughout the conference was that although the State of Israel is facing and enormous crisis, it's only under these pressing conditions that the paradigm is capable of shifting. That our long held ideas, institutions, organizations and endeavors are in danger of failure and collapse is indeed cause for alarm, but this also presents us with an immense opportunity for positive change.

Government and military spokesperson met blogger, and academic met layperson. It was a place where heads (with and without kippot) met hearts in what appeared to be a reawakening of the Zionist spirit.

It took a blogging history professor to bring this eclectic bunch together. Richard Landes is a medievalist crusading on behalf of civil society. He's the kind of white knight with a refreshing type of thinking that may help us get through some very dark ages.

In an era where Arab storytelling has efficiently deposed factual news reporting, and has captured (kidnapped?) the imagination of media outlet and viewer alike; there was a majority consensus that it was time for Israel to remove her kid gloves and throw down the gauntlet.

Some attending the conference may have been taken aback by the assertive, no-nonsense positions presented by many of the participants. The true global aspirations of the Jihadists and their supporters were painted in a no-holds-barred fire engine red. Surely this was no pacifist festival. Even those on the political left seemed acutely aware that we are engaged in a battle for the very foundations of civil society, and in an existential battle for Israel's survival. A good friend recently reminded me of Eli Wiesels words: "The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference." And this was hardly an indifferent or passive crowd.

There were some piognant and stunning moments. All the attendees were humbly hushed as French Jew Philippe Karsenty relayed how he had presented a flawless defense, with impeccable witnesses, in the libel suit brought against him by France 2 Television for claiming that the Mohammed Al Dura shooting was staged. He lost the case on the grounds that if the Israeli government or military had not issued a formal complaint against Charles Enderlin's news coverage of the incident, then Karsenty's claims and evidence have no validity.

At this point, Dr. Raanin Gissin, former media advisor to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon stood up and offered a spontaneous, heartfelt apology, claiming he felt "ashamed" and "humiliated" for Israel¹s indifference to Karsenty. He lamented a lost opportunity and then called to task government officials who were not at the conference to hear of Karsenty's independent efforts, trials, and appeal on behalf of Israel to correct a gross injustice.

I noticed former IDF spokeperson and Brigadier General Nachman Shai lower himself to the dias steps in order to catch a better view of the screen where Itamar Marcus, director of Palestinian Media Watch, was presenting damning material.

The IDC Media Conference presented a unique opportunity for Israeli government officials, and academics to get off their high horses and climb down from their ivory towers in order to see the accomplished grassroots and individual efforts which have been launched on behalf of Israel by a lot of concerned, determined, and talented people.

It's a shame that more Israeli press wasn't there to cover the forum, and it's this indifference on the part of our own media sources that may be indicative of the problems we now face on the hasbara front.

But this type of conference did demonstrate that in the end of the day - when the lines are clearly delineated and defined - they won't be drawn between left and right, religious and secular, or expert and layperson. But rather, those people with a sense of true justice, a will to live, and a beating Zionist heart, will eventually determine Israel's future.

The writer is the author of The Oslo Years: A Mother's Journal (Gefen Publishing).

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 25, 2006.

This article ties together Israel's society today, Israel's control over land with the spirit of the Hasmona'ean rebellion.

Throughout Jewish history, it is the (Jewish) 'enemy within', or the renegade at odds with his own people that provides the leitmotif (recurring theme).

This is worth reading and perhaps will wake up some more Jews to see the truth! Bizedek-Journal of Responsible Jewish Community
http://www.btzedek.com:80/law/law05.html http://www.btzedek.com:80/law/law05.html

Jewish freedom requires Jewish power!


Zionism visionary, Theodore Herzl was inspired by the Maccabees' rebellion and their victory.

Though "Maccabee" has become a household word in modern Israel, referring to such sundry as Maccabee Beer or Maccabee Tel-Aviv basketball team, or other basketball or soccer teams with "Maccabee" as their name's precursor, there is no guarantee that the spiritual struggle of the Maccabees and their extraordinary national courage and military heroism, inspire and/or direct the path of modern Israel.

Whether it is Hellenism then or Americanism now, nation-states embody the boldness of the native people, the vitality of coherent identity that binds the purposes of the nation with the power of the state. The future will belong to such integral and true nation-states.

The national right of Jews to Eretz-Israel was the geographic cornerstone of Abraham's promise and of Moses' yearning.

The Hasmona'ean, a particular family of kohanim (priests) who had a firm spiritual strength and a teaching role at the Temple, ignited the rebellion in Jerusalem. This particular religious leadership provided the national uprising with exuberant faith in the justice for the necessary struggle.

The mid-1970s Gush Emunim pioneers settled in Samaria, on the very same hills of the Maccabees, reproduced the old spiritual patriots theme of redeeming the homeland from foreign presence.

Jews serving G-d and observing the Torah are the testimony of the right to the land of Israel. It is the Covenant of the Law that obliges the Jewish people to dwell in Eretz-Israel, rule the land, and fulfill the Torah ways.

The purpose of the national Jewish enterprise is submission to God and not the conquest of men, thus Jews ruling over non-Jews in Eretz-Israel does not evoke any moral quandary.

Ruling is a duty and a right must be worthy of. When the Jews abandoned their covenanted mission and abused their power over others, then they are not worthy to rule.

This is where there is the tremendous need for remedying today's Israeli society. It must recover its moral composure and correct aesthetic image, first for itself and then in the eyes of others -- Muslim Arabs no less.

The Maccabees were patriotic and also true to the Torah. Their Hellenized Jewish brothers and sisters betrayed their faith and fatherland. The cosmopolitan Hellenized Jewish elite favored assimilation and were lacking the will and conviction to persevere as proud Jews within the larger cultural landscape of the East. They instigated official repression of Torah observance and proposed that Jerusalem become a Greek polis.

The history of the Jews lies in historical materials and envelops a layer of events surrounding the inner essence of these matters.

This inner Jewish history is twofold:

1) Between G-d and the people of Israel based on the Torah covenant of reward-and-punishment; and

2) Between Jews and Jews involving the solidarity or betrayal of unity and peoplehood.

It is within these history parameters the entire Jewish history stage and drama was cast. In the Jewish history, the non-Jews role was merely a consequence rather than a cause of all that affects the Jewish people.

It is the 'enemy within', or the renegade at odds with his own people, that provides recurring theme throughout Jewish history.

When enslaved in Egypt, Datan and Aviram broke Jewish ranks and opposed Moses leadership and his mission to liberate the Hebrews from the bondage and slavery.

Standing on the edge of Cana'an, ten Hebrew spies faltered on the political dividing line separating the realization of freedom from renewed slavery.

Upon returning to Eretz-Israel from the Persian exile, Nehemia rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem in the hope of re-establishing national Jewish independence and Sanbalat spoke out angrily against him.

With Jews, like Eliyakim in Judea, the Hasmonean rebellion against Hellenist persecution encountered the traitorous machinations of 'fifth column'.

Additionally there is this shameful record of reneging on the covenant by assimilationists and assimilation all under the guise of emancipated intellectualism, Marxism displaying a facade of humanitarian pathos and the Left posing alliance with the enemies of their people but claiming morality.

It seems as if the inner malaise of the Jews will be with us till the end of days.

Each year, for eight days the Maccabee tale becomes a centerpiece. But it is much more than just a centerpiece, as it is a continuous warning on many fronts. It brings to focus that assimilation precedes and prepares the ground for catastrophe in ways that we hardly ever can decipher and foresee.

Sometimes alien powers offer us assistance and open their doors to Jewish participation but end up being the insidious enemies of Jewish well-being. e.g. The Romans granted the Jews autonomy and later expelled the Jews from their land. The British declared their support for Zionism and later turned on the Jews with bayonets and the hangman's rope.

The Americans contributed to strengthening Israel, but advocate the diminution of the state and the Arabization of the land.

When they launched their fight for freedom against the Greek imperialists in Judea, the Hasmoneans were zealots for Torah and Zion.

Time had not at all altered the basic parameters characterizing Jewish existence in the homeland.

In the 1940s a small but principled Brit Ha-hashmonayim namesake movement propagated a similar campaign against foreign rule in Eretz-Israel, namely the British-mandate in Palestine. The short lived history of the Brit Ha-hashmonayim prior to 1948 raised the resounding cry to sweep away Jewish subjugation to foreign rule, and to inaugurate an era of Jewish rule and regime in Eretz-Israel.

It is the sword that will lead the way to Jewish victory, wrote a member of the movement, and it is totally unacceptable to come to terms with any foreign rule in our land. "Beyond the force of anti-Zionist British edicts, the struggle must be undertaken and pursued until the descendants of King David establish a Jewish kingdom in the land," wrote another member.

On Hanukkah Jews light the candles and recall the Maccabees heroism. But that is just Judaic ritual. If it is not followed by the adoption of the thoughts and actions of our glorious ancestors to befit our contemporary circumstances it remains a ritual.

Israel is or can be that kind of state in the Middle East, prevailing against the regionalist-universalist Muslim and Arab empires, and overcoming their predatory lusts against the Jewish state.

Israel must recognize that to be fashionable or modern, in a certain fashion, can inhibit it from being maccabeean.

The power to rule serves to sustain the light of liberty, thus the Maccabee experience implores us to clearly understand that Jewish freedom requires Jewish power!

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, December 24, 2006.

The following is the first post of a new JPost.com blog featuring leading American attorney and stalwart defender of Israel, Alan Dershowitz, who is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways (Norton, 2006).

By this time, everyone knows that Jews for Jesus are not really Jews. They are Christians using the cover of their Jewish origin to fool people into coming to their proselytizing services. But many people still think that the seven bearded enemies of Israel - members of an extreme cult called Neturei Karta - who accepted an invitation from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to come to Iran's Holocaust denial festival, are also real Jews.

Still others believe that supporters of Hizbullah and Holocaust minimizers like Norman Finkelstein - who uses his Jewish birth to cover for his anti-Semitism - are real Jews. Nothing could be further from the truth, and I now propose a new vocabulary for describing these imposters. From now on, the Neturei Karta should be known as Jews for Ahmadinejad, and Norman Finkelstein and his ilk should be known now as Jews for Hizbullah.

The Neturei Karta describe themselves as part of the "Orthodox Jews United Against Zionism." In reality, they are a tiny sect that is unwilling to recognize Israel's right to exist as a secular state. According to the Neturei Karta, Jews may not reoccupy Jerusalem until the Messiah arrives and God explicitly allows the establishment of a Jewish nation grounded in halacha, or Jewish religious law.

The Neturei Karta are so incensed by a secular Israel that their principal mission is to align themselves with people and organizations such as Yasser Arafat, Hizbullah, and Ahmadinejad in order to do whatever they can to help eliminate Israel. They number no more than a few thousand people.

Noam Chomsky probably deserves a category all his own. In light of his having written an introduction to a book by Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson - who also spoke at the Iranian hate-fest - Chomsky should now be known as a Jew for Holocaust Deniers. Chomsky has claimed that he was only defending Faurisson's freedom of speech, but that defense rings hollow.

In the first place, Chomsky is not remotely a civil libertarian. Civil libertarians defend everyone's freedom of speech and conscience, whether they agree with the content of that speech or not. Chomsky, on the other hand, defends only those with whom he agrees.

Second, Chomsky did, in fact, defend the substance of Faurisson's Holocaust denial. He called Faurisson as "a sort of relatively apolitical liberal," praised his "extensive historical research," and characterized his assertions about the Holocaust as historical "findings." He also said that he did not see any "hint of anti-Semitic implications" in Faurisson's claim that the so-called Holocaust was a fraud perpetrated by the Jewish people.

Finkelstein's wholehearted hatred of Jews and support for Hizbullah is well documented and easily accessible. He is a denouncer of all Holocaust victims -calling survivors "frauds" and "hucksters" - while appropriating Nazi language himself when he characterizes American Jews as "parasites." He wears his vileness on his sleeve. For a quick overview of his positions, please see a chapter of my book The Case for Peace.

Just like consumers of food and tobacco products must be warned by labels, so too, consumers of propaganda should be warned by appropriate labeling. And just as a person can renounce his citizenship by deed or word, so too can a person renounce his ethnicity in the same manner. I hope my labeling of anti-Semites of Jewish heritage will put to rest any misconceptions that these fringe hate-mongers are representative of or speak for anyone but themselves.

Contact Avodah at Avodah15@yahoo.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Freund, December 24, 2006.

Following is an article of mine from the Jerusalem Post concerning the relationship between Israel and the evangelical Christian community in America.

With the inexorable demographic decline of American Jewry well under way, I believe it is time for Israel to change its approach and reach out to Christian Zionists in a new and more sophisticated manner - as they might just be the best hope for ensuring continued US support for the Jewish state in the long run.

Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly.

This article is archived at

They number in the millions and wield increasing power and influence across the United States. From year to year their voice grows stronger and more resolute, as their role in shaping policy, and the future of American society continues to expand.

Guided by faith, they love Israel passionately and pray for her well-being, rejoicing in her successes and grieving over her setbacks. They are America's Bible-believing Christians, and it is time for Israel to reach out to them in a far more sophisticated and comprehensive manner.

A great deal has already been written about the close ties that have developed between the two, as Israeli officials have at last begun to appreciate the depth and feeling of American evangelical support for the Jewish state. Indeed, what was once unthinkable has now become routine, as leading Christian pastors and Israeli government representatives regularly confer with one another, exchanging ideas and views on the principal issues of the day.

But in far too many instances, Israel's attitude toward evangelicals has been short-sighted and ill-advised, with the relationship often focused on soliciting dollars rather than devotion. And that has got to change, because far greater things are at stake here than just boosting revenues from tourism. For as strong and robust as the American Jewish community might be, it cannot and will not last forever, as recent demographic trends make clear. That leaves evangelical Christians as the best hope for ensuring that bedrock US support for Israel remains firm and unwavering in the decades to come.

In other words, thank God for Christian Zionists. Like it or not, the future of the relationship between Israel and the US might very well hinge far less on America's Jews than on its Christians.

By all accounts, evangelical Christians are a force to be reckoned with. As the Independent put it the other day (London, December 19): "To say the United States is a religious country is an understatement. According to polls, an estimated 47 per cent of American adults claim to be 'born-again' or evangelical."

Even if the figure is an overstatement, it still means there are tens of millions of Americans who identify themselves as evangelical. And this translates into an enormous wellspring of support for Israel, as an August 2006 study by the Pew Research Center revealed. According to the report's findings, "Seven-in-ten white evangelicals (69%) believe God gave Israel to the Jewish people and a solid majority (59%) believes that Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy."

Not surprisingly, the study found that "those who believe that God gave Israel to the Jews and that the State of Israel fulfills biblical prophecy are much more likely than others to sympathize with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians."

No wonder so many evangelicals have taken to calling themselves "Christian Zionists."

Their sympathy and concern for Israel is readily apparent. I see it in the e-mails I receive regularly from evangelical Christians in the US in response to my columns in The Jerusalem Post. They are sincere and caring, and full of love and concern for Israel and its plight. Sure, there are some who would like to convert Jews, and they make little or no attempt to hide their agenda. But the vast majority simply wish to bless Israel because that is what they truly believe God wants them to do.

AND IT IS this genuine and heartfelt affection that contains within it the potential to forge a historic alliance, one that could help heal some of the painful wounds of the past even as it paves the way for a close and meaningful partnership in the future.

By adopting a few simple but significant steps, Israel can lay the groundwork for ensuring that the bond with US Christians continues to deepen.

* First, Israel should appoint a roving ambassador tasked with responsibility for maintaining relations with Christians in America. This should not be just an honorary title, nor should it go to one of the usual organizational fund-raisers or foreign service hacks. Instead, the government should appoint a person of faith, one who can communicate with evangelicals in terms they both understand and appreciate.

* Second, Israel should reach out to Christian leaders and their communities, and initiate the establishment of "prayer battalions" in churches across the United States. Like rapid-deployment forces used by the military, these battalions could be mobilized at a moment's notice to pray for specific issues, such as the return of Israel's missing soldiers or the threat posed by Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Such an undertaking would have nothing to do with asking for funds, but everything to do with tapping into the vast reservoirs of faith and belief that underscore Christian backing for the Jewish state.

And you can be sure that if a person is moved to pray for Israel, chances are that his sense of affinity will only continue to grow.

Other steps that Israel could take to reinforce US Christian support might include organizing an annual conference for religious and lay leaders in Jerusalem, as well as helping them to develop the equivalent of a birthright-Israel program for young churchgoers which would serve to reinforce their connection with the land of the Bible.

Christian support for Israel is broad, profound and deep. If cultivated properly, it can blossom into a lasting friendship of historical, political and diplomatic significance.

And with American Jewry steadily shrinking in size, nothing could be more pressing or more vital.

The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications in the Prime Minister's Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu.

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 24, 2006.

Iranian youth scream for sanity in their sanity bereft nation, ruled by an egomaniacal delusional Imam possessed president and his crew of contemptuous conservative Islamic misogynist mullahs, bolstered in power by oil revenue perilously directed towards developing a nuclear infrastructure boding potentially cataclysmic consequences for planet Earth. If ever there was an opening to shift a dysfunctional Middle East culture towards congruency with an emerging secularly based tolerant century twenty-one, unencumbered by a self-defeating diseased Jew/Israel/infidel despising mind-set, it is here within the pressure cooker of erstwhile Persia. A young energetic population wants nothing to do with any Shiite style neo-Ottoman holy war, any Holocaust denying venom initiated to engender kudos for madman AhMADinejad from the anti-Semitic filth that so infects his region of the world, any of the female enslaving sharia laws imposed by turbaned male chauvinist pigs, and fumes in frustration over the firing of liberal minded liberating professors at universities opening pathways to an enlightened modernized secular century twenty-one. Indeed, recent anti-AhMADinejad local election results suggest regime change is in the air. No doubt, those young Iranians yearning for a rational secularly bent progressive future could use a little help from their friends on the sidelines to grease the skids.

Part of the Muslim Arab world is in turmoil, still fighting a thirteen century Sunni Shiite war; witness the out of control violence in Iraq since Sadist Hussein was toppled, thus removing his thumb from a pressurized bottle, letting an explosive Shiite genie saturate a once Sunni dominated arena. The Sunni Arab majorities in most Middle East nations, sensing an emboldened ever-strengthening Shiite Iran, no doubt frothing to fill that Iraqi power vacuum, extending its tentacles, allying with Syria itself attempting to topple Lebanon, have ample reason to be concerned. No doubt, an Iranian youth revolution would quell their angst. Might concerned pragmatic Sunni Arab movers and shakers even turn to Israel for assistance, the enemy of its feared Shiite enemy, clandestinely of course to avoid their own street rebellions as well as reprisals from jihad junky al Qaeda types? Quid pro quo from the disrespected Jewish State is surely appropriate towards an Iranian regime that arms Hizbullah and Hamas criminals on a daily basis. Farsi speaking Mossad agents could surely infiltrate (if they have not done so already), wrecking havoc to the insidious agenda of emboldened Islamic despots, lighting the fuse leading to a youth rebellion forcing AhMADinejad and his theological pimps, using the bodies of vulnerable Muslims to do their bidding, to take the next caravan of camels out of Tehran city. 'Death to the dictator', a recent battle cry by angry Iranian students, so far not suppressed by a regime feeling the heat of dissent yet unwilling to incite a smoldering volcano to eruption, should demonstrate to an observant outer world that skillfully placing one lit match could morph words to action.

The recent Baker Hamilton 'how to fix Iraq' package presented to the Bush Administration suggests talking to Iran and its ally Syria, in effect asking them to help extricate Uncle Sam from a self-inflicted politically devastating mess without Bush appearing to say uncle, is a less than wise and potentially perilous strategy. Iranian youth would view the West as willing to consort with hence accept as legitimate the freedom suppressing abhorrent fanatical tyrants, would become disillusioned with and in fact mistrust those who hypocritically one day place Iranian leaders on an axis of evil and the next day break pita with the very same crew of 'evil-doers'. There is nothing to gain and everything to lose when presumed diplomacy is correctly or incorrectly perceived as surrendering to forces analogous to those originally toppled in Iraq, proving correctly or incorrectly that talk of democracy and freedom is merely a tactical ploy for the gullible secreted by an oil-obsessed dice-rolling Administration, harboring other more practical and material original motives, that came up snake-eyes. However, with or without support from a reeling formidable ally or Sunni Arabs with no love for Jews, Israel should seize the day, be master of its own fate, light the torch inspiring Iranian youth with words and weapons, covered by Israeli air support if needed, and pummel the dictatorial madmen along with a Revolutionary Guard that too can be weakened by strategic infiltration.

There are many movers, shakers, and journalists residing in non-Muslim industrial nations that naysay any further proactive military approach towards an unstable fossil fuel rich Middle East based on energy flow disruptive as well as Armageddon instigating reasons. Yet today's Iran, supported by trading partner Putin-led Russia dedicated to its own agenda, will not refrain from developing a nuclear infrastructure. Period!!! Tolerating a nuclear build up by MADman AhMADinejad and his mullahs, not at all restrained by the MAD (mutually assured destruction) concept, is itself a MADness that ignores prescient historical lessons; did appeasing Hitler work? The best chance now to avoid truly catastrophic consequences is to assist in ripening then abetting a revolution resulting in the good guys defeating the bad guys. Would a sober Knesset agree with that assessment?

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Avodah, December 24, 2006.

This was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: "A diplomatic official argued that, because of the chaos in the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli demands are no longer relevant, since it is clear that there is no Palestinian leader who can deliver on the issue of fighting terror."

That's right: since there is a snowball's chance in hell that the Palestinians will ever actually fight terror, why not just skip that and give them a sovereign Palestinian state and break out the champagne?

2 Question:

#1 What is this diplomatic official smoking and does he enjoy diplomatic immunity?

#2 Does he operate heavy equipment while under the influence or only engage in making policy recommendations?

State Department Weighs Plan for Palestinian State

Nathan Guttman The Jewish Daily Foward Fri. Dec 22, 2006 www.forward.com/articles/state-department-weighs-plan-for-palestinian-state/ The Bush administration is considering a plan to declare an independent Palestinian state with provisional borders by the end of 2007.

The idea has been "kicked around" in the State Department for several weeks, according to sources. It could be one element of a new American Middle East peace plan, the sources added, if President Bush decides to push forward with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as part of a fresh Middle East policy he is constructing.

At the same time, in an effort to bolster the regime of Mahmoud Abbas, the administration also has begun lobbying Congress to provide $100 million to fund forces loyal to the Palestinian president.

Talk of new ideas for breaking the deadlock in the Middle East come as pressure mounts on the United States and Israel to take action toward resolving the conflict. Jordan's King Abdullah, who met Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert in Amman, offered his services in brokering a deal and announced he would hold talks with all parties in an attempt to reach an agreement. The Jordanian monarch, who also has urged the United States to be more active on the issue, warned that without progress between Israelis and Palestinians, violence would increase.

The prospects for a meeting between Olmert and Abbas seemed greater this week after chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat declared Tuesday that preparations for a summit "are ongoing."

The idea of an independent Palestinian state with temporary borders is based on the American-backed peace plan known as the road map. The second phase of the plan, which was formally accepted by both Israelis and Palestinians, calls for a declaration of an independent state even before final borders are agreed upon between both sides.

Though the United States has maintained that the road map is still the only viable peace plan for the region, it never took off. This was mainly because of the Israeli insistence that the Palestinians curb terrorism as demanded in the first phase of the plan. The State Department announced this week that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will be visiting the region "early next year" and, according to spokesman Sean McCormack, will "devote a lot of time and energy" to implementing a two-state solution. Rice is not expected to present new initiatives during her visit.

A diplomatic source, briefed by administration officials on the idea of a state with provisional borders, said this week that the most significant advantage the plan has is that it would allow President Bush to achieve his goal of a two-state solution within a reasonable timeframe. If implemented, such a plan also could help generate support for the United States among moderate Arab countries and possibly assist the American efforts to gain stability in Iraq.

In a meeting with Jewish educators and students this week, President Bush mentioned the need for improving ties with moderate Arab countries, saying, according to one participant, that "as time evolves, strange relationships evolve."

A Washington source close to the issue said the administration believes that the idea of an independent state with temporary borders could be accepted by the Israelis, especially in light of Olmert's latest remarks on his willingness to give up land and push for a two-state solution.

The idea, however, may turn out to be a hard sell for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Israeli leaders have insisted throughout the years that a fundamental condition for moving forward with any diplomatic initiative is the renunciation of terror by Palestinians and dismantling of the terror infrastructure in the territories. A diplomatic official argued that, because of the chaos in the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli demands are no longer relevant, since it is clear that there is no Palestinian leader who can deliver on the issue of fighting terror. A source close to the P.A. said that such a plan could be acceptable only if America provides assurances that the temporary state does not become a final one and that the border issue remains on the table.

As long-term peace plans are being discussed and await a green light from the president and from the secretary of state, senior administration officials are working to provide temporary relief to Palestinian moderates.

The administration now intends to funnel $100 million to the Fatah-controlled Palestinian security forces, mainly to Abbas's presidential guard. In recent weeks, Keith Dayton, the American military envoy to the region, and other State Department officials have briefed key congressional staffers on the government's plan to provide funding for the Palestinian security forces.

The request, according to congressional sources, is for providing up to $100 million that was previously appropriated for the P.A. but was never delivered because of the Hamas victory in the January elections. The money is to be used for paying salaries of members of the security services and presidential guard, and for equipment, but it will not be used for the purchase of lethal weapons. Weapons for the security forces are to be provided by Egypt and Saudi Arabia, according to sources familiar with the plan.

The administration's plan for strengthening Abbas's forces is gaining support in Congress and is not expected to encounter significant resistance.

"It might just be too little and too late," said Democratic Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York, who in January 2007 will take over as head of the Middle East subcommittee.

Though Ackerman told the Forward he believes that the United States still can help Abbas "without making him look like a puppet," he criticized the administration for dragging its feet in providing support for the Palestinian leader. "I hope it's not too late," Ackerman said, promising that once he and the Democrats take over the subcommittee, they will scrutinize the administration's Middle East policy.

"The oversight will be there, you can count on that," Ackerman said.

Both Democratic and Republican staffers voiced skepticism over the possibility that America's money actually will make a difference in the rapidly deteriorating P.A. "It's between investing in the crooks or in the killers, so we invest in the crooks," one staffer said.

In the last days of its final session, the outgoing Congress passed the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, which imposes restrictions on American aid to the P.A. The law, however, also includes a provision allowing the transfer of funds to forces loyal to Abbas.

Pro-Israeli lobbyists and Israeli officials said that they favor American efforts to bolster Fatah-controlled security forces, stressing the need to strengthen Abbas in light of the challenges he is facing.

Concerns in the United States of being seen as meddling in internal Palestinian politics led McCormack, the State Department spokesman, on Tuesday to say that this "is certainly not our intent." The spokesman added that the American assistance is designed to "shore up the institutions of a future Palestinian state," not to shore up support for Abbas.

Before the Palestinian parliamentary elections last January, the United States was criticized for providing $2 million worth of assistance to Abbas's Fatah party through the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Some think it is too late for clarifications.

"It's a shame they made this whole issue public," said the American Task Force on Palestine's president, Ziad Asali, who just returned from a trip to the region. "This money is seen as being used against Hamas and creates a problem for Abbas."

Rice made an effort this week not to enter the Palestinian political debate, saying that the decision to call for early elections in the P.A. "is something that I think the Palestinians will decide." Rice stressed, however, that violence in the Palestinian territories must stop and that "the political crisis also has to be resolved."

Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 24, 2006.

This comes from the Boker Tov Boulder:
http://bokertov.typepad.com/btb/2006/12/we_are_all_capt.html It was distributed by doriswise@sbcglobal.net

While Olmert May Back Down on Demand for Shalit... (IsraelNN.com) Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Cabinet Sunday that "the time has come for flexibility and generosity, and it [Israeli policy] could be different than what has been said in past meetings," according to a government source quoted by Reuters News Agency.

Doris at CJHSLA (doriswise@sbcglobal.net) tells ALL of us that the bumper sticker campaign is not happening.

Even though we have all pounded on our readers with this image and Pamela at Atlas Shrugs mentioned it on her mega-blog, Nothing Happened.

Anne at Boker Tov Boulder writes:

I am disgusted. What the hell is the matter with you? These three men are our sons and our brothers, and yet we stand "idly by." After months and months of hoping Ehud Olmert will "do something" or Kofi Annan will "do something" or somebody else will "do something," here's the tiniest thing you can do and you can't be bothered?

It doesn't even cost anything. For crying out loud, it doesn't even say anything controversial!

Imagine Gilad Shalit with his Hamas captors in the otherwise-Jew-free Gaza strip, if (please, Gd) he is even still alive. Imagine them telling him that his people have forgotten him, that they don't care what happens to him. Imagine them telling him that the Jewish people no longer seek justice.

Imagine if it were you instead of him.

Imagine that Chanukah came and went.

What are you afraid of? That someone passing by your car might think you're a Jew? Or worse yet, deface your precious Lexus? Putting a bumper sticker on your car is Next To Nothing. What will happen when you are called upon to do something that actually requires courage?

What are you waiting for? A kassam in your kitchen?

Don't you dare complain when "the world" does nothing to secure the release of these Israeli soldiers, if you can't even remind your neighbors that they exist.

Don't you dare moan that Olmert is tired, if you are too tired to put a bumper sticker on your car.

Don't you dare disparage the IDF for losing the last war against Hezbollah, or the next war against God-only-knows-which-terrorist-scum, when there is no fight in you whatsoever.

You might as well invite the terrorists into your living room. "The coast is clear," as they say. There will be no objection, not a peep. Take 'em away. Nobody gives a damn about the Jews, not even the Jews themselves.

You can come to my blog and read, but don't you dare pat yourself on the back for being "interested" or "well informed" as a result. Don't tell me that you care, because I know better. Doris and the other Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors in LA, sitting on piles of these bumper stickers, know exactly where you stand. Never Forget? How about, Never Mind?

Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors Los Angeles (CJHSLA)

High Visibility Impact ($1/piece) Car-Decal Calling for Kidnapped Israeli Soldiers Release

The kidnappings of Gilad Shalit, Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev, now missing for over five months after being abducted by Hamas and Hezbollah, were the primary cause for Israel to take action in Lebanon, and the release of these soldiers still remains a tenet of the UN negotiated ceasefire. This fact seems to have been forgotten by the media and those who continue to work against the best interests of Israel and subvert the policy of the United States and the Middle East. The debate has now degenerated into a prisoner exchange program, which was not part of the wording in UN Resolution 1701, no matter how one might try and read between the lines.

The agony of the families of these kidnapped soldiers is extreme. For over five months, they have not heard a word regarding the fate of their loved ones who are now being held for political ransom.

The Red Cross and the United Nations have again failed completely in their mandated international obligations to these soldiers. The civilized world demands their safe return; their families yearn for their safe return; and we owe them a full-scale effort to achieve their safe return.

Please do your part to help. Until they are released, the decals will serve as constant reminders of these soldiers and their families:

Together we can make a difference. One decal on each car will send the message. With millions of cars displaying these decals our mission cannot be ignored. Do it now!

These decals are available [in English, Hebrew or Arabic] through the website for Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors Los Angeles at www.cjhsla.org or contact Doris Wise Montrose at doriswise@sbcglobal.net

Courtesy of the Jewish Community Federation of Cleveland:

Ehud (Udi) Goldwasser (Age 31)

Udi was born in Nahariya, and is the son of Miki and Shlomo and older brother of Yair (26) and Gadi (23). After dating for nine years, he and his wife Karnit were married last year. Udi completed his undergraduate studies at the Technion (Israel Institute of Technology) and is currently a graduate student in environmental engineering. Udi is a kind, loving and caring person, always ready to offer a helping hand in any situation. He is a man of principles and values, is knowledgeable about many subjects and is an avid photographer.

On Wednesday, July 12, 2006, Udi was abducted and taken to Lebanon after Hezbollah attacked his military patrol.

Eldad Regev (Age 26)

Eldad was born and raised in Kiryat Motzkin. He is the son of Tova (of blessed memory) and Zvi, and brother of Benny, Ofer and Eyal. After completing three years of military service in the elite Givati infantry brigade, he became a law student at Bar Ilan University with the hopes of becoming a law professor. Eldad is loved by and immensely popular among all who know him. He readily offers aid to anyone in need. Eldad was called up for military reserve duty after completing his exams at Bar Ilan University. Three days before his abduction, he visited his family and participated in the annual memorial for his mother. The following day, he returned to complete the remainder of his reserve duty.

On Wednesday, July 12, 2006, Eldad was abducted and taken to Lebanon after Hezbollah attacked his military patrol.

Gilad Shalit (Age 20)

Gilad was born in Nahariya but was raised in Mitzpe Hilla in the Western Galilee. He is the son of Aviva and Noam and brother of Yoel (23) and Hadas (16). He follows sports teams and tournaments all over the world, from tennis to basketball and cycling. Gilad is a well-mannered, quiet and soft-spoken young man, with a smile that lights up his face.

Gilad began his military service a little over a year ago in July 2005. He followed his older brother Yoel into the armed forces and despite being able to avoid combat due to medical reasons, he preferred to serve in a combat unit. Prior to his abduction, he had been on duty guarding the settlements around Gaza.

Since the attack at Kerem Shalom on Sunday, June 25, 2006, Gilad has been held in the Gaza Strip by Hamas.

Decals, at $1/piece -- to organizations to distribute among their members as a fundraiser at a higher cost or simply making it a give away tool until the "Release the Kidnapped Soldiers" message ultimate goal has exploded and met.

For more information, please contact Doris Wise Montrose at 818-704-0523 or doriswise@sbcglobal.net

Also available in Hebrew and Arabic


Sharing this campaign to maintain the public awareness focus on the three kidnapped Israeli soldiers is YOUR DUTY. Purchasing at least ONE decal is a Mitzvah.

Do the right thing!

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aramy, December 24, 2006.

This article was written by Carol Gould, who is an American-born broadcaster living and working in London, England.

Nothing, but nothing in the social discourse is as abhorrent as denial of the atrocities of the Holocaust and the refusal to accept the right of Israel to exist.

In recent years in Great Britain, Jews and to a lesser extent Americans (connected in people's minds to Israel because of what is perceived by the British public as a vast 'Zionist lobby' in the USA) have put up with these two calumnies almost every day. Indeed for thirty-one years, from my innocent twenties to my now bitter latter-end-of-middle age, I have been at the receiving end of some brutal epithets about 'the Holocaust being wheeled out every time a Jew has a grievance' and 'a band of Jewish terrorists backed by American Jews turning up in wartime Palestine and murdering everyone there..'

This week Americans of all faiths and none have been exposed to former President Jimmy Carter's new book about Israeli apartheid practices, and to the news of the Holocaust Denial Conference in the Islamic Republic of Iran. I stress 'Islamic Republic' because in Britain the ubiquitous Muslim spokespeople are constantly on television, radio and in the papers complaining about every aspect of disfavor they claim hounds them in their daily life. One of the biggest complaints is denial of the true magnitude of the 'Naqba' or establishment of Israel. Conversely, many prominent liberal Anglo Jews and British rabbis show their generosity of spirit by attending an annual event in London commemorating Deir Yassin, the symbolic 'Naqba' remembrance event for British Muslims.

So, I stress 'Islamic' because it is a fact that a huge Muslim nation has perpetrated what the majority of decent human beings across the globe consider to be the most heinous obscenity of the past fifty years, the Conference on denial of the Holocaust.

As the British Muslim feminist commentator Yasmin Alibhai Brown commented earlier this year after Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, boycotted British Holocaust Memorial Day for the second year running, does the Muslim world really expect world Jewry to leap to their aid should a Holocaust on the scale of the Nazi genocide of the Jews someday be perpetrated against Muslims?

In the past three weeks I have been unable to put pen to paper. The conglomeration of the worldwide fuss over the killing of eighteen people in Beit Hanoun whilst no attention is paid to Israelis being attacked daily with ball-bearing-tipped rockets, the 'let's blame Israel' Iraq Study Group, the publication of Jimmy Carter's outrageously titled book, and now the Iranian Holocaust Denial Conference, has in its entirety rendered me beyond any ability to express myself. This has never happened to me.

However, in the past few hours the Guardian has so enraged me that my writer's block has lifted.

Britain is obsessed with Israel. One would think it is a huge continent hell-bent on destroying little Britain for all the venom and ire spewed by MPs and liberal activists in the media.

This week, however, the Guardian outdid itself with a piece by Reader Ombudsman Ian Mayes, who felt triumphant over a huge color centerfold spread in the print edition showing the damage done by Israeli shells in Beit Hanoun. Mayes made the point that very few pro-Israel people telephone or wrote in to complain. My response to him is this: it is not, as he suggests, a 'calumny' for someone to complain that images only appear when victims are killed by Jews. The British media do have an obsessive interest in the deaths of Palestinians, but not of Israelis.

In the same fortnight of the Beit Hanoun event, thousands of Israelis were once again confined to bomb shelters, at the expense of their family life and professional obligations, and in that time 57 rockets, armed with tips full of ball bearings, were launched into Israel killing several people and permanently maiming scores of others. Israeli children are traumatized after a year of these relentless attacks. But, as the Guardian's telephone caller would say, they are Jews, so who cares?

When thirty elderly Holocaust survivors were massacred at a hotel inside Israel by a Hamas bomber on the sacred night of the first Passover Seder several years ago, the British media promptly obsessed on the 'massacre' in Jenin (Saeb Erekat's famous '3,000 dead' that eventually came down to 57 dead terrorists in Jenin) and spent reams of newsprint on the Israeli retaliatory raid.

This week, Palestinians 2, Jews nil. As usual.

In a Guardian blog filled with bilious rage at Israel, one person named 'Chicago Paco' put it succinctly:

'It's a crappy little country that does not deserve to exist and should be dissolved immediately.'

I was surprised the Guardian moderator did not excise it. When I tried to send a response my message was blocked by the Guardian. What is remarkable is that it appears the moderator allowed only outrageous attacks against Israel and Zionists to be published. So, my response to Chicago Paco is this:

'You insult every Jewish, Christian and Muslim resident of Israel. Imagine if someone wrote the same about Bangla Desh or Kuwait? By the way, what is crappy about Israel? The scores of internationally-acclaimed scientific institutions like the Technion and Weizmann Institute? The endless streams of art galleries, concert venues, theatre, opera and ballet companies? The stunning agricultural institutions that people consult from all over the world? The wines from the Golan (a soggy wasteland for decades under Syrian rule until Israel brought it to life) that won top prizes at the prestigious Bordeaux Festival?

'Read Pierre van Paassen's books Days of Our Years and The Forgotten Ally written in the 1920s and 30s (now reprinted) about the astonishing advancements being brought to the Holy Land by the Jews (Sabras who had been there for centuries as well as Europeans emigrating there) and the many awestruck Arabs living in 'squalor' (his word, not mine) who wanted so much to welcome them at that time as they brought 'enlightened European developments' to the region. Since 1947 the Jews have suffered unending attacks and hostility from their neighbors always tinged with the call to 'annihilate the Zionists.'

'When Anwar Sadat made peace with Begin he was assassinated. It was a tragedy that Rabin was assassinated by a Jew for making peace with Arafat and King Hussein, but Israel tried to plough on with peace moves after his death only to be met with relentless suicide bombings across Israel and Katyusha rockets into the North, followed by an Intifadah. Your idea that Israel, the size of Wales, should be eliminated is a genocidal concept and you should be ashamed to say such a thing on this board.'

Now today, 15 December, amidst the fallout from the shameful Holocaust Conference and at a time when all decent cultures should be showing solidarity with world Jewry, the Guardian has embarked on a campaign to promote a comprehensive boycott of everything Israel produces, be it music, grapes, microchips or plastic garden furniture. The leader of the boycott, John Berger, even suggests boycotting Israeli jugglers! This campaign has received scores of responses throughout the day, many of which are refreshingly hostile to the boycott, including even one or two from Palestinians. One blogger, 'EnoughSaid' notes:

'I assume your boycott will also include medical rescue missions. Israel was one of the very first nations to offer substantial aid and to send medical rescue missions to Islamic people in the stricken tsunami areas. Israel mobilized 150 doctors and relief teams as well as an 82-ton planeload of supplies for Sri Lanka..'

This brings us back to the subject of the obscene Holocaust Denial Conference in Iran. During the week leading up to this event there was barely a minute of coverage in the British media, although considerable face time was given to the bearded anti-Zionist Naturei Karta 'rabbis' who attended the conference. To show the ignorance in the British media about what is what, the BBC News 24 anchor Martine Croxall asked American Jewish community leader Malcolm Hoenlein why it was so bad if 'Jewish rabbis' were attending.' One hopes they will be excommunicated for making millions of naïve and uninformed non-Jews across the globe believe that a branch of Judaism sanctioned their attendance at this criminal event, this calumny.

In the UK, the Jewish community was silent and the Chief Rabbi nowhere to be seen. When Hugo Gryn and Lord Jacobovits died, the Jewish voice of Britain died. One Liberal rabbi, Alexandra Wright, was busy speaking at a London conference on 'Israeli Apartheid and Human Rights Violations' hosted by news anchorman Jon Snow.

So, as the Festival of Lights begins for Jews around the world, we have the James Baker group declaring that the pesky Jews should be put in their place; Ahmadinejad hosting an event that should never have been allowed to take place, Desmond Tutu poking into Israel's affairs when he ought to be sorting out the monumental problems besetting his benighted nation of South Africa -- long free of 'Israeli-style apartheid' but sinking into ruin just the same, as will, I predict, 'Palestine,' if it is established -- and the British Guardian newspaper now leading a boycott of the apartheid state Jimmy Carter hates so much.

What is so worrying is that here in Britain books by Jimmy Carter and reports by James Baker were never needed to inspire the unique rage that I have seen on the faces of Englishmen and women when the word 'Israel' is uttered. Increasingly one sees the words 'Jews' and 'Jewish' also cause the hackles to rise. This is, after all the land of the Blood Libel, the York Massacre, the Expulsion, the Jew Riots not to mention the land of Mosley, the Dowager Lady Birdwood and David Irving.

What is so interesting too is that the British Muslim community, embodied by the Muslim Council and MPACUK, tries to flame the fires of division with obsessive hatred of 'Zionazis' and boycotts of Holocaust Day, seems to be ripe for an unholy alliance with the likes of David Duke, the ex- Klansman who loves Ahmadinejad. Even the obsessive attention paid by the British media to Lord Levy, Tony Blair's close confidant, and the newspapers' seeming determination to bring the Jewish peer down, is scary and sobering. Americans will be blissfully unaware of the campaign to bring down Lord Levy in the admittedly troubling 'Cash for Peerages' scandal, but he is a far, far cry from Jack Abramoff.

The alliance of the liberal Left, of anti-war activists who march in the 'Death to Israel' demonstrations, of the KKK and radical, genocidal Muslim leaders is a mix that every Jew in the world must sit up and notice. One gets enough invitations from American Jewish groups to 'an evening of Bridge, Bagels and Borscht' to know that much of world Jewry is in denial. But they need to know that here in the United Kingdom we are in a multi-faceted tsunami of Jew-hatred cleverly disguised in anti-Israel rhetoric.

The naïveté of American Jewry manifests itself in the positive comments I receive about the Iraq Study Group's suggestion the USA engage with Assad and Ahmadinejad. If you have lived, as I have, in that neighborhood, you know that this is like engaging with Mussolini and Hitler in 1937.

Amongst the core issues that have marked Jewish aspirations in the post-Holocaust era are the concepts of Aliyah and of Jewish nationhood. What has surprised and at times shocked me in the past six years or so is the anger these concepts engender here in Britain. Perhaps I have lived out my life in Britain in the naïve belief that everyone on earth understands the calamity of the Nazi genocide and the desire of Jews thereafter to live only amongst each other after two-thousand years of persecution in the Diaspora. Is this such an outrageous thing to allow Jews to do? In three decades in Britain I have come to learn that the concept of the Jewish 'Right of Return' is regarded as an outrage by a large chunk of the population. Never mind that there are over one-hundred countries one would classify as Christian and over fifty now regarded as majority Muslim. Putting aside the fury of many who have confronted me about 'stealing Palestinian land and the fifty-year genocide by Israel' there is a genuine, old-fashioned 'how dare they?' discomfort about the concept of Jews being able to settle in Israel from anywhere in the world. It is painful and has made sustaining long-term friendships a less and less viable option in my adopted country, Britain.

Right now Britons are flocking to musicals in the West End of London. They are immune from polio and their children and grandchildren will be, too. Perhaps if the Guardian really wants to boycott things Jewish they should ban the polio vaccine and ban plays and musicals, 90% of which are written by Jews. As the Guardian blogger quoted above said, the world would have to sink into Third World levels of technology and scientific activity if Israeli work was to be boycotted. Israel is not perfect, but Sudan, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, China and other outrageous human rights violators are far, far worse. The amount of attention paid to Israel's shortcomings by outsiders who should be attending to their own countries' calumnies is out of proportion to anything in recent memory.

My last word is this: it is not true that virulent, unfair, biased, obsessive and often genocidal rhetoric about Israel is 'just criticism.' It is anti-Semitism. It is a particular hatred directed at a concentrated connubation of Jews. Six million Jews, to be precise. A chilling figure. A figure Ahmadinejad wishes to dispute as fiction. But please note he is very willing to eliminate six million real, living Jews next door. So are the liberal Guardian bloggers and the Muslim activists sitting in Luton and Birmingham and Glasgow writing in about 'eliminating the Racist Apartheid Entity' to their organizations. So is Muslim convert and rabid Israel-hating radical Yvonne Ridley, shouting about 'that vile little country' and calling the anti-terror police 'jackboot Britain. ' So is David Duke. World Jewry, take note. You are a tiny speck in the world community of Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. James Baker, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Jimmy Carter would like to see a 'technical correction' that could result in that tiny speck being blown away.

Buy Israeli goods. Drink Israeli wine. Horde Israeli Chanukah candles. And buy a box of Yahrzeit candles.

Remember. Never again.
Contact Aramy at aramy964@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, December 24, 2006.

1. Ariel Zilber is the Israeli pop singer that the Left most loves to hate. He upset the PC crowd for criticizing homosexuality. He endorsed political parties of the Right. He called for transferring Israeli Arabs to Arab states
(www.allbusiness.com/middle-east/israel/113374-1.html?yahss=114-2974554-113374). He opposed the ethnic cleansing of the Jews of Gaza
(www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=78356) (He is not religious by the way.)

Now he is back to give the Left an even bigger dose of them heebie jeebies. As you know the Left wants a new different national anthem, one that does not mention Jews or Judaism. Zilber has composed his OWN alternative national anthem or at least a national protest anthem
(www.nfc.co.il/archive/001-D-110095-00.html?tag=9-45-23 in Hebrew).

It is entitled Yula Yula Yula La

The Hebrew is on the above web site. In Hebrew it rhymes. Here is a rough translation of some of the lyrics:

Let's all sing the song of Yula
We are sick of all those crooks in the government

The missiles are flying about the nation is in a trauma,
The government has not idea of why or what

Yula Yula Yula La
The war breaks out all of a sudden
And the whole government is like Sharon on the upper floor

General Dan Halutz demolished Gush Katif One Two Three
When faced with the Hizbollah in his panties he peed
The Prime Minister received twice the value of his apartment
So he can hang out with his offspring overseas.

The media are a big festival devoted to throwing sand in our eyes
The nation is dying, starving with outstretched hands
They preach morality at us while assigning us the sign of Cain
Now is the time and moment to settle accounts with them

Yula yula yula la
Haim Yavin (TV news talking head) and all his ilk
Go embrace Hassan Nasrallah!

Aharon Barak holds the reins up in his tower of ivory
And Jew appearing before him will emerge guilty
Evicting the Jew from the land of his fathers
The court belongs only to him and his friends

Yula Yula Yula La What will be with us
A court like this we would not even wish on our enemies
(there are several moral stanzas)

2. Several years ago, Yossi Beilin, the godmother of Oslo, started floating the idea for a new form of "secular Rabbi" and "secular religion". The idea would be that people who have no interest in or knowledge of Judaism, people who feel nothing but disdain for Jewish tradition, would invent and practice a new "secular Jewish religion". It would NOT be the sort of Judaism Lite promoted by the Reformies and the Conservatives, which maintains at least some symbols and content from Judaism. Beilin's "secular religion" would consist of promoting socialism, eating bagels and lox, striving for Palestinian statehood, and learning all the dirty words in Yiddish.

Some of the loonier forces in Israel liked the idea and picked it up. This week the first batch of "secular Rabbis" was "ordained" by the "International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism in Jerusalem." Seven men and women, none wearing yarmulke or hat, at least some of whom are heterosexual, were so "ordained".

See http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1164881948042&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

3. The grandson of Alexander Penn:

A remarkable article was carried in the weekend Haaretz culture section. Unfortunately it can only be read in Hebrew
(www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/pages/ShArtPE.jhtml?itemNo=804133&contrassID=2& subContrassID=7&sbSubContrassID=0) but it is partly similar to this piece in English from the Jerusalem Post about his grandson

(www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1162378496195). Here is the gist:

Alexander Penn was one of Israel's leading poets and songwriters. He was born in 1906 in the steppes of Russia. His father was a descendent of the Baal Shem Tov and his mother was a Swede (not Jewish). He was at first raised by his grandfather, a bear hunter. When the grandfather died, he moved in with his father and converted (although there are some who challenge this). In Russia he was a personal friend of Pasternak and other leading poets. He made aliyah in 1927, knowing no Hebrew. While he was a communist and member of "the party" most of his life, he also was a gifted poet and song writer. He also was unfashionably patriotic for a communist and broke with the party when he wrote a poem denouncing Adbul Gamal Nasser, and resigned from the party after the Six Day War.. Some of Israel's greatest patriotic songs were written by him (for example, "Adama Admati"). (See his bio at

The news piece in question is about Penn's grandson. Growing up in Israel as a WASP (white Ashkenazi Sabra with 'protektzia'), an ultra-secularist and standard left leaning middle class Israeli. He is now a Conservative Rabbi and a political hawk. Dr. Jonathan Fine is a lecturer at the Lauder School of Government in the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya and a fellow researcher at the center's Institute of Counterterrorism. He grew up knowing almost nothing about his famous grandfather. (Penn had divorced his wife, and Fine was only in touch with her and her family.)

Fine's went to LA as a counselor in a Reform synagogue summer camp in 1980. He quickly realized that even those Reformies knew far, far more about Judaism than he did. He was just out of the IDF, and the campers included Beverly Hills brats and even the son of Dustin Hoffman. He felt like an idiot at the first Kabbalat Shabbat. When he returned, he studied history at the Hebrew University but also started filling in the blanks in his knowledge of Judaism. He visited yeshivas. He started carrying a prayer book with him, esp in the army.

He fought in the first Lebanese War in 1983. One time he and his fellows literally stepped on a land mine. It did not go off. Miracle?

He traveled and understands that anti-Semitism has nothing to do with "occupation" and that the Arab war against Israel is a war for destruction and genocide. He considers himself a Labor Party guy who woke up from delusions.

He still has a way to go. He repeats the Conservative movement's party line about how homosexuality was only prohibited in the Torah because the Canaanites did it (sure they did!) but today is different because people do it out of love.

He is interesting largely because of who his grandfather was, and in what he may yet become.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, December 23, 2006.

This articlewas written by Mark Helprin, a senior fellow of the Claremont Institute. He is a novelist and journalist. His website is at http://www.markhelprin.com. It appeared in the Fall 2006 issue of the Claremont Review of Books

Imagine an Israeli guerrilla organization based in the Galilee, a power unto itself, with seats in the cabinet, a generous welfare apparatus, and the oft-stated goal of Lebanon's destruction and replacement with a Jewish state governed by Jewish religious law. Upon instructions from its foreign patron and supplier of arms, it crosses the border to capture and kill some Lebanese soldiers. Lebanon, however, is in no mood to tolerate such a provocation, especially in light of the guerrillas' arsenal of 10,000 or so short-range missiles targeted at Lebanese civilians.

For a month, the Lebanese air force ranges freely over all of Israel, and, without losing a single plane, cuts every major bridge and road link in the country, destroys its power plants, bombs ports, airports, military facilities associated with the guerrillas, and the guerrillas themselves, obliterating all but their buried infrastructure. Significant portions of Tel Aviv and Haifa, and many of the small towns of Israel's north, are reduced to rubble.

With the loss of four sailors and minor damage to a frigate, the Lebanese navy blockades Israel's coasts with 100% effectiveness. More than a thousand Israelis are killed, four times that number wounded, and a quarter of the Jewish guerrillas slain in combat. Because the guerrillas choose to fire their rockets amid the civilian population, the homes of almost a million Jews are razed by the Lebanese air force, the Israeli economy comes to a halt, foreigners are evacuated, and the world looks on in horror.

Meanwhile, its own economy humming, Lebanon deploys in the battle zone on average less than 2% of its army, of which 118 fall in combat. Thirty-nine Lebanese die in the Israeli guerrillas' barrage of 4,000 missiles, a kill rate of less than 1%. Lebanon is able to destroy more than 3,000 of the remaining 6,000 missiles, including almost all those of greater range, putting to rest the guerrillas' threat to attack Beirut.

The guerrillas and their supporters repeatedly beg for a cease-fire. The Israeli prime minister cries that his country has been destroyed, and weeps on camera. Israel is blockaded by sea, its other links to the world cut at will by the Lebanese air force. The Lebanese army remains in key positions in the north of the country, and the world's powers, great and small, sympathetic and not, look on both unwilling and unable to intervene, finally coming to Israel's aid only on the stated condition that Israel accept the presence of alien troops on its soil to disarm the guerrillas and protect Lebanon from further incursions.

Who won?

Unrealistic Expectations

To reflect the common wisdom in regard to the real war that has just taken place in Lebanon, one would have to say, absurdly, that in the fictional example Israel won. For the whole world and Israel itself perceives a Hezbollah victory, even if in a blind test as above, the judgment most certainly would be different. This is explicable on many levels. With the same kind of intellectual lethargy that led to the obligatory description of the proposed international force as robust (I hope never to hear the word again), people who do not pretend to knowledge of either the Arab-Israeli conflict or military affairs habitually declare that Israel is invincible. Insensitive to fact, variation, potential orders of battle, or the effects of nuclear weapons, they have been saying this since the Six-Day War of 1967. That war, the 100-hour 1956 Sinai Campaign, and the 1976 Entebbe operation are responsible for expectations that Israel produces miracles every time it takes to the field.

These decisive victories were a surprise to many, who were shocked that the Jews, whom the Russian Empire's Cantonist Decrees of the 19th century had subjected to 25 years or more compulsory military service, had a military tradition and could hold their own in battle. And thus the swing of the pendulum from irrational contempt to irrational awe.

Irrational because even in 1967, in a war that borders on the miraculous perhaps more than any other, the struggles for Jerusalem and the Golan were hard fought, costly, and closely run. Irrational because for Israel the 1948 War of Independence dragged on with high casualties and much destruction, and left it with borders that were a strategical nightmare. Irrational because the War of Attrition spanned several difficult years and brought Israel no gains whatsoever. Irrational because in the 1973 War Israel came perilously close to extinction. And irrational because none of the campaigns in Lebanon has been anything but slow and bloody, and collectively they have given birth not to miracles but to the Hezbollah garrison that in this war Israel was compelled to reduce.

Perhaps surprisingly, because now and then they pay for it dearly, the Israelis themselves are prone to the same unrealistic expectations. And in this war these were supercharged by their new prime minister, a man of civic rather than military affairs, who, when the most that could be achieved was Hezbollah's reduction, promised its destruction. Contrast this with the 1967 War, in which, in the words of Michael Oren,

There was no thought of altering ... [the] context fundamentally, of eliminating the possibility of similar wars erupting in the future. Rather, all Israel strove for was an end to the immediate threat, and for an indefinite period of quiet thereafter."

And that is all it got. No one may ever know what possessed Israel and the world to imagine after four decades of Fatah ineradicable, many years of Intifada, and the rise of Hamas, that it could in a single strike destroy an organically rooted terrorist organization, but this unreasonable elevation of its aim helps to explain the public's perception of the war.

Perhaps the most serious damage one can do to oneself in a military campaign is to fail to have a clear, disciplined, and consistent set of objectives. In reaching these, improvisation is the highest virtue. In defining them, it is the greatest sin. The lack of conceptual rigor and the resulting fluid and promiscuous adjustment and expansion of America's aims in Iraq have become a continuing tragedy. In a lesser sense, Israel has followed suit in Lebanon.

The war there is not, however, comparable to the war in Iraq. For three and a half years we have been trying to pacify and transform a country of 28 million, larger than California, and many thousand miles distant. The Israelis had a less ambitious objective in a contiguous territory the size of San Antonio, Texas, with perhaps 100,000 people left in it at the peak of hostilities that lasted a month. In Iraq, we expect to compel the lion to lie down with the lamb, and have rejected as inappropriate to our greatness merely holding our enemies at bay, and so, applying this template to the Israelis, we fault them for not fully eradicating theirs -- as if they ever did, and as if they ever could. For you beat this strain of guerrilla neither by conversion nor elimination, but only with endurance, patience, an assiduous defense, and well executed punitive measures sometimes timed to enemy attacks and sometimes not.

To some extent we judge the war as we do because our view has been unduly influenced by enemies who feed joyfully on death and have unshakable confidence, while we are no longer certain of the justice of our self- defense. Thus, when Hezbollah says it has won a "historic" victory, large segments of European and American opinion that reflexively defer to hostile judgment, whether Soviet or Arab, simply acquiesce.

And yet Hezbollah is part of a people who claimed on the eve of the 1967 War that, "If the Sixth Fleet intervenes in our struggle ... we have the power to turn it into a can of sardines"; who, as their armies were being slaughtered in Sinai, danced in the streets of Cairo; and who, after fleeing Kuneitra without a shot, called it the greatest military action in history, "even greater than the Russian defense of Stalingrad." Theirs is hardly a sober or disinterested assessment, and we have no reason to take them at their word.

Hezbollah has proved that it can survive an Israeli campaign of small scale and limited duration, but it has also proved that this can destroy Lebanon, and that 10,000 carefully accumulated "strategic" weapons -- in the main, glorified artillery rounds -- were during four weeks of engagement less potent than one suicide bomber.

Damage Report

Although efficiently lamented by many Israelis in interviews with the American press, the war's effect on the economy is not yet statistically apparent at the time of this writing, other than that, in July, exports of goods declined while exports of services grew, and the already thriving composite index of economic health actually advanced. Overall, the shut-downs, dislocations, and damage cannot have been major. The north outside Haifa is primarily yet thinly agricultural, and comprises many "unproductive" Arab villages, park lands, and rocky hills. Most crops were unaffected, and the region within range of (relatively) heavy bombardment accounts for only a small portion of Israel's agricultural production, which itself is only a few percent of GNP. Industrial facilities in the north other than in Haifa, whose heavy industry and refining completely escaped, are simultaneously just a fraction of Israel's capacity, highly dispersed, and unscathed. Tourism was set back, but the month of warfare probably had less effect on the economy as a whole -- with its strong growth and remarkable technological thrust -- than a traditional French August.

The Washington Post's estimate of $1.3 billion in damage to infrastructure must be viewed vis-à-vis Israel's $120 billion GNP, and in sharp contrast to the Lebanese government's estimate of a $2.5 billion loss to its own GNP of less than $20 billion. Damage to Lebanon's south, Hezbollah's base, is proportionately far greater and of far greater import. For although Hezbollah has won the outward support of the carefully cultivated Shia in southern Lebanon, because it is a political organization more attentive to its constituents than was Tip O'Neill, as a practical matter it cannot subject them either often or soon to what they have just been through.Though Hezbollah has certainly galvanized the Arab street, galvanized no less are the Sunni regimes from the Gulf to Morocco, for whom a de facto Iranian mandate in Lebanon is of no small consequence. Hoping that the presence of the Lebanese army and an international force will discourage Israeli attack, Hezbollah must also deal with the possibility that these contingents, with the backing and encouragement of a naturally coalescing anti-Iranian front among most Arab states and Lebanon itself (in whose interest taming Hezbollah is paramount) may close down or heavily restrict arms traffic from Syria and the sea, and that its reconstitution will be fettered not only by Israeli action but by the planned 15,000 foreign troops. They may not be "robust," but they will be unpredictable.

Hezbollah will rearm, although to what extent is unknown, and one cannot count on the efforts of either Lebanon or the Sunni Arab states to suppress it. But given that its arsenal proved ineffective and that obtaining new weapons will be subject to varying degrees of local, international, and Israeli obstruction, the rearmament is not quite what popular fears suggest.

Israel's Strategy

If one accepts Hezbollah's self-description as a resistance movement, in which case one must, in light of the fact that Hezbollah never ceases to provoke, view Israel's mere existence as a continuing act of aggression, then Hezbollah has indeed shown that it can initiate conflict, resist, and survive. But survival is not its aim. Because by resist what it means is to destroy Israel, one must ask how much closer to its goal the war has brought it. The answer is that Israel faces many existential dangers, but Hezbollah has never been, and -- with its arsenals depleted, a quarter of its fighters dead, and its supporters savaged -- is not now one of them.

Israel, on the other hand, if it is realistic, aims not to destroy Hezbollah, for Hezbollah can recruit from a bottomless well, blend into the population, and take refuge beyond the Litani or beyond Lebanon itself. Unlike Hezbollah, Israel's more modest aim is to survive, and that it has done.

The notion that Israel was defeated flies below the level of war aims, the complications of regional politics, and long-term effects, and is born from the particularities of battle. The general opinion of a war, which is a very large thing, is at first formed by apprehension of the smallest details. And though at close range the many deficiencies of Israel's campaign may cumulatively suggest failure, even these have often been misjudged.

In the war's early days, when the prime minister met with military advisors who in reversal of the norm were mainly air force officers, it was clear that the campaign -- under the direction of an air force general as chief of the general staff -- would stress aerial bombardment. The Israelis had had a decade to create with their many means of technical and traditional reconnaissance a detailed and comprehensive picture of the battlefield. This, combined with precision-guided munitions and small, focused raids, seemed appropriate to a highly dispersed, mobile, and well dug-in enemy. The object, a recurring theme in military history, was to avoid high Israeli casualties by relying upon machines instead of men. Hezbollah, however, was eager to fight amid and sacrifice its civilians, and the Israeli picture of the battle space was not what it should have been.

But the strategy was sound. Crossing enemy ground to a launch site, one can destroy everything in the way, as opposed to descending upon the objective from the air and keeping it in isolation. And pop-up targets don't wait around for armored columns to reach them. Had the army gone in en masse, the few thousand Hezbollah regulars would have taken refuge among the population or beyond the Litani, and to the extent that they would have stood their ground, the Israelis would have incurred far more casualties in the kind of "whack-a-mole" war that took place, and inflicted more on the civilians among whom Hezbollah hid, for more or less the same result: guerrillas melt away, but then filter back. The fault lay not in strategy but in extended toleration of Hezbollah's buildup. This very campaign four or five years ago would have looked much different. A subsequent campaign sooner rather than later, and dogged attention from the air until then, will also look different.

Looking to Iran

The lessons for Israel? Not to let things go for so long; to have a better picture of the battlefield (using, for example, ground-penetrating radar); to "up armor" its tanks; to adapt naval point defense systems that, once emplaced, are capable of bringing down "Katyushas" cheaply; to determine carefully, state publicly, and not depart from the aims of the campaign; to calibrate military action to the time limits imposed upon Israel in all its wars; better to inform the Lebanese and the world that Israel has no choice but to strike at missiles launched against it from residential areas if Hezbollah's will is to make Lebanon a free-fire zone; and to be prepared to deal with West Bank and Gaza variations of the Hezbollah technique. For example, the war has been a strong argument for continued Israeli control of the Jordan crossings and the sea and air approaches to a Palestinian state, lest Qassems become Katyushas, and as such is Iran's gift to the Palestinians of yet another setback.

The preeminent lesson is that Israel must create more of a margin of safety in its military operations. It has no alternative but to over-spend, over-prepare, over-fortify, over-stockpile, and over-train. And it must abandon permanently the hubris that arises in part from the world's Manichean view of it, in favor of a garrison mentality that befits its persistent vulnerability.

I believe that history will see that the essence of this war is that it has served as an exchange of messages and proofs in the prelude to an Islamic nuclear confrontation with the West. Nations can and often do speak to one another in a way that transcends the intent of even their highest authorities, and the question Iran has posed to Israel, the Muslims to the Jews, and the East to the West, is: What will you do if we open the door to Armageddon? Israel has provided the answer, and it reads quite simply. To an Iran that calls for its destruction and is proceeding headlong toward nuclear weapons, Israel has stated in the war in Lebanon that it will not go down alone.

This is not the subtext of the July war, it is the prime text. What one commentator after another termed the "disproportionate" destruction of Lebanon was indeed a message about proportion and intentions: that the three or four nuclear detonations in Israel which would be enough to destroy it will yield many, many times that number in Iran and possibly elsewhere. Iran is neither exclusively rational nor irrational, and as rash and determined as it may be, it is yet probing for information.

The United States, in overextending its forces, keeping a dangerous rein on military expenditures, and following Europe into the Russian-Chinese-Iranian diplomatic swamp, has partially answered Iran's query as to what it may do in regard to Iranian nuclear development. Even if in the unlikely event that the immediate Hezbollah provocation was not of Iranian origin, the question exists and Israel has addressed it. In light of Ahmadinejad's fanaticism, some doubt the utility of deterrent signals, but whether or not productive or even received, such signals must be sent, as they are fundamental to survival. And, then, counter to many impressions, Iran is in fact moving with some care.

Both it and Syria possess chemical and biological weapons, Iran's stockpiles being rich and varied. And yet not one of Hezbollah's 10,000 missiles capable of carrying a chemical or biological warhead was so equipped. Without guidance, they would not have achieved maximum impact, and merely turned the public relations battle on its head. But, more importantly, had they been used, they would have given Israel not only the occasion it does not need to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, but reason to attack Iran itself. Iran now knows exactly what kind of game it is in, and will calibrate its moves accordingly: perhaps emphasizing deception all the more, hardening its facilities as never before, or even reaching some sort of deal. Whatever it does, it has been unambiguously put on notice. The dense traffic in symbols and signals among proxies and principals, as in the conduct of the Cold War with a similar language and millions of casualties, has moved all parties closer to the denouement.

What that will be no one can say, but even without the use of nuclear weapons Israel is capable of the certain destruction of the Iranian nuclear project, and the clash in Lebanon, as much a pre-nuclear clarification as anything else, has brought it much closer to this than ever.

To judge the war solely according to its devastation (for which Hezbollah, deliberately sheltering missile launches against Israel among its own people, was entirely responsible and too little condemned), by its tactical efficiency, by numbers and metrics, in view of carelessly stated objectives, or in thrall of the compelling testimony of the participants and victims of both sides, is to overlook its greater import.

It was a war like most of Israel's wars rather than the few, and its egregious missteps beg for correction. But as Churchill said of a weak, 17th-century England that did not enjoy the wealth and power of the Victorians who condemned its immoralities in the affairs of state, "We had to keep ourselves alive and free, and we did so." Israel has lost the battle for public relations but achieved a number of necessary objectives -- reducing the growing arsenal arrayed against its civil population, putting a large stick in the spokes of Hezbollah's wheels, perhaps buying a period of relative peace in the north, and holding Lebanon to account for grafting onto its political structure a Spartan state at war with Israel for the purpose of its destruction.

Existential Battles

To the Iranian de facto declaration to Israel, the Arabs, and the West that it possesses a belligerent outpost on the Mediterranean, Israel has weathered world condemnation to reply that the rent for this outpost is high and can be made higher. When Iran spoke to Israel in the language of war, Israel spoke back with absolute clarity even if not with the mythical brilliance attributed to it by friend and foe alike. Which is not to say that it is incapable of fighting the stunning existential battles that once it fought. For it is indeed capable of them, and they are yet to come.

Mordechai Ben-Menachem can be contacted by email at quality@computer.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 23, 2006.

To: President George Bush
To: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Mr. President and Madam Rice:

What is with you cutting off sending arms and technology to Israel? Is it because you expect Israel not to fight her enemies, just lie down to die?!

Is this by any chance what your clearly anti-Semitic State Department wants?

For all we know this is what Madam Rice, the "brilliant star" you put to head the State Department who thinks she has a grasp of Middle East policy, promised your friends and supporters, the Saudis, to do.

And you also ambushed Israel PM Olmert, broke his 'arms' and forced him to release to the terror entity PA frozen funds in Israel hands the PA need so badly so they can finance more killing of more innocent Israelis.

It is clearer than clear now that your war on terror was and is nothing but a farce and a bloody and very sad joke.

It ends up it is Israel you are fighting not Islamo fascism. You do so by sending arms to her killer terrorists while withholding arms and technology from her.

For a long while I have been wondering but am now sure you have left the sensibility arena a long while back.

You have no shame! And to put it mildly, you are an embarrassment to all of us; more so, you scare us with this display of crazy behavior.

More and more you could be equated with extremely anti-Israel Jimmy Carter.

Much worse, we are beyond being disgusted and are rather sick of your failed, pro Arab policy and your pro Arab terror administration.

So let me remind you Ambush Israel Mr. Bush: The God of Israel will take care of Israel. You, however, will have to answer to Him what you have done to his people.

God's people will survive but your Presidency legacy will be perceived you threw our democracy under the Islamo-fascism bus and us to the dogs and pigs of oil and money Muslim terrorists.

There is not enough sadness in me and not enough tears to cry.

Nurit Greenger
Los Angeles, California

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 23, 2006.

Saudi Arabia is not an easy place to be...a lesson in Islam from an American woman's visit to Saudi Arabia. She is Kathleen Peratis, a partner in the New York law firm Outten & Golden.

Please read and educate yourself!

Casual, gratuitous anti-Semitism is widespread in Saudi Arabia..."cosmopolitan" and "progressive" human rights activist thinks that the Saudis of the September 11 attacks did not have the technological know-how to have pulled it off...so who did it?

"Mossad," says the "cosmopolitan" and "progressive" human rights activist..."Mossad"?!

I guess Saudi Arabia is by far not a good place to visit or be...and this anti-Semitism! Ooooooffff!

I write this from Saudi Arabia on the eighth day of a 10-day visit. My small band of human rights activists has been sponsored by the Saudi Arabian Human Rights Commission, a governmental body that was created last year to "protect and promote human rights in conformity with international standards" and to do so "in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Islamic Sharia."

Like Dorothy in "The Wizard of Oz," the Saudis believe six impossible things before breakfast every day.

We would have preferred to come without "sponsorship," but that is not how things work here. Apart from the 1.5 million or more religious pilgrims from all over the world who come to Mecca on hajj every year, there are few other foreign visitors -- no more than about 1,000 "single entry" visas are issued per year -- and these (mainly business) visitors are required to have official Saudi sponsorship.

To the foreign visitor, Riyadh, where I have spent the whole week, is an environment virtually devoid of women. In our meetings with government ministers (each ministry building, by the way, is grander than the last), we have yet to see a single female on any of the premises in any capacity. Even the people serving the coffee are men.

Sex segregation is comprehensive. There are few women on the street; there are separate shopping malls for women, and there are separate sections for them (sometimes curtained) in restaurants, even in our Sheraton hotel.

There is little social mixing, even in private spaces. When males who are not close relatives are present in a woman's home, she retreats to a separate space (for the affluent, a separate living room). Saudi women were never present at any of the several gatherings we attended at private homes.

One man at one such dinner told me, as others nodded, that he never before had sat at a table in the Kingdom (which is what everyone calls it) with a woman who was not his wife, daughter or mother. (But he does so routinely when he is in the United States, where he lived for years and where two of his five children were born.)

The few women one does see are swathed in black from head to toe all the time, a phenomenon that is legally enforced only in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Most of them also cover their faces. Call me a cultural imperialist, but it took me only a day or two to hate this get-up (in which I myself am got up), not only in principle but also in fact. It makes women invisible.

Women rarely hold jobs where there are (or might be) men around. Their parents, husbands and often their own sensibilities will not permit it. Because there are just not enough jobs in female-only environments to go around, the proportion of women in the work force is tiny -- most observers put it at about 3%-5%. (Women do not lack education -- they constitute more than half of university graduates -- but once educated, they have practically nothing to do.)

The Labor Ministry recently proposed to increase the available jobs by requiring that salespeople in lingerie shops be female. The religious establishment went crazy, and the proposal was withdrawn. Famously, women here are prohibited from driving; so even if you have a job, you can't get to work, or anywhere else, unless you have a male to drive.

There are, of course, cracks in the sex segregation that the visitor seldom sees. A young Saudi man told me very confidentially, out of the hearing of his boss, that some young people do date and form relationships but, especially here in the Riyadh "Quran Belt," they do so furtively.

These prohibitions are enforced by the religious police, whose name translates as "The Committees of Ordering the Good and Forbidding the Evil," regarded by some as so ignorant and fanatic that they run afoul not only of human rights standards but also of Islamic law. They have arrested thousands of women for nothing more than being seen talking to a man to whom they are not related. To a Western observer, these religious police are brothers (maybe cousins) to suicide bombers and other terrorists.

But that is not how the Saudis see it. They are aware that some Americans blame them for the September 11, 2001, attacks, but they don't blame themselves. As officials tell it, the terrorists simply get Islam wrong by rejecting the legitimate religious authority of the Saudi king, who alone can authorize jihad. (The king's official title, "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Abdullah," sounds ancient, but it was introduced in 1982 by King Fahd as part of the Saudi drive to consolidate religious authority under the king.)

Saudi promotion of religious fundamentalism suited the United States just fine when Saudi Arabia served as a bulwark against godless communism. But it all backfired when the fundamentalists turned on both the Saudis and their American patrons. "In many ways September 11 is the price we paid for winning the Cold War and the strategies we chose," said Rachel Bronson in "Thicker Than Oil," a 2006 study of American-Saudi relations since the 1930s.

Officials and activists here say that the kingdom is in transition, and this may be true: 70% of the Saudi population is under the age of 20, and every young person I spoke to (a self-selected group, to be sure) favors a more liberal society, the rule of law and employment opportunities for women. Most of them think the driving ban is ridiculous, and many favor making the abaya (the black cloak) optional. Plural marriage, increasingly unusual in the higher social strata, is disappearing among urban young people of all classes.

It sounds hopeful, but inequality is so ingrained and people of good will are so cowed by the religious fanatics that real change seems very far away.

And then there is this: Casual, gratuitous antisemitism is widespread.

For example, the writer of an opinion article in this past Friday's Arab News, the best of the local English-language dailies, states: "Jewish voices have been prominent" among those who have "made light" of the death toll in Iraq. I heard otherwise intelligent and open-minded people say that the Jews' departure from Saudi Arabia in the early 1950s was entirely voluntary.

And a particularly cosmopolitan and progressive human rights activist told me that the Saudis of the September 11 attacks did not have the technological know-how to have pulled it off. "So who did?" I asked him. "Mossad," was his chilling reply. I am glad to be leaving soon. This is not an easy place to be.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael King, December 23, 2006.

WOW ... is this laying it on the line or what?

The lady who wrote this letter is Pam Foster of Pamela Foster and Associates in Atlanta. She's been in business since 1980 doing interior design and home planning. She recently wrote a letter to a family member serving in Iraq ... Read it!

I am not deleting this, I am sending it on, but only after I add:

--"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem."
-- Ronald Reagan

I have another quote that I would like to add ...

"If we ever forget that we're One Nation Under God,
then we will be a nation gone under."
also by... Ronald Reagan

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?

Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia

I'll care when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi tells the world he is sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution's Bill of Rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured that I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank that I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts that I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and ---- you guessed it - - I don't care ! ! ! ! !

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button.

Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country.

Contact Michael King at mlkknk@hotmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Bedein, December 22, 2006.
It will be remembered that the 1967 Six-Day War broke out after Egypt closed the straits of Tiran and strangled the trade from Israel's southern port city of Eliat.

Yet few are aware that Egypt has staked a claim to the city of Eilat, ever since it lost Eilat to the nascent state of Israel in the wake of the Egyptian army's defeat in the 1948 war, followed by the expulsion of the Egyptians from this southern port city on the Red Sea.

Now, in the wake of recent reports about plans to dig a canal linking the Red Sea on the Israeli side and the Dead Sea on its Jordanian side, a fiery argument broke out in Egypts parliament, with the members of parliament (MPs) speaking out against the "Israeli plot to choke the Suez Canal to death."

In the course of the debate, which has been going on in parliament for the last two days, Abed el-Aziz Sayef a-Nasser, an aide to the Egyptian foreign minister, was called as an expert witness. A-Nasser is the director of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry's legal department.

"Eilat, or by its former name Umm Rashrash, belongs to the Palestinians," he said, representing the opinion of the Egyptian Foreign Ministry.

His predecessor, Dr. Nabil el-Arabi, was the head of the Foreign Ministry's legal department and headed the delegation for negotiations at Taba. He also emphatically declared: "Eilat belongs to the Palestinians."

A-Nasser's response was meant to calm tempers in the rowdy debate in the Egyptian parliament, after dozens of opposition representatives demanded holding negotiations to have Eilat returned to Egyptian sovereignty.

Opposition MPs recruited several legal experts, international law lecturers and experts on geography and topography who showed documents and opinions that Eilat is territory that belongs to Egypt and was captured in 1949 by Israel. They contend that the Egyptian negotiating team to Taba conceded Eilat to Israel 20 years ago "in the framework of the wish to build confidence and to display Egyptian good will in the spirit of the peace agreement."

This was not the end of the matter. An Egyptian international law expert presented an intermediate position in parliament: "Eilat belongs formally to Egypt and administratively to the Palestinians."

In the debate in parliament two days ago, an opposition MP, Mohammed el-Aadali, whipped out a document from 1906 which states, in the name of the Ottoman sultan: Umm Rashrash belongs to Egypt. In this spot - said the Egyptian experts on topography and geography - Egyptian pilgrims would stop and rest on their way to the holy cities in Saudi Arabia. Another document brings testimony relating to 350 Egyptian police who were in Umm Rashrash just before it was captured in March 1949 and who were killed in battles with IDF soldiers.

Significantly, in the debate among the Egyptian MPs, the experts and the Foreign Ministry officials, no mention is made of possible legitimate Israeli sovereignty of Eilat. The debate in Cairo is between two camps: the Egyptian Foreign Ministry which claims that Eilat belongs to the Palestinians, and the opposition MPs who claim that Eilat belongs to Egypt.

The opposition Egyptian MPs threatened on Thursday to relay their demand for an Israeli withdrawal from Eilat to the Arab League to handle. Despite Israel's 1979 peace treaty with Egypt, the Arab League's 1948 declaration of war to liquidate the state of Israel remains in force. While Egypt was the kingpin of the Arab League from 1948 until 1977, the current dominant power in the Arab League is Saudi Arabia, which remains in a consistent state of war with the Jewish State until the present day. To that end, Saudi Arabia finances all Islamic terror groups that fight Israel, and continues to forbid any Jew from stepping on the soil of the Saudi kingdom.

David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). He is president of Center for Near East Policy Research. Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il This article was published yesterday in the Bulletin in Philadelphia

To Go To Top

Posted by Janet Lehr, December 22, 2006.

PLEASE SUPPORT THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY www.acdemocracy.org It achieved these unprecedented successes and there is much more work to be done.

Achievements are:

. Most recently: The ACD has produced the complex research below exposing ex-President Jimmy Carter, as reported Dec 21, 2006 in The Washington Times.
· ACD staff have led the fight to have the Muslim Brotherhood classified as a terror-supporting entity. · During the recent Lebanon war, information developed by the ACD led the Treasury Department to close a Michigan-based charity that was raising funds for Hizballah.
· ACD research and activism stopped the U.S. Embassy in Rome from hosting Tariq Ramadan, a suspected terror-supported banned from the U.S.
· Dr. Ehrenfeld and other staff have briefed CIA, DOD, and other intelligence agencies on terrorist-financing strategies.
· ACD staff including Dr. Ehrenfeld have made numerous appearances on CNN and FoxNews, often countering apologists for terror groups.
· ACD staff exposed the fact that a likely terror supporter and fundraiser was working on the staff of congressman Jim McDermott (D-WA).
· ACD was the first to expose and stop some U.S. Internet providers from carrying Hizballah and Hamas websites.
· ACD staff have written widely on the subject and performed extensive research on terror financing.
· The ACD monitors political and social processes in developing democracies, and often serves as an election observer.

This list of solid achievements in fighting terror financing is the result of years of study, research, and experience by ACD staff. Director Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, who coined the term "narco-terrorism" is the author of three books on terror financing and one of the world's leading experts on the subject.

Presently ACD is researching:

--The ACD is carrying out a major study on "Economic Jihad" -- the ways in which terrorists and their supporters are slowly infiltrating the U.S. economy to affect U.S. public opinion and policy. --The ACD is investigating whether a major information technology company used by the U.S. government is owned by a suspected terror financier. --The ACD and Dr. Ehrenfeld are at the forefront of a first amendment battle to expose foreign financiers of terrorist groups.

You can make a difference. All that is required to preserve our values is for good people to stand up for what they believe in. The ACD is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, and donations are tax deductible. Donating online at http://www.acdemocracy.org/support/ or by sending a check to:

American Center for Democracy
330 West 56th St., Suite 24E,
New York, NY 10019

This article by Rachel Ehrenfeld was published yesterday in the Washington Times. Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of the American Center for Democracy.

To understand what feeds former president Jimmy Carter's anti-Israeli frenzy, look at his early links to Arab business.

Between 1976-1977, the Carter family peanut business received a bailout in the form of a $4.6 million, "poorly managed" and highly irregular loan from the National Bank of Georgia (NBG). According to a July 29, 1980 Jack Anderson expose in The Washington Post, the bank's biggest borrower was Mr. Carter, and its chairman at that time was Mr. Carter's confidant, and later his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bert Lance.

At that time, Mr. Lance's mismanagement of the NBG got him and the bank into trouble. Agha Hasan Abedi, the Pakistani founder of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), known as the bank "which would bribe God," came to Mr. Lance's rescue making him a $100,000-a-year consultant. Abedi then declared: "we would never talk about exploiting his relationship with the president." Next, he introduced Mr. Lance to Saudi billionaire Gaith Pharaon, who fronted for BCCI and the Saudi royal family. In January 1978, Abedi paid off Mr. Lance's $3.5 million debt to the NBG, and Pharaon secretly gained control over the bank.

Mr. Anderson wrote: "Of course, the Saudis remained discretely silent... kept quiet about Carter's irregularities... [and] renegotiated the loan to Carter's advantage."

There is no evidence that the former president received direct payment from the Saudis. But "according to... the bank files, [it] renegotiated the repayment terms... savings... $60,000 for the Carter family... The President owned 62% of the business and therefore was the largest beneficiary." Pharaon later contributed generously to the former president's library and center.

When Mr. Lance introduced Mr. Carter to Abedi, the latter gave $500,000 to help the former president establish his center at Emory University. Later, Abedi contributed more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects. Even after BCCI was indicted -- and convicted -- for drug money laundering, Mr. Carter accepted $1.5 million from Abedi, his "good friend."

A quick survey of the major contributors to the Carter Center reveals hundreds of millions of dollars from Saudi and Gulf contributors. But it was BCCI that helped Mr. Carter established his center.

BCCI's origins were primarily ideological. Abedi wanted the bank to reflect the supra-national Muslim credo and "the best bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."

Shortly after assuming office, in March 1977, Mr. Carter made his first public statement regarding a Palestinian "homeland." Since then, he has devoted much of his time to denouncing Israel's self-defense against Palestinian terrorism, which he claims is not only "abominable oppression and persecution" of the Palestinians, but also damages U.S. interests in the region.

By the time BCCI was shut down in July1991, it operated in 73 countries with a deficit of $12 billion, which it had managed to hide with wealthy Arab shareholders and Western luminaries. Among them Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Yasser Arafat and Palestinian terrorist groups, and who branded the United States: "our enemy number one"; Former head of Saudi foreign intelligence service, and King Faisal's brother-in-law, Kamal Adham -- who with another Saudi, the banker of the royal family, Khaled bin Mahfouz, staged BCCI's attempt to illegally purchase the Washington-based First American bank, in the early 1980s.

True to its agenda, BCCI assisted in spreading and strengthening the Islamic message; they enabled Pakistan's nuclear ambitions, and helped the Palestinian leadership to amass a $10 billion-plus fortune, used to further terrorist activities and to buy more influence in the West.

BCCI founders also supported the Islamic fundamentalist opposition to the Shah of Iran, and saw it as an opportunity to undermine Western influence in the Gulf. They assisted the revolution financially, reinforcing their position within the leadership of the Iranian revolution. Ironically, the success of that revolution cost Mr. Carter his presidency.

BCCI's money also facilitated the Saudi agenda to force Israel to recognize Palestinians "rights," convincing Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to sign the Camp David Accords in September 1978. Since then, Mr. Carter repeatedly provided legitimacy to Arafat's corrupt regime, and now, like the Saudis, he even sides with homicidal Hamas as the "legitimate" representative of the Palestinian people.

In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Carter again laid responsibility for U.S. bias against the destitute, depressed and (consequently) violent Palestinians on American policy makers' helplessness, over the last 30 years, against the menacing tactics of the powerful American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC).

However, it seems that AIPAC's real fault was its failure to outdo the Saudi's purchases of the former president's loyalty. "There has not been any nation in the world that has been more cooperative than Saudi Arabia," the New York Times quoted Mr. Carter June 1977, thus making the Saudis a major factor in U. S. foreign policy.

Evidently, the millions in Arab petrodollars feeding Mr. Carter's global endeavors, often in conflict with U.S. government policies, also ensure his loyalty.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 22, 2006.


Bishop Tutu is set for a "fact-finding" trip about Israel's accidental shelling of a civilian area in Beit Hanoun. Someone should introduce him to facts. He does not seem to be acquainted with many involving Israel. He makes up his mind and then travels. That's how the UNO operates.


Sec. Rice considers the Arab-violated ceasefire in Gaza as "momentum" for building a ceasefire in Judea-Samaria and then a peace agreement.

What have the western Palestinian Muslims done with ceasefires? They arm during them and they break them. What have those Arabs done with peace agreements, such as the Oslo Accords and the (US-dictated) Road Map? They violated them. Then what is her purpose in extending the phony ceasefire and making another phony peace agreement? Her purpose is to get Israel out of its traditional homeland and its secure borders in the Territories, pretending to have accomplished something that Bush's successor would have to confront the debris from, and use this phony accomplishment as cover for retreating from Iraq. It is as shallow as that.

The US has honeyed words and poison policy for the Jewish state.


Conservatives warned that Mayor Bloomberg would try to dictate what we eat. They were right. It is one thing to encourage schools not to overload students with junk food. At least that leaves students a choice. It is another to prohibit restaurants from serving trans-fats. People support Bloomberg on restaurants, because they agreed, as do I, with its outcome. But that was an opening wedge. The means is improper government dictation of what we eat. Sooner or later, the ends will be improper. Now it is happening. Mayor Bloomberg and Speaker Quinn want a food Czar.

I have studied nutrition as an avocation. I think the government was wrong about cholesterol, fluoridation, irradiation, and genetic engineering, and exaggerated the dangers of fat. The City has been pressing bodegas to stop selling whole milk, although refined carbohydrates and over-eating are the real dietary problems.

I don't drink milk but do eat whole, organic, milk yogurt. The cream makes it tastier, and the fat helps absorb certain nutrients. I don't overdo fat. I know what I'm doing, why shouldn't I have a choice? Who is the Mayor to deny it me? He is just following a fad. Fads come and go.

I would not object to an educational campaign, though Bloomberg probably would disseminate propaganda. I would welcome a requirement that all ingredients sold for consumption be listed, so allergens can be spotted before anaphylactic shock sets it. That gives consumers the opportunity to make an informed choice, Bloomberg reduces choice. By the way, I noticed he has a paunch. Take him away and allow him only diet foods until he normalizes! I'm kidding, but he isn't. He's dangerous.


Former Israeli general Shlomo Brom remarked that the international observers are working well at the Sinai-Gaza border. Yet he admits that arms smuggling through that border is rife. He did not acknowledge that sometimes the observers had to run away, when foreigners were being kidnapped there, and in any case have no power to prevent smuggling.

He refuses to deduce that Egyptian failure to stop the smuggling is deliberate. He says it must be due to incompetence. (Result is the same.)

He suggests more foreign observers and clearing the border of housing, so smugglers wouldn't have houses to tunnel into. The latter suggestion makes sense (IMRA, 12/1).

The observers are there for show, put there to help get Israel to agree to stop guarding the border. Sec. Rice insisted that Israel agree, although the arrangement gave the observers no power, and her arrangement has led to extensive smuggling and warfare.

Since Brom finds Egypt incompetent, why doesn't he conclude that Israel has to guard the border, itself, as it did before? Rice shows no remorse for her deadly policy.


China is contracting for Saudi and other Gulf states' oil reserves. It may shut the US out (IMRA, 12/2).

All those years of the US being pro-Arab but less than 100% so, amount to little.


A resolution passed by the U.N. Human Rights Council calls for a mission to "assess the situation of victims, address the needs of survivors, and make recommendations on ways and means to protect Palestinian civilians against further Israeli assaults." The resolution, like many others put forward by the Human Rights Council, did not address the continuing barrage of Kassam rockets fired into Israel by Palestinian terrorists in Gaza, killing and maiming Israeli citizens."

"'The appointment of Desmond Tutu as head of the fact-finding mission to Beit Hanoun is an extension of the anti-Israel kangaroo court tactics used by the U.N. Human Rights Council,' said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. 'No fact-finding mission can produce balanced and trustworthy results if its leader professes to know all the answers beforehand. Tutu has already publicly expressed his anti-Israel views and his opinions regarding what happened in Beit Hanoun, and combined with the one-sided anti-Israel mandate provided by the resolution, the results of the mission are all-but preordained." (IMRA, 12/2).

What shall we make of Bush's critics, urging him to work more with the UNO? The UNO does more harm than good, on issues of international security.


In the past four months, 10,000 Arabs have fled from the P.A. because of its warfare, impoverishment, and radicalization. Among youths, 44% would emigrate, but they are restricted from reaching the foreign embassies in Tel Aviv (IMRA, 12/2).

This presents a special opportunity for Israel to be humanitarian and serve national security. It should set up escort buses of the youths to the foreign embassies. The youth would leave, and fewer would become terrorists in Israel. Alas Canada, their favored destination!


The Grand Ayatollah of Iraq is an Iranian. He has ordered all the Shiite parties to stick together, even though some of them are Islamist.

The Prime Minister, al-Maliki, is from an Islamist party and spent 23 years of exile from Saddam in Iran and Syria. His coalition depends on al-Sadr, who has a parliamentary bloc and the largest militia, and was trained in Iran. When Maliki was in charge of the security committee in Parliament, he placed Shiite militia men in the Iraqi police and intelligence forces. Now they murder Sunnis. Eventually they may attack Americans. Waiting the call for action in the southern region is another Shiite militia of 20,000, trained and financed by Iran. These people may be playing the US for a fool (Youssef Ibrahim, NY Sun, 12/1, p.5).

The US played into this. It interfered in Iraq politics, until the extremists took charge. It failed to destroy the militias. It disqualified Saddam's soldiers down to too low a rank. It has failed to protest some of the policies described above.


The Israeli military has ordered about 20 young Jewish men to leave Judea-Samaria -- homes, families, and jobs -- without trial and without explanation. The men have no way to refute non-charges. The Army said it had secret evidence of a grave nature. Defense lawyers say only the Knesset has such authority (Arutz-7, 12/2).

Israel long ago should have annexed most of the Territories and ended pre-democratic emergency measures as the law, there. The government has too much power to punish its critics via laws meant for national enemies.


A faction at Kingston College in Britain proposed six anti-Israel resolutions. A majority vote seemed assured. The Jewish students felt that they had the better arguments, but the majority didn't care. Then the Muslim roommate of one of them campaigned against the resolutions. His point was that these are outsiders' ideas, they would divide the college body, and the student union is not the place to take up politics. He won over his co-religionists, and the Christian student group came over, too (IMRA, 12/3).

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 Michael Travis, December 22, 2006.

Paul L. Williams is an award-winning journalist/author.

The Paul L. Williams Fund has been established by his friends. He has been sued by McMaster University for investigating terrorist activity at McMaster.

Please read below why the lawsuit is important. And then contribute to Paul's defense.

Why is this lawsuit so important? Why is the situation at McMaster University so alarming? And why must you give to fight the lawsuit against award-winning journalist/author Paul L. Williams? Consider the following:

1. McMaster has harbored leading al Qaeda operatives, including Adnan el-Shukrijumah, Jaber A. Elbaneh, Abderraouf Jdey, and Amer el-Maati. This finding was a result of the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, who was taken into custody in Karachi by ISI officials on March 3, 2003. A BOLO for these operatives was issued by former US Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI director Robert Mueller on March 21, 2004. A reward of $5 million has been posted for each of these agents. Adnan el Shukrijumah has been described by the US Justice Department as "the next Mohammad Atta" who has been commissioned to commandeer the next attack on U.S. soil. McMaster is an ideal location for these operatives to study since it houses a 5 megawatt nuclear reactor, one of the largest reactors for educational purposes in the western hemisphere. The first account of these operatives at McMaster was written by Bill Gertz of The Washington Times in a piece entitled "Al Qaeda Pursued a Dirty Bomb." It appeared on October 17, 2003 and remains posted on the internet. Subsequent and considerably more substantial articles appeared on DEBKA, the Israeli intelligence website -

Go to Insight at this site for additional information: http://www.acsa2000.net/dirtybombplot.html

2. When the operatives left McMaster, 180 pounds of nuclear material was reported missing. The story of the missing waste was first reported by John Loftus of WABC News on November 7, 2003. This story also remains on the internet. McMaster has insisted that no material was ever missing from the reactor but radiological material was reported missing from their pharmacological and medical facilities. The matter of the missing material was mentioned by Attorney Janice L. Kephart of the 9/11 Commission in an address before the House Committee on the Judiciary entitled "The Need to Implement WHIT to Protect Homeland Security. This address is also accessible on the internet.

3. The College of Engineering at McMaster contains an over-abundance of professors from terror-sponsoring countries. In the Division of Earthquake Engineering, 9 out of 10 faculty members are from the Universities of Cairo and Alexandria. For verification, go to this site: http://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/civil/vibs/

Similarly, the three full-professors at the College of Engineering all hail from The University of Cairo. Ditto the Dean, Vice President, and the Department Head of the same department. Jane Corbin of BBC points out in her book on al Qaeda that the engineering department at the University of Cairo remains under the control of the "Syndicate." The Syndicate, or Trade Union of Engineers, has always been a stronghold of the Muslim Brotherhood.

4. Members of the Ontario Provincial Police have confirmed that McMaster has been under scrutiny for a long time; that many of the students have ties to radical Islam and terrorist organizations; and that Islamic members of the faculty have conducted clandestine meetings at an off-campus address in Hamilton.

5. Egyptian Islamic websites affirm the presence of jihadists at McMaster, verify reports that professors within the Faculty of Engineering at McMaster are members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and that the university may be the epicenter for the next terrorist attack on American soil.

6. Hundreds of postings on the internet calling for the jihad and the nuclear destruction of America have been traced back to McMaster. Many of the postings have been made by a graduate student at McMaster who transports dangerous goods for the Canadian government.

7. Two of the terrorists who were taken into custody in the plot to kill the Canadian Prime Minister and to blow up Parliament were students from McMaster.

8. Hamid Mir, the only journalist to interview Osama bin Laden in the wake of 9/11, has confirmed that Anas el-Liby, a founder of al Qaeda, attended McMaster and managed, along with other al Qaeda operatives, to steal 180 pounds of nuclear material from the poorly guarded facilities at the school.

For reporting these findings, Dr. Williams has been sued by McMaster University for $4 million plus punitive damages. This suit has been allowed to proceed in Canadian court despite the fact that Dr. Williams is an American citizen who should be protected by the Bill of Rights and American law which stipulates that truth is an ultimate defense. The case, fuelled by Islamic contributions, represents the first attempt of an academic institution to limit the research of an academician, despite the fact that such research is vital for our national security. If he loses the case, the American people will be left in the dark and the American Hiroshima may become a reality.

Donate online -- http://www.paulwilliamsdefensefund.com/donate.html

OR send donations to:

The Paul L. Williams Defense Fund
c/o Carroll, Ucker & Hemmer LLC
7100 North High St, #301
Worthington OH 43085

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Will Blesch, December 22, 2006.

This morning as I was reading the morning news in the Jerusalem Post I was not surprised to see Shimon Peres again talking, purposefully spewing a most unrealistic viewpoint into Israel's media.

The headline of the article was 'Peres Predicts Eventual Peace With Syria'. It was written by Paula Slier. In this article Peres does indeed predict eventual peace with Syria, reminding all and sundry that no less than four Israeli Prime Ministers offered to give up the Golan Heights to the enemy in exchange for peace. Unexplainably, Syria never went for the deals offered by those Prime Ministers.

Hmmmm...lets see...what could those reasons be?

Ah! I know. They don't just want the Golan Heights you see. In another article in the J-Post this morning entitled `Syria Building "Death-Trap" Villages' written by Yaakov Katz, the IDF has come to the realization that the villages Syria has been building along the Syrian/Israeli border are intended to draw Israel into an "asymmetrical war".

They are basically replicating the tactics of Hezbullah in Lebanon. Some of the villages have no people living in them, while others do...but those that do also have commando troops being moved into them along with medium to long range missiles designed to hit deep into Israel's heart land.

When it comes to peace talks, Syria has no desire to speak directly to Israel. They just want direct talks with the United States of America ABOUT peace in Israel. They will say "Yes, yes, we want peace...but here's what we want you to do...put pressure on Israel to give up the Golan Heights...while leaving us in the clear to continue to fortify and militarize our border. Never mind what the purposes for that are!" Shimon Peres was at least mildly sarcastic and mildly correct when he suggests that if you want to make real peace with Israel; shouldn't the Syrians be speaking to the Israelis about that desire?

Are the actions of Syria those of a nation that wants peace with its neighbors? Of course not! Besides, everyone knows Syria is in bed with Iran and we all know Iran has declared that Israel's destruction is close at hand. It seems to me that perhaps Syria is maneuvering itself to a position that would allow it to play a significant role in Iran's plans for Israel.

But, the article by Paula Slier just goes to once again prove in light of the article by Yaakov Katz, that the Israeli left is not only willfully putting on blinders to reality, they have actually left this plane of reality and have moved on to an imaginary wonderland.

William Blesch can be reached at his website: http://willblesch.blogspot.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Wilder, December 22, 2006.

Background information:

First and foremost it is important to stress, that the "SHUK" in Hebron rests on Jewish Land, and to this there is no dispute. The property was legally owned by the Sephardic Kollel "Magen Avot", who legally transferred the property to The Jewish Community of Hebron.

Evacuation by consent without violence:

Approximately one year ago -- in the month of Shevat 5767 -- two days before the violent evacuation of Amona, the Jews of Hebron living in the "Shalhevet" neighborhood (the "SHUK") quietly left their homes. The quiet evacuation was done in conjunction with a written agreement between the military commander of Judea and Samaria Brigadier General Yair Golan and the Committee of the Jewish Community of Hebron. According to the agreement, the families who left their homes quietly would be returned to these same homes within a short time period at which time the government would rent the houses to them.

Mazuz negates agreement:

The Attorney General immediately claimed that "there is no agreement". After the written agreement was presented to him he claimed that the agreement was made without official guidance and instruction by the government, and because of this the agreement is null and void. The military commander received an official reprimand for the fact that he made an agreement with the residents of Hebron.

In spite of this the Attorney General Mr. Mazuz continued for months both verbally and in writing to respond. He presented to the high court a plan that after the Jews of Hebron left their home the government should cancel all rent agreements with the Local City Council of Hebron of the Palestinian Authority and afterwards rent to the Jews of Hebron. The Plan would be implemented in 3 phases. At the end of last summer Mazuz revised his commitment to this plan and officially announced that he would not implement this 3 phase plan because in his opinion the "SHUK" should remain empty.

Suffering of the families and entering the house:

In the meantime months went by and the families who had left their homes for a short period of time -- were left homeless without a proper solution for a place to live until one of the families -- Bar-Cochva -- decided to try and return to their home. In one lightning-quick operation, in less than 24 hours, they returned all of their personal belongings -- even their books and pictures to their original place in their home. (It is important to emphasize, that until this quiet return to their home, the 8 Bar-Cochva children were living scattered amongst many relatives, without a proper home and no place to call their own.)

Gershon Bar-Cochva was one of main proponents of the agreement with the area commander. At the meeting of the residents of the Jewish Community of Hebron, on that fateful night when the evacuation of the "SHUK" was proposed he took the podium at the Avraham Avinu synagogue and convinced his neighbors to support the peaceful evacuation. Gershon believed in the government authority but they disappointed him and left him homeless.

After a number of days when the family secretly lived in their house, the army discovered them. Following legal judgments and writings -- the family was required to leave their home again, quietly. The children were again dispersed to different houses living with different relatives. The family returned again to their home and settled in with a number of techniques to prevent detection from both the Israeli Defense Forces and the local officials of The Jewish Settlement of Hebron. In time the family had the telephone line restored, water and electric bills were paid, friends and family came to visit with the family and the house became a home again - all without notice from the police department and the army.

Legal proceedings:

Recently, after more than 3 months, the Bar-Cochva family was discovered by the police living in their home. The family was served a summons to appear for interrogation and an expulsion order was issued.

The police received an unpleasant surprise because they didn't realize that the family had been living in their home for more than 30 days which means that according to law they can't be removed from their property under a "quick expulsion" law. The police department didn't give up, however, even after they received all of the proper documentation that proved beyond a shadow of doubt the amount of time that the family had been living in their home -- the Hebron Police Department ignored the evidence and put out an arrest order for the Bar-Cochva couple.

At this point, Advocate Chaim Cohen, the Bar-Cochva's lawyer, decided to involve the courts. The appeal achieved a double result:

1. Cancellation of the arrest order for Gershon and Shlomit Bar-Cochva, with the court reprimanding the police for presenting inaccurate evidence.

2. and more importantly -- a restraining order on the police preventing them from evacuating the family from their home until the decision is made by the courts on the situation. (A hearing scheduled for today, Friday, December 22, 2006, was postponed by government request, until next week.)

The Hebron Jewish community expects that the police and other law-enforcement officials, will obey the law and the present court decision, will decide to forego an immediate expulsion, and will allow the family to proceed with the legal options available to them.

Gershon Bar Cochva:

We have experienced very difficult times: From a family view, we were left without a place to live and afterwards had to live secretly, 'undercover' in our own home. From a national point of view also: the disgrace of an agreement which was violated, seeing people supposedly representing the state of Israel being deceived, and above all, watching the best interests of Israel being trampled. We now hope and pray for positive results, knowing that there are good people within the framework of our government who know that justice is with us, and will eventually be revealed to all.

David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB10, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, hebron@hebron.org.il, 972-2-9965333 or write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Elan Journo, December 21, 2006.

Irvine, CA--The new secretary general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, has pledged to "restore trust" in the embattled organization. What would an effective international organization dedicated to peace, freedom and individual rights look like?

According to Elan Journo, junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, "such an organization would have to scrupulously judge the moral character of nations and accept as members only regimes that protect individual rights. It would have to recognize the objective difference between right and wrong, punishing aggressors and protecting their innocent victims--otherwise it can neither resolve conflicts justly nor achieve peace.

"What would it take to 'reform' the UN into such an organization? It would have to be smashed and re-created from scratch. One would have to completely repudiate the UN's defining policy of offering nonjudgmental membership to tyrannies and free nations alike. This founding 'ideal' of moral neutrality, which is fundamental to the UN, protects and bolsters the evil regimes.

"For example, the discredited Human Rights Commission enabled dictatorships to deflect censure from their own violations of rights; the new Human Rights Council--a product of the UN's vaunted 'reforms'--is now doing exactly the same in spades. The UN's moral neutrality grants evil regimes what they desperately crave: a license to commit any depravity, yet still be seen as peaceful and civilized.

"Since it is only America's cooperation, financing and moral sanction that lends the UN any legitimacy, Washington must withdraw from this corrupt organization--rather than support futile 'reforms' that tinker with it."

Mr. Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute. He specializes in foreign policy and the Middle East. His writings have appeared in such publications as the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Houston Chronicle, The Chicago Sun Times, and the Globe and Mail of Canada. He is also a contributing writer for The Objective Standard, a quarterly journal of culture and politics.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 21, 2006.


Defense against international aggression requires a supportive economy, a prepared military, and will. Being engineering-oriented, Americans often fail to deal with the psychological aspect. We don't study how the enemy thinks and what he values.

Totalitarians understand the importance of psychological warfare. They employ propaganda as a weapon. They are all the more effective as we are naïve. Many of our people take the Muslims' word seriously -- we have not studied the enemy and discovered that deceit is an Islamic tactic. We reserve doubt for our own President, not that he is unfamiliar with dissembling, but he is not in the Muslims' league.

Ignorance and naivety foster hopes for conflict-resolution with the Muslims by means of negotiation. Ostensible peace plans imposed upon Israel, however, have an element of malice in them, besides. The State Dept., long an antagonist of Zionism, proposes plans that cut the ground out from under Israel.

Psychological inertia and mind-set, besides political correctness and excessive multi-culturalism, keep half the Europeans, but especially their leaders, media, and intelligentsia, from acknowledging the Islamic menace. Think of the Western Communists who remained loyal to their failing ideology even after the USSR and China had murdered at least 50 million people! Ironically, the worse the menace, the more reluctant are people to confront it. It is like the difficulty on cold days of getting out of a warm bed to turn up the heat.

Certain cultures are stuck in old roles. The leaders of France and Russia want their countries to be thought important, so they buck US leadership instead of letting it help protect them. Looking backward, they fail to perceive the incoming tide of history. The Muslims don't care about the folly and irresponsibility of their nuclear development and threats to use it, for they have an obsolete culture of conquest or death -- our deaths, preferably theirs if necessary to achieve ours. The US is undecided between being imperious and appealing for allies. China's goal is inscrutable, except for its drive for raw materials and Taiwan.

The Bush Administration, for example, followed its plan for Iraq slavishly for about four years, refusing to re-evaluate it. It confused major modification with abandonment. There is a general need in government to re-evaluate the efficacy of policies often and honestly, instead of pretending success even as failures mount. In recognition of this, some statutes include "sunset" clauses, ending appropriations and laws if not renewed after a review. Unfortunately, re-evaluation is derided as admission of incompetence.

Nor did the Administration explain itself or campaign for its policies, beyond a few, brilliant Presidential speeches. In the same way, it rejected the Kyoto pact, but didn't really explain why. It left the issue to be taken up in the media, which also didn't explain the rejection but denounced it. Our enemies have propaganda; our government neither has much propaganda abroad nor much explanation at home.

Further impeding general awareness is the media's being tendentious rather than dedicated to presenting news, i.e., the truth. Western society, which prides itself on freedom of thought, increasingly represses unpopular views. Sometimes it does so in the name of tolerance towards the intolerant. The result is a lack of debate. People in power don't have to defend their views.

The media rarely admits significant mistakes in judging major events. It acts as if above the fray, passing judgment from on high, but it prints politicians' lies unchallenged, and it presents issues selectively.

Much political manipulation occurs. Although the people are suspicious of politicians, they don't want to know how much the State Dept. manipulates Israel and Israeli leaders. Israeli voters keep selecting leaders who promise security but produce insecurity by agreeing to concessions the State Dept. wants them to make to the Arabs in return for Muslim lies. Israelis haven't figured that out yet. Its establishment doesn't afford much opportunity for dissident voices to be heard. In Israel, the establishment is Left and Far Left.

America needs people in and out of office to sense trends and problems and propose answers before the problems become cute. In turn, that requires deep education, sound thinking, and genuine freedom of thought, a receding American goal. New York City is an example of waiting for its bridges to rust so thoroughly as to come in danger of requiring major replacement. On the other hand, it did react promptly to the loss of competitiveness in the financial market, largely by the Sarbanes-Oxley law that the Senate had passed 95:1 without a further backward glance.


Taking a leaf from the antisemitic Harvard "study," George Soros expressed concern that AIPAC has too much influence over US policy. (I am concerned that it has too little. US policy confirms how little.) He does not express concern that the Arab lobby has too much influence over US policy (although a Saudi prince boasted that the State Dept. is in its pocket, the pocket with the wallet. US action confirms the boast).

Soros implies that Israeli influence retards peace, although Israel has made concessions and withdrawals, lobby or no lobby, whereas the Arabs offer hatred and war.

Having billions, Soros means to underwrite an anti-AIPAC lobby, including many of the usual anti-Zionist agitators such as Yossi Beilin and Zbiegnew Brzezinski and members of the leftist Israel Policy Forum (i.e., appeasement-minded at Israel's expense). They pretend to care about Israeli security, which they claim would be bolstered if the Arab-Israel conflict ended. (It can't end but only worsen if their proposed territorial concessions go through, in a war based on Islamic imperialism.) Soros' claim to care about Israel, to which he never donated much, and which he unfairly condemned for its attempt to eradicate the menace from Lebanon, is belied by his record.

His new initiative really seems part of his promotion of leftist Democratic Party politics (Zalman Shoval, former Israeli Ambassador, NY Sun, 11/30, Op.-Ed.).

Soros is in line with the liberal, Communist, fascist, and Muslim line against Israel. His behavior almost justifies confiscatory taxation of excessive income, so individuals don't get sufficiently wealthy to wreak great harm paying for their neuroses. Another example is Mayor Bloomberg, who favors government expropriation of people's homes for his favorite developers' private schemes, who dictates what restaurants may serve, and who suggests that rich individuals band together into a formidable lobby.


After the Arabs of Judea-Samria harvest olives, they harvest compensation for damage to the trees. They "cut" them. (Does that mean "cut down" or "prune," two different things? Leftists have complained about settlers damaging trees that the Arabs had pruned. Israeli reporters don't know idiomatic English well enough to be precise.) Then the Arabs blame settlers and submit claims for financial compensation from Israel.

Foresters and police caught four Arab youths "cutting" trees for firewood. They said the owners had invited them to do so (IMRA, 12/2). Arabs have been caught, before. Jews have been accused without evidence.

Based on complaints of fraudulent Arabs, the Left accepted Arab complaints and filled columns of the NY Times with calumny against settlers. Rent with hatred of fellow Jews, the Left chose the settlers as the enemy and demanded government protection of Arab harvests. The Arabs turn out to be the vandals. Arabs also burn down the national forests that Israelis enjoy. One should pick his enemies on the basis of their hatred of him, not on ideology blind to that reality. Welcome to the bi-national state!


Moscow has the largest Muslim population of any European city! The news brief claims that the total is 2 million. Muslims immigrate from other parts of Russia and beyond. Then they multiply, while native Russians self-decimate. By mid-century, the population would be half Muslim, if current trends continue.

A nativist Russian reaction is setting in, one way or another, here or there. It has no organized, systematic scheme and is more xenophobic than anti-Muslim.

Although most of the Muslims were not fervent, many are becoming so (IMRA, 12/3).

That means they will become a menace. It doesn't take a majority of voters for Muslims to take over a country. When they become a large bloc, they start demanding preferences, on pain of rioting. They solidify their control over parts of countries, by keeping law enforcement out and decreeing Islamism within. Later they could stage a coup by virtue of having more younger people than the aging natives.

The Russian mentality is imperialist and authoritarian. With the Muslims, it is exercising the former but not the latter. It begrudgingly gave up the Central Asian and other republics, but now that oil is both a source of funds and a means of extortion by withholding supplies, Russia is trying to fight democracy and recover them. It retained large territories peopled by non-Russians and especially by Muslims. That may have been a blunder. What was the use of retaining traditionally bandit-ridden Chechnya, cause of rebellion, expense, and terrorism? So it can claim to be a great power. Big deal!

Putin reverts to various Communist policies. Will he crack down on religion in general, the way Lenin and Stalin did, as the way to control Islam? Then the Jews would have to remove to Israel, if Russia doesn't help the Muslims destroy that haven.

Alternatively, the nativists would ban all but Eastern Orthodoxy, with the same effect upon the Jews.


Israeli officials risk national security by policies that experience and logic show must fail (but which the Left and foreigners demand. It would be wiser to explain the reasons for anticipating failure than to take the risk and fail as expected). The officials excuse the risk-taking by calling it a "calculated risk." Calculated or not, the risk is great that whatever the Arabs promise won't be kept, and whatever is given to them would be turned against Israel. Why would it be different now?

Are they calculating that by withdrawing from Gaza, and having a ceasefire, they may let the Arabs build bunkers and armories that would take many more casualties to destroy, when the ceasefire inevitably fails? Are they calculating that the Arabs would be able to develop longer-range missiles, and bombard more Israeli cities? Perhaps the Israeli public does not accept that risk. The government does not discuss that risk (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 11/30). There is no potential gain to that risk, except current P.R..


People contend that if the US destroyed Iran's nuclear capability, the Mideast would turn against us. The opposite is true. First, they wouldn't have much support from Iran, any more. Second, the taming of Iran would be a salutary lesson for them and weaken their efforts and resolve in Iraq. It is US hesitancy that has emboldened Syria and Hizbullah to move towards a coup in Lebanon. Third, the Sunni Arabs would feel great relief at having been saved from Shiite Iran.

It is Pres. Bush's turn to save the Western world the way the once despised Winston Churchill did against an earlier totalitarian foe that also wanted to kill off all the Jews (Michael Freund in IMRA, 11/30).

They called Churchill stupid, too.


She praised Israel for not reacting militarily to the daily P.A. violations of the ceasefire (IMRA, 11/30). She didn't much condemn the Arab violators. Hmm.

The US often praises Israelis for letting themselves get killed for no purpose. That restraint is not praiseworthy. Such praise is blameworthy.


On November 14, the Secretary of Fatah in Gaza boasted that the PLO "gave the world," new methods of terrorism emulated by other Islamists, such as the use of children to throw stones and shoot rocket propelled grenades and male and female suicide-bombers. The PLO invented other forms of terrorism, too (IMRA, 11/30 from Palestinian Media Watch) such as airplane hijacking.


PM Olmert has rivalry and personal disputes with the Defense Minister, Chief of Staff, and the temporary Justice Minister. There are other divisions in the government over minor matters, too. The lack of professionalism and failure to cooperate threaten Israeli survival (Arutz-7, 11/30).

He makes appointments for politics rather than for talent to get the job done.


The UNO condemned Israeli closings of border crossings as violations of an agreement and degraders of Arab life. Israel closes them upon discovering plots by terrorists to pass through them and attack Israel (Arutz-7, 12/1).

Why should the UNO expect Israel to adhere to agreements that the Arabs are violating by exploiting those agreements? I haven't heard of the UNO condemning Muslim terrorism for its effect upon Israeli life or for its repercussions upon Arab life.

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 Alex Grobman, December 20, 2006.

As Israel continues its quest to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, Jimmy Carter and others are pressing Israel to leave parts of Judea and Samaria. Before even considering such a move, which would repeat the disaster of Gush Katif, Israeli leaders might learn from the experiences of former Zionist leaders.

On March 1, 1920, Joseph Trumpeldor, a political activist, along with five of his men from the Tel Hai settlement, was killed in a fight with Arabs from a nearby village. Historian Anita Shapiro notes that two months before the encounter, Aharon Sher, a settler, wrote an article in which he asked for help to defend the settlements in this lawless and remote northern region. One sentence became a rallying cry to battle:

"A place once settled is not to be abandoned."

In subsequent discussions about whether to defend or desert these communities, leaders of the Labor movement essentially adopted Sher's view. Yitzchak Tabenkin, a leader of the kibbutz movement, argued that if the Arabs terrorized the Jews enough to leave a few settlements, they would not stop until the Jews were forced out everywhere. Only by taking an "obstinate, desperate stand, without looking back," could the Jews guarantee their right to the land.

The moderate, left-of-center HaPoel HaTza'ir party paper asserted that their work in settling the land was based on "mutual understanding and amicable relations" with their neighbors: "Yet, wherever Hebrew soil is drenched with the sweat of Hebrew workers, and with their blood, that place is holy to us, and we have no right to abandon it."

In the 1930s, when the Arabs rioted in Palestine over increased Jewish immigration, David Ben-Gurion thought the Arabs might be more receptive to Jewish settlement if he could demonstrate how it would benefit them economically. In 1934, he went to see Musa Alami, a young "moderate" Arab lawyer, who served as the Private Secretary to Arthur Wauchope, High Commissioner for Palestine.

Alami's response to Ben Gurion was quite telling: "That's true," he said, "but we don't want your blessing. We prefer the land to remain impoverished, barren and empty until we ourselves are capable of doing what you are doing. And if it takes another century, then we will wait a hundred years."

Shortly after the Arab Rebellion began on April 19, 1936, Ben-Gurion didn't even bother trying to convince the Arabs of the morality of Zionism or about the economic advantages that would accrue to them from increased Jewish settlement, according to Shapiro. "It would be extremely naive to assume that the Arabs would determine their attitude toward us from the standpoint of abstract justice," Ben-Gurion declared. "The Arabs are adamant that this country is an Arab country, and they wish it to remain so. That is quite elementary!"

Arthur Ruppin, the foremost authority on Jewish efforts to settle the land, explained the difficulty of reaching an accord with the Arabs. On February 21, 1931, he wrote in his diary, "We are not offered what we need, and what we are offered is of no use to us."

Ruppin, who was chairman of Brit Shalom, which advocated a bi-national state, recognized that the "conciliatory tone" the group took toward the Arabs was "interpreted by the Arabs as weakness."

In November 1929, German Zionist members of Brit Shalom suggested that an appeal for a reprieve be made to the British for the Arabs convicted of killing Jews in Hebron and Safed. On Friday August 23, 1929, the Arabs began a week of rioting, killing and looting. More than 400 Jews were murdered or wounded. In Hebron, eight American Jews were killed and 15 wounded. The dead were students at the Slobodka yeshiva, who were not Zionists and not involved in the Jewish national movement. Neither were those attacked in Safed.

Although "in principle" Ruppin opposed the death penalty, he felt in this case it would be too dangerous to stop the practice. Prisons don't "frighten the Arabs," he said, "since they are relatively better off in jail than they were at home." Furthermore, "they would not regard a prison sentence - with the hope of amnesty after a few years - as a serious punishment, and thus might encourage others to slaughter Jews."

The lessons learned by early Jewish leaders should not be lost on those in power today. The Arabs have not yet accepted the Jewish right to live in the Land of Israel. Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh made this clear when, on December 8, 2006, he declared, "We will not give up our Jihadist movement until the full liberation of Beit Al-Muqqadas [Jerusalem] and Palestinian land."

Israeli leaders would do well to heed the words of Edmund Burke, who said, "The concessions of the weak are the concessions of fear." Appeasement has a place in resolving disputes, he believed, but not in dealing with aggression.

An historian, Dr. Grobman's most recent book is Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post War Europe. He is also co-author of Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened? His newest book is Nations United: How the UN is Undermining Israel and the West. Contact Dr. Grobman at agrobman@nj.rr.com

This article was an Opinion Piece in Arutz-Sheva today

To Go To Top

Posted by Mordechai Ben-Menachem, December 21, 2006.
This was written by Alan Dershowitz and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post. He is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways.

The two principal "human rights" organizations are in a race to the bottom to see which group can demonize Israel with the most absurd legal arguments and most blatant factual mis-statements. Until last week, Human Rights Watch enjoyed a prodigious lead, having "found" - contrary to what every newspaper in the world had reported and what everyone saw with their own eyes on television - "no cases in which Hizbullah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack."

Those of us familiar with Amnesty International's nefarious anti-Israel agenda and notoriously "suggestible" investigative methodology wondered how it could possibly match such a breathtaking lie.

But we didn't have to wait long for AI to announce that Israel was guilty of a slew of war crimes for "widespread attacks against public civilian infrastructure, including power plants, bridges, main roads, seaports, and Beirut's international airport."

There are two problems with the Amnesty report and conclusion. First, Amnesty is wrong about the law. Israel committed no war crimes by attacking parts of the civilian infrastructure in Lebanon.

In fact, through restraint, Israel was able to minimize the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, despite Hizbullah's best efforts to embed itself in population centers and to use civilians as human shields. The total number of innocent Muslim civilians killed by Israeli weapons during a month of ferocious defensive warfare was a fraction of the number of innocent Muslims killed by other Muslims during that same period in Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, Algeria, and other areas of Muslim-on-Muslim civil strife. Yet the deaths caused by Muslims received a fraction of the attention devoted to alleged Israeli "crimes."

This lack of concern for Muslims by other Muslims - and the lack of focus by so-called human rights organizations on these deaths - is bigotry, pure and simple.

AMNESTY'S EVIDENCE that Israel's attacks on infrastructure constitute war crimes comes from its own idiosyncratic interpretation of the already-vague word "disproportionate." Unfortunately for Amnesty, no other country in any sort of armed conflict has ever adopted such a narrow definition of the term. Indeed, among the very first military objectives of most modern wars is precisely what Israel did: to disable portions of the opponent's electrical grid and communication network, to destroy bridges and roads, and to do whatever else is necessary to interfere with those parts of the civilian infrastructure that supports the military capability of the enemy.

That's how the American and Britain militaries fought World War II. (In fact, Israel shows far more restraint than Britain did during World War II. Prime Minister Winston Churchill directed the Royal Air Force to bomb the center of towns with the express purpose of killing as many civilians as possible.) Had the Allies been required to fight World War II under the rules of engagement selectively applied to Amnesty International to Israel, our "greatest generation" might have lost that war.

The strategy of destroying some infrastructure was particular imperative against Hizbullah. Israel first had to ensure that its kidnapped soldiers would not be smuggled out of the country (as other soldiers had been and were never returned), then it had to prevent Hizbullah from being re-armed, especially given that Hizbullah damaged a ship using advanced radar technology provided by the Lebanese army and rockets provided by Iran.

Hizbullah was being armed by Syria and Iran - as those countries themselves admitted - and the president, government, and population of Lebanon overwhelmingly supported the militia's indiscriminate rocket attacks against Israeli civilian population centers. The Lebanese army actively supported Hizbullah's military actions. Israel was, in a very real sense, at war with Lebanon itself, and not simply with a renegade faction of militants.

HERE'S HOW law professor David Bernstein answered Amnesty's charge:

The idea that a country at war can't attack the enemy's resupply routes (at least until it has direct evidence that there is a particular military shipment arriving) has nothing to do with human rights or war crimes, and a lot to do with a pacifist attitude that seeks to make war, regardless of the justification for it or the restraint in prosecuting it [at least if it's a Western country doing it], an international "crime."

In other words, if attacking the civilian infrastructure is a war crime, then modern warfare is entirely impermissible, and terrorists have a free hand in attacking democracies and hiding from retaliation among civilians. Terrorists become de facto immune from any consequences for their atrocities.

THE MORE troubling aspect of Amnesty's report is their inattention to Hizbullah. If Israel is guilty of war crimes for targeting civilian infrastructure, imagine how much greater is Hizbullah's moral responsibility for targeting civilians! But Amnesty shows little interest in condemning the terrorist organization that started the conflict, indiscriminately killed both Israeli civilians (directly) and Lebanese civilians (by using them as human shields), and has announced its intention to kill Jews worldwide (already having started by blowing up the Jewish Community Center in Argentina.) Apparently Amnesty has no qualms about Hizbullah six-year war of attrition against Israel following Israel's complete withdrawal from Southern Lebanon.

As has been widely reported, even al-Jazeera expressed surprise at the imbalance in the Amnesty report:

During the four week war Hizbullah fired 3,900 rockets at Israeli towns and cities with the aim of inflicting maximum civilian casualties.

The Israeli government says that 44 Israeli civilians were killed in the bombardments and 1,400 wounded.

AI has not issued a report accusing Hizbullah of war crimes. Amnesty does not even seem to understand the charges it is making. Take, for example, this paragraph from its report:

Israeli government spokespeople have insisted that they were targeting Hizbullah positions and support facilities, and that damage to civilian infrastructure was incidental or resulted from Hizbullah using the civilian population as a "human shield". However, the pattern and scope of the attacks, as well as the number of civilian casualties and the amount of damage sustained, makes the justification ring hollow.

But the issue of human shields and infrastructure are different. The first relates to civilian casualties; the second concerns property damage. Of course Israel intentionally targeted bridges and roads. It would have been militarily negligent not to have done so under the circumstances. But it did not target innocent civilians. It would have given them no military benefit to do so.

The allegations become even more tenuous, as when Amnesty writes, "a road that can be used for military transport is still primarily civilian in nature." By this reasoning, terrorists could commandeer any structure or road initially constructed for civilian use, and Israel could not touch those bridges or buildings because they were once, and still could be, used by civilians. This is not, and should not be, the law.

Consider another example: "While the use of civilians to shield a combatant from attack is a war crime, under international humanitarian law such use does not release the opposing party from its obligations towards the protection of the civilian population."

Well that's certainly nice sounding. But what does it mean? What would Amnesty suggest a country do in the face of daily rocket attacks launched from civilian populations? Nothing, apparently. The clear implication of Amnesty's arguments is that the only way Israel could have avoided committing "war crimes" would have been if it had taken only such military action that carried with it no risk to civilian shields - that is, to do absolutely nothing.

For Amnesty, "Israeli war crimes" are synonymous with "any military action whatsoever."

The real problem with Amnesty's paper is that its blanket condemnations do not consider the consequences of its arguments. (It doesn't have to; it would never advance these arguments against any country but Israel.)

Amnesty International's conclusions are not based on sound legal arguments. They're certainly not based on compelling moral arguments. They're simply anti-Israel arguments. Amnesty reached a predetermined conclusion - that Israel committed war crimes - and it is marshalling whatever sound-bites it could to support that conclusion.

Amnesty International is not only sacrificing its own credibility when it misstates the law and omits relevant facts in its obsession over Israel. It also harms progressive causes that AI should be championing.

Just last year, for example, Amnesty blamed Palestinian rapes and "honor killings" on - you guessed it - the Israeli occupation. When I pointed out that there was absolutely no statistical evidence to show that domestic violence increased during the occupation, and that Amnesty's report relied exclusively on the conclusory and anecdotal reports of Palestinian NGOs, Amnesty stubbornly repeated that "Israel is implicated in this violence by Palestinian men against Palestinian women."

This episode only underscored AI's predisposition to blame everything on Israel. Even when presented with an ideal opportunity to promote gender equality and feminism in the Arab world, it preferred to take wholly unrelated and absurd shots at Israel.

Amnesty International just can't seem to help itself when it comes to blaming Israel for the evils of the world, but rational observers must not credit the pre-determined conclusions of a once-reputable organization that has destroyed its own credibility by repeatedly applying a double standard to Israel.

Mordechai Ben-Menachem can be contacted by email at quality@computer.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Jonathan Rosenblum, December 20, 2006.

I doubt that last week's gathering of Holocaust deniers in Teheran, convened by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, registered high on the radar screen of many in our community -- at least until a small group of clowns in Chassidic garb showed up to hug and kiss Ahmadinejad and exchange their business cards with various Islamic clergy. While denial of the greatest tragedy in modern Jewish history is profoundly offensive, we instinctively discount its impact. After all, we reason, surely the deniers will be dismissed as either insane or pathological liars by every sentient person.

Some of us might even have thought that Ahmadinejad's convening of such a conference was positive in that it would expose his lunacy and hate-driven agenda to all and sundry.

I will confess to having shared those views. In retrospect, however, it now seems to me irresponsible to cloak ourselves in a false sense of security with regards Holocaust denial. The world still treats Ahmadinejad as a head of state in good standing, despite dozens of statements calling for the destruction of Israel and past instances of Holocaust denial. European nations have a seemingly endless string of rationalizations and justifications for every Arab or Islamic departure to generally accepted norms of political behavior.

The fact that the theories are demonstrably wrong is no protection against their spread. After all, the tired myth that the Arab-Israeli conflict lies at the heart of all that ails the Middle East, recycled again last week by the distinguished members of the Iraq Study Group, demonstrates that no theory -- no matter how weak or devoid of factual support -- can be counted upon to refute itself.

TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE PHENOMENON of Holocaust denial I recently read a superb study called Denying History by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman. In particular, I wanted to understand why those who are often open about their loathing of Jews, and free with Nazi-like theories of racial contamination, are so keen to deny the Holocaust rather than embrace it. The journals, websites, and fundraising lists of the Holocaust deniers are filled with references to "our traditional enemy." Though a few of Holocaust deniers with pretensions to academic seriousness have on occasion complained of the fact that they are forced to spend their time lecturing to crazed racists and anti-Semites, their own publications pander to these groups and they themselves inevitably show themselves to be tainted with the same disease. So why are they so eager to clear Hitler and the Nazis, yemach shemam, of responsibility for the murder of 6,000,000 Jews?

Ahmadinejad himself poses the question starkly. He frequently announces the imminent destruction of Israel and the five million Jews living there. So why does he deny that there is precedent for just such an event? In the case of Ahmadinejad himself the answer is relatively clear. In his view, the creation of the state of Israel was an act of compensation by the world for the suffering of the Jewish people during the Holocaust. If that suffering can be shown to be wildly exaggerated, or the normal consequence of a brutal war, and not the result of a deliberate state policy of extermination, then the original grant of statehood to Israel was made on false pretenses and is therefore null and void. And therefore the destruction of Israel is perfectly legitimate.

In the case of Holocaust deniers like Richard Verral, editor of the journal of Britain's right-wing National Front journal and author of Did Six Million Really Die?, the Holocaust represents a public relations problem that must be overcome. They greatly admire Hitler's Aryan philosophy and willingness to promote racial purity through legislation, and even advocate similar policies for their own countries. But they sense that the deliberate murder of six million human beings might be a bit much even for some like-minded supporters. Thus they claim that Hitler never intended more than the expulsion of Jews from Germany and later German-conquered territory in order to make the case for Nazi-like race laws.

Holocaust denial fits seamlessly with the most virulent anti-Semitism. Indeed it provides just one more proof of Jewish perfidy and manipulation. If the Holocaust is a "myth," as the deniers claim, then it serves as a prime example of the way in which Jews control public discussion for their own benefit -- i.e., an even more nefarious version of the "Israel Lobby," the existence of which has now been confirmed by a former U.S. president.

WHILE I ORIGINALLY TURNED TO Denying History in search for an answer to my question why do virulent anti-Semites bother to deny the Holocaust, what I found there was far more important than any answer to my original question. Above all, the book is a profound essay on the nature of historical argument and proof. Along the way, the authors categorize and refute the basic claims of the Holocaust deniers and analyze their methods of argument.

The Holocaust deniers do not deny that many -- perhaps even millions of Jews -- died in the course of World War II. What they do deny is that there was any systematic plan to exterminate all Europe's Jews or that Hitler ever gave an order for their destruction. In addition, they deny that there were gas chambers in the six leading extermination camps and that the total number of Jews who were killed or died approaches anything like six million.

Though few of the deniers have any academic training or credentials, a few do. Nor are they universally stupid. David Irving, for instance, is considered a first-rate archivist.. In this battle, as in almost every intellectual encounter, it is wise not to underestimate the opposition or overestimate one's own strength.

Grobman and Shermer make clear is that most university students would be ill-equipped to confront the most articulate deniers unless they knew a great deal in advance about their methods and about the Holocaust. To prove the point, they quote at length from a disastrous T.V. interview by host Phil Donahue with two prominent deniers.

Arguing that both sides must be heard, Holocaust deniers like Bradley Smith will gain admission to college campuses. And once there, it would be foolish to rely on college faculty, many of whom have been infected with terminal relativism, to protect the students. Grobman and Shermer relate a well-known case where a Afrocentrist gave a speech at Wellesley College arguing that Aristotle had stolen all his ideas from African manuscripts deposited in the great library of Alexandria. Professor Mary Lefkowitz asked him how that could be since the library was only built after Aristotle's death. After the lecture, she was attacked as a racist by members of the audience. But more frightening, when she complained to the dean of her college about such nonsense being foisted on students, she was told each of us has a different but equally valid view of history. The question is: Will Holocaust denial also find its way into the pantheon of "valid" historical views?

TYPICALLY THE DENIERS DO NOT OFFER their own theory for what happened to Jews under Nazi control, or support with evidence such theories as they do offer -- e.g., the starvation of those Jews who survived until liberation was a consequence of the German's difficulty of supplying adequate food because of Allied advances. Rather the deniers seize upon discrepancies in the accounts of survivors of the gas chambers -- e.g., how long did they take to complete their ghastly task? -- as proof that they never existed. Occasional errors, long since corrected, such as the claim that the Nazis engaged in the commercial production of soap from human fat (as opposed to occasional experiments in this direction) are held by deniers aloft as proof that all the historical accounts are falsified.

Deniers take out-of-context quotations from disputes between historians over such issues as when was the extermination plan finalized to suggest that there is an argument over the existence of such a plan. They repeatedly demand production of the "smoking gun" -- e.g., a signed order from Hitler ordering the extermination of all European Jewry or the construction of gas chambers -- as if an event of the magnitude of the Holocaust can be reduced to a single frame.

They focus on what is not known rather than the immense amount of information that is known. And they attempt to discount or reinterpret documents and oral testimony one-by-one rather trying to explain the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. While rejecting the interpretations of historians who connect six different strands of proof of the Nazi Final Solution, they offer no coherent theory of their own.

Grobman and Shermer have provided an immense service in destroying the various strands of denier argument. For instance, deniers ask, if Auschwitz was an extermination camp, why did its architectural design not conform to that purpose? Answer: It was originally built as part of a model city, later became a prisoner of war and slave labor camp for Russian POWS, and only in its last stage an extermination camp.

They survey the various strands of evidence for the existence of the gas chambers, including the voluminous testimony from the trial of Rudolph Hess, the camp commandant, and Hess's own confession, the eyewitness testimony of both Germans and Jews who worked in the vicinity of the gas chambers and the ovens, and aerial photographs from Allied bombers. In addition, they stress that Auschwitz and the extermination camps were only one aspect of the Final Solution. The Einsatzgruppen extermination campaign in conquered areas of the Soviet Union claimed between 1,500,000 and 2,000,000 Jewish lives even earlier in the war.

It is ludicrous given the scope of the Final Solution and the consistent diversion of valuable German military resources to the extermination effort, even in the final stages of the war, that it was not executed with Hitler's knowledge and upon his orders. Grobman and Shermer explain that Hitler learned after the public outcry in Germany against his murder of 75,000 physically and mentally handicapped adults and children in the late '30s never again to put his signature to an extermination order.

At the same time, they compile an overwhelming array of quotations from Hans Frank, the military governor of Poland, Josef Goebbels, Heinrich Himmler, Adolph Eichmann, (including the Wannsee Protocol, authored by Eichmann, after the infamous gathering of top of the Nazi hierarchy, explicitly delineating the stages of the Final Solution) and Hitler himself, which singly and cumulatively leave no doubt of a well-developed plan, ordered from the top, to eradicate the Jewish "virus" once and for all from Europe.

When General Dwight D. Eisenhower arrived at the Buchenwald concentration camp on April 13, 1945, he insisted on touring every nook and cranny of the camp, and subsequently sent communications to London and Washington urging the British and American governments to sent groups of journalists so that the evidence of Nazi crimes should be immediately laid before the public. Eisenhower correctly anticipated the day when the last survivor had passed away and when many would say such things could not possibly have happened.

That day is fast approaching.

And with it should come recognition of the vital importance of all those battling against Holocaust denial: the Spielberg Foundation, which has recorded the testimonies of tens of thousands of survivors; the many superb Holocaust museums and research institutes around the world; historians like Grobman and Shermer and Professor Deborah Lipstadt. The latter not only exposed David Irving but then vigorously and successfully defended, along with her publisher Penguin Press, against Irving's libel suit in Great Britain, where the burden of proof rests on the defendant in libel actions. Had they lost Holocaust denial would have received an immense boost around the globe.

Jonathan Rosenblum is with Am Echad- Jewish Media Resources. Contact him by email at amechad@bezeqint.net or go to the website:

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Alex Grobman, December 20, 2006.

Divestment campaigns are back in the news once again after a short lull. Their objective is to terminate university investments in Israel in order to impede the country's economic growth and development. By using "economic warfare," they want "to destroy Israel's economy," according to Fred Taub, president of Divestment Watch. As part of this campaign, attempts are made to prevent Israeli academic and political leaders from speaking on university campuses. Another goal is to eliminate Israeli academic research funds since Israeli academics are viewed as key elements and "collaborators" of the Jewish state.

An association of dozens of Palestinian charities, unions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) organizes these divestment campaigns according Gerald Steinberg, professor of political studies at Bar Ilan University. Why do "politicized churches" and academics demand divestment from Israel, he asks, but not from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Egypt? A number of the groups and individuals are ideologically opposed to Jewish sovereignty and to the existence of a Jewish state. Others have simply been duped by the media that all too often reports Arab propaganda as fact.

Irish academics are particularly adamant in boycotting Israeli academic institutions. In a letter to the Irish Times on September 12, 2006, 61 Irish professors urged academic institutions throughout the world to boycott Israeli institutions of higher education.

The Jerusalem Post reported that when Professor James Bowen of the Department of Computer Science at University College Cork was questioned about Hamas's charter and inflammatory language, (which openly calls for the extermination of Jews in Israel), and was asked whether those who signed the petition would consider boycotting Palestinian academic institutions as a result, Bowen replied, "the accusation of genocide against Hamas is libelous. The responsibility for ending the conflict lies with the aggressor. Israel is the aggressor."

The Irish embassy in Israel condemned the petition as "counterproductive," yet the Irish government has helped foster this enmity because of its own negative attitudes towards Israel. By examining the government's views toward the Jewish State, we can see how Irish academics reflect their own government's attitude toward Israel, and why they are so tenacious in advocating this boycott.

In Ireland and the Palestine Question 1948-2004, professor Rory Miller explains that the Irish believe they possess a unique insight into the Arab/Israeli conflict because of their neutrality and their distinct "moral" position in the international arena. This endows them with the right and obligation to seek peaceful solutions in international interaction.

Ireland granted Israel de facto recognition in 1949,but did not grant it de jure recognition until May 1963. Part of the reason was Ireland's aversion toward partition, which was a result of its own fight for independence from Britain. The Irish saw partition as a cruel means of solving territorial disputes that would not bring peace.

An even more fundamental reason for Irish opposition to granting Israel recognition Miller suggests, was that from the late 1940's, the Irish clergy, political parties, the general public and the media have had a special interest in the Holy Land because of their concern about the Christian Holy Places, especially in Jerusalem. The Vatican had supported the internationalization of the city and the holy sites, and the Irish were greatly influenced by the "Vatican factor," and adamant that the rights of Catholics be maintained. When the Irish granted de jure recognition, this did mean any inherent or overt acceptance of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem.

Oil is an additional factor why the Irish side with the Arabs. Miller quotes the Irish Times in mid-1963 that "if it comes to a matter of competition for the friendship of Israel or the Arab League, nobody can doubt what the outcome will be: the oil- rich Arab states possess an attraction denied to Israel"

The rights of Arab refugees are another ongoing concern as was Israel's refusal to withdraw from the Golan Heights and the "occupied territories" Failure to resolve the refugee issue is viewed as the "greatest single obstacle," to peace in the region. The Irish did not have the political and diplomatic clout to compel Israel to compensate the Arabs and allow some of the refugees to return to Israel. Instead, they donated funds to United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA).

A further area of contention occurred after the Irish provided troops to serve first as UN observers and later as members of the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). Whenever there was a conflict between the Christian militias and Irish soldiers, the Irish blamed Israel.

This led Israeli Ambassador Shlomo Argov, Israeli Ambassador to Britain and Ireland, to wonder how people in Dublin could sit around "smugly" and "pass judgment" about events in another part of the world. He found it particularly difficult to understand how the Irish could be so "insensitive to the Christian minority in Lebanon," and later charged Ireland "of leading the pack in [the] constant flagellation of Israel"

Miller sees PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's visit to Ireland in mid December 1993 as recognition of Ireland's ongoing effort to advance the position of the Arab refugees and support of the PLO. The visit also demonstrated the extensive backing the PLO enjoyed among the Irish people.

When Israel instituted roadblocks to protect its citizens against terrorist attacks, Irish politicians attacked Israel. This demonstrated a callous disregard for the suffering of Israel at the hands of Arab terrorists, and a failure to recognize that a major provision of the Oslo Accords was that the Palestinians were now responsible for the security of the Israel. The Irish Times reported that between 1994-1997, 131 Israelis had been killed and 446 wounded by Arab terrorists.

The Irish government condemned the escalation of violence against the Israelis between 2000-2004, but criticized Israel for its policies and actions that exacerbated or prolonged the need for Arabs to use violence. They even had the temerity to stand behind Yasser Arafat even when there was evidence of his corruption and duplicity. Given the Irish government's rationalizations for Arab terrorism and intransigence, it is not surprising that Irish academics would be among those who want to harm the Israeli economy and its schools of higher education.

Americans should actively oppose the Irish and any other academic groups that engage in this unjustified and morally reprehensible activity, because as Fred Taub points out, divestment campaigns are an attack on the U.S. "Foreign governments," he urges, "should not be allowed to dictate US foreign policy," and they must not be permitted to promote the destruction of the economy of another democracy.

Israel's economy, Taub concludes, "has a direct impact on the US economy because Israel is a key developer of new technologies, including in medicine, computers and even space exploration; not to mention that it is the democracy and free-market economy example for the Middle-East.... The Arab boycott of Israel is the single biggest impediment to peace, as peace can not be sustained without economic cooperation"

An historian, Dr. Grobman's most recent book is Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue Committee in Post War Europe. He is also co-author of Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened? His newest book is Nations United: How the UN is Undermining Israel and the West. Contact Dr. Grobman at agrobman@nj.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 20, 2006.


A short time ago, the Israeli debacle in Lebanon and the renewed war in Gaza proved the folly of withdrawal. PM Olmert admitted that his plan for further withdrawal was thoroughly rejected by his people.

Now he is resurrecting that scheme, and piggybacking it and other concessions, such as lopsided prisoner release and statehood, upon the ceasefire.

Why did the Arabs request a ceasefire? So they could prepare for war. Statehood would give them stronger legal status, against Israeli defense in the form of carrying the war to its source. There is no reason to make deadly concessions to the Arabs in return for a promise to behave. They have made promises before. They broke them all.

Let them behave! But then, if they behave, and since they have no legitimate grievance, they shouldn't get concessions. Their misbehavior earns them punishment, not concession. Nor is a prisoner exchange reasonable. They kidnapped an Israeli soldier wantonly, and held him in ways contrary to the Geneva Conventions. The prisoners Israel holds are for terrorism. Releasing them would be criminal folly.


Just saw that old John Wayne movie, and was moved to tears. Wayne's group of Union Army veterans was herding horses to sell to the Maximilian regime in Mexico, shortly after the Civil War. They come upon Rock Hudson's group of ex-Confederates, joining Maximilian as mercenaries. The Rebs host the others, and soon there is the usual fist fight in which all the men childishly indulge as if it were fun. That is the part about Wayne's movies that I detest. But later I saw it had purpose, this time.

Wayne gets the herd to its destination, and is awaiting payment, while a pretended Maximillian general brings Hudson's group is brought to a dinner. The dinner is a trap set by the Juarez rebels. The Juaristas threaten to kill them all, including their women and children, unless their colonel persuades Wayne to hand the horses to them.

Wayne asks his men what they wish to do. One put it that they never had anything, and if they give up these horses, they won't be worse off than before. After condeding the horses, both sets of veterans set off for home, side-by-side. One of them keeps playing Dixie, until Wayne asks, doesn't he know anything else. He starts playing The Battle Hymn of the Republic, and a southerner rejects it, too. So he takes up Yankee Doodle, the all-American song that predated the Civil War. That song symbolized the re-Americanization of the warring factions. That is when I started sobbing. There was, among them, national unity. We don't have it now. We don't have much patriotism among the people I know. They hate not only Bush but many also despise our country. They fear the religious Right, but tolerate the religious Muslims striving to destroy us. They turn to the declining Europeans as countries we should listen to. I love my country. I know its faults, but I also know its good points. We here all should work to polish the good points and iron out the faults. Don't just hate and complain.


The Islamic Movement in Israeli distributed a calendar to Arab students of Haifa U. that favorably "marks the birthday of Al-Qaeda founder Bin-Laden, the date of PLO leader Yasser Arafat's death, and significant dates in the lives of Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah and jailed Fatah arch-terrorist Marwan Barghouti." The Arabs explained that they wish to commemorate their leaders and events, such as the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers that led to the "brave" wars against Israel. The University states that it would not permit this to recur (Arutz-7, 11/29). "Their leaders" are not their country's.

In other words, they sympathize with the enemy because the enemy shares their religion and nationality. They are not loyal to their country. This is an old story, but many Jews can't grasp it. They should, for they often are accused, though falsely, of dual loyalty.

As the Arabs indulge in sedition, Israel discriminates in favor of Arab admissions to its universities. They should not be given preference, and the Islamic Movement should be banned as subversive. I think that Muslim Arabs should not be allowed to immigrate legally or illegally, avoid national service, taxes, and land use regulation, and to riot. Then their citizenship should be repealed. If law enforcement and rescinding of government subsidies does not prompt them to emigrate, pay them to emigrate.


The world focuses (slightly) on Iran's nuclear development. However, Iran also is developing missiles of all sorts, more than any other country. It is seeking the ability to threaten every other country, however distant (IMRA, 11/29).

Why try to ban the one without banning the other? Why destroy the one without destroying the other?

It takes scientists and technicians, both domestic as foreign, to perfect such weapons. If the US destroys what those scientists have developed, shouldn't they also destroy at least the domestic scientists, too, capable of reconstituting the means for war crime?


The Kurdish terrorists originally were Maoist and nationalist. Now they sound more Islamist. After having made peace and gotten concessions from Turkey, they resumed the struggle, fighting as much in Turkey as the insurgency does in Iraq. They likewise are helped by Iran and by the Kurdish region of Iraq, as tools against Turkey. Turkey lost its influence with the US, by not cooperating with the invasion of Iraq. The US lost influence with Turkey, by allowing the terrorists to maintain bases and havens in Iraqi Kurdistan. (Turkey's non-cooperation was because its government is Islamist. The US contradicts its war on terrorism by not cracking down on Kurdish terrorists.)

The terrorists also find safe havens in Europe. They raise funds and engage in criminal activities by networking among Kurds there. Several countries host Kurdish terrorist broadcasting. This is turning Turkey more anti-Europe (MEFNews, 11/29). Europe should not let in or let stay alien immigrants from a culture that doesn't assimilate.


Former Pres. Jimmy Carter continues his untruths about the Arab-Israel conflict. According to him, Israel violates the Road Map and the P.A. fulfilled it. Actually, the P.A. met none of its major requirements: (1) Declare Israel a legitimate state with the right to exist; (2) Cease inciting the Arabs to violence against Israel; (3) Dismantle terrorist organizations and confiscate their arms (IMRA, 11/29).

Israel is not obliged to strengthen an enemy making war on it, in the name of an agreement supposed to bring peace but which the Arabs nullify by their violations.

If Jimmy Carter made an occasional mistake but were objective in tone, one could forgive him. He has made statements expressing affection for the Arabs and hostility for most Israelis. He gets so many facts wrong, though he has access to people who know them, one must conclude that he is a biased, vicious propagandist who is lying.


Abbas, the man whom the NY Times calls a moderate, referred to "a barbaric Israeli offensive that has left more than 400 dead and 1,500 wounded while thousands of homes have been destroyed."

According to the Palestinian Center for Human Rights and the UNO, 73 houses were destroyed and some official buildings. (No comment was made about casualties.)

Problem is, the NY Times, L.A. Times, and Haaretz repeated Abbas' alleged figures without question (IMRA, 11/29). Doesn't it occur to them that he is partisan?

The press' unquestioning relay of Islamic propaganda encourages exaggeration. The P.A. has exaggerated before. It had alleged a slaughter and havoc in Jenin. Investigation showed a minor casualties and limited damage. Same for Syrian claims about Kuneitra and Lebanon, citing Arab-inflicted damage predating the Israeli incursions. Journalism should be informative, not lend itself to totalitarian war.

Lying is an accepted tactic under Islamic jihad. I think that Arab culture encourages exaggeration, too. Note that the Muslim Arabs murder people on the basis of rumor. They prefer conspiracy theory to evidence and common sense. They garble history. They constantly and inconsistently juggle factoids and sound bytes to bolster their current aim.


She praised him for what he has spent a "lifetime doing for his people," and said that Pres. Bush admires him. She hoped he would succeed in forging a coalition government with Hamas that would gain international support (IMRA, 11/30).

Abbas spent a lifetime as Arafat's deputy in terrorism, and continued after Arafat. How could any decent person admire him? A coalition government means that instead of all Cabinet officers belonging to one terrorist organization, they belong to two. What a poor excuse for conferring international support! It is a fig leaf for the war on the Jews.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, December 20, 2006.

Almost three years ago, Ariel Sharon released 450 murderer terrorists from Israeli prison in order to free Elhanan Tannenbaum, an Israeli criminal who had entered Lebanon under suspicious circumstances and was kidnapped there by the Hizbollah. Sharon also obtained the three bodies of Israeli soldiers (two Jews and one Bedouin) murdered in cold blood by teh Hizbollah, murders that were never avenged by Israel. At the time I published an article, "I am Ashamed to be an Israeli"
(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11982). There I predicted that Sharon's cowardly capitulation would result in additional kidnappings and murders of Israeli soldiers and escalating terrorism by the Hizbollah. The mass release of terrorists also served as precedent, and that is why Olmert is currently considering putting hundreds more of murderers back on the street.

At that time, and in that article, I reported the theory that the civilian held by the Hizbollah and released in the deal, Elhanan Tannenbaum, was in fact a drug smuggler, in Lebanon to buy drugs. In fact, I suggested that Israel might consider releasing some terrorists as a reward for the Hizbollah keeping Tannebaum in captivity. Some people criticized me harshly for that and for reporting the theory when Tannebaum was a fellow Jew who had not been convicted of drug smuggling nor had admitted publicly to it.

Yediot Ahronot today reports
(http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3342415,00.html and http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-3342404,00.html) that Tannebaum has now indeed admitted he was in Lebanon as part of a drug smuggling operation. This means that hundreds of terrorists were released, Israeli deterrence was turned into a mockery leading to 4000 katyusha and other missiles landing on Israeli civilians this past summer, and serving as role model for new Olmert capitulations, all because of a now-admitted drug smuggler.

Tannebaum was testifying in a customs smuggling trial for two other criminals and admitted all this in court. Tannenbaum, who personally did more to damage Israel than almost anyone else outside Israeli politics, has not been indicted in Israel for anything.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Batya Medad, December 20, 2006.

During the 25 years I've lived in Shiloh, I've learned to just take opportunities and not to plan in too much detail. Yesterday was a perfect example.

The bare outline of my plans was to get to the Aliza and Menachem Prize Giving Ceremony at the Begin Heritage Center. I had also hoped to be able to get to "Ozen Shlishi," "The Third Ear," video/dvd place and take out a movie.

Ever since they changed all of our buses,I haven't the vaguest idea of the schedule. When I count on a bus to leave Shiloh, I'm usually left waiting, but when I just go down to wait, things are better. Yesterday was a classic!

I had one of my ESP-ish feelings that I had better run out of the house, so I did. These "feelings" have done me well on various occasions, usually for leaving Jerusalem and going home. The internet bus schedule said there should have had been a bus a few minutes ago, but I just didn't organize my time well.

As I ran down, neighbors stopped and offered me a ride to Neve Neeman, since they know that I have a cousin there, but... That's not where I was headed. Too bad. Then just as I was getting to the bus stop, I noticed a car stop, and they invited me in. To Jerusalem, but not the direct route. My neighbor was giving a "tour" to friends visiting from the states. Instead of Route 60, the quickest way, we'd be going via Shvut Rachel, to the Alon Road to the East, by the Jordan Valley. Then they were planning to see Migron, which is battling the Israel Government for its survival.

I did have time, and I believe in taking advantage of opportunities, so I got in.

Even though I've been on the Alon Road before, I was as amazed as the tourists at the total emptiness of the land we saw. Nobody lives there. Closer to Jerusalem we passed the roads to Kochav HaShachar and Rimonim, two Jewish communities housing a few hundred families. Those barren hills we had passed could easily be filled with a million people. There were no signs of ownership or habitation, but this is land that "Peace" Now demands we give to Arabs. The road was also very empty, so even though it was longer than #60, the trip was quick.

So before we knew it, it seemed like we were at the end of the road, but the road signs weren't clear as to which way to Jerusalem. We asked the soldiers we saw, who looked a bit confused but gave us directions. We followed them and got to the southern end of Route 60, near the turn-off to Migron. We followed the narrow, winding road to Migron and eventually saw a quiet community with lots of "caravans," trailers, surrounded by gardens and children's toys. There were also "buildings" which were obviously used as pre-schools. The school-aged kids are bussed to a nearby elementary school.

Nothing in the peaceful scene, which was before us, gave a hint to the fact that Defense Minister Peretz wants to distract the nation from the "PA" kassam attacks on his home city Sderot by destroying Migron.

After that, we were off to nearby Jerusalem, where I noticed the bus I had "planned on taking." So, obviously our timing was perfect!

Then I got out and took a bus to my destination, plenty of time, but then I found myself in a major traffic jam, which added about a half hour to the trip. I kept calm, convincing myself that I still had plenty of time, and yes, I did.

I picked up a couple of movies, "The Sting" and the new "Oliver Twist" by Polanski, and then I ran over to the Begin Center. They were still "eating." The menu had something for everybody--vegetable sticks, cookies and "sufganiyot," those doughy jelly doughnuts Israelis love to eat in the winter. Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

The theme of the awards this year was Heroism. They honored the People of Sderot and also Roi Klein and Emanuel Moreno two of the soldiers killed in last summer's nameless war.

I'd say that the residents of Migron are heroes, too!

Batya Medad lives in Shiloh. She can be reached by email at Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 19, 2006.

In case anyone is thinking of contributing to the New Israel Fund (NIF), I encourage you to research thoroughly where your NIF contributions go.

As I have pointed out in the past, there is evidence that the NIF turns a blind eye to the possibility that some of its money to Arab charities in Israel may be used for demonstrably anti-Israel purposes.

The Mossawa Center, in Haifa, is a recipient of NIF funds. Check out what Daniel Pipes says about the center. His article is called "Israel's Domestic Enemy," and it appeared in the New York Sun December 19, 2006. It is archived at

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

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 19, 2006.

Dear Christian leaders,

The leading luminaries of Christianity in the UK are not just silent in the face of the Muslim threats of a new Holocaust against the Jews of Israel, they actually legitimize the lies and help spread the mendacious propaganda that enables the Muslim diatriabalists to dupe the Christian West into thinking that, in fact, Israel deserves to be destroyed.

Melanie Philips is right when she states: "I'm sorry if this pains the many decent Christians who uphold truth and fight evil...but it has to be said that, at a time when Iran is openly threatening to destroy Israel, the churches in Britain are not only silent about the genocidal ravings emanating from Iran, but are themselves helping pave the way for a second Holocaust...The time has arrived for decent Christians around the world to raise their voices as loudly as they can against this terrible, primitive anti-Jewish stain that once again besmirches their religion."

Happily, some leading luminaries of Christianity in the USA are speaking out; but they are few and far between; and their censure of Islamofascism and Muslim Jew-hatred is barely heard over the chorus of Muslim apologists and non-Muslim cheerleaders who use the Goebbelian strategy of "repeat the lie often enough" in order to galvanize support in the Christian community for what amounts to a second Holocaust.

And the greatest, indeed most dire, irony is that the same Muslim leaders who proclaim "death to the Jews", "The Holocaust is a Zionist hoax but it is too bad that brother Hitler did not finish the job", and "As soon as Iran has nuclear capacity, we will wipe Israel off the face of the earth", are also saying, in Arabic/Farsi, to their own people, "when we are finished with the Saturday people, we will start on the Sunday people".

Hitler's little helpers among the Christians of the UK, EU and USA are digging their own graves and the graves of millions of their flock, as they support the lies, legitimize the diatribe, and blame the Jews for what Muslims are doing to the Christians in the Holy Land, and especially in the village of Jesus' birth.

And if you have doubts about the veracity of that statement, just note the reality of what has happened to the Christian communities in most of the Arab, and much of the Muslim, world over the last 20 years.

Here are two articles, the first from Melanie Phillips' website, the second by Tom Harper and Ben Leapman in the Sunday Telegraph in the UK. from.

1.) This essay appeared December 18, 2006 on Melane Phillips' website
(http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1421) and is entitled "Peace on earth, but hatred towards Israel."

Christmas is almost upon us, the time of goodwill to all men, and the occasion for the latest vicious attack upon the Jews by the Church of England. In the Catholic weekly The Tablet, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, was reported as saying:

'People are leaving Bethlehem in large numbers. It is now very difficult to get in and out of and we thought we could go there, and do what we can to encourage that very beleaguered community, and remind others that it matters that there are Christians in the middle of that conflict.' That solidarity with the people of Bethlehem causes Dr Williams to challenge the Israeli Government. He is careful in his choice of words, but he asks, in these days leading up to Christmas: 'I would like to know how much it matters to the Israeli Government to have Christian communities in the Holy Land. Are they an embarrassment or are they part of a solution? That's a question.'

Is that so? Well here's another question. Does Dr Williams realise that he is giving voice to a Big Lie about the Jews of Israel, or is he just astoundingly and unforgiveably ignorant?

The assumption behind his question is that the very real beleaguerment of the dwindling number of Christians in Bethlehem is caused by Israel. This is a diabolical falsehood.

The overwhelming reason why the Christians of Bethlehem have fled is because they have been forced out not by Jews but by Muslims. A story in today's Mail on Sunday, which reports 'deep concern' by Dr Williams and the leader of Britain's Catholic, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, provides a very different picture indeed of the cause of the Bethlehem Christians' suffering:

Life for Palestinian Christians such as 50-year-old Joseph has become increasingly difficult in Bethlehem - and many of them are leaving. The town's Christian population has dwindled from more than 85 per cent in 1948 to 12 per cent of its 60,000 inhabitants in 2006. There are reports of religious persecution, in the form of murders, beatings and land grabs. Meanwhile, the breakdown in security is putting off tourists, leading to economic hardship for Christians, who own most of the town's hotels, restaurants and souvenir shops*

The sense of a creeping Islamic fundamentalism is all around in Bethlehem*George Rabie, a 22-year-old taxi driver from the Bethlehem suburb of Beit Jala, is proud of his Christianity, even though it puts him in daily danger. Two months ago, he was beaten up by a gang of Muslims who were visiting Bethlehem from nearby Hebron and who had spotted the crucifix hanging on his windscreen. 'Every day, I experience discrimination,' he says. 'It is a type of racism. We are a minority so we are an easier target. Many extremists from the villages are coming into Bethlehem.'

Jeriez Moussa Amaro, a 27-year-old aluminium craftsman from Beit Jala is another with first-hand experience of the appalling violence that Christians face. Five years ago, his two sisters, Rada, 24, and Dunya, 18, were shot dead by Muslim gunmen in their own home. Their crime was to be young, attractive Christian women who wore Western clothes and no veil. Rada had been sleeping with a Muslim man in the months before her death. A terrorist organisation, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, issued a statement claiming responsibility, which said: 'We wanted to clean the Palestinian house of prostitutes.'

Jeriez says: 'A Christian man is weak compared to a Muslim man. They have bigger, more powerful families and they know people high up in the Palestinian authority.' The fear of attack has prompted many Christian families to emigrate, including Mr Canawati's sister, her husband and their three children who now live in New Jersey in America. 'I want to leave but nobody will buy my business,' Mr Canawati says. 'I feel trapped. We are isolated.'

The story goes on to say that that isolation is exacerbated by Israel's security barrier. But the only reason that was erected was as a desperate last resort to prevent the Palestinians from murdering large numbers of Israelis by human bomb attacks. As the story makes clear, however, the principal reason for the Christians' flight is Muslim violence. Indeed, if it were Israel's behaviour it would hardly be only Christians who were fleeing. There is no shortage of correct, factual information about this. A report by the Jersualem Centre for Public Affairs provides an informed riposte to the Christian lies:

*The Christian population of the areas under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA) has sharply declined in recent decades, as tens of thousands have abandoned their holy sites and ancestral properties to live abroad. Those who remain comprise a beleaguered and dwindling minority. In sharp contrast, Israel's Christian community has prospered and grown by at least 270 percent since the founding of the state.

*While Israel understands that the construction of the security barrier inconveniences some of the Christian communities living in its vicinity, Israel has shown sensitivity to Christian interests in planning the route of the barrier.

*The plight of Christian Arabs remaining in the PA is, in part, attributable to the adoption of Muslim religious law in the PA Constitution. Israel, by contrast, safeguards the religious freedom and holy places of its Christian (and Muslim) citizens. Indeed, in recent years Israel has been responsible for restoring many of the churches and monasteries under its jurisdiction.

*The growing strength of Islamic fundamentalism within the Palestinian national movement poses problems for Christians, who fear they will be deemed opponents of Islam and thereby risk becoming targets for Muslim extremists. This is exacerbated by the fact that Hamas holds substantial power and seeks to impose its radical Islamist identity on the entire population within the PA-controlled territories.

Some senior Christian clerics claim that the dramatic rise in Christian emigration from PA-controlled territories is a result of the Israeli 'occupation.' However, in-depth research demonstrates that the precipitous decline in the Christian population is primarily a result of social, economic, and religious discrimination and persecution within Palestinian society in the West Bank and Gaza.

In a July 3, 2006, article, 'Who Harms Holy Land Christians?,' syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak, a long-time critic of Israel, paraphrased a letter from Michael H. Sellers, an Anglican priest in Jerusalem, to U.S. Congressmen Michael McCaul (R-TX) and Joseph Crowley (D-NY), who were circulating a draft resolution blaming the Christian decline on the discriminatory practices of the Palestinian Authority.

Sellers insisted that 'the real problem [behind the Christian Arab exodus] is the Israeli occupation - especially its new security wall.'

Yet two-thirds of the Christian Arabs had already departed between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt the Gaza Strip, prior to the (Israeli) 'occupation' and decades before construction began on the security barrier to protect Israel's population from waves of deadly suicide bombers.

During the same period, hundreds of thousands of Christians were leaving other Muslim-ruled countries in the Middle East, Asia, and North Africa. Every one of the more than twenty Muslim states in the Middle East has a declining Christian population. In fact, Israel is the only state in the region in which the Christian Arab population has grown in real terms - from approximately 34,000 in 1948 to nearly 130,000 in 2005.

*From Christian Arabs under the thumb of the PA, I have heard testimony of forced marriages of Christian women to Muslim men, death threats against Christians for distributing the Bible to willing Muslims, and Christian women intimidated into wearing traditional ultra-modest Islamic clothing. Churches have been firebombed (most recently in Nablus, Tubas, and Gaza when the Pope made his controversial remarks) and/or shot up repeatedly. And this is the tip of the iceberg.

Under the Palestinian Authority, whose constitution gives Islamic law primacy over all other sources of law, Christian Arabs have found their land expropriated by Muslim thieves and thugs with ties to the PA's land registration office. Christians have been forced to pay bribes to win the freedom of family members jailed on trumped-up charges. And Arabs - Christians and Muslims alike - have been selling or abandoning homes and businesses to escape the chaos of the PA and move to Israel, Europe, South America, North America, or wherever they can get a visa.

Not a peep of any of this from the Archbishop of Canterbury, or indeed any other prominent Christian leader.

Instead the Church blames Israel for the flight from Bethlehem, part of the systematic campaign of libellous propaganda against the Jewish state and the sanitisation of Arab murderous hatred that is circulated and believed as holy writ among so many Christians in Britain and elsewhere.

Recently, a cleric of the Church of England sent me - as an apparently pointed rebuke - a truly wicked book, Bethelehem Besieged, by one Mitri Raheb, a Palestinian Christian pastor in Bethlehem. With a jacket garlanded by encomia from Hanan Ashrawi, George McGovern, James Zogby, Desmond Tutu and others, this book presents a picture of Bethlehem's Christians suffering under a yoke imposed by the cruel and belligerent Israelis. Page after page is devoted to claims about the 'apartheid-like wall'; unwarranted 'invasions' of Bethlehem by overwhelming Israeli military might; the siege of the Church of the Holy Nativity when Israeli troops 'clearly had instructions to go in and destroy' (doubtless that's why there was a stand-off for days while the Israelis tried to persuade the Arab gunmen inside, who were trashing the church, to surrender) - a scandalous misrepresentation with more than a whiff of old-style theological prejudice, when the author compares his family locked inside the parsonage for safety to 'the first disciples after the crucifixion of Jesus'; the 'devastating impact' of the closures and the curfews under the Second Intifada; and so on and dishonestly, virulently, sickeningly, on.

No mention whatsoever of the never-ending violence and mass murder of Israelis perpetrated by the Palestinians; no acknowledgement whatever of the fact that Israel's military actions in the town were occasioned solely as acts of self-defence against Palestinian aggression; no mention at all of the truly unwarranted aggression towards and persecution of the Bethlehem Christians by Palestinian Muslims. Instead, the Israeli victims of Arab aggression are blamed by this Arab Christian as a source of unredeemed evil - a nationalistic scapegoating of the Jewish state that mirrors the theological scapegoating of the Jewish religion in the Gospels and the calumnies of the early church fathers.

This vile travesty merely mirrors the kind of anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli filth that pours out of places like the Sabeel centre and other sources of Palestinian Christian writing, along with NGOs like Christian Aid. As Canon Andrew White has more than once observed, not only does this all smell of replacement theology or supercessionism, the ancient Christian calumny against the Jews, but it has become once again standard fare within the Church of England and many other churches.

The results of all this incitement to hatred are on display in a gruesome opinion poll in The Tablet:

Do you believe the security wall is needed to protect the population of the Holy Land from suicide bombers?

Yes: 18.6% No: 79.4%

Those agreeing that the Churches should

*support international efforts to arrive at a two-state solution between the Israelis and the Palestinians: 80.4%

*campaign for the dismantling of the security wall: 77.6%

*support Palestinian calls for an independent homeland within the borders that existed before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war: 75.2%

*call for the removal of Jewish West Bank settlements: 75%

*disinvest from companies whose products are used by the Israeli Government in the occupied territories: 68.5%

*call on the Palestinians to recognise Israel and renounce violence: 57.3%

*accept that Israel is engaged in a struggle for its survival and support its efforts to root out its enemies: 21.2%

Read that last figure again. Almost 80 per cent of British Christians polled do not accept that Israel is fighting enemies who are pledged to destroy it. Almost 80 per cent of British Christians are ignorant of the truth, have swallowed a diabolical lie and as a result have turned Jewish victims into global villains. Where, alas, have we heard this before?

I'm sorry if this pains the many decent Christians who uphold truth and fight evil and therefore support Israel in its existential struggle to survive the attempt to exterminate it; but it has to be said that, at a time when Iran is openly threatening to destroy Israel, the churches in Britain are not only silent about the genocidal ravings emanating from Iran but are themselves helping pave the way for a second Holocaust. The time has arrived for decent Christians around the world to raise their voices as loudly as they can against this terrible, primitive anti-Jewish stain that once again besmirches their religion.

This was written by Tom Harper and Ben Leapman and it was published December 17, 2006 in the Sunday Telegraph; it is called "Jews far more likely to be victims of faith hatred than Muslims."

Jewish people are four times more likely to be attacked because of their religion than Muslims, according to figures compiled by the police.

One in 400 Jews compared to one in 1,700 Muslims are likely to be victims of "faith hate" attacks every year. The figure is based on data collected over three months in police areas accounting for half the Muslim and Jewish populations of England and Wales. The crimes range from assault and verbal abuse to criminal damage at places of worship.

Police forces started recording the religion of faith-hate crime victims only this year. They did so on the instruction of the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), which wanted a clear picture of alleged community tensions around the country, following reports of Muslims being attacked after September 11 and the July 7 London bombings last year.

However, the first findings, for July to September, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph under freedom of information legislation, show that it is Jews who are much more likely to be targeted because of their religion.

The figures also suggest that many faith-hate crimes remain unsolved, contrary to the picture painted by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in a report this month. The CPS said only 43 people were charged with "religiously aggra-vated" offences last year, and concluded that the large rise expected after the July 7 bombings had not materialised.

Police figures suggest, however, that hundreds of faith-hate crimes are being committed, with very few ever reaching court. Those figures include any crime that is reported to police which the victim believes is motivated by hatred of his or her religion.

The CPS report revealed that not a single person accused of an anti-Semitic crime had been prosecuted on a charge of religiously aggravated offending. It said: "The police statistics include incidents where no defendant has been identified or where there is insufficient evidence for a prosecution."

A report by MPs in September said British Jews were more vulnerable to attack and abuse now than for a generation. Iain Duncan Smith, the former Tory leader, who sat on the All-Party Parliamentary Inquiry into Anti-Semitism, said it was "perverse" that not all police forces recorded anti-Semitic incidents and said that some forces "verge on the complacent". The Acpo directive was ignored by most forces, whose systems are not designed to record religion, though they routinely record ethnicity. Acpo said large organisations take time to adjust to new systems.

The Sunday Telegraph has obtained information on faith-hate crimes from the Metropolitan Police, Greater Manchester, South Wales and West Mercia forces. In London and Manchester, where Muslims outnumber Jews by four to one, anti-Semitic offences exceeded anti-Muslim offences (see table). The figures do not record the faith of the offenders.

Rabbi Alex Chapper, 33, was the victim of a "faith-hate" crime in July last year. He was returning from a synagogue in Ilford, Essex, with three Jewish friends after conducting a service. All were wearing skull caps. Seven Asian teenagers followed them down the road shouting "Yehudi", which means Jew in Arabic. One of them shouted, "We are Pakistani, you are Jewish. We are going to kill you", before punching Rabbi Chapper in the face and hitting one of his friends over the head with a bottle.

"It was very frightening, we were all very shaken," said the rabbi. "I thought we were going to get seriously hurt but someone threatened to call the police and they ran off.

"We identified the youths and told the police but they were never prosecuted. They just did not seem interested. I feel very let down."

A spokesman for the Community Security Trust, which monitors attacks on Jews, said: "Many people hoped and believed anti-Semitism had burnt itself out. This is not the case."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, December 19, 2006.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, despite apparent defeat of kindred spirits in local races, attempts to solidify his own national power by rigging a 'presumably' democratic Iranian election, Iran's ally Syria accelerates arms shipments to Hizbullah terrorists as they attempt to overthrow the Siniora government in Lebanon, Iranian underwritten Hamas battles Fatah with ever increasing zeal as Gaza's civil war intensifies, while the West dawdles, in fact leans in the direction of appeasement. What would erstwhile Prime Minister Winston Churchill say from the grave, spiritually viewing Prime Minister Tony Blair asking the world to support Mahmoud Abbas' decision to call for early elections, and the Baker Hamilton conciliatory analysis, supported by former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, of the Iraq debacle, suggesting the Bush Administration makes nice nice with Iran and Syria. Facing the Hitler Nazi juggernaut, obsessed with ridding the planet of all non-Aryans, The British Bulldog brilliantly and bravely asserted,"You ask: 'What is our policy?' I will say: 'It is to wage war by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime.' That is our policy. You ask: 'What is our aim?' I can answer in one word: 'Victory! Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.'"

Although the horrific human misery and devastation inflicted during World War II, punctuated by the systematic slaughter of over six million Jews, cannot now be compared with an emerging jihad led by Iranian madman Ahmadinejad and his contemptuous crew of infidel/Jew/Israel despising mullahs, one must calculate such potential as Iran continues to develop a nuclear infrastructure, and indeed would not hesitate in detonating a nuke to someday wipe out Israel, perhaps another infidel nation, or possibly just to set a chaotic stage for the coming of an Imam that will guarantee a planet bereft of non believers. Indeed, no prescient observer ever accused such Persian movers and shakers of being acquainted with the concept of sanity.

There is little doubt that a Shiite Iranian/Syrian/Islamic terrorist axis has declared holy war on all Sunni Arabs, would do whatever it takes to 'wipe Israel off the map', and threatens to someday seize Western Europe; indeed an insidiously ambitious agenda. Yet the comatose West dithers, waffles on sanctions, will not cease paying an extortionist per barrel price for fossil fuel thus in effect underwrites that agenda, and surely will not now consider any military action to put out a relative brush fire metastasizing into a blazing inferno of Dr. Strangelove proportions. Even the imperiled Sunni House of Saud hesitates to lead the way by substantially increasing oil production thus lowering it's per barrel price. Is there any limit to the greed of those madrassa financing Jew despising scoundrels? What might it take for their survival mechanism to kick in? Forget about those Arabs, where are you Winston when your inspiration is ever needed by America, Britain, Israel et al? We so need a wake up call! Every war requires a different strategy, yet all wars have one thing in common; they must be recognized as such when declared. Preemption by negotiation has left the barn, yet the West alas remains in denial.

No doubt, America has prompted Iranian chutzpah by breaking Iraq, letting the Shiite genie out of a bottle once corked by Sadist Hussein, bizarrely supports a government that would someday jilt Uncle Sam for madman Mahmoud in a Tehran minute, and most stupidly allows its embattled troops to remain targets in a thirteen century Sunni Shiite uncivil war with no end in sight. Deploy those U.S. troops into friendly Kurdistan now so they might keep vigilant eyes and ready trigger fingers on erstwhile Persia, the real threat to planetary stability! Let the Sunnis and Shiites duke it out, they will do so either now or later. Winston would surely approve of that first step at least suggesting Western strategists are not totally brain dead.

Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant, working for the Social Security Administration. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at luniglicht@snip.net

To Go To Top

Posted by Eli E. Hertz, December 19, 2006.

Calling on the United Nations and All Free Democracies:
Bring Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad to Justice for Incitement to Genocide!

Please add your name in support of this petition
Alert all your friends to do likewise by Clicking HERE.

Contact Eli Hertz by email at today@mythsandfacts.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, December 19, 2006.

This article was written by Edward Cline, author of SparrowHawk.

Enough about the Iranian bogeyman, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad! He is our certifiable enemy. Let's shift our focus for a moment to our venal ally in the "war on terror," Saudi Arabia, his chief rival in the conquest or destruction of the U.S.

Ahmadinejad, addressing a conference in Tehran a year ago, proclaimed that "those who doubt, to those who ask is it possible, or those who do not believe, I say accomplishment of a world without America and Israel is both possible and feasible." The Saudis agree with half that statement; for them, the eradication of Israel is a mutual goal, but it would rather convert the U.S. into an Islamic nation, instead of destroy it.

"Saudis and Iran prepare to do battle over corpse of Iraq," read the headline in the Sunday Telegraph (London, December 3), and in my previous commentary, "The Sandstorm of Western Confusion," I quoted one interesting paragraph from that article:

Saudi Arabia, America's closest ally in the Arab world, is considering backing anti-U.S. insurgents because it is so alarmed that Sunnis in Iraq will be left to their fate -- military and political -- at the hands of the [Iranian-backed] Shia majority.

How would the Saudis accomplish such backing without alienating the prostituted affections of the Bush administration and the State Department? The Associated Press provided an answer in an article that appeared in the Newport News, Virginia Daily Press on December 8th under the headline, "Saudi citizens finance Iraq's Sunni fighters, report says." The report is that of the Iraq Study Group.

Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni Muslim insurgents in Iraq, and much of it is used to buy weapons, including shoulder-fired [Russian Strela] anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

This is an interesting subject in the ISG's report that hasn't received the attention it deserves by the American news media, whose news anchors and Washington correspondents are barely able to contain their joy over the bipartisan recommendations that President Bush abandon the idea of victory in Iraq and begin talking with Iran and Syria with the goal of "stabilizing" the chaos in Iraq.

Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition. But the ISG report said Saudis are a source of money for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by the Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq -- money they said was headed for insurgents.

"Two high-ranking Iraqi officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, told the AP most of the Saudi money came from private donations, called zaqat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.

The article reports that the Saudis claim to be tracking "suspicious financial operations." Tracking and policing such operations, however, are two distinct actions. The AP article continues, "The ISG report said that 'funding for the Sunni insurgency comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia and other (Persian) Gulf states.'" Oman? Kuwait? Qatar? Bahrain? The United Arab Emirates?

In the moral dustbowls of all these medieval enclaves, such "private individuals" must have close political and economic connections to their royalist governments to be wealthy enough to indulge in such generosity. Their "charitable" donations must have the tacit approval and knowledge of the powers in the royal palaces and compounds.

As evil and perversely bizarre as the notion is that an alleged American ally would condone or sanction its citizens enabling "insurgents" to kill American soldiers -- but not incite the rage of either the Bush administration or the news media or members of the ISG -- the Saudis are also funding another kind of insurgency in the U.S. itself. Its chief front organization is the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The goal of this "insurgency" is two-fold: to whitewash Islam by projecting it as a benign creed deserving of special dispensations and treatment vis-à-vis American law; and to insinuate the Islamic ethos into American society with the ultimate goal of transforming it from a secular to an Islamic society (which means discarding the Constitution and replacing it with the Koran). Its chief weapons until now have been lawsuits and press releases.

CAIR is a lobby-cum-"civil rights" organization that advances Saudi interests in the U.S. It is staffed by Wahhabists and financially supported by surreptitiously donated Saudi and other "Gulf" money. That is, by American motorists, without their knowledge, at the gas pump.

Now CAIR has allies in Congress. Up to now, it has counted on the gullibility and short-ranged mentalities of the news media and even the White House to lend it an air of innocence and concern. Up to now, the rule has been dinners for Muslim guests at the White House, receptions for them in swank hotels, and a congenial first-name-basis camaraderie.

When Congress reconvenes next year, CAIR and its phalanx of interlinked Muslim organizations in the U.S. will expect their leftist and Democratic allies in the Senate and House to work for and deliver legislation that will protect the Islamic beachhead in America. For a detailed summary of the goals and backgrounds of the "usual suspects" -- Nancy Pelosi, John Conyers, and Keith Ellison -- see Robert Spencer's article, "CAIR's Congress" in FrontPageMagazine of November 13, 2006; Robert Novak's article in the Chicago Sun-Times of December 10 on Zalmay Khalilzad, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Iraq and a Muslim who will likely become the U.S. envoy at the United Nations; and "John Conyers and the Muslim Caucus" in the Investor's Business Daily of November 9.

More disturbing, however, is another article from the December 4th FrontPageMagazine, "CAIR KOs '24'," by Henry Mark Holzer.

"Early in 2005, CAIR met with representatives of the Fox television network and producers of the hit drama '24' to discuss concerns about the depiction of a 'Muslim' family at the heart of a terror plot on that popular program," cites Holzer from CAIR's Annual Report, titled "The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States 2006, The Struggle for Equality." "CAIR was concerned that the portrayal of the family as a terrorist 'sleeper cell' would cast suspicion over ordinary American Muslims and increase Islamophobia.

"Rabiah Ahmed, spokeswoman for CAIR, said that the show was 'taking everyday American Muslim families and making them suspects. It's very dangerous and very disturbing."

CAIR's Annual Report continues:

At the meeting, which included CAIR and the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), Fox officials agreed to distribute a CAIR public service announcement to network affiliates and ask that it be aired in proximity to '24.' Network officials also agreed to air a disclaimer stating the American Muslims reject terrorism.

Mr. Holzer writes:

Although many Americans were rightly enraged at Fox's capitulation to CAIR, they wrongly complained of 'censorship.'" Holzer, Professor Emeritus at Brooklyn Law School, correctly counters that Fox's submission -- and remember that "Islam" means "submission" -- did not constitute censorship. "Only the government has the power to censor (subject to whatever protection that might be afforded by the federal First Amendment and state constitutions).

What Fox's decision did constitute was: cowardice.

CAIR insisted that Kiefer Sutherland, who plays the intrepid Jack Bauer, a counterterrorism agent, issue the politically correct version of a parental guidance warning: "...Now while terrorism is obviously one of the most critical challenges facing our nation and the world, is important to recognize that the American Muslim community stands firmly beside their fellow Americans in denouncing and resisting all forms of terrorism. So in watching '24,' please, bear that in mind."

Which Sutherland did. Technically, it was called a "disclaimer." What it disclaims and abdicates, however, is the right of Fox in "24" to portray Muslims as it sees fit, regardless of the accuracy of such a portrayal, regardless of the fact that most American Muslims are an alien fifth column of manqués, conditioned by the Koran and their clerics to do the bidding of Allah, Mohammad, and CAIR. CAIR's Annual Report could just as well have been titled, "The Status of Muslim Civil Rights in the United States 2006, The Struggle for Supremacy."

Holzer then lets fly at CAIR:

Wrapping itself in the flag, invoking the Constitution, and hiding beneath its veneer of a self-styled 'civil liberties' organization -- modeled on its anti-American mentor and template, the American Civil Liberties Union -- CAIR is the preeminent domestic mailed fist of Islam in the velvet glove of civil liberties....CAIR is using the American legal system to intimidate the exercise of free speech, to undermine our homeland defense and to advance Muslim cultural infiltration of our domestic institutions by seeking special dispensations concerning dress, national holidays, educational texts, the content of books, movies, television, and more. In addition to its incessant intimidating complaints about the alleged violation of 'Muslim Civil Liberties.'

(The balance of Holzer's article is a description of the extent of CAIR's legal activism in the U.S., to which the news media and our elected representatives are either oblivious or criminally ambivalent.)

While Fox's decision to "submit" to Islamic sensibilities indeed does not constitute censorship (see Ayn Rand's definition and discussion of censorship in The Ayn Rand Lexicon), it is symptomatic of what could be called "mirror censorship," that is, self-censorship from fear and moral cowardice without the excuse of being subjected to or threatened with government force. In the fog-bound ethics of approximations, relativism, and non-absolutes, the one absolute that pragmatists, "realists" and the "practical" fear to encounter in that fog is: the necessity of opposing censorship. Censorship is the forcible suppression of free speech by the entity that has a monopoly on force, the government. Facing naked censorship, they know they must take a moral stand.

So one must wonder about the moral stature of men who readily submit to faux force, that is, to the whims and wishes of a "community" that threatens lawsuits, demonstrations, or boycotts. Since force is not threatened, the pragmatists and "realists" feel comfortable by acknowledging a group's "displeasure" and claims of "persecution" and by calling their penance "public service." One cannot but conclude that they would rather not face a moral decision at all, and that, confronted with genuine censorship, they would sanction that, as well, in the name of the "public good."

Let us not forget the power behind CAIR, which is chiefly Saudi money. That money has been funding gangs of tribalist killers who target American soldiers in Iraq, as well as funding "civil liberties" insurgents in this country who target the First Amendment. And now the Baker-Hamilton team of compromisers is proposing that the U.S. hold direct talks with Iran and Syria, which have also been sending other tribalist killers money and weapons to Iraq to kill American soldiers.

One of Bush's gravest errors was not asking Congress for a declaration of war against the "axis of evil." As a friend explained, such a declaration would give the U.S. the right to deem an organization like CAIR an enemy agent and to take the appropriate wartime punitive actions. But no such declaration has been made; one consequence of that failure is that the moral behavior of private individuals and organizations like Fox has too often mirrored that of our foreign policy: cowardice and appeasement. Remember the Danish cartoon imbroglio?

At least American soldiers can fight back and kill the enemy in Iraq. But where, Holzer asks, are the "dedicated lawyers with the desire to meet CAIR on the legal battlefield...?" Are they all dead? Are they too busy passing statist legislation in Congress, such as the selective censorship of the Campaign Finance Law, or cooking up class action suits against businesses?

In Book Four -- Empire of my Sparrowhawk series, Patrick Henry, a lawyer and freshman burgess, about to introduce his Stamp Act Resolves in the Virginia General Assembly in May of 1765, states:

We propose that this House adopt and forward to those parties [Parliament and King George the Third], not genuflective beseechments or adulatory objurgations, but pungent resolves of our understanding of the origins and practice of British and American liberty, resolves which will frankly alert them to both the error of their presumptions and our determination to preserve that liberty. These resolves, in order to have some consequence and value, ought not to be expressed by us in the role of effusive mendicants applying for the restitution of what has been wrested from them, but with the cogently blunt mettle of men who refuse to be robbed.

The historical irony is that when Henry made his speech, the Wahhabist Saudis were engaged in the conquest of the Arabian Peninsula, which they completed in 1806. Who could have predicted then that their descendents and their hired fellaheen would invade America unopposed two and half centuries later with the express purpose of gagging the likes of Henry in the name of Allah?

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 19, 2006.

Dear friends,

Here is another excellent (and true) article by Victor Davis Hansen, Private Papers, www.victorhanson.com.

Your Truth Provider,

These are strange times.

Perennially beleaguered Israel, for instance, was hit all summer long with rockets from Lebanon and Gaza, as the world watched and kept score in an absurd new game of proportionality: Israel was to be blamed because its hundreds of air strikes against combatants were lethal, while Hezbollah was to be excused for shooting off thousands of rockets aimed at civilians because of its relative incompetence.

This week Iran hosted an international conference on Holocaust denial. The gathering was as bizarre as a bar out of Star Wars, a collection of every crackpot anti-Semite the world over, all there for a scripted, tightly controlled hatefest advertised as a "free" exchange of ideas unknown in Europe.

Jimmy Carter, silent about Iran's latest promotion for its planned holocaust, is hawking his latest book - in typical fashion, sorta, kinda alleging that the Israelis are like the South Africans in perpetuating an apartheid state, that they are cruel to many Christians, and, as occupiers, are understandably the targets of suicide bombers and other terrorist killers. Sadly, all that shields this wrinkled-browed, lip-biting moralist from complete infamy is sympathy for a man bewildered in his dotage.

Meanwhile, some members of the Iraqi Study Group apparently think that since Israel's neocon surrogates got us into Iraq, their puppet master must pay the price for getting us out. Thus, Israel must give up the Golan Heights, or perhaps the West Bank, since that would make the Islamic nations so collectively happy that they would join us in ridding Iraq of the terrorists whom many of these nations have subsidized, trained, and sheltered.

The surprise is no longer that the cretin Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calls for the destruction of Israel, but only that his serial threats have still not become banal. In any language, there can be only so many synonyms and idioms for "wipe-out" and "vanish," yet Ahmadinejad always finds some fresh way to express his fundamental desire.

In Washington, realists are back, and they have a point: Israel really does remain at the heart of the furor of the Middle East - just not in the way they suppose.

It is not "stolen" land, or "Zionist" killings, or Jewish "aggression" that gnaws at the Arab Street. And the solution is therefore not to be found in short-term Israeli land-concessions, but only in the now caricatured and apparently waning policy of supporting democratic reform inside the Middle East.


The real problem is that Israeli success, and the resulting sense of failure in the surrounding Arab world, fuels much of the rabid hatred. Many of us have been writing exactly that for years and have been dubbed novices - and worse - who don't understand the complex undercurrents of the Middle East. In January 2004, for example, I suggested in passing the following on these pages:

Instead, [Israel] stoked the fury arising from Arabs' sense of weakness and self-contempt. In the world of the Palestinian lobster bucket, Israel's great sin is not bellicosity or aggression, but succeeding beyond the wildest dreams of its neighbors. How humiliating it must be to be incapable of even muttering the word "Israel" (hence the need for "Zionist entity"), but nevertheless preferring an Israeli to a Palestinian ID card.

To suggest primordial envy as a cause of the present conundrum is to be written off as a reductionist by the realists and Arabists of the State Department.

Most instead insist that the return of the Golan Heights and the West Bank would at last inaugurate the missing peace in a way the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza so far have not.

As with the writings and rantings of bin Laden and Dr. Zawahiri, these experts should perhaps listen to what is actually being said by the prominent Palestinians themselves - not what we keep thinking they should say.

They might examine, for instance, an excerpt from the recent statements of the Palestinian-born Al-Jazeera editor-in-chief, Ahmed Sheikh, who granted an interview this month with Pierre Heumann, the Middle East correspondent of the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche. He is not a mere propagandist, but a keen and influential observer of the current Arab temperament.

Sheikh: In many Arab states, the middle class is disappearing. The rich get richer and the poor get still poorer. Look at the schools in Jordan, Egypt or Morocco: You have up to 70 youngsters crammed together in a single classroom. How can a teacher do his job in such circumstances? The public hospitals are also in a hopeless condition. These are just examples. They show how hopeless the situation is for us in the Middle East.

Heumann: Who is responsible for the situation?

Sheikh: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most important reasons why these crises and problems continue to simmer. The day when Israel was founded created the basis for our problems. The West should finally come to understand this. Everything would be much calmer if the Palestinians were given their rights.

Heumann: Do you mean to say that if Israel did not exist, there would suddenly be democracy in Egypt, that the schools in Morocco would be better, that the public clinics in Jordan would function better?

Sheikh: I think so.

Heumann: Can you please explain to me what the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has to do with these problems?

Sheikh: The Palestinian cause is central for Arab thinking.

Heumann: In the end, is it a matter of feelings of self-esteem?

Sheikh: Exactly. It's because we always lose to Israel. It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about 7 million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West's problem is that it does not understand this.

How strange that Mr. Sheikh, if for the wrong reasons, has inadvertently echoed the neoconservative thesis that only with fundamental reform will come Arab prosperity - a progress that in turn will bolster the "collective ego" enough for Arabs to forget an Israel that seems to "gnaw" at the Middle East.

Elsewhere in the interview Ahmed Sheikh, who enjoys a prominent role in forming recent public opinion throughout the Arab world, is largely prescient about the West's misunderstanding of the "genes of every Arab." As we see with the latest return of the surrealists to foreign policy influence, we surely do not understand the depths or causes of Arab and Muslim psychological exasperation with Israel.

Thus Jim Baker & Co. or a Jimmy Carter apparently assumes that Ahmed Sheikh's dreamlike Arab version of middle class tax cuts, No Child Left Behind, or Open Enrollments for HMOs will usher peace to the region if only Israel would concede what its enemies demand or disappear entirely.

This is utter nonsense, precisely because Arab detestation of Israel is a symptom, not the malady, of the current Arab crisis of the spirit. Ahmed Sheikh himself stumbles onto that truth. To gain the necessary maturity and self-confidence that would mitigate scapegoating Israel, the Arab Middle East would have to make vast structural changes in traditional Islamic society that would usher in freedom, prosperity, and security.

In other words, new Arab consensual societies would have to create the sort of landscape that they see elsewhere in Europe, Asia, North America, and Israel when they turn on their satellite TVs and browse the internet - and also understand that such success came from within, not merely from foreign aid or the accidental discovery of oil beneath their feet.

And what would that landscape look like?

Something along the lines of what the West has been attempting in both Afghanistan and Iraq: freedom of the press, alliance to the state rather than to the tribe, constitutional government, tolerance for diverse opinion and belief, equality of the sexes, an open economy, and government transparency to ensure the protection of capital and investment.

Meet even a partial list of all that, and soon an economy would prosper without oil; schools would teach knowledge rather than hatred, bias, and religious superstition; and clinics might have their own competently trained and equipped medical personnel.

Palestine really is the touchstone of the Middle East, insofar as it is a valuable window into the minds and hearts of Middle Easterners. The sources of Arab anger about Israel should remind us of the need both to keep pressuring Middle East governments to reform and to continue trying to stabilize Iraq in hopes that something can emerge there different from the theocracy to its south, the autocracy to its west, and the monarchies to its east.

Finally, there is yet another irony to Mr. Sheikh's lamentations (which we will apparently soon be privileged to hear, when al Jazeera goes live in English throughout the West): Where alone in the Middle East is there his dream of an Arab middle class of sorts? Where do Arabs have good schools? And where is there adequate medical care?

Ask the over one million Palestinians who live in a democratic Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 19, 2006.

Oraq is just a test of will for America, a test it appears we are no longer, emotionally and physically trained, to endure. The unpatriotic, removed, non-committed and spoilt beyond belief EXIT generation is being tested!

Are we, Americans, ready to show the world that America is a fraud: a hyperpower that's all hype and no power and no will?!

Are we, Americans, ready to fall into the category that 'America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend? Are we ready to punish our friends (Israel) as a means of rewarding our enemies (Iran and Syria) for killing our forces (in Iraq)?

Are we, Americans, ready to tell the world that Vietnam is not the exception but the rule?

We have military might, we do not have the political will, and this must change as of this writing!

The self-humiliation Baker's Iraqi Study Groups is a bipartisan sellout -- the Republicans cut and the Democrats run! Once the rest of the world figures this out, it'll be America that's the Green Zone not the Green Zone in Iraq!

Americans, do you like this picture? I don't! I have had enough of politicians? Haven't you?

This was written by Mark Steyn, Sun-Times Columnist, December 3, 2006.

James Baker's "Iraq Study Group" seems to have been cast on the same basis as Liza Minnelli's last wedding. A stellar lineup: Donna Summer, Mickey Rooney, the Doobie Brothers, Gina Lollobrigida, Michael Jackson, Mia Farrow, Little Anthony and the Imperials, Jill St. John. That's Liza's wedding, not the Baker Commission. But at both gatherings everyone who was anyone was there, no matter how long ago it was they were anyone. So the fabulous Baker boy was accompanied by Clinton officials Leon Panetta and Bill Perry, Clinton golfing buddy Vernon Jordan, Clinton's fellow sex fiend Chuck Robb, the quintessential "moderate" Republican Alan Simpson, Supreme Court swing vote par excellence Sandra Day O'Connor...God, I can't go on. I'd rather watch Mia Farrow making out with Mickey Rooney to a Doobie Brothers LP.

As its piece de resistance, the Baker Commission concluded its deliberations by inviting testimony from -- drum roll, please -- Sen. John F. Kerry. If you're one of those dummies who goofs off in school, you wind up in Iraq. But, if you're sophisticated and nuanced, you wind up on a commission about Iraq. Rounding it all out -- playing David Gest to Jim Baker's Liza -- is, inevitably, co-chairman Lee Hamilton, former congressman from Indiana. As you'll recall, he also co-chaired the 9/11 Commission, in accordance with Article II Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which states: "Ye monopoly of wisdom on ye foreign policy, national security and other weighty affairs shall be vested in a retired Representative from the 9th District in Indiana, if he be sufficiently venerable of mien. In the event that he becomes incapacitated, his place shall be taken by Jill St. John." I would be calling for a blue-ribbon commission to look into whether we need all these blue-ribbon commissions, but they'd probably get Lee Hamilton to chair that, too.

Don't get me wrong, I like a Friars' Club Roast as much as the next guy and I'm sure Jim Baker kibitzing with John Kerry was the hottest ticket in town. But doesn't it strike you as just a tiny bit parochial? Aside from Senator Kerry, I wonder whether the commission thought to hear from anyone such as Goh Chok Tong, the former prime minister of Singapore. A couple of years back, on a visit to Washington just as the Democrat-media headless-chicken quagmire-frenzy was getting into gear, he summed it up beautifully:

"The key issue is no longer WMD or even the role of the U.N. The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail."

As I write in my new book, Singaporean Cabinet ministers apparently understand that more clearly than U.S. senators, congressmen and former secretaries of state. Or, as one Baker Commission grandee told the New York Times, "we had to move the national debate from whether to stay the course to how do we start down the path out."

An "exit strategy" on those terms is the path out not just from Iraq but from a lot of other places, too -- including Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Venezuela, Russia, China, the South Sandwich Islands. For America would be revealed to the world as a fraud: a hyperpower that's all hype and no power -- or, at any rate, no will. According to the New York Sun, "an expert adviser to the Baker-Hamilton commission expects the 10-person panel to recommend that the Bush administration pressure Israel to make concessions in a gambit to entice Syria and Iran to a regional conference..."

On the face of it, this sounds an admirably hard-headed confirmation of James Baker's most celebrated soundbite on the Middle East "peace process": "F - - k the Jews. They didn't vote for us anyway." His recommendations seem intended to f - - k the Jews well and truly by making them the designated fall guys for Iraq. But hang on: If Israel could be forced into giving up the Golan Heights and other land (as some fantasists suggest) in order to persuade the Syrians and Iranians to ease up on killing coalition forces in Iraq, our enemies would have learned an important lesson: The best way to weaken Israel is to kill Americans. I'm all for Bakerite cynicism, but this would seem to f - - k not just the Jews but the Americans, too.

It would, furthermore, be a particularly contemptible confirmation of a line I heard Bernard Lewis, our greatest Middle Eastern scholar, use the other day -- that, "America is harmless as an enemy and treacherous as a friend." To punish your friends as a means of rewarding your enemies for killing your forces would seem to be an almost ludicrously parodic illustration of that dictum. In the end, America would be punishing itself. The world would understand that Vietnam is not the exception but the rule.

It has been strange to see my pals on the right approach Iraq as a matter of inventory and personnel. Many call for more troops to be sent to Baghdad, others say the U.S. armed forces overall are too small and overstretched. Look, America is responsible for 40 percent of the planet's military spending: It spends more money on its armed forces than the next 43 biggest militaries combined, from China, Britain and France all the way down the military-spending hit parade to Montenegro and Angola. Yet it's not big enough to see off an insurgency confined to a 30-mile radius of a desert capital?

It's not the planes, the tanks, the men, the body armor. It's the political will. You can have the best car in town, but it won't go anywhere if you don't put your foot on the pedal. Three years ago, when it was obvious Syria and Iran were violating Iraq's borders with impunity, we should have done what the British did in the so-called "Confrontation" with Indonesia 40 years ago when they were faced with Jakarta doing to the newly independent state of Malaysia exactly what Damascus and Tehran are doing to Iraq. British, Aussie and Malaysian forces sent troops on low-key, lethally effective raids into Indonesia, keeping the enemy on the defensive and winning the war with barely a word making the papers. If the strategic purpose in invading Iraq was to create a regional domino effect, then playing defense in the Sunni Triangle for three years makes no sense. We should never have wound up hunkered down in the Green Zone. If there has to be a Green Zone, it should be on the Syrian side of the border.

Perhaps the Baker Commission's proposals will prove not to be as empty and risible as those leaked. But, if they are, the president should pay them no heed. A bipartisan sellout -- the Republicans cut and the Democrats run--would be an awesome self-humiliation of the United States. And once the rest of the world figures it out, it'll be America that's the Green Zone.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 19, 2006.


A popular author of high quality children's books wrote one for Scholastic Inc.. It had a plot about Muslim terrorists. Librarians and booksellers said they would refuse to use it, because of its subject matter. They don't ban pro-terrorist books (Arutz-7, 11/27).

That is censorship, imposed by the West on itself in behalf of its enemies to hide the truth from its people. How are we to prepare our children for the age's greatest political challenge, if we don't advise them what it is?

Why did the librarians to ban the book? Fear? Political correctness? Ignorance?


The ceasefire substituted for what the people of Israel demanded, rooting out Hamas from Gaza. It thus saved Hamas while giving Israel only a brief respite from most of the rocket bombardment. Worse, it was the same failure to mount a full and sustained ground offensive that failed in Lebanon. Thus after the government claimed to have learned from its mistakes in Lebanon, it repeated them in Gaza. Its hesitancy again showed a face of weakness to Israel's worst enemies. The Israeli government's pacifism means further bombardment ahead.

The ceasefire is a form of Israeli recognition of the Hamas regime. It is likely to undermine Western non-recognition and financial boycott of the P.A.. An end to the boycott would give Hamas a victory, because it will not have had to meet Western demands to recognize the legitimacy of Israel or end terrorism (IMRA, 11/28 from MK Shteinitz).

The government of Israel is making mistake after mistake. No wonder some people think the leaders wish to bring down their state! The leaders act as if they do. When will the people rise up against them?


The US government had found two Islamic charities supporting terrorism. It planned to raid them. Before the government could act, the NY Times telephoned the charities to elicit comment. The journalists called this "customary practice." US Attorney Fitzgerald said the calls tipped off the terrorists and endangered federal agents.

The US Supreme Court let stand a lower court ruling entitling prosecutors, investigating the leaks, to review the reporters' telephone records. The Times deems this government is interfering with freedom of the press (Josh Gerstein, NY Sun, 11/28, p.4).

It is not customary journalistic practice to spy on the government, and hamper its attempt to protect us. In earlier years, the press would wait until law enforcement officials (or the military) could act. Then it would tell the story. The public wouldn't suffer from waiting a while. Freedom of the press does not permit treason. On the other hand, government over-classifies in order to cover up. The media could be a watchdog. Unfortunately, it is more a partisan adversary.


PM Olmert says he would release many Arab prisoners after the P.A. releases its one Israeli captive. Speculation has it that he would release 1,400 (Arutz-7, 11/28).

For such lopside exchanges and no punishment, the Arabs are sure to kidnap more Israelis. Olmert's policy, same as some of his predecessors', increases terrorist ranks by hundreds. Many more Israelis have been injured by released terrorists than have been saved by the exchanges. Olmert is party to murder.


Speculation also has it that the Arabs may extend the ceasefire to Judea-Samaria. The government of Israel probably would feel it must follow suit. It also would be likely to remove most of the roadblocks, to stimulate the P.A. economy.

The IDF warns that a ceasefire is like withdrawing, and the moment that the forces withdraw, the Arabs would arm and then fight (IMRA, 11/28).

Glad to hear that the IDF retains some sanity; the political echelon doesn't. It reacts helplessly to world public opinion, instead of its own and planning its own strategy. Problem is, it has not acquired a wartime psychology; the Arabs have, and they plan.

Removing roadblocks to stimulate the P.A. economy means that the P.A. would become able to withstand more war and buy more weapons. A better policy would be to erode that economy. It is more insane than foolish that Israel treats its enemy as a charity case rather than as an enemy.

Of course if the IDF ceases operations and removes roadblocks, or if it withdraws, the Arabs would arm and fight. The Arabs of Judea-Samaria have been trying to obtain more weapons for the purpose not of making peace. The Olmert regime may oblige.


The primary function of government is to protect its people. The Israeli government does not do that. It was so afraid of incurring casualties in Lebanon, that it hardly fought there and canceled a battle because it would have lost some men. Th Arabs find terrorism successful and feel encouraged to attack a fearful enemy. (The Israeli soldiers are not fearful;their political and politicalized leaders are.)

Citizens may well ask why spend so much on a military the government hardly uses (Prof. Steven Plaut., 11/28).

Foreign critics of Israel and the US make those countries hesitant to use proper military force, lest they incur criticism. Democrats reinforce the power of that criticism for ill, by making their main criticism of Pres. Bush his alleged alienation of foreign countries. If they are alienated because they don't want to fight to survive and criticize the US for its willingness to do so, more power to him!


The West has suspended most of its foreign aid for the P.A., while Hamas rules. The P.A. Foreign Minister just took 20 million euros through the border between Egypt and Gaza, that Israel no longer guards. How do we know? He declared what was in his dozen suitcases. So long as he declares it, nobody is authorized to stop it. The funds carried in do not make up for most of the lost aid (IMRA, 11/29).

No, but they help stave off collapse. Collapse might end Hamas rule.


The terrorists in Iraq have little popular support. Baathists and Sunni Islamists kill Shiites to provoke civil war. Some Shiites take revenge. Most Shiites do not care for the Shiite militias, but feel that the militias protect them more than does the government (IMRA, 11/29 from Wall St. J).

If the government weren't dependent upon the militias' parties for parliamentary support, perhaps it would eradicate them and then concentrate better against the insurgents.


The ceasefire was supposed to take effect in Gaza on Sunday. Thereafter, rockets were fired on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, the date of this report. Initial reports were that these rockets were from minor organizations. However, Fatah boasted of having fired the latest two. Fatah is the organization of Abbas, you know, the peace-loving "moderate" whom the US and Israel are arming to stop Hamas.

Israel did not retaliate against the ceasefire. PM Olmert expressed being "slightly disappointed." "I am sure that the European Union will greatly appreciate Israel's approach in keeping the ceasefire."

In Judea-Samaria there is no ceasefire, but the P.A. had signed the Oslo peace agreement. The IDF accelerated raids on terrorists, upon discovering their intensified plans. A woman "...tried to stab an Israeli soldier near Bir Zeit, north of Ramallah. She was apprehended. In Gush Etzion, a policeman was lightly-to-moderately wounded when an Arab ran him down at a checkpoint near Efrat. His car - a stolen vehicle - was later found, but the driver escaped. A woman was lightly injured by Arab-hurled rocks Tuesday afternoon near Shechem, and several Israeli vehicles were damaged in other similar attacks" (Arutz-7, 11/29).

Those are the peaceloving people whom Israel is urged to help prosper. They are costing Israel prosperity.

Sure the EU appreciates Israel's restraint. Europe traditionally wants Jews not to defend themselves. PM Olmert should be more interested in protecting his people than in pleasing his people's European enemies.

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 Barry Rubin, December 19, 2006.

Suddenly, there's a new fad in discussing international affairs today, which may be summarized as the "America is dead" school. Echoing Iran, Western--including American--analysts are claiming that recent events prove the United States is a pitiful, helpless giant.

What the heck is this based on? The only two pieces of evidence seem to be the fact that the United States is unable to transform Iraq and Afghanistan into stable democracies in a brief span of time. And one might add at the extreme limit that it has not ended the Arab-Israeli conflict, defeated the forces of radical Islamism, or stopped Iran from developing nuclear weapons either.

This is going to be a very short-lived myth based on an extremely near-sighted view of the international situation. Regarding Iraq, the Baker-Hamilton report--which basically proposes that America throw itself on the mercy of its worst adversaries to save itself--is already the thing that is dead. The Bush administration has already clearly rejected the report and is working on its own plan to be issued in January.

The administration's rhetoric has also changed quite noticeably. Instead of speaking of "victory" in Iraq, it talks of "success," which is explicitly defined as a regime in Iraq that can defend and sustain itself while being an ally in the war against terror. This is no petty verbal shift. It is a long-needed lowering of goals and expectations.

No longer will the United States seek a perfect Iraq but rather a realistic scenario of a country which can fight its own civil war. The United States will help but cannot deliver victory in Baghdad. The style and methods used to carry on the battle will be Iraqi, not American.

And this fits into a wider picture. Even at the wildest extremes of mainstream unilateralism, no one in U.S. policymaking circles accepted the notion that the United States could do everything itself. As far as the Middle East is concerned, other countries could largely be divided into three categories: those determined to sabotage U.S. efforts (notably Iran and Syria, along with their clients); those unwilling to help at all (basically the rest of the Arab world); and those read to play at cooperating without actually doing much (most of Europe).

Then, when problems aren't solved, all three groups can conveniently blame the United States. And if the United States does not deliver pain-free, rapid solutions against all these odds, they can proclaim that America has failed. I am not referring here mainly or purely to the invasion of Iraq, which other countries had every right to think a mistake.

Still, it should never be forgotten that the perceived failure of will at pursuing sanctions led U.S. policymakers--mistakenly or otherwise--to conclude that an attack was the only solution. Nor is it fitting for those who have so consistently criticized U.S. efforts, failed to help, and often tried to subvert them, to speak of an American failure of will simply because Americans are persuaded by their arguments.

In addition, what also should not be missed here is the fact that the United States can sustain governments in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely. The United States is not abandoning that effort; it is just switching to another, more reasonable, strategy. Willingness to reevaluate mistakes is a sign of strength, it was the rigidity previously demonstrated by President George Bush before accepting the real situation in Iraq that was the weakness.

But, after all, the same charge could be brought against European countries that demanded the United States pursue the diplomatic route in combating Iran's nuclear weapons campaign, and now will not recognize the failure of their strategy. The same applies to those who have put forward a peace-process-above-all strategy on the Arab-Israeli conflict and refuse to see that it failed completely because the Palestinian leadership (which is far worse today than in 2000) rejected peace.

Anyone underestimating continued U.S. primacy is going to be making a big mistake. Of course there are limits to that power, first and foremost the ability to transform the political culture of other countries. Moreover, terrorism as a strategy tries to wear down a stronger power through attrition, persistence, and propaganda. In essence, the perpetrators show their willingness to destroy everything in order to blackmail their adversary. This is what we have seen among the Palestinians, with al-Qaida, and in Iraq, Lebanon, and Afghanistan.

In none of these cases, however, has this approach brought victory to the insurgents, only the ability to sustain bloodshed and crisis. If the United States has not won victory, it is also far from being defeated and still holds the upper hand. If U.S. policymakers realize that putting all their resources in the Iraq basket limits the ability to employ them elsewhere, that is a necessary preface to sustaining that ability to apply power.

Still another point that should not be neglected is that past predictions of American decline rested largely on the belief that one or more substitutes would be found. A very fine speculative fiction writer brought out a novel around 1990 about the Soviet Union emerging as victor in the Cold War. Needless to say, sales suffered. Japan, one candidate, has undergone a severe economic downturn; a united Europe, another, has stalled in its forward progress. The last of the potential candidates is still at an early stage of development and it remains to be seen if there will ever be an Age of China in humanity's future.

Prospects for the United States, then, remain quite good on the international scene. If you believe that Bush has done a dreadful job, all the more reason to attribute setbacks temporarily to him and to assume his successor will return the United States to its position of primacy and leadership.

If, however, anything will bring about the decline of America, it is the kind of policies of appeasement and deliberate weakness advocated by so many of its critics and false friends.

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, Interdisciplinary Center university. His co-authored book, Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography, (Oxford University Press) is now available in paperback and in Hebrew. His latest book, The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, was published by Wiley in November 2005. Prof. Rubin's columns can be read online at: http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.

This article was submitted December 19, 2006

To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 19, 2006.

Dear friends,

Avigdor Kahalani, is a twice decorated Israeli war hero, a former Knesset member and Minister of Internal Security.

Yesterday, December 17, 2006, he was interviewed on Israel radio.

In one short exceptionally definitive sentence he managed to define everything, the reason for the interminable Middle East conflict as well as the only way to resolve it.

His succinct sentence should be internalized by anybody who is genuinely interested in the eventual resolution of the conflict. It applies to the Israeli "Palestinian" conflict as well as the war in Iraq and any other conflict in the world in which Arabs or Muslims are involved (all of them!).

It is one of those rare sayings that sound so simple, but contain layers upon layers of depth and truth.

Here is what Kahalani said. Think of it:


Your Truth Provider,

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 19, 2006.

Since that Iran's President Ahamagenocide Holocaust Denial Conference with the odd ball Neturei Karta Jews participating, this entire Holocaust denial issue that for years was already settled in my mind and soul to be what it was, has erupted in me like a powerful volcano.

The reality is that Holocaust survivors' numbers are reducing daily. These Holocaust survivors set a standard of strength and the will to live. They came from hell to become spiritual and philosophical and their survival and determination to live by far exceeded their children courage to emulate them.

As I grow older, I more and more realize that so much has not been said yet; there is so much left to do in order to fulfill our Holocaust surviving parents' vows they made to all those they left behind in the Holocaust ovens, gas chambers, transportation trains, labor camps, death march and the like. So much left to do BEFORE the last survivor, who can tell the story, leaves this world.

The survivors are too old and too weak to fight back, thus it is we, the 2nd and 3rd and even 4th generation who are left to continue the fight they are too fragile to carry on. We must, no question or argument, with no but, if and why, continue lighting the candle of life for all those who perished without knowing why and without leaving a trace!

This was written and sent to me by my dear friend, Jeanette Friedman, a 2nd Generation (2G) in New Milford, New Jersey and editor of Together, the newspaper of the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors.

Madonna has a hit song that begins with the sound of a clock ticking -- her voice chimes in: "Time goes by, so slowly, so slowly, slowly," maybe sometimes. But not right now -- for the sons and daughters of survivors who are watching their parents fade away time is passing like a runway train. Yes, the Holocaust survivors are getting old and sick and are dying. Everyday, another link is broken. Sadly and broken-heartedly, some survivors literally lose their minds before they go -- a horrible thing for a child to watch.

Others soldier on, determined to set an example for their children. Once again they will defy reality and survive. Watching them walking, despite agonizing pain, seeing them carry on despite the odds, is a little scary. They set a standard of spiritual and philosophical living that some of their children may not have the courage to emulate. For watching our parents and their friends face the challenges of the elderly reminds us we're next -- and yet there is so much left to do to fulfill the vows our parents made to those left behind, and to keep the promises we made to our parents.

A conscientious 2G can spend everyday, all day, paying respects at funerals and making Shiva calls. It is a wrenching experience, made more difficult by knowing the far from completed task of teaching the lessons of the lives of those who are passing -- from the Judaism of their childhoods, to the terror of the Holocaust, to the lives they rebuilt and gave us. In fact, in some places there is already erosion, a misinterpretation, a trivialization, and perhaps worst of all, the exploitation of the Holocaust in unsacred and even in evil ways. It is a desecration to the Six Million Jews that the aging and often ailing survivors, along with their prohibitively expensive medical care, find hard to swallow. Only that now they are too weak to fight back. They just don't have the energy. We have to help them and carry on for them.

Six Million, a number they've tried to realize in paper clips and pennies. Who were they? They were our aunts and uncles, our grandparents, and yes, even sisters and brothers. I lost a half-brother in Auschwitz. His name was Chaim Lazer, and his mother's name was Sarah Gelb, the furniture maker's daughter. I mention them because no one else does. There is my uncle Chaim Lazer Friedman, too, who disappeared in the morass of murder, grandfather Naftalie, and cousins whose names I never knew. How shall we remember each soul?

David Gold, a Modern Orthodox 2G sitting shiva in Wesley Hills put forth an idea. His mother, who hailed from the Carpathian Mountains, died from ovarian cancer, surrounded by her children and grandchildren. He and I were fellow troublemakers at Brooklyn College 36 years ago, when the Jews began to assert themselves on campus and demanded and got courses on the Holocaust. Davy handed me the eulogy he'd given on Friday morning, and it brought tears to my eyes, for he had done something others had forgotten to do. When he spoke of his mother, he spoke the names she taught him to remember, the names of those he never met -- his grandparents, his aunts, his uncles, his cousins. To those in the chapel, he recalled what had happened to them under the hands of the murderous Germans and their allies.

He said, "Maybe we should remind all the 2Gs, when they have to give hespedim for their parents and family members, to remember those who didn't have a funeral, and give them a place to have kaddish said for them. After all, our parents promised to remember them, and we said we would do the same. Wouldn't it be something if everyone did it? We could actually say kaddish for some of the kedoshim and remember them by name."

Allgenerations, Inc., a non profit 501(c)(3) organization, is a resource for Holocaust Survivors,their descendants, Holocaust related museums and organizations, historians, educators, authors,filmmakers and other concerned and interested individuals.www.allgenerations.org. If you wish to help support our efforts your kind donations may be sent to: Serena Woolrich, President, Allgenerations, Inc., PO Box 11113, Washington, D.C. 20008 Thank you for your contribution and being a part of Allgenerations, Inc. If you wish further information, please e-mail us at: allgenerations@aol.com

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 18, 2006.

Did the former Russian KGB agent turned become dissident, Alexander Litvinenko murder brought to surface new reality about Russia? I think so.

He brought to light the demise of ethnic Russia and the uprising of Islam there. Litvinenko converted to Islam...out of 10 million people living in Moscow two and a half million, or a quarter of the population are Muslims...experts reckon that by mid-century the Russian Federation will be majority Muslim and by 2015 the majority of the Russian army will be made of Muslims too! No wonder Putin objects to opposing Iran's nuclear ambition! If he does, he has opposition right at his doorsteps.

What is possible to happen in Russia:(i) A remorseless evolution into a majority-Muslim state, (ii) Bosnian-style civil war, (iii) The secession of a dozen or so of Russia's 89 federal regions, (iv) A Muslim military coup, or (v) Selling off the few remaining assets, including national resources to the Chinese and nukes to anyone who wants them, as a panicky last attempt to arrest decline.

As I have been saying for at least two years, Russia substituted Soviet Communism with Putin regime for which I did not have a defined name and I can now comfortably call it Islamization.

Slowly but surely, with their patience that the West does not have, with propaganda and proselytization -- Islamization, Islam is taking over the entire world, right under our nose!

And by the way, relating to a chapter of the article below, the Iraq Study Group with its foolish, rather embarrassing report, more and more appears to be shallow and totally lacking understanding of world or Middle East politics; what I mean, they are ignoramus of the big picture of the region, but they got paid big bucks for doing worthless work!

This article was written by Mark Steyn and it appeared in National Review Online

You gotta love these alternative theories for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the late "Russian dissident" (and there's a phrase one hadn't expected to make a comeback quite so soon). Relax, say the Kremlinologists (and there's another), it wasn't Putin who had the guy whacked. It was rogue elements within the state apparatus who gained access to supposedly secure facilities and then contaminated five international jets and dozens of joints all over London in order to pull off the world's first radiological assassination.

Oh, well, that's okay then. Nothing to worry about.

The late Mr. Litvinenko, on the other hand, added to the story some last-minute wrinkles of his own. On his deathbed, the former KGB agent converted to Islam and asked that one day his corpse be reburied in a peaceful and independent Chechnya.

Now what's that about? Well, like many in Russian political and media circles -- including his fellow murder victim Anna Politkovskaya -- Litvinenko had become intrigued by the 1999 Moscow apartment-house attacks that killed 300 people and provided the pretext for the Second Chechen War: Were they, in fact, a setup intended to advance the career of Vladimir Putin? In other words, his entire presidency is founded on a lie. One can understand why a belief in such a conspiracy might destroy one's faith in one's country, and even that it might lead one to embrace Chechen separatist leaders, as Litvinenko did. But it doesn't entirely explain the Muslim-conversion business.

I say somewhere or other in my new book that, just as the export of Russia's ideology was the biggest destabilizing factor in the last century, so the implosion of that ideology could be one of the biggest in this century. That's to say, what's left of the Soviet Union has hit the apocalyptic jackpot: The Middle East has Islamists, Africa has AIDS, and North Korea has nukes, but only Russia has the lot -- a disease-riddled Slav population and a fast-growing Muslim population jostling atop a colossal nuclear arsenal. The Litvinenko murder is only the first of many stories in which Islam, nuclear materials, and Russian decline will intersect in novel ways.

There are 10 million people in Moscow. Do you know how many of them are Muslim? Two and a half million. Or about a quarter of the population. The ethnic Russians are older; the Muslims are younger. The ethnic Russians are already in net population decline; the Muslim population in the country has increased by 40 percent in the last 15 years. Seven out of ten Russian pregnancies (according to some surveys) are aborted; in some Muslim communities, the fertility rate is ten babies per woman. Russian men have record rates of heart disease, liver disease, drug addiction, and AIDS; Muslims are the only guys in the country who aren't face down in the vodka.

Faced with these trends, most experts extrapolate: Thus, it's generally accepted that by mid-century the Russian Federation will be majority Muslim. But you don't really need to extrapolate when the future's already checking in at reception. The Toronto Star (which is Canada's biggest-selling newspaper and impeccably liberal) recently noted that by 2015 Muslims will make up a majority of Russia's army.

Hmm. That'll add an interesting dimension to the Chechen campaign. Say what you like about Russia but it doesn't want for plot twists. It is, in that sense, a textbook example of Donald Rumsfeld's "known unknowns": a thing we know we don't know. What will happen in Russia? A remorseless evolution into a majority-Muslim state? Bosnian-style civil war? The secession of a dozen or so of Russia's 89 federal regions? A Muslim military coup? Or a panicky attempt to arrest decline by selling off your few remaining assets, including national resources to the Chinese and nukes to anyone who wants them? None of us knows, but we should know enough to know we don't know. The Russia of 15 years ago is already ancient history.

Which brings me, alas, to the Iraq Study Group. This silly shallow report, of which James Baker, Lee Hamilton, and the rest should be ashamed, betrays no understanding of how fast events are moving. It falls back on the usual multilateral mood music. It wants Iraq, Iran, Syria, Israel, and everything else to be mediated by the transnational jet set -- the Big Five at the U.N., the EU, the Arab League. Just for starters, look at the permanent members of the Security Council: America, Britain, France, Russia, China. What's the old line on those fellows? The World War II victory parade preserved in aspic? If only.

By 2050, Russia will be the umpteenth Muslim nuclear power, but the first with a permanent seat on the Security Council. Or maybe the second, if France gets there first. And, judging from London literary offerings like George Walden's Time To Emigrate?, Britain might not be far behind. But, as I said above, forget the extrapolations: Already, domestic Muslim constituencies are an important factor in the foreign-policy thinking of three out of the Big Five. Are Baker and Hamilton even aware of that?

As I always say, there is no "stability." We thought we'd "contained" Soviet Communism. Instead, the social pathologies that took hold during the Russian people's half-century of "containment" will have profound consequences for us and the rest of the world long after the last Commie is dead and buried.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Women in Green, December 18, 2006.

This article was written by Caroline Glick and appeared December 5, 2006 in the Jerusalem Post.

The world has gone mad. As Lebanon teeters on the brink of Iranian and Syrian instigated collapse, senior American and British political officials urge President George W. Bush to hand Iraq over to Iran and Syria.

As the Palestinians push forward with their Iranian-sponsored, Arab supported jihad, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert responds by announcing his intention to release thousands of terrorists from prison and throw thousands of Israelis out of their homes while giving their lands to Hamas.

While Saturday found the Palestinian Authority's Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh meeting in Teheran with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and applauding his plan to annihilate Israel, Olmert decided Sunday that, in the interest of peace with the Palestinians he would forbid the IDF from attacking terrorists positions in Gaza even if doing so would prevent imminent rocket attacks against the Negev.

And now, according to Britain's Sunday Times, Saudi Arabia is becoming the "principal peace broker" between Israel and the Palestinians.

Reportedly since meeting in Amman in September with the former Saudi ambassador to the US, Saudi Prince Bandar, Olmert has been seriously considering embracing the so-called Saudi peace plan from 2002. Senior Israeli officials told the Times that the plan, which would establish a Palestinian state, "could lead to a formal peace deal between Israel and seven Arab countries: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, the Emirates, Morocco and Tunisia."

IT WOULD really be terrific if Israel could have peace with Saudi Arabia and the rest of those Arab countries. A true peace with Saudi Arabia would mean an end to the illegal Arab economic boycott of Israel and their boycott of companies that do business with Israel.

Peace between Israel and Saudi Arabia would mean that the Saudis would stop financing Islamic terror groups dedicated to killing Jews in Israel and around the world.

Since having peaceful relations with Israel would presuppose Saudi acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Land of Israel, obviously a Saudi peace with Israel would mean an end to Saudi financing of mosques, schools and media organs throughout the world which indoctrinate hundreds of millions of people to believe that Jews are dogs and pigs and vermin and must be annihilated.

Peace between Saudi Arabia and Israel would mean an end to Saudi pressure on Europeans to criminalize Israel and marginalize the Jewish communities in their countries in exchange for a stable oil supply.

The calls by professors who teach in Saudi-financed US and European universities to boycott Israeli academics and end the US alliance with Israel would be muted if Saudi Arabia was at peace with Israel. Similarly, former US officials employed by the Saudis would stop calling American Jews traitors for supporting the US-Israel alliance.

So if there were a possibility that the Times report that "The Saudi Arabian government is emerging as a key player in talks to broker a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace agreement," were true, it would be a true cause for a celebration in Israel.

BUT OF course, like the view that the turmoil in Lebanon is an internal Lebanese affair; and the view that a US retreat from Iraq could be anything other than a strategic victory for the global jihad, the belief that the Saudis are interested in brokering peace with Israel is a complete fabrication. Indeed the "deal" that the Saudis are "brokering" is nothing less than a blueprint for Israel's destruction.

The 2002 Saudi "peace plan" requires Israel to agree to be overrun by millions of hostile foreign Arabs in the framework of the so-called "Right of Return." Moreover, the text of the initiative, "Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian partition which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries." That is, the Saudi plan prohibits Arab states from granting citizenship to these millions of Arabs and so leaves them no choice other than to destroy Israel.

Saudi Arabia's "peace plan" also demands that Israel surrender east Jerusalem - including the Temple Mount, all of Judea and Samaria, the Jordan Valley and the entire Golan Heights to the Palestinians and the Syrians. This Israeli surrender would enable the formal establishment of a Palestinian terror state. It would also strengthen Iran's principal ally - the Syrian Ba'athist regime.

HERE TOO, the Saudi plan is a recipe for Israel's destruction. Without these territories, Israel would be rendered indefensible. Without Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and the Golan Heights, Israel would be so vulnerable to missile and artillery attack that it could be overwhelmed even before conventional invading Arab armies set foot on its remaining territory.

As a reading of the Saudi plan makes clear, it would only be after Israel surrendered all this land and allowed itself to be overrun by millions of hostile Arab immigrants that the Saudis and their Arab brethren would "establish normal relations with Israel." That is, the Saudis will be ready to talk to Israelis only after Israel is destroyed.

The Times' report claims that Olmert's speech at David Ben Gurion's grave last week where he offered to surrender to Hamas, "was not Olmert's own initiative but a dictate given to him last month when he met George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice in Washington." The Americans reportedly were acting at the behest of the Saudis who wanted proof that Olmert is truly committed to capitulation.

IT MAKES some sense that the Bush administration would express such devotion to the Saudi plan. The most glaring Achilles heel of Bush's entire war against the global jihad has been his refusal to contend with Saudi Arabia's central role in fomenting the jihad.

Bush's father's secretary of state James Baker III is the senior partner of Baker, Botts law firm which is representing Saudi Arabia in the lawsuit filed against the kingdom by the relatives of the victims of the September 11 attacks. As the co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, Baker is about to recommend that Bush pressure Israel to capitulate to Hamas and Syria in Judea and Samaria, Gaza and the Golan Heights order to facilitate the US's capitulation to Syria and Iran in Iraq. Prince Bandar, Olmert's reported interlocutor is a personal friend of Baker and the Bush family. After 15 Saudis and four Egyptians carried out the attacks on the US on Sept. 11, it was Bandar who persuaded Bush to become the first US president to ever make the establishment of a Palestinian state an official US policy goal.

Olmert's motive for providing the Saudis with an unwarranted propaganda victory in the US and Israel is similarly understandable. Quite simply, Olmert will do anything to take the Israeli public's attention away from his failure in office. And to successfully "spin" the public, he needs the support of the Israeli media.

Olmert's embrace of a new imaginary "peace process" will win him the support of Haaretz and the other radical leftist elements in the Israeli media. These media organs will then work to prevent the opening of police investigations into Olmert's alleged criminal activities.

Friday, Haaretz columnist Gideon Samet made clear that in exchange for the media's support, Olmert must release thousands of Palestinian terrorists from jail even without securing the release of IDF Cpl. Gilad Shalit; scale-down IDF counter-terror operations in Judea and Samaria; facilitate the free flow of goods from Gaza into Israel and so render Israel even more vulnerable to terrorist penetration from Gaza; destroy Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria; and provide free medical services to Palestinians in Israeli hospitals.

OLMERT'S SPEECH at the gravesite of Israel's founding father was a signal on his part to the radical leftist media that he is accepting their terms. And in exchange the media ignores the ever escalating allegations that Olmert has been involved in criminal activity. More importantly, the media makes light of the fact that by losing the war this summer and adopting a strategy of total capitulation to all external forces Olmert has placed the country in the greatest existential danger in its history. Similarly, the media hides the ideological bankruptcy of Olmert's Kadima party - whose platform of capitulation has failed completely, and ignores the fact that Kadima has no clear constituency.

It is a Faustian bargain these leaders of Israel and the US make when they prefer good press to good policies. What the self-satisfied grins on the faces of the leaders of Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and other "moderate" countries these days clearly signals is that it is a bargain we cannot afford.

Ruth and Nadia Matar established Women For Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green), an activist group of women based in Jerusalem. Their website address is http://www.womeningreen.org

To Go To Top

Posted by Professors for a Strong Israel, December 18, 2006.

The judicial activism instituted by Aharon Barak during his long rule of the High Court has weakened the system of checks and balances in Israel's democratic government. The immense power of the judiciary, together with the weakness of the legislative and the executive branchse, has brought the judges to intervene excessively in matters where they don't belong. Barak reached new heights in his last decisions, which cause severe injury to the ability of Israel to defend herself against her enemies: strict limitations on targeted prevention of terrorist attacks, and obligations on the state to compensate enemy citizens injured in this war of self-defense.

Professors for a Strong Israel calls on the new President of the High Court to give back some of the excessive power accumulated by the judiciary. She can thus help restore the checks and balances that are essential to democracy, as well as the trust in the Court's impartiality that has been lost by large parts of the public.

To contact Professors for a Strong Israel
Tel: 050-551 8940

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 18, 2006.

I certainly believe in prayer; prayer can accomplish great spiritual miracles.

I however, strongly believe that (i) God helps those who help themselves, and (ii) We have to meet Him halfway.

In order for God and the world to know what we are asking for and actively making it come to fruition, in addition to prayer, we must be active visually and vocally.

There is a metaphor story about the man who was stranded in a house during flood. The house was fast filling with water. So the man prayed for God to save him. A man came by and threw the man a rope but the man refused to hand to the rope. He was waiting for God to save him his replied. As the water level was rising inside the house, a man on a boat floated by and offered the man his assistance. He again replied, "thank you, but I am praying for God to save me. " The water level got so high the man could no longer stay inside the house so he climbed to the top of his house roof. A helicopter flew overhead and threw a rope to save him but, again, he replied that God would save him. Alas, the house submerged and the man drowned. When he met up with God, the man asked Him "I prayed! Why you did not save me?" And God replied, "I did; I tried to save you -- three times -- but you (the fool) failed to do your part. "

Believing and praying is important, very important, as it makes one stronger to meet God halfway.

What is most scary is when we received those e-mails asking people to click on and sign a petition, or send in a check, or give a generous donation to some organization at some over-priced dinner event and this is where it all ends with many, way too many.

Jews living in the Diaspora are fortunate ONLY because our brothers and sisters -- Israeli Jews -- are fighting on our behalf in Israel. They are obligated to participate with all their might to ensure that our mutual -- Jewish -- survival endures and continues. If not, after it is way too late, God will say to us that He was there to save us and we failed to meet Him halfway.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, December 18, 2006.

[Editor's Note: For those who have been out in space and don't know about the Neturei Karta: it is a Chasidic sect that doesn't believe that there should be a Jewish state before the Messiah comes. They often show up at demonstrations organized by Arabs, demanding that Israel be destroyed. Until now, it's been sort of embarrassing -- like having a fruitcake klepto uncle. But last week they went beyond outrageous. They showed up at the Holocaust Denial conference in Iran, and broke bread -- well, sipped bottled water -- with the nutter who convened the conference, President Ahmadinejad himself.]

In one of the most remarkable scientific discoveries of all time, a CD-Rom containing the protocols of a high-level secret meeting of NASA, the American space agency, has just been leaked to the media. The content of that meeting is so dramatic that it is likely to change the entire course of human history.

We bring you the highlights of that meeting as a special service to our readers:

Commander Nishtikeit, chief of NASA control: I would like to thank all of you senior military officers and scientists for attending this meeting today on such short notice. NASA control center has decided to release to the nation and world information on what may be the most astounding discovery in all of human history. It seems that ironclad evidence has now been uncovered of the presence on earth of humanoid cyborgs, that is, cybernetic robots that look vaguely human but were constructed in a different galaxy and transported here.

Dr. Trombenick, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: But there have been urban legends about such things for years. There were numerous internet reports that the Governor of California and Reverend Al Sharpton are really cyborgs, but these proved baseless.

Commander Nishtikeit: Yes, we know all about that. But this time we have absolute proof. It seems a bizarre looking space travel vehicle has carried cyborgs into our galaxy and has deposited two or three hundred of them right here on earth.

General Lemeshkeh, US Air Force: What form do these alien contraptions take?

Commander Nishtikeit: That is the most bizarre part of the story. It seems the space ship, which looks amazingly like a large flying bagel, had earlier been beaming up earth images in order to design its cyborgs to look like earthlings. Its tele-imaging processor was focused on several neighborhoods on earth, just east of the East River. Yes, all those people looking for signs of aliens in Roswell, New Mexico, had things wrong. The aliens just wanted their cyborgs to look just like earthlings and to be able to pass as humans, so they designed them to look exactly like ultra-Orthodox Jews from Brooklyn.

Colonel Muttelmessig, US Navy: Are you serious? This is not something out of an old Woody Allen movie?

Commander Nishtikeit: Absolutely serious! The aliens planted these cyborgs on earth dressed like Chareidi ultra-Orthodox Jews, in black coats, with beards and side curls and hats, and called them the Neturei Karta. It seems they picked that name up from listening to broadcast of an earthling in Brooklyn referring to someone as a Notorious Karger, but they botched up the words.

Professor Shikker, Caltech: You mean those Neturei Karta people who have been protesting in favor of destroying Israel and who even attended the Holocaust Denial conference in Iran are in reality humanoid cyborgs placed on earth as part of a devious plan of planetary infiltration?

Commander Nishtikeit: You have put your finger right on it! In a sense, we all should have realized this much sooner. After all, only a group of space aliens could have thought that Nazis with Payot, dressed outwardly as religious Jews, could pull the wool over the eyes of actual humans. Virtually no Jews on earth even recognize the Neturei Karta as Jews, and until our discovery the Jews regarded them as some sort of pagan cult in religious garb. The Neturei Karta members seem to know virtually nothing about Judaism, other than two or three sentences from the Gemara, which they cite obsessively out of context to prove that Israel must be destroyed. A number of terrestrial Rabbis, including Israel's Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger, have initiated efforts to excommunicate members of this pro-terror anti-Semitic Neturei Karta sect. Israeli Rabbis of the "Save the Nation and Land" group have made a similar call. Former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau, a child Holocaust survivor who is currently the Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv declared, "It is something completely insane. Is it conceivable that any Jew, for whatever reason, would support a Holocaust denier in a generation when people with numbers tattooed on their arms are still among us? It is an insanity that has no justification and no explanation.. Even the Eida Hareidit, an anti-Zionist Jerusalem-based council of Hassidic courts and other religious groups which includes the Neturei Karta, was dramatically harsh in its condemnation of the cyborgs who went to Iran to sit beneath the swastikas.

Dr. Trombenick: Is that how you caught on to the alien scheme in the first place?

Commander Nishtikeit: Well, that was part of it. Now that we know the truth, we are kicking ourselves for not seeing all the indicators earlier, showing that the Neturei Karta are really cyborgs from another galaxy. The Jews on earth quickly realized these were not real Jews, but very few figured out that they are not even mammals.

Capyain Shvindeldik: But something here is puzzling. If these space aliens are so technically advanced, how could they have made such a foolish error as constructing robots for placement on earth that look outwardly like religious Jews yet behave like Nazis?

Professor Shtiklech, Princeton University: Maybe, in spite of their ability to undertake inter-galactic travel, they are really not that bright after all? After all, why would creatures having an electronic GPS or Galactic Positioning System need to construct all those crop circles in order to navigate around the Midwest?

Commander Nishtikeit: Well, that is one possibility. Another may be that their instruments were damaged when the Flying Bagel entered earth's atmosphere. We have some evidence that the original design for the cyborgs was for creatures with 6 arms, but their spaceship commander realized that these would be quickly recognized as frauds because they would not know on which arms to put tefillin.

Major Shlumperdik, his deputy: They seem to have made other strategic errors as well. They placed these cyborgs on earth with no visible means of support. So once earthbound, the cyborgs ran to terrorist organizations, neo-nazi groups, and Holocaust Denial conferences in order to raise money to support themselves. One would think that beings from a superior civilization would have figured out a better cover for their robots.

Dr. Trombenick: But if they look so much like actual Orthodox Jews, how can they be distinguished from the real thing?

Commander Nishtikeit: Well, there are several ways. First, when struck upon the head with a large rolling pin, nothing seems to happen to them. The pin just bounces off. Their heads seem to be constructed from some special space alloy into which nothing can permeate. Second, when looking closely at their scalps, one can see that they used to have three antennae there, which were somehow surgically removed before the machines were deposited on earth. In addition, their mid-sections seem to be built with another special alien alloy. That is why they seem to be the only ones on earth whose digestive systems are unaffected by eating large portions of chulent.

General Lemeshkeh: So how should we earthlings communicate or interact with them and try to make friends?

Major Shlumperdik: Well, there is always that rolling pin idea I mentioned earlier. But other than that, the best strategy seems to be to make little tinfoil antennae and glue them on to one's head or hat when approaching these aliens. You know, to show them that we have no hostile intentions and want to welcome them on our planet. But then we need to make clicking space static sounds, demand to be taken to their leader, and ask them to take us for a tour of their spaceship.

Commander Nishtikeit: I wonder if I can get one of them to teach me how to program my DVD machine.

(assembly dismissed)

2. "Rabbi" claims Holocaust dead "deserved it"
by Maurice Chittenden,
The Sunday Times,
December 17, 2006

A British rabbi who angered fellow Jews by speaking at a "Holocaust denial" conference in Iran now says millions did die in gas chambers but may have deserved it.

Ahron Cohen, an Orthodox Jew from Greater Manchester and a leading member of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta movement, sparked new controversy on his return from Tehran by suggesting that God would have saved the victims of the Nazis if they had deserved to live.

Cohen, whose house in Salford was pelted with 1,000 eggs last year because of his extremist views, told The Sunday Times: "There is no question that there was a Holocaust and gas chambers. There are too many eyewitnesses"

"However, our approach is that when one suffers, the one who perpetrates the suffering is obviously guilty but he will never succeed if the victim did not deserve it in one way or another."

"We have to look within to improve and try to better ourselves and remove those characteristics or actions that may have been the cause of the success of the Holocaust."

Cohen's trip to Tehran -- along with four American rabbis from the same sect -- was paid for by the Iranian foreign ministry, which organised the conference entitled "The Holocaust: A Global Vision." They were warmly greeted by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, and had two meetings with him.

Cohen ended his speech to the conference with a prayer "that the underlying cause of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East, namely the state known as Israel, be totally and peacefully dissolved."

The rabbi claimed "learned gentlemen from both sides of the fence" were at the latest conference. They included David Duke, former "imperial wizard" of the Ku Klux Klan.

Cohen said on his return: "President Ahmadinejad is not a man of war. He is a man of peace. I have received criticism for meeting him and attending the conference, but Jewish people are adopting an attitude of criticism from an emotional point of view, not a logical or sensible one."

"We know there was a Holocaust. We lived through it. I had relatives who died in it ... But in no way must the Holocaust be used to further the aims of the Zionist concept."

Rabbi Yehuda Brodie, registrar of the Jewish Ecclesiastical Court for Greater Manchester, said: "Rabbi Cohen has for a long time been ostracised by the vast majority of Jews for associating with and thus giving support and legitimacy to the enemies of Israel and the Jewish nation."

"He represents an insignificant minority. His involvement is a stab in the heart of the Jewish community and of all decent law-abiding people."

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 18, 2006.

For all those who missed last night '60-Minutes' Revisiting The Horrors Of The Holocaust: Millions Of Nazi Documents Are Being Made Available To The Public

In memory of most of my Mom's family and ALL of my father's family, who were all wiped out to never leave a trace,

For all those who TRY denying the Holocaust and claim it never took place,

For the Mel Gibson and Iran's Ahamedinejad-Ahamegenocie, the millions of Muslims and anti-Semites, and the likes,

And for all those who think they can simply wipe history with their propaganda... I suggest reading the following and memorizing it!

"Revisiting The Horrors Of The Holocaust"
Millions Of Nazi Documents Are Being Made Available To The Public
Dec. 17, 2006

The vast archives of Nazi documents stored at Bad Arolsen, Germany, are finally being made available to the public. Scott Pelley traveled there with three Holocaust survivors, who for the first time got to inspect their own records.

CBS -- For the first time, secrets of the Nazi Holocaust that have been hidden away for more than 60 years are finally being made available to the public. We're not talking about a missing filing cabinet - we're talking about thousands of filing cabinets, holding 50 million pages. It's Hitler's secret archive.

The Nazis were famous for record keeping but what 60 Minutes found ran from the bizarre to the horrifying. This Holocaust history was discovered by the Allies in dozens of concentration camps, as Germany fell in the spring of 1945.

As correspondent Scott Pelley reports, the documents were taken to a town in the middle of Germany, called Bad Arolsen, where they were sorted, filed and locked way, never to be seen by the public until now.

The storerooms are immense: 16 miles of shelves holding the stories of 17 million victims not only Jews, but slave laborers, political prisoners and homosexuals. To open the files is to see the Holocaust staring back like it was yesterday: strange pink Gestapo arrest warrants as lethal as a death sentence, jewelry lost as freedom ended at the gates of an extermination camp. Time stopped here in 1945.

Pelley walked through the evidence with chief archivist Udo Jost. He showed 60 Minutes a list of 1,000 prisoners saved by a factory owner who told the Nazis he needed the prisoners labor. This was the list of Oskar Schindler, made famous by the Steven Spielberg movie.

"Here are the 700 men and the 300 women whose names were on Schindler's list," Jost explains.

The 60 Minutes team also found the file of "Frank, Annaliese Marie," better known as Anne Frank. It's her paper trail from Amsterdam to Bergen-Belsen, where she died at the age of 15.

But most of the names here are of unknown people. While the Nazis did not write down the names of those executed in the gas chambers at places like Auschwitz, they did keep detailed records of millions of others who died in the camps. Their names are listed in notebooks labeled "Totenbuch," which means "death book." The names are written here, single-spaced, in meticulous handwriting.

"Here we see the cause of death: executed. And you can see, every two minutes they shot one prisoner," Jost explains.

"So they shot a prisoner every two minutes for a little over an hour and a half?" Pelley asks.

"Yes. Now look at the date: it's the 20th of April. That was Adolf Hitler's birthday. And this was a birthday present, a gift for the Führer. That's the bureaucracy of the devil," Jost says.

The devil is in the details - the smallest details. Pelley and the 60 Minutes crew were amazed to see the Nazis kept records of head lice.

"You can see the names and numbers of each prisoner, and the amount of lice that were found," Jost says.

The Nazis couldn't have disease spreading among slave laborers. "You can see he was a perfectionist. He even put down the size of the lice. Large, small or medium-sized lice," Jost comments about the Nazi lice inspector.

Paul Shapiro helped pry open the archive. He's Director of Holocaust Studies of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington D.C.

"I'm curious. Why did the Nazis keep all these records? If they were gonna murder these people anyway, why keep the paperwork?" Pelley asks.

"Because they wanted to show they were getting the job done. So, in terms of people whose destiny was to be murdered, recording how well that was being done was very important," Shapiro explains.

And those records make up the largest Holocaust archive anywhere. Run by the Red Cross, the International Tracing Service was set up after the war to trace lost family members. Survivors could write for information, but there was a backlog of 400,000 unanswered letters. And neither survivors nor scholars got past the lobby.

"What was the stated reason for keeping these documents out of the public eye for more than 60 years?" Pelley asks.

"A respect for privacy of individuals was the most-often cited reason," Shapiro says. "On the one hand, you had governments stating 'We're protecting people's privacy.' And on the other hand, you had those very people saying 'No, no, we want the material to be open.'"

When Germany, last spring, became the last of 11 countries to agree, they began the process of opening the archive. It will take about a year. But 60 Minutes brought three men to Bad Arolsen for an advance look.

Walter Feiden, Miki Schwartz and Jack Rosenthal are the first Holocaust survivors ever in the archive.

Schwartz, of San Diego, was 14 when he watched his parents herded to the gas chambers at Auschwitz and then, later, was forced to sign himself in at Buchenwald.

Schwartz came across some documents bearing his handwriting.

60 Minutes asked the Red Cross to find all the documents for these three survivors. There were plenty of surprises, including a mysterious reprieve.

"This is a transport list for prisoners leaving Buchenwald and going to a camp called 'Dora,'" Pelley remarks. "You know what Dora was?"

"Yes," says Schwartz. "Some sort of a fabrication of armaments."

The arms fabricated at Dora were the V-1 and V-2 rockets that rained on London.

"And the story of that place is, hardly anybody got out of there alive. Look at your name. It's on the transport list to go there. And somebody's drawn a line straight through the middle of it. They took you off the list. Did you know until this moment that you were headed to Dora?" Pelley asks.

"No. Never, never, never, wow," Schwartz says. He had no idea why he was taken off the list. Of 50 people named, he was one of just two with a lifeline straight through his name.

"I'm sort of, yes I'm shaking. I'm scared right now," Schwartz says.

"Right now, it makes me think back, and I'm living like there is this 14-year-old youngster and they wanted to kill him," Schwartz says. "I don't know why, I did not ever do anything, any harm to anybody. I think I should have a middle name, my middle name to be Mr. Lucky."

Walter Feiden, of New York, was 13 and a prisoner in a Nazi ghetto, where both his parents died. Later, he too signed into Buchenwald.

Among the documents was the paper Feiden signed. "Hey, you're right. I had better handwriting then than I have now, but, yes," he remarks.

"Who was the boy who signed this card?" Pelley asks.

"A young, actually, teenager who had gone through a great deal, become less trusting of what's told to him. ... But glad to be alive. You got to overcome it," Feiden says.

Asked what he has to overcome, Feiden tells Pelley, "The breaking down. Because that's one thing we never did in camp. We never wanted to break down in front of some of SS men, and give them the pleasure of seeing us breaking down."

"How do you stop yourself from breaking down?" Pelley asks.

"I chew my lips. Have you noticed that the lower lip..." Feiden explains. It's what he did in the camps. "Oh, yes and you have to swallow after that. That helps also," he adds.

A card carried his barracks number, "66." That number alone opened his memory. In Block 66, Feiden says a thousand people lived.

"Oh yeah, that's correct. That's correct. Oh, oh, my God, what just popped into my mind. Between each block there was a trough you could urinate in. And I can see it now: the block manager, whatever, felt that this person is just about dead. We put these near-dead people into that trough that other people urinated into, and let them die in those things. The brutality of it, you know?" Feiden recalls.

Jack Rosenthal, of New York, arrived with his family at Auschwitz. During the selection process after their arrival, Jack and his uncle were sent to a barracks while his mother and five sisters and brothers went straight to the gas chambers and the ovens.

"I remember that night," Rosenthal says. "There was a little window in the barracks where we were. He told me: "Look out the window. What do you see?' and I said 'The sky is aflame.' The sky is burning, you know. You saw the flames licking the sky. The stench was terrible. You smelled burning flesh."

His family burned that night. Yet, incredibly, 60 Minutes found the Nazis had bothered to create a form to keep track of Jack's mail at Buchenwald.

"But as you can see, there are no records of letters. You didn't..." Pelley remarks.

"Who was gonna send me mail? I got news for you, if I would have died in Buchenwald, nobody would ever shed a tear for me, because my, my whole family was wiped out before then. We were a family of eight. And I'm the sole survivor."

American soldiers liberated Jack in 1945. On a personal effects card that he had signed at Buchenwald, there was reference to a number: A11832.

Asked if he's seen that number before, Jack tells Pelley "I see it every time. You wanna see it?"

A11832 is the inmate number the Nazis tattooed on Jack's arm. "It's there. And when I die, they shouldn't cover up my arm. They should keep it like this, because when the good Lord will see this, I hope he's gonna put me front row, center. Because I deserve it," he says.

These men were first to see their documents, but the Bad Arolsen archive is being digitally scanned, to be distributed to research centers. Other survivors may yet discover unknown history still waiting to be written.

Asked if he's glad he looked back at the documents, Miki Schwartz tells Pelley, "Definitely. I feel like I learned about me, at least, what happened and specifically what I'm glad about, for those people who said the Holocaust didn't happen, like the president of Iran. If they have any questions about it, please come to Bad Arolsen and check it out for themselves."

"Millions Of Nazi Docs Opened To Public: 16 Miles Of Files In Germany Available For Research After 50 Years Of Tight Security"


Bad Arolsen, Germany, Nov. 18, 2006

Before a clerk of the U.S. Army Judge Advocate's office, describing the furnaces at Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp where he had been a prisoner until a few weeks previously.

"I saw with my own eyes how thousands of Jews were gassed daily and thrown by the hundreds into pits where Jews were burning," he said.

"I saw how little children were killed with sticks and thrown into the fire," he continued. Blood flowed in gutters, and "Jews were thrown in and died there"; more were taken off trucks and cast alive into the flames.

Today the Holocaust is known in dense and painful detail. Yet the young Russian's words leap off the faded, onionskin page with a rawness that transports the reader back to April 1945, when World War II was still raging and the world still knew little about gas chambers, genocide and the Final Solution.

The two pages of testimony, in a file randomly plucked off a shelf, are among millions of documents held by the International Tracing Service, or ITS, an arm of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

This vast archive -- 16 miles of files in six nondescript buildings in a German spa town -- contains the fullest records of Nazi persecutions in existence. But because of concerns about the victims' privacy, the ITS has kept the files closed to the public for half a century, doling out information in minimal amounts to survivors or their descendants on a strict need-to-know basis.

This policy, which has generated much ill-feeling among Holocaust survivors and researchers, is about to change. In May, after years of pressure from the United States and survivors' groups, the 11 countries overseeing the archive agreed to unseal the files for scholars as well as victims and their families. In recent weeks the ITS' interim director, Jean-Luc Blondel, has been to Washington, The Hague and to the Buchenwald memorial with a new message of cooperation with other Holocaust institutions and governments.

IT has allowed Paul Shapiro, of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, to look at the files and has also given The Associated Press extensive access on condition no names from the files are revealed unless they have been identified in other sources.

"This is powerful stuff," said Shapiro, leafing through the file containing the Russian's statement and some 200 other testimonies that take the reader into the belly of Hitler's death machine -- its camps, inmates, commandants, executioners and trusted inmates used as low-level guards and known as kapos.

"If you sat here for a day and read these files, you'd get a picture of what it was really like in the camps, how people were treated. Look -- names and names of kapos, guards -- the little perpetrators," he said.

Moved to this town in central Germany after the war, the files occupy a former barracks of the Waffen-SS, the Nazi Party's elite force. They are stored in long corridors of drab cabinets and neatly stenciled binders packed into floor-to-ceiling metal shelves. Their index cards alone fill three large rooms.

Mandated to trace missing persons and help families reunite, ITS has allowed few people through its doors, and has responded to requests for information on wartime victims with minimal data, even when its files could have told more.

It may take a year or more for the files to open fully. Until then, access remains tightly restricted. "We will be ready any time. We would open them today, if we had the go-ahead," said Blondel.

When the archive is finally available, researchers will have their first chance to see a unique collection of documents on concentration camps, slave labor camps and displaced persons. From toneless lists and heartrending testimony, a skilled historian may be able to stitch together a new perspective on the 20th century's darkest years from the viewpoint of its millions of victims.

"The overall story is pretty well established, but many details will be filled in," said Yehuda Bauer, professor of Holocaust Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

"There is a great deal of very interesting material on a very large number of concentration camps that we really don't know much about," he said. "It may contain surprises. We don't know. It has material that nobody's ever seen."

A visitor to the archive comes into direct contact with the bureaucracy of mass murder.

In a bound ledger with frayed binding, a copy of a list of names appears of Jews rounded up in Holland and transported to the death camps. Buried among the names is "Frank, Annelise M," her date of birth (June 12, 1929), Amsterdam address before she went into hiding (Merwedeplein 37) and the date she was sent to a concentration camp (Sept. 3, 1944).

Frank, Annelise M. is Anne Frank.

She was on one of the last trains to Germany before the Nazi occupation of Holland crumbled. Six months later, aged 15, she died an anonymous death, one of some 35,000 casualties of typhus that ravaged the Bergen-Belsen camp. After the war, "The Diary of Anne Frank," written during her 25 months hiding in a tiny apartment with seven others, would become the most widely read book ever written on the Holocaust.

But most of the lives recorded in Bad Arolsen are known to none but their families.

They are people like Cornelis Marinus Brouwenstijn, a Dutchman who vanished into the Nazi gulag at age 22 for illegally possessing a radio. In a plain manila envelope are his photo, a wallet, some snapshots, and a naughty typewritten joke about women in the army.

After the war, his family repeatedly wrote to the Red Cross asking about him. In 1949, his parents received a terse form letter saying he died sometime between April 19 and May 3, 1945, in the area of a German labor camp. The personal effects, however, remained in Bad Arolsen, and with the family long deceased, there is no one left to apply for their return.

To critics who accuse them of being tightfisted with their information, the Red Cross and ITS counter that they have to abide by German privacy laws and protect the reputations of victims whether alive or dead. They say the files may contain unsubstantiated allegations against victims, and that opening up to researchers would distract ITS from its main task of providing documentation to survivors or victims' relatives.

One area of study that will benefit from the ITS files is the "Lebensborn" program, in which children deemed to have the "proper genes" were adopted or even kidnapped to propagate the Aryan master race of Hitler's dreams.

Another subject is the sheer scope of the Holocaust system. The files will support new research from other sources showing that the network of concentration camps, ghettos and labor camps was nearly three times more extensive than previously thought.

Postwar historians estimated about 5,000 to 7,000 detention sites. But after the Cold War ended, records began pouring out of the former communist nations of East Europe. More sites were disclosed in the last six years in claims by 1.6 million people for slave labor reparations from a $6.6 billion fund financed by the German government and some 3,000 industries.

"We have identified somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000 camps and ghettos of various categories," said Geoffrey Megargee of the Holocaust Museum in Washington, who is compiling a seven-volume encyclopedia of these detention centers.

The archive has some 3.4 million files of DPs -- Displaced Persons. They include names such as John Demjanjuk and Viorel Trifa, who immigrated to the United States and later became internationally known because their role in the Holocaust came into question.

Between 1933 to 1945, the Nazi persecution grew to assembly-line proportions, slaughtering 6 million Jews and an equal number of Gypsies, homosexuals, mental patients, political prisoners and other "undesirables." Tens of millions were conscripted as forced laborers.

To operate history's greatest slaughter, the Nazis created a bureaucracy that meticulously recorded the arrest, movement and death of each victim. Sometimes even the lice plucked from heads in concentration camps were counted.

But as the pace of genocide stepped up, unknown numbers were marched directly from trains to gas chambers without being registered. In the war's final months, the bookkeeping collapsed, though the extermination continued.

What documents survived Nazi attempts to destroy them were collected by the Allies to help people find missing relatives. The first documents were sent in 1946 to Bad Arolsen, and the administration was handed over to the Red Cross in 1955.

Some 50 million pages -- scraps of paper, transport lists, registration books, labor documents, medical and death registers -- make reference to 17.5 million individuals caught up in the machinery of persecution, displacement and death.

Over the years, the International Tracing Service has answered 11 million requests to locate family members or provide certificates supporting pension claims or reparations. It says it has a 56 percent rate of success in tracing the requested name.

But the workload has been overwhelming. Two years ago it had a backlog of nearly half a million unanswered queries. Director Blondel says the number was whittled down to 155,000 this summer and will disappear by the spring of 2008. New queries have slowed to just 700 a month.

One of ITS' critics is Sabine Stein, archivist at the Buchenwald concentration camp 150 miles from Bad Arolsen. She says the archive's refusal to share its files has caused heartbreak to countless survivors and their descendants.

For instance, in 1989, Emilia Janikowska asked ITS to trace her father, Ludwig Kaminski, a coal miner from Poland who was never heard from again after his arrest in 1939. It took more than three years to send her a standard form reporting Kaminski had died in Buchenwald Dec. 1, 1939.

But there was more she could have been told.

Documents copied by the U.S. Army before they went to Bad Arolsen, which were seen by AP at Buchenwald, include mention of Kaminski. They say he was prisoner No. 8578, that he had arrived in Buchenwald six weeks earlier with 600 other Poles and had been placed in Camp 2. The known history of Buchenwald says Camp 2 was a wooden barracks and four big tents, jammed with 1,000 Poles and Vienna Jews. Dozens of inmates died from the cold that winter. The cause of Kaminski's death was pneumonia.

No one ever told his daughter any of this.

"We had no news from my father since the moment he was arrested," Janikowska said when contacted at her home in Krakow, Poland. She now wants more information for a compensation request.

Archivist Stein says: "Former inmates and their families want to see some tangible part of their history; they want to tell their stories," she said. "What I find most frustrating is that they have all these documents and they are just sitting on them."

Earlier this month, ITS went some way to make amends, delivering a full inventory of its records on Buchenwald and promising to give priority in searching for 1,000 names Stein had requested.

Compounding the delay in releasing the files is the cumbrous makeup of the governing committee. Any decision on their future requires the assent of all 11 member nations -- Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Greece, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and the United States.

Last May's agreement to open the archive stipulates that it will remain off-limits until formal ratification by the 11 governments. After that, each of the 11 countries can have a digital copy of the files and decide who has access to it.

But some delegations are worried the process will take too long, at a time when aged survivors are dying every day.

"What victims of these crimes fear the most is that when they disappear -- and it's happening very fast now -- no one will remember the names of the families they lost," said Shapiro of the Washington museum, who was a delegate to the talks.

"It's not a diplomatic timetable, and not an archivist's timetable, but the actuarial table. If we don't succeed in having this material public while there are still survivors, then we failed," he said.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 18, 2006.


Hillel Halkin still turns every NY Sun article into propaganda for his pet scheme that Israel withdraw from most of Judea-Samaria. He argues Israel needs it to prevent Israel from being overwhelmed demographically. It is not a real menace. I'd find Mr. Halkin's argument more sincere if he thought to get the Arabs to withdraw from Israel, in exchange.

What he does, in each piece, is to list all the risks, but then suggest that Israel chance its national survival. How imprudent!

This time, he fastens on the current truce as a start for withdrawal. He says the danger is that the Arabs of Gaza would continue to smuggle arms in, in preparation for war. Just a "danger?" It is a certainty. This is what they do. They have announced they intend to go to war. Their whole society is organized to be fanatical about fighting the Jewish state.

He says that the US and Europe would guarantee Israel that they would supervise the demilitarization of the areas withdrawn from, and they would let Israel retain the rest. That is a fairy tale. Imagine, depending on the very countries whose foreign ministries detest Israel and are letting enemy areas arm, to disarm them! All those countries want Israel to withdraw totally.

Jews must not depend on gentiles but safeguard their own security. They should annex desired parts of their homeland as the Mandate recognizes they are entitled to do.


One of the signs of Israeli victory in that war, according to PM Olmert, is that Hizbullah's rockets were destroyed. The resulting ceasefire, however, let Hizbullah completely rearm (Ibid). Therefore, Israel did not win. A war isn't won until the subsequent arrangements confirm that one's objectives were met.

ISRAEL DEFEATED IN GAZA No, Israeli forces met no reverses in Gaza. But their withdrawal from Gaza without having achieved their objectives, and leaving the enemy free to replace the destroyed weapons, in favor of a ceasefire, is as much a defeat for Israel as was the withdrawal and ceasefire in Lebanon. In Lebanon, too, none of Israel's declared objectives were attained, except perhaps temporarily.

In Lebanon, Israel's confused leadership and lack of preparedness exposed a vulnerability of Israeli forces that encourages the Arabs to challenge Israel again. Israel's deterrent is gone. The Arabs are rearming in both places. When they renew the war, again, perhaps in months, they will have proved this analysis correct (IMRA, 11/30 from Ehud Yatom).


The ruling family has most of the power, but there is a parliament. The elections pitted Shiites and liberals against Sunnis. Islamists registered the most impressive vote in that country, host of a US fleet (IMRA, 11/27).

The US thought it could count on that supposedly liberal Arab state as an ally. Alas, the Islamists are gaining power in many places. There is no comprehensive strategy against them. Some countries, such as Russia, China, and the EU, protect them.


The Arabs continue to demand a suicidal concession from Israel, that all the descendants of refugees be permitted to crowd into Israel. Therefore, no matter how much land Israel were to cede to the Arabs, the Arabs still would complain. (Complaining is what jihadists do, with their false sense of grievance as if those imperialists are the victims.) The rest of the world is likely to urge Israel to make concessions on that, "for peace" (IMRA, 11/27). The refugees were defeated aggressors bent on declared genocide. Why should they be let in? Descendants are not refugees. Why let them in? The Palestinian Arabs and the Arab states created the refugee problem in a failed attempt to destroy Israel, so let them solve it!

The requested concession by the beleagured Jewish state would not bring peace. It would enable the Arabs to seize Israel and purge its Jews. The requested demands would be a form of appeasement of imperialists. Such appeasement usually brings war.

OLMERT'S NEW APPEASEMENT He offered to free "numerous" terrorist prisoners, if the P.A. releases the one Israeli soldier it holds. He said this would prove that Israel intends friendship (Arutz-7, 11/27).

It would prove his folly, since half the prisoners released before have resumed terrorism. Olmert's premises are false. Israel doesn't have to prove peaceful intentions to the Arab aggressors. Yes, they accuse Israel of wanting war, but that is propaganda, not something that Israel is obliged to disprove by weakening itself with a lopsided release of dangerous enemies.

Let the aggressors prove that they now want peace. Even after real peace, the Arab prisoners should not be released to disturb it. They are not POWs but war criminals.

Since the P.A. is devoting its whole society to war, it is absurd to think they might now make peace. Islam thinks it is winning. I agree. The Muslims commit aggression, because that is what jihad is. It doesn't matter what Israel does.

They seized the Israeli soldier in order to induce a lopsided trade. Olmert confirms the efficacy of their tactic. He guarantees further Arab attempts to kidnap Israeli soldiers. All over the world, terrorists find that kidnapping produces income or concessions.


The Faculty for Israeli-Palestinian peace petitioned Israel against killing civilians in Gaza and fighting disproportionately. As if to provide balance, a muted statement was included condemning all violence and urging that the P.A. declare it does not seek to destroy Israel. (Hamas declarations and the PLO Covenant vow to destroy Israel.)

The petition omitted mention of the rockets that Gaza Arabs have been firing against Israel, which terrorism drew Israeli counter-fire. The petition complains about the counter-fire, without showing Israel's justification. That is not fair.

The petition did not state what would be a "proportionate response to the constant shelling of Israeli towns. ("Proportionate" has a specific meaning in international law of war. Israel abides by its meaning. Israel's critics don't understand it. I've discussed this, before.)

The petition would deny Israel any defense against terrorists firing from amid civilians at civilians. It petition would shelter war criminals! Unethical (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/27).


"The cease-fire offers a period of calm for our fighters to recover and prepare for our final goal of evacuating Palestine," said Abu Abir, spokesman for the Popular Resistance Committees, a Hamas-allied terror organization in the Gaza Strip responsible for many of the recent rocket attacks against Israeli communities." (They are arming for it.)

PM Olmert hopes that the ceasefire would lead to peace (IMRA, 11/27.)

Guess Olmert does not know what the Arabs intend to use the ceasefire for. Neither does he know that Islam considers Jewish sovereignty and rule over Arabs in an area once conquered by Islam, an affront. Islam considers itself entitled to rule all other religions. Hence its unrelenting, anti-Zionist war of more than 80 years.


Ronald Olive wrote a book critical of Jonathan Pollard. Only one charge was brought against Pollard. At his sentencing, Sec. of Defense Weinberger gave the judge a 130-page memo, much of which was classified and denied to the defense counsel, despite their having security clearance! Olive admits that he did not see the classified material, which would be a crime for him to receive and for anyone to divulge to him. Presumably he has to rely upon the public record. Nevertheless, he accuses Pollard of crimes not on the public record. His book is libelous.

Prosecutors made a careful damage assessment and did not charge Pollard with damage to the US. Olive fabricated extensive damage assessments (IMRA, 11/28).

One would wish that government officials would cite the record and decry the libel, instead of letting the libel stand uncorrected. They are covering up pro-Arab policies to which our current war can be traced. They are phony patriots.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, December 18, 2006.

Alon Dahan is a graduate student at the Hebrew University in "Jewish Thought" (not to be confused with a B-film actor in Israel with the same name). He also may well be the very best columnist in the Hebrew media. His features appear on the web site of Maariv, Israel's second daily, regularly. While he writes on a number of subjects, he specializes in exposing the anti-Semitic foundations of Israel's radical Left. Unfortunately his articles are not available in English as far as I know.

What may well be his very best piece yet came out Dec 13, 06 at

I am trying to find someone to translate the entire piece but let me give you a synopsis here:

Against the outrage everyone is feeling about the Iranian Holocaust Denial and the growth of neo-nazism around the world, Dahan writes, one must be aware of the nazi roots of Post-Zionism and Israeli leftist anti-Semitism. Such roots go back as far as the 1940s, and then "Canaanite" movement in Israel in the 1950s. The Canaanite movement was a movement of "Post-Judaism" that argued that the new emerging "Israeli" would be a new nationality altogether, composed of ex-Jews and ex-Arabs, with no ties to the Jewish Diaspora, practicing no religion, Hebrew-speaking gentiles of pure Semitic "blood". The movement was popular in the 50s among many clueless Israeli "intellectuals." It never managed to recruit any Arab members.

The leading survivor of the early "Canaanite" movement today is Uri Avnery, a fanatic anti-Zionist and anti-Semite, whose Bash-Israel pro-Hamas articles appear everywhere one can find anti-Semitism, on the Right and the Left. Avnery is a regular on the neo-Stalinist pro-terror Counterpunch web magazine.

What is not well known is that:

1. Uri Avnery's original name was Helmut Osterman (Dahan at first writes Joseph Osterman but then corrects himself in the talkbacks), born in Germany, and among the two leading figures in the "Canaanites"; and

2. Avnery/Osterman was an admirer of Nazism.

In 1941, Avnery wrote a pro-Nazi article in the Paris journal Shem, whose contents were later revealed by the Hebrew University Orientalist Prof. Yehoshua Porat in his book Shelach V'At B'yado, page 182. Herr Avnery was also fond of using the concept of "Hebrew Blood" in a racial sense, in the same way as Hitler spoke of German Aryan Blood. In those days he was anti-Marxist, although today has no problem with associating himself with Stalinists. Back then he repeatedly expressed admiration for the great job Hitler was doing in remolding and renewing the German nation. Avnery was an open admirer of Nazi propagandist Alfred Rosenberg, adopted the latter's rhetoric, and repeatedly declared that he saw himself as the Hebrew Alfred Rosenberg (which, in a sense, he is). Avnery ran a tiny "journal" called the Struggle, an obvious imitation of the name Mein Kampf. He ran his own one-man party, whose official salute was a Nazi raised hand.

Avnery in those days advocated creation of a Semitic "race" that would lead the Middle East to greatness when combined with a new Hebraic non-Jewish culture. As such, he advocated the end of the Jewish people as a national entity and expansion of the new race into its "Semitic Lebensraum" (yes, he used that Nazi concept!). He later wrote of his dream for a new and better Hitler emerging, an anti-Nazi Hitler who will lead the struggle for peace and will promote the Palestinian cause (well, at least he got THAT part right!).

Avnery then left for Israel/Palestine. In the 60s he ran a semi-pornographic magazine called Haolam Hazeh, as the Israeli Larry Flynt. The magazine also did some scandal mongering. Avnery later ran for parliament and got elected by a sort of protest vote, the same sorts of people who otherwise might vote for Homer Simpson or Cher.

[In the 1960s Avnery wrote "Israel without Zionists", the Bible of Israeli self-hating leftism. Ever since, he has been the Reverend Moon of Israel's far-leftist "Post-Zionists" and he runs the small and violently anti-Israel "Gush Shalom" organization. He is friends with Mikey Lerner and appears in Tikkun. When his own mother died, she disinherited him and declared in her will that her son is a traitor.]

Dahan then goes on and discusses how Avnerism has become entrenched among the Hate-Israel far Leftists in Israeli academia, among the "New Historians." Among those he specifically names are Ilan Pappe (Haifa U), Moshe Zimmerman (Hebrew U), and Uri Ram (Ben Gurion U). He cites Prof. Shlomo Aharonson in describing the anti-Semitic ideological foundations of these pseudo-scholars and their need to trivialize and erase all memory of the Holocaust. He describes Ilan Pappe as a Jewish Holocaust Denier (his words), as are, by implication, all those with similar points of view.

The full article is far more detailed. As I say, if I can obtain an English translation, I will post it.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Professor Eugene Narrett, December 18, 2006.

This article comes from Middle East Media Research Institute -- MEMRI (www.thememriblog.org). It was written by Yigal Carmon, who is President MEMRI. He presented it at Yad Vashem; it is entitled "Holocaust Denial: Paving the Way to Genocide"

MEMRI can be contacted by email at memri@memri.org

This is a fine work of research as always. I would add that the claim of the Jews to all of Israel is not contingent on the Shoah at all: it is the ancient and historic (amply documented in the records of other cultures, e.g., Egypt and Assyria, Babylon and Persia) homeland of the Jewish people and this, regardless of European behavior, is the basis of the Jewish inalienable claim to the land, period.

"The persistent Holocaust denial of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad raises a vital question that needs to be addressed: What function does this denial serve in the ideology of the Iranian regime and in its strategy? The answer to this question bears cardinal importance to the future of the State of Israel.

"When we, at the Middle East Media Research Institute, collect and analyze the statements made by Ahmadinejad and others in the Iranian regime, we can distinguish two major goals, both of which lead to the same conclusion: the Iranian regime's Holocaust denial is not a manifestation of irrational hatred, but a premeditated and cold-blooded instrument to achieve its goals."

Denial of Israel's Legitimacy

The first of these goals is the attempt to deny any legitimacy to the creation and continued existence of the State of Israel as a safe haven for the Jews after the Holocaust. In order to achieve this goal, he proclaims that no Holocaust occurred, and that if Jews were indeed harmed in World War II -- a claim that requires thorough and "objective" research -- this was no different than the experience of others in World War II. At any rate, Ahmadinejad and other top Iranian officials claim that this "myth" cannot justify the establishment of Israel in Palestine.

Elimination of the Zionist Entity, i.e. Israel

The second goal is -- as often proclaimed by Ahmadinejad -- to "wipe Israel off the map." His Holocaust denial is therefore planned, intentional, and premeditated. He is aware that as long as the world remembers the Holocaust, it will resist any new attempt to perpetrate another genocide against the Jews. Thus, eradicating the memory of the Holocaust is essential in order to achieve his goal.


In order for Ahmadinejad to bring his plans to fruition, however, he has to demonize the Jews and the State of Israel. Demonization is a necessary precondition for genocide. As we well know, Hitler first engaged in a major campaign of demonization of the Jews before actually murdering them en masse. Ahmadinejad and the Iranian regime are taking the same path, and are conducting a similar virulent, antisemitic campaign of demonization.

To this end, Iranian state-controlled television produces various TV series dedicated to the demonization of Jews. These include classic blood libels, depicting Jews as using the blood of non-Jewish children to bake their Passover matzos, and as kidnapping non-Jewish children to steal their body parts. Jews are reduced to sub-human levels, depicted as pigs and apes. They are accused of persecuting the Prophet Muhammad in voodoo ritualistic scenes, and as tormenting a historic figure reminiscent of Jesus on the Cross. All these TV series exist alongside others that deny the Holocaust.

Again, it should be stressed that all these phenomena are interrelated, and are state-directed at the highest level. It is most indicative that Ahmadinejad's first public appearance after coming to power was made before television producers.

All this is done in order to achieve the goal of demonization of Jews and Israel, which, as I mentioned earlier, is vital for their elimination. However, it is not possible to demonize a people as long as it is viewed as a victim of the Holocaust. Therefore, as long as the Jews are perceived as victims of the Holocaust, this demonization cannot take root. Holocaust denial is thus vital, in order to wipe out the image of the Jews as victims.

This is the reason why these three elements -- Holocaust denial, the elimination of the State of Israel, and demonization of the Jews -- are constantly present in statements by Ahmadinejad and other senior Iranian officials.

Let us hear the Iranians in their own words. True, many of these statements have already circulated separately in the media. But hearing them together, in the context I have just outlined, will enable us to understand their function and significance within the ideology and strategy of the Iranian regime.

In his well-known speech at the Iranian "World Without Zionism" conference on October 23, 2005, Ahmadinejad laid out his views on the State of Israel. It is an absolute evil, a tool in the hands of the West to dominate the Muslims. In reply to those who ask if it is indeed possible to bring about a world without America and Zionism, he says: "You had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and can surely be achieved."

Later, he cites Khomeini: "The Imam said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.'" Commenting on this statement by his spiritual mentor, Ahmadinejad says: "This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise." Later he adds, "Very soon this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will be purged from the center of the Islamic world -- and this is attainable." This speech clearly announced the ultimate goal: the elimination of Israel.

At the Organization of the Islamic Conference meeting, which took place in Mecca in early December 2005, Ahmadinejad made statements that explicitly tied this goal with Holocaust denial: "Some European countries are insisting on saying that Hitler burned millions of oppressed Jews in crematoria. They insist so much on this issue that if someone proves the opposite, they convict him and throw him into prison. Although we do not accept this claim, let's assume that it is true, and we ask the Europeans: Does the killing of oppressed Jews by Hitler [justify] their support for the regime that is occupying Jerusalem?..."

This statement by Ahmadinejad is telling. The implication is that the Holocaust is the only justification for the existence of Israel. The line, therefore, is twofold: a) the Holocaust is a myth, and b) even if it is true, it cannot justify Israel's existence. In either case, Ahmadinejad's primary obsession is not with the Holocaust, but with Israel's very existence. If the Holocaust gets in the way of achieving this goal, it must be denied.

Later on in the same speech, he adds: "If you [Europeans] think that you committed an injustice against the Jews, why must the Muslims and the Palestinians pay the price for it? All right, you oppressed [the Jews]. So put some of Europe at the disposal of this Zionist regime..." Again, the guiding principle is that Israel cannot exist. Holocaust denial is important to Ahmadinejad because the Holocaust lends moral justification to the creation and continued existence of the State of Israel.

In the speech you saw earlier on the DVD, from December 14, 2005, Ahmadinejad once again linked these two elements together. He calls the Holocaust a "myth," but also adds: "If you [Europeans] are correct in saying that you killed six million Jews in World War II... If you committed a crime, it is only appropriate that you place a piece of your land at their disposal -- in Europe, America, Canada, or Alaska..." Once again, Holocaust denial is important to Ahmadinejad first and foremost as a means of de-legitimizing Israel's existence, and since the goal is the elimination of Israel, the speech includes the necessary element of demonization as well.

Then the Iranian president takes pains to portray the Jews as the true oppressors, and not as victims. "Zionism itself is a Western ideology and a colonialist idea, with secular ideas and fascist methods, which was founded by the English. So far, with the help and direct guidance of America and part of Europe, [Zionism] is slaughtering the Muslims." Later on in the speech, he says: "An important question that the Western countries and media must answer clearly is: What crime did they [i.e. the West] commit at that time [i.e. WWII] that the Zionists are not committing today? In essence, Zionism is a new Fascism..."

This, therefore, is Ahmadinejad's truth: the Zionists are the true oppressors and murderers. But while at times Ahmadinejad claims to differentiate between Zionists and Jews in general, in truth, this campaign of demonization uses and abuses history to depict Jews throughout the ages -- not Zionists alone -- as oppressors and murderers.

As you have just seen in the DVD, the true Holocaust, as portrayed by Ahmadinejad, was committed by the Jews: for example, by the Jewish king of Yemen, Yosef Dhu Nuwas, who, he claims, burned the Christians in the early days of Christianity, and by the Iranian Jews, as described in the Book of Esther. Moreover, Jews in modern times are continuing their murderous ways: killing large numbers of Christian children in London and Paris -- again, as you saw with your own eyes -- in order to procure blood for Passover matzos.

To sum up, Holocaust denial is an inextricable part of demonization, on the way to the final goal: the elimination of Israel.

All these elements figure prominently in the identity and works of those invited by the Iranian regime to the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. First and foremost is their explicit opposition to Israel's existence. This is why members of the anti-Zionist Jewish sect of Neturei Karta were invited, following the ongoing, strong ties maintained by the Iranian regime with them. Then comes the demonization of Jews in order to justify the agenda of elimination. Thus the invitation of Holocaust deniers, such as Frederick Toben, who not only denies the Holocaust, but also claims that the Jews intentionally spread the AIDS virus in the U.S.

In essence, the speech made by Ahmadinejad at the Holocaust denial conference best illustrates the role of Holocaust denial in the ideology and strategy of the Iranian regime. He begins his speech by addressing the Holocaust deniers participating in the conference: "Iran is your home, and here you can express your opinions freely, in a friendly manner and in a free atmosphere." Then, without batting an eyelid, he adds: "The life-curve of the Zionist regime has begun its descent, and it is now on a downward slope towards its fall... I tell you now... the Zionist regime will be wiped out, and humanity will be liberated."

To Go To Top

Posted by Carrie Devorah, December 17, 2006.

Carrie Devorah is an international award-winning photojournalist, covered news, sports, celebrities and everyday superstars in Europe who is now based in Washington, D.C. Devorah, a CCIA, MPI, DRS and CA-BSIS, is a member of the National Press Club, Senate Press Photographer's Gallery, National Federation of Press Women, IRE, Equine Photographers Network, National Union of Journalists (UK), White House News Photographers Association and is MPDC credentialed. Contact her at devorahcarrie@hotmail.com.

For other photos of this and other events, go to her website at http://www.carriedevorah.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Shamrak, December 17, 2006.

My comments are in italics in parens.

Dear Haters of Israel

Please, just ask yourself a question and be honest: If Arabs get control over Judea, Samaria, Gaza and even all Jerusalem would it be enough for them to end terror and let Israel live in peace?

The long-term goal of most Arab and Muslim states is world domination of Islam. Israel is just a training ground for techniques they have already started and have been successfully using around the globe. Israel is the front line of defense of the Western democracies. The facts I present in my letters have nothing to do (as some of you have alleged in order to diminish the impact of factual reasoning) with my anger, hate or frustration.

The desire to establish the global Caliphate is stated, officially on the record, by many Muslim leaders and heads of governments, including the ones from Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah.

Just once in your life forget about your hate toward Jews. Open your eyes and you will be able to see and recognize the truth! I do not ask you to become a Jew-lover, it is almost impossible to expect. Your own future and the fate of the Western world's self-preservation demand the basic honesty on the subject now! Otherwise, we are all doomed!

Sinisterly yours.
Steven Shamrak.

Who is the Enemy?

President Bush reaffirmed his commitment to Palestinian statehood in a meeting with Indonesia's president. "Both presidents stressed their support for the establishment of a viable, independent, democratic and sovereign Palestinian state that would live side-by-side in peace with Israel," said a joint statement released Monday after Bush met with Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono during Bush's Asian tour. (At least, we must face reality and realize that they are not true friends.)

Betrayed Again

Forty years of nuclear ambiguity were blown by designated US defense secretary Robert Gates Tuesday, Dec. 5, at his Senate confirmation hearings. He also denied any guarantee against Iran using nuclear weapons against Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims that Iran has begun installing 3,000 centrifuges for uranium enrichment at a plant in central Iran, the first step towards industrial production. (Maybe now Israel will stop looking aver its shoulder and start doing what is good for Jews!)

Food for Thought

Some high-ranking idiots and hypocrites insist that the Arab-Israel conflict is the reason behind the war Iraq. This war is already costing the American tax-payer almost a trillion dollars, money that would be better spent on encouraging and assisting Arabs to leave Jewish land. It would be a more plausible task, compared to bringing democracy to an Arab state. And it would, at least, bring internal peace to Israel!

Fear of Exposing the Obvious

Kofi Annan expressed concern about the U.N. Human Rights Council's "disproportionate focus on violations by Israel." Annan acknowledged that the new council has not lived up to expectations. (It is not love for Israel, but an attempt to camouflage an evident anti-Israel stand of the UN that has prompted this comment.)

Israeli Arabs Want and End to the Jewish State

Israeli Arabs have produced a radical document demanding cultural autonomy and the right to veto government decisions that concern them. Drafted by representative mainstream organizations and not by extremists, it constitutes an unqualified rejection of the Zionist model of Israel. (Israeli Arabs never had any loyalty toward Israel. How about joining the already existing 22 Arab states? But, it is not enough for them!)

No UN Inquiry, No Condemnation!

The three young children of a PA intelligence official loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas have been shot dead in Gaza. Gunmen opened fire on the car that was taking the boys, aged between six and nine, to school. The street was packed with school children when the gunmen opened fire. (Deliberate targeting and killing children of Hamas opponents does not prompt UN condemnation. 'Useless Nothing' at it best!)

Quote of the Week

"If we don't have guts enough to confront this ideology (Islamic expansionism) today, we'll go through World War Three tomorrow." -- US Gen. John Abizaid.

Syria Preparing for War

A top Israeli military official, Brigadier General Yossi Baidatz, told the Cabinet that Syria has moved its missile batteries closer to the border with Israel and is preparing its forces for a war with Israel. Syria has increased its production of long-range missiles and has also moved its anti-aircraft missile batteries, as well as building up its anti-tank units, closer to the border on the Golan Heights.

Middle East Peace Conference Without Israel

The United States government was considering a proposal by former Secretary of State James Baker to hold the second Madrid Conference without Israeli presence. Baker says goal is to "reach an agreement without Jewish pressure". (...but he has no problem with putting pressure on Jews.) Meanwhile Incoming US Defence Secretary tries to justify the Iranian nuclear program by saying that Iran's yearning for nuclear independence may be prompted by the reality that Israel is armed with a nuclear weapon, as well as Russia to the north and Pakistan to the east. (What a pack of repulsive and deliberately misguided foolishness! With enemies, at least, it is clear where they stand and how to deal with them!)

Delusional Life of Arabs

A new Gallup poll shows that 40-percent of Lebanese adults blame Israel for the 34-day war that followed the kidnapping of IDF reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev this summer. Some 24-percent said, that the United States was most responsible. Only 18 percent of Lebanese adults held Hizbullah responsible for war.

Once More: Unlimited Stupidity

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview with Italy's RAI Tg1 television news that he is interested in its proposal to place an international force in Gaza. (Gaza is Eretz-Israel! Deployment of the international force would be a complete surrender of Israel 's independence. Is he [Olmert] stupid or dreadfully mentally disturbed?)

The War is Declared

In Tehran, Palestinian PM Ismail Haniya said Friday: Hamas will never recognize Israel or give up jihad. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal escalated threats, declared that his terrorist group has embraced the strategic option of armed conflict against Israel. (What is Israel going to do about it? The first practical step is to remove Arabs from Gaza and re-unite it with Eretz-Israel!)

Jewish Contribution to Humanity

Julius Edgar Lilienfeld (1881 -- 1963) was born in Germany and emigrated to the USA in 1927. Among other things, he invented the transistor and the electrolytic capacitor in the 1920's.

More Arabs Leave Eretz-Israel.

Travel agents report a brisk demand for visas to Cuba, one of the few places that welcome Arab Palestinians. More than 20 factories have moved out of Gaza in recent months, driven by fear of civil war and increasingly bleak economic prospects.

Malta Backs Peacekeeping Force in Gaza

Foreign Minister Michael Frendo said serious consideration should be given to the suggestion made by Spain, France and Italy to deploy an international peacekeeping force in the Gaza Strip. (Great, another 'little piglet' feels free to meddle into Israel internal affairs.)

Another Feel-Good Exercise

Not long ago, an estimated 4,000 Jewish federation lay leaders and professionals gathered in Los Angeles for the United Jewish Communities' annual General Assembly. This year's meeting of the North American federation system, which will run Sunday through Wednesday, is focused on Israel under the theme "Together on the Frontline, One People, One Destiny." (Nice and empty slogans and politicly correct smiles. But nothing is done and nothing will change in order to achieve Jewish unification in the fight against assimilation and toward re-unification of the ancestral land of Israel!)

Poll: Halutz, Peretz and Olmert Must Go.

More than half of the respondents -- 53-percent -- said Olmert should resign his post or call new elections. Only 17-percent of Israelis believe that Halutz should continue to head the Israel Defense Forces. A bare 15-percent of those surveyed thought he should remain as Defense Minister. (Public opinion usually is quite easy to manipulate. But, sometimes the polls do highlight the obvious!)

Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement. For the last 3 years, he has been publishing internet editorial letters on the Arab-Israeli conflict -- independently, not as a member of any organization or political movement. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, December 17, 2006.

This was written by Julia Wheeler, BBC News, Dubai.

[Editor's note: For many years, UAE, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain imported disposable children as young as 3 and 4 from poor countries like Bangladash to act as light-weight jockies and ride their valuable camels in races. The children lived in dreadful circumstances and usually died or were maimed after a few years. Read this and also this.]

The UAE says it has banned child jockeys and ovrhauled the sport

The United Arab Emirates says it will give $9m ( £4.6m) to former child camel jockeys employed in the country.

The UAE says the money will ensure they receive the salaries owed to them and compensation for losing their income. It will also go towards education.

The move is part of a joint programme with the UN children's agency Unicef.

The initiative has seen more than 1,000 former jockeys, from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sudan and Mauritania repatriated to their countries.


The prime minister of the UAE, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, is among those accused, in a class action filed in the US, of trafficking and enslaving children.

The suit is being brought against him, his brother Sheikh Hamdan, and 500 others by some parents and thousands of unnamed children.

The allegations have been rejected by the Maktoums. They say they have banned child camel jockeys and overhauled the sport.

Remote-controlled robots now sit on the backs of the camels during the long races.

Although camel racing is popular in the Emirates, the Maktoums are better known internationally for their involvement in horse racing and are the owners of the successful Godolphin stables.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Nathan, December 17, 2006.

In the Palestinian prime minister's party was a senior Hamas military delegation led by Abu Obeida al Jerat, who signed military pacts with the heads of Iran's Revolutionary Guards providing advanced combat training for Hamas terrorists. DEBKAfile's military sources say Israel should have prevented Haniya's entry with his party, even without the cash, to prevent the Iranian military training program from getting started in the Gaza Strip

This is from yesterday's DEBKAfile. It is entitled "Hamas escalated its internecine feud with Fatah to jihad."

Hamas leaders said Friday: "Abu Mazen and Fatah have declared war on Allah. Whoever joins them is a shahid." They authorized the assassination of Fatah leader Mohammed Dahlan, accusing him of orchestrating an attempt on the life of Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniya, as his convoy entered Gaza Thursday night, Dec. 14. A bodyguard was killed and five members of his party injured, including Haniya's son. Hamas vowed "to even the score".

The Hamas prime minister returned home from a two-week absence carrying $31 million of the quarter of a billion dollars Iran donated to bankroll his organization's buildup for jihadist war. After Israel ordered the Rafah crossing from Egypt to Gaza closed, hundreds of Hamas militiamen seized control of the terminal directing heavy gunfire at the European monitors and Abu Mazen's Force 17 presidential guard. Both fled. Thursday night, Haniya was finally allowed to enter Gaza after leaving the suitcases packed with cash behind in Sinai. It was then that Force 17 shot up the convoy.

In the Palestinian prime minister's party was a senior Hamas military delegation led by Abu Obeida al Jerat, who signed military pacts with the heads of Iran's Revolutionary Guards providing advanced combat training for Hamas terrorists. DEBKAfile's military sources say Israel should have prevented Haniya's entry with his party, even without the cash, to prevent the Iranian military training program from getting started in the Gaza Strip.

Contact David Nathan at davenathan@aol.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Michael Travis, December 17, 2006.

Your tax dollars at work.

This article was written by Elder of Ziyon and comes from the Infidel Bloggers Alliance

This is an excerpt from a State Department website,
http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p= washfile-english&y=2006&m=December&x=20061212165055bcreklaw0.8355371 It's called "Muslim-American Rappers Promote Tolerance in Middle East"

It was written by Carolee Walker, USINFO Staff Writer and it appeared December 13, 2006.

Native Deen hip-hop group energizes Palestinian youth in Jerusalem

Muslim-American rappers Abdul Malik, Joshua Salaam and Naeem Muhammad of Native Deen perform in Jerusalem. (photo: Native Deen)

Washington -- When Native Deen took hip-hop music to Jerusalem in fall 2006, the group of Muslim-American rappers was moved deeply by the holiness of the place and the energy of the hundreds of teens who attended their concerts. Yet nothing came close to the connection the performers felt to their faith during their Middle East trip.

"I could feel it in the stone and the rocks," said Naeem Muhammad of Native Deen, a Muslim-American hip-hop group based near Washington that has a strong following in the United Kingdom and the United States.

"Our music inspiqres Muslims to be better Muslims, but it also gives other people a better view of our faith," Joshua Salaam told USINFO in an interview.

The rhythm is there, and the beat is contemporary. But the heart of inspirational hip-hop music is in the powerful rap lyrics coaxing listeners to live better lives and be better people.

Native Deen traveled to Turkey, Dubai, the Palestinian Territories and Israel on behalf of the U.S. Department of State, incorporating the teachings of Islam into songs about respect and humanity. At all the concerts, the performers were greeted like "American superstars," they said. In Dubai, Native Deen won the 2006 Mahabba Award at an event showcasing musicians, artists and filmmakers inspired to spread Islam through art.

The group, founded in 2000, is known for its positive energy, use of traditional percussion and lyrics focused on tolerance and the teachings of Islam.

"We use the Quran as a source of guidance for us when we write our songs," said Abdul Malik. "We use the morals and guidelines that we find in the Quran to teach people and to guide people." This means that the beat, or rhythm, comes second, according to Salaam. The lyrics are the most important aspect of the song, so in Native Deen's sound, the rap is always in front of the percussion.

Deen is the Arabic word for "religion," or way of life.

While I didn't see anything explicitly offensive in the lyrics, it is clear that the "tolerance" mentioned is only teaching others tolerance for Islam, not teaching Muslims tolerance for other religions or ways of life. In many ways the lyrics are proselytizing, which is a questionable activity for the State Department to be promoting:

He (satan) wants to bring you down, he whispers everyday
You started on the path and he led you astray
I know you will come back, you never feel at peace
You're searching for the truth to put your mind at ease
You know you're missing me, I know what you've been through
When we meet again, we have a lot of work to do

I am the Deen you know
I am the Deen you need
I am the Deen you love
Please come back to me

Your life had just begun, I helped to raise you up
You thought it'd be easy but your life turned out to be rough
You thought I let you down, I never let you go
I'm worried 'cause you left me and you didn't even know
You know you're gonna die, who knows when that will be
Before you meet Allah you should come back to me

I am the Deen you know
I am the Deen you need
I am the Deen you love
Please come back to me

People coming back, People coming back To Islam, people are coming to this Deen
To Islam, you are invited to this Deen

The leader of the band has a blog
(http://nativedeen.com/ns/blog.php) where he tries hard not to publicize his true feelings:

We are in Palestine[sic] now. I will have to keep this blog short before I start to get heated and make some political statements that will get Native Deen arrested. It's hard for a Muslim American to visit Palestine[sic] and not get upset.

All in all, this is something that raises questions about what exactly the State Department is intending with this sponsorship.

Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com

To Go To Top

Posted by David Meir-Levi, December 16, 2006.

I most sincerely urge all of you, if you have not seen the movie yet, to take 12 minutes now to view the abridged version per the url below


To Go To Top

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, December 16, 2006.
Dear friends, Just in case you are still deceiving yourself that the "Palestinians" seek peace and accommodation by negotiations, take it directly from them, they do not even try to hide the truth. Our enemies have single purpose and single message! When will we, Israelis and Jews learn to do the same? Your Truth Provider, Yuval. PS. Maybe one of you would volunteer to tell the old news to the peanut farmer?

This is called "PA foreign minister: Cease-fire just a liberation tactic," and it was distributed by the Israel Foreign Ministry on 14 December 2006,
(http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/About+the+Ministry/MFA+Spokesman/2006/ PA+foreign+minister+says+cease-fire+just+a+liberation+tactic+14-Dec-2006.htm).

Palestinian Authority Foreign Minister Mahmoud a-Zahar declared this week that the present cease-fire (hudna) does not constitute recognition of Israel, but is rather one of a number of tactical steps on the way to the "complete liberation" of Palestine.

"We as Muslims are the owners of this land and we shall not give up a single handful of Palestinian soil," Zahar told students at Gaza City's Islamic University on Sunday (10 Dec).

He declared that a solution to the conflict is not the creation of a Palestinian state according to the 1967 boundaries, but the total liberation of "all Palestinian lands" -- a popular euphemism for the territory "occupied" by the State of Israel. The establishment of a Palestinian state would be followed by an "Islamic cultural enterprise."

Zahar told the students that Israelis have already begun to question whether Israel will continue to exist in the next few coming decades.

Zahar demanded that the PA renounce all agreements it signed with Israel, which he said have brought disaster upon the Palestinian people. In addition, he rejected any type of security coordination with Israel, which he termed "a betrayal of the homeland."

PA Deputy Minister for Religious Affairs Salah Alrakab told the students that Islam forbids signing a peace agreement with Jews, because "The conflict with the Jews is a religious, existential struggle and is not a conflict over borders." At most, he said, Islamic law permits signing a temporary hudna (cease-fire).

The Jews have no claim to a Land of Israel but that stated in the Torah, he continued, which has already been proven to be a forgery. Liberation of the land will be accomplished only by jihad through the general mobilization of the Islamic nation, he said, which is the shortest way to restore Palestinian rights and shrink "the greed of the Jews."

Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

To Go To Top

Posted by Ezra HaLevi, December 16, 2006.

A unique book was published this week offering a micro view of one mother's Aliyah (immigration to Israel) journey that embodies the grand phenomenon of Western Aliyah-by-choice.

Laura Ben-David, a gifted communicator, captures on paper the clarity and purpose that lead a family to uproot themselves from a very comfortable life in Boca Raton, Florida to move to a settlement town in Gush Etzion.

Ben-David's book, called Moving Up -- An Aliyah Journal is a chronological collection of the emails that she sent to friends and family leading up to the move and throughout the first year. These dispatches were forwarded onward to thousands of readers -- many of whom were captivated enough by her family's journey to begin considering their own Aliyah. "Moving Up is not a story about me," Ben-David writes in the very first words of the volume. "It is a chronicle about Aliyah as seen through my eyes and written with my pen." Ben-David's book will put smiles on the faces of fellow olim (immigrants), as will her frank observations about Israeli life and descriptions of the moments that bring her back to the original decision to implement the dream. She describes shopping for the first time at Jerusalem's Malcha Shopping Mall. "Because this mall is in Jerusalem, there happens to be a large percentage of obviously observant Jews. It's really a hard thing for me to explain, it was almost like being at a synagogue, or a special rally for a Jewish cause, except that we are all simply 'at the mall.' The point here is that I became so emotional over the whole thing that I started to cry. It was just one more reminder of where I am and why I am here. Because this land is MINE." She also provides helpful advice for those planning their own Aliyah -- on everything from packing a lift (laments bringing a 40-foot one rather than 20-foot) to dealing (patiently and persistenly) with direct insurance companies after an Arab construction vehicle totaled their parked van. And for those not yet planning the move, Ben-David shies away from preaching but allows subtle jabs in the form of quotes from her kids. " My daughter Lexi made a great comment today," she writes. "She said, 'I don't get why people say that they are so jealous of us making Aliyah. If they feel that way, they should pack up and make Aliyah too!' Right on Lexi!"

The Ben-Davids arrived in Israel on the first chartered plane organized by the Nefesh B'Nefesh organization, which seeks to remove the logistical obstacles facing Western olim. Laura's story, though seemingly dealing with personal experience -- raising kids, shopping at the local grocery and learning Hebrew -- is truly one very clear part of the chronicle of the American Jewish return to Zion.

The book is an invaluable primary source for those seeking a glimpse into the phenomenon of Aliyah-by-choice from Western countries specifically during these most violent and turbulent years in the State of Israel. These Jews are a mystery to many. They arise, amidst the apex of Western civilization and decide to move to a perceived war zone with third-world cronyism and minuscule salaries -- with no anti-Semitism or persecution to account for the decision to become immigrants. This book offers a glimpse of why they are coming, and why more will follow.

For more information, to read excerpts or to order the book, visit AliyahBook.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Arlene Peck, December 16, 2006.

I usually avoid the L. A. Times like the plague, mainly because I find them to be as favourable to the Jews and Israel as Mel Gibson and Jimmy Carter. However, needing something to wrap the trash recently, I came across a recent glaring front page banner which got my attention. "Killings Put Gaza on Edge" (Frankly I was hoping for "Gaza to be put on the Edge of a Cliff". The lead line said, "The gunning down of a Palestinian official's sons inflames tensions between rival factions." The latest 'incident' from a very long line, brought to us almost daily by these barbaric savages, means Hamas and Fatah are at it again.

Wow! Do you think the security fence our anti-Semitic "former President" Carter described as being part of the "apartheid" of these poor downtrodden Palestinians, (all Israel's fault, of course), was the cause? They weren't able to cross over into Israel proper and so now are killing their own, because they can't reach the Jews as easily anymore? Besides, killing for the sake of killing is just part of the Arab mindset!

Relax everyone! This latest rampage through the streets of Gaza is only one more of their daily OK Coral-style shoot-out rituals in the middle of the snake pit called Gaza, referred to by our state Dept. and President Bush as the homeland of the Palestinian. We all know there will be more to come; it's what Muslims do!

Actually, what I would really like to see now are more photo-ops of Carter, except this time showing him signing his book in downtown Gaza bookstores. Oh! wait, I forgot... this bunch doesn't read anything but the Koran and the idea of a bookshop, where people could possibly learn how to improve their lives, is laughable, given they can't yet build a Hospital or control their sewage.

Don't you find it is ever so cute when these flesh-eaters and body mutilators of bodies are referred to in media reports as "Senior Palestinian intelligence officers?" What is a person to think; that this is an acceptable face of Government? Perhaps to post-modernist leftist, culture-haters, it is. Never seems to matter either if they are the ones who are riddling cars and nearby children with bullets or are the ones being riddled. It's what Muslims do, and we have grown so used to it, it passes for normal. Even the weekly be-headings barely get a response. No, the new-speak is to always refer to them, as does the LA Times, as "Senior Palestinian intelligence officers." Or, to lovingly refer to them in their preferred term, "freedom fighters.! Just don't tell the truth. Might upset someone.

It is all getting a little predictable though, don't you think? Following their savage rampages the LA Times always seems to manage a blurb which gushingly tells us how "later in the day, hundreds of enraged mourners burned tires, closed roads and shut down the city's central market." This is usually accompanied by pictures of thousands of upset Muslims carrying corpses over their heads, rejoicing over the fallen martyrs. Oh, sorry, I meant.. Mourning the dead. How do they remember which is which?

Sweet! I wonder if anyone ever stops to notice that, in civilized societies, such as their neighbour Israel, the first reaction to a tragedy is NOT to burn tires and riot in the streets, NOT to politicise the tragedy. Especially to march around parading corpses. This group kills randomly, mutilates the bodies, and then passes around sweets; before piling in their cars to drive around aimlessly, blowing horns and shooting off guns. Always shooting off their guns. It's what all people do with Aid money, isn't it? Buy an AK-47 -- puts food on the table and clothes on the kids.

Frankly, this barbaric group only knows how to have their "Day of Rage". What else is new? They are born in rage and, as they get older, learn that the only way to live is to strive for death. My thinking is fairly simple -- it is our duty to give them what they want!

Because, folks, if we don't realize that we -- collectively WE, a world-wide WE -- are in a war where 1.6 Billion people seriously believe that you are an infidel and must either be converted, subjugated or killed, the future is predictable and bleak. DEAD! As politically incorrect as this might sound, has come down to them vs... us!

Our leadership here, and the present-day gutless leadership of Israel, has the United States and the Jewish state on a road to hell. That, folks, is the 'roadmap'. It is up to us, the people, We the People, to snap out of our cocoons of apathy and start writing letters, running for office, and marching though the streets by the millions to get our message across. We, in the United States, haven't a clue as to what the people in Israel are thinking other than what we read in rags like the LA Times. Get informed form other, more reliable and less biased sources. They do exist. If I can find them, so can you. What's your excuse?

I remember when I was in Gaza, shortly before the first "Intifada'. The lasting image I have is that this is all those people seemed to do; burn tires and sit around playing cards, talking and smoking their 'laughing water', no women in sight. I remember the old-before-their-time and hate filled eyes of the children who surrounded the car. And these people didn't even know that I was a "Jewess." I was presenting myself as a Christian journalist from Georgia, representing the news media for singles and women. They still hated me.

The time for transfer is long over-due. I remember years ago when Israel deported four hundred terrorists. Deported folks, not killed, murdered or mutilated, as the Arabs are so fond of doing. These deportees set up camps on the outskirts of the cities, and, for months, the leaders of Israel allowed CNN to film their 'plight'of the Palesinians" on a nightly basis. Under media pressure, the same incompetent 'leaders' of Israel allowed them re-enter in another one of their infamous "good-will gestures". Fine, if the goodwill was returned, but all that comes back across the lines are dead Israeli bodies, and the Jews go about mourning in privacy and decency.away from the indifferent camera crews. Not news, you see.

No learning from history though. Olmert is about to the open the jails and let the animals out, to once again roam and bomb the streets of Israel. This is intolerable and the masses should start letting their voices be heard.

My thinking is, instead of four hundred terrorists in Israel, they should have rounded up another four hundred thousand who are guilty of violent aggression in the Jewish state and moved them out! The trouble with Israel is that just like a bad lover, they simply roll over and fall asleep. Their 'follow-up' is negligent of the needs of their people, and borders on the criminal. It is certainly insane.

In the same theme, history has shown that populations, even large populations, have been forced across borders into other countries. In the interests of national sovereignty and security. It has been done, and it must be done again. These enemies of Israel must be transferred.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Dr. Steven Gill, December 15, 2006.

Again this year, Christians are going to celebrate the birth of their Messiah who came to establish the culture of peace but the forces of destruction have been also growing in power to spread their desert. I wrote this poem about those forces of destruction.

When the avtaars of savagery
mow down defenceless innocents
tear down the towers of routine
deep pain goes deeper

Spiders of sinister news
crawl in and out of the cracks
of the calm
that mothers the rationality of discipline
and the stress-causing stairs
of the menacing fear go up and down
with the sound
of the tombstone in the grass.

From the oak of harmony
leaves fall
in the maze of mistrust.
The locusts of threat
shadow the crops of shelters
and the driving rains of discomfort
lash the denuded twigs of hope.

Dr. Stephen Gill is Poet Laureate of Ansted University in Canada. He can be reached by email at Stephen Gill (stephengill@cogeco.ca ) or visit his website: www.stephengill.ca

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 15, 2006.

This is an important article.

The trouble in France that reflects on Europe as a whole...this could easily applied to the USA too...

France is gearing up for April 2007 election. With the upcoming election the French will have a golden opportunity to change their country pervasive Islamo Fascism/radical Islam tide.

France is a secular state. As such, it must fast develop firm policies, which will stand firm against religious leaders who stoke the flames of the increasingly radicalized religious, mostly radical Islam, thus forming an entire generation mindset.

France and all other nations must be inspired to adopt a cohesive national identity; without cohesive national identity, there is no nation, not French, not British, not American or Israeli!

This article appeared today in the National Interest Online
(http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=13194). The National Interest is published by The Nixon Center.

It was written by Glen Feder, who is a senior research analyst at the Investigative Project on Terrorism and a doctoral candidate in political science at Boston College and L'École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales in Paris, France.

The article refers to Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de La Brède et de Montesquieu (January 18, 1689 in Bordeaux -- February 10,1755), more commonly known as Montesquieu, was a French social commentator and political thinker who lived during the Enlightenment years. He is famous for his articulation of the theory of separation of powers, taken for granted in modern discussions of government and implemented in many constitutions throughout the world. He was largely responsible for the popularization of the terms feudalism and Byzantine Empire.

PARIS, France

French police continue to round up and prosecute suspects of this year's riots, which occurred on October 27 -- the anniversary of last year's riots. While incidents were minor in comparison to last year, with around 277 cars and buses burned this time, not everyone was spared from the violence. In Marseille, 26-year-old Mama Galledou is still fighting for her life after over 62 percent of her body was burned when several teens doused her bus with gas and set it afire. We have been given a grim reminder that since last year, the root of the problem has not changed.

While terrorism experts are correct to dissect the ideological anatomy of the rioters, and indeed the confluence of French policy and that ideology, much of the analysis has converged upon one or two factors, overlooking the prime French policy error and its enormous influence of their religious-secular hybrid ideology.

Religion is not the prime reason for the riots, but it is one important element. The current generation of young Muslim immigrants in France no longer adheres to the pious Tabligh movement of their parents, which peaked in the 1970s and 1980s. The Tabligh movement, which was one of the most important Islamic movements by the end of the twentieth century, originated in the late 1920s in India and emphasized the strict imitation of Muhammad's life instead of the politicization of Islam. Part of the reason for this shift is that in 1997, in an effort to strike a compromise between preserving the rights of their minority groups and protecting traditional French secularist principles, France decided to streamline powerful Islamic organizations into one unified coalition called Le Conseil Français du Culte Musulman (French Council for the Muslim Religion). While the French government hoped that this would create one moderate and unified voice within the Muslim community, its effort backfired.

The results of the election held amid the Muslim population for the council was the victory of a fundamentalist Islamic organization: the Muslim Brotherhood's Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF). Through the enormously successful efforts of the Union des Organisations Islamiques de France (UOIF) and figures like Tariq Ramadan, the Muslim Brotherhood's ideology has spread like wildfire among French youth. The Muslim Brotherhood is not simply a religious movement, but a global social movement that promotes a version of Islam that adamantly rejects secularized political and social institutions.

Interestingly, this is not the only formative ideological influence on France 's Muslim youth. The current rioters blend an uneasy mix of enlightenment notions of human rights with an increasingly radicalized cultural/"religious" identity -- not to mention the vestiges of a historic animosity towards the very country they live in. While the perpetrators of the violence have produced few official ideological statements, the nature of the riots speaks volumes. Most of the arrests that have been made are of Muslim North African men, with the average age being only 16. They are second and third generation of immigrants who are now fluent in French and protected by their French citizenship, but have still inherited a historical animosity towards French colonization and the war in Algeria.

Their Western-inherited notion of "rights" -- which was originally inspired by Rousseau and other enlightenment thinkers -- were passed down to them not by Rousseau directly, but through the tumult of the 1960s, where early Sartrian ideas of "alienation" and the late Sartrian ideas of "social justice" were popularized. They blend this version of "rights" -- which, ironically, were originally made in direct opposition to the divine monarchy -- with their own religious identity.

Ten years ago, French President Jacques Chirac campaigned on the theme of resolving these "social divisions", but little has been done. Today unemployment levels in the suburbs have reached 40 to 50 percent, and discrimination towards North Africans among the non-immigrant population is rampant. These are the factors that analysts typically point to, but it is the blending of religious fundamentalism (which was exacerbated by the French government's overt attempt to attenuate it) and the pseudo-enlightenment ideas of the 1960s that is driving the violent reaction of an increasingly alienated population of French youth.

Meanwhile, that hybrid ideology, with its strong fundamentalist influence, has created a great disconnect with France's elite. One has only to read French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin's 19th century writing style in his 600-page book on Napoleon that he published four years ago in order to understand the political elite's love of French "grandeur." They fear that the language, philosophy, and literature that once flourished in the days of the old aristocracy, described marvelously by authors such as Balzac and epitomized in historical characters like Madame de Sevigny, are being lost forever.

Many elites and non-elites alike look upon the cauldron of hate in immigrant neighborhoods and fear French identity is being threatened. They argue that France did not endure a bloody revolution to throw out the laws of 1905, which declare a strict separation between church and state. And the revolution in the 18th century, colonial expansionism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and later two world wars did not take place, in the eyes of many French, to turn France into a giant melting pot. France is a nation where its citizens must be able to speak French. It is a country where the political ideals of "egalite" must combine with "liberte" and "fraternite" -- which require the cohesion of certain fundamental political, social and economic principles that make up the French ethos.

The anger felt by immigrants and their children has been simmering for decades in Paris' suburbs, and it now threatens the fabric of what even Nietzsche once called Europe's "most spiritual and sophisticated culture." It has been fueled by the frustration of a generation of immigrants brought over to rebuild France after World War II, who now look enviously out of their shoddy high-rises at only a dim glimmer of the Paris that their parents came over for.

Consequently, Europe has clearly become an even more important staging ground for terrorism than the Middle East. The real cause lies not in unemployment or poverty, but in France's 200 year-old identity crisis, which has produced public policy half-way houses. The French government's reaction to these problems has been a push for a stricter immigration policy, mandatory French speaking religious leaders and a ban on the hijab and other religious insignia in public schools. Unfortunately, efforts towards assimilating France's growing Muslim population have been too little too late. While there are few real reactionaries, the mainstream desire to preserve French "culture" has now become an uphill battle.

Gearing up for an election in April 2007, the French will have a golden opportunity to change the tide. As a secular state, France must develop policies which continue to stand firm against religious leaders who stoke the flames of an increasingly radicalized religious identity that is forming an entire generational mindset. However, as a democracy, it has to develop policies which also offer greater economic incentives and promote grass- roots civic engagement in order to assimilate its minorities.

The worse is yet to come unless power is given to leaders who can combine the theoretical and practical genius of someone like a Tocqueville or Montesquieu. Theory, guided by practice, must enlighten practice. It must be articulated in the language of our century, not that of the past, and seek to inspire the French to adopt a cohesive national identity. Whether this identity takes on the Lockean model of a capitalist and multicultural America, a version of a Gaullist ideal or some European hybrid, is what the French must decide. Reformulating this policy does not mean dreaming of the France of days past. However, it does require disinterested soul-searching for a consistent vision of the future through reconciling theoretical divisions of the past in order to guide present domestic policy reforms. Perhaps former French foreign minister Hubert Védrine was on to something when he said "We need a new Montesquieu who can think everything over again starting from zero.

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, December 15, 2006.

Just as one point can not define a line, so one survey can not define a social phenomena. Without knowing what the Jewish perception of Israeli Arabs has been previously, there is no way to view this in perspective. My own, entirely non-scientific intuition is that it has always been about the same. Jews as a group do not trust Arabs as a group while the Arabs as a group are relatively indifferent to anything outside their society.

What would be interesting to know is how many Jews, despite their mistrust of "Arabs," believe they have an individually, good relationship with specific Arabs. What percentage believe they have Arab friends or would not be afraid to visit an Arab coworker at his home. It would also be revealing to know what percentage would not hesitate to hire an Arab to work in their home. It is information such as this that would indicate a clearer picture of Jewish attitudes towards Israeli Arabs.

As to the political implications of all this, the obvious questions are:

* Do you believe that Jews and Arabs can live together or must live separately?
* Do you believe that transfer is the only way to separate the two?

Those would have been interesting follow up questions.

This was written by Dr. Aaron Lerner and it comes from Independent Media Review and Analysis (IMRA).

Poll question: "How would you describe the relationship of trust between Jews and Arabs in the country today?"

Israeli Jews responded: Good 15.7% Bad 83.1%
Israeli Arabs responded: Good 52.2% Bad 37.9%

(Telephone poll of a representative sample of 500 Israeli Jews and 500 Israeli Arabs carried out by Market Watch sponsored by the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel (ICCI) www.icci.org.il for the upcoming Kedem Conference)

Put simply, the average Israeli Arab is apparently clueless as to just how seriously the situation has deteriorated.

And it is understandable.

They have confused the incredibly open nature of our society regarding radical and even destructive talk for acceptance of the same.

But that isn't the case.

How open?

It is so open that when the leader of an outlawed radical Palestinian terrorist group is interviewed live (yes -- live) on Israel Army Radio, the program anchor and terrorist address each other by their first names.

Open and confusing.

The media can broadcast Israeli Arab demands to change our flag, our anthem and drop the Law of Return which allows Jews around the world to immigrate to Israel.

But that doesn't mean Israeli Jews are comfortable with this (even if one of the organizations publishing the demands gets part of its funding from Leftist Diaspora Jews via the New Israel Fund).

By the same token, the extremely short news cycle for stories about Israeli Arabs involved in terrorist activity or expressing support for our enemies might be mistakenly interpreted by Israeli Arabs as reflecting a lack of concern rather than our media's notoriously short attention span.

Where do we go from here?

ICCI sponsored the poll with an eye towards using it to encourage interfaith dialogue, but this result is so dramatic that it should go well beyond that.

Israeli Arabs must come to grips with the fact that the policies and politics heard from their community today are poisoning relations with the Jewish majority.

Aryeh Zelasko lives in Beitar Illit, south of Jerusalem. He is Director of Sales and Marketing of Israel Visit (www.israelvisit.co.il) which provides information and an internet buying facility for American visitors to Israel.

To Go To Top

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, December 15, 2006.


French police fear to enter 751 zones. Islam rules there (Daniel Pipes #731, 11/24).

But France looks down upon the US as not having sensible policy towards Islam.


Pres. Bush thinks that upon liberating a country, the US becomes ethically obliged to rebuild it. Daniel Pipes does not think so. Pres. Bush does not want to let the Islamists return to power in Iraq, but his policies have enabled them to make quite a start at that. Hence Pipes suggests moving our troops out of Iraqis' daily life and reserving them to protect the country from armies. For consistency, why doesn't the US propose rescuing Somalia from the Islamist take-over occurring there? Pipe's supposes that it is due to inertia. Having gotten into Iraq, we are unable to focus on anything else, too (Op. Cit.).

Bush thought we could induce Iraqis to build democracy. Hence, we tried to rebuild their country. Apparently it was too big an undertaking to tackle in a hurry. If we stop?


The Voice of America broadcast a segment it got from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Islamist organization. The segment complained about American prejudice against Muslims citing a survey. Daniel Pipes has exposed the self-serving "errors" of that group's earlier "surveys." There were other features of Islamic and Islamist propaganda in the airing (Ibid.).

The BBC also acts as a shill for Islamists.


Urged to crack down on terrorism, Arafat complained that his forces were too weak to do so. Abbas offers the same excuse for not cracking down on arms smuggling, and for demanding more arms and men. The US and Israel are providing them, too. Arabs wonder, is that the Bush doctrine of spreading democracy?

Is Abbas' excuse valid? Abbas has 45,000 men at arms, Hamas has 6,000. Thousands of Abbas' men marched recently, firing a million rounds of ammunition, as if they had plenty. They recently arrested gangs involved in civil crimes. Why not those in military ones? Because he does not want to, not because he couldn't. Posing as weak, he is donated foreign aid in money and arms. He also smuggles in arms from Sinai. There is no shortage of arms in Gaza. Why should he reform?

He won his first election by promising to end corruption and anarchy, which he then increased (IMRA, 11/25). The P.A. would get more foreign aid if it reformed and made peace, but the Arabs don't want peace, they want to bring Israel down. On the other hand, it is said that Abbas' men are dispirited and couldn't fight Hamas. On the third hand, Abbas' men may have been bought out by Iran or may prefer war to diplomacy.


It's somewhat like the Vietnam syndrome, again. Our forces are winning, but our public is war-wary. In the Vietnam war, our casualties were high. In the Iraq war, they are low. But the public doesn't see things in proportion. Instead of rethinking our strategy and understanding the stakes, we seem to be ready to give up. Millions suffered the last time. This time it would be worse.

Democrats who hate Pres. Bush don't realize that his father is far more devious and sinister. If his former Sec. of State gains influence in the son's Administration, America and Israel are in trouble. James Baker III is co-chairing a committee that may propose all sorts of surrenders to jihad. If we do that, Western civilization goes down.

Baker is a poor champion to turn to. He had his turn. His policies failed. He's also a poor choice because of his known biases. We need someone who thinks straight.

They say that the committee will propose sacrificing Israel to jihad, in the hope of getting the jihadist-backing states to cease support for militias in Iraq or perhaps just to meet with the US or perhaps for a public relations cover for defeat in Iraq. People and governments that sacrifice victims of aggression don't, themselves, deserve to survive.

What does Baker care whether he sacrifices Israel? He has expressed his enmity for the Jews. They pay, not he, thinks he. So he sacrifices that ally and its Army, a country that has helped the US many times, in return for promises from forces that repeatedly break their promises. Where is the wisdom in that half-baked idea?

Oh, Baker wouldn't put it as sacrificing Israel. He would put it as urging Israel to make concessions. But those concessions would tilt the balance so much against Israel, that it would bring about immediate, full-scale war and the death of millions. In this war, don't you think Egypt would play its part? It would be too late for the American Congress, American people, the supposedly powerful Jewish lobby, and Israel to complain about the $60 billion that the US gave Egypt to build up a modern army.

The US is racking up quite a record of betrayal of allies. They may get hard to come by. This is especially true when the people of the Mideast and everywhere else hear the triumphant cries of the Muslims as they exterminate the Jews. The Muslims will rise up without fear of being put down, and Baker thinks he would take the pressure off the US?

The US would be better advised to regroup and rally the free world behind us.

The proposed sacrifice is illogical. It assumes that one can make a deal and buy off jihadists. Not when the doctrine of those fanatics is unrelenting struggle, and not when they consider the US their main obstacle to world domination. (They haven't taken China into account.) Not when their code has them make false promises and sign false truces. Their pattern has been to accept concessions and then resume the struggle. If James Baker had any understanding of Islam, he would realize that the centers of jihad must be defeated, they cannot be compromised with.

Their people don't care about the niceties of agreements and how they came about. All they would shout about is that once again, they have beaten a superpower, and now Islam is unstoppable. We would be better off stopping Baker and then them.


The over-populating Muslims export their surplus people to depopulating Europe (Mark Steyn, NY Sun, 11/27, Op.-Ed.).

Considering the Muslims' much higher birth rate, Western military forces fighting against them should not try to minimize enemy military casualties but to exact a high kill ratio. Otherwise, the Muslims would win by attrition.


The Jewish birth rate in Israel is practically as high as the Arab birth rate. Jews still immigrate to Israel, and Arabs still emigrate from the Territories. Therefore, there is no demographic reason for Israel to retreat from Territory. The opposite is true. If Israel retreated, millions of Arabs would enter and put demographic pressure upon Israel (Op. Cit.). They would consume scarce water and produce untreated sewage flowing towards Israel.


Foreign Min. Livny said that the first few hours of the new ceasefire would test whether PA leaders can restrain the terrorist organizations (Arutz-7, 11/26).

There have been quite a number of ceasefires. The Arabs violate them. Why constantly "test" them? Israeli leaders should stop pretending that the jihadists honor agreements or make peace. The purpose of Islamic ceasefires is to accumulate the means for another bombardment. Israel's purpose is to suspend criticism for it's not stopping the Arab bombardment.


Some Lebanese blame Pierre Gemayel's assassination upon the US or Israel. They think it was to make Syria look bad (Benny Avni, NY Sun, 11/27, p.6).

There is no evidence for that or of that being either country's policy. Look bad to whom? Nobody has to make Syria look bad. It is bad. Besides, who does anything about Syria? This conspiracy theory is far-fetched. On the other hand, Hizbullah wants to bring down the Lebanese regime, and by killing enough Cabinet Members, the regime would lose its quorum and fall. That is motive!


Regardless of whom Israeli voters pick for Prime Minister, he withdraws from territory or fails to enforce agreements with the Arabs. What once was a right wing in Israeli political parties has turned mostly leftward, ideologically, though the people do want security enough to fight for it. A leader of the Yesha Council has admitted receiving government funds for diversionary protests and for sabotaging the protest against Gaza withdrawal (Barry Chamish, lost date).

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Nurit Greenger, December 15, 2006.
This comes from the Infidel Bloggers Alliance website:
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/12/continuing-saga-of-flying-imams.html And it was posted by von Schlichtningen.

This was posted by Psion December 2, 2006
"Imams on a plane" Claim First Victim"

Last week Clearchannel radio KFYI Phoenix interviewed Iman Omar Shaid (Spokesman for the 6 Imans on a plane, serial defender of Osama bin Laden) of the East Valley Mosque. After Omar was given the opportunity to spew his propaganda regarding America and Islam, KFYI producer Kate O'Neill brought in Islamic expert Mohammed Saeed to set the record straight. Saeed refuted every detail of the Imam's version of Islam and opined that The Jordanian clerics were out to embarrass the American people by claiming to be "Victims" of racial profiling.

The KFYI phones lit up as Arizonans called into the show and voiced their views on the matter. "Get out of our country" was the prevalent view expressed by the outraged citizenry.

The controversy over the interview continued all week as KFYI programs were inundated with phone calls from angry citizens. KFYI should have been extremely pleased with the response. Unfortunately the testosterone-challenged management at the station responded to the success of the interview by having a program director on hand during producer Kate O'Neil's shows...ready to the pull the plug instantly if O'Neill dared to court further controversy by confronting the issue of the Jihad waged against North America.

On Friday December 1st, the KFYI management fired outspoken Kate O'Neill.

I have obtained a recent communication between O'Neill and Sean Hannity.......perhaps the letter below was what broke the KFYI camel's back.

From: O'NEILL, KATE Sent: Wed 11/29/2006 5:37 PM To: Sean Hannity Subject: info and audio from KFYI, PHX w/ Moslem imams on the plane

Sean -- I produce/co-host 7-10 pm weeknight show on KFYI- was hired by our mutual friend, Laurie Cantillo. Having reported for NBC News, Tel Aviv, for three years I know something about the jihad. You are right to focus tightly on this incident. I've got great audio from several on-air confrontations w/two of the imams during the last week. One called in to object to my call to book all holiday travel on US Air. Our audience has gone crazy over this issue. Haven't seen passions this high over anything other but illegal immigration. These guys contradict themselves at every turn. They're bad news- Kate

Clearchannel has now been sold to a nameless "group of investors". Let's hope that the investors are not Saudi.

Over at Little Green Footballs DEcember 12, 2006 posting with video:

Here's Debra Burlingame talking about the six imams ejected from a US Airways flight, and their shakedown campaign against the airlines, on Fox and Friends this morning.
Video: Debra Burlingame on the Non-Flying Imams

Imagine 6 ordinary non-muslims pulling the same stunt off as a joke. I bet they would only now be able to get out on bail.

I dare anyone to try.

Somehow when you are Muslim inhuman behaviour is expected and that earns you a discount.

Producers are fired for exposing Muslims? This is crazy. Next I expect people like Kate O'Neill will be deported to Iran for just punishment (torture, beheading and quartering). After all, we do not want to anger the adherents of the religion of peace. No, Sir.


  • "After Omar was given the opportunity to spew his propaganda regarding American and Islam, KFYI producer Kate O'Neill brought in Islamic expert Mohammed Saeed to set the record straight. Saeed refuted every detail of the Imam's version of Islam and opined that The Jordanian clerics were out to embarrass the American people by claiming to be "Victims" of racial profiling."

    This invitation to bring on someone to refute CAIR's puppets' claims is all too rare.

    And O'Neill got fired? It defies belief. I have to wonder if CAIR was behind that firing.

    By Always On Watch, at Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:07:46 PM

  • I've stated several times that I believed this entire affair was a carefully thought out sham orchestrated by CAIR. Muslims have already succeeded in one of their primary goals...getting special status. This is part of a much larger plan aimed at the ultimate prize..The Islamic Republic of America.

    By American Crusader, at Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:44:38 PM

  • Von Schlict, Thanks for putting this up. I simply have not had time to post, and I was worried this story wouldn't get posted here today.

    AOW, There sure have been a lot of things happening of late which simply defy logic.

    American Crusader, I agree with you absolutely, but why the eff do we cave?

    By Pastorius, at Wednesday, December 13, 2006 11:47:21 PM

Contact Nurit Greenger at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com

To Go To Top

Posted by Steven Plaut, December 15, 2006.

Of all the Jewish holidays, the one that I think best captures the contemporary Jewish zeitgeist, the one that is the most relevant to the current (and, if certain trends are not reversed, the last?) chapter in Jewish history, is Hannuka.

Hannuka is, of course, the story of Jewish national liberation. It is the story of the military victory of the few against the many, of the champions of Judaism against the pagan barbarians.

But it is more than this. It is the saga of the heroic struggle of Jewish survivalists (those one would today label "Zionists") against the assimilationists and self-hating Hellenists of the second century BCE. Hannuka is less a story about the battle against the Greeks than it is about the battle against the predominant assimilationist paradigm at the time among the Jews. It is about the battle against the anti-survivalists, those who hated themselves for being Jews, those who seek to be "progressive", "modern", and "in", through rejecting, abasing, disgracing and degrading themselves and their people. The Hellenists who fought the Hasmoneans were struggling against Jewish survival. Sound familiar?

In the United States, the main movement of Hellenistic assimilationism has been the school of "Political Liberalism as Judaism", the pseudo-religion that holds that all of Judaism can be reduced to the pursuit of this week's liberal political fads. But the global avante garde of Jewish self-hatred these days is the Israeli Left.

The Israeli Left is the main manifestation today of Jewish anti-Semitism. It not only promotes "plans" and policies designed to end Israel's existence, increasingly endorsing the one-state, bi-national Rwanda solution to the "problem" of Israeli national existence, but it also regularly attacks every symbol and concept of traditional Judaism.

You think I am exaggerating? Well just consider the Op-Ed a few years back in the Israeli anti-Zionist daily Haaretz, penned by one Yehiam Shorek, a "historian" who teaches at the Beit Berl College in Israel. Beit Berl is a college run by the kibbutz movement.

The "historian" Shorek devoted his Haaretz column to proving that the Maccabees were fascist and racist hooligans, bloodthirsty zealots, and downright Likudniks. His column was entitled "Bloodthirsty Zealots". His thesis was that Jews should stop celebrating Hannuka and the exploits of the Maccabees, and should instead feel sympathy for the poor occupied and mistreated Greeks and Hellenists.

His article was not a spoof.

The evil Maccabees were plotting to perpetrate population "transfer", wrote Shorek, that most evil of all crimes in the "minds" of Israel's fundamentalist Leftists. Population "transfer" is far worse than, say, mass murdering 2000 Jews after signing with them a series of peace accords, or turning the West Bank and Gaza over to barbarian fascists to allow them to carry out such mass murders. Shorek is a member of that same Fundamentalist Left that will not rest until all Jews have been expelled from the West Bank and Gaza in an act of ethnic cleansing, and until no Israeli armed forces are left behind to interfere with the terrorist activities of the "Palestinians."

Matityahu, the father of Judah Maccabee and his brothers, was a lunatic, wrote Shorek. He was a warmonger who dragged his country into an unnecessary "war of choice", one that was not a legitimate "war of self-defense". (Never mind that there is nothing at all in Judaism that says Jews should refrain from conquering their lands unless it is part of a war of self-defense.) The Maccabees were the aggressors, insisted Shorek. And they suppressed the free speech of those who supported the Greeks; how undemocratic of them!

Judah Maccabee was guilty of causing many families to lose their loved ones by leading people to war, wrote Shorek, instead of pursuing some sort of Hellenistic Oslo appeasement and capitulation, the sort the "enlightened Left" seeks today to impose upon Israel. All Judah Maccabee really wanted to do was to Occupy, Occupy, Occupy, insists Shorek. No better than the West Bank settlers today! And not only that, but Judah and his hooligans were Orthodox Jews, which every leftist knows must make them primitive and barbaric; you know, unlike the enlightened Marxist historians who live on nice kibbutzim or teach at the Beit Berl college.

(If you would like to tell the management of Beit Berl what you think they should do with Shorek, write daliabk@beitberl.ac.il or Beit Berl College, Doar Beit Berl, 44905, Israel; Telephone: 972-9-7476333; Fax: 972-9-7454104.)

Unfortunately, Shorek is hardly a lone phenomenon. Israel's anti-Jewish leftists have been launching similar jihads against every other symbol of Jewish valor. Masada was a cesspool of non-tolerant fanatics, according to them. The Bible is a backward document full of fabrications. Schools should stop teaching it altogether, they demand, and instead teach something really useful, like the works of Palestinian "poets". Archeology proves the Bible is nothing but lies and fantasy, they insist. One wag labeled such people Pentateuch Deniers (intended as a play on "Holocaust Deniers").

In Israel, the country's politics -- particularly its cultural/educational elite and its chattering classes -- are now largely dominated by those motivated by the desire for their country to commit national suicide. They scorn themselves, their own country and their own people, the same way that the Hellenized Jews did at the time of the Maccabees. Many endorse boycotts of Israel by anti-Semites abroad. Like the Hellenized Jews, they are convinced that traditionalist Jews are reactionary and primitive, and that the greatest national priority should be renunciation of Jewish peculiarity and the striving to assimilate amongst the cosmopolitan progressive "Greeks" of the world. They are ashamed of their Jewishness and convinced that the only path to peace is to renounce it. They insist that a Seleucid "narrative" should replace the Jews' own reactionary national one.

Israel's universities are by and large the Occupied Territories of these Hellenists. The Israeli media is to almost the same extent. Hellenists dominate much of the Israeli military and, somewhat incredibly, the intelligence services. (It is doubtful the country could have undergone the Oslo debacle had these intelligence services not operated as lap dogs for the Beilinized Israeli Left.)

Hellenists have attempted to rewrite the Israeli school curriculum, to teach Israeli Jewish children to despise themselves. Their message is that Jews must feel ashamed, because they are mean, selfish, evil and immoral people. Surely, there would be no anti-Semitism on the planet were not the Jews such racist and insensitive people.

Their aim is to convince the Jews that the only way they may become accepted in the world is to adapt to paganism, to stop seeking to exist as a separate national entity, to commit national suicide. Moreover, their campaign is aimed at challenging the moral existence of the Jews. They realize this is the weakest chink in the armor of the Jews. If Jews can be convinced that they are morally in the wrong, then no Maccabees will emerge. The aim of the Jewish Hellenists is the delegitimization of the Jews as a nation, discrediting the moral position of Jewish survivalism.

The message of the contemporary Hellenists is unambiguous: Those who wish to purify the Temple, who seek pure oil for the Temple lamp, who wish to evict the barbarians from Jerusalem, are the enemies of peace. The Maccabees must be arrested for incitement. The Jews must provide Antiochus with concessions and arms and funds and a Road Map. Under no circumstances should the Jews seek to defend themselves militarily against the Seleucids, for there is no military solution to the problem of Seleucid aggression. If the barbarians murder the Jews, it is because the Jews are evil, selfish people and because they have been too reluctant to abandon their primitive survivalism.

If the Israeli anti-Jewish Left has its way, the Post-Hasmonean, post-survivalist era will be upon us. Dip the latkes in lard.

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

To Go To Top

Posted by Salah Choudhury, December 14, 2006.

Referring to the 8/17 bomb blasts in all the 63 districts in Bangladesh, Ambassador Howard Schaffer expressed the view that Bangladesh is probably being used by Islamic fundamentalists and insurgents as a safe haven to enable them to carry on with their activities in an unrestricted manner.

Between August and December 2005, a series of attacks hit Bangladesh, collectively killing 12, wounding hundreds of others and involving the country's first suicide strikes. In the most audacious assault on August 17, 434 homemade bombs were set off in 63 districts over the course of just one hour. This unprecedented bout of violence has thrust the country to the forefront of regional and global terrorist attention, generating fears that a new jihadist beachhead is emerging in this predominantly Muslim nation of roughly 144 million people.

"This is surely terrorism. It can't be anything else. What was astonishing about these bombings, which took place in late August, was that they were coordinated throughout the country. Only a couple of districts were not affected. Not too many people were killed, and that many people think is evidence that what these terrorist groups were seeking to do was to send a warning to the government and the country, because you can't have such a coordinated attack unless you have a very strong organization," he said.

Schaffer said inability of the government to rule the country was a major contributor of growing extremism. "Bangladesh is badly governed. And under those circumstances, there is a tendency to turn to moderate Islamic countries, moderate Islamic parties, or more radical groups. It sets up an environment in which these radical groups can operate," he said.

Two main militant organizations currently exist in Bangladesh: Jama'at ul-Mujahedeen Bangladesh (JMB, or the Bangladesh Assembly of Holy Warriors) and Harakat-ul Mujahideen Bangladesh (HuJI-B, or Movement of Islamic Holy war-Bangladesh). It may be mentioned here that the masterminds of the notorious Islamist militancy group JMB, Shykh Abdur Rahman studied in Medina University, who later came back to Bangladesh and worked for Saudi Embassy for some years. During his student life, Shykh Rahman managed to establish relations with Al-Qaeda.

Incidents of extremism and terrorism have witnessed a sharp increase in Bangladesh in recent years, with the number of attacks last year exceeding the total number of incidents in the preceding five years. Most of the attacks have been directed against religious minorities, secular intellectuals and journalists as well as against politicians belonging to secular parties and leftist activists. Islamist extremists have sought to impose an Islamic way of life on people in rural areas, often through the use of force. Women have been coerced into veiling themselves and men have been forced to grow beards and wear skull caps.

According to terrorism experts and several analysts, Bangladesh is increasingly recognized as the locus of a significant and expanding threat emanating from radicalized Islamist extremist mobilization and its systematic transformation into political and terrorist violence. Notwithstanding vociferous official denials, it has, for some time now, been an established staging post for terrorism within the region, and is seen as a potential center of Islamist consolidation for the "global jihad" as well.

Worse, these processes are rooted in an entrenched political dynamic that has progressively diminished the space for secular or moderate politics in the country. Given the polarization and extreme hostility between the two dominant political parties in Bangladesh, and the near complete split down the middle in voting patterns, the Islamist parties have become central to the processes of government formation in the country, and have gradually expanded their political presence as well.

These trends have been compounded further by the combination of religious mobilization, intimidation and extremist violence that these radical parties and their armed allies engage in, as well as their very wide and expanding presence in the social sector, particularly education. Given these broad trends, the scope for any reversal of the Islamist extremist consolidation in Bangladesh has shrunk progressively.

It is necessary to understand the dynamics of these processes, as well as to make an objective assessment of their real and potential threat, both in terms of internal stability and external security.

Firstly, what are the real dimensions and magnitude of the threat of Islamist extremist mobilization in Bangladesh? The coastal area stretching from the port city of Chittagong south through Cox's Bazaar to the Myanmar border, notorious for piracy, smuggling and arms-running, is the principal area of activity of the Harkat-ul-Jehadi-e-Islami Bangladesh (Movement of Islamic Holy War, HuJI-BD), which is a signatory to Osama bin Laden's International Islamic Front and a designated terrorist outfit in many countries, including the United States.

Further, the Jagrata Muslim Janata Bangladesh (JMJB or Awakened Muslim Masses), a vigilante Islamist group, is reported to have created strong bases mostly in northwest Bangladesh, in the districts of Rajshahi, Satkhira, Naogaon, Bagerhat, Jessore, Chittagong, Joypurhat, Natore, Rangpur, Bogra, Chittagong, and Khulna.

Elsewhere, the Jama'atul Mujahideen (Party of the Mujahideen) is training small groups of youths for jihad in the northern districts of Natore and Bogra, one in the southwestern district of Chuadanga and another in the mid-eastern border district of Chandpur. It also has a network in the Shaghata, Sundarganj and Sadullapur areas of Gaibandha district as also in Rajshahi district and parts of Khulna city.

While both of them espouse the ideal of a "Italianized" Bangladesh, JMJB leaders have openly proclaimed links to the Taliban and al-Qaeda. There have also been reports that JMJB's training of recruits includes recorded speeches of bin Laden and video footage of warfare training at al-Qaeda's (now defunct) Farooque camp in Afghanistan.

Professor Abu Sayeed, in his two books, Aghoshito Juddher Blueprint (Blueprint of an Undeclared War) and Brutal Crime Documents, claims that around 50,000 militants belonging to more than 40 groups are now controlling a vast area of the country. Sayeed also says over 50 camps are now in operation across Bangladesh, where Islamists are getting military training and that militant groups have their recruits in all sections of society, including mosques, seminaries, educational institutions, the judiciary, mass media and even the armed forces.

The prevailing socio-political dynamics lend themselves to the consolidation of Islamist extremism in the country. For instance, the JMJB is believed to have exploited the countryside's abhorrence towards left-wing extremism to spread radical Wahhabism among the rural populace and in the process also emerged as a significant force to be reckoned with.

The group's rapid spread has been primarily achieved through an assumption of the role of "protector" in areas of widespread mal-governance, support of local administration and perceived linkages and claims of contact with the al-Qaeda-Taliban combine.

Taking recourse to a policy of appeasement, the Khaleda Zia regime had initially remained largely indifferent to the growing power and clout of such radical Islamist groups. Although, lately after the countrywide bomb explosion by JMB, the former ruling coalition was rather forced to go into a massive drive to arrest the main kingpins and put them on trial.

A sharp polarization of the country's polity has led to a situation in which the just past-government sought to maintain an electoral balance, while the Islamic extremists seek to broaden their political and social base. This is crucial and is expected to continue, considering the past trajectory.

In the October 2001 Parliamentary elections, BNP secured 40.97% of the votes, with its coalition right-wing parties, Jamaat-e-Islami Bangladesh securing 4.28%, and the Islami Oikyo Jote (Islamic Unity Council, an alliance of seven radical Islamist groups) wining 0.68%.

At the other end, the opposition AL received 40.13% of the vote. This extremely close competition between the two main parties gave the Islamists disproportionate leverage, considering their tiny electoral base. It is this battle for electoral balance among the BNP and AL that is being exploited by the Islamic extremists.

While it is true that Bangladeshi Islamic extremists, with some exceptions, have not been linked to major international terrorist incidents, it would be perilous to consider the Islamist ensemble as purely internal developments. These movements are, to a certain extent, local variants of an international Islamist enterprise and a significant number of these groups and individuals maintain links with the "global jihad". To that end, it would be hazardous to focus only on the transient geographical location of Islamist terror.

Anti-US rhetoric has continued. In December 2001, Maulana Ubaidul Haq, the khatib (grand cleric), of Bangladesh's national mosque, Baitul Mukarram, and a Jamaat associate, publicly condemned the US war on terror and urged followers to wage holy war against the USA. "President Bush and America is the most heinous terrorist in the world. Both America and Bush must be destroyed. The Americans will be washed away if Bangladesh's 120 million Muslims spit on them," the cleric told a gathering of hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi Muslims which included several high-ranking government officials.

Much of the violence in the Chittagong-Cox's Bazar area has been blamed on the Rohingyas, a refugee community of Muslims from Myanmar's Arakan State. In 1991, over 250,000 Rohingyas fled to Bangladesh, claiming religious persecution in Myanmar. They were sheltered in more than 20 camps near the border south and east of Cox's Bazar. The UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) managed to repatriate most of them, but an estimated 20,000 destitute refugees remain in two camps between Cox's Bazar and the border, which is heavily mined in some areas on the Myanmar side to prevent smuggling and cross border guerrilla activities.

There is also an undisclosed number of Rohingyas living in villages outside the UNHCR supervised camps. In one village, Gumdrum, located only a few hundred meters from the Myanmar border, virtually everyone is of Rohingya descent. Some are recent arrivals, while others have settled here over the past three or four decades. According to officials, new refugees arrive