Home Featured Stories Did You Know? Readers' Blog-Eds Background Information News On the Web
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers

Posted by Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), February 29, 2004.
To: ZOA Executive Directors
   ZOA Regional Leaders
   Friends of Israel Around the U.S.

From: Morton A. Klein - National President
       Dr. Alan Mazurek - Chairman of the Board
       Dr. Michael Goldblatt - Chair, National Executive Committee

The proposal for a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip has raised a number of urgent questions. Leading Israeli military experts are warning that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal would lead to an increase in Palestinian Arab terrorism against Israelis. It would send a clear message that murdering Jews brings results, without the Palestinian Authority even being required to promise to fight terror, much less actually doing it. Moreover, an Israeli withdrawal would include the forced mass expulsion of Jews from their homes and communities for no other reason than that they are Jews an action that would be deemed immoral and racist if it were applied to any other minority group in any other country.

Please e-mail your concerns to Prime Minister Sharon and Members of Knesset:

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: pm_heb@pmo.gov.il

Likud Knesset Members:
Yuval Steinitz: ysteinitz@knesset.gov.il
Sylvan Shalom: sshalom@knesset.gov.il
Omri Sharon: osharon@knesset.gov.il
Michael Ratzon: mratzon@knesset.gov.il
Ayoub Kara: akara@knesset.gov.il
Ruby Rivlin: rrivlin@knesset.gov.il
Tzippi Livni: zlivni@knesset.gov.il
Limor Livnat: llivnat@knesset.gov.il
David Levy: david_levi@knesset.gov.il
Uzi Landau: ulandau@knesset.gov.il
Danny Naveh: dnaveh@knesset.gov.il
Leah Nass: lnes@knesset.gov.il
Benyamin Netanyahu: bnetanyahoo@knesset.gov.il
Marina Solodkin: msolodkin@knesset.gov.il
Gideon Saar: gsaar@knesset.gov.il
Gideon Ezra: gezra@knesset.gov.il
Tzahi Hanegbi: zhanegbi@knesset.gov.il
Ehud Yatom: eyatom@knesset.gov.il
Majalli Wahbee: mwahaba@knesset.gov.il
Yisrael Katz: yiskatz@knesset.gov.il
Haim Katz: hkatz@knesset.gov.il
Moshe Kahlon: mcachlon@knesset.gov.il
Abraham Hirschson: ahirshzon@knesset.gov.il
Yehiel Hazan: yhazan@knesset.gov.il
Michael Gorlovski: mgorlovski@knesset.gov.il
Eli Aflalo: eaflalo@knesset.gov.il
Ruhama Avraham: ravraham@knesset.gov.il
Ronnie Bar-On: rbaron@knesset.gov.il
Daniel Ben-Lulu: dbenlulu@knesset.gov.il
Naomi Blumenthal: nblumentl@knesset.gov.il
Ze'ev Boim: zaevb@knesset.gov.il
Yuli Edelstein: yedelstein@knesset.gov.il
Yaakov Edri: yedri@knesset.gov.il
Mickey Eitan: mikieitn@netvision.net.il
Gilad Erdan: gerdan@knesset.gov.il
Gila Gamliel: ggamliel@knesset.gov.il
Inbal Gavrieli: egavrieli@knesset.gov.il
Meir Sheetrit: mshitrit@knesset.gov.il
Ehud Olmert: eulmert@knesset.gov.il


*  Israeli Military Experts Oppose Unilateral Withdrawal:

Senior Israeli Army officials have warned Prime Minister Sharon that "If the Palestinians are able to operate a sea port or airport from the Gaza Strip after the Israeli retreat, the Palestinians would be able to import weapons that would threaten Israel's security." Major-General Aharon Zeevi Farkash, chief of Israeli Military Intelligence, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee on February 10 that a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza "will be seen as surrender to terrorism" and "might motivate further terrorism." (Ma'ariv, Feb. 10, 2004) Shlomo Gazit, former chief of Israeli Military Intelligence, wrote: "Our exit from Gaza will transform it into a big armed camp into which weapons of all kinds will stream via land, sea and maybe even air. It will also become an arsenal for independent development and production of arms. Moreover, this capitulation will be rightly viewed as an unambivalent victory for the Palestinian armed struggle." (Ma'ariv, Feb. 9, 2004)

 * U.S. Joint Chiefs: Israel should keep Gaza

On June 29, 1967, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff stated in a report to the Secretary of Defense that Israel needed to keep Gaza: "By occupying the Gaza Strip, Israel would trade approximately 45 miles of hostile border for eight. Configured as it is, the strip serves as a salient for introduction of Arab subversion and terrorism, and its retention would be to Israel's military advantage."

 * An Israeli withdrawal means creating a terrorist state in Gaza:

The Palestinian Authority regime currently administers parts of Gaza, but does not have sovereignty because of the presence of the Israeli Army. The PA does not control the borders, does not control sea access to Gaza, and does not have a full-fledged army. If Israel withdraws from the area, the PA will be able to establish a sovereign state, which would certainly be a terrorist state, to judge by how the PA has treated terrorists until now. It has not disarmed or outlawed terrorist groups; it has not shut down their bomb factories; it has not closed down the terrorists' training camps. It has rewarded terrorists with jobs in the PA police force. In short, the PA has actively collaborated with and sheltered the terrorists. Moreover, the PA itself has sponsored thousands of terrorist attacks against Israel.

The PA has also created an entire culture of glorification of terrorism and anti-Jewish hatred in its official media, schools, summer camps, sermons by PA-appointed clergy, and speeches by PA representatives. PA school textbooks teach that Jews are "evil racists."

 * Rewarding terrorists is wrong and dangerous:

During the past three years, Palestinian Arab terrorists have carried out tens of thousands of terrorist attacks against Israel, murdering nearly 1,000 Israelis and maiming many more. The terrorists demand, among other things, that Israel withdraw from Gaza and expel the Jewish residents. Terrorists, like all criminals, deserve to be punished for the crimes, not rewarded. For Israel to withdraw from Gaza and expel the Jewish residents would be to reward the terrorists. It would also encourage more terrorism, by demonstrating to the terrorists that additional violence may bring about additional Israeli concessions. Three and a half years of Palestinian Arab terrorism has proven that appeasement and concessions have failed.

 * Creating a Palestinian Arab state in Gaza would not lead to peace:

Establishing a state in Gaza would not satisfy the Palestinian Arabs' goals. The aim of a Palestinian Arab state would not be to live in peace next to Israel, but to serve as a spring board for terrorism and invasions aimed at annihilating the Jewish State. The PA makes no secret of its goal; the official maps on PA letterhead, in PA schoolbooks and atlases, and even on the patch worn on the uniforms of PA policemen show all of Israel not just the disputed territories labeled "Palestine."

 * A Gaza state would be an anti-American dictatorship:

The last thing the world needs now is yet another totalitarian, anti-American terrorist state. Yet that is exactly what a Palestinian Arab state in Gaza would be, to judge by the behavior of the PA during the ten years since it was created. The PA is a brutal Muslim dictatorship which tortures dissidents, silences newspaper that deviate from the PA line, and persecutes Christians. The official PA media actively incites hatred against America, and the PA maintains warm relations with the most anti-American regimes in the world, including Iran, Syria, Sudan, and North Korea.

 * The Jewish presence in Gaza dates back to biblical times:

Gaza has been a part of the Land of Israel since biblical times. The borders of Israel specified in Genesis 15 clearly include Gaza, and it is described in Joshua 15:47 and Judges 1:18 as part of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah, and in Kings it is included in the areas ruled by King Solomon. Throughout the centuries, there was a large Jewish presence in Gaza in fact, it was the largest Jewish community in the country at the time of the Muslim invasion (7th century CE). The Jews of Gaza were forced to leave the area when Napoleon's army marched through in 1799, but they later returned. The Jewish community in Gaza was destroyed during the British bombardment in 1917, but later it was rebuilt again. When Palestinian Arabs threatened to slaughter the Jews of Gaza during the 1929 pogroms, the British ruling authorities forced the Jews to leave. But in 1946, the Jews returned, establishing the town of Kfar Darom in the Gaza Strip, which lasted until 1948, when Egypt occupied the area.

Zionist Organization of America
ZOA Action Alert
The Zionist Organization of America
Jacob & Libby Goodman ZOA House Phone: 212-481-1500
4 East 34th St. New York, NY 10016 Fax: 212-481-1515
e-mail: email@zoa.org Web Site: www.zoa.org

The Zionist Organization of America, founded in 1897, is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its past presidents have included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver.

The Zionist Organization of America is a tax-exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") and all contributions to it are deductible as charitable contributions as provided in IRC section 170.

Posted by Diana Muir, February 29, 2004.
This was published in the Providence Journal (http://www.projo.com), February 24, 2004.

IN A.D. 122, the Roman Emperor Hadrian ordered construction of a wall that would run 73 miles across the width of England, from the River Tyne to Solway Firth. The idea was to keep barbarians from making trouble for the civilized people of Roman Britain.

In the Third Century BCE, the Chin Emperor ordered that a series of walls erected by sundry border states be linked into a Great Wall that ran from the Gulf of Chihli to the edge of Tibet, about 22 times the length of Hadrian's barrier. The wall succeeded in repelling many barbarians.

We no longer have barbarians. We have terrorists. It is hardly surprising that a nation whose citizens are being murdered should decide to construct a fence to stop the entry of terrorists, even though building such a fence requires demolishing homes, separating farmers from their fields, moving whole villages, and considerable hardship for the individuals affected.

India, therefore, is building a security fence, with all deliberate speed. Yes, India.

While the attention of the world focuses on the West Bank, India is surrounding Bangladesh with a fence about 2,500 miles long, similar in construction and purpose to that being built by Israel to try to protect itself from Palestinian terrorists.

India's seven northeastern provinces are wracked by violence as tribal insurgencies struggle for independence. The resentment that some members of these ethnic groups feel is exacerbated by the inundation of their homelands by waves of illegal Muslim immigrants. In recent years an estimated 20 million Muslims have illegally crossed the border from Bangladesh.

Several dozen militant groups exist in these seven provinces. Some are said to be little better than brigands, but others are substantial armed insurgencies seeking national independence for tribes that predate Hinduism. Their methods include bombing government officials and the murderous "cleansing" of villages of the "wrong" ethnicity.

The violence is facilitated by the ease with which these terrorists have been able to withdraw across the border to bases in Bangladesh.

The key fact about security fences is that they are highly effective in keeping barbarians out. The Great Wall of China gave excellent protection against raiders. That meant that generations of Chinese could lead secure and prosperous lives in the shadow of the wall. In England, meanwhile, life in the border counties was violent and impoverished.

Hadrian's Wall was abandoned when the Romans left England, but in the late Middle Ages the island of Britain was again divided into a civilized south and a barbarian north.

Well into the 1600s, Scottish border tribes raided northern England, looting and kidnapping. In 1745 Scottish Highlanders launched an invasion of England aimed at putting a Stuart on the throne. England defended itself from the risk of further invasion by pacifying the Highland tribes.

The process eventually brought prosperity to the Scottish Lowlands, which blossomed into an Enlightenment that lit the world -- but the price was horrific. England had purchased security by driving nine-tenths of the Highland Scots off their land, in the brutal "Highland clearances."

Starving and bludgeoning an unruly population until its people die or emigrate are one method of pacifying a region. I prefer walls.

Obviously, the best solution for the Mideast would be for the Palestinians to create a government that would abandon the goal of conquering Israel, and that would quash the armed terrorists in its midst. Israel could negotiate peace with such a government.

Failing that, building a fence is the most civilized way in which nations can defend themselves from the threat faced, throughout history, by civilized people who share a border with armed attackers who lack an effective government.

Diana Muir is a historian, book reviewer and winner of the 2001-02 Massachusetts Book Award for "Reflections in Bullough's Pond: Economy and Ecosystem in New England" (University Press of New England).

Posted by Anthony and Ruth Rose, February 29, 2004.
Maybe the problem is that too many Jews are thinking Israel in between their comfortable lives outside of Israel, instead of living in Israel. Zionism does not mean writing articles about Israel, holidaying in Israel, sending money to Israel. We don't need Jews that have a guilt complex, we needs Jews that are willing to come and join in the struggle for Eretz Yisroel.

Aliya Tova

Posted by Yocheved Golani, February 29, 2004.
Here's a pop quiz for history buffs and students of modern headlines: Has the world ever experienced indiscriminate warfare upon unarmed innocents at home and abroad? If yes, when, where and why? How did society respond to the phenomenon? Were double standards involved? What, if any action, did the government take? What was the net result of that action?

After one day of intense terrorist activity and a few months of colorful alerts on domestic soil, the United States remains engaged in its War on Terrorism (you can change the name to Operation Iraqi Freedom or to something else, but the goals are the same). Meanwhile, The Hague sits in judgment of Israel and what remains of its bus-bombed population after the past three extremely violent years.

Red Herrings

World Court jurists are pondering the legalities of the Security Fence built between Gaza and Israel to prevent Human Bombs of Mass Destruction from infiltrating into disputed and non-disputed Israeli real estate. The very persons Israel hopes to keep out have raised grievances against the Security Fence: potential Suicide/Homicide Bombers. Their complaints range from the superficially plausible to more mundane ploys. Accusations fall into two categories. One, that the Security Fence constitutes an illegal land grab upon Palestinian territory. Secondly, that the inconvenient commutes to and from work, relatives and errands mandate the removal and/or rerouting of the Security Fence. Since the Security Fence doesn't follow the precise 1948 Armistice (a.k.a. Green Line) it's being used as a convenient peg upon which to hang the excuses for dismantling it. This, despite Israel's security concerns about explosive Arab neighbors. The inconveniences for commuters heading to work, family events and other activities distract attention from the core issue. The red herrings distract from and camouflage the pressing issue of Israel's effort to protect its citizens from wanton premeditated murder.

Obfuscating the real issue is a timeworn technique for malicious success. Think of the mythical fellow who made it past the foreman with his sand-filled wheelbarrows each night. "I don't care if he removes our sand," the foreman chuckled to his bosses. "This is a rock quarry and he ain't stealing the rocks!" When the foreman opened the gates one morning for another day's labor, his crew complained that not a wheelbarrow was to be found anywhere in the quarry. But the sand thief did not complain. He was long gone, purloined wheelbarrows in tow. Sand was not the issue. Wheelbarrows were, but the clever thief had successfully undermined and concealed the truth by displaying it under the eyes and nose of his supervisor in the guise of a lesser matter.

Contrived Arab grievances in the World Court are today's version of sand in a wheelbarrow, another urban myth. The deliberations sure to fill future headlines need not happen. Precedent exists for dispensing with the topic of the day (Israel's desire to prevent terrorism from harming its citizens), hidden as it is beneath carefully stated lies from "Concerned Commuters."

A Brief History of Indiscriminate Warfare Upon Unarmed Innocents Legal precedents being the stuff of subsequent legislation, The Hague and the World Court can find a perfect legal precedent for the 20th and 21st-Century war on in 19th Century European law. Governments of that period dealt with terrorism and decisively so because jurists of the period saw terrorism for the anarchy it is and they succeeded in ending reigns of terror without becoming oblivious to pressing realities.

Anarchists are revolutionaries who wish to overthrow the current governing power(s). Their gripe is with the mere existence of the State depriving individuals of their liberties. Anarchists have a fundamental belief in violent revolution as the only rational and possible response to the allegedly "untenable" conditions of life because ruling classes never voluntarily surrender power. As such, they throw bombs into crowds in order to attempt the destruction of the State, sabotaging the fundamental interactions of society.

As Russia, France and other 19th Century countries were overrun by cutthroat fighters who did not spare defenseless innocents along the way to the castle, the situation was not at all unlike what the world has suffers from global terrorism today. Pushkin depicted a baby carriage tumbling down governmental steps to illustrate the insanity of the point.

Double Standards Against the Jews

Unarmed innocents then and now have been unjustly slaughtered for causes, morally bankrupt though the causes may be. Indiscriminate warfare does not negotiate, does not capitulate and does not advocate reasoned thought in the manner of a just society. The take-no-prisoners approach of today's Muslim extremists makes them the anarchical terrorists of yesterday. Their global network distinguishes them, however, from historical have-nots. There are vast tracts of Arab-owned and operated lands and societies. Unlike the revolutionaries of old, Islamic terrorists have tremendous resources (land, oil, education, and wealth). It's just that their have-much brethren conned the rest of the have-nots of the tribe into the mob psychology of goading Israel and the world into witnessing the acted-out delusion that a smidgen of rocky, oil-less land in a neighborhood of Arab behemoths is limiting their happiness. Nineteenth-century jurists applied one legal standard to their terrorists, but The Hague apparently intends to apply two. Israel can be brought up on charges for even attempting to protect its citizens, let alone for succeeding. Thus far, the Security Fence has reduced the number of terrorists infiltrating into Israel's minimal real estate. Apparently, the International World Court believes that only bullies should thrive when the Middle East suffers disputes. This, despite Israel's innovation in finding a fourth, non-lethal method of dealing with such anarchy: A Security Fence that keeps out the terrorists.

Another salient point is that Islamic terrorists, like the rabble intimidating the European bourgeoisie before them, are conducting Tribal rather than Class Warfare against a specific class of people. Instead of opposing royalty or capitalists and industrialists, they have clearly declared their opposition to non-Muslims. Islamists have served murderous notice that they hate democracy, Christianity, Buddhism, and anything else that isn't culturally theirs. They accuse non-Muslim, democratic Israel (predicated upon Judaism, Jews and Zionism) of depriving them of liberty! Like sand covering treasure upon a watery shore, Muslim lies give way to valuable truths revealed by powerful forces. It's not the borders or the fence that disturb them; it's the difficulty of creating new fatalities.

Society's Response to Indiscriminate Warfare/Anarchy in the Past In the past, European governments exiled, imprisoned or executed their enemies, effectively ending reigns of terror and the destruction of society. America has not ceased its war on terrorism because it is also committed to preventing further terrorist acts and the destruction of its society.

A Double Standard Imposed on Jews and Israel

The World Court, however, dispenses with precedent as it considers imposing a double standard on beleaguered Israel striving to prevent new crimes against its humanity. Apparently statecraft doesn't apply to Israel in the estimation of the World Court. Intrastate diplomacy with its dialectics of rigorous logic is apparently irrelevant to the nations in the eyes of the law when Israel is concerned. It shouldn't be, if society is to remain an ethical containment force.

If The Hague cannot fathom the fatal flaw in Anarchist Theory or any form of terrorism, it dooms any given population, especially Israel, to the forces of immoral caprice. The crux of the matter presently escaping the World Court's attention is this: Terrorists in any form and in any era make no consideration about how to bring disparate groups together. As Donald Rumsfeld has noted, Israel lacks a viable peace partner. At least, that's what he says when he's not battling Osama bin Laden's call to undermine the anti-terror war effort with unprovoked waves of violence that kill Muslims and anyone else in the detonation area.

Israel Requires Intrastate Versus Interstate Statecraft

Israel's lawyers need to realize something before the World Court announces its Judgment Day: The statecraft of our Toraitic foundation and prophetic tradition is Justice as intrastate diplomacy. Justice can build a great Jewish nation. Israel and the Jews cannot afford to practice interstate diplomacy, also known as war. We don't have millions of Jews available for cannon fodder and even if we did, it's not within our value system to fight in that manner. The dispirited few who remain alive today can only continue to live with G'D's blessing and without the rhetoric of a kangaroo court. After stating this to the World Court, Israel's lawyers can focus on working for a Jewish country that appreciates its sovereignty.

Yocheved Golani is the the author of two novels: "Legacy" and "Legacy 2006:Integrity." "Yocheved's Bookshelf" is on his website, http://www.yochevedgolani.com.

Posted by Janet Lehr, February 29, 2004.
This was sent to me by a friend who wrote, "I must admit I had no idea." She continued, "Please share this e mail with all you know. The image of Norway living in the aura created by the "Song of Norway" is a total fiction. They enjoy a reputation of civility and fair mindedness that comes more from always staying out of the limelight than from what is actually. What they really are and what they really practice should be distributed and publicized wherever posssible. I never knew, and doubtless very few know, that only 30 Jews survived the Nazi occupation and that their Jewish population all went to Auschwitz. I agree with the writer. I too will never travel on Norwegian Lines.


These are the two articles.

Why I Won't Be Seeing The Fjords This Summer
by Bennett M. Epstein

On the heels of Mr. Roed-Larsen's now infamous remark that Israel "ceded all "moral ground" in Jenin, comes word from his home country of Norway that some supermarket chains have decided to place special identification stickers on products from Israel.

Other Scandinavian countries may follow suit. The Norwegians say the stickers do not constitute a "boycott" of Israel; they just want their customers, who are overwhelmingly pro Palestinian, to pay attention to where these products are produced.

Maybe the rest of us should run down to our local supermarkets with a pad of yellow "post-it" notes so that consumers of Norwegian salmon or Jarlsberg cheese can also pay attention to where those are produced. Stick them on the packages with a note: these products come from a place with a shameful past that continues to operate as a European free zone for Neo-Nazis and other right wing extremists.

Those asking the question of whether ! Europeans are anti-Israel because of Israel's actions in fighting terror, or because of their own latent anti-Semitism, should study the example of Norway. Behind the current disclaimer of a boycott you will find that Norwegians are quite experienced at boycotting Israel. Norwegian labour unions have recently refused to off-load Israeli farm produce..

Last year, a Norwegian "labor youth movement" organized a campaign to ban Israeli singers from the Eurovision song contest. Another Norwegian group has been boycotting Israeli oranges since the early 90s. This group, "Boikott Israel l," rejuvenated by the latest "Intifada" to include a boycott of all Israeli commerce, denies on its website that it is anti-Semitic but states its goal is the end Israel's "50 year occupation" of, and the return of refugees to a "free Palestine."

Not anti-Semitic? In 1941, the graffiti on Jewish businesses in Oslo read: "Jews, go to Palestine."

To campaign now in Norway to get the Jews out of "Palestine" seems anti-Semitic to me, if only by process of elimination. Indeed, the roots Norwegian boycotts of Israel run deep.Anti-Semitism has held a unique place in Norwegian politics since the 1930s when Vidkun Quisling, later the leader of a Nazi puppet government in Norway, formed the National Union Party. While many Norwegians fought with the Resistance, many became eager collaborators of the Nazis, including some 60,000 members of the National Union.

Under its auspices, Norway formed its own branch of the SS and established academies sending hundreds of officers the rings of like-minded groups from Sweden and with little fear of official interference.

More significantly, according to a report published by the Stephen Roth Institute of Tel Aviv University, the extreme right wing Progress Party is [today] the second largest party in Norway with 25 out of 160 seats in the Parliament Among other racist and anti-immigration views, this party advocates banning male circumcision.

Schechita, kosher sticker! s on Israeli goods are the modern-day equivalent of painting "Joden" on the Jewish-owned businesses of Oslo and Trondheim in1941. [Editors Note: That is so if all Israeli products are Kosher - That might not be true. Janet Lehr]

We needn't be reminded that after that, all of Norway's remaining Jews were deported to Auschwitz.

Fewer than 30 survived the Holocaust.

I'm not the sort that usually pays attention to boycotts and counter-boycotts, because often you don't know who you are really hurting.

But there is a good reason why I won't be buying Norwegian products any time soon, or cruising on the Norwegian Line.

Their stickers have caught my attention.

Bennett M. Epstein is a criminal defense lawyer practicing in New York City. He is a former prosecutor and professor of criminal justice.

How Leading Norwegian Politicians Who Pushed Forward the Peace Process Had Strong Anti-Semitic Past
from the Jewish Press, November 01, 2002

Many individuals are surprised at the strong anti-Israel bias displayed by leading Norwegian politicians and Norwegian diplomat Terje Larsen, the supposed friends who in 1993 helped architect the Oslo Agreement to bring peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

However, a recently undusted report of The Middle East Intelligence Digest (Vol.7, No. 5, May, 1996) shows that the Norwegians' intentions were sinister from the beginning. Here is the stunning report in full:

"Twenty five years ago he committed himself to wiping Israel from the face of the Middle East. On May 13, Norwegian Foreign Minister Bjorn Tere Godal arrived to see the deployment of Norwegian 'peacekeeping' troops in Hebron - to oversee the beginning of the end Jewish rule over the first Jewish city.

"On May 4, the Norwegian newspaper Dagen exposed a 25 year old commitment by leading figures in Norway's ruling Labor Party to support and facilitate the demise of a sovereign Jewish Israel, and to establish in its place a secular, liberal Palestinian state.

"The report showed that Norwegian Labor Party leaders agree with Arafat's ultimate aim: the removal of the Jewish state in the Middle East.

"Twenty five years ago, the man who is today's Minister of Foreign Affairs committed the Labor Party Youth wing to removing Israel from the Middle East, thus paving the way for the Oslo Accords. By giving Norway the 'honor' of hosting the secret talks with the PLO, Israel in its thirst for peace, played into the hands of those committed to its dissolution.

"Dagen centered its report on revelations in a book by Haaken Lie, a former secretary-general of Norway's Labor Party and a strong friend of Israel.

"Lie revealed that in the 1971 Labor Youth Organization (AUF) convention, chairman Bjorn Tere Godal approved the following resolution: 'The AUF will support the forces which struggle for the national and social liberation of the Palestinian people. The qualification for lasting peace must be that Israel ceases to exist as a Jewish state, and that a progressive Palestinian state is established where all ethnic groups can live side by side in complete equality.'

"Godal is today, Norway's minister of foreign affairs and a strong advocate of a Palestinian state. When confronted with his words, he told Dagen, 'It is irrelevant what I meant at that point because the situation has changed.'

"Dagen traced the first resolution by the AUP and how it was pursued it in the ensuing years by Various Labor Party politicians such as Thorvald Stoltenberg, Knut Frydenlund and (then) Prime Minister Gro Harlem Brundtland.

"Stoltenberg was foreign minister when the secret Israel-PLO talks began in January 1993. He was also the brother-in-law of the late Johan Joergen Holst, foreign minister when the Oslo Agreement was signed. Ten years before, he and then foreign minister Frydenlund visited Arafat in Tunisia, returning to persuade their Labor colleagues that, 'there is no reason to doubt Arafat's willingness to sit at the negotiating table.'

"Frydenlund had wanted Arafat to visit Oslo but Prime Minister Olaf Palme changed the plan. So the chairmen of the Scandinavian Labor Parties met Arafat in Stockholm in 1983, after which Brundtland told the press, 'Arafat is a knowledgable and interesting person. I have not met with an extremist.

[This last sentence will be better appreciated by turning to Red Horizons, a book written by Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former head of Rumanian Intelligence under the Ceausescu regime. Pacepa records this statement about Arafat: "I've never before seen so much cleverness, blood, and filth all together in one man." He then mentions an intelligence report which speaks of Arafat's "incredible fanaticism, of devotion to his cause, of tangled oriental political maneuvers, of lies, of embezzled PLO funds deposited in Swiss bank accounts, and of homosexual relationships when he was a teenager and ending with his current bodyguards." Pacepa then concludes: After reading that report, I felt a compulsion to take a shower whenever I had been kissed by Arafat, or even just shaking his hand."]

"Dagen recalled that the conclusion reached by Palme and by Denmark's Prime Minister Anker Jorgensen was equally clear: 'Israel was the problem preventing peace in the Middle East.'

"Thus, writes Dagen, twelve years after meeting Arafat, Norway watched as Prime Minister Burndtlend 'leads Arafat by the hand on the red carpet when he comes to receive the Nobel Prize For Peace.'

"Leif Wellerap, a Norwegian journalist, believes the Dagen report answers all those who have wondered why Norway involved itself so heavily in the past years in making Arafat and the PLO so politically palatable.

"'For those aware of the traditionally good and friendly relationship between Israel and Norway, and specifically between Israel and the Norwegian Labor Party,' says Wellerap, 'it has been hard to understand what lay behind the efforts to clean up the Middle East's chief terrorist and turn him into a main player in what is known around the world as the Oslo process.'

"'Lie makes it easier to understand what has led the Norwegian government to act as a locomotive in the process that is about to place Israel in its greatest danger since its birth. My hope is that this report will open eyes to the misery Israel is heading towards if it stays on the track, regrettably named after my country's capital.'"

While Israel's citizens may have been ignorant of the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian bias of the Norwegians, can we believe that of Shimon Peres and Yitzxhak Rabin, the high-ranking Israeli politicians who pushed the Oslo Agreement through? Could it be they didn't know of the Norwegians' official agenda to bring about Israel's dissolution?

Posted by Jock Falkson, February 29, 2004.
Many Christians have been influenced by anti-Semitic demonization into believing that "the Jews" plan to rule the world. This monstrous invention was initiated by publication of the notorious "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" - a roundly exposed forgery - first issued in Russian 99 years ago.

The calumny that Jews plan world domination is idiotic nonsense. It will be more sensible for the Christian world to heed the deeply embedded religious teachings of Islam whose unashamed purpose is to dominate all world religions.

Professor Moshe Sharon, who teaches Islamic History at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, is fluent in Arabic. His profound knowledge of Islam and the Koran reveals the unvarnished truth about the religion of Islam - one which cannot abide the existence of any other.

In his recently published article THE AGENDA OF ISLAM - A WAR BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS, Prof. Sharon outlines the authentic Islamic vision of a religion that does not hide its Allah-driven need to dominate all other religions. It is a Koranic imperative which holds a horribly unpleasant threat for Jews and Christians everywhere.

I encourage everyone to read Professor Sharon's important essay. It is in this issue of Think-Israel.

Here are some quotes from Professor Sharon's groundbreaking article:

"Allah sent Mohammed with the true religion so that it should rule over all the religions."

"Jihad means war against those people who don't want to accept the Islamic superior rule."

"Wherever you have Islam, you will have war. It grows out of the attitude of Islamic civilization."

"Israel, a non-Moslem state, is ruling over Moslems. It is unthinkable that non-Moslems should rule over Moslems."

Jock Falkson is an Israeli writer and translator. He can be reached by email at falkson@barak-online.net.

Posted by Linda Olmert, February 29, 2004.
Several weeks ago, Germany announced its decision to stop all arms sales to Israel. Since then, other countries have followed suit. In response, Israel has canceled its annual multimillion dollar contract for its nationwide DAN buses which were manufactured in Germany, and is looking at other bus suppliers in the U.S., and Japan.

The Europeans and their Muslim allies should understand that boycotts works both ways. When we said NEVER AGAIN, we meant it. Europe is stuck in the mentality of 1933 and conditioned to thinking of Jews as defenseless entities. The reality is very different. As long as Europe adheres to and supports its primitive Middle Ages death cult, European products must be off limits.

We continue to call for a complete boycott of travel and products from the following countries - France, Belgium, Spain, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Holland, and China - due to their support, sponsorship, and/or participation in global Islamic terror. The voting record of the above countries at the U.N. openly endorses Muslim terror.

Remember, every time you buy a bottle of Evian, a Carlsberg product, a Spanish melon, a Godiva chocolate, a Dior lipstick, a Gucci bag, or a German kitchen appliance, you are financing the next Muslim mass murderer.

The European Union gives over $10 million per month to the Palestinian Authority, knowing full well that the money is funneled to buy, import, and train Muslim terrorists and their weapons of mass murder.

We strongly encourage everyone to buy Canadian, American and Israeli products

instead. Buy Estee Lauder or Ahava instead of Chanel, Dior, and YSL. Tell the salespeople why. Educate the public when you shop.

Europe is underwriting the Arab war to exterminate the Jewish state. We cannot sit idly by while this happens. Make your voice heard and let them feel the sting in their pocketbooks. Let the Europeans know that supporting terror does not pay.

Please send this to at least 10 like minded people.

Posted by Talya Lapidot, February 29, 2004.
"There Is Only One Truth And Not Two Truths - The Same As There Are Not Two Jerusalems." - Uri Tzvi Grinberg
This poem was written by Jacob Gurewich, who is author of "The Enemy Within", "a series of essays describing the author's first-hand experiences as a founding member of the Israeli IRGUN (IZL), the underground Organization founded by Ze'ev Jabotinsky." His website address is http://www.jackgur.com

How are innocents being murdered in the Land of Israel by Arabs
With the aid of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudis and Eurpeans.
How doth The Enemy Within - Peres, Rabin, Beilin, Barak and their ilk -
Raise the murderers from the muck of the abyss,
Planting them in the heart of Israel, and adding insult to injury;
They equipped the murderers with weapons, ammunition and tax payers' money.
How was the Enemy Within chosen to pursue futility and thus became futile.
They sow the Oslo Holocaust in joy, and Israel reaps Jewish blood in tears.
And bereaved widows, orphans and siblings cry and weep.
How their eyes runneth down with water, and there is none to comfort them.
And the Arab homicide murderers "prevail with Allah's messenger in Heaven."

How do religious leaders in the Diaspora urge their Congregations:
Do not return to your homeland by yourselves! Because only the Messiah
The son of David will deliver you on eagles' wings to Jerusalem!
Adding insult to injury; they joined the villains to carve up Jerusalem
And dislodge Jewish settlements from the Land of Israel which
Was liberated with the blood of our sons and daughters.
Thus, they became part of The Enemy Within; alas, a generation was annihilated.
My eyes are a fountain of tears for the innocent millions who perished in the
German death camps--and for the Oslo Holocaust which
The Enemy Within inflicted on the State of Israel.
How Hitherto forlornly, we have no leaders emerging uniting the Jewish Nation
To rise up and expel the Arab murderers from The Land of Israel.
There was never a falastinian tribe, a falastinian nation
Or a falastinian country to begin with. Ever!

there shall never be a falastinian state in the Land of Israel!
Behold, I hear a noise of great tumult of Merkavot-Tal and cannons?
I see Israeli armed forces expelling the Arab murderers from The Land of Israel
In spite of the anger and fury of the corrupt UN organization, the EU descendants
Of Hitler, and ironically, the United States of America, Israel's pseudo ally.
Over all, they prefer Arab cheap crude oil above Jewish blood.
But the innocent blood that was shed in the Holocaust shall never cease to cry.
So hearken World and hearken well: There shall be no more Holocausts!
The sons and daughters in Zion
Shall never sit upon the ground and keep silence, and never
Gird themselves with sackcloth and cast up dust upon their heads.
Jerushalem, the capital of the Land of Israel shall never be divided!
And it came to pass; in the streets of Jerushalayim,
In the cities of Judeah and Samaria
And in all the cities throughout The Land of Israel
There are voices of joy, gladness and prosperity.

Posted by Israela Goldstein, February 29, 2004.
This was written by Val MacQueen and appeared on Front Page Magazine, where it is archived at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12372

After 40 years or more of blowing feckless multi cultural soap bubbles, the governments of some European countries have suddenly become alive to the dangers of being too tolerant towards Islamism, an ideology that is intolerant and crusading.

Two years after the brave and flamboyant homosexual Pym Fortuyn sounded the alarm in Holland regarding the threat of fundamentalist Islam to his relaxed and liberal homeland, the Dutch establishment, that had previously condemned him as a bigot, has suddenly done an about face and adopted his agenda.

It was Fortuyn who first noted in public what the Dutch had been noting in private for several years: that Holland's Islamic population not only refused to assimilate into the host country but, indeed displayed a bitter intolerance for Dutch laissez-faire.

He was so alarmed at the rising radical threat to Holland's tradition of tolerance that he started a new political party, The List.

The List demanded an end to Islamic immigration and demanded that the immigrant children be taught in Dutch.

Within three months of its formation, The List had captured something like 20 per cent of Dutch constituencies.His opponents, Holland's traditional politicians, were robbed of the traditional weapon of the thought police, the charge of racism.

Fortuyn's present and former amours came in a wide range of colors and he had chosen as his deputy an articulate black immigrant.

Accusations of racism would have been met by the electorate with dismissive laughter.

Had he lived, Fortuyn would have been prime minister of Holland today, but he was assassinated as he left a radio station after an interview two years ago.

For an outpouring of a public sense of loss, his funeral was second only to Princess Diana's, four years previously.

On the surface, Dutch politics returned to normal, but the seed had been planted, and all those hundreds of thousands, if not millions, who had intended to vote for him did not forget his agenda.

Now, after years of pandering to the multi culti ethic, the Dutch government has suddenly admitted that the immigrant Muslims top the "no" list:

they have the highest incidence of unemployment, domestic violence, disability payments, truancy and crime.

And, after three generations in Holland, at least 30 per cent of them return to their "home country" to marry and bring back a spouse.

Dutch patience with fundamentalists on endless state benefits and allowances has snapped.

Earlier this month, they hauled up the drawbridge and declared a four year moratorium on immigration, including so-called asylum seeking, to allow for assimilation.

If the immigrant population still refuses to assimilate, I suspect the moratorium will be extended indefinitely.

At the same time, they are repatriating over 26,000 "asylum seekers" whose claims for asylum were rejected years ago but who failed to leave the country.

These are now demanding their "human rights" to continue to be supported on the generous Dutch welfare system, in Holland.

Notoriously, south of Holland, the French government has just let it be known that their patience with the zealotry, arrogance and imperialistic streak demonstrated by its own large unassimilated Muslim population has just run out.

In a jaw dropping statement, Chirac said that the wearing of the hijab by schoolgirls was "an aggressive act against the host nation".

And he is correct.

It is not the wardrobe choice of little girls, but of their fathers and brothers who impose it on them because they don't want men and boys "looking at" their females.

France has come to the end of its tether with the tournantes - gang rapes as punishment for girls - both Muslim and indigenous - who dare to venture out of their homes in the projects without wearing a Muslim hijab.

In many of the projects and nearby schools, Muslims constitute 50% or more of the population.

At the end of 2002, the movie The Squaw on this subject shocked not just French theater goers, but Jacques Chirac and French education minister Jack Lang.

That was the genesis of the long and winding road to the headscarf ban.

The film, although intended to highlight a grave and unacknowledged social problem, at the same time struck a killer blow to the governing elite's multicultural dreams of European countries and immigrants from their former colonies living in happy accord.

Both France and Holland had now recognized that the immigrants were not the eager middle classes who come to the United States for their educations, or to settle.

These are groups with an imperialistic, intolerant, colonizing mentality of their own.

While the liberal press and political multicultural proselytizers were still expressing shock at the Dutch and the French, who had decided at last to abandon constant appeasement and take control of Islamic zealotry and aggression in their countries, the dominant party in the German state of Hesse proposed a ban on headscarves on all civil servants.

This goes further than other German states, which have proposed a ban on school teachers swathed in the hijab.

Despite criticisms from the usual human rights suspects, the Germans say that the veil is a political, rather than a religious, statement and is a symbol of repression.

Americans, in a nation of successful immigrants, find it hard to understand indigenous peoples who have occupied their land since time immemorial, and whose ancestors, and their ancestors before them, established their countries' boundaries through millennia of war, whose customs became encoded in law, and whose arts have developed uniquely to that culture.

There has always been movement of people between European countries, but before, there was a common agreement on religion and, broadly, social behaviour. And never on this scale.

During my lifetime, 12m people from a more primitive, intolerant culture have moved into Western Europe.

It is to the Europeans' credit that they tried peacefully to accommodate such a large indigestible clump of alien matter for over 40 years.

What is not so clear is, why mass immigration was forced on democratic peoples by the parties in power. And paid for out of their taxes.

Whether it was a Native American marrying into another tribe, the vast movements of peoples from Europe to America over the last two hundred years or so, or the 40,000 Jewish displaced persons Britain took in after WWII, or the 45,000 East African Indians ejected from Uganda by Idi Amin and also taken by Britain, immigrants throughout human history have set their minds to integrating and embedding themselves in their new lives.

Not so with Islamic immigrants to European countries (unlike most Muslim immigrants to the US, it must be said) who arrived with a grudge and have held themselves apart for generations preaching disapproval, divisiveness and violence against their host societies - encouraged to do so by liberal pandering special interest groups.

Ever-greater concessions from the host societies are demanded, all the while preaching their destruction.

They are using the tolerance of the West to try to impose their own theocracy.

In Britain now, in some municipalities, Muslims have demanded that municipal swimming pools have special times for women-only swimming and men-only swimming.

Such an alien notion will, in these politically correct times, be imposed on the historically tolerant British, at one more cost to their own national identity.

Yet, as British conservative columnist Melanie Phillips wrote recently, "in Britain, the corrosive idea which seethes beneath the whole immigration controversy is the belief in fashionable circles that such a national identity is somehow illegitimate and that to defend it is 'xenophobic'."

Heaven forefend anyone in Europe would dare, for fear of being so-labeled, tell the fundamentalists in their midst to put a sock in it.

Until now.Chirac, who has never been known to say an unpleasant word about a North African in his life, referring to all these yards of hijabs in schools with a high percentage of Muslim students, referred to wearing the veil "an act of aggression".

And indeed, it is worn as a badge of superiority.

A senior member of his party said, "You give [these people] a bit of a finger and they eat your arm all the way up to the elbow."

A Dutch minister has said the immigrants top the "no" list.

Close on the heels of the Germans, the other day, mild, laid-back Denmark announced it's had enough of fundamentalists preaching the destruction of the West and has put a lid on them.

And the Danes aren't even splitting hairs.

It's right up front.

Although the target of the legislation is "restrictions on foreign missionaries", Peter Skaarup, spokesman for the nationalist Danish People's Party, which originally called for legislation, said, "It is aimed at imams."

Henceforth, they'll have to prove they've had an education and that they're financially independent.

Once kicked into action, the Danes move fast.

The bill is expected to be made law within two weeks.

To have any hope of being allowed into Denmark to settle, imams henceforth will have to prove that they have a good knowledge of Danish affairs and practices, a rudimentary knowledge of Danish and an understanding of the country's democratic traditions.

In other words, not a hope.

They are also going to have to prove that neither they nor their families will be a burden to the Danish taxpayer.

(Unlike, say, Abu Hamza, the blind, steel-hook handed fundamentalist imam in Britain's Finsbury Park mosque who receives around $500 a week in state handouts.)

According to The Daily Telegraph, the bill also calls for imams already in Denmark and who are found to have incited to racism or other forms of illegal acts, to lose their permits.

First to go will be an imam who publicly stated in Jutland that female genital mutilation was "good for women", and another who preached anti-Semitism.

Danish prime minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen also said the legislation would stop the practice of Muslim parents sending teenage sons back to countries of origin for longer periods to become familiar with the traditions of their parents' homelands.

So, after 40 years of bending the knee to the aggressive multiculturalists, four European countries are finally fighting back to defend their Christian heritage and enlightened civilization.

Will the British follow in the continentals' footsteps?

Can we even look forward to reading of the deportation of claw-hooked radical hate-preaching bigamist, the Shriek of Araby?

Pigs might fly.

Posted by Laurence E. Rothenberg and Abraham Bell, February 28, 2004.
  • The UN General Assembly (GA) resolution asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for an advisory opinion is actually a request for an endorsement of an already-stated political opinion of the GA. The ICJ lacks jurisdiction over the case because the GA has dictated the desired result. The court is not authorized to make endorsements of the GA's political opinions dressed in legal garb.
  • The security fence is a necessary and proportional response to a campaign of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes by Palestinians. If the fence were built along the 1949 armistice line (the "green line"), it would not achieve Israel's legitimate security goal of protecting its citizens.
  • The "green line" from 1949 bounding the West Bank is solely a defunct military line demarcating the extent of the Transjordanian invasion of Israel in 1948. Indeed, at the insistence of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, each of the armistice agreements of 1949 specified that the ceasefire lines were not borders and that neither side relinquishes its territorial claims.
  • The fence does not violate the Fourth Geneva Convention because the convention does not apply to the West Bank, a territory of disputed sovereignty to which Israel has the strongest claim, and which was not previously possessed by a legitimate sovereign.
  • Even if the Convention applied, a fence that controls movement of civilians does not violate it; the Convention permits occupying states to take necessary and proportional steps for security purposes.
  • The resort to the International Court of Justice by the PLO is itself a violation of the Oslo Accords. Under Oslo, any disputes must be resolved by negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, by agreed-upon conciliation, or agreed-upon arbitration.


The International Court of Justice (ICJ, or World Court) is currently considering the legality of the Israeli security fence under construction to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel and into Israeli towns from Arab areas in the West Bank.[1] The case was initiated by a request to the court from the United Nations (UN) General Assembly (GA), the political body that includes all the member-states of the UN.[2]

The GA asked the court to address the following question:

What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the Occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem...considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?

The court ordered legal briefs to be submitted by January 30, 2004, and scheduled oral arguments for February 23, 2004. It did not set a date for a decision, but the GA requested an answer to the question "urgently," so a decision can be expected by the second quarter of 2004.

Although the ICJ proceeding is, in reality, a political attack on Israel's right to self-defense, this essay addresses the legal issues involved. As will be demonstrated below, the security fence comports with international law because it is a necessary and proportional response to a campaign of terror against Israeli civilians, does not violate any provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (if the convention can even be said to apply to the situation) or relevant UN resolutions, and is in accord with signed agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

Why Israel is Building the Security Fence

Since the early twentieth century, the Jewish community in what is now Israel has been subjected to terrorist attacks by Palestinian Arabs, attacks that continued after the founding of the State of Israel in 1948. Terrorist attacks increased markedly in 1994, upon the entry of armed forces of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) into the West Bank and Gaza, as part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Palestinian terrorism then surged in 2000 with the outbreak of the current armed conflict, labeled the "al-Aksa intifada" by the Palestinians. The violence began in the aftermath of Yassir Arafat's rejection of an offer for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at Camp David in the summer of 2000. After a subsequent trip through Europe and Russia to rally support for a declaration of a Palestinian state failed, Arafat used the pretext of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount in September 2000 to launch a sustained campaign of terror against Israelis.

Since September 2000, Israel has suffered 19,000 terrorist attacks, with 900 Israeli citizens killed and thousands wounded. Terrorist groups responsible for these attacks include the Fatah organization and its Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ), and Hamas. Throughout the West Bank and Gaza, as well as Israel proper, these organizations have sent suicide bombers to murder Israeli civilians in buses, cafes, and places of worship; they have used snipers to shoot at Israeli civilians in their homes and vehicles and even in baby carriages; and they have invaded homes and seminaries in order to carry out shooting sprees. These attacks have been fomented through propaganda disseminated in the Palestinian media, including in speeches by religious leaders broadcast on official Palestinian television.

Israel has taken various measures to deter and prevent such attacks, including full-scale re-deployment into areas previously evacuated as part of peace negotiations. For example, following a wave of Palestinian terror attacks that killed 120 people in March 2002, Israel initiated Operation Defensive Shield, which resulted in counter-terror operations in Nablus, Jenin, Ramallah, Tulkarm, Bethlehem, and Kalkilya. Construction of a security fence began shortly thereafter. The fence currently covers most of the northern and one-third of the western West Bank.

According to figures supplied by the Israeli government, the fence has undoubtedly saved lives. For example, between August 2001 and August 2002, 58 people were killed or wounded in the Israeli towns of Afula and Hadera, near the West Bank Arab towns of Jenin and Tulkarm. Since the fence went up in that area, only three Israelis have been killed. Similarly, there was a drop from 17 successful terror attacks launched from the northern West Bank into Israel from April to December 2002 down to only five attacks from the area during all of 2003, following construction of the fence. Furthermore, a fence has proved its utility in Gaza, where one has existed since 1996, resulting in few Gaza residents participating in terrorist attacks within Israel. The security fence, therefore, plays a crucial role in Israel's fight against the genocidal terror campaign against its citizens.

The Court's Jurisdiction to Address the Question

The security fence has been challenged through the mechanism of the ICJ's advisory jurisdiction, which grants it the authority to issue opinions even though there is no actual case or controversy at hand.[3] The court is empowered under its statute and the UN Charter to issue opinions "on any legal question" referred to it by the Security Council, the General Assembly, or various UN agencies.[4] Such an opinion of the court is not binding on any states in a strict sense because it does not apply to a particular dispute, but nevertheless carries weight as an authoritative articulation of international law.

However, the advisory jurisdiction in this case has not been properly invoked, since the GA resolution purporting to request an advisory opinion is not really a request for a legal opinion at all, but, rather, a request for an endorsement of an already-stated political opinion of the GA. The very first paragraph of the resolution "reaffirm[s]" a resolution of six weeks earlier which stated that "construction of the wall...is in contradiction to relevant provisions of international law" and demanded that Israel stop and reverse construction.[5] While the ICJ is authorized to issue advisory opinions, it is not authorized to make endorsements of the GA's political opinions dressed in legal garb.

Moreover, even if the court has jurisdiction, it can decline to address a case. Under its own understanding of its authority, for example, the court can refuse to take jurisdiction for "compelling reasons."[6] A number of factors raise compelling reasons for declining to address the legality of the security fence.

  • First, and most importantly, the political bodies of the United Nations are already involved with the conflict between the parties to the alleged legal question. The latest plan for peace between the parties, for example, is the Road Map, which was signed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan on behalf of the UN and endorsed by him in public comments.[7]

  • Second, even ignoring the resolution in which it is contained, the request to the court is actually a political statement and not a legal request. For example, it refers to the West Bank as "occupied Palestinian territories" and to Israel as "the occupying power," even though the status of the territories is a legal question that the GA is not competent to decide. Likewise, the security fence is referred to as a "wall," although more than 97 percent of the planned length of the security barrier will be made of a chain-link fence.

  • Third, the request misstates the legal standards applicable to the conflict. For example, the request refers to the armistice lines of 1949 as if they demarcate lines of sovereignty, even though those lines have no status as boundaries in international law (as discussed in detail below). In fact, the request contradicts itself on the law, citing binding Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which require a negotiated settlement of the conflict and demarcation of final borders and recognize Israel's right to "recognized and secure boundaries," while also citing non-binding General Assembly resolutions that refer to the West Bank and Gaza as "occupied."

  • Fourth, the court would undermine its own legitimacy if it were to address the case. As the foregoing analysis demonstrates, this is not a legal question, but rather a political question in legal garb, motivated by political considerations rather than a genuine uncertainly about the law, and is part of a political strategy to delegitimize Israel that has been pursued relentlessly in the GA. Accepting jurisdiction would needlessly and perniciously involve the ICJ in this political dispute.

For all these reasons, the court should find that it lacks jurisdiction and decline to accept jurisdiction even if available.[8] Nevertheless, should the court accept jurisdiction, it should find that the fence does not violate international law, for the reasons described below.

The Security Fence is a Necessary and Proportional Response to Palestinian Terror

All states possess an inherent right to self-defense in international law, as expressly recognized in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Actions taken in self-defense must nevertheless conform to customary international law principles of military necessity; that is, they must be directed at achieving a concrete military advantage over an enemy, and they must be in proportion to the threat.[9] Given the nature of the terrorist campaign against Israel, the fence definitely meets these requirements.

The terrorist campaign against Israeli civilians constitutes genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. As stated in the Genocide Convention and in the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), genocide consists, in pertinent part, of murder or causing serious bodily or mental harm "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such."[10] The extensive and on-going suicide bombings and other terrorist acts are committed with the requisite intent, as demonstrated in the exhortations to kill all Israelis and Jews broadcast on Palestinian television, and by public statements by key Palestinian figures. Crimes against humanity are similar acts "when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack."[11] Again, the terrorist acts committed by Palestinian forces are part of a continuous, organized campaign against Israeli non-combatants.[12] Finally, the attacks constitute war crimes, defined as intentional attacks against civilians during an armed conflict.[13] The legal status of Israel's "occupation" or of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza does not change this analysis. As Human Rights Watch has stated, "The illegal status [sic] of settlements under international humanitarian law does not negate the rights of the civilians living there. The fact that a person lives in a settlement, whether legal or not, does not make him or her a legitimate military target."[14]

In the face of the crimes described above, the security fence is clearly a necessary and proportionate use of force. First, the only effect of the fence is to control and, in some cases, limit the movement of the civilian population, both necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. Palestinian terrorists routinely disguise themselves as civilians, including pregnant women, hide bombs in ambulances, feign injuries, and sequence bombs to kill rescue workers responding to an initial attack. The fence and associated checkpoints are therefore crucial to deterring and detecting terrorists among the civilian population.

Second, no less-intrusive construction, such as building the fence along the 1949 armistice line, can achieve Israel's legitimate military goals. A barrier along the armistice line would expose motorists along the main Jerusalem-Tel Aviv highway to Palestinian sniper fire near the Latrun salient and would recreate the division of Jerusalem that existed from 1949 to 1967, when Israeli civilians were repeatedly attacked by snipers from the Jordanian-controlled side of the line. Additionally, this would expose Israeli civilian aircraft landing and taking off from Israel's international airport in Lod to shoulder-launched missile attacks from Palestinian terrorists in the Benjamin region of the West Bank.

Third, the Palestinian claim that military necessity would be better served by expelling 320,000 Israeli civilians from their homes in east Jerusalem and the West Bank is not credible. Even if the Palestinians were correct that it is illegal for Israel to permit Jews to move to the West Bank and Gaza, nothing in international law imposes a death penalty upon settlers or requires evacuation of civilian targets of terrorists in preference to limiting the movement of suspected terrorists themselves.

Fourth, the fence as currently constructed already represents a substantial concession of Israel's security goals. As admitted by the UN Secretary-General, the planned fence places the vast majority - more than 80 percent - of West Bank and east Jerusalem territory on the "Palestinian side" of the fence.[15] In fact, numerous Israeli civilian residents of the West Bank, as well as Israeli civilian motorists in transit on West Bank roads, will remain exposed to Palestinian terror attacks. Since 2000, dozens of Israeli civilians have been killed by Palestinian terrorists in these areas on the "Palestinian side" of the line along where the fence is being built.

Finally, the fence is far less intrusive than security barriers used by other states in disputed and occupied territories. In order to block terrorist infiltrations, India is now building a barrier longer than Israel's security fence along the line of control separating Indian and Pakistani forces within disputed Kashmir. Importantly, this barrier is entirely within the disputed territory.[16] Smaller barriers to prevent movement of potential terrorists and irregular combatants have been employed by allied forces occupying Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, often entirely surrounding and cutting off towns and cities from the rest of the occupied territory.

In sum, the fence is the least restrictive way to accomplish Israel's legitimate military goals and is in fact far less intrusive than other measures Israel could legitimately adopt to combat terror.

Legal Status of the West Bank and Inapplicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention

Both the GA resolution and the question accepted by the court for advisory adjudication make tendentious reference to the West Bank as "occupied Palestinian territory." On this basis, the Palestinians claim that the Fourth Geneva Convention's rules of occupation forbid Israel to erect the security fence, and, further, that erecting it constitutes an illegal annexation of Palestinians' territorial sovereignty. In fact, however, neither the General Assembly's characterization nor the Palestinian assertions have any basis in international law.

Israel Has the Strongest Claim of Sovereign Rights in the West Bank

Sovereignty over the West Bank must be traced from the Ottoman Empire, which controlled the area encompassing territory now governed by Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq, as well as parts of the Arabian peninsula until the end of the First World War. The Ottoman Empire and its successor, the Republic of Turkey, yielded these territories to League of Nations mandates supervised by Britain and France. The Mandate of Palestine, under British trusteeship, was a single territorial unit encompassing the territory now held by Israel and Jordan, including the West Bank and Gaza. The Mandate explicitly recognized that Palestine was to be the "national home" of the Jewish people and did not recognize political or sovereign rights of any other peoples in the territory.[17] The Mandate permitted abridgement of Jewish rights only in parts of Palestine east of the Jordan River, and, indeed, in 1922, Britain set up this eastern territory under separate administration as the Transjordan and cooperated with the Hashemite tribe of the Arabian peninsula in setting up Hashemite rule.

After the Second World War, Britain sought to terminate the Mandate, which, by terms of the Mandate itself, would lead to the sovereignty of the now-established Jewish homeland in the territory west of the Jordan River. Given strenuous Arab objections to the creation of any Jewish state, however, Britain asked the GA to resolve the situation. In GA Resolution 181 of November 29, 1947, the GA recommended that Britain and other states adopt and implement a partition plan, under which the western territory of the Mandate would be further divided into two states - one Jewish and one Arab - as well as a small international zone.[18] Jewish authorities in Palestine announced their acceptance of the plan and sought to implement it. Palestinian Arabs, however, rejected the plan and began attacks on Jewish civilian and military targets in mandatory territory.

Rather than implementing the partition, Britain simply withdrew its forces on May 15, 1948. Jewish authorities declared the creation of the new State of Israel, but no similar declaration of a state of Palestinian Arabs was announced. A coalition of Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Transjordanian, and Iraqi troops invaded the territory of the former British Mandate with the declared intent of eliminating the Jewish state. At the war's conclusion in 1949, Syria remained in occupation of a small strip of territory of the former Mandate of Palestine on the eastern shore of the Sea of Galilee. Egypt occupied Gaza. Transjordan seized most of the Judean Desert, Samaria, and parts of Jerusalem, renaming these territories the "West Bank," annexed them (an act recognized only by Britain and Pakistan), and finally renamed itself the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

A series of armistice agreements between Israel and the invading Arab states in 1949 then created ceasefire lines that left the Arab aggressors with their territorial gains intact. The agreements did not, however, grant sovereignty to the Arab states. Quite the contrary, at the insistence of Syria, Egypt, and Jordan, each of the armistice agreements specified that the ceasefire lines were not borders and that neither side relinquished its territorial claims.[19]

No new Arab state arose in Palestine, and the Palestinian Arab leadership continued to reject both the partition proposal embodied in Resolution 181 and the very existence of the new Jewish state. When the PLO was eventually formed in 1964, its charter called for the destruction of Israel and its replacement with an Arab state of Palestine, while specifically disavowing "any territorial sovereignty over the West-Bank (region) of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Gaza Strip, or the Himmah area."[20]

Israel took control of the West Bank in June 1967 as a result of the Six-Day War, which had been prompted by Egypt's expulsion of UN peacekeepers, mobilization of troops for an invasion of Israel, blockade of Israeli ports, and threats to destroy Israel by force of arms. During the war, Israeli counter-offensives placed the entirety of the West Bank in Israeli hands, as well as Gaza, Sinai, and the Golan. No new formal armistice agreement emerged; however, a new ceasefire line along the old administrative Palestine-Transjordan boundary replaced the 1949 armistice line. In 1994, a peace treaty between Jordan and Israel established the international border between Israel and Jordan, in relevant part, along the Jordan River, thus restoring the administrative boundary of the British mandatory era, and leaving the ultimate fate of the West Bank to Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. While the treaty specified that the new boundary was "without prejudice to the status of any territories that came under Israeli military government control in 1967,"[21] Jordan separately disavowed any claim of sovereignty over the West Bank.

Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, adopted in the wake of the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars, respectively, do not purport to change this situation. While 242 asserts the "inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war," it makes no statement about how this principle applies to the West Bank or any other specific territory.[22] It neither affirms nor denies Israeli or Jordanian sovereignty. It does call for a negotiated peace that would include "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and respect for the right of concerned states to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries," but it defines neither which boundaries nor which territories. This is particularly significant since some of the territories captured in 1967 were clearly outside the mandatory boundaries (such as Sinai) and therefore beyond an Israeli claim of sovereignty, while others (such as the West Bank) were within the boundaries of the Mandate and therefore within the scope of Israel's claimed sovereign rights. Indeed, the only definite implication of the resolution is a Security Council endorsement of Israel's right to remain in possession of territories occupied in 1967 until the achievement of a negotiated peace.

The 1993-2000 Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO, though creating a self-governing Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Gaza, did not recognize any Palestinian sovereignty and specifically preserved the claimed rights of each of the parties.[23]

Thus, no international agreement has ever granted the "green line" (the 1949 armistice line demarcating the boundary of the West Bank) the status of an international border between sovereigns. Indeed, every Israeli peace treaty with a neighboring state, while basing itself on Resolution 242, has adopted the mandatory boundaries as the boundaries of Israel, rather than the 1949 armistice lines.[24] The "green line" bounding the West Bank is solely a defunct military line demarcating the extent of the Transjordanian invasion of Israel in 1948.

Additionally, Israel has the strongest claim to sovereignty over the West Bank of all possible claimants. Other than Jordan, Israel is the only existing successor to the British Mandate of Palestine established to facilitate the creation of a Jewish homeland, and Jordan, as an aggressor, never legally possessed the West Bank. Additionally, Jordan relinquished its claim of sovereignty. Israel, by contrast, came into possession of the West Bank in a war of defense, making its possession legal, and it has never waived its claim of sovereignty. Indeed, other than Israel, no recognized state claims sovereignty in the West Bank.

The Fourth Geneva Convention Does Not Apply to the West Bank

As the state with the strongest claim to sovereignty in the West Bank, Israel cannot be held to be an occupying power obliged to follow the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It would be a logical absurdity, and without textual foundation, to call a state an occupying power when it has taken territory over which no other state had recognized sovereign rights.[25] Moreover, even if Israel were not considered sovereign of the West Bank, the West Bank is not automatically to be considered occupied territory within the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Article 2 of the Convention specifies that it applies in the cases of armed conflict between High Contracting Parties, or in the case of occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party. While Israel is a party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, the nonexistent state of Palestine is not. In fact, in 1989, when the Palestine Liberation Organization informed the Swiss Federal Council (official registrar of the Convention) that it would adhere to the provisions of the four Geneva Conventions and their protocols, the Council refused to recognize the act as an accession to the treaty "due to the uncertainty...as to the existence or non-existence of a State of Palestine."[26] This conclusion is further amplified by Article 43 of the Fourth Hague Convention, which is the basis for the modern law of occupation. The article recognizes an occupation when "authority of the legitimate power" passes in fact "into the hands of the occupant." Thus, an occupation only arises where a legitimate power is dispossessed. Since Jordan was not the "legitimate power" in the West Bank, Israel cannot be considered an occupant.

Israel has declared itself willing to be bound to humanitarian provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the West Bank and Gaza as a matter of good will, as part of a larger Israeli willingness to withhold application of its full sovereign rights in order to hold the territory open for a negotiated peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, this merely underscores the inapplicability of any provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that are designed to protect the sovereign rights of the true sovereign party whose territory is being occupied. Since "Palestine" is not sovereign, it has no sovereignty to defend, and it cannot claim the benefit of such provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that are designed to benefit the party whose sovereign territory is occupied.

Consistency of Israeli Actions with the Fourth Geneva Convention

Building Security Barriers Does Not Violate the Convention

Even if the Fourth Geneva Convention were applicable to the West Bank, nothing in Israel's actions would violate it. Other than the reiteration of the familiar prohibition upon "extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly" in Article 147, no provision in the Convention limits the occupying power's ability to create barriers, requisition property for security purposes, or take other necessary security measures. Indeed, Article [27] of the Convention explicitly permits occupying powers to "take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war." As noted previously, the security fence is fully justified by the military necessity of reducing the exposure of Israeli civilians to the Palestinian terrorist campaign.

Building Security Barriers Does Not Constitute Annexation

Annexation under international law requires that the annexing state extend its power over the territory to be annexed with the intent of extending its sovereignty over that territory. As noted previously, Israel is the state with the best claim of sovereignty to the West Bank; as such, it cannot be held to be illegally annexing territory.

However, even if Israel is considered a mere occupier unable to annex the disputed territory, building a security barrier does not constitute annexation of any territory on the "Israeli side." First, Israel has repeatedly stated that it has no intention to alter the legal or political status of any territory with the barrier. Thus, Israel plainly lacks the intention necessary for an annexation to take place. Second, construction of a barrier does not in and of itself extend Israeli rule over any of the territory to a greater extent than Israel already controls those territories. Israel is not undertaking any other actions to manifest its power, such as implementing Israeli law in those territories. Thus, there is no new manifestation of power to constitute an annexation.

Palestinian Terrorism Should Not Be Rewarded

One of the foremost principles of international law is ex inuria ius non oritur - one may not profit from one's lawbreaking. The Palestinian Authority, an instrument of the PLO, has violated its obligations under international law by collaborating with terrorist crimes against humanity. Both Israel and independent foreign media have reported that Yassir Arafat, chairman of the Palestinian Authority (as well as of the PLO and Fatah), has used Palestinian Authority funds to pay for terrorists' acquisition of materiel used in terror attacks, as well as to pay bounties for terror attacks. The Palestinian Authority has openly paid salaries to militants in the terrorist organizations and joined them to Palestinian police forces, while steadfastly refusing to prosecute Palestinians, including Palestinian police, for terror attacks on Israelis. Officials of the Palestinian Authority, and official Palestinian Authority media, including television and press, have called upon Palestinians to carry out terrorist attacks on Israelis. A number of the component organizations of the PLO, including Fatah, have carried out terrorist attacks and proudly taken responsibility for terror attacks. Fatah terrorists have acknowledged to foreign and domestic media that they respond to the commands of Yassir Arafat.

This Palestinian terror, in which the PLO is intimately involved, has created the necessity for a security barrier to block Palestinian terrorist infiltrations. In claiming that Israel may only build such a barrier outside of the West Bank, the PLO is essentially arguing that Israel must de facto cede all disputed territory to the PLO before it may combat terror. Thus, the PLO seeks to make territorial gains as a result of its campaign of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Consistency of Israeli Actions with Israeli-Palestinian Agreements

From 1993 to 2000, Israel and the PLO signed a series of peace agreements known collectively as the Oslo Accords, under which Israel agreed to a partial and staged withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, the establishment of a Palestinian Authority with some forms of jurisdiction over the Palestinian population of these territories, and an undertaking to engage in further negotiations in order to determine the final status of these territories. For its part, the PLO agreed to end terror and all other forms of violence, to recognize the legitimacy of the State of Israel, and to resolve all further disagreements with Israel through peaceful negotiations. The security fence does not breach Israel's responsibilities in the Oslo Accords and, in fact, helps implement them.

First, as noted above, none of the Oslo Accords yielded any Israeli claim of sovereignty to, nor established any Palestinian sovereignty over, the West Bank. Rather, the Oslo Accords explicitly make Israel responsible for the security of Israelis, and acknowledge that Israel has "all the powers to take the steps necessary to meet this responsibility."27 Importantly, Oslo makes explicit that Israel's security responsibilities include West Bank and Gaza settlements as well as Israelis in Israel proper.[28] Thus, the agreements solemnize Palestinian acknowledgment of the Israeli right to undertake security measures in the West Bank and Gaza. Second, while Israel is required to preserve smooth movement of people, vehicles, and goods within the West Bank, this obligation is specifically subject to Israel's "security powers and responsibilities."[29] Third, even if Israel had yielded its authority to defend itself using barriers on the West Bank, it is not clear that the PLO could invoke such provisions of the peace agreements in light of its gross violations of nearly all its fundamental obligations under the Oslo Accords. Finally, the resort to the ICJ by the PLO is itself a violation of the Oslo Accords. Under Oslo, any disputes arising out of application or interpretation of the agreements must be resolved by negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, by agreed-upon conciliation, or agreed-upon arbitration.[30] There is no provision for unilateral resort to the General Assembly, the ICJ, or other parties.


Despite the fact that Israel has the better arguments regarding both the jurisdiction and merits, the World Court will most likely accept jurisdiction and declare that the fence - at least in its current route - is a violation of international law. The arguments outlined above will likely have little impact on the court, especially since it has previously stated that the political context or implications of an opinion would not affect its decision-making.[31]

All signs point in the direction that the court is as politicized and as hostile to Israel as the GA itself. For example, in a departure from all other previous practice, the court has allowed "Palestine," a state that does not exist and that is not a UN member-state but only an observer,[32] to submit comments to the court. Furthermore, two of the judges on the court have repeatedly demonstrated their anti-Israel bias. The Egyptian, Nabil Elaraby, has called for Arab states to sue Israel for genocide, and the Jordanian was a special rapporteur for the UN Human Rights Commission who concluded that the settlements are illegal. They have already decided key issues in the case and cannot be expected to examine impartially the evidence presented to the court and to apply the law fairly.

Unless it reverses course and declines jurisdiction or, indeed, affirmatively upholds Israel's right to self-defense against genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, the court will undermine its legitimacy and become yet another international institution that has sacrificed its commitment to international law to an anti-Israel agenda.


1. See "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory" (Request for Advisory Opinion).
2. Illegal Israeli Actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the Rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, UNGA Res. A/ES-10/L.16.
3. Advisory jurisdiction is virtually unknown in Anglo-American common law systems, but is often granted to constitutional or supreme courts in continental European legal systems.
4. Charter of the United Nations, Art. 96 (1945); Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 65 (1946).
5. Resolution A/RES/ES-10/14 (A.ES-10/L.16) of December 8, 2003, affirming Resolution A/RES/ES-10/13 of October 27, 2003.
6. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of July 8, 1996, p. 16.
7. See "A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israel-Palestinian Conflict," April 30, 2003; "Secretary-General's Statement on the Road Map for Middle East Peace," April 30, 2003.
8. The court can also decline jurisdiction if it finds that the question requires a factual investigation that cannot be conducted without consent of the parties involved. In this situation, however, there are no "parties" per se because it is an advisory case and not a dispute between nations in which consent to the court's jurisdiction is an issue.
9. Proportionality also requires that inevitable civilian deaths are not out of proportion to the military advantage gained by an attack. That consideration is not relevant in this case, however. Likewise, a third requirement that attacks distinguish between civilians and military targets is not relevant here.
10. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. 2 (1949); Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Art. 6 (1998) [hereinafter, Rome Statute].
11. Rome Statute, supra note 9, at Art. 7.
12. See Human Rights Watch, "Erased in a Moment: Suicide Bombing Attacks Against Israeli Civilians" (Oct. 2002).
13. Rome Statute, supra note 9, at Art. 8(2). This principle applies no matter whether the armed conflict is defined as international or non-international in character.
14. Id. at IV.
15. Report of the Secretary General Prepared Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution ES-10/13 of October 21, 2003, A/ES-10/248.
16. For a recent press account, see Ranjit Devraj, "India Pursues Fence Construction in Kashmir," Inter Press Service, Dec. 5, 2003. Pakistan does not consider India to be sovereign over any part of Kashmir, on both sides of the line of control.
17. Mandate for Palestine Confirmed by Council of League of Nations, July 24, 1922, reprinted in Report to the General Assembly of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, Vol. II, Annexes, Appendix and Maps 18-22, U.N. Doc. A/364 Add. 1 (Sep. 9, 1947).
18. G.A. Res 181(II), U.N. Doc. A/519 (Jan. 8, 1948).
19. Israel-Egypt Armistice, Articles IV.3, V; Israel-Jordan Armistice, Article II.2; Israel-Syria Armistice, Articles II.2, V.1, V.5.
20. Palestine National Charter of 1964, Art. 24. No reconciliation is offered with Article 2 of the Charter, which asserts that "Palestine, within the boundaries it had during the period of the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit."
21. Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, Art. 3.3.
22. S/RES/242 of November 22, 1967. Resolution 338, often mentioned together with 242, simply calls upon the parties to implement 242 without adding any new demands. S/RES/338 (1973) of October 22, 1973.
23. Interim Agreement, Art. 31.6.
24. Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, Article 2; Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty, Article 3.1 and Annex 1.
25. Britain, for example, was not an "occupying power" when it reconquered the Falkland Islands from Argentina in 1982, nor was Kuwait when it and its allies reconquered its territory from Iraq in 1991.
26. Embassy of Switzerland, Note of Information Sent to States Parties to the Convention and Protocol, September 13, 1989.
27. Interim Agreement, Articles 10.4 and 12.1.
28. Interim Agreement, Article 12.1; Annex 1, Article 2.3.a.
29. Interim Agreement, Annex 1, Articles 1.2, 1.7, and 9.2.a.
30. Declaration of Principles, Article 15; Interim Agreement, Article 21.
31. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of July 8, 1996, pp. 16-17.
32. "Palestine" is the name given to the PLO observer delegation at the UN.

Laurence E. Rothenberg is a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. The former editor-in-chief of the "Harvard International Law Journal", he is the author of numerous articles, studies, and book chapters on international law, globalization, and U.S. military strategy.

Abraham Bell is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel, where he specializes in international, property, and administrative law. He has taught as a visiting professor at Fordham University Law School, and delivered lectures on legal aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict at Harvard, Columbia, NYU, the University of Chicago, and numerous other universities.

The Jerusalem Letter and Jerusalem Letter/Viewpoints are published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (jcpa) in Jerusalem, Israel. This article is No. 513. It was published February 15, 2004.

Posted by David Singer, February 28, 2004.
The construction of Israel's security fence on land within the West Bank has aroused the ire of 90 of the 191 members of the General Assembly of the United Nations, who claim such land is "Occupied Palestinian Territory".

Is this true or is this land in fact "Jewish National Home Territory" in international law?

Are those 90 members of the United Nations and their legal advisors aware of the terms of the Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter, which confer on Israel the right to construct the fence on its present location?

Why has the Secretary General, Kofi Annan submitted to the International Court of Justice a dossier purporting to set out the relevant documents relating to the case, yet has excluded the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, which is the definitive legal document on who is entitled to build on West Bank land?

The West Bank is an area of land comprising about 5% of the territory once called Palestine administered by Great Britain from 1920 to 1948 pursuant to the Mandate for Palestine created by the League of Nations.

The West Bank was called Judea and Samaria in the Bible and had been continuously so described since then right up to the British War Maps of the 1940's and in the Mandate documents themselves.

The change of name from Judea and Samaria to the West Bank in 1950 was an attempt by Jordan to blot out the Jewish connection with this land, matching that of the Romans who changed the name of the country from its Hebrew name "Eretz Yisrael" (the land of Israel) to "Palestina" about 2000 years earlier so as to erase any recognition of Jewish sovereignty, which had finally succumbed to the might of the invading Roman Legions.

This semantic obsession is mirrored once again in the description of the land as "Occupied Palestinian Territory" in the brief presented to the International Court of Justice by the 90 United Nations members and their front man, Kofi Annan.

Again as in the past, this pathetic attempt to propagandise the status of this area will backfire on those who rely on it to assert land rights to the total exclusion of the principal beneficiary recognized in international law - the Jewish people.

I will however use the term "West Bank" to describe the area so as not to be accused of necessarily favoring the use of a name with obvious Jewish connotations and connections to advance Jewish rights in that area.

This is not necessary since international law has expressly recognized that Jewish rights do exist and still remain unfulfilled in the West Bank, irrespective of what name that area is given.

The Mandate for Palestine was the legally binding expression of the International Community of Nations - the League of Nations.

The Mandate document:

  1. recognized the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the grounds for "reconstituting" their national home in that country;
  2. created for the first time an identifiable territory called "Palestine" with defined territorial boundaries which incorporated today's Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, and Jordan
  3. safeguarded the civil and religious rights (but not any political rights as none were intended to be conferred) of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine;
  4. facilitated Jewish immigration and encouraged "close settlement by Jews on the lands, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes" (Article 6);

All this might have been ancient history but for the occurrence of six subsequent events between 1945-1967, which together form the legal basis for Israel's construction of its present security fence in the West Bank.

The six events were the birth of the United Nations in 1945, the demise of the League of Nations in 1946, the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947, Israel's War of Independence in 1948, the decision of the International Court of Justice in 1950 in the South West Africa case, and the Six Day War in 1967.

Jordan (then called Transjordan), which had comprised 75% of the Mandate for Palestine, was granted its independence in 1946 at the last session before the League of Nations was dissolved. Although originally designated as part of the proposed site for the Jewish National Home, not one Jew then or until today has been allowed to live in this part of former Palestine.

The Arab inhabitants of Palestine were thus granted a sovereign State in 75% of Palestine, without a shot having to be fired in anger. Not a bad result, considering the Arabs had initially been granted no political rights there in 1920.

Arab political rights had been secured in other vast tracts of the former Ottoman Empire that today bear such names as Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq - areas hundreds of times larger and far richer than the pitiful area designated as the site for the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home.

The remaining 25% of Palestine, however, still remained under the League of Nations Mandates System, as did a number of other territories around the world, where the terms of those Mandates were yet to be completed at the time of the demise of the League of Nations.

To deal with these continuing Mandates, Article 80 was introduced into the United Nations Charter.

Article 80 provided that nothing in the International Trusteeship System set up under the United Nations Charter should be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or peoples or the terms of existing International Instruments to which members of the United Nations might respectively be parties.

The importance and relevance of this clause for the West Bank was not to become fully evident until 1950. A lot was to happen within the next three years to bring Article 80 into play in the West Bank.

The United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 had attempted to resolve the issue of sovereignty in that part of Palestine then still subject to the Mandate. The proposal was accepted by the Jews and rejected by the Arabs.

Had the Arabs accepted that proposal, Article 80 of the UN Charter would not need to be discussed today, and the proceedings before the International Court of Justice would not be happening.

After rejecting that proposal, six invading Arab armies marched into Palestine in May 1948 in a war to wipe out the newly declared State of Israel and replace it with Arab sovereignty in the entire 25% of the remaining Mandate.

The Arabs failed in this attempt, leaving Israel in sovereign control of the entire area with the exception of the West Bank, which came under the control of Jordan, and Gaza, which came under Egyptian control.

Israel was then recognized by the United Nations as the sovereign authority in 19% of the original Mandate for Palestine, whilst Transjordan continued to enjoy sovereignty in 75% of the original Mandate granted to it in 1946 and additionally it had gained control of another 5% - the West Bank - at the conclusion of the 1948 war.

There was no recognized international border between Israel and the West Bank, only an armistice line delineating the positions of the warring parties at the time of cessation of hostilities. This position still exists today.

The West Bank and Gaza - in total just 6% of Palestine - then remained the only territories of the Mandate in which sovereignty was unallocated between Arabs and Jews.

In 1950, when Transjordan changed its name to Jordan, it attempted to annex the West Bank but only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation.

In the same year the International Court of Justice in an advisory opinion on South West Africa (1950 I.C.J.Reports 128) decided that the substantive obligations of the Mandate over that territory continued in force despite the dissolution of the League of Nations. The Court affirmed that these obligations remained the essence of "the sacred trust of civilization" despite the dissolution of the League of Nations.

The ramifications of this case as applied to the mandated area of the West Bank, are, of course, highly significant

This case confirmed that Israel's right to closely settle and reconstitute the Jewish National Home on land within the West Bank was not extinguished by the demise of the League of Nations.

The Mandate continues to have important legal significance until this very day, because of the provisions of Article 80 of the United Nations Charter - something that has been consistently overlooked and ignored by the world body and those of its members who have taken their case to the International Court of Justice this week.

Jordan continued to occupy and administer the West Bank from 1948 until 1967 when Israel then gained control as a result of the 6-Day War. No mention was ever made during those 19 years of this land being "Occupied Palestinian Territory", nor was Palestinian Statehood in the area, with Jerusalem as its capitol, ever raised or demanded.

When control of the West Bank came back into Jewish hands in 1967 for the first time since its loss to the Roman Legions almost 2000 years before, Jews then began returning and settling in these areas as they were permitted and encouraged to do under Article 6 of the Mandate, in some cases returning to places from where they had been driven out in the 1948 War.

These six events and the Mandate itself have now become of the utmost importance in 2004 because they establish that:

  1. The West Bank and Gaza are not "Occupied Palestinian Territory" but rather "Jewish National Home Territory" designated as such in the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter.
  2. Jewish settlements presently established in the West Bank and Gaza accord with the objectives of the Mandate which encouraged close settlement of these areas by the Jews. They are not illegal in International Law;

The Arab States have never accepted the legality of the Mandate for Palestine or anything subsequently flowing from it. They seem to have convinced Kofi Annan, that he can ignore it as well.

They have now run off to the International Court asking it to set aside a considerable volume of international law, as though it never existed, and have sought to make their own prejudgment as to who is entitled to build and what can be built on the land in the West Bank where the security fence is located.

International law clearly supports Israel's right to build that security fence in the West Bank providing it is either State land, waste lands not required for public purposes, or privately owned land if agreed with the owner of that land.

This situation will continue until sovereignty of the West Bank is determined between Israel and its Arab neighbours.

The United Nations endorsement of the Road Map can be seen as a positive step by the United Nations to bring the Mandate to a final resolution.

But it does not and cannot stop Israel's construction of its security fence until the provisions of the Road Map have been fully implemented and a Peace Treaty signed.

David Singer is an Australian Lawyer and Convenor of Jordan is Palestine International whose aim is to promote direct negotiations between Israel and Jordan to determine sovereignty in the West Bank and Gaza.

Posted by IsrAlert, February 28, 2004.
This was written by Daniel Ben Simon and is archived at http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/398891.html

Defeated, despairing and hungry - the residents of Ofakim. Did their new mayor return from Jerusalem with handouts from the government this week? No way. Ofakim, a southern development town steeped in suffering and devoid of illusions, held its breath on Monday ahead of the return of its mayor, Avi Asraf, from Jerusalem. The municipality's employees, who haven't been paid for two months, hoped that the money would be found in the wake of the mayor's meetings with senior officials in the capital. Some, unable to cope with the tension generated by the trip, turned to rabbis and kabbalists in the hope that they would be able to soften the hearts of the officials. A few of the residents were rendered dysfunctional by the waiting.

Would he come back with money or without money - that was the question that overshadowed all else among Ofakim's inhabitants last weekend. Without money there would be no municipal services; without money, there would be a foul mood in the town. And, without money even a hot meal would begin to be thought of as a luxury.

Eitan Azati, a municipal inspector who did not get his salary, related that he had recently been a guest in an Eilat hotel as part of a course for municipal employees from across the country. In previous years he never gave a thought to the food that was left over on the table. This time, though, he found it difficult to watch the waiters throwing out large amounts of it. "My heart started pounding," he said, still upset. "I have six children, and I couldn't bring myself to look. In front of my eyes they were throwing out huge amounts of food. It's no shame to be poor, but when you see food being thrown into the garbage can, you have to ask: Lord, where's the justice?"

On Monday of this week Asraf left Jerusalem for Ofakim. The municipal employees, who returned to work two weeks ago after a lengthy strike, were plainly overwrought. Some of them prowled the corridors of city hall restlessly. Others badgered Asraf's bureau chief, wanting to know whether the mayor had called.

"I spoke to him half an hour ago, and there's nothing to tell yet."

"But how did he sound?"

"The same as always."

Money was the universal subject of conversation. "My wife is killing me," one employee complained to Jimi Abukasis, chairman of the local branch of the Histadrut labor federation, who was at the municipality building to cheer up the employees. "She said that if the money doesn't go into the bank today I might as well not come home."

The pessimists were convinced that the mayor would come back empty-handed. "I'll bet you there won't be any money," Azati whispered to Abukasis, who replied: "I also say there's not going to be any money, but why make everyone despair? Let them live with illusions another while."

Knowing what was in store, Abukasis was busy making preparations for another strike by the municipal employees. In another few hours the mayor would be back with the news. "Until we know what's happening in connection with the money, everyone works normally," he told his colleagues, "as though you're getting paid."

Two weeks ago, when they were compelled to return to work, Ofakim's city workers did so with a divided heart. The Interior Ministry promised to pay overdue salaries immediately after the authorization of the reform plan submitted by Asraf. Since taking over as mayor four months ago, he hasn't known a day of happiness. The employees accused the government of maltreating them because they were disadvantaged and far from the heart of the country. Some, though, blamed the situation on the corruption of former mayors. They recalled the millions of shekels that were wasted in efforts to create a fleeting aura of glory and government showmanship. Immediately after being elected, the town's new masters would appoint their confidants to unnecessary posts, approve large salaries for unneeded advisers and spend vast sums on showcase projects.

The frustrated municipality employees were especially incensed at Yair Hazan, the previous mayor, who did what he pleased with the city treasury to realize what they saw as megalomaniac fantasies. One of the first things Hazan, a Likud activist who promised to foment a revolution in the town, decided to do was to purchase a luxury car and expand and renovate his office. He then decided to decorate it with the finest of accessories, and planned to install a shower, Jacuzzi and dressing room adjacent to his office. His dream evaporated after it was exposed and the townspeople protested.

"The only thing that made Hazan cancel the Jacuzzi was that people threatened to complain to the state comptroller and to the Interior Ministry," one of the employees said. "The worst thing about this affair of wasted money, which cost millions, was that the members of the municipal council approved the expenditure without asking questions. They all depended on him for their jobs and salaries, and voted almost automatically for every motion he placed on the agenda."

Reflections on the past gave way to concerns about the new troubles. "What is going to happen?" a worried employee asked Abukasis as he passed by her office. "If he comes without money, we'll shut down the town and create mayhem," he promised.

Flight of the young

In the meantime, Ofakim's social welfare staff is worried about how the distress and lack of funding will affect the lives of local children and their studies, about what it will do to family life and relationships, about the impact on welfare recipients. Not to mention the town's image and future. The difficulties made people nostalgic for the past, which was no bed of roses, either. Still, Abukasis says, "Ofakim was a town where it was a pleasure to live. A small, pleasant town. We were like one big family, with a sense of brotherhood. But that's all gone now. Today you have the new immigrants and the Haredim [ultra-Orthodox]. And if you add the two groups together, we don't exist. They have swallowed us up mentally."

Ami Cohen, too, recalls those years fondly. "That was a different time," he agreed. "Schoolchildren had day camps and outings and three meals a day and went to movies. Even before the official long-day scheme, school here ended in the late afternoon, and the kids had all kinds of afternoon activities and there was a youth club that was open all day. Things were good, even if people didn't have money."

And then something changed. Cohen, an editor of local papers, remembers the sudden eruption of a warped culture of government that changed the way things had been done in a community that was known for its modest mien. "Suddenly there were these young people who went into politics and were elected to positions in the municipality," he recalls. "You could see their arrogance and that they were looking for status symbols. They drove big cars and traveled abroad all the time. They wanted to be like the elite in the center of the country."

Since its inception, Ofakim has found it difficult to stop the flight of its young people. After doing their army service, the town's young generation leaves and the university graduates don't return. Abukasis' children no longer live in Ofakim. Six of Cohen's eight siblings have left, and nearly all the mayors went off in search of greener pastures after serving their term of office.

"On the one hand, Ofakim would look different if the young people stayed here," Cohen noted. "On the other hand, I tell the young people who ask me: Don't stay here. You'll be successful elsewhere."

Mordechai Rosen is another person without promises to make to young people who want to stay in the town. During 31 years as a school principal, he has watched the migration of the thousands of graduates. "The graduates didn't come back to Ofakim," he said. "They have no work and no future here."

In the past three years, only 25 percent of the students have succeeded in obtaining high-school matriculation diplomas. "The problem is with the other 75 percent," Rosen added. "What are you going to do with them? Where are they going to go without a diploma? They are fated to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. It's inconceivable for there to be such a low rate of success in high school. Lord of the universe, after all, we are all born equal."

For years he tried everything to reduce the failure rates of his students. But nothing helped. He replaced teachers, changed teaching methods, switched classes, brought in different tutors, organized new advisers - but the results remained gloomy. One teacher advised him not to waste so much effort on students from Ofakim. "That's their level," she said bluntly.

The already distressful situation was only aggravated with the arrival of the new immigrants from Caucasus and Ethiopia. As a result of this influx, Ofakim's population has doubled in the past decade, to about 26,000. "I discovered that the new students were suffering from serious problems of concentration, hyperactivity and learning disabilities," Rosen said. "The moment you mix good students with problematic ones, everything goes haywire. We have no possibility of isolating the problematic ones, and unfortunately that affected the general level of the students."

Culture of dependence

When Edna Bitan returned to work after the end of the municipality employees' strike, she discovered that the problems were worse than ever. Bitan, who heads a team of social workers who deal mainly with the elderly, youth at risk and families in distress, was drawn to this line of work because she identified with its contribution to the weak population groups. She always believed in empowerment and in helping those in need to achieve self-realization. She always rejected the idea of donations and grants, believing that they paralyze action and create dependence on the establishment. She herself grew up in harsh conditions, but overcame them with motivation and great willpower. If she did it, there is no reason others can't, too, she told herself.

As a social worker, she tried to translate her credo into deeds. As head of the team, she urged her staff to embark on the same path of empowering and motivating those in need. "Provide tools, not welfare" was her motto. Over the years she reiterated to her team the importance of the "pyramid of needs" developed by Abraham Maslow (1908-1970), an American psychologist. According to Maslow, each person has a hierarchy of needs that must be satisfied and that leads to self-actualization. Every student of sociology and of social work becomes acquainted with the pyramid. Its base consists of the basic physiological needs, such as food and shelter, above which are esteem, education and inculcation of values, all of which lead to the final and critical stage of self-actualization. In other words, an individual will realize himself and achieve his desires only if the other four needs are supplied.

The past few years have seen a revolution in the working methods of Bitan and her colleagues. The growing distress has upset the order of the needs and in fact has inverted Maslow's hierarchy. The collapse of the welfare state has generated a rise in the basic existential needs and a decline in the possibility of self-actualization.

"How can I talk to people about self-actualization when they don't have enough to eat," she lamented this week. "I always told the staff that they had to empower the victim, but now the victim doesn't have food every day and sometimes he goes to bed hungry. I am encountering very complicated situations, because families are coming to us and saying they don't have food to eat. The children come with the parents and see the spectacle, andfrom an early age they learn to receive instead of learning how to cope.

"In this state of affairs I can't get into social theory. If a child doesn't have enough to eat, can I talk to him about self-actualization? We have gone back in time to the stage of the basic needs, such as food and a roof over one's head. That used to be taken for granted, but these days, instead of being a social worker, I have become a mediator between victims and authorities - the police, the bailiff's office, the welfare bureau or the National Insurance Institute.

"You have to understand that in the past year people lost 30 percent of the allowances they received from the state. I succeeded in becoming something in life because I felt that the state was behind me and would help me to help myself. But today it's different. What will today's young people feel when they see that their parents aren't able to support them? We are creating a new generation of children, a new form of distress. These children know that every Thursday a crate of food from the soup kitchen arrives, and they are internalizing values of dependence on others."

A few weeks ago Bitan received a heart-rending letter. A new immigrant had approached the teacher of her son, a fourth-grader, and the teacher forwarded the letter to Bitan. "My boy was late for school because I didn't have bread to give him," the mother wrote the teacher, imploring her not to punish the child for being late. "I had to go to one of the neighbors, and she gave me four slices of bread for my son. I ask you not to be angry at him, and I want you to understand my economic situation, that sometimes my son is late only because of slices of bread. I don't have anything to give him. I wouldn't like you to say anything to him because he will be ashamed ... My husband can't find a job. Every morning he looks for work, but comes back home, because there is no work. I hope you will understand the situation and not get angry at him, because he's not to blame for anything."

With great effort, Bitan managed to extract a check for NIS 500 from the budget of the Welfare Department, and intends to send it on to the family in the days ahead.

Another letter she received, from Soroka Medical Center in Be'er Sheva, is about a patient who threatened to commit suicide because of economic distress. "How am I supposed to help that woman when she returns to Ofakim?" Bitan sighs. "I am not organized to deal with this cruel situation. No one prepared us for situations like this."

Avraham Ivgi, director of the Ofakim Munipality's welfare department, said that a few days ago he was told that his already minuscule budget for families in distress was about to be cut. Last year the budget stood at NIS 142,000; this year it was trimmed to NIS 85,000. "It's appalling," he said angrily. "How am I supposed to divide this money? To those who don't have medicines? To those who don't have a bed? To those who don't have a refrigerator? How am I going to decide which distress is the harshest?"

As he spoke about the distress of others, a thought flashed through his mind that made him smile. "After not getting a salary for three months, I'm in distress now, too," he said. Just then an employee entered the office and asked whether there was any news from Jerusalem yet.

"Nothing so far," he replied.

With empty hands

That evening, the employees of the Ofakim Municipality went on full alert, as though a war were about to break out. The rumor spread that the mayor was on his way home. People who couldn't take the tension any longer called him directly to get the news. By 7:30 P.M., every boy and girl in Ofakim knew that the mayor had come back empty-handed.

The next day, Tuesday morning, the employees assembled in the auditorium of the music conservatory, not far from the town hall. Asraf was greeted with looks of rage and frustration. It turned out that the Interior Ministry had decided not to make do with the NIS 10 million slash in the municipality's budget to which it had committed itself, but was now demanding a cut of NIS 20 million. The mayor had replied that a cut on that scale would lead to people dying from want. The talks broke down and the mayor returned home without anything.

At the conclusion of the meeting the employees declared a strike and went out to block the main street. Within minutes they were brandishing posters, burning tires and shouting, "Bread and work!" A column of thick black smoke rose over the town, like a metaphor for the psychological atmosphere. Not far from there, in the commercial center, a few dozen jobless people were following the vociferous melee with a sense of helplessness.

"There's one thing I don't understand," Ivgi said, "which is why the young people in this country don't organize to protest and to lead a revolution. I simply do not understand why that hasn't happened yet."

Ofakim 2004: A gloomy profile

General information:

Ofakim was established in 1955.

Population, 2003: 26,000.

New immigrants: About 50% of the population, most of them elderly or single-parent families.

Ultra-Orthodox: 25% of the population.

Public housing residents: 40% of the population.

Socioeconomic data:

Recipients of unemployment insurance: 2.2 times the national average.

Recipients of guaranteed income: three times the national average.

Per capita income: 0.59% of the average.

Proportion of salaried workers earning less than the minimum wage: 50%.

Number of people in the care of social welfare bureaus: twice the national average.

The number of job seekers has increased by 37% in the past three years.

Unskilled job seekers: 70%.

Official unemployment rate: 9.4%.

Unofficial rate: above 30%.

Proportion of those who pay municipal tax: 25%.

Households being looked after by welfare bureaus: 2,491. Of them, 1,219 are new-immigrant households.

Ofakim is first place in poverty in the Jewish sector.

Education data:

Number of university students: 0.5% of the population.

National average: 1.4%.

Proportion of students going for a second degree: 0.1%.

IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is hosted by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

Posted by Mordechai Kedar, February 28, 2004.
The hostility of Islam to the West is deeply imbedded and of long standing. Sometimes it simmers, sometimes it erupts flamboyantly. This article was written in October 3, 2001, occasioned by the September 11 2001 attack on the United States, which occurred exactly seven years after the cultural attack of the Cairo Population Conference of September 1994.

The attack on the US was planned to commemorate the seventh anniversary (the number seven is highly significant in Islam) of what is perceived in the Islamic world as the most dangerous cultural attack against the Islamic world of values. In September 1994 the international population conference was convened in Cairo by the United Nations for the purpose of reducing the rate of population-growth in the world. This "roving" conference, which meets once every few years, each time in a densely populated country, is aimed at bringing the "gospel" of low birth-rate of western culture to the Third World. This is presented as a means for development and stability, since over-population is a heavy burden on the economies of these countries. The 1994 conference aimed at bringing this idea to the Egyptian people, as well as to the Arab and Islamic peoples, bearing in UN stamp of approval.

The conference in Cairo dealt with a variety of topics which promote the lowering of birth-rate: legitimizing abortions; raising the age of marriage; promoting "safe" sex between teenagers by the use contraceptives and sex education; monogamy; official recognition of the right of homosexuals and lesbians to establish families; and women's autonomy over their bodies. All these values, which in Islamic eyes characterize western civilization of this generation, are fundamentally opposed to the Islamic values of modesty, family stability and sexual morality. Therefore, the dissemination of these Western values in Islamic countries was nothing less than an attack against Islam. As part of the media coverage on the issue of women's rights during the conference CNN broadcast the famous report which showed the circumcision of a ten-year-old Egyptian girl. This report caused wide anti-American resentment in Egypt and in the Arab and Islamic world. The repercussions of this broadcast were felt during the entire conference.

The Islamic press in Egypt, and especially the Moslem Brotherhood's al-Sha'b, published a spate of articles against the conference, before it convened, during and after it. The al-Sha'b articles reflected the attitude of Islamic fundamentalists towards western culture and several examples, mainly headlines, will be quoted here. "An update from the UN on the population conference: Propagation of sex among adolescents and providing them with contraceptives". The article mentioned that "all the issues of sexual permissiveness, circulating sex culture and promoting of legislation permitting abortions were agreed upon ahead of time and given top priority on the conference agenda." The paper accompanies this article with a photo of crowded street in Cairo with the ironic caption: "They should all be exterminated" (August 26, 1994). Homosexuality was one of the values which the conference promoted, since homosexual marriages produce no children. On the same page, Muhammad al-Ghazzali, one of the most prominent Islamic propagandists today, regards to homosexuality under the headline: "Stone the perverts and don't fall into the "trap" of the UN." He stated: "The human race and the animal kingdom have never seen anything like what the West stands for. He called on all the forces to rise against this questionable conference which was convened especially to fight against us in our faith (muharabatuna fi 'aqidatina), and we therefore have to rise against them because of the war which was declared on us ... Even if their imperialistic governments permitted them (homosexuals, M. K.) to establish organizations in their countries, they have no right to defile the streets of Cairo with their perversions." To emphasize al-Gazzali's statements, the paper published photos of male couples kissing in public.

Sheikh 'Ikrima Sabri, the Mufti of the Palestinian Authority and al-Aqsa mosque, attended this conference. On September 9, 1994, under the title "Al-Aqsa preacher warns: the conference' closing statement will provoke the emotions of the Moslems" he is quoted: "The superpowers are planning to destroy of the Third World after sucking its blood."

Some other headlines which reflect the attitude of the Islamic fundamentalists towards the conference are: "Everything in the closing document of the conference which deals with development and the freedom of woman is in contradiction with Islam" (Aug. 26, 1994); "An international organization strives to turn the family-planning centers into centers of promoting adultery" (Aug. 30, 1994); "Extermination of human beings (i.e. abortions, M. K.) is the official and public policy of the international system" (Sept. 6, 1994); "Taking exception to the resolutions of the population conference, which contradict our religion and traditions, is not enough" (Aug. 30, 1994); "American officials admit: stopping the population growth in the Islamic world is one of the primary considerations for American national security" (Sept. 2, 1994); "Moral corruption and abortions are dominating the discussions of the conference" (Sept. 9, 1994); "In the conference publications: pamphlets mocking Allah and blaming Moslems for beggary and backwardness" (Sept. 9, 1994); "America stands behind the conference and is the wicked force that drives it" (Sept. 9, 1994); "The adoption of the document is a success of 'the world government' under the leadership of America and Zionism" (Sept. 16, 1994); The American role in the conference was clear: the closing document was formed in May 1994 in a preparatory conference which convened in New York.

The leitmotif of this outpouring of news-items and articles published about the conference is that Islam and its traditions are under a vicious attack of western-American culture, which aimed at secularization of Moslem peoples, and to bring to them, through the Cairo conference, the 'gospel of progress' of the West, which is anti-Islamic in its spirit, its essence and its methods. Globalization - as Islam sees it - has less to do with economy or environment issues than with the global spread of western-American social and cultural values which pose a threat not only to the Islamic states as political and national frameworks, but primarily upon the whole set of values of every individual, family and group in the Islamic world. Dr. Muhammad 'Amara, one of the regular contributors to al-Sha'b, analyzes in the August 2001 issue of the Egyptian monthly "al-Hilal" the disingenuous language of the 1994 conference resolutions which threaten to destroy the value system of Islamic families in our day.

It has been asserted that the clash between Bin-Laden and America is the outcome of the Arab-Israeli conflict. But Israel, according to the Islamic fundamentalists, is only "The Small Satan", since it poses a threat to its close environment: the Palestinians, the Syrians and the Lebanese, while America is "The Big Satan" threatening as it does the whole value system of the entire Islamic world, from Indonesia in the East to Morocco in the west.

The Egyptian context of Bin-Laden is well known: his deputy and close friend is Ayman al-Zawahiri, who headed the Egyptian Jihad terror organization which had planned the destruction of the Egyptian regime, which it considered to be "an agent of the imperialistic West", which blindly followed the American permissive and corrupt culture. The contemporary American imperialism - as Islamic fundamentalists see it - is not territorial occupation or economic hegemony, but cultural dictatorship since current Western values are fundamentally opposed to all that is sacred in the eyes of every Moslem who is committed to his tradition. Therefore Islam has no other choice but to wage a Jihad of defense against those who threaten the values of personal modesty and family stability, basic values in Islam.

The clash of cultures between the West and Islam did not erupt in September 2001 but much earlier; however, the population conference of September 1994 in Cairo was an important milestone in the western campaign against the Islamic culture and tradition. The writing on the wall had been there for a long time, but unfortunately it was written in Arabic.

Mordechai Kedar, Ph.D., is Lecturer in the Department of Arabic, Bar-Ilan University, and at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

Posted by Arlene Peck, February 28, 2004.
Recently, while unpacking some old boxes, I came across some treasures that had been bundled away for more decades than I care to remember. I had saved many old appointment books and love letters from many more men than I should recall. The reason I mention this now is because, until then, I had never realized what a terrible person I was.

After sitting down and reading these postscripts to my past, I noticed something. It seemed the more I was unkind to these guys, the more they wanted me. Truly. I thought what a bitch I was. Yet, no one in all those little stacks of envelopes seemed to mind that I gave them a hard time. Most in fact, seemed to love it.

So, it got me to thinking. Israel has been too needy. The same goes for the woman who sits in a bar with the expectant look of "pick me! pick me!". She is never going to have a date for the prom. I think the same holds true for Israel. They want to be loved! They need to be appreciated!

Folks, there is another thing I learned a long time ago. There are four words that should be removed from the English language. They are, "ought" "should" "fair" and "equitable". 'Because, folks, life ain't always the way it ought to be, should be, and for sure it's not fair or equitable.

It's not "fair" that a gaggle of anti-Semites from all those wonderful bastions of democracy around the globe such as Cuba, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, the Organization of Islamic States, the League of Arab states etc., meet in a world court in The Hague.

Gawd, who cares?

The Jews are concerned that the Catholic Pope will give a good review for the Mel Gibson passion play? At this moment the Pope might be too busy worrying about another problem in his church, i.e., the pedophiles crisis. At the rate they're going, soon the lawsuits will be a billion dollars. Wouldn't those funds have been better used in charitable endeavors than paying out lawsuits? Maybe Mel Gibson ought to choose that as the topic for his next "religious" epic. How his own church ought to go about cleaning up its act.

How much energy has been wasted in down playing Israel's aid to even their enemies so as not to antagonize the Arab World? Israel doesn't need to be loved that much.

Why should Israel give a diddly-squat that those very same folks who gave us the Holocaust decide to meet in the Hague to sit in judgement of Israel?

Israel has the power, but seem to have forgotten that fact. Maybe it's time to remember. My momma used to tell me, "Darlin, the best defense is a powerful offence!"

Some people aren't going to like the Jews "no matter what. The Jews gave a conscience to the world. The Ten Commandments were a stunner! Until then, everyone was happy in their hedonistic ways. Hey, they could sleep with sheep and who would care" Moses had to do his "thing" and it's been downhill ever since.

The fact that the Jews are just tiny spot on the planet and the major recipients of the Noble Prizes doesn't help either

Here's an apt analogy. I think I have no problem with my identity. Until some young tall skinny blond wearing implants and hip-huggers walks past me. Do I like her? No! I think "bitch". She could have the personality of Lady Di. Or, the goodness of Mother Theresa. It wouldn't matter. She's hated by me and most of the other women in the room.

The same goes for Israel. As far as their immediate neighbors, most of which have the educational skills of an eggplant, they hate the Jewish State. It's a shame. It's tragic. But, folks, that's just the way it is. Their school books teach math, "If Abdul kills three Israeli's and Mohammed bombs ten, how many are left"? This is not a mentality you can reason with.

The rest of the world? Well, to my thinking, it's pretty much the same thing. Israel tries too hard to be respected, loved or appreciated for all the truly wonderful things that they are. So what? Treat the European Union like a scorned man and they'll come groveling .

I grew up in Georgia. It saddens me to say it but, the state was filled with men who, I seriously suspect slept with their cousins. That's just the way it was. But, do you think that they would have cared for a moment or reacted by changing their ways if the general population of California decided to violate their "states rights" by interfering in the habits of the local natives? Lo-d, it almost caused a war when the State legislature decided to take down the Civil War flag from the courthouse.

Yet, just as soon as George Bush or any of our State dept. civil servants who, have been on the payroll of the Saudis for many years snap their fingers, the wayward, hungry leaders of the State of Israel, say, "How high"

Which brings me back to how Israel ought to treat her detractors like a successful woman treats her men. Jealousy, in moderation, never hurt either. The United States doesn't want to give that needed 2.2 billion dollars foreign aid to Israel? Hey, call Michael Eisner! He's a nice Jewish boy who has money to burn and just turned down FIFTY-ONE BILLION dollars for a transfer of Disney to Comcast Cable Company.

So the motto ought to be "it's a can't have, want world." The detractors of the Jews can't be the chosen people. The more they are rejected, the more they want it. My mother used to tell me, "Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free." Israel has to remember to make their so-called friends buy more cows.

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

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, February 28, 2004.
Dr. Aaron Klieman's book, Foundations of British Policy In The Arab World: The Cairo Conference of 1921 (Johns Hopkins Press, 1970), should be "must reading" for those who truly want to make sense out of the conflict between Arab and Jew in the Middle East today. It's one of those references that other scholars used to cite in their own works. Nowadays, however, with much of this field being hijacked by a blatantly anti-American and anti-Israel fraternity, things have changed.

The chief tenured prof who teaches this subject at Ohio State, for instance, Carter Findley, managed to teach an entire graduate course (I know...I was there) on the Mandatory period without ever bothering to mention either Klieman's book or the facts which you'll read below. And that was over two decades ago. And woe unto thee if you dared bring such things up. Again...I know. Things have gotten even worse today.

The Associated Press report headlined in my local Florida paper on February 25, 2004 read as follows: "Jordan Joins Chorus Against Israeli Wall." It was Jordan's turn to lay it on the Jews. Prince Zeid al Hussein complained that the barrier might send Palestinian Arabs fleeing into his own kingdom. He also justified the suicide bombings by blaming them on the four decades' old Israeli occupation.

Now for a reality check...Indeed, the Hashemites would do themselves a favor by not addressing this issue to anyone with a knowledge of the actual facts and history involved. Since many do not possess this, they feel free to rant, as the late King Hussein's widow has also done in her recently published book. To appreciate what comes next, first find a map of the Middle East. One of the world will do, but everything will be much smaller. Find Jordan and then find Israel to its west. And now hold onto your seats...

In 1922, Colonial Secretary Churchill, to reward Arab allies in World War I (remember the movie, Lawrence of Arabia?), chopped off roughly 80% of the original Palestinian Mandate issued to Great Britain on April 25, 1920 - all the land east of the Jordan River - and created the purely Arab "Emirate of Transjordan" - today's Jordan. This was engineered by Churchill a year earlier at the Cairo Conference.

Emir Abdullah, who received the land on behalf of the Hashemites of Arabia, attributed this gift to an "act of Allah" in his memoirs. Sir Alec Kirkbride, Britain's East Bank representative, had much to say about this separation of the lion's share of the Palestinian Mandate as well. Let's listen:

"In due course the remarkable discovery was made that the clauses of the mandate relating to the establishment of a National Home for the Jews had never been intended to apply to the mandated territory east of the river ( A Crackle of Thorns, page 27)."

So, right from the getgo, Arab nationalism was awarded the bulk of the Palestinian Mandate. While it too officially remained tied to the whole, Jordan, nonetheless, became a virtually separate entity. From 1922 onwards - after already receiving most of the territory - Arabs would next point to what was left of "Palestine" to make yet further claims.

Arabs answer by citing geographical and other differences between some Arabs and others. Using this logic, since there are Jews in Israel from over a hundred different countries (including one half who were refugees from "Arab" lands and some whose families never left Israel since the days of the Roman conquest), then Jews are therefore entitled to multiple states as well.

Think of it... Less than one half million Arabs were entitled to a Kuwait. Over two million Jews can stake a claim to parts of Morocco, Iraq, etc.

Arab and pro-Arab professors typically ignore all of this when teaching this topic. The main starting date for them is not 1920, but 1947...the proposed partition of "Palestine." Of course they conveniently omit telling their students that this was the second partition of the land (which the Arabs rejected) and pretend that Jordan was always a separate state. And the students take it all in.

The Jordan-Palestine connection is just one of many well-documented facts (not "Zionist propaganda") completely ignored or distorted by Arab spokesmen and, unfortunately, little known by the rest of the world. Arabs typically claim Jews got 78% of all of the land, and leading newspapers typically prepare segments on the Middle East ignoring this crucial Jordan-Palestine connection as well.

While discussion now revolves around a "two state" or even a "one state" solution to the conflict between Jews and Arabs, the reality is that Jordan is historically and demographically Palestinian.

So there is a third solution...though it's kept hushed up these days. Jordan has been a reasonable neighbor of late...relatively speaking at least...so Israel hasn't made an issue of this.

Indeed, it was Israel which saved the Hashemites' collective derrieres in 1970 when the PLO decided to cash in on this third alternative. I say all of this not as a Likudnik (while I agree with many of their positions), but simply to set the record straight.

Palestinian Arabs "fleeing into Jordan" a la Prince Zeid's remarks would, in reality, be moving simply to another part of Palestine. And did anyone ask why Israel is obliged to provide work for the butchers of its innocents?

That supposedly would be one of the main reasons for the Arab flight into Jordan. Arab workers have killed their Jewish employers. Yet Israel has taken pains to create passage ways for these people through the fence.

When Egypt's Nasser decided it was time to drive the Jews into the sea, he contacted Jordan's King Hussein - his calls were intercepted and taped - and convinced His late Majesty to join in the massacre. Israel, through the United Nations, begged Hussein to distance himself from Nasser's plans. The King didn't listen and instead launched an attack on the Jewish half of Jerusalem instead.

The rest, as they say, is history. And that's how Jordan lost the West Bank - which it seized in the 1948 fighting - in the first place. Transjordan - led by British officers - joined other Arab countries in attacking a reborn Israel, trying to nip it in the bud.

So the Prince would be better off not bringing this subject up...at least not to those with any sense of fair play.

When you launch a war and lose, there's a price to pay...especially if the land you launched your attack from was not yours in the first place.

Whatever will or won't become of the land in question, it must be noted that this is disputed territory, not "Arab" land, as those testifying before the court in Geneva now claim.

Jews lived and owned property there until their slaughter in the 1920s. Judea and Samaria, only in this century known as the "West Bank" (largely as a result of British imperialism and Transjordan's later annexation), were unapportioned parts of the Mandate, and leading authorities such as Eugene Rostow, William O'Brien, and others have stressed that these areas were open to settlement by Jew, Arab, and other residents of the mandate alike.

Indeed, hundreds of thousands of Arabs poured into the area from all over the Middle East. The League Of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission documented scores of thousands of Arabs entering into Palestine from just Syria alone. Hamas' "patron saint", Sheikh Izzedine al-Qassam, was from Aleppo.

It's estimated that many more Arabs entered the Mandate, to take advantage of the economic development going on because of the Jews, under cover of darkness and were never recorded...more Arab settlers setting up more Arab settlements. Why are these "legal" and those of the Jews not?

While it's been said many times, it's worth repeating. The good cop/bad cop team of Arafat and Hamas/Islamic Jihad created the security fence now on trial in Geneva. And until those leopards change their spots, Israel must do what any other nation would do to protect its citizens from Arab barbarity. Indeed, many other nations have constructed such fences for far less compelling reasons.

As for the route of the fence, in the wake of the June '67 War, UN Resolution #242 expressly did not call for Israel to return to the status quo ante bellum and the suicidal armistice lines imposed upon it at the close of hostilities in 1949. Among other things, those lines made it a mere 9-miles wide at its waist.

What #242 did call for was the creation of "secure and recognized borders" to replace those vulnerable lines.

Adding a few more miles of buffer in strategically important areas on the West Bank, etc., is precisely what the Resolution had in mind. The architects of the final draft of the resolution (Rostow, Goldberg, etc.) have stated this themselves.

Israel does not seek to rule over millions of Arabs' lives. What it does want is a reasonable compromise over these disputed lands...not the unilateral, Munich style solution too many of the folks in Geneva now have in mind.

Gerald A. Honigman is a contributing writer for Jewish Xpress magazine (http://www.jewishxpress.com), a monthly publication based in southern Florida. His background is in Middle Eastern Affairs. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world.

Posted by Paula R. Stern, February 28, 2004.

It is a quest of mine. I want people who live outside of the Middle East to understand what it is like to live in a country where you know that mortars will fall every day, stones will be thrown, bullets will be shot, buses will be attacked, cafes will be targeted, and worst of all, people will be murdered.

Clarity often comes from distance. Back away from something and somehow it becomes more clear. Two years ago, one of my cyberspace friends asked me the simplest of questions, "How can one group of mothers anguish over the thought that their children might be killed, while another group applauds their children for doing the killing?" I was amazed that someone outside of Israel was baffled by the same mystery that continues to plague our society today.

Most days, something hits somewhere. Some days, too much hits anywhere and on the worst of days, a suicide bomber makes it through. Every day, I listen to the news, click around to see what is happening. Today, as the bus that my son often rides was stoned, something clicked and I sent a note to one of my email groups detailing what had transpired in Israel in a 24 hour period.

A passenger on a bus was lightly injured. Soldiers in Balata were targeted. Several border policepersons were injured. IDF troops were targeted by terrorist gunfire. Gunfire was directed at an IDF position. An explosive device was discovered... and on it went.

I posted the list of these attacks because I thought they summed up our lives here. Another Israeli added that we were lucky, as this "short" list meant that it had been a relatively quiet day. Then, someone sent a message that surprised me. "Virtually all of these reports were written in the passive... I find it interesting because it appears as though there's a consistent effort to avoid assigning blame."

Interesting, he thought. Interesting, I agree. "They were all written in the passive voice. For example, 'Soldiers...were targeted in a shooting attack' as opposed to (what would likely appear in American media) 'Terrorists targeted soldiers in a shooting attack'," he wrote.

Why do Israeli journalists write in the passive tense? Worse, why do we Israelis think that way? We know who is to blame. After more than three years of violence, it is clear to anyone willing to see. A few years ago, when it was clear that the Palestinians had Kassem2 rockets, a leading Member of Knesset said that if the Arabs dared to fire them at Israel, it would mean war. Today, almost daily, we are attacked by rockets fired at Israelis. They fall in our cities, in our open fields, and even near our schools.

Our buses are attacked, and we bulldoze empty buildings. We have lost more than 950 Israelis in the last three years, roughly the equivalent of 55,000 Americans. On September 11, almost 3000 people were murdered, and America declared war.

Israel has never been a nation of cowards, and yet we cannot even write the news properly. It is wrong to say that we were attacked, stoned, bombed, shot. We must place the blame where it belongs, on those who attack, those who stone and bomb and shoot.

Today, as happens almost every day, Palestinians stoned a bus. Palestinians shot at troops. Palestinians planted a bomb. The sooner we understand that the world does not understand our hesitation, our passivity, the sooner, perhaps, the world will force it to end. Palestinians grab the world attention. They scream to all that can hear, that the security fence is preventing them from reaching 70% of their land. Lies, lies, lies. At least 80% of the West Bank will remain in Palestinian hands if the fence is built according to the current plan.

A bomb on a Jerusalem bus kills eight Israelis. The government is passive. In less than three hours, the street has been cleaned, the bus removed. Families of the victims are in a race to find their loved ones, frantically searching, but the majority of Israelis have already begun to internalize what has happened. Beyond those first horrible moments, while we imagine the worst for our loved ones and quickly telephone everyone who we think might have been anywhere near the explosion, normalcy creeps back into our lives. Passivity returns. Not even a military response. Nothing but a few words. The news reports that a bus was attacked. A bus was destroyed. Dozens were injured, eight were killed.

A Palestinian suicide bomber attacked a bus. A terrorist destroyed a bus. A Palestinian member of Arafat's al-Aqsa Brigade murdered eight and wounded dozens. It is time for us to stop being passive, time to place the blame where it belongs. Time to stop accepting that mortars will fall each day, stones will be thrown, bullets will be shot. It is time to act and time to stop the actions of others.

Paula Stern is founder and documentation manager of WritePoint, a small technical writing company. She is on the RoboHelp Community Advisory Board and is Moderator of the Tech-Shoret E-mail List.

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 28, 2004.
This is a DEBKAfile Special Analysis and is archived at http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=646

Monday, March 1, several hives of activity will focus on the Middle East's most intractable conflict and the next stage of the Bush design to remake the region.

Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's two senior aides, Dov Weisglass and his new national security council director Giora Eiland, will be in Washington, officially to present the essentials of the prime minister's initiative for Israel's unilateral disengagement from the Palestinians by means of the partial evacuation of Israeli dwellers from the Gaza Strip and from isolated locations in the West Bank and the construction of a fence - both for protection against terrorists and as a divider.

To ease acceptance, the fence was shortened by 80 km and underwent major surgery to straighten out loops curving into the West Bank. The biggest sacrifice is the section that was supposed to guard Israel's international Ben Gurion airport, the densely populated Modi'in-Re'ut-Maccabim region, and highways linking it to Jerusalem, from terrorist attack. These vital areas will be denied the protection of a defense barrier separating next-door Palestinian areas.

The European Union's foreign affairs executive Javier Solana will land in Washington on the same day as the Israeli delegation. He will be coming to hear arguments from secretary of state Colin Powell and the president's national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in favor of Europe joining forces with the United States in the execution of a regional strategy and the Sharon plan.

All parties are aware that Israel will be at the receiving end of demands for further "adjustments" to make the Bush strategy attractive to the European Union.

Therefore, the fate of the Weisglass-Eiland presentation depends largely on the outcome of Solana's talks with US leaders.

Not entirely by chance, Friday, February 27, Irish foreign minister Brian Cowan handed visiting foreign minister Silvan Shalom in Dublin with a plan that Solana will also discuss with his American hosts. Ireland is the present EU president.

The plan centers on the deployment of NATO forces in areas evacuated by Israel, NATO being a euphemism for European troops. Long dreamed of by Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and embodied in the Geneva proposals developed by Israeli dove Yossi Beilin and Palestinian Yasser Abd Rabbo, every Israeli government has rejected the notion in the past. Shalom explained to the Irish minister that the presence of foreign troops would hold Israel back from pursuing terrorists and prejudice its national security.

As he spoke, the subject was being thoroughly explored in the White House, according to DEBKAfile's Washington sources, by President George W. Bush and German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder when they met to bury their pre-Iraq War hatchet.

Solana will almost certainly take up the American offer. He will not miss the opportunity to gradually forced Israel back, step by step, into a comprehensive withdrawal - not only from the Gaza Strip but also from the West Bank under the US-European aegis. Every peace proposal he ever initiated always hinged heavily on Israeli concessions to the Palestinians.

The erosion has begun. Sharon's proposed removal of 17 of the 19 Gaza Strip Jewish settlements has morphed in diplomatic parlance to total withdrawal of settlers and troops alike. The most unobtrusive casualty of this projected stampede is the security strip along the Israel-Egyptian frontier that was enshrined in the 1979 peace treaty signed by the late Menahem Begin and Anwar Sadat, for which they shared a Nobel Prize and which holds up to the present day. Eliminating the border crossing at the southern tip of Rafah would push the Israeli frontier 70 km north almost up to the Mediterranean town of Ashkelon.

And that is just for starters. Powell, Rice and Solana are both old hands at the negotiating table. Concessions made at the outset are likely to snowball. The European official will not miss the chance of building on the Gaza withdrawal and partial removal of West Bank settlements. He will get his chance when Washington asks to hear what concessions Europe requires from Israel to get the Europeans behind the United States on other issues like Iraq and Syria.

Both sides will be keen to accommodate one another and increase Bush's Middle East momentum. The mission that takes Weisglass and Eiland to Washington is therefore not the presentation of the Sharon plan but rather to hear what further concessions are demanded before the Israeli prime minister is invited for his oft-postponed visit to the White House.

The Bush administration faces a far tougher challenge to its plans for the region on the Arab side of the Middle East. Monday, too Mark Grossman, the state department's Number Three, heads out for Jordan, Egypt, Morocco, Bahrain and Turkey, to sell the president's democratic reforms program to key Arab leaders as well as Ankara. His trip follows a little-noticed declaration delivered in unison last week by two moderate Arab leaders, Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. Together, they flatly rejected the Western model of democracy that "does not suit a region largely driven by Islamic teachings." They affirmed that the US "Greater Middle East Initiative" is not compatible with the "its specificities and Arab identity." Bahrain has since endorsed this declaration.

To make sure the message is audible in Washington, 22 Arab League foreign ministers meet in Cairo this same "Super Monday" to draft a common stand against "the controversial American plan to spread democracy in the region." It will be tabled at the Tunis Arab summit on March 29-30.

Posted by Bryna Berch, February 28, 2004.
I respect Jinsa and its clear-headed analysis. But this time, I think it missed the mark. The argument that American diplomats continue to believe someday peace will come through negotiations is true enough. But why should the 'Palestinians' get anxious because Israel leaves Gaza unilaterally - and then starts to ethnically cleanse Samaria and Judea of Jews? They get some of the Land of Israel for free. It saves them bullets and bombs, equipment they will later use against the Jews within the Green Line. This is JINSA Report #391

A recurrent theme in US policy toward the Israel-Palestinian issue is that a negotiated settlement is required at whatever time the Palestinians can be induced to accept one. We have been saving a seat at the table for them in theory since 1947 and in practice since 1967. No, it was never so clearly spelled out, but this is the conclusion to be drawn from American policy regarding "settlements," the security fence and even Israel's proposed "unilateral withdrawal" from Gaza.

The State Department does not call "settlements" illegal, only an "obstacle to peace." Why? As nearly as we can tell, in case one day the Palestinians decide to accept the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty, land east of the 1949 armistice line won't be filled with "settlers" (i.e., "Jews"). The rejections of 1947 (Partition), 1948 (end of the British Mandate), and 1949 (armistice), 1993 (Oslo), and 2000 (Camp David II) - all of which provided mechanisms for legitimating Palestinian claims to roughly the West Bank and Gaza - are irrelevant. If the Palestinians pull a chair up to the table tomorrow, they should find the land waiting for them, as empty of Jews as possible.

The security fence is accepted by the US as a defensive measure to protect Israelis from infiltration by Palestinian terrorists. However, both Secretary Powell and NSC Advisor Rice have firmly rejected the fence as a political border because of its encroachment into land east of the 1949 armistice line. Again, holding space for the Palestinians in case they decide to exercise their option.

And while welcoming Israel's intention to withdraw from Gaza, spokesman Richard Boucher said, "Unilateral steps, even positive ones, don't resolve the issue, don't constitute a settlement. A settlement can only be reached by negotiations between the parties." So apparently, even when Israel does what we said we want it to do, it should only do it when the Palestinians want to participate in the decision-making.

The whole philosophy is backward - the Palestinians are more likely to be induced to negotiate seriously if they believe there may be NOTHING left for them at some point than if they believe they have all the time in the world.

So it is interesting that PM Sharon offered no program for the withdrawal. In fact, some have castigated him for what appears to be only a half-formed suggestion. But he asked the US administration for input - and from input it is a short hop to discussions about whether/how/when to implement the idea. While denying any US-Israel negotiations, the administration did send three high-level diplomats to

Israel, certainly making it look as if negotiations were taking place WITHOUT ANY PALESTINIANS.

Is this a ruse to bring the Palestinians to the table for more unproductive blather? Is it a real change in US policy? Early returns indicate that, either way, Palestinians other than Arafat are worried, finally, that if they miss this opportunity all the serious decisions may be made WITHOUT THEM. This separation anxiety should be strongly encouraged by both Israel and the United States.

The JINSA Reports are published by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (http://www.jinsa.org). To subscribe, email info@jinsa.org

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 28, 2004.
This was written by Nir Hasson, Haaretz correspondent and appeared on the Haaretz website today.

Eitan Kukoi and Rima Novikov were killed in a shooting attack along the Green Line border, between Israel and the West Bank on Friday night. The two are survived by their 2-year-old daughter, Michelle. Kukoi immigrated to Israel 13 years ago, and Rima immigrated to Israel seven years ago. The two met in Be'er Sheva, and married two years ago.

"They were charming people who loved one another," Tasya Levin, Eitan's sister, said about the two. Shortly after their wedding, the couple moved in with Kukoi's mother in the West Bank settlement of Livneh, south of Mount Hebron. "They planned to leave Livneh and move to Be'er Sheva," Levin said.

Kukoi was an industrial engineer and worked at the Nir-Lat factory, on Kibbutz Nir Oz. Novikov was completing her bachelor's degree in Public Policy and Administration at Sapir Collge.

At the time of the shooting, the two were on their way to a friend's birthday party in Ashdod. They left their house at 7:30 P.M., and their car was ambushed shortly before 8 P.M.

"At 8:30 we saw a news flash on a shooting south of Mount Hebron, and I immediately thought of them. We called the police and they said it had been a white car. We didn't want to believe that it was them; we tried calling, and they didn't pick up. We thought maybe they didn't hear the phone because of the noise from the party. Only when I arrived at the scene of the attack and saw the car did we realize that it was them," said Yigal Levin, Kukoi's brother-in-law.

The car was identified by Ivan Alexeitzov, a Channel One cameraman who arrived at the scene. Alexeitzov's wife is Novikov's cousin.

"We never thought that something like this could happen. We drove on that road all the time, even late at night," Tasya Levin said. "Next week everything will be forgotten, everything will go back to normal, and we will be left, not knowing how to continue."

Yigal and Tasya Levin said that they would adopt Michelle.

A time for the couple's funeral has not yet been set.

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 28, 2004.
Moshe Burt's efforts to help communities to acquire Kosher SEFREY TORAH is an amazing example of what one person can accomplish. I have no idea as to how many communities, especially in Yeshah, he has helped but I suspect that it is in the hundreds. Anyone in the neighborhood should drop by and join in this great Simchah. If you can't come, send a letter or email of encouragement or a donation to help him provide more SEFREY TORAH to communities.

I'm pleased to announce that the Sofer working on the repairs to the Sefer Torah for Givat Nof Harim has indicated to me that he expects to complete his work on the Sefer Torah by 24 March.

Therefore, the Hochnossis Sefer Torah will take place between the 25th and 31st of March so that the community will have use of the Sefer during Pesach. The exact date of the event should be known within a couple of weeks. Please watch The Sefer Torah Recycling Network website , various email lists and Arutz-7 for up-to-date news as to the day and time of the celebration and transportation to get you there and back.

The Sefer Torah Recycling Network expresses it's great appreciation to the Goldstein family for their kindness in providing a Sefer Torah and seeing to it's repairs for a needy location in EretzYisrael. To view pictures from both the small Transfer Ceremony of January, 2004 and from my recent Shabbos in Givat nof Harim, click this URL; .

For Beit Shemesh and Ramat Beit Shemesh residents, I hope that we are able to bring buses to transport those seeking to attend the festivities.

I hope to see many of you at the Hochnossis Sefer Torah celebration, including those currently living in Chutz L'Aretz who happen to be visiting Israel at the time of the celebration.

Moshe Burt, an Oleh, is a commentator on news and events in Israel and Founder and Director of the Sefer Torah Recycling Network. He lives in Ramat Beit Shemesh.

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.

Posted by Elizabeth Greene, February 28, 2004.
This was written by Amir Taheri and appeared on the New York Post. It is archived at http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/19159.htm

February 28, 2004 - IN a reversal of its policy not to enter into military alliance with any foreign power, the Islamic Republic of Iran has just concluded a defense pact with Syria. Signed in Damascus yesterday, the pact commits Iran to Syria's defense against "the Zionist entity," which in the Iranian lexicon means Israel.

The idea of a pact was first raised by Syria's President Bashar al-Assad in the immediate aftermath of the liberation of Iraq last April. The Syrian leader paid three visits to Tehran, pressing the Iranian leadership to come to the help of his beleaguered regime.

Sources in Tehran say the Iranians were at first reluctant to commit to a course that could make war with Israel almost inevitable. All changed sometime last November when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Iranian "Supreme Guide," decided that the only way to deal with the perceived threat from America was to raise the cost of any attempt by Washington to implement further "regime changes" in the Middle East.

According to our sources, Iran's decision to strengthen its commitment to Syria is one of several factors behind President Assad's recent decision to adopt a tougher stance against both the United States and Israel.

Iran's defense minister, Rear Adm. Ali Shamkhani (who signed the pact with his Syrian counterpart, Lt.-Gen. Mustafa Tlas), told reporters in Damascus yesterday that its "arrangements" also extend to Lebanon, where Syria maintains an army of 30,000 and Iran supports the Hezbollah (Party of God).

From Damascus, Shamkhani went to Beirut, where he presided over a war council attended by the entire political and military leadership of the Hezbollah. Top of the agenda was closer coordination between Hezbollah and Palestinian militant groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, both of which are supported by Iran.

The pact has three sections. One spells out the strategic partnership of the two nations on "military and intelligence" issues, including a framework for joint staff conversations, exchange of information, joint planning and exercises, and reciprocal access to segments of each nation's weapons systems.

The second section provides mechanisms whereby Iran and Syria will assist one another against aggression by a third party. The full text of the section has not been released, but Shamkhani and Tlas made it clear that "mutual defense" includes the commitment of troops and materiel to deal with any clear and present danger against either nation.

The third section is a memorandum on technical and scientific cooperation that commits Iran to build a national defense industry for Syria. The text also commits Iran to supply Syria with a wide range of weapons, including fighter-bombers and theater-range missiles, on a lend-lease basis. Iran has also agreed to train an undisclosed number of Syrian officers and military technicians, especially in the use of a wide range of missiles.

In a Thursday speech in Damascus, Shamkhani explained that Iran and Syria felt threatened by U.S. and Israeli "aggression."

"In the existing strategic configuration in our region, Syria represents Iran's first line of defense," Shamkhani said. "Iran, in turn, must be regarded as Syria's geo-strategic depth."

Iran already has a military presence in both Syria and Lebanon. The Iranian military mission in Damascus consists of over 500 officers and experts in weaponry and military intelligence. The Corps of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard has a contingent of 1,200 men in Lebanon on missions including training, deployment and maintenance of certain categories of weapons, and military intelligence. Each year Iran also trains an unspecified number of Syrian officers and military technicians, plus hundreds of Hezbollah fighters and cadres.

The new pact is presented by the state-controlled media in Iran and Syria as a response to the close military ties between Israel and Turkey.

Iranian and Syrian analysts believe that Washington plans a new regional military alliance to include Israel, Turkey, Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, seven regional countries are scheduled to sign an association accord with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) later this year. The leaders of the countries concerned (Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Israel and Jordan) have been invited to a NATO summit to be held in Istanbul in May.

As the only regional countries left out (along with Lebanon, which is de facto a Syrian dominion), Iran and Syria fear that their isolation could render them vulnerable to attack by either Israel or the United States.

The Irano-Syrian pact is scheduled to last for a period of five years but could be renewed with mutual consent.

To come into effect, the text must be approved by the Iranian and Syrian parliaments, which should happen early this summer. Syria's parliament, controlled by the ruling Arab Socialist Ba'ath (Renaissance) Party was never a problem. The new Iranian Majlis (parliament) is not expected to be a problem either since it will be controlled by groups loyal to the "Supreme Guide" and opposed to concessions to the United States.

The recent defeat of the so-called "reformist" camp in Iran is certain to concentrate control of foreign policy in the hands of Khamenei and his special foreign policy adviser, Ali-Akbar Velayati.

In a series of speeches and articles last year, Velayati urged the leadership to adopt "a position of strength" vis-a-vis the United States and Israel. His argument is that the Bush administration is committed to the overthrow of the Khomeinist regime and that the only way to counter its "conspiracies" is to raise the stakes to a point that would be unacceptable to American public opinion.

The Iran-Syria pact is only part of Velayati's grand vision. A more important part is Iran's decision to acquire a credible nuclear deterrent, probably within the next two to three years, thus raising the stakes even higher.

It is no exaggeration to suggest that the new Iranian tough line has been encouraged by the reaction of both the United States and the European Union to the recent election in Iran, in which only handpicked pro-regime candidates were allowed to stand.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has expressed his "sadness" but insists that rapprochement with Tehran would continue regardless. The European Union has gone further by suggesting that the controversial election represented nothing but a dark patch in an otherwise serene sky. As for Washington, the announcement by CIA chief George Tenet that the Iranian regime is "secure" is seen by the hard-line Khomeinists as an admission of American despair.

Just three months ago, the Iranian and Syrian regimes had their backs to the wall. Now, however, they manifest a new self-confidence. And that could lead either to a serious dialogue with Washington or, more likely, a sharpening of the conflict with it, especially in Iraq, Lebanon, and the occupied territories. Amir Taheri can be reached by E-mail at amirtaheri@benadorassociates.com

Posted by Jules Helzner, February 28, 2004.
Dear family and friends,

Please do this one small act to remember the six million (6,000,000) Jewish lives that were lost during the Holocaust.

Send this Remembrance message to everyone you know who is Jewish. If we reach the goal of reaching six million before the Holocaust Remembrance Day, we will fulfill and give back to G-d what He gave to us: 6 Million Jews who are alive today who remember those who perished.

Please send this message to as many Jews as you know. Ask them to send it to others.

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 28, 2004.
Yesterday we read about the Ford Foundation and the U.S. State Dept.'s promotion of Islam and a mythical "Palestinian People". [See "USAID. Taxes For Terrorists", February Blog-Ed.] The woefully misnamed "Constitutional Rights Foundation " (CRF) is even suggesting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would prohibit blasphemy against Allah. [See "Ford Has A Better Idea: One Nation Under Allah", this issue.]

Little Green Footballs (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com) has provided us with a lesson in Muslim Law (Sharia) today, answering one of the questions that we have been losing sleep worrying about.

Mufti Ebrahim Desai answers a young Muslim's pressing question: when is it OK to rape a jihad slave woman? A question on the status of women taken as prisoners during Jihad.

In the "Jihads" (Islamic wars) that took place, women were also, at times, taken as prisoners of war by the Muslim warriors. These women captives used to be distributed as part of the booty among the soldiers, after their return to Islamic territory. Each soldier was then entitled to have relations ONLY with the slave girl over whom he was given the RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP and NOT with those slave girls that were not in his possession. This RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP was given to him by the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (Head of the Islamic state.) Due to this right of ownership, it became lawful for the owner of a slave girl to have intercourse with her.

It may, superficially, appear distasteful to copulate with a woman who is not a man's legal wife, but once Shariah makes something lawful, we have to accept it as lawful, whether it appeals to our taste, or not; and whether we know its underlying wisdom or not. It is necessary for a Muslim to be acquainted with the laws of Shariah, but it is not necessary for him to delve into each law in order to find the underlying wisdom of these laws because knowledge of the wisdom of some of the laws may be beyond his puny comprehension. Allah Ta'ala has said in the Holy Quraan: "Wa maa ooteetum min al-ilm illaa qaleelan" which means, more or less, that, "You have been given a very small portion of knowledge." Hence, if a person fails to comprehend the underlying wisdom of any law of Shariah, he cannot regard it as a fault of Shariah (Allah forbid), on the contrary, it is the fault of his own perception and lack of understanding, because no law of Shariah is contradictory to wisdom.

Nevertheless, the wisdom underlying the permission granted by Shariah to copulate with a slave woman is as follows: The LEGAL possession that a Muslim receives over a slave woman from the "Ameerul-Mu'mineen" (the Islamic Head of State) gives him legal credence to have coition with the slave woman in his possession, just as the marriage ceremony gives him legal credence to have coition with his wife. In other words, this LEGAL POSSESSION is, in effect, a SUBSTITUTE of the MARRIAGE CEREMONY. A free woman cannot be "possessed", bought or sold like other possessions; therefore Shariah instituted a "marriage ceremony" in which affirmation and consent takes place, which gives a man the right to copulate with her. On the other hand, a slave girl can be possessed and even bought and sold, thus, this right of possession, substituting as a marriage ceremony, entitles the owner to copulate with her. A similar example can be found in the slaughtering of animals; that after a formal slaughtering process, in which the words, "Bismillahi Allahu Akbar" are recited, goats, cows, etc.; become "Halaal" and lawful for consumption, whereas fish becomes "Halaal" merely through "possession" which substitutes for the slaughtering.

Don't you feel a lot better about that whole jihad thing now, knowing it's all legal?

Posted by Joe Hersh, February 28, 2004.
Dear Bernice,

I've been "THINKING ISRAEL" way before I made my first aliyah (1970-1977). I wanted to come to Israel when I was discharged from the US Army in 1946, but things didn't work out that way. I started school, got married, got my degree, and had three kids. However, I never stopped "THINKING ISRAEL."

In Israel, I was a manager in two large electronics companies. On the side, I was involved in many areas; in some I was successful. Nevertheless, I call those years my "seven lean years" except for the fact that I remarried in 1973 to an Israeli who came from Morocco in 1962. We have two Sabra children, now 28 and 27. I retired from work in 1994 and made my second aliyah in 1999.

One of my greatest disappointments during the "seven lean years" was the relative lack of response by the Israeli government to suggestions and to questions. Today, it is almost impossible to get a response from any ministry. This, in my opinion, detracts from the democratic form of government that Israel claims to have. This also sours the outlook of olim from the United States where there is a representative form of government.

NOW, TO THE POINT OF THIS LETTER. The topics that you list in your letter [announcing the January-February issue of Think-Israel] are truly interesting - and fascinating - and worthy of reading. However, what can I do with the information? The information that I glean is as useful as the story that I might read in a novel.

About two years ago, I wrote to The Jerusalem Post and said: I am frustrated by the news, but, after reading the news, I am more frustrated when I don't get replies to relevant questions from the government ministries. So, why should I read the news? I asked that an article be written on this subject. The response was: We'll think about it. They must still be thinking, and I'm still frustrated.

NOW, FOR THE ICING ON THE CAKE: I am involved in hasbara. On several occasions, when responding to letters that were critical of some Israeli actions or policies, I contacted various Israeli ministries for backup. Not one reply! Lately, I've started to "THINK USA."

I'll end this letter with one from a young Israeli with whom I have been corresponding for approximately a year and a half. He is on an intellectual level far above most members of the Knesset or in any ministry. He is a rare individual.

"From: XXXX
Date: 02/27/04 13:14:22
To: Joe Hersh

I have decided to detach myself from politics. Israel is spiraling downwards and I will not allow the country to take me down with it.
My sanity is more important to me than fighting for Israel.
Tomorrow is my 28th birthday. I will be starting a "count down" which will end exactly 6 months from now, when I'll be 28 and a half.

I pray for Israel that during these six months Sharon will be replaced by Netanyahu, or by anyone further into the right-wing than him.

If this happens - I will re-evaluate the situation and decide accordingly whether or not I see my future here. If this doesn't happen - I will immediately leave Israel, and move to the USA.

Please stop sending me political related eMails. I'll be glad to hear from you every now and then on other issues! I wish you lots of health and happiness,



Bernice's Response: You and your friend are obviously depressed and discouraged. But observant Jews do not have the choice of abandonning Israel. Your shoulders share the burden of the future of the Jewish people. Besides, there is no place to hide. If Israel goes down, then the rest of the Diaspora will sooner or later follow.

Joseph S. Hersh lives in Arad, Israel.

Posted by Alan Rockman, February 27, 2004.
I must confess to being very tempted to call the UCLA Hillel offices and contacting Mr. (no Rabbi in my book) Seidler-Feller after reading Sharon Hes' insightful piece on this man's anger towards Jews who stick up for Israel. [See "What's Going On AT UCLA's Hillel?", this issue.]

You see, I have a Chaim Seidler-Feller story and it goes back almost 30 years ago.

I was a student at UCLA, and since I was also a reporter for the DAILY BRUIN, and for the Jewish Student paper HA'AM, I had a bit of reputation of sticking up for Israel, so much that some months later the ASUCLA Communications Board initially refused to offer me the position of HA'AM editor because they thought I might not be objective (they later did offer me the editorship but I turned it down).

Anyway, to make a long story short, the then-Palestinian representative to the United Nations, a chap by the name of Hussein (forgive me, but his full name escapes me, and I long ago discarded the tearsheet with the story about him on it), was to speak at an Assembly held in Kerckhoff Hall. I decided to attend this assembly and listen to what this representative of Arafat's murderous PLO had to say to American students at a prestigious California university.

As you can imagine, most of the students in attendance were on the one side Arabs and Leftists from the various pre-ANSWER kook groups, including the Socialist (Trotskyite) Workers Party and the Revolutionary Student (Maoist-Stalinoid) Party, and concerned Jewish students on the other side. I found myself with a number of fellow Jews directly confronting a group of very belligerent Arab students. At this time a young man, older than us, but still quite young (maybe late 20s or early 30s) wearing a Kippah interposed himself between us and them, and politely began to ask them questions. If I recall the questions, while not stringently pro-Israel were nonetheless supportive of Israel's right to exist and why the Arab nations refused to end their aggression against Israel (remember this was late 1974 or early 1975, and Sadat had never gone to Jerusalem at the time, and Arafat was continuing (as he does today) his bloody terrorism against innocents.

Well, instead of responding in reasoned and rationale tones, the Arab students began menacingly moving towards this young man who was identified to us as a Rabbi, and as they moved towards him they began cursing this man. Some of them behaved as though they were going to push and perhaps punch this man when the Jewish students nearby, myself included, formed a protective cordon around him and told the Arab students (in words to the effect) that if they were to harm this Rabbi we would kick some ass.

The Rabbi turned around and thank us, and identified himself as the new Hillel Director at UCLA. His name was - Chaim Seidler-Feller.

Since that time, Seidler-Feller has become an apologist and stooge for the Peace Now element at UCLA. He is, as Ms. Hes pointed out, in hand and glove with Rob Eshman, the editor of the Los Angeles Jewish Journal, whose pro-Peace Now proclivities and bias towards Israel is even more shocking since his wife, the noted author Naomi Levy, is also an ordained Conservative Rabbi!

Chaim Seidler-Feller has conveniently forgotten this episode in his early life when his head was about to be kicked in by the very same Arabs whom he prefers to hob-nob with rather than side with Jewish women who are more of a Zionist and Pro-Israel bent than he, Eshman, Michael Lerner, Ed Asner, or Yasser Arafat's bosom buddy Stanley Sheinbaum will ever be.

As for me, since I did risk limb for this pathetic guy, knowing what I know now about his animus towards those who do not share his worldview of Israel,or his PLO sympathies I kind of wish we had let them kick the crap out of him. (must be nice to shove a Jewish woman, isn't it, Seidler-Feller???)

I hope that someone will show this pathetic creature and stooge of Peace Now this article if it gets printed. For maybe Seidler-Feller in his rush to shove and push Jewish women who stick up for Israel has forgotten the time when Arab students threatened to shove and push him around. But this former student has never forgotten it, nor has he forgotten what Seidler-Feller has turned into in his dotage. A craven, pathetic, apologist for Arab terror against Jewish women and children.

Shame on You, Seidler-Feller!

Alan Rockman was Ha'Am Assistant Editor, 1975, and is a graduate of UCLA, class of 1975.

Posted by James Fletcher Baxter, February 27, 2004.
Consider: The way we define 'human' determines our view of self, others, relationships, institutions, life, and future. Choose wisely... there will be results. selah

Many problems in human experience are the result of false and inaccurate definitions of humankind premised in man-made religions and humanistic philosophies.

Human knowledge is a fraction of the whole universe. The balance is a vast void of human ignorance. Human reason cannot fully function in such a void, thus, the intellect can rise no higher than the criteria by which it perceives and measures values.

Humanism makes man his own standard of measure. However, as with all measuring systems, a standard must be greater than the value measured. Based on preponderant ignorance and an egocentric carnal nature, humanism demotes reason to the simpleton task of excuse-making in behalf of the rule of appetites, desires, feelings, emotions, and glands.

Because man, hobbled in an ego-centric predicament, cannot invent criteria greater than himself, the humanist lacks a predictive capability. Without instinct or transcendent criteria, humanism cannot evaluate options with foresight and vision for progression and survival. Lacking foresight, man is blind to potential consequence and is unwittingly committed to mediocrity, averages, and regression - and worse. Humanism is an unworthy worship.

The void of human ignorance can easily be filled with a functional faith while not-so-patiently awaiting the foot-dragging growth of human knowledge and behavior. Faith, initiated by the Creator and revealed and validated in His Word, the Bible, brings a transcendent standard to man the choice-maker. Other philosophies and religions are man-made, humanism, and thereby lack what only the Bible has: 1.Transcendent Criteria and 2.Fulfilled Prophetic Validation.

The vision of faith in God and His Word is survival equipment for today and the future.

Man is earth's Choicemaker. Psalm 25:12 He is by nature and nature's God a creature of Choice - and of Criteria. Psalm 119:30,173 His unique and definitive characteristic is, and of Right ought to be, the natural foundation of his environments, institutions, and respectful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he is oriented to a Freedom whose roots are in the Order of the universe.

At the sub-atomic level of the physical universe modern physics indicates a multifarious gap or division in the causal chain; particles to which position cannot be assigned at all times, systems that pass from one energy state to another without manifestation in intermediate states, entities without mass, fields whose substance is as insubstantial as "a probability."

Only statistical conglomerates pay tribute to deterministic forces. Singularities do not and are therefore random, unpredictable, mutant, and in this sense, uncaused. The finest contribution inanimate reality is capable of making toward choice, without its own selective agencies, is this continuing manifestation of opportunity as the pre-condition to choice it defers to the natural action of living forms.

Biological science affirms that each level of life, single-cell to man himself, possesses attributes of sensitivity, discrimination, and selectivity, and in the exclusive and unique nature of each diversified life form.

The survival and progression of life forms has all too often been totally dependent upon the ever-present mutative potential and undeterminative appearance of one unique individual organism within the whole spectrum of a given species. Only the uniquely equipped individual organism is, like The Golden Wedge of Ophir, capable of traversing the causal gap to survival and progression. Mere reproductive determinacy would have rendered life forms incapable of such potential. Only a moving universe of opportunity plus choice enables the present reality.

Each individual human being possesses a unique, highly developed, and sensitive perception of diversity. Thus aware, man is endowed with a natural capability for enacting internal mental and external physical selectivity. Quantitative and qualitative choice-making thus lends itself as the superior basis of an active intelligence.

Man is earth's Choicemaker. His title describes his definitive and typifying characteristic. Recall that his other features are but vehicles of experience intent on the development of perceptive awareness and the following acts of decision. Note that the products of man cannot define him for they are the fruit of the discerning choice-making process and include the cognition of self, the utility of experience, the development of value-measuring systems and language, and the acculturation of civilization.

The arts and the sciences of man, as with his habits, customs, and traditions, are the creative harvest of his perceptive and selective powers. Creativity is a choice-making process. His articles, constructs, and commodities, however marvelous to behold, deserve neither awe nor idolatry, for man, not his contrivance, is earth's own highest expression of the creative process.

Man is earth's Choicemaker. The sublime and significant act of choosing is, itself, the Archimedean fulcrum upon which man levers and redirects the forces of cause and effect to an elected level of quality and diversity. Further, it orients him toward a natural environmental opportunity, freedom, and bestows earth's title, The Choicemaker, on his singular and plural brow.

Deterministic systems, ideological symbols of abdication by man from his natural role as earth's Choicemaker, inevitably degenerate into collectivism; the negation of singularity, they become a conglomerate plural-based system of measuring human value. Blunting an awareness of diversity, blurring alternatives, and limiting the selective creative process, they are self-relegated to a passive and circular regression.

Tampering with man's selective nature endangers his survival for it would render him impotent and obsolete by denying the tools of diversity, individuality, perception, criteria, selectivity, and progress. Coercive attempts produce revulsion, for such acts are contrary to an indeterminate nature and nature's indeterminate off-spring, man the Choicemaker.

Until the oppressors discover that wisdom only just begins with a respectful acknowledgment of The Creator, The Creation, and The Choicemaker, they will be ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth. The rejection of Creator-initiated standards relegates the mind of man to its own primitive, empirical, and delimited devices. It is thus that the human intellect cannot ascend and function at any level higher than the criteria by which it perceives and measures values.

Additionally, such rejection of transcendent criteria self-denies man the vision and foresight essential to decision-making for survival and progression. He is left, instead, with the redundant wreckage of expensive hindsight, including human institutions characterized by averages, mediocrity, and regression.

Humanism, mired in the circular and mundane egocentric predicament, is ill-equipped to produce transcendent criteria. Evidenced by those who do not perceive superiority and thus find themselves beset by the shifting winds of the carnal-ego; i.e., moods, feelings, desires, appetites, etc., the mind becomes subordinate: a mere device for excuse-making and rationalizing self-justification.

The carnal-ego rejects criteria and self-discipline for such instruments are tools of the mind and the attitude. The appetites of the flesh have no need of standards for at the point of contention standards are perceived as alien, restrictive, and inhibiting. Yet, the very survival of our physical nature itself depends upon a maintained sovereignty of the mind and of the spirit.

It remained, therefore, to the initiative of a personal and living Creator to traverse the human horizon and fill the vast void of human ignorance with an intelligent and definitive faith. Man is thus afforded the prime tool of the intellect - a Transcendent Standard by which he may measure values in experience, anticipate results, and make enlightened and visionary choices.

Only the unique and superior God-man Person can deservedly displace the ego-person from his predicament and free the individual to measure values and choose in a more excellent way. That sublime Person was indicated in the words of the prophet Amos, "...said the Lord, Behold, I will set a plumbline in the midst of my people Israel." Y'shua Mashiyach Jesus said, "If I be lifted up I will draw all men unto myself."

As long as some choose to abdicate their personal reality and submit to the delusions of humanism, determinism, and collectivism, just so long will they be subject and reacting only, to be tossed by every impulse emanating from others. Those who abdicate such reality may, in perfect justice, find themselves weighed in the balances of their own choosing.

That human institution which is structured on the principle, "...all men are endowed by their Creator with ...Liberty...," is a system with its roots in the natural Order of the universe. The opponents of such a system are necessarily engaged in a losing contest with nature and nature's God. Biblical principles are still today the foundation under Western Civilization and the American way of life. To the advent of a new season we commend the present generation and the "multitudes in the valley of decision." Let us proclaim it. Behold! The Season of Generation-Choicemaker Joel 3:14 KJV

Essays by Jim Baxter can be read on his website: http://www.choicemaker.net

Posted by Professor Louis Beres, February 27, 2004.
Were it not for the evident seriousness of its implications, the David Haivri case would represent little more than the reduction to absurdity of a democratic country`s legal system. Known popularly as the "T-Shirt Trial," the current court proceedings in Israel are based on an incident in which the defendant was charged with possession and distribution of a "publication" intended to incite racism. The "publication" at issue was a T- shirt imprinted with a picture of Rabbi Meir Kahane on the front, and the Hebrew words "Ein Aravim - Ein Piguim" ("No Arabs, No Terror Attacks") on the back.

The section of the penal law under which Mr. Haivri was indicted states, inter alia, that "...it does not matter if the publication led to racism or not, and if it contained truth or not." From the standpoint of even the most minimal standards of liberty in civilized societies, codification of a rule that truth is immaterial to guilt - that truth is not exculpatory - is both rare and indefensible. Moreover, as every country`s domestic legal system must conform to certain elementary worldwide human rights standards, the Israeli prosecution here is in clear violation of overriding international law.

The defendant`s "published" statement in this case - "No Arabs, No Terror Attacks" - is obviously true on its face. No one could conceivably argue that Israel now faces relentless terror from any other group on the face of the earth. The Haivri statement does not purport to explain terrorist attacks in other countries, where of course the offending groups might well be different, nor does it suggest in any way that all Arabs or even a determinable number of Arabs are terrorists.

Without any explicit proposal or discernible message about what should now be done to limit Arab terrorism, the adjudicated T-shirt merely makes an absolutely incontestable observation, without any plausible evidence of bias and most certainly without any hint of identifiable "racism." To blithely deduce from the picture of Rabbi Kahane that the wearer and distributor automatically advocate harm to Arabs is not only jurisprudentially unacceptable, it is factually unwarranted.

Many Arab citizens of Israel remain loyal to the state and ought not to be identified with terrorists as a group. There is no ascertainable reason for the defendant in this case to be accused of suggesting otherwise. For the prosecution to impute a broadly generic attack upon all Arabs to Mr. Haivri on the basis of his T-shirt "publication" represents either a deliberate falsification drawn from political ideology, or a despairingly flagrant incapacity to reason correctly.

Indeed, recognizing very precise errors in deductive reasoning known in formal logic as "fallacies," the prosecutorial position in this case is undeniably based on conclusions that are not properly drawn from its acknowledged premises. In short, it is altogether false for the prosecution to conclude from the defendant`s more-or-less implied statement, "All terror is caused by Arabs," that he is in any way suggesting "All Arabs are terrorists." The government`s syllogism is patently invalid.

International law, which is always based on a variety of Higher Law foundations, including the Torah, forms part of the law of all nations - including the law of the State of Israel. This is true whether or not the incorporation of international law into national law is codified explicitly, as it is, for example, at Article VI of the United States Constitution.

If it is to represent itself correctly as a Western-style democracy, the Government of Israel is now fully bound by authoritative rules of international law to assure basic rights of free speech to all its citizens, Jews as well as Arabs, and not to deny these rights selectively to certain Jews on the basis of political antipathies.

Further, as every state is obligated under international law to provide security to its citizens, the right of these citizens to peacefully protest when certain government policies endanger their survival is not only permissible, it is indispensable.

Today, when Israel`s government has undertaken repeated and persistently-failed policies of concession and capitulation to Arab states and Palestinian "authorities" that openly seek Israel`s liquidation, the right of civil disobedience in that country can hardly be questioned. In this connection, the wearing and printing of a T-shirt with the message depicted by David Haivri is even substantially more protected than fully peaceable acts of civil disobedience.

Every government surely has a legal right to prosecute "racism," but that right must never be allowed to impair the most basic standards of free speech, nor can it ever lawfully declare the irrelevance of truth. This prosecutorial right is also contingent upon equality and consistency of application. For the Government of Israel to prosecute Jews on the basis of allegedly offending T-shirts while simultaneously ignoring overt calls by Arab citizens for another Jewish genocide is intolerable by any measure of democratic law-enforcement.

When the indictment of Jewish citizens for "racism" takes place at a time when hundreds of aspiring Arab terrorists and suicide-bombers are released from Israeli jails as an expression of "good will," the government`s case for prosecution becomes reduced to a paradigm for national self-defilement. The fact that the released Arab prisoners were not citizens of Israel has no legal bearing on this particular observation concerning wrongful prosecution of Mr. Haivri.

Speaking of Arab citizens, an important question comes to mind: If these citizens were now to print and display T-shirts with the inscription, "No Jews, No Occupation," would the Israeli authorities prosecute under the same "racism" statute? Almost certainly the government would choose to ignore such activity, although - in marked contrast to the contrived case mounted against David Haivri - the charge here would almost certainly be true. Ironically, the presumed decision not to prosecute, a decision in essence now made daily by the government when it looks fearfully away from genocidal publications by elements of its Arab population, would be based on a pitiable wish not to appear "undemocratic" before the tribunal of world public opinion.

It is bad enough that Israel`s legal system is now being abused for blatantly political purposes; it is far worse that the law is now also beig applied selectively, in a fashion that literally makes this system complicit in future terror attacks against Jews.

Much as they might wish to deny it, the Israeli government prosecutors of David Haivri writhe within an agonizingly twisted jurisprudence that has far more to do with national surrender and capitulation to terrorism than with any measured considerations of justice.

Louis Rene Beres (Ph.D, Princeton, 1971) is Professor of International Law at Purdue University. He is the author of many books and articles on international criminal law, and is Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press. This article appeared on the Jewish Press website and is archived as (http://www.jewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=3437) February 25, 2004.

Posted by Leo Rennert, February 27, 2004.
If Arafat wanted to crack down on terrorists, his security services could do the job. Just ask the mayor of Nablus. This is an Associated Press news item in Haaretz.

The mayor of Nablus, the West Bank's largest city, and a close ally of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat announced Friday that he is quitting to protest the Palestinian Authority's failure to crack down on militants.

The announcement came as a major blow to Arafat as he was trying to stem a growing rebellion within his Fatah movement. The Palestinian leader agreed Friday to hold Fatah elections within a year, responding to demands by disgruntled younger activists. However many believe it's an empty promise.

Ghassan Shaka'a told The Associated Press that he has submitted his resignation to Arafat to protest inaction by Palestinian leaders and security forces to stop the chaos.

Palestinian police forces have been hobbled during more than three years of fighting with Israel. With no real authority on the streets, gangs wage deadly gun battles, members of rival clans fight out deadly feuds and militants have kidnapped and beaten government officials.

"I have submitted my resignation to President Arafat because I see my city collapsing and I don't want to stand idly by and watch this collapse," Shaka'a said. "My resignation is a warning bell to the Palestinian Authority and the residents of Nablus, because both of them are doing nothing for this city."

In November, Palestinian gunmen shot and killed Shaka'a's brother. The mayor, who had been locked in a power struggle with armed gangs, named suspects, but security forces have been unwilling to arrest them.

He said Friday that his brother's slaying and the failure to apprehend the killers were not the reasons behind his resignation.

Still, he said, the security forces under the control of Arafat's Palestinian Authority could do more to bring order to the city.

"It can enforce the law," he said. "But it is not enforcing the law. And our people can do a lot, but they are doing nothing except spreading disorder."

Shakaa said he would stay on as head of the city until May 1 because he is involved in several development projects he wants to finish, including the construction of a shopping mall.

Posted by Henry Moscovic, February 27, 2004.
Why is the Israeli government so petrified of a Rabbi murdered 13 years ago, that it mobilized hundreds of soldiers and police in the midst of a 41 month war with Arab terrorists to repeatedly destroy a tiny synagogue dedicated to his memory?

The prescient recommendation in the 1970s by Rabbi Meir Kahane zt"l to separate the Jewish and Arab populations of the Holy Land, in order to avoid horrible bloodshed, was condemned as racist and fascist. The Rabbi was demonized and vilified by the Jewish establishments in the United States and Israel and barred from re-election to the Knesset in 1988 primarily because of his compensated transfer offer to hostile Arabs. His followers have been politically persecuted and branded as terrorists by the American and Israeli governments.

Today, the Israeli government itself espouses separation, albeit a suicidal one! It plans to forcefully 'relocate' tens of thousands of peaceful Jewish citizens via unilateral withdrawal from the heartland of the tiny country. A Judaic cleansing of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria to create a "Judenrein" Palestine per demand by the new Fuhrer - Adolf Arafat. Yet, the self-righteous Jews, who so denounced Rabbi Kahane, now not only do not protest such an evil plan, but gleefully advocate this proposed immoral expulsion of their brethren from Biblical communities.

Consequently, is it not belatedly time for the Jewish people to demand an end to the mad 'piece' policies of Israeli governments before they inevitably lead to G-d forbid the dissolution of the Third Jewish Commonwealth?

Enough 'painful' concessions, enough already!! Never Again?

Posted by Tel Belman, February 27, 2004.
Gordon Liddy, a former "plumber" caught up in the Watergate Scandal, when describing what International Relations was like, said "When you get out in the Mid-Atlantic, its not Charlie the Tuna you meet, but Jaws."

Israel, to be sure, is caught up in those jaws.

It is a truism to say that International Relations are governed by interests and not by laws or morality. In fact, the latter are often distorted or even inverted in the service of interests.

In trying to understand what is otherwise not understandable, this must be kept in mind. The interests of all nations lie with the Muslims both because there are over one billion of them compared to 12 million Jews and because they produce the lion's share of the worlds' oil. Very few of those nations also have interests that lead them to align in part with Israel. These include India, Turkey and the US. But even they only support Israel to a limited degree because they have overriding interest in good relations with the Muslims.

The importance of oil and the large number of Arab or Muslim states has been the bottom line for all policy decisions since the British Mandate. Britain did its utmost to support the Arabs during its mandate and had to be fought by the Jews to bring the Mandate to an end. Even after the Holocaust, the UN would not have voted for the Partition Act but for the Communist countries, which voted in favour. They also supplied arms to Israel. They saw Israel as a communist or at least socialist outpost. But their support was short lived. The same for France who at one time thought that supporting Israel would help them regain the Suez Canal, but they too abandoned Israel just prior to the Six-day War. In fact The US, France, Great Britain and Russia all abandoned Israel just prior to this war by not honouring their guarantee of international waters (Straits of Tiran) after Nasser closed these waters to Israel.

Israel's best friend, the US has always played a double game. Her core interest was oil. She kept Israel strong enough to make the Arabs come to her for help in curbing Israel or getting the return of land and yet she also kept Israel weak enough that it too would be in constant need of the US. Restraining Israel or forcing Israel to make concessions allowed the US to gain headway with the Arabs. But for President Truman, the State Department would have voted against the Partition Act, which gave rise to the creation of Israel. The State Department has remained the enemy of Israel and is always looking for ways to reduce its strength and limit its victories. John Loftus in The Secret War Against The Jews, described this war as a war in which the World was trying to undo Israel. This war has gone on since WWII and continues to this day.

After the Six Day War, UN quickly passed Resolution 242, which mandated the land for peace formula. It also recited

"Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security."

This muddied the waters because it ignored that this principle only applies to aggressive wars and not defensive wars. So in effect it was saying that Israel, even though the victor in a defensive war, could not acquire territory as a result thereof. It went on to recommend the application of the following principles in reaching a just and lasting peace

(i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgment of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;Right from the get go, the UN was recommending that Israel withdraw. Why the rush? Why couldn't Israel keep the land? At least it allowed that Israel had a right to "secure and recognized borders". Often missed is the fact that it required all states in the area to terminate "claims or states of belligerency". Furthermore "Palestine" or "Palestinians" were not even a glint in the eyes of their progenitors.

Over the years the World Community has manoeuvred to end the conflict by forcing Israel to return to the pre '67 armistice lines. The US forced Israel to disgorge "every inch" of the Sinai to Egypt as the price to be paid to get Egypt to switch from the USSR to the US. Then came the Madrid Conference where Israel under great pressure made great concessions such as putting Jerusalem on the negotiating table.

Oslo, which largely was an initiative of the then government of Israel, proved to be a huge mistake. It resulted in adding to the pressure of the world, the pressure from terrorist attacks emanating from Yesha. At least with Oslo, Israel was in a strong position and negotiated a strong deal. So strong in fact that the Arabs wouldn't honour its terms. The Arabs insisted on their rights acquired by the Accords but reneged on their obligations. The World, including Israel, did nothing. So Israel continued to follow Oslo with nothing in return.

When Arafat refused Barak's offer of 97% of Yesha and started the terror campaign in earnest, the World looked for ways to give the Arabs even more rather then to hold Arafat's feet to the fire for returning to violence. Compare the efforts of the World to get Israel to stop building the fence, to stop targeted killings of terrorists, to stop humiliating the Arabs, to stop building the settlements, to release money to them, to make good will gestures and to release terrorists etc with its attempts to get the Palestinians to stop the terrorist atrocities. In short, there is no comparison.

To the contrary, the World supports Palestinian terrorism by protecting Hamas and Hezbollah, by funding Arafat without financial accountability and by supporting Arafat politically. It does so as a means to force further concessions from Israel. And don't kid yourself; the US is totally complicit in this. The US, too, wants Israel to return to the pre '67 armistice lines and has, since day one.

Prime Minister Sharon has decided that the chances of Israel standing up to all this pressure which has gone on for 60 years and will not change any time soon, are virtually nil and that Israel's best course is to get what it can through negotiating with the US and by taking the initiative. Whereas Barak, with Clinton's approval, kept 3% back, Sharon is trying to double or triple this. And it's an uphill battle even with Bush in the Whitehouse. Israel has now trimmed its sails by shortening the fence and making it less objectionable to Washington in the hope of getting its approval. Evidently the US is also negotiating with the EU to get it to accept Sharon's plans. The EU is expected to demand that Israel retreat even further as the price of cooperating with the US on Iraq and Syria. Guess where the US will stand? What chance does Israel have when it has no allies.

For Israel to resist, it must throw off the shackles of World opinion, of American aid and of all agreements to date. It must pursue its own agenda. But first, it must destroy the terrorist infrastructure and expel all terrorists.

Will the world stand by? Hardly. Will there be boycotts and sanctions and mandatory resolutions and perhaps even UN forces coming to the territories without Israel's consent? Certainly. Can Israel stand up to all this? Is the game worth the candle? Israel will still have four million Arabs to contend with.

Better to cut the best deal possible rather that to take the risks outlined with little apparent benefit.

Ted Belman is a major contributor to IsraPundit (http://IsraPundit.com), a pro-Israel activist website. This article is archived at http://israpundit.com/archives/005037.html

Posted by IsrAlert, February 27, 2004.
This was written by Joe Berkofsky and appeared on the Jewish Telegraphic Agency website (http://www.jta.org).

NEW YORK, Feb. 24 (JTA) - One year ago, Mark Bianu stood in a Haifa cemetery reserved for terror victims.As a reporter for a local cable TV show, "News of the Day," Bianu, 29, already had covered three terrorist attacks. He remarked to a colleague at the rapidly growing cemetery, "Who knows - maybe tomorrow you or I could be buried under this mound," his mother, Florence, recalled in a recent telephone interview.

Last October, Bianu and his wife Naomi were having Shabbat lunch at Haifa's Maxim restaurant when a Palestinian woman from Jenin blew herself up nearby, killing the couple and 19 others. Now Bianu and his wife are buried in that Haifa cemetery.

"I am trying to carry on his work," Florence Bianu said of her son. "People may be tired of looking at the news, but we are living here and we are suffering. To lose a son, the pain is almost impossible," she said.

Nowadays Bianu is part of a new effort to make the case for Israel's security barrier in painfully human terms, by telling stories of ordinary Israelis to Americans and media opinion leaders.

The move by the Israel Project, a nonprofit firm that advocates for Israel, joins several new campaigns to inform the U.S. media, and by extension public perceptions, about Israeli life behind the headlines.

Donna Rosenthal, an award-winning former Israel Radio and TV correspondent, said she wrote her new book, "The Israelis," an in-depth look at the many faces of Israeli society during the Palestinian intifada, as a "bible for journalists."

"It is meant to be used as a kind of desk reference about the Jewish state.While touring to promote "The Israelis," Rosenthal says she is "shocked" by how deep illiteracy about Israel runs among many U.S. broadcast journalists, including some Jews at major network and cable news stations.

"There is enormous curiosity" about Israel "and enormous ignorance" in the media, Rosenthal said.

The book updates the last similar nonfiction view from Israel's street, the 1986 "Heroes, Hustlers, Hard Hats and Holy Men" by Zev Chafets, which offered rarely seen colorful slices of Israeli life.Whether portraying Russians working in high-tech firms, gays in Tel Aviv or Christian Arabs who publish a "Cosmopolitan"-style magazine, Rosenthal said, "I am trying to smash stereotypes."

At the same time, Linda Scherzer, a former CNN correspondent in Israel, now is consulting for a new Internet venture to give newspaper editorial writers access to analysis and opinion pieces about Israel from some 400 news outlets worldwide.Launched by Los Angeles TV producer Merv Adelson, Access Middle East, at www.AccessMiddleEast.org, "has been a good way to advance the story" about Israel to editorial writers from Minneapolis to Sacramento to Wichita, Scherzer said.

Already the site is increasing its audience and influencing coverage, Scherzer said. Recent conference calls with Israel's Deputy Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, produced a New York Times editorial, and a call with a human-rights lawyer led to pieces in the Dallas Morning News and the New York Sun, she said.

Yet all of these efforts face some serious challenges, and their proponents don't expect to change overnight the face of news coverage of Israel.

In part that's because TV news long has been governed not by any anti-Israel bias, as some press watchdog groups maintain, but by the "if it bleeds, it leads" newscast mentality, said Samuel Freedman, an author and professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

"If a network newscast gives something 45 seconds, that's a tremendous amount of time, which hardly allows for nuance," Freedman said.

Indeed, Rosenthal said, many TV producers told her they would love to feature her book but wonder where the controversy lies.

Meanwhile, the mothers of suicide-bombing victims found that telling their tales required a hard sell. Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, president of the Israel Project, said she attempted to contact more than 100 print and TV figures, but most turned them down.

"They were here five days, and 80 reporters couldn't find 10 minutes to meet with them?" Laszlo Mizrahi asked.

So last week, the Israel Project launched a media campaign with ads on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC outlets in Washington featuring Bianu and other mothers of terror victims.

The ads hit the airwaves just before the International Court of Justice at The Hague convened its hearings on Israel's fence. The campaign aimed to reinforce what the Israel Project says is overall public support for the barrier.

A survey of 800 registered U.S. voters Jan. 21-22 by pollster Neil Newhouse found that 74 percent of Americans support the fence as a barrier to terrorists.

Yet few may be aware of a small fact that one of the mothers, Lea Zur, whose son Assaf, 17, was among 17 killed in a suicide bus bombing in Haifa, disclosed in a letter of regret to journalists who could not meet her.

Zur noted that the security barrier, which is a chain-link fence for most of its proposed 450-mile route, succeeded two months ago in blocking a suicide bomber from reaching a local high school where her nephew is a student."We are trying to reach out to reporters before they write their stories," Laszlo Mizrahi said.

THE WASHINGTON POST: 'Violent Protest Against Israeli Security Fence' Story
Posted by Leo Rennert, February 27, 2004.

If further evidence were needed that the Post has two pro-Palestinian reporters in Jerusalem whose copy is passed on to readers without adequate scrutiny by Washington editors, the Feb. 27 piece by Anderson and Moore offers another telling exhibit. In addition to the two examples cited in the attached letter, there are several other conspicuous instances of pro-Palestinian bias. Let me enumerate:

1. As background context for the protest, the article cites criticism in the annual State Department Human Rights report about Israel's use of excessive force against Palestinian demonstrators. Fair enough. But since the article deals with an attempt by Israel to enhance the security of its citizens, why not mention a few other passages in the same report - I.e. that members of Palestinian security forces have joined terrorist groups in carrying out deadly attacks, that the Palestinian Authority has a "poor" human rights record, replete with "numerous, serious abuses," that Arafat's security forces use "excessive force" against Palestinian demonstrators, that they "arbitrarily" arrest and detain Palestinians, that they deprive them of fair trials, that they restrict Palestinian freedom of speech and press, that Palestinian abuses include discrimination against women and the disabled, along with child-labor practises. As long as the Post delves into Israel's shortcoming on human rights, shouldn't the Post also mention deprivation of human rights on the Palestinian side?

2. In speculating that the Palestinians may be opening a new phase of the intifada with direct attacks on the fence, the article describes the intifada as a "Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza." Anderson and Moore are smart enough to know that this is not true. Since the PA regularly condemns terrorist attacks against Israel, the "uprising" evidently is carried out by others - Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigages, etc. But these groups repeatedly have declared in public pronouncements that their goal is not to kick Israelis out of the West Bank and Gaza. Their objective is to destroy Israel. They make no bones about it. So why prettify their real aims? And even if you want to take Arafat at his word (and overlook his habitual lying), he also has made no bones about the fact that, whether his weapons are diplomatic, political or military, he will never abandon a Palestinian "right of return" because he wants to erase what he calls the "great catastrophe" - not Israel's capture of the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel's creation.

3. The story says the barrier will be 450 miles in length. Your reporters obviously forgot that only in the last few days Israel decided to shorten the fence to keep it from intruding too far into the West Bank. As a result, the barrier will be about 10 percent shorter.

4. The story tries to bolster Palestinian claims of an "impenetrable" barrier by citing anonymous human rights activists. It also mentions that Israeli and international "human rights activists" joined in the violent anti-fence protest. These folks obviously are pro-Palestinian sympathizers. But "human rights activists"? I don't think so. While they claim to care about Palestinian human rights, they don't seem to be concerned about the "human rights" of Israelis not to be slaughtered by terrorists. When have they protested against the PA's sorry record on human rights? So why not identify them properly? Words matter.

5. Put all these biased journalistic commissions and omissions together and you have an article worthy of a PA press release. What I cannot understand is that someone as bright and intelligent a journalist as you are can at one and the same time pump such stories into the paper and then defend the coverage as fair, honest journalism. And, David, protesting that criticism of your failure to properly edit such coverage amounts to an "ad hominem" attack doesn't cut it.


The Post's account of a violent protest against Israel's security fence ("Two Palestinians Shot Dead, 20 Wounded in Fence Protest" Feb. 27) failed to mention, either in the headline or in the article, that stone-throwing Palestinians injured 10 Israeli border police, including some who had to be taken to a Jerusalem hospital for treatment of their wounds. Yet, the Post went into great detail about the wounds sustained by Palestinian demonstrators. In covering this conflict, does the Post consider Palestinian lives more valuable than Israeli lives?

Also, in describing Palestinian anger about the fence, the Post cited criticism by Palestinians and unnamed "human rights activists" who contend that it would totally isolate a Palestinian village, turning it into a "prison" in the words of its mayor. There is no mention that the security barrier will include gates wide enough for passage of people and vehicles, thus affording ample opportunity for civilian movement through the fence. Terrorists bent on killing innocent Israelis, however, might be inconvenienced.

Posted by News From Hebron, February 27, 2004.
[Ed Note: Yitzhak Pass and Noam Federman are still in jail - 'on adminstrative detention' - but have never been charged with a crime or given a trial. They are activists who were leaders protesting the Government's ill-conceived plan to evacuate the settlers of Biblical Israel.]

Rivka Zarbiv, mother-in-law of Itzik Pass, sent an urgent letter to Minister of Internal Security Tzachi HaNegbi, concerning Itzik.

"On the 29th of Adar (22.03.04) the annual memorial service for my granddaughter Shalhevet, will take place. Shalhevet was murdered three years ago at the age of 10 months by an Arab sniper who shot and killed her in cold blood.

Yitzik Pass and his brother-in-law Mati Shvu, who have been imprisoned for the past seven months, would naturally like to be present for the memorial service and ceremony. Unfortunately, our requests have been cruelly dealt with by the Jewish section of the Shabak (Israeli intelligence) and the prison authorities. The two men were sentenced to 15 months in jail and according to the law should receive 'vacations' after having served a quarter of their sentence. However, despite this, all requests to allow them vacation or permission to attend the memorial service have been denied.

It is not possible that these two men, married to my twin daughters Oriya and Ortal, will not be able to attend the services for Itzik's murdered daughter and visit her grave. Will Itzik be forced to recite the Kaddish in prison or will he be able to grieve together with his family at the cemetery?

I demand that they be granted, at a minimum, a 24 hour vacation on the 22nd of March and will not take no for an answer!"

On Thursday afternoon, 'the fast of Esther' a protest will take place outside the Supreme Court building, demanding Noam Federman's release from prison. Federman has been in jail for almost six months, due to an administrative command, ordering his incarceration. He was not indicted or tried and has not been charged with any crime. Shortly, the six month detention order will expire, making necessary issuance of another such order. The protest will demand that the administrative detention order not be renewed and the Federman be immediately released.

Earlier this week the Prime Minister and other legal and security officials decided not to administratively detain Mordechai Vanunu, the jailed Israeli traitor who publicized Israel's atomic weapon's secrets, and has been in jail for 18 years and is due to be released in two months. This despite Vanunu's threats to continue revealing Israeli military secrets. If an Israeli traitor of the first degree is due such consideration, why not Noam Federman?

The demonstration will take place at 4:00 at the Supreme Court building. Following afternoon and evening prayers, refreshments will be served.

News From Hebron is published by the Jewish Community of Hebron (http://www.hebron.org.il). You can contribute funds to help the Community by going to http://www.hebron.org.il/contrib.htm. Or contact The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com, 718-677-6886.

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 27, 2004.
What happened when Israeli forces withdrew from Bethlehem last year? Two things happened.

First, there was a flurry of arrests of terrorists by the P.A.. Many of those arrested were set free after a brief period, with or without interrogation and under comfortable conditions (that the P.A. is not known for accommodating its victims with). Sometimes the arrest is given over to a relative to perform. One purpose of such arrests was to impress Israel and the US, and to appear anti-terrorist, without being anti-terrorist. Another purpose was recruitment, for some detainees enroll in P.A. security forces. A third is to give shelter to terrorists fleeing from Israeli forces. Bethlehem became known as a haven for terrorists.

Besides publicizing the arrests, the P.A. claimed to have confiscated explosives. Some of the same explosives were displayed on the occasion of two different discoveries of explosives. Others were not genuine explosives. What other raids the P.A. staged, and whether they served a legitimate purpose, is not known, because the P.A. does not let Israeli forces examine the explosives allegedly found. Thus the discoveries of explosives were as phony as the arrests.

Second, numerous terrorist attacks, formerly blocked by the presence of the IDF, were sprung from Bethlehem (IMRA, 2/22).

(That gives you an idea of the efficacy if not the sincerity of Sec. Powell's periodic admonitions to the P.A. to crack down on terrorism. He may as well ask a lion to become a vegetarian.)

It has become routine for foreign powers, most tellingly the US, to demand that Israel make the lives of the Arabs easier by withdrawing its forces from P.A. cities. Israel does as asked. Those cities then become centers for terrorism, again. That makes the lives of Israelis perilous. About that, one does not hear the US offering a realistic remedy. It offers pie in the sky.

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

Posted by Moshe Saperstein, February 27, 2004.
20 February

An unexpectedly boring Shabbat. "Unexpectedly" because we had gone to Jerusalem's Hyatt Hotel as part of a group of Ulpana employees and their spouses and thought the change of scenery would be invigorating. Instead the weather kept us indoors and the intense conversations with our co-vacationers were continuations of what we talk about all week. Don't misunderstand. We enjoyed it. It's just that we were operating on automatic pilot.

Of interest was an article that appeared in the Friday edition of Ha'aretz, Israel's premiere Hebrew-language anti-Semitic paper. Our equivalent of the NYTimes.

It's motto: The paper for people who think.

More accurately, The paper for people who think they think.

Even that is giving them too much credit. I prefer, The paper for people who stink.

Anyway, the article was written by a woman who tagged along with Fox News when they came to the house. As they left I asked her whom she represented and she said Ha'aretz, to which I, always anxious to create good will, said "Ah, `Die Sturmer' (the Gestapo newspaper) in Hebrew".

The article included a picture of me, with the caption quote: (referring to Sharon's reputation as a bulldozer) The bulldozer hasn't been built that can move me.

Not my usual genteel understatement, but a pretty clear message.


Are we humane or insane?

After today's bus bombing in Jerusalem there probably won't even be a virtual response so as not to dilute the perceived positive effects on the International Court of Injustice in the Hague. Of course there was nary a virtual response to the Jerusalem bus bombing three weeks ago, probably for some similar transitory or wholly illusory public relations gain.

In the endless unspoken struggle over the best method to keep Jews safe, advocates of gaining the world's pity through suffering hold the upper hand over advocates of gaining the world's respect through power.

Retaining the world's pity requires a continuous flow of Jewish blood. Even the Holocaust kept the lid on Jew-hatred for only three or four decades. Fortunately we in Israel are surrounded by willing and increasingly able bloodletters. And with a population the majority of whom are apparently prepared, sheep-like, to passively and resignedly be slaughtered, we may once again be able to regain our position at the head of the world's Parade of Unfortunates.

So open wide the sluices/
For flowing Jewish juices.../
If enough Israelis bleed/
There'll no longer be a need/
To hide those yarmulkes in
Brussels, Budapest and Broadway/
Or that Star of David in
Miami, Moscow and Marseilles.

[to be sung to the tune of The Funeral March by Chopin (now there was a quality anti-Semite)] [[aren't you glad I prefer prose to poetry?]]

At the risk of making your collective eyeballs roll upwards in boredom I must repeat that the greatest danger to us lies in the Jews rather than the non-Jews. The Almighty will protect us from our Muslim enemies and their non-Jewish allies. Who will protect us from our so-called co-religionists?

The sense of being stabbed in the back by those who owe us the most support was heightened by a photo exhibit of graffiti-covered bus stops near the various kibbutzim that are geographically closest to us. Following are four examples:

"Death to the Residents of Gush Katif"
"Gush Katif - Die of Cancer"
"Hurray for the Arabs"

Keep in mind that we are all that separates these kibbutzim from the anarchistic terror that besets us. So when we talk to these people and ask if they believe our destruction will be their salvation, it is chilling to see intelligent and personable people put their brains on hold. Not one says yes. Instead, "We can't permit hope to die" is their mantra, along with "Give peace a chance".

Another group of brain-dead Jews are visiting Israel at the moment: The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Anti-Semites believe Jews will sell their mothers for money. So what will moneyed Jews sell their mothers for? For public acclaim. For "honor". These unelected spokescreatures for American Jewry had a so-called private meeting with the Prime Minister during which he supposedly revealed to them all the details of his dismemberment plan - details he hasn't shared with his Cabinet - and enlisted their support to lobby the US President to support him.

These pyrite-plated nonentities came to nearby Sderot yesterday [24.2] to show solidarity with a community that is hit with Kassem rockets from time to time. But when a delegation of Jews from Gush Katif asked for a few minutes it was turned away for "lack of time". Had Hamas' Sheikh Yassin agreed to urinate on them before the cameras they would have consented with alacrity. Not, heaven forbid/perish the thought, for the publicity, but to encourage dialogue. But for the Jews of Gush Katif, rocketed all the time, nary a minute for a photo-op. What happened to `solidarity'? What happened to `dialogue'? Why do all those communal buzzwords - `solidarity', `dialogue', `outreach', `good cholesterol', `bad cholesterol' `unity' - apply to Jew-haters of every race, religion, creed and screed, but not to religious, nationalist Jews?

Two of our reps jumped on the bus and handed out information packets about Gush Katif. I had been asked to write a short presentation. Keeping in mind President Eisenhower's injunction to his staffers to limit all memos to one page, I did so. I'll try and send it to you separately.


Oshri was due in from London this morning at 4am, and I went to meet his plane. He had gotten a week's leave from the army to work on his doctorate, examining documents at the Government Record Office in Kew.

I had hoped to sleep in the afternoon and evening to be rested for a 2am departure from Neve Dekalim. Unfortunately rest, much less sleep, was impossible as we were inundated with calls and visitors. Despite Rachel's heroic efforts to keep me isolated, by the time the alarm clock went off at midnight I was bleary-eyed from exhaustion.

Still, I enjoyed the trip. The road was clear, my cigars burned smoothly, and the film score for MOBY DICK by the undeservedly little-known British composer Philip Sainton reverberated in the car so loudly that the fleas were washed out of my ears on a wave of melting wax.

His flight landed half an hour after my arrival and he emerged half an hour after that. Though acknowledging he was tired he was still bursting with energy and enthusiasm. On the drive to his home in a settlement north of Jerusalem he regaled me with tales that went in and out of my empty head. If the details are lost, his affection for those of our friends who hosted him on Shabbat was clear. [The feeling is mutual. This excerpt from an e-mail I have since received: "What a lovely man. If only all Israelis were like him."] We arrived just in time for sunrise and while Oshri and Tamar fell into each other's arms I went outside and recharged my batteries watching the glowing red ball rise behind the eastern desert.

Knowing I would pass out if I accepted their invitation to "rest awhile" I made a hurried exit and set off for Jerusalem. On Friday, before going to the Hyatt, Rachel and I had done some shopping. One key item we had failed to find where jeans in my size. Now I was determined to buy a pair.

Arriving in Jerusalem at 7 I had two hours to kill before several stores rumored to carry tent-sized pants opened. I needn't belabor you with how dismal the earthly Jerusalem is. The sole change from previous visits is that a turf war seems to be in progress between the long-resident Sephardi beggars and increasing numbers of Russian-accented newcomers.

By 9:15 neither of the stores I wanted was open and my legs were starting to buckle. I had decided to give it up and go home when my mobile phone rang. Seeing on the screen that the call was from Rachel, I answered: "I hear, and I obey". This never fails to delight her and I am often rewarded when I get home. When I told her my condition she assumed - she's usually right - that I was malingering.

"Don't come home without two pairs of jeans", delivered in her best no-nonsense voice. I hear, and I obey.

My last hope was the store which had tailored a suit for me for Ari's wedding some thirteen years ago. The shop is on a narrow street with the entrance through an alleyway. As I got to the alleyway I saw several people staring down at a huge body, almost seven feet tall, lying spread-eagled, face up, eyes closed. The features were very coarse, the face seemed shaped in clay. Remember "You Are There" with Walter Cronkite? They did a program on The Piltdown Man. This was their model.

Before I could ask a question two police cars arrived, and two motorcycles with black clad, black helmeted, machinegun-toting police. They pushed the onlookers aside then walked back to their vehicles. "He's just sleeping it off" said one of the police. And then I noticed six empty bottles of "Old Embalming Fluid" brand vodka.

What to do? I wasn't about to step over or around Mr. Piltdown. Yet Piltdown would be easier to face down than La Passionara were I to come home without the jeans.

Just then He-Who-Protects-Idiots had a passerby jostle me into a position where I saw, not a hundred feet away, a sign: BIG MEN. The shop - "for the well-shmaltz'd male" - had opened just a year ago, and within ten minutes I was on my way home with the vital two pairs of genes. La P. was pleased.


Early this morning I downloaded a comic e-mail describing eleven prominent newspapers in the States. Four get one-line descriptions, six get two-lines. Only one gets five: "The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure there is a country... or that anyone is running it; but whoever it is, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped minority feminist atheist dwarfs, who also happen to be illegal aliens from any country or galaxy."

Shortly after we were asked if we would talk to a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. With some trepidation we agreed. The person who showed up was named Reese Ehrlich, and he seemed one of the pleasantest journalists we've had in the house. We even showed him the e-mail. He laughed and said "It's true". During the time he spent with us he also said he works for National Public Radio.

"No disrespect intended to you personally" I said, "but between the Chronicle and NPR, we'd get a fairer shake from Al Jazeera."

He smiled.

I tremble at the written and spoken result.

I was supposed to go to the Beersheba Tooth Fairy this afternoon, but am still wiped out from yesterday. Rescheduled for Friday.


In summer the sun sets in the sea in plain view from our living room picture window. In winter, because of the earth's rotation, the sun sets behind sand dunes to the southwest. To see the sun set in the water I have taken to climbing the dunes that begin at the end of our very short street, huffing and puffing as I drag my carcass up steeper and steeper inclines, til I reach the highest spot on the dunes where I listen to my heart pounding while my soul takes flight at the 360 degree panoramic view.

When Jerusalem recently had its snowstorm we had a sandstorm. I watched, rapt, as layer after layer of sand lifted into the air with each gust, a porous magic carpet dissolving into the yellow sand-filled sky. The bird tracks were the first to disappear, then the tracks of small animals, then my own, then those of tractors and all-terrain vehicles. I remember photographs of the dust belt in the 1920's and 1930's, the strained, weary faces in Agee's "Let Us Now Praise Famous Men", even the kitsch of Peter O'Toole in drag dancing on the dunes in "Lawrence of Arabia".

I was back on the dunes this evening, hoping the orange disc setting in the sea would calm me, or at least give me some perspective. When Rachel came home from work she said "You owe me one". She explained that seeing how physically and mentally exhausted I was when she left this morning, she had spared me an interview with a Swedish Radio reporter. Instead of bringing him home she spoke with him at the Ulpana. Gratitude is an inadequate word. I had spent most of the morning alternately dozing and weeping until I was able to snap out of it by losing myself in laundry.

Then she described how, when asked what she would do if forced to leave at gunpoint, she said she would walk out "carrying my silver Sabbath candlesticks in one hand and my husband's Sabbath Kiddush cup in the other, marching behind our rabbis carrying the Torahs from the Ark..." All that was lacking was a chorus singing "Anatevka, Anatevka". Some others present were actually weeping. What the Swede thought I can only imagine. He was probably wondering what he was doing among these insane people and longing to get back to his hotel room and chug-a-lug several six-packs of Tuborg.

Rachel does this brilliantly, and I don't doubt it's very effective. What infuriates me is that we came to live in Israel, at least in my case, because being the pathetic Diaspora Jew was intolerable to me. Like Blanche Dubois we were always dependent on the kindness of strangers because we were too feeble to depend on ourselves. And like Blanche Dubois we were always getting screwed.

Israel was supposed to change all that. But it hasn't. We have tanks but we don't have self-respect. We have planes but we don't have pride. So we remain Diaspora Jews, wheedling and whining and sucking up in hopes that others will feel sorry for us. My fellow settlers fill me with admiration. Most other Jews fill me with loathing.

Rachel and I have been arguing over this lately, she criticizing my joking approach to these interviews. It was in this frame of mind that I climbed the dunes this evening, and it was the darkening sky that made me realize my criticism of her approach is, to put it mildly, hypocritical..

What am I doing, flaunting my empty right sleeve and displaying my left claw, if not asking for sympathy? Photographers crowd close during interviews, focusing on my scars, my claw. If I had any of the pride and self-respect I talk about I would throw the vultures out of the house.

But I'm weak. And as egotistical as the Self-Appointed Self-Annointed Jewish Presidents I was denigrating earlier. I suspect that just as the generation that left Egypt had to die in the desert, being unworthy to enter the Promised Land, so this generation of Diaspora Sheep pretending to be Israeli Lions will have to die out before the real thing, the Unafraid Jew, can emerge.


Just past midnight we had a blackout. I pressed the `save' button so as not to lose any of these deathless words, lit two 24-hour memorial candles in case our two-hour emergency lights fail and covered all bases by placing one in the kitchen and one in a toilet, lit a cigar and stepped outside in hopes of being bedazzled by a starlit sky unhindered by ground lights.

Alas... there was a heavy fog and the few stars visible flickered like afterthoughts. Here and there lights were visible in homes. Emergency lights like ours, candles, and one generator-powered house lit up like something out of Disneyland.

Machine gun fire penetrated the murk and I understood soldiers are firing into the dark to deter infiltrators. Flares were smothered in the gloom, glowing no brighter than the tip of my cigar, illuminating only themselves.

I loved it! The air of artificial menace let me pace and pose and preen like the fearless fat man I've always dreamt of being, with the actual risk limited to catching a cold rather than a bullet.

much later

Close to midnight again. I've just been out. There is a half moon which, through some atmospheric peculiarity, seems to be grinning like a toothpaste ad. I couldn't help grinning back at it, wondering all the while if it is grinning with me or at me.


Minutes after returning from the Beersheba Tooth Fairy - `The Never Ending Story' - Rachel and I were shopping when a huge explosion rocked the settlement. An anti-tank rocket had struck a house belonging to friends. Thank God there were no injuries, but damage is extensive. And the stink of cordite hangs over everything.

Tamar, Oshri and the Wrecking Crew are due shortly for Shabbat, and next week is going to be very busy. Tuesday Rachel's niece and two of her children arrive from the States for a visit. Wednesday Ari and Efrat's Doriah has her bat mitzvah in Jerusalem. Then all descend on us for Purim. Then I enter a geriatric nursing home.

Shabbat Shalom, people.

[The number of things on which I agreed with the late Abba Eban could be listed on my remaining fingers, with a finger or two left over. One of these was his supposedly humorous comment to a group of American Jewish `leaders': "I was told I would be meeting the `upper crust' of American Jewry. Being unfamiliar with the term `upper crust' I consulted a dictionary and learned it means `a lot of crumbs held together by dough'".]

Moshe Saperstein is one of the group of Israelis who are recording what it is like living today in Israel. "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" (Gefen) by Judy Lash Balint is available for purchase from http://www.israelbooks.com

Posted by Itamar Marcus, February 27, 2004.
Despite continuing United States and Western European support for Palestinian political aspirations, the tightly-controlled official Palestinian Authority (PA) media relentlessly incites hatred and violence against the US and the West.

A principle of PA ideology is to present the various conflicts around the world involving Muslims and Arabs as part of a war between civilizations that the West led by the United States is fighting against Islam and the Arab world. They incite their people to support violence because the US "runs a dirty war against all that is Arab and Muslim." As victims they, the Palestinians, will lead the war against the West. The editor of the official PA daily, echoing Bin Laden ideology, insists there exists a "American -European- Russian alliance", promoting Muslim-Arab subjugation, and that the Palestinians are at the forefront of the war that will "shake the earth under the feet of the blood and oil sucking neo-imperialists, the thieves of natural resources murderers of nations." [See full texts below.]

President Bush, in this global war context, is depicted not merely as a leader of the "enemy United States", but is the enemy of all civilization, the "Fuhrer of the globalization era," a greater danger than Hitler, leading the world to destruction: "The new Fuhrer [Bush] will return the world to the Stone Age," while Hitler only left "tens of millions of dead."

Given this Palestinian ideological hatred against the US it is not surprising to find active opposition to tracking down the terrorists who murderered 3 Americans diplomats in Gaza in October. Both Arafat advisor Jibril Rajoub, and the Union of Palestinian Journalists called the American pressure on the PA to find the killers "extortion." The Journalists Union even condemned a PA daily for publishing a US State Department ad offering a reward for help in finding the terrorists. The ad was likewise called "extortion." [See below]

As mentioned above, this anti American hatred continues at the very time that the US continues to give political and financial support to the PA. Indeed, the Palestinian editor had no trouble [or possibly it was intentional] placing the news item [cited above] rejecting PA co-operation in finding the murderers of the three Americans on the very same page as a large ad by USAID offering scholarships to Palestinian students. The great irony is that those three Americans murdered by Palestinians were in Gaza to grant USAID scholarships to Palestinians.

It is significant that the PA doesn't limit its hatred of the US to attacks on current US policy and leaders, but teaches as a recurring theme that America is rotten at the essence. The PA often delegitimizes America's founding years as the theft of land, and this week attacked the killing of "Indian children" by the early American settlers.

The total message the PA continues to send to its people is that the US and the West are paramount enemies of the Palestinians and the Arab world, and must be fought.

The following are selections from articles that incite hatred and violence against the US and the West that have appeared in recent weeks in the PA media.

1. Bush is "Fuhrer of the globalization era"

"The world stands today at the edge of a dangerous slope which threatens the destiny of all humanity. The President of the most powerful nation in the world suffers from megalomania and thinks he's a prophet. He uses military force to rearrange the world as he likes... No doubt that the personality of President Bush will be juicy material for tens of psychology books, for he has many characteristics of historical figures that left a negative impact on course of global history lead by the Fuhrer of Germany, Adolf Hitler, and his Nazi and racist proclamations... The Cuban President, Fidel Castro who has deep knowledge of President Bush's history already called him "Fuhrer of the globalization era or the new world order." But he forgot that the Fuhrer of Germany, Adolf Hitler, ruled [only] one state, with limited options at the stage where humanity hadn't reached its current level of frightening scientific and technological development. While [Bush] the 'Fuhrer of the new world order' received the reins of an American empire with more than half the world's weapons of mass destruction, with frightening economic, financial, and technological potential. And while the German Fuhrer's adventure ended with tens of millions of dead and wounded, and partial destruction of several countries this adventure of the new Fuhrer [Bush] will return the world to the Stone Age." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 16, 2004]

2. Union of Palestinian Journalists and Jibril Rajoub: US pressure to find murderers of Americans is "extortion."

"The Union of Palestinian Journalists announced that it views with severity the steps of the Palestinian newspapers, who published paid advertisement on the fifth of this month, from the US State Department, announcing the reward of $5 million to anyone who will bring information leading to the arrest of those responsible for the attack [killing 3 Americans]... The [Journalists] Union emphasized, that the advertisement is an affront to national sovereignty, and contributed to the state of extortion and the pressure that the US is applying against on the Palestinian Authority in this matter." [Al-Ayyam, Feb. 9, 2004]

"The security advisor of President Yasser Arafat, Jibril Rajoub... blamed Washington for extortion in the affair of the killing of the three Americans in Gaza last October...[he said]: "Count Bernadot was murdered in 1948 and to this day his murderers were not arrested and not brought to trial. Many Americans were murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan, without locating the murderers. Israel attacked an American ship in 1967 and those responsible were not brought to trial. Why do the Americans insist on extorting us...?" [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 5, 2004]

3. The Palestinians will shake the earth under the feet of the blood and oil sucking neo-imperialists"- the "American European Russian alliance"

"...The right wing lobby, [which] controls Washington and runs a dirty war against all that is Arab and Muslim. It is a Fascist right that formed an alliance with the Fascist Israeli Colonialists... The American European Russian alliance is acting to empty the International institutions, both the UN and the High Court of Justice, of their content... It may be that the Europeans think that the submission of the Arab regimes turned the Arab land to wasteland and that the subdued nations won't act against the neo-imperialism, but they are wrong. This is because the torch of struggle, which accompanies our nation for nearly a century against all types of imperialism, will not be extinguished, but [the Palestinian nation] will continue to lead the Arab nation and will continue to awaken the Arab nation to shake the earth under the feet of the blood and oil sucking neo- imperialists, the thieves of natural resources and murderers of nations." [Editor in Chief, Hafez Al-Barghouti, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 6, 2004]

"... [Regarding fighting ] the American enemy... the Arab land, in Palestine and Iraq in particular, will ignite under the feet of the intruders... The political and military balance of power is not completely against the Arabs... There are very vulnerable spots and internal crises that the Bush Sharon alliance suffer, and the Arab resistance is able on the various burning fronts... to force this alliance to pay a dear price..." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 9, 2004] 4. "Destruction that the Americans did to Indian children"

"[Regarding] the destruction that the Americans did to Indian children... we read from time to time testimonies and documents, among them an article by a writer from Atlantic Monthly that exposes the colonialists invasion, that committed the white man against the children... On the return from the mission to destroy the Indians in the year 1637 under the command of John Endicott an eyewitness describes: "When they [the Indians] saw us on their beaches they hurried to approach us in blessing and called to us, "Hello". When we reached the river the Indians soon figured out, that we came to burn their fields and destroy them." [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 6, 2004]

Itamar Marcus is director of PMW -Palestinian Media Watch - (http://www.pmw.org.il). To subscribe to PMW's reports, send an empty e-mail to reports-subscribe@pmw.org.il

Posted by Ruth and Nadia Matar, February 27, 2004.
Peres is a stereotype. A vain Israeli, without religion or faith, ironically, living,in the Promised Holy Land which has given birth to the Jewish Religion. Many years ago, Moshe Sharett, who later became Israel's Prime Minister, correctly envisioned that Peres lacked character, and represented a danger and threat to the existence of a Jewish State. Unfortunately, his predictions were on target, and Peres today remains disloyal to his People, and by his actions, represents a threat to Israel's existence.

The author and initiator of the Oslo Process, to this day he will never admit to the grave mistake he made. He has caused many deaths and maimings of Jews because of the policies he deceptively maneuvered. He is just incapable of admitting having made a mistake, but instead continues to rationalize his past serious wrong doings.

Typical of his vanity is his unwillingness to see any evil in Arafat whom he persists in calling a man of peace. After Arafat has been proven to be directly linked to terror and responsible for many Jewish and American deaths, Peres still insists, even today, that Arafat was justified in receiving the Noble Peace Prize.

His latest statements made in Washington, D.C. which he no doubt repeated in his meetings with U.S. Secretary of State Powell, and Condelezza Rice, incredulously was that Israel has no "moral" claim to Gaza or to Judea and Samaria, and must give up these "territories." History has no meaning for Peres. He does not believe in G_d or the Bible. That is why he is capable of claiming that Jews have no moral right to Gaza or Judea and Samaria, which is a vital part of Jewish history, religion and its traditions.

No one seems to be bothered by the fact that this man who has no position in our present government, nevertheless meets with Powell and Rice. Such behavior on his part may satisfy his inflated ego, but is tantamount to disloyalty, and leads to divisiveness and confusion at a time when unity of the People of Israel is required. Peres is busy with his own vanity and private machinations rather than acting in behalf of the Jewish State of Israel and its needs, during these critical times. An example of his callousness was demonstrated when his ego initiated an expensive and extensive celebration of his 80th birthday at a time when Israel's economy was sorely in distress.

Peres admittedly is a non-believer, and thinks the Jewish People have no "destiny." His Oslo proposals have proven disastrous. It is fortunate however, that the God of Israel is the factor in determining Jewish Destiny. Thanks to the Almighty, the Jewish People have survived many perilous periods in its long and ancient history. They are here and are alive today despite their many enemies. They will continue to survive, despite the efforts of an aged and barking secularist and socialist, Shimon Peres.

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

USAID. Taxes For Terrorists
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 27, 2004.
The State Department Promotes Palestinian Peoplehood.   In addition to endorsing Islamist organizations, the Department of State promotes on its website "the world of the Palestinians" to an English-speaking public ("a world vaster, and far richer, than the one portrayed on evening news broadcasts"). It does so in something called Asalah Magazine, four issues of which have been published since August 2002, the most recent of them this month. While Asalah's topics tend to be innocuous (appreciations of embroidery and olive trees), its underlying purpose is obvious: to establish that there is something known as "the Palestinian people." It hardly needs pointing out that the State Department's mission does not include promoting Palestinian nationalism. This magazine needs to be closed down, and its prior pages pulled down. (February 26, 2004) http://www.usaid.gov/wbg/asalah.htm

The State Department Promotes Islamist Organizations.   Not only does the U.S. government build mosques but it posts official pages on the Department of State website celebrating "Muslim Life in America" - something no other religion in the United States benefits from. In addition to the predictable feel-good writing and photography, the website also has a bibliography with select readings, Internet sites, and nongovernmental organizations. All of the sections hold interest, but the organizational one does most of all. A close look finds that the State Department provides links to and thereby endorses groups that the federal government has either effectively shut down (the American Muslim Council), is currently investigating (Islamic Society of North America), or has arrested multiple employees of (Council on American-Islamic Relations). Additionally, other organizations on the list (Council on Islamic Education, Islamic Institute, Muslim Public Affairs Council) were long ago exposed as sympathetic to militant Islam.

It's hard to win a war, you know, when one's foreign ministry publicly endorses the enemy's friends and agents. It's dispiriting and confusing. So, how about it, State Department, and take down the offending web pages? (February 25, 2004)

The U.S. Government Builds a Mosque. An Agence France-Presse dispatch, dated today, reads "Matachina: The Madrassa of Martyrs Rebuilt by the USA Remains Empty." It describes a mosque complex in a town near Khost in Afghanistan's southeast. The unnamed reporter tells of finding a stone stele by the side of the road announcing (I am translating here from French) the "Matachina Mosque, rebuilt in 2002 with the assistance of the American people."

The U.S. government has helped pay for a mosque!?   Apparently so. The news report explains that at least 34 persons - combatants, religious students, women, and children - were killed in the U.S. bombardment of the mosque and its adjoining Koranic school on November 16, 2001, in the midst of the American offensive against the Taliban. The new building, paid for by the U.S. Army, is said to be "practically identical" with the previous one, including a wooden door decorated with arabesques out of bronze.

If this report is true, it is a scandal, and an important one. Yet again, it appears, American governmental agencies are giving special treatment to Islam, whether endorsing of the faith or cutting breaks for it by selling land at less than 10 percent of its market price when the purpose is mosque construction. Such privileged treatment is simply not permissible and must come to an immediate end.

As an ironic post-script, the AFP report quotes a nearby soldier in Matachina saying that "Nobody ever comes to this mosque." The journalist elaborates: "Not a resident steps foot in it. Barely rebuilt, the mosque is already abandoned. The faithful prefer to pray elsewhere." So, not only did the U.S. Army illegally build a mosque, but the money it spent on cultivating good was wasted. (February 24, 2004)

Posted by Leo Rennert, February 26, 2004.
Jeff Jacoby, who wrote this article, is a columnist at the "Boston Globe". It appeared in the Globe February 22, 2004 and was reprinted as a Isranet Daily Briefing item of the Canadian Institute for JewishResearch (http://www.isranet.org) today.

It is a sad irony that the world's freest Muslims - those who live in liberty in the West - are so unwilling to publicly condemn the world's worst Muslims - the militant Islamist fascists who believe in violent jihad, intolerant theocracy, subjugated women, and hatred of Jews and Americans. If anyone should be raising their voices against the totalitarians and terrorists who promote such evil in the name of Islam, it is the millions of moderate Muslims in America, Canada, and Europe... But the vast majority are reluctant to do so. Some say nothing out of a misplaced sense of loyalty; others are afraid of being ostracized if they rock the communal boat. All the more reason, then, to applaud those outspoken moderate Muslims who do lift their voices against the hatred and violence of the extremists.

I have devoted several columns to the importance of supporting and listening to these moderates. They are key allies in the war against terrorism... In a column that ran nearly two years ago, I quoted Irshad Manji, a Canadian TV personality who had recently published an essay titled "A Muslim plea for introspection." That essay has now grown into a best-selling book, The Trouble With Islam: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith, and Manji, who calls herself a "Muslim refusenik," has received a good deal of well-deserved publicity. She has also received hate mail, vitriolic insults, and death threats serious enough to require her to have a bodyguard. Muslims who insist on talking bluntly about contemporary Islam and its failings don't have it easy. That is another reason there are so few of them.

"We've got to end Islam's totalitarianism, particularly the gross human-rights violations against women and religious minorities," Manji writes. She is appalled by "the continuing scourge of slavery in countries ruled by Islamic regimes" and by "the Jew-bashing that so many Muslims persistently engage in." Islam desperately needs to undergo a reformation, much as Christianity did, she argues, and it is Muslims in the West who should be spearheading it. Why? "Because it is here that we already enjoy the precious freedom to think, express, challenge, and be challenged, all without fear of state reprisal."

Another courageous Muslim moderate is Ahmed al-Rahim, who co-founded the American Islamic Congress following the atrocities of Sept. 11, 2001. It is an explicit purpose of AIC to stop being silent "in the face of Muslim extremism" and to "actively censure hate speech made in the name of Islam." In a recent address, he noted that anti-American "hate speech and incitement" has too often been "promoted by many American Muslim organizations... This hate speech against America, against Christians, against Hindus, against Jews... has somehow been accommodated, not denounced," Al-Rahim said. "I believe it is a priority for the American Muslim community to hold its leadership accountable for what they say..."

It isn't always easy to distinguish between militant Islamism and genuine Islamic moderation. Some Muslim leaders and institutions claim to oppose intolerance, yet attack those who expose extremism as bigots and "Islamophobes." Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum says that often the only way to tell the real moderates from the fakes is by asking questions - not vague queries ("Do you condemn terrorism?"), but specific ones... Do you condone or condemn the Palestinians, Chechens, and Kashmiris who give up their lives to kill enemy civilians? Will you condemn by name such terrorist groups as Abu Sayyaf, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and Al Qaeda? Should Muslim women have equal rights with men?...

Ultimately, only Muslims can decide whether Islam's future lies with the militants or with the moderates. But those of us who are not Muslim can help the cause of reform and moderation by promoting and encouraging the moderates, and by repudiating the extremists they are brave enough to challenge.

Posted by IsrAlert, February 26, 2004.
This was written by Melanie Phillips, columnist for the "Daily Mail"; it appeared in the "Observer" Sunday, February 22, 2004. It is archived at observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1153419,00.html

Let us all agree on one thing at least. The more Jews warn that anti-Semitism has come roaring out of the closet, the more people don't like the Jews. Which is a bit of a problem if you believe, as I do, that the oldest hatred has indeed alarmingly resurfaced but is hiding under the respectable skirts of hostility to Israel.

This week, the European Union finally admitted there was a problem with rising Jew-hatred. While there was no comparison with the Holocaust, said European Commission President Romano Prodi, some criticism of Israel was 'inspired by what amounts to anti-Semitic sentiments and prejudice'.

Yesterday, the Community Security Trust, a Jewish charity, reported the second largest rise in 20 years in attacks on synagogues, cemeteries and Jewish people in Britain.

Yet there were immediate moans in the press of 'grossly exaggerated' warnings about rising anti-Semitism. In an Economist debate at London's Institute of Contemporary Arts last week, those issuing such warnings were accused of being the 'new McCarthyites', waving the shroud of the Holocaust to stifle legitimate criticism of Israel.

So when a woman said to me one evening, 'I hate the Jews', I should have dismissed my shock as a 'grossly exaggerated' response. When I was listed in a newspaper as one of the Jews exercising sinister control over public debate in Britain, I should have said I brought this on myself by writing anything at all.

When I heard claims by a radio reporter that the Jews might have 'poisoned the water wells of Egypt' in 1947, I should not have wondered why one of the stock libels of medieval Jew-hatred was being broadcast as if it were true, since my concern was obviously shroud-waving.

And when in the ICA debate Tory MP Robert Jackson accused British Jews of dual loyalty, saying their Britishness was conditional on their explicit repudiation of the policies of Sharon, it was obvious the reason he was singling out the Jews as second-class citizens in this startling way was because they are McCarthyites.

Let's all agree on something else. Some Jews grossly over-react to perceived anti-Semitic bias. Their campaign of insults is as bad as the kind of insults which wing their way with monotonous regularity to me.

Nevertheless, as Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks told the EU conference, an unholy alliance between the Left, the far-Right and the Islamic street means millions are being told that alone among nations, Israel has no right to exist and that all the troubles of the world are the work of the Jews.

At the heart of this bitter disagreement is the conflation of the issue of Israel with the issue of Jew-hatred. The latter claim maddens people who feel they can't criticise Israel without risking being accused of anti-Jewish prejudice. The two, they say, are not connected. In theory, that's true. In practice, one issue often morphs into the other, both implicitly in the way Israel is described and explicitly in overt Jew-hatred.

Criticism of Israel is certainly legitimate, as is criticism of any country. I am myself critical of its policies. But a line has been crossed into something else - the demonisation and dehumanisation of Israel based on systematic lies, libels and distortions. As a result, a lot of decent people have been unwittingly caught up in a narrative of hatred.

Former Sunday Times editor Sir Harold Evans tried to show where that line should be drawn. It was not anti-Semitic, he said, to report Israeli ill-treatment of Palestinians or Sharon's past, or to deplore the long occupation of the territories. It was anti-Semitic to present Israel as diabolical, to invent malignant outrages, to condemn actions by Israel while not condemning worse elsewhere, and to vilify Jews so as to incite violence.

In all four categories, that line has been crossed. Diabolical? Israel is routinely described falsely as an apartheid or, worse, Nazi state. While its society is far from perfect, Arab Israelis not only have the vote but serve in the Knesset, supreme court and army. To label it 'Nazi' is to delegitimise it.

Malevolent outrages? Look at the so-called 'massacre' of Jenin, which has become an accepted fact even though there was no massacre: 23 Israeli soldiers and 52 mostly armed Palestinians died in that incident. There are some appalling and inexcusable incidents in Israel. But that doesn't explain why Israeli self-defence is systematically and falsely represented as malevolent aggression.

Double standards? British academics try to impose boycotts on Israeli universities. Yet they organised no boycotts against Kuwait, which expelled 350,000 Palestinians in 1991; or Jordan, which murdered tens of thousands of Palestinians; or Syria, which has occupied Lebanon. And increasingly, people are saying Israel should not exist at all, thus singling it out alone for destruction.

Inciting violence? People such as Lib Dem MP Jenny Tonge have come close to excusing the mass murder of Israelis in a manner they would never apply to the mass murder of other peoples.

Coverage of Israel is obsessive and disproportionate, and marked by a hysteria and malice not applied to any other conflict. And it cannot be divorced from the overt Jew-hatred that has now surfaced in Britain and Europe, particularly the give-away calumny of world Jewish power. The claim that Jews conspire to dominate the world is one of the oldest tropes of classic Jew-hatred. Astonishingly, claims made by the European Left are not far removed. It repeats claims that the 'powerful Jewish lobby' is now running American foreign policy. When Labour MP Tam Dalyell observed that a 'cabal' of Jewish power was behind Blair, he was thought a loveable eccentric. In the House of Lords, a meeting heard that Jews control the British media. One peer told a Jewish colleague: 'We've finished off Saddam. Your lot are next.'

The outcome is that an astonishing axis has developed between Islamic Jew-haters and the Left, marching behind the banners of 'human rights' on demonstrations in Europe producing chants of 'Hamas, Hamas, all Jews to the gas'.

Why? The main reason is ignorance of both the Middle East's history and its present. Next, the Left's hatred of Sharon is so great, along with its prejudice that America/the West is the oppressor and therefore the Islamic/Third World the victim, that it can't see what is happening.

Then there's the Left's deconstruction of the very concepts of objectivity and truth, so that it has become a conduit instead for propaganda and lies; and finally, its own history of Jew-hatred from Marx onwards. The final twist is that there are some Jews on the Left who subscribe to all the above too.

Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu said people were scared to say the Jewish lobby in America was powerful. So what? he asked. 'The apartheid government was very powerful but today it no longer exists. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, Milosevic and Idi Amin were all powerful, but in the end they bit the dust.'

So Jews not only have vast power, according to Tutu, but are on a par with those tyrants. Yet it was Tutu who could publish this calumny about the Jewish people, and thus incite yet more to hate them. But of course, any Jews who call this by its proper name are the new McCarthyites.

IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is hosted by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

Posted by Ruth Matar, February 26, 2004.
Dear Friends,

A Letter to the Editor published in the Jerusalem Post of February 23, upset me sufficiently to rouse me from my preoccupation with all the medical procedures involved in the recovery from injuries sustained at the beginning of this month.

The following is the complete letter to the Jerusalem Post from a pro-Israel advocate:

Sir, - I read with a knot in my stomach your report that the Knesset Finance Committee had approved a "transfer of NIS96m to settlements" (February 17). As a committed pro-Israel activist I am frequently out there on the hustings, explaining to San Francisco Bay Area Jewish and mixed audiences that Israel continues to deserve our support and that we must remain focused on the real causes of regional conflict.

Questions directed to Israel's settlements policy are very difficult to answer. What can one say to someone who inquires, "That was a very nice presentation of the Zionist position, sir, but isn't all this settlement building just about a land grab from the Palestinians?" And there is no persuasive answer whatsoever to those who wonder why, particularly at a time of economic and social crisis, Israel makes settlement building a national priority.

I will do my best to be a persuasive pro-Israel advocate, but moves like the recent Finance Committee vote make it very difficult.

Michael A. Jacobs
Sausalito, California

My letter in answer thereto:

Sir, - "Plaint from a pro-Israel advocate" (Feb. 23, 2004) highlights an unfortunate attitude problem of some US Jews who try to be "persuasive pro-Israel advocates", without a comprehensive understanding of what true Zionism entails. It is impossible to be an effective pro-Israel advocate without understanding the history and causes of the regional conflict in the Middle East.

There never was such a thing as Palestinian people or a political entity called Palestine. Arafat's PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) was founded in 1964, three years before Israel's 1967 defensive war, when Israel had to withstand the attack by five well-armed States - Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan, with their large armies and arsenals. At the end of the Six Day War, the Biblical Heartland of Judea and Samaria was liberated by Israel from Jordan. Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria between 1948 and 1967. King Hussein of Jordan, during this illegal occupation, renamed Judea and Samaria the "West Bank", i.e. the west bank of the River Jordan.

Jordan, of course, is a country, which according to Winston S. Churchill, Winston Churchill's grandson, was "created" by his grandfather, who was Britain's Colonial Secretary at the time of Jordan's creation in 1921.

Yes, there is an attempted land grab - not by the Jews - but by the Arabs who have come to the Holy Land from surrounding Arab countries during the last hundred years for work opportunities and a less repressive life style. Since 1967, the Arabs have established almost twice as many settlements than the Jews in the liberated territory of Judea and Samaria! This land grab has been heavily funded by Saudi Arabia. Sadly enough, the world does not find the frantic Arab building activities in the Holy Land an obstacle to peace.

The Hebrew word "Mitnachalim" has been mistranslated as "Settlers". The correct translation is "Inheritors". The Jewish People are the Inheritors of the Land which the Almighty promised to their Forefathers as an everlasting inheritance.

Ruth Matar
Women in Green

We live in extraordinary, fateful and dangerous times. What can each of us do to battle the dangerous onslaught of radical Islam on Judeo-Christian civilization and values?

To quote the American Civil War Battle Hymn: "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition." Our best ammunition is to continually and vigorously spread the Truth to counteract the Big Lie of the powerful Arab propaganda machine!

There is no Palestinian people, just a conglomeration of Arab countries who want to eradicate Israel, as they failed to do in 1948 and 1967.

There never was a state called Palestine. King David reigned over the Kingdom of "Judea" whose inhabitants were called Jews. Remind your government representatives and the media of these simple facts. Also, keep reminding them of the famous quotation from the Bible: "Those who curse Israel will be cursed and those who bless Israel will be blessed."

With Love for Israel,
Ruth Matar

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

Posted by Hebron Today, February 26, 2004.
This article, from the Palestine Post of May 31, 1938, shows how bad ideas keep resurfacing. The Tegart's Wall scheme, designed to protect British forces in the aftermath of the Arab rebellion of 1936, was abandoned. Sharon's plan to destroy Israeli communities in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza, build a fence around a designated area, and leave the remaining territory to the Palestinian Authority, merely turns over the abandoned areas to terrorist control, without in any way interfering with Arab demands or stemming international pressures. Yaakov Amidror, former chief of Israeli Military Intelligence, points out that without control of the territory from which terrorism emanates, a military force "cannot detroy the infrastructure of terrorism [such as laboratories, training centers and safe houses]. Without territorial control, counterterrorism operations become risky, both in terms of physical danger and political cost." In the absence of territorial control, writes Amidror, "Israel's real line of defense is its own cities and towns. And because the terrorists target civilians, their success is almost assured." [Ed note: the Amidror article can be read in this issue of Think-Israel.]

The Fence Round Palestine "Tegart's Wall"

A scheme for a barbed-wire "wall," suggested by Sir Charles Tegart, adviser to the Palestine Government on suppressing terrorism, is being undertaken at a cost of L90,000 to prevent the bands fleeing from justice, smuggling arms, or entering for terrorism and agitation across the frontiers between Palestine and Syria, Trans-Jordan, and the Lebanon, (wrote the Jerusalem correspondent in The Times yesterday). Terrorism in Palestine has been difficult to isolate and control because these frontiers, practically undefended and in un-inhabited and rough terrain, have proved easy bases for troublemakers. When pursued by police and military the bands, and especially their leaders, have been able to slip over the borders, often carrying away cattle and other booty, and have thus effectively escaped capture. Arms and other warlike equipment unprocurable in Palestine have been easily secured from among the people in Syria and Trans-Jordan and smuggled into Palestine, along with many cheaply hired gunmen. The stopping of these practices has become an essential to the restoration of order in the British Mandated territory.

French Indifference

Efforts made by the Palestine Government to obtain the cooperation of the French Mandatory authorities in Syria in preventing the use of that country as a base have been unsuccessful. The French have given over much of the detail of government to the Syrian and Lebanese States, whose sympathy with the Palestine Arab nationalists prevents them from doing anything. Furthermore, the French point out that when they were having troubles in Syria in 1925 and 1926, the British professed inability to prevent the flight of Syrian nationalists into Palestine and Trans-Jordan. Something might be done to bludgeon the Syrians into cooperation by stopping all trade with them, but it would not improve international relations nor solve the problem of the undefended frontiers. For this reason Sir Charles Tegart advised the erection of some physical barrier on the frontier which would make guarding it more practicable. Unfortunately the Northern Frontier road, built close to the international boundary in very rugged country at no small expense, has not been very helpful as it could not be patrolled at night without marauding bands knowing from the lights of the cars just where they were and timing their passage accordingly. A stout physical barrier difficult of penetration was, therefore the last resort. Contracts for Sir Charles Tegart's scheme have been let to Solel Boneh, Limited, of Haifa.

50 Miles of Barbed Wire

The specifications call for a barbed wire fence extending for about 50 miles from the coastal road at Ras en-Nakura eastwards to Nebi Yusha (Metullah) and curving down to the Huleh marshes. Jewish colonies at that point form a barrier, but the fence resumes at Rosh Pina and extends to Tabgha on the Sea of Galilee, which in turn will be patrolled by motor-launches. South of the Sea of Galilee a two-and-a-half miles stretch as far as the mouth of the Yarmuk River will be fenced. Plans are being made for obstructing the passage of the Jordan River between Palestine and Trans-Jordan at its 70 fords.

The fence is to vary in thickness according to local conditions. The single bay type will consist of two parallel barbed wire fences some 6 ft. high and 5 ft. apart, each fence consisting of iron posts with 2 in. mesh rabbit wire at the bottom surmounted by barbed wire, and the space between the two fences not only crisscrossed with barbed wire but also filled with loose masses of tangled wire below. This in itself would form a barrier difficult to pass. But in some places there will be three parallel fences, the two outer bays being as elaborately wired as that mentioned above. The fence will be guarded from the seven police posts now placed along the frontier road, which will be made easier to defend than at present, and supplemented by pillboxes armed with Lewis guns at places where deep wadis or customary tracks cross the frontier. Searchlights on the police posts and pillboxes will be able to keep most of the defence line under observation at night. As the strength of the fence when tested by Sappers and specially equipped troops was such that they could not get through in less than 20 minutes even by daylight, the additional precaution of patrolling the fence at 10-minute intervals with police cars equipped with searchlights will doubtless be enough to protect those parts out of observation of the police posts.

The 70 fords of the Jordan River by which terrorists and contraband have crossed to and from Trans-Jordan as easily as the peasantry and Ghor Arabs for many generations present another type of problem. Thirty-five of the fords can be watched effectively from high ground near by. The remainder will be rendered impassable by fences on the banks, supplemented by submerged wiring which will serve the same purpose as the wooden stakes used by the ancient Britons and Romans. The erection of this formidable barrier, which is quickly becoming known as Tegart's Wall, is unquestionably a necessity in present conditions, just as Hadrian's Wall in the past, concludes the Times correspondent. But if the other experiments being made in Palestine are to be permanent, the necessity for such wartime precautions must be removed by so just a settlement of the problems of the country that her frontiers will be guarded by the mutual good will and confidence of herself and her neighbours. It would be a tragedy if the future State or States could only exist behind barbed wire entanglements.

This article appears in "Outpost" - published by Americans For a Safe Israel (http://www.afsi.org), February 2004 Issue 164.

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 26, 2004.
This was written by George Will, columnist at the Washington Post. It appeared today.

It used to be said that anti-Catholicism was the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals. Today anti-Semitism is the anti-Semitism of the intellectuals.

Not all intellectuals, of course. And the seepage of this ancient poison into the intelligentsia - always so militantly modern - is much more pronounced in Europe than here. But as anti-Semitism migrates across the political spectrum from right to left, it infects the intelligentsia, which has leaned left for two centuries.

Here the term intellectual is used loosely, to denote not only people who think about ideas - about thinking - but also people who think they do. The term anti-Semitism is used to denote people who dislike Jews. These people include those who say: We do not dislike Jews, we only dislike Zionists - although to live in Israel is to endorse the Zionist enterprise, and all Jews are implicated, as sympathizers, in the crime that is Israel.

Today's release of Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion of the Christ" has catalyzed fears of resurgent anti-Semitism. Some critics say the movie portrays the governor of Judea - Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect responsible for the crucifixion - as more benign and less in control than he actually was, and ascribes too much power and malignity to Jerusalem's Jewish elite. Jon Meacham's deeply informed cover story "Who Killed Jesus?" in the Feb. 16 Newsweek renders this measured judgment: The movie implies more blame for the Jewish religious leaders of Judea of that time than sound scholarship suggests. However, Meacham rightly refrains from discerning disreputable intentions in Gibson's presentation of matters about which scholars, too, must speculate, and do disagree. Besides, this being a healthy nation, Americans are unlikely to be swayed by the movie's misreading, as Meacham delicately suggests, of the actions of a few Jews 2,000 years ago.

Fears about the movie's exacerbating religiously motivated anti-Semitism are missing the larger menace - the upsurge of political anti-Semitism. Like traditional anti-Semitism, but with secular sources and motives, the political version, which condemns Jews as a social element, is becoming mainstream, and chic among political and cultural elites, mostly in Europe. Consider:

A cartoon in a mainstream Italian newspaper depicts the infant Jesus in a manger, menaced by an Israeli tank and saying, "Don't tell me they want to kill me again." This expresses animus against Israel rather than twisted Christian zeal.

The European Union has suppressed a study it commissioned, because the study blamed the upsurge in anti-Jewish acts on European Muslims - and the European left.

Nineteen percent of Germans believe what a best-selling German book asserts: The CIA and Israel's Mossad organized the Sept. 11 attacks.

On French television, a comedian wearing a Jewish skullcap gives a Nazi salute while yelling, "Isra-Heil!"

If Israel is not the Great Satan, it is allied with him - America. European anti-American demonstrations often include Israel's blue and white flag with a swastika replacing the star of David, and signs perpetuating the myth, concocted by Palestinians and cooperative Western journalists, of an Israeli massacre in Jenin: "1943: Warsaw/2002: Jenin."

Omer Bartov, a historian at Brown University, writes in the New Republic that much of what Hitler said "can be found today in innumerable places: on Internet sites, propaganda brochures, political speeches, protest placards, academic publications, religious sermons, you name it."

The appallingly brief eclipse of anti-Semitism after Auschwitz demonstrates how beguiling is the simplicity of pure stupidity. All of the left's prescriptions for curing what ails society - socialism, communism, psychoanalysis, "progressive" education, etc. - have been discarded, so now the left is reduced to adapting that hardy perennial of the right, anti-Semitism. This is a new twist to the left's recipe for salvation through elimination: All will be well if we eliminate capitalists, or private property, or the ruling class, or "special interests," or neuroses, or inhibitions. Now, let's try eliminating a people, starting with their nation, which is obnoxiously pro-American and insufferably Spartan.

Europe's susceptibility to political lunacy, and the Arab world's addiction to it, is not news. And the paranoid style is a political constant. Those who believe a conspiracy assassinated President Kennedy say: Proof of the conspiracy's diabolical subtlety is that no evidence of it remains. Today's anti-Semites say: Proof of the Jews' potent menace is that there are so few of them - just 13 million of the planet's 6 billion people - yet they cause so many political, economic and cultural ills. Gosh. Imagine if they were, say, 1 percent of Earth's population: 63 million.

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 26, 2004.
This was written by Yossi Ben-Aharon.

Sometimes there is no choice but badly hurting the enemy, including civilians, to prevent endless war.

There must be a higher power that is making the U.S. go through the same torturous path as us. Like us, the U.S. is facing murderous suicide terrorism in Iraq. Like us, it is attacked and maligned by an Arab-Moslem-leftist coalition. Like us, it is seeking ways to defend itself against its enemies. In 1945 the U.S. faced a similar situation. It was on the Pacific front, when the U.S. Navy was approaching the Japanese isles. At this point the Japanese pulled out a new lethal weapon, the kamikazes, the world's first suicide bombers, who aimed their explosive-laden planes into American warships.

The U.S. president at the time was Harry Truman. Not a decorated warrior, nor a former general, but an outstanding leader who had the courage to take tough decisions with historic implications for generations to come.

The kamikaze assault felled many victims and there was a danger it would offset the American gains and prolong the war for a long time. Truman decided to put an end to the phenomenon. He approved the use of the atom bomb and two Japanese cities were erased.

Since at the time most of the military-aged men were at the front, most of the victims were women, children and elderly people. Japan surrendered and the war ended. Truman justified his decision by saying that otherwise the war would have gone on and the scope of destruction and casualties would have exceeded what it was in the two Japanese cities. The American people accepted and justified the acts, as terrible as they were.

Today Israel is facing a similar challenge and danger, with the defense measures we come up with, from security officers on buses to security fences, turning out to be like aspirin to a cancer patient. Unlike the U.S. in 1945, a warrior known for his creativity and improvisation in wartime heads the Israeli government. Now he stands helpless and the only things he can come up with are withdrawal and a fence, that he knows will only encourage the enemy to double his attacks.

Sharon knows that as long as the heads of Palestinian terrorism believe there is a chance for achievements on the path they have taken we will not overcome terrorism. They will draw the right conclusion only if they pay a high price in there areas: the loss of manpower, the loss of territory and the loss of political assets. A stern Israeli action against terror centers will deepen the Palestinian Authority's bankruptcy. At the right moment there will be no choice but for the IDF to enter the area to destroy the PA. It is necessary to expel its leaders and immediately act to create a different authority in its place, comprised of Palestinians who are not identified with terrorism. It is a difficult path but the other paths that were tried, including the present one, achieve the opposite result. What we need today is an Israeli Truman to take responsibility for a bold move that puts an end to the uncertainty gnawing at Israeli

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 26, 2004.
The P.A. is complaining about Israel's security fence. They are like bank robbers complaining about surveillance cameras.

An argument they brought to the court in The Hague is that this fence imperils the Road Map and other hopes for peace.

The argument is irrelevant. A court, if it has jurisdiction, is supposed to decide on legality, not on the advantages and disadvantages that the parties allege.

The argument is so hypocritical that it would be laughed out of the court of public opinion, if the opinion-makers had informed and clear minds of their own. In the midst of a war it started in violation of Oslo and the Road Map, the P.A. logically is in a poor position to give its opinion that the fence would impede the Map. Unfortunately, the illogic of the P.A. case eludes most of the media.

Imagine how much more interesting news presentation would be if complainants' inconsistencies with past statements or actions more often were noted alongside their latest statements!

This also is about P.A. hypocrisy and the media's playing along with it.

P.A. standard practice for treating suicide bombing is a two-step process. First, the P.A. honors suicide bombers as martyrs and their deeds as "explosive operation" or other avoidance of negative terminology, whereas the demolition of the martyr's house by the IDF is called "barbaric" and "racist." By the way, have you notice the fondness of bigots for calling their victims "racist?"

Second, the P.A. issues a pro forma condemnation, usually in the form of a press release to Western reporters, but sometimes in Arabic on P.A. Radio, that explains the act, blames it on Israel, and expresses concern only over its timing. Sometimes its brief note condemns the act but not the group and person perpetrating it.

The Western media then solemnly report that the P.A. condemned the bombing. Thus the media allows itself to be manipulated into giving the P.A. favorable mention, as if the P.A. opposes suicide bombing. How misleading to Western audiences! If, instead, the media explained that the P.A. emphasizes its approval for such murder, audiences would understand what sort of entity the P.A. is. Too bad reporting isn't reporting any more but manipulating!

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

Posted by Ruth and Nadia Matar, February 26, 2004.
Member of Knesset, Aryeh Eldad, pointed out in an article written in the most circulated Hebrew newspaper, Yediot Achronot, that Prime Minister Sharon was acting illegally, and in an anti-democratic fashion, when he gave an order to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to prepare for the evacuation of Jews from Biblical Gaza.

MK Eldad points out that it is not within the existing power of the Prime Minister to issue such an order to the Israel Army. Sharon has not even submitted to his Cabinet and to the Knesset his plan for their prior required approval, BEFORE issuing such an order. Existing law requires that he formally first obtains such approval before he can act in any manner with regard to his so-called plan.

We call upon all present Ministers of the National Camp, along with the masses of our People, to join a DEMONSTRATION held by all Extra-Parliamentary Groups, outside Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's office in Jerusalem, while his Cabinet is meeting that morning.

The DEMO will be held on SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2004, at 9:30 A.M. at the ROSE GARDEN, adjacent to the PM's office.

We urge all who love Israel and its Biblical Heritage, including the present Ministers of our Government, and all of our ordinary citizens, to join with those holding this demonstration, and to spread and convey this message to others.

The head of Israel's Security (Shabak), the Chief of Staff (Army) and the head of Military Intelligence, and many thousands of ordinary Israelis citizens, are all opposed to the unilateral withdrawal plan. The plan which Sharon has proposed is against Israel's interests, and safety. The evacuation of entire Jewish Communities, and Jews from the homes that they built in the Gaza area is not only unfair, and senseless, but it exposes the rest of adjoining communities to great danger. Come to the Demo to raise your voices in protest!

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

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 26, 2004.
This was written by Mike Levine

Let's see if I have this right.

The Israelis are building a fence. About 5% of it is a concrete wall. At the very most it will dip into disputed territory in a few places, possibly expropriating 2% or less of the West Bank.

Now, the argument being made today in the International Court in the Hague, goes like this; Israel's actions will prevent the establishment of a viable, contiguous state, turning this would-be-state into cantons disconnected from each other.

How can a state possibly exist in such a condition you may ask?

Well, a glance at a world map shows that many countries already exist quite successfully in this condition. And the prime example is the United States of America, which is united in every way but geographically!

The State of Alaska is about 1500 miles north of the other states, separated by Western Canada.

The State of Hawaii sits in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, some 1200 miles from the mainland.

How in the world do the dis-United States manage to function, survive, and be wildly successful in this pitiful condition?

Papua New Guinea is composed of dozens of disconnected islands.

Indonesia is all over the map.

Malaysia is composed of two separate 'cantons' separated by a large body of water.

Tasmania is an Australian state although it is far removed geographically from the main body of Australia.

A small part of Turkey is in Europe, the bulk of the rest of it in Asia.

So it is baloney that a state must be geographically contiguous in order to be viable.

Furthermore, where in the universe does it say that it is Israel's obligation to provide the perfect conditions for another Arab State, one which is already a hostile terrorist base, and which is certain to become even more so once it is able to arm itself with missiles, tanks, and other heavy weapons.

The argument is specious, to say the least, untenable, unbalanced, biased, and unsupportable.

Just take a look at the world map and see for yourself.

CHUTZPAH - Arab Style
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, February 26, 2004.
Dr. Aaron Klieman's book, Foundations of British Policy In The Arab World: The Cairo Conference of 1921 (Johns Hopkins Press, 1970), should be "must reading" for those who truly want to make sense out of the conflict between Arab and Jew in the Middle East today. It's one of those references that other scholars used to cite in their own works. Nowadays, however, with much of this field being hijacked by a blatantly anti-American and anti-Israel fraternity, things have changed. The chief tenured prof who teaches this subject at Ohio State, for instance, Carter Findley, managed to teach an entire graduate course (I know...I was there) on the Mandatory period without ever bothering to mention either Klieman's book or the facts which you'll read below. And that was over two decades ago. And woe unto thee if you dared bring such things up. Again...I know. Things have gotten even worse today.

The Associated Press report headlined in my local Florida paper on February 25, 2004 read as follows: "Jordan Joins Chorus Against Israeli Wall." It was Jordan's turn to lay it on the Jews. Prince Zeid al Hussein complained that the barrier might send Palestinian Arabs fleeing into his own kingdom. He also justified the suicide bombings by blaming them on the four decades' old Israeli occupation.

Now for a reality check. Indeed, the Hashemites would do themselves a favor by not addressing this issue to anyone with a knowledge of the actual facts and history involved. Since many do not possess this, they feel free to rant, as the late King Hussein's widow has also done in her recently published book. To appreciate what comes next, first find a map of the Middle East. One of the world will do, but everything will be much smaller. Find Jordan and then find Israel to its west. And now hold onto your seats...

In 1922, Colonial Secretary Churchill, to reward Arab allies in World War I (remember the movie, Lawrence of Arabia?), chopped off roughly 80% of the original Palestinian Mandate issued to Great Britain on April 25, 1920 - all the land east of the Jordan River - and created the purely Arab "Emirate of Transjordan"...today's Jordan. This was engineered by Churchill a year earlier at the Cairo Conference.

Emir Abdullah, who received the land on behalf of the Hashemites of Arabia, attributed this gift to an "act of Allah" in his memoirs. Sir Alec Kirkbride, Britain's East Bank representative, had much to say about this separation of the lion's share of the Palestinian Mandate as well. Let's listen:

"In due course the remarkable discovery was made that the clauses of the mandate relating to the establishment of a National Home for the Jews had never been intended to apply to the mandated territory east of the river (A Crackle of Thorns, page 27)."

So, right from the getgo, Arab nationalism was awarded the bulk of the Palestinian Mandate. While it too officially remained tied to the whole, Jordan, nonetheless, became a virtually separate entity. So, from 1922 onwards - after already receiving most of the territory - Arabs would next point to what was left of "Palestine" to make yet further claims. Arabs answer by citing geographical and other differences between some Arabs and others. Using this logic, since there are Jews in Israel from over a hundred different countries (including one half who were refugees from "Arab" lands and some whose families never left Israel since the days of the Roman conquest), then Jews are therefore entitled to multiple states as well. Think of it. Less than one half million Arabs were entitled to a Kuwait. Over two million Jews can stake a claim to parts of Morocco, Iraq, etc.

Arab and pro-Arab professors typically ignore all of this when teaching this topic. The main starting date for them is not 1920, but 1947...the proposed partition of "Palestine." Of course they conveniently omit telling their students that this was the second partition of the land (which the Arabs rejected) and pretend that Jordan was always a separate state. And the students take it all in.

The Jordan-Palestine connection is just one of many well-documented facts (not "Zionist propaganda") completely ignored or distorted by Arab spokesmen and, unfortunately, little known by the rest of the world. Arabs typically claim Jews got 78% of all of the land, and leading newspapers typically prepare segments on the Middle East ignoring this crucial Jordan-Palestine connection as well.

While discussion now revolves around a "two state" or even a "one state" solution to the conflict between Jews and Arabs, the reality is that Jordan is historically and demographically Palestinian. So there is a third solution...though it's kept hushed up these days. Jordan has been a reasonable neighbor of late...relatively speaking at least...so Israel hasn't made an issue of this. Indeed, it was Israel which saved the Hashemites' collective derrieres in 1970 when the PLO decided to cash in on this third alternative. I say all of this not as a Likudnik (while I agree with many of their positions), but simply to set the record straight. Palestinian Arabs "fleeing into Jordan" a la Prince Zeid's remarks would, in reality, be moving simply to another part of Palestine. And did anyone ask why Israel is obliged to provide work for the butchers of its innocents? That supposedly would be one of the main reasons for the Arab flight into Jordan. Arab workers have killed their Jewish employers. Yet Israel has taken pains to create passage ways for these people through the fence.

When Egypt's Nasser decided it was time to drive the Jews into the sea, he contacted Jordan's King Hussein - his calls were intercepted and taped - and convinced His late Majesty to join in the massacre. Israel, through the United Nations, begged Hussein to distance himself from Nasser's plans. The King didn't listen and instead launched an attack on the Jewish half of Jerusalem instead. The rest, as they say, is history. And that's how Jordan lost the West Bank - which it seized in the 1948 fighting - in the first place. Transjordan - led by British officers - joined other Arab countries in attacking a reborn Israel, trying to nip it in the bud. So the Prince would be better off not bringing this subject up...at least not to those with any sense of fair play. When you launch a war and lose, there's a price to pay...especially if the land you launched your attack from was not yours in the first place.

Whatever will or won't become of the land in question, it must be noted that this is disputed territory, not "Arab" land, as those testifying before the court in Geneva now claim. Jews lived and owned property there until their slaughter in the 1920s. Judea and Samaria, only in this century known as the "West Bank" (largely as a result of British imperialism and Transjordan's later annexation), were unapportioned parts of the Mandate, and leading authorities such as Eugene Rostow, William O'Brien, and others have stressed that these areas were open to settlement by Jew, Arab, and other residents of the mandate alike. Indeed, hundreds of thousands of Arabs poured into the area from all over the Middle East. The League Of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission documented scores of thousands of Arabs entering into Palestine from just Syria alone. Hamas' "patron saint", Sheikh Izzedine al-Qassam, was from Aleppo. It's estimated that many more Arabs entered the Mandate, to take advantage of the economic development going on because of the Jews, under cover of darkness and were never recorded...more Arab settlers setting up more Arab settlements. Why are these "legal" and those of the Jews not?

While it's been said many times, it's worth repeating. The good cop/bad cop team of Arafat and Hamas/Islamic Jihad created the security fence now on trial in Geneva. And until those leopards change their spots, Israel must do what any other nation would do to protect its citizens from Arab barbarity. Indeed, many other nations have constructed such fences for far less compelling reasons.

As for the route of the fence, in the wake of the June '67 War, UN Resolution #242 expressly did not call for Israel to return to the status quo ante bellum and the suicidal armistice lines imposed upon it at the close of hostilities in 1949. Among other things, those lines made it a mere 9-miles wide at its waist. What #242 did call for was the creation of "secure and recognized borders" to replace those vulnerable lines. Adding a few more miles of buffer in strategically important areas on the West Bank, etc., is precisely what the Resolution had in mind. The architects of the final draft of the resolution (Rostow, Goldberg, etc.) have stated this themselves.

Israel does not seek to rule over millions of Arabs' lives. What it does want is a reasonable compromise over these disputed lands...not the unilateral, Munich style solution too many of the folks in Geneva now have in mind.

Gerald A. Honigman is a contributing writer for Jewish Xpress magazine (http://www.jewishxpress.com), a monthly publication based in southern Florida. His background is in Middle Eastern Affairs. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world.

Posted by Israela Goldstein, February 26, 2004.
This was written by Louis Rene Beres, who is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. He is the author of many books and articles dealing with terrorism, war and Israeli security matters. This was a special to the National Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.com), February 24, 2003.
"All people, Jews or gentiles, who dare not defend themselves when they know they are in the right, who submit to punishment not because of what they have done but because of who they are, are already dead by their own decision; and whether or not they survive physically depends on chance. If circumstances are not favorable, they end up in gas chambers." - Bruno Bettelheim, "Freud's Vienna and Other Essays"

Bettelheim, like the Greek poet Homer, understands that the force that does not kill - that does not kill just yet - can turn a human being into stone, into a thing, while it is still alive. Merely hanging ominously over the head of the vulnerable creature it can choose to kill at any moment, poised portentuously to destroy breath in what it has allowed, if only for a few more moments, to breathe, this force makes a mockery of the fragile life it intends to consume. The human being that stands helplessly before this force has effectively become a corpse before any lethal assault is even launched.

Israel, now manipulated and assaulted by a steady stream of barbarous Palestinian terror, is quickly becoming this pitiable human being writ large. Called yet again by our glaringly civilized world to throw itself upon the tender mercies of ritualistic murderers and child-sacrificers, the Jewish State must soon face a very basic choice. It can cravenly accept an immutably-genocidal Palestinian state carved out of its own barely-still-living national body, or it can courageously affirm its sacred post-Holocaust obligation to endure. Should the Sharon Government continue with its announced policy of territorial surrender and national self-defilement, a policy linked to an absolutely mythical "Two-State Solution," Israel will already lie defeated and diminished. Waiting meekly for an easily imagined collective death without Jewish honor or dignified remorse, the finally ingathered Jewish exiles will more or less grudgingly offer their tacit consent to a second Final Solution.

Even today, even after Oslo and the "Road Map" and the grotesquely recurrent contrivances of an authentically villainous foe, the official Palestinian Authority (PA) map of "Palestine" includes all of Israel. There are no two-states on the PA maps; only one. There is no plan for coexistence with Israel in PA doctrine; only continuation of a longstanding "phased plan" for "liberation."

What sort of peace can one negotiate with a "partner" whose only question is, "How long before we can get the Jews to die?" And how shall Israel navigate such a problematic peace in a world where the traditional forms of anti-Semitism are now being ecstatically reinvigorated by the newer and increasingly popular fashions of Arab/Islamic Jew killing -fashions that call openly for the maiming and mutilation of Jewish children with nary a hint of condemnation from refined countries? Shall Israel complain? No problem, it can always find permissible jurisprudential comfort in the United Nations and its International Court of "Justice." Shall it be allowed to erect a fence to protect its children from being torn apart and burned alive? Certainly not, since the lives of Israel's Jewish children are internationally declared to be less valuable than the olive trees of a very largely pro-terror Palestinian population. Surely Israel should be grateful for the civilized protections of con! temporary international law.

One should expect that Israel, after all it has already endured, would betray itself no longer. When Priam enters the tent of Achilles, stops, clasps Achilles' knees, and kisses his hands, he has already reduced himself to a hapless and unworthy victim, one to be disposed of without ceremony and in very short order. Realizing this, a gracious Achilles takes the old man's arm, pushing him away. As long as he is clasping Achilles' knees, Priam is an inert object. Only by lifting him up off his knees can Achilles restore him to a position of self-respect and to a living manhood.

Here Israel and Priam part company. Israel's frenzied enemies, twisted and animated by Jihad, will never act in the honorable manner of Achilles. Their aim is not the gracious revitalization of a religiously despised adversary, but rather the "liquidation" of that inert object by means of genocide and war. It follows that the Illiad reveals certain important lessons for Jerusalem, but that these lessons must be gleaned from a fully candid appraisal of Israel's desperate predicament.

For whatever reasons, Israel has now come to accept a deformed view of itself that was spawned not in Jerusalem or Hebron, but in Cairo, London, Damascus, Paris, Baghdad, Washington, Teheran, Hamburg, Jericho and Gaza. Degraded and debased, this is the view not of a strong and powerful Jewish people, determined to remain alive in its own land, but of a conspicuous corpse-in-waiting, brought home from a two-thousand year suffering only to make its widely-hoped-for slaughter easier to inflict. It goes without saying that large majorities of courageous Israelis have always fought bitterly against such an intolerable view - against the sordid vision of Israel's inexcusably loathsome "Peace Camp" - but it is currently the operative national image nonetheless. After Auschwitz, after Belsen, after Warsaw, after Lodz, there can't possibly be any more hideous expression of Jewish self-hatred than an Israel that has learned to "live with terror." To suggest otherwise, after every blow! n-up bus or lynching, that life in Israel must return to normal, is not normal. It is not normal at all.

Writing several years ago about Israel under Oslo, the Israeli novelist Aharon Megged noted: "We have witnessed a phenomenon which probably has no parallel in history; an emotional and moral identification by the majority of Israel's intelligentsia with people openly committed to our annihilation." This identification has taken poisonous root in a succession of Israeli governments that have stubbornly refused to understand their enemies, even while the streets of Israel's cities have been transformed by primal Palestinian killers from civilian thoroughfares to sacrifical altars. Today there are even Jewish "scholars" who advocate Israel's unilateral nuclear disarmament, arguing in prestigious American journals that Israel can negotiate true peace only by agreeing to a "nuclear weapon free-zone" in the Middle East.

There is a way out of this humiliating and fateful condition, but it must go far beyond the standard suggestions of policy and leadership changes. Replacing Sharon will not be enough. Israel requires a way that demands, more than anything else, an upright posture for the nation, an appropriately heroic posture that precludes clasping the enemy's knees and kissing his bloodied hands. It is a way of dignity, not of supplication. It is a way of open and full and unapologetic warfare against evil, of choosing to stay alive, of avoiding not only death, but also the shameless death-in-life that now cripples Israel in ways that are both grotesque and unforgivable.

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 25, 2004.
Could there be a national referendum on the question of whether to hand over Tel Aviv as part of a territory swap? Can a referendum be brought to bear on questions such as wearing a head covering or eating pork in private homes? Could the question of the very existence of the state of Israel be brought to a public referendum? So what may and what may not be decided by an instant survey, wrought with spins and brainwashing? It is true that many countries in the world use referendums to decide on current affairs. But it still does legitimize the concept, viewed by political scientists and election experts as problematic and open to manipulations.

The discussion of referendums is problematic enough when it takes place in a fair and forthright environment. But it becomes murky in the circumstances we are in today, on the question of a transfer from Gush Katif, when the referendum is pulled out as another trick from the prime minister's bag. Government, of course, has tremendous power. It can create an agenda out of nowhere, it dramatically impacts the national mood, it can shut generals' mouths, just like it was around the Oslo accords, and as it is now with the folly of the unilateral escape, against all military reason.

Of course the administration's power is particularly overbearing when the press and the academic leadership support the idea it is trying to sell. In such circumstances it is easy for the prime minister to spread threats of war and horror and tip the scales. That is exactly the same spin Ehud Barak had in store ahead of the referendum over withdrawal to Lake Kinneret. That is the move Sharon's advisors are planning. It is a devious hijacking of a national decision. The current circumstances also raise fundamental questions about behavior in a democratic state. For instance, can a prime minister who won elections on a certain platform change his colors and carry out the opposite policy without asking for a new vote of confidence? Is it legitimate for a leader to adopt the positions of the opposite camp and lead to a referendum in order to defeat most of his own voters through his opponents' votes? What is the point of the party institutions, the platforms, the faction, if you are allowed to ignore them?

Since 1992 there has been a dangerous devaluation of keeping promises to the voter. Yitzhak Rabin promised not to leave the Golan Heights, to say no to a Palestinian state and to negotiations with the PLO, and did the opposite. Netanyahu promised to discuss the Hebron agreement only in final status talks, and disappointed. Barak recruited Ehud Olmert to vow he would not divide Jerusalem, and agreed to a total division at Camp David. Sharon perfected the method and turned ignoring the platform, the party, the faction and the government into ideology.

All that requires a structural change to prevent a tyranny of one, through spins and sympathetic press, a Sharon-style government. But even such changes would not solve the confusion of the referendum on the expulsion of the Jews of Katif. In any case, the real referendum is the elections. If Sharon wants to have elections, and the government, his faction and his party agree, let him persuade the voters on the basis of his new platform. Anything else is a false trick that will never become legitimate.

By the way, there is a limit to what can be decided even by elections. A clear majority cannot decide to liquidate the State of Israel, and it is doubtful whether it can sentence to death settlements, lifestyles and the principles of the Zionist movement. Just like a woman who gave life to a child cannot take it back.

Posted by Camera, February 25, 2004.
Distortions about the Middle East dispensed by the mass media can mislead news consumers of all ages, but especially worrisome is misinformation purveyed in reference works. Microsoft's popular Encarta Encyclopedia, available on the Internet and in expanded form on CD, is a troubling mix of solid information, bias and error.

While a 22-page section on Israel's people, geography and history by Bernard Reich, for example, is faithful to the record, other parts are marred by distortions and inaccuracies. A number of these were "contributed by" the University of Oregon's Shaul Cohen.

Among them is a section entitled "Arab-Israeli conflict." That account severely blurs Arab aggression against the Jews from the Mandate period to the present, repeatedly equating the violence by the parties. Of the years after 1922, Cohen writes: "Both Jews and Arabs conducted terrorist attacks and intermittent, low-level warfare."

Evidently Cohen thinks such language adequately encompasses the anti-Jewish riots of 1929 in which Arabs, incited by wild, false claims of Jewish designs on Islamic shrines, killed 133 Jews. According to historian Martin Gilbert, of the 116 dead on the Arab side, all but six were killed by British police.

The same pattern prevailed in the 1936 Arab riots, in which Jews were overwhelmingly the victims of violence, and not its perpetrators. In the first month, for example, 21 Jews were killed by Arabs, and no Arabs by Jews.

The Peel Commission of 1937 observed: "It is true of course that in times of disturbance the Jews, as compared with the Arabs, are the law-abiding section of the population, and indeed, throughout the whole series of outbreaks, and under very great provocation, they have shown a notable capacity for discipline and self-restraint."

Nor did Cohen mention in his review that the Peel Commission called for a division of Palestine between Jews and Arabs, which the Jews agreed to and the Arabs rejected.

Cohen's equating of Jewish and Arab conduct even extends to his falsifying of such basics as the content of and response by the parties to UN Resolution 242. The writer states: "Arabs and Israelis both rejected Resolution 242. The Arab states continued to call for the destruction of Israel, while Israel for its part refused to withdraw from the territories it occupied."

Israel explicitly and repeatedly accepted the resolution, as a 1974 UN report underscored. Among supportive statements cited were numerous ones by Israel's Abba Eban, including: "The Government of Israel, out of respect for the Security Council's resolution of 22 November 1967 [UN Resolution 242] and responding affirmatively thereto, assures you of its full cooperation in your efforts with the States concerned to promote agreement and to achieve an accepted settlement for the establishment of a just and lasting peace, in accordance with your mandate under the resolution."

Moreover, Cohen's equating of Arab calls to destroy Israel with Israel's failure to "withdraw from the territories it occupied" misrepresents 242's content. The Arab states were specifically required to cease "belligerency" and acknowledge the "sovereignty" and right of every state to "live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." Israel was explicitly not obliged to withdraw from "the" territories it occupied. It was assumed for reasons of Israeli self-defense that not all the land could be ceded; the language was thus crafted to omit the definite article "the" which Cohen misleadingly inserts.

Nor was any withdrawal required in the absence of a negotiated agreement.

Cohen is no less deceptive in summing up Oslo. He writes: "Despite these accomplishments [creation of the PA, Israel's treaty with Jordan and diplomatic relations with various Arab states] some terrorism and bloodshed continued. Palestinians conducted attacks on Israeli citizens, and on a number of occasions Israeli extremists responded in kind."

Cohen's insinuation of multiple "in-kind" responses to Palestinian terrorism suggests Israelis have bombed Palestinian buses, cafes and malls filled with innocent men, women and children, and done so with the involvement, funding and approval of their leadership and public. But Baruch Goldstein, acting on his own, was the sole Jewish mass killer, and was overwhelmingly repudiated by Israeli officialdom as well as by the public.

Similar egregious fictions characterize the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations of 2000, which Cohen claims "foundered over expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the issue of how Israelis and Palestinians could share the city of Jerusalem." Far from entailing "expansion" of settlements, Israel was making far-reaching offers to consolidate and remove settlements.

Not surprisingly, the writer's profiles of Ariel Sharon and Yasser Arafat are similarly biased. While the former is pejoratively cast as "controversial," "hardline," disobedient, deceptive and "reckless," Arafat is a "Nobel laureate" who is sometimes "accused" of failing to prevent terrorism.

Myriad other distortions mar the Encarta commentaries which, for Microsoft's good name and the public good, should be thoroughly and speedily corrected.

CAMERA - Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - monitors the media for anti-Israel bias. Its website address is http://www.camera.org.

Posted NGO Monitor, February 25, 2004.
This is a Special Report on the Human Rights Watch (HRW) group. The Political Agenda of HRW's Campaign on Israeli Separation Policy

The headline of HRW's February 23 briefing paper, "Israel: West Bank Barrier Violates Human Rights: International Court of Justice Opens Hearings on Barrier Case", published to coincide with the opening of the International Court's hearings, is further evidence of this organization's direct political involvement in the conflict. It also displayed a profound insensitivity to the Israeli victims of the latest Palestinian terror bombing in Jerusalem, whose funerals were taking place on the same day.

The contrast between HRW's consistent silence in response to Palestinian brutality and the concerted campaign in support of the Palestinian position speaks volumes about the motivations and strategy of this NGO. (An exception to this strategy is analyzed at http://www.ngo-monitor.org/editions/v1n01/v1n01-2.htm). Furthermore, the lack of balance is palpable from HRW's moral equivalency between blanket claims regarding Palestinian inconvenience as a result of separation and the immense security benefits for Israelis, who have suffered almost 1000 deaths in terror attacks over the past three years, many of which could have been avoided by the existence of the Separation Barrier. From the point of view of universal human rights, the Palestinians also gain from a reduction in terror. Many Palestinian terrorists have inflicted immense harm on innocent Palestinian civilians by hiding bomb factories and terrorist infrastructure in densely built civilian areas. Furthermore, HRW fails to consider the positive impact on human rights resulting from the removal of checkpoints and the large-scale reduction in daily friction that will result from the construction of the separation barrier.

HRW's twisted approach to human rights strips this organization of its legitimacy as an apolitical advocate of universal human rights and highlights its exploitation of these norms to pursue a political agenda. This briefing paper perpetuates the vocabulary of demonization of Israel, illustrated in HRW's role in the 2001 UN Conference on Racism held in Durban, in Jenin (April 2002), and repeatedly since then (see the analyses of HRW on www.ngo-monitor.org). The claims that Israeli policies "violate international human rights and humanitarian law", "entail indiscriminate punishment of entire communities", and constitute "arbitrary and excessive restrictions" are the result of a pro-Palestinian political ideology and not universal human rights criteria.

In addition, contrary to the tone of HRW's mission statement that promises "fact-finding investigations", these simplistic conclusions are designed to further the goal of delegimation of Israel. Although this press release includes a brief ritualized reference of Israel's "right and duty to protect its civilians from attack", there is no substantive understanding of the implications of this central element of human rights. Moreover, HRW does not make any effort to raise serious analysis of alternatives, or empathy for Israeli victims of brutal terror bombings.

Like HRW's other pronouncements and advocacy campaigns on the Israeli-Arab conflict, the emphasis on the legality of settlements, boundaries, and disputed territories in this press release and briefing clearly demonstrate the core political agenda for which the language of human rights is exploited and cheapened. Although this press release includes the mantra that HRW "takes no position on the Israeli-Palestinian territorial dispute", the adoption of the Palestinian position and vocabulary demonstrates precisely the opposite. The claim that "The route of the barrier... is designed to incorporate and make contiguous with Israel the civilian settlements" is factually incorrect. Many settlements are outside the fence and some are slated for removal, as part of the disengagement plan.)

In summary, the publication of this press statement, timed to coincide with the ICJ hearing and Palestinian demonization campaign, are clear evidence that HRW is not a human rights organization, and that its agenda in this region remains primarily political and biased.

NGO-Monitor monitors non-governmental organizations (NGOs) affiliated with the United Nations, groups whose "power to 'do good' is matched by their power to misrepresent."

"NGO Monitor was founded to promote accountability, and advance a vigorous discussion on the reports and activities of humanitarian NGOs in the framework of the Arab-Israeli conflict." Its website address is http://www.ngo-monitor.org It would be worthwhile reading this report on the NGO Monitor website, because it contains direct links to documents that amplify and enrich the report.

Posted by Barry Rubin, February 25, 2004.
The Iranian regime's handling of elections is a case study of Middle East politics second to none. Let's examine the how and why behind this event and gain a broad picture of how this region works.

In February 2004, Iran marked the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Iranian revolution. Not only is this an important date for Iran but it also should show everyone what happens when radical Islamism takes over a country and whether it can deliver on its promises.

The basic outcome of this experiment is clear: the great enthusiasm of the revolutionary period has given way to a massive disillusionment. The great majority of Iranians opposes the regime and is quite willing to say so. In election after election they voted overwhelmingly for moderate reform candidates. Even the president was identified with this camp. The regime's electoral support was only at about twenty percent.

But two very important points should remain clear here. First, the regime stayed in power. There was never any question but that the hard line rulers (one could call them either "conservative" or "radical") got their way on every issue. The reform-minded parliament and president were unable to change a single feature of the system.

This situation prevailed for several reasons. Of course, the regime retained control of the armed forces, courts, and other such institutions. In addition, it had established structures which allowed it to veto the desires of the popularly elected representatives. The Council of Guardians, appointed by the hard line spiritual guide, was the real agency controlling legislation.

Another important factor should also be mentioned. The regime controlled the agenda and definition of politics. It was agreed that Iran would remain an Islamic republic following a certain general line. Like Arab regimes, it used the great scapegoats of the United States and Israel as the cause of all evils and the rationale for retaining its dictatorship.

Second, the regime used the limited degree of democracy as a safety valve. Dozens of independent newspapers were created, for example, and criticized the regime. It let them print their views, then closed them down and threw the editors in jail. A little while later, they were allowed to reopen under different names. But people had more of a margin of freedom in their daily lives which made them tolerable. With some liberty, why should they launch a revolution which could lead to hundreds of thousands of dead and Iran's cities in ruins?

This was also enough to let most of the worldgovernments (especially European ones), academics, mediaconclude that there was an important degree of progress in Iran. Don't press the regime too hard, they said, or this will hurt the moderates. Wait patiently and things will change. Pretend that Iran isn't developing an atomic bomb. Use trade to moderate the situation. And if sponsor terrorism more than any country and rave about wiping Israel from the map, well somehow excuses can be found.

Then comes the 2004 election. The regime has tired of the game. This time, it bans 2,000 proposed parliamentary candidates, 80 of them people who are already serving in parliament. This is very regrettable says the supreme guide, but the election must go on as scheduled. Few reform supporters, or at least well-known ones, are left on the ballot.

The opposition tries to fight back but it picks a very bad method: boycott. More than 130 deputies in the 290-seat parliament resign, while another 679 candidates who were permitted to run pulled out of the race. Many members of parliament write a letter to the supreme guide complaining, "You lead a system in which legitimate freedoms and the rights of the people are being trampled on in the name of Islam,"

Predictably, of course, the election is held and the regime wins by an overwhelming majority. Despite the fact that the turnout is low, the rulers lie in claiming it is high. The people have spoken, they insist, and the regime remains in power.

But how does the regime try to justify itself to the masses at home and to the gullible part of the world? The answer is by using, albeit with less success, the same methods that work in the Arab world. And so the spiritual guide explains that reformers are traitors ("against the Iranian nation and the revolution") while the regime must act in the way it does to battle demonic foreign enemies ("The loser of this election is the United States [and] Zionism.") Each ballot cast for his supporters, he explains is "a bullet into the heart of President George Bush."

The opposition thus must prove that it is not a pawn of America and Israel, not an enemy of Islamist revolution and Iran. That is a safer route but unlikely to lead anywhere, as the experience of recent years shows. Or it can challenge the whole system. Mohammed Reza Khatami, the president's younger, tougher brother, and one of the parliamentarians denied the chance to run for re-election, has now said it is time for Iran to become a secular republic.

The reformists have a tough battle ahead, should they choose to fight it. Their eventual victory may seem likely but how many more decades will it take?

Professor Barry Rubin is the Director of The Global Research in International Affairs Center (GLORIA) and Editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal (MERIA) and Editor of Turkish Studies.

Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, February 25, 2004.
While a resurgence of Anti-Jewish sentiment may be a dangerous byproduct of Mel Gibson's passion, there are other deeply disturbing aspects of the film that should be cause for alarm in both Jewish and Christian communities.

Considering the decadence associated with Hollywood and all of its cultural trappings, is cinema the proper genre with which to view and examine the issues sacred to any religion? It's a given that the film industry thrives on the grandiose and fantastic. Its very purpose is to cater to the general public's enormous craving for a quick adrenal rush. However, today we are living and viewing rather apocalyptic and chaotic scenarios in real-time. An End-of-Days atmosphere hangs heavily over much of the world and certain subject matter, which has the potential to arouse excessive passion and zealotry, should be off limits to Hollywood and reserved for quiet contemplation, intense reflection, and prayer.

Historically speaking, a failure to place theological issues in their proper perspective and context has repeatedly inspired bloodshed on a cataclysmic scale. The danger with "The Passion" is the likelihood that there are many who will draw conclusions based an actor's very intense, yet celluloid interpretation of an issue that best be addressed by responsible members of the clergy. Some subject matter is too esoteric, volatile and big for depiction on the big screen.

Gibson's film poses a danger of becoming a religious abomination, because the aura surrounding the film industry is replete with an element of idolatry.

A good percentage of Western society literally worships the lives and personalities of the film icons they have created. The entertainment industry has established a cult that produces animate gods and goddesses. These idols are hardly worthy of our reverence. Yet many young people (and some not so young) aspire to the "successful" hedonistic and empty lives of their favorite hollywood celebrity. This stems from an inability to separate the fantasy of the silver screen from reality.

The apparent level of violence in "The Passion" borders on the obscene. One has to gird their loins, harden their heart and be a bit Roman-like to even view such a spectacle. The movie theater is today's equivalent of the ancient coliseum.

This element of barbarism is a very real concern. The issue of violence in films and the impact it has had on our children and society has been on our social scientists' agendas and on the minds of parents for years. But add the ingredient of religion to the cauldron and things start to bubble-over. There are historians who feel Nazism flourished in Germany due to the component of paganism (in the form of forest worship) that was injected into Christian belief. (NOTE: Much of the traditional German folklore written by the Grimm brothers was laden with rather barbaric imagery - Hansel and Gretel being a prime example.)

The transformation of Hollywood into Holywood can only be described as obscene and should offend the moral sensibilities of everyone.

Thanks to Mel Gibson, we now have a clear definition of what constitutes "obscenity". The only genius that Mr. Gibson may possess is in his ability to shed light on this elusive term. Indeed, clear demarcation of what comprises obscene material has stumped the greatest secular minds. When asked to define obscenity, a United States Supreme Court Justice once remarked, "I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it."

The brutal or irresponsible treatment of subject matter of an esoteric, intimate, or sacred nature would be an appropriate definition. It used to be that obscene material was that which was offensive to one's moral sensibilities. But that's no longer applicable, because many of us have forgotten what morality is and are so desensitized that we have difficulty recognizing the obscene when directly confronted with it. I guess you could call this process the Romanization of Western civilization.

Gibson's indiscreet and unbounded handling of the film's subject matter demonstrates the damage that can result when unrestrained passion and creativity unite.

Zealousness tempered with wisdom is the balance needed to create masterpieces.

At the unveiling of the Pieta, a young Michelangelo stood among the crowd and watched as people admired the piece. When he overheard a group of observers attributing his work to another artist, he became angry and carved his name into the sculpture. He later regretted his emotional outburst and vowed to never sign another one of his works again.

Michelangelo knew that his talents were a Divine gift. When he allowed his ego and passion to get in his way, he became acutely aware that he had profaned G d's name. This profound awareness and sense of humility allowed Michelangelo to create many masterpieces that an entire world can enjoy.

What has the Mel Gibson created, destroyed and profaned with his "passion"?

If you're unwilling to explore this question, then you best join the other Romans at the local coliseum and enjoy the show.

Ellen lives in the Golan Heights, Israel with her husband and six children. She is a painter, columnist for Israelnationalnews,com and co-founder of helpingisrael.com. She can be contacted through her website http://www.artfromzion.com

Posted by JINSA, February 25, 2004.
This is JINSA Report #390 A group of JINSA Board Members, in Israel for a conference and meetings with Israeli government officials, spent an odd but useful hour with an IDF official in charge of liaisons with international NGOs ministering to Palestinians living of the disputed territories. His job, as he explained it, was to ensure that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), UNRWA, World Food Aid, and others had continual and unimpeded access to the Palestinian population despite the ongoing Palestinian war against Israel.

It occurred to the group that by ensuring the social and economic welfare of Palestinian civilians, Israel and the NGOs effectively absolved the PA of its responsibility. And further, they reassured the PA that no matter how gruesome the acts of terror committed against Israelis, or how virulent the incitement to hatred and violence that spews from official PA sources, or how much money is diverted to military or personal PA accounts, or how little the PA does to improve the lot of its own people, Israel will actively work to ease the suffering of the civilian population even as it fights the terrorist infrastructure supported by the PA. The official agreed.

Shimon Peres once said that the Israeli people were NOT split 50-50 over Israeli overtures to the Palestinians; each Israeli was him/herself split 50-50. We had the same sensation. Part of each us was moved by the evident concern of the Israeli government that innocent Palestinians should suffer as little as possible from their own abominable leadership. In the face of relentlessly negative press about Israel and the "occupation," it is clear, and we are proud, that the government of Israel is unwilling to deliberately make life harder for them. Few countries hold that standard and we can think of none which holds it in the face of an existential war against a terrorist enemy.

On the other hand, and there is always another hand, Israel bears some responsibility for not forcing Arafat to deal with the wellbeing of his people or the exigencies of a civilian economy. He thus had money for 17 security services, bribes, cash payments to murder bombers, and a slush fund for Suha's Paris apartment.

International donors - particularly the EU, which gave hundreds of millions of Euros to Arafat - have long pronounced themselves blameless, but it will be harder after MEP Ilke Schroeder told the European Parliament last week: "It is an open secret within the European Parliament and the Commission that EU aid to the PA has not been spent correctly. Everyone knows that the PA created a black budget." Finally.

When Israel acquired the territories in a defensive war 37 years ago, it found people poor and oppressed through occupation by Jordan and Egypt (Gaza was a duty-free port for the Egyptian military and a prison for the Palestinian residents). International relief was necessary. But in the decade since the PA became the presumed forerunner of an independent state, the situation for the people has gone from bad to worse, not because of Israel, but in spite of Israeli efforts to alleviate the mess the PA exploited for its own ends.

The JINSA Reports are published by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (http://www.jinsa.org). To subscribe, email info@jinsa.org

Posted by Morris J. Amitay, February 25, 2004.
The UN General Assembly could aptly be described as multiculturalism gone wild. Anything goes - particularly if it involves Israel-bashing. The Security Council is somewhat better only because the US with its veto can provide some adult supervision. Given this tragic situation, having the International Court of Justice ruling on the legality of Israel's security fence is little more than a bad joke, or at best, irrelevant.

So we now have this august body solemnly deliberating whether Israel, a democracy (in contradistinction to its neighbors which respect neither human nor political rights) is acting "illegally" by erecting a barrier which impinges slightly on disputed territory to which it actually has the strongest claim under international law.

That is the nub of what the much bally-hooed travesty taking place at The Hague is all about. The 15 member Court includes distinguished jurists who hail from such bastions of jurisprudence as China, Madagascar, Sierra Leone, Russia, Venezuela, Brazil, Jordan, and Egypt. (The Egyptian judge has already expressed his guilty verdict.)

The UN General Assembly - with some 90 members in the affirmative, eight opposed, and 74 abstaining - has already castigated Israel for defending its citizens from terrorist attacks. Now it is seeking the imprimateur of the World Court to further demonize Israel. Thankfully, and admittedly for their own self-interest, most nations of the free world, including the United States and Europe have expressed their opposition to this farce by questioning the Court's jurisdiction.

More than forty of these nations submitted briefs opposing the Court's consideration of the matter. Besides the Palestinian Authority, among the thirteen nations making anti-Israel oral presentations are these staunch guardians of the rule of law - Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh, Belize, Cuba, Indonesia, Jordan, Madagascar, Malaysia, Senegal, and Sudan. Another bad joke, indeed.

By now we should have become numb to the double standard consistently applied to Israel by the UN as it overlooks grave violations of human rights in order to concentrate on Israel's grievous sins. The UN, by its actions has systematically denied Israel equality with its other member states. Now, for the first time it seeks to bring Israel before its bar of "justice". This latest example of UN hypocrisy must be challenged by our own country joining with a coalition of free nations who refuse to perpetuate this continuing travesty. If we fail to use our unrivaled power and influence to bring about fundamental reform of the UN, this body can only continue to become increasingly irrelevant. About twenty-five years ago there was a brave but unsuccessful attempt to create a "World Assembly of Free Peoples". This project failed because it was an effort undertaken only by individuals. Needed change will only come about if our own country takes a strong lead. But unless our goal is truly transformation, it will also be doomed.

A call for the US to take the lead was recently made here in Washington by Ambassador Tom Pickering, a veteran diplomat who served as US envoy in a number of important diplomatic posts - including the UN. But can gentle persuasion bring about fundamental reform of a body composed of too many corrupt dictatorships who despise our country for our values and our democracy? It was precisely this sordid collection of venal regimes led by Israel's bitter Arab foes, and unfortunately aided and abetted by a Secretary General with no moral backbone who referred the matter of "the fence" to the World Court for an advisory opinion.

There are a number of arguments that can be made regarding the fence that bear noting:

* If it were not for the onslaught of homicide bombings there would be no need for the fence. You could say that it isn't the Israelis who are constructing the barrier, but the terrorists whose actions prompted it.

* It is a malicious misnomer to describe the fence as "a wall". Of the 480 miles envisioned, only 15 miles or 3% are concrete barriers.

* What about the separation fences between the US and Mexico, India and Kashmir, Saudi Arabia and Yemen - And don't forget there are still Finnish minefields separating Finland from Russia?

* As for Palestinian claims of an Israeli "land grab" - remember that the so-called Green Line was never meant to be a border, but only temporary armistice lines agreed to by Israel with the nations that attacked it in a war of annihilation in 1948 in violation of the UN's own Partition Plan. "Occupied territory" - hardly!

* As a letter circulated by U.S. Senators candidly states, the request for the ICJ's advisory opinion is nothing but a "blatant attempt to manipulate the UN system for clearly political purposes." The letter goes on to state: "Israel has no less of a right to defend its citizens than other nations of the world, and the security fence is a major part of this defense effort, particularly since the Palestinian Authority refuses to take any action against terrorism."

* A fence can always be moved or taken down, but lives lost (over 900) can never be replaced.

The bottom line here - to paraphrase Robert Frost - is that in this instance "Bad neighbors make good fences". While not a perfect solution, Israel's security fence is an honest and desperate attempt, supported by more than 80% of Israeli citizens, to save innocent lives and to maintain civilized standards even in the face of a cruel and barbaric enemy.

Morrie Amitay is a former Executive Director of AIPAC and founder of the pro-Israel Washington PAC (washingtonpac.com).

Posted by IsrAlert, February 25, 2004.
This was written by Dov Greenberg, the executive director of Chabad at Stanford University. It appeard yesterday on the Chabad Lubavitch website: http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=111456

The Hebrew Bible shares only three incidents in Moses' life prior to G-d choosing him as a leader and prophet:

1) As a young man, Moses "goes out among his brethren" and sees an Egyptian overseer brutally beating a Hebrew. He strikes down the oppressor, burying him in the sand. (Exodus 2:11-12)

2) The next day, Moses attempts to pacify two fighting Hebrews, admonishing, "Why do you strike your fellow?!" The aggressor is indignant and says, "Who appointed you as a prince and leader over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?" Realizing that his actions of the previous day had already become known, Moses escapes from Egypt and finds refuge in Midian. (ibid., verses 13-15)

3) In Midian, Moses probably wants nothing more than peace and tranquility. Instead, he finds himself embroiled in yet another conflict. He witnesses the local shepherds bullying a group of girls who came to draw water from a well. He immediately rises to their defense, driving off the offending shepherds. (ibid., v. 17)

These are the only episodes the Torah explicitely relates about Moses (besides the circumstances of his birth) prior to his selection by G-d as a leader. They express a paradigm indispensable to leadership: A leader must have the courage to battle injustice wherever it exists. In all three instances, Moses is deeply committed to fighting injustice. He intervenes when a non-Jew oppresses a Jew, when two Jews fight, and when non-Jewish men oppress non-Jewish women.

When it is necessary to kill, he is prepared to kill. When it is sufficient to speak, he suffices with verbal rebuke; when it is necessary to fight, he is prepared to fight. One who rejects the choice of aggression out of a sense of compassion may be a kind human being, but a wholly inadequate leader, because the long-term violence resulting from a failure to battle evil is far worse than the violence of the battle itself.

In modern terms, Moses is politically incorrect. He does not lecture the Egyptian taskmaster about the cycle of violence or give him a lesson on rage management. Moses knows that by the time he will complete his lecture, the Hebrew might be dead. Moses is aware that at times, violence is a moral, though difficult, choice. It saves the lives of the innocent.

Prohibiting moral killing guarantees immoral killing. It is "violence" used by police that stops violent criminals from murdering and hurting innocent people. There are many innocent men and women alive today solely because someone used violence to save their lives. If someone had killed the hijackers of 9/11 before they commandeered the planes, thousands of lives would have been saved.

Gandhi's Advice

Throughout history, many chose not to emulate Moses' example. During the Second World War, for example, when it appeared that Nazi Germany would attempt to capture England, Mahatma Gandhi offered the British the following advice:

"I would like you to lay down the arms you have which are useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions. Let them take possession.... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourself, man, woman and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them."

To the Jews of Germany, Gandhi offered a similar message:

"I am as certain as I am dictating these words that the stoniest German heart will melt [if only the Jews] adopt active non-violence. Human nature... unfailingly responds to the advances of love. I do not despair of his [Hitler's] responding to human suffering even though caused by him."

Had Gandhi convinced the English to lay down their arms and practice non-violence, the Jewish race (sic.) would have been annihilated, democracy and human rights would have disappeared, and our world would have been plunged into a new Dark Age of unimaginable cruelty. War, while always unfortunate and painful, is not always evil; sometimes, fighting a war is the most moral thing to do.

Astonishingly, the nation that Moses created has in recent years emulated Gandhi rather than Moses. With the Oslo accords, we invited our sworn enemies to take parts of our homeland in the belief that they would reciprocate with peace and good will. Instead of declaring outright war against the terrorists and their infrastructure, we chose to practice restraint and non-violent diplomacy. Many of us believed then, and some still believe, that the stoniest terrorist heart will melt in response to our peaceful advances.

War, Dishonor, or Both?

In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler by allowing the German Fuhrer to occupy the Sudetenland for a mere promise of peace. Chamberlain then returned to England and announced that he had brought "Peace in our time." Winston Churchill denounced him as a naive appeaser who believed that he could buy Hitler's good will by giving in to his immoral demands: "You were given a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."

Sadly, the same has transpired with Israel. By relinquishing parts of our homeland, Israel chose dishonor. In return, Israel received war. Today, we are in the midst of the worst bloodletting in Israeli history. The relentless terror is a direct result of the tragic policy that believes in appeasing terrorists and not destroying them. Appeasement is suicidal for the innocent and ensures victory for the evil.

The terror war on Israel, like World War II, is a war against the Jews. Losing is catastrophic. Losing is not an option. This is no time for appeasement or restraint. This is a time for righteous might.

The prophets of Israel were the first to conceive of peace as an ideal. Isaiah gave voice to the great words engraved in the imagination of the West: "Nation shall not lift up sword against Nation; neither shall they learn war anymore." But the way to hasten Isaiah's vision is to fight evil, not allow it to flourish.

At another time, when the Jews needed to forcefully confront their enemies, the prophet Joel declared, "Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruning hooks into spears." The use of moral violence must always be the last resort. But when all other attempts fail, righteous might is the only response to immoral violence.

IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 25, 2004.
Europeans of various nationalities are searching for a common identity. People often identify themselves in terms of NOT being like certain others. For this purpose, Europeans are differentiating themselves from other Westerners, especially Americans. Anti-Americanism, which has existed in Europe for over a century, has gotten stronger. Unlike anti-Semitism, however, it has not resulted in bloodbaths and blood libel.

Like anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism draws malcontents. It enables them psychologically to blame their own failures on the others. Americans and Jews represent the modernity at which the haters lag. (So they pretend to spurn the modernity they crave?) Modernity to them means being mercenary, urban, universalistic (so far, they are describing Europe), individualistic, mobile, rootless, and not connected to a specific location and land.

They express dislike for the basic ways, symbols, and people of their scapegoats. There may be no more bases for this dislike than their own neuroses.

Reversing reality, the Europeans now perceive the Arabs as victims of the Jews. Europeans further take up the Arab way of looking at things by adopting the canard that Israel manipulates the US. The Left and Right claim that the US attacked Iraq at Israel's bidding. (Like the Arabs, the Left and Right make these claims without evidence. Imagine how damning evidence would be! All they say is that certain US Jews are prominent in the Administration. They assume that those Jews advise in Israel's behalf. Assumption is not evidence. It is prejudice. This is circular reasoning, using prejudice to justify prejudice. Why don't they return to Western academic integrity?)

The impotent Europeans find virtue in having become post-national, multilateral, and multicultural, in contrast with the old-fashioned Americans (who protect them). These Europeans hate the Israeli Jews, for being active and powerful. European Jews, being powerless, are more acceptable to the European Christians (Jewish Political Chronicle, 1/2004, p.8 from Manfred Gersetenfeld's interview wih Andrei S. Markovit in Jer. Center for Public Affairs, 1/2004). Thanks to their great virtue of being multicultural, they are being swamped by Muslims, who intend to make them unicultural and more backward.

If Israel manipulates the US, it does not do it effectively. The US imposed an arms embargo for Israel's first 19 years, exacted high interest rates on subsequent loans, both gives and sells the Arabs more arms, withheld promised intelligence data, refuses to recognize Israel's capital or its claims to the unallocated portion of the Mandate, criticizes most Israeli efforts at defense while aiding the terrorists who war on it, demands that only Israel make concessions to the other side, reneges on guarantees to Israel, opposes conservation of energy and the use of renewable energy, and fails to attack the main centers for terrorism: S. Arabia and Iran and then Syria.

Posted by Louis Rene Beres, February 25, 2004.
I am not an Israeli, of course, but I am mystified that the Jaffee Center does not begin each day with audible collective pleadings for absolution. How is it that anyone in Israel can tolerate your continuance as an allegedly academic institution, let alone your "scholarship"? After encouraging and sustaining Oslo and its "Road Map" successor, one would imagine that the entire Jaffee facility would now be drowning in apologies and humiliations. Instead, you continue to shamelessly put forth "proposals" that are vastly more than a mere intellectual embarrassment: They are manifestly a continued threat to your own nation.

I know where your brains can be found, but where are your Jewish souls?

Louis Beres is Professor of Political Science and International Law at Purdue University. He writes on Middle Eastern security issues.

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 25, 2004.
This is a DEBKAfile exclusive report issued yesterday. It is archived at the DEBKAfile website (http://www2.debka.com/article.php?aid=793) It is entitled "Sharon under Pressure, Builds Fresh Team."

Shimon Peres: New blood at 80

What was behind the sudden White House acceptance Monday, February 23, of Israel's Europhile former prime minister and opposition Labor leader Shimon Peres for talks with secretary of state Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice? Why was Peres there and not senior prime ministerial adviser Dov Weisglass, on one of his regular White House jaunts for powwows with the US president's top advisers?

And what brought the dovish Labor leader to the royal court in Amman two weeks ago to find out what message Abdullah II had for prime minister Ariel Sharon from his meeting with Syrian president Bashar Assad? Foreign minister Silvan Shalom should have undertaken that errand. He should also have been Sharon's natural emissary to Ankara at around the same time for talks with Turkish foreign minister Abdullah Gul.

DEBKAfile's political sources in Jerusalem reveal that Peres undertook all three missions at Sharon's behest.

The message he carried from the Jordanian king to the Israeli prime minister was this: Tell him there's no need to rush into negotiations with Assad, or even initial talks. Assad's intentions are serious but he is confused. Most of all he is desperate to throw off the weight of unrelenting US pressure on him. Let peace talks wait until the situation clears up.

Peres carried the message to Sharon's office in Jerusalem and was promptly sent off to Ankara just after the visitor before him, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak, had departed. According to DEBKAfile's sources, his task was to probe the prospects of Turkey joining a possible Egyptian-Jordan initiative for an Islamic or Arab summit in late March to accept a role in support of the diplomatic process taking shape between the United States, Europe and the Sharon government. The Israeli Labor leader left the Turkish capital with the impression that, aside from the Egyptian and Jordanian rulers, no other Arab leader - certainly not the Saudi Crown Prince or Assad - had any intention of embracing a role in this project.

The Labor leader undertook the February 23 Washington trip when he met Sharon Thursday night, February 19. Three US officials, Stephen Hadley, William Burns and Elliot Abrams, had just been briefed by Sharon in Jerusalem on his evacuation proposals and were to report to President George W. Bush Saturday, February 21.

This was unquestionably his most important assignment. Sharon thereby placed on the shoulders of the opposition leader and long-time antagonist the task of setting up the prime minister's next visit to the White House. Peres later admitted to reporters in Washington that he had lobbied on behalf of the Sharon initiative to withdraw from Gaza and part of the West Bank without reciprocal steps by Palestinian leaders.

According to DEBKAfile's sources, Peres's high-powered diplomatic round has laid bare the quiet shakeup going forward in Sharon's top team, the possible precursor of a government reshuffle. One of the first heads to roll is expected to be that of Weisglass who, since late December, DEBKAfile is reliably informed, has been gradually removed from the short circulation list of confidential data recipients, including the outcome of top-level missions which he formerly monopolized. He is to pay the price for failing to obtain a date for his master's Washington visit and for the general cooling in US-Israel relations.

His departure would produce a major upheaval in the prime minister's work and personal life given their long association and Weisglass's key position as his single closest confidant.

However, our sources report that Sharon has begun interviewing replacements, including one candidate known to have recently carried out sensitive missions on his behalf.

Sharon finds his informal partnership with the opposition leader, without having to go through the hassle of co-opting the entire factionalized, squabbling Labor party to his cabinet, a great convenience. Despite their long rivalry, the two veterans managed to work together harmoniously in the dying days of the national unity government two years ago. Their renewed collaboration opens up options for the prime minister to pump new blood into his cabinet lineup if his back is pinned to the wall by right wing pro-settlement parties and the centrist Change which is determined to block Labor's path into a national unity government.

Peres, however, to placate articulate peaceniks in his Labor, declared in Washington after he left the White House that in his view, Israel's pullback will have to go further than Sharon's proposals and be followed by deeper withdrawals. He thus laid the groundwork for a claim that he has Sharon's ear and is acting to consummate Labor peace policies. The party therefore had no cause to object to joining a Sharon government.

DEBKAfile's sources in Jerusalem have heard that Sharon has his eye on a second former Labor prime minister, Ehud Barak, whom he defeated at the polls. His presence alongside Peres would further strengthen Sharon's inner government team.

The prime minister, whose popular credibility is in free fall, cannot afford to put off a leadership facelift. Monday, February 23, his government faced three no confidence Knesset motions. One, criticizing his unilateral evacuation plans, was voted down by a scant 46:45, bringing the government uncomfortably close to defeat, as a result of a revolt by members of government parties committed to fighting Israel's withdrawal, who either defected or absented themselves from the House. The prime minister's own Likud faction is half-turned against him over the issue, while opposition activists on the left are busy collecting blocks to build a corruption case against him and his sons.

The general public is asking whether the government acted wisely when it decided to refrain from appearing before the Hague international court hearing the case against Israel's defense barrier this week. In the battle for public opinion outside the court, the Palestinians and their supporters are triumphantly advancing their cause for statehood, while Israeli families bereaved by Palestinian terrorists rally with photos of close to 1,000 victims. They make a strong moral case but are also grim, tragic and despairing. That is not the spectacle the Israeli voter looked for from Sharon who was elected on the high hopes of confounding Palestinian terror.

ROLL OVER AND DIE: Israel and the Fence
Posted by Michael Freund, February 25, 2004.
This is an article of mine from the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com) regarding the real reason behind the hearings at the International Court of Justice at the Hague about Israel's construction of the security fence. South Korea has one. So does Kuwait, Lithuania, Namibia, South Africa and India, not to mention Spain, Slovakia and even the US.

What these disparate nations all have in common is that each one has built, or is in the process of building, a security fence along one of its borders, either to keep out smugglers, thwart infiltrators or simply control the flow of people and goods across its boundaries.

But unlike Israel they also share another conspicuous trait: none of their barriers have been threatened with condemnation by the International Court of Justice, nor have they received round-the-clock coverage on CNN.

Each of these countries erected a fence for the simple reason that that is what states tend to do when they feel their interests are being threatened. Kuwait's was put up for fairly obvious reasons thanks to a once-hostile Iraq, while South Korea's barrier is intended to stave off a possible invasion from its Communist neighbor to the north.

Lithuania saw fit to draw a line in metal along its border with Belarus, just as Namibia did to neighboring Angola, India has done with Pakistan, and the US to Mexico. Slovakia and the Ukraine are similarly demarcated, while Saudi Arabia recently considered building a fence along its border with Yemen.

And the list does not end there.

Five years ago, Spain spent more than $35 million erecting a 10-foot tall fence around its North African enclave of Melilla, cutting it off from the rest of Morocco. It consists of two rows of barricades, hi-tech security cameras, fiber optic sensors and a road to accommodate police patrols. The Spanish government went to all this trouble to stem the tide of Moroccans seeking to cross the border illegally.

Hey, now doesn't that sound familiar?

Even South Africa, which so brazenly criticized Israel at Monday's opening hearing at the Hague, has invested tens of millions of Rand in recent years to reinforce its own border fence along the Limpopo river, which delineates the boundary with Zimbabwe. The reason? To keep out cattle that might be carrying foot-and-mouth disease.

To which I cannot help but ask: why is it OK for South Africa to keep out the cows, but not for Israel to bar entry to suicide attackers?

For goodness' sake, there is even a border fence stretching for some 10 miles between England and Scotland, and they haven't fought a war against each other for centuries.

Nor can it be argued that the problem with Israel's fence is that it is not on a recognized border. Pakistan is protesting an elaborate fence erected by India in disputed Kashmir. Yet the world does not cry that India is stealing "occupied Pakistani territory."

"The fence will be a permanent barrier to prevent militants from entering," the head of India's Border Security Force in Kashmir told the Washington Post last summer. "Why should we wait for them to come in and attack our people?"

With so many fences going up in so many places around the world, why then is it Israel, and only Israel, which finds itself in the dock over this issue?

The answer, it seems, is quite simple: the world is essentially telling the Jewish state to roll over and die. They criticize us when we actively defend ourselves through military means, and now they aim to condemn us for adopting passive measures such as putting up a lousy fence.

Take, for example, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. Shortly after the Palestinians launched the present terror campaign in September 2000, Annan ascended the podium at the UN Security Council and called on Israel "to use non-lethal methods" when quelling outbreaks of Palestinian unrest (BBC, November 18, 2000).

And yet, when Israel proceeded to do just that by initiating construction of the security fence, Annan decided to lead the charge against it. In a report submitted to the UN General Assembly on November 24, 2003, he berated Israel for erecting the barrier, calling it "a deeply unproductive act."

So if Israel's use of military means against Palestinian terror is unacceptable to Annan, and he considers non-military means such as the fence to be "unproductive", then how exactly does the Secretary-General expect the Jewish state to protect its citizens?

Now don't get me wrong - I think the construction of the security fence is a pitiful substitute for an effective counter-terrorism policy on Israel's part. Indeed, rather than encircling the perpetrators of terror, the government is fencing in their intended victims.

But that in no way gives the nations of the world the right to stand in judgment of the Jewish state. Were they to find themselves in a similar situation, they would no doubt act to ensure the safety and security of their citizens.

In truth, it is not that the fence incorporates parts of Judea and Samaria that troubles our accusers, nor do they really care about the inconvenience it might cause to some Palestinians.

What truly seems to disturb them is that it just might save some Jewish lives. And that, as far as they are concerned, is perhaps the most unforgivable crime of all.

Michael Freund served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister?s Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu.

Posted by Sergio Tezza (Hadar), February 24, 2004.
This was a Freeman Center (http://www.freeman.org) broadcast yesterday. The website of the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies is a repository of important papers for understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict. Go to the Maccabean Online: (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). This article was distributed through Communaute-Juive-France (communaute-juive-france-owner@yahoogroups.fr

Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can make claim to the following:

An Israeli company has unveiled a blood test that via the telephone diagnoses heart attacks.

The Israeli-developed Ex-Press shunt is providing relief for American glaucoma sufferers.

An Israeli research team has found that the combination of electrical stimulation and chemotherapy makes cancerous metastases disappear. Israel has designed the first flight system to protect passenger and freighter aircraft against missile attack.

An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U.S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes.

Israel's Given Imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used the view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders.

Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with congestive heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.

A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device, produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct - all without damaging surroundings skin or tissue.

An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert.

Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers was produced by Haim Saban, an Israeli whose family fled persecution in Egypt.

Israel has the world's second highest per capita market of new books.

The writer lives in Qiryath Arba/Hebron. He can be reached at http://www.HaDaR@kh4.org

Posted by IsrAlert, February 24, 2004.
Isralert's source for this item: IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis www.imra.org.il GSS commander: Palestinians attempting to neutralize the security barrier. Says terror organizations are trying to fabricate chemical weapons. Arik Bender Maariv 24 February 2004 http://maarivintl.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=3544

[IMRA: This information comes out a day after Deputy Defense Minister, Zeev Boim (Likud) explained that Israel was removing a fence that closed Qalqiliya off from the east. This barrier and checkpoint - until now - made it possible for Israel to try and prevent terrorists from bringing Qassam rockets, mortars and other weapons to shoot from Qalqiliya to Kfar Sava, Raanana and other Israeli cities in the Sharon region.]

GSS (Shin Bet) commander Avi Dichter today (Tuesday) told the Foreign Affairs and Defense committee that the Palestinians are trying to develop artillery and other weapons systems that would render the barrier ineffective.

He said Israel's planned unilateral disengagement would not have any effect on the Palestinians. "They would be developing such weapons whether we stay or leave Gaza", he said. He also said that he did not think the disengagement would change the Palestinian political map. "Hamas is not going to take over after we leave, the PA has more resources, and Hamas knows this, and will not opt for a show down."

He said that Israel might be forced to invade Gaza for a limited period after the withdrawal, if the Palestinians start using any long-range weapons they would have developed.

He said the barrier had proven itself, and that terror was down sharply in areas where the barrier was up, especially Samaria. "The main effort is now around Jerusalem and the Kfar Kassem area, where the barrier is still on the drawing boards.

He warned of the growing Iranian threat. "Iran is the number one sponsor of terrorism. They have a dossier on potential Israeli and Jewish targets, and can organize and carry out attacks within a short time. In Argentina they carried out terror attacks 3 weeks after deciding on the target."

Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review and Analysis), which tracks the media, polls and events of importance in the Middle East. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il

IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

Posted by Leo Rennert, February 24, 2004.

(The figures are on the web site of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism):

  Palestinian Non-combatants killed by Israel 945 or 36 percent
  Palestinian Combatants killed by Israel 1,222 or 46.5 percent
  Palestinians killed by own side 338 or 13 percent
 Palestinian non-combatants below the age of 12 less than 3 percent
 Non-combatant females 3.3%
 Israeli non-combatants killed by Palestinians 695 or 78 percent
 Israeli combatants killed by Palestinians 182 or 20 percent
 Israelis killed by own side 20 or 2 percent
  Israeli non-combatants below the age of 12 4 percent
 Non-combatant females 31 percent


Not surprisingly, given Palestinian terror tactics, nearly 4 out of every 5 Israeli fatalities are non-combatants. At the same time, however, Palestinian civilians also have suffered great losses. Nearly 1,000 have died; more than 1 out of every 3 Palestinian fatalities. Still, one needs to be reminded that when innocent Israeli civilians are killed, that's exactly what Palestinian killers want to achieve, while in the case of the great bulk of Palestinian non-combatant fatalities, Israelis were hunting down terrorist embedded in the midst of a civilian population.

Now, let's reverse the picture and look at combatants killed by the other side. On the Palestinian side, they account for nearly 50 percent of the total. But that doesn't tell the story. In addition, 338 Palestinians were killed by their own side - suspected collaborators, suicide bombers, terrorist in "work accidents." They swell the Palestinian total by another 13 percent.

Finally, take a look at the breakdowns by gender and age. Non-combatant females account for 3.3 percent of the total Palestinian fatality total; on the Israeli side, non-combatant females account for 31 percent of total fatalities - again a reminder of how each side is conducting itself. As for the breakdown by age, there have been endless Western media reports (in newspapers and TV) on Israelis firing on children stone-throwers. Yet, the percentage of Israeli non-combatant fatalities under the age of 12 is 4 percent, while Palestinians in the same category total 3.3 percent.

When you dig into these figures, you obviously get quite a different picture from what the Washington Post and other media constantly bombard us with - namely that nearly 3 times as many Palestinians have been killed as Israelis - and never bother to break down these figures, especially on the basis of combatants and non-combatants.

Posted by Joe Kaufman, February 24, 2004.
I published this in Front Page Magazine (http://www.frontpagemagazine.com) February 19, 2004. [ed note: reading this on the fron page website will allow you to take advantage of direct links to the text.>

In the summer of 2002, a flyer vilifying Jews and Christians and threatening "confrontation and conflict" was circulated around the Florida Atlantic University (FAU) campus. It stated: "When we Arab-Muslim students came to America for study, we had no idea that we would be forced to mingle with Jew students and take instruction from Jew teachers. This is offensive to us since it is well known that the Jews are the most corrupt and violent people on Earth."

The flyer, which was put out by a group calling itself the Islamic-Arab Students Defense Committee, went on to list a series of demands addressed to the FAU administration:

  • "Separate Jew students from Muslim students. Jews should be taught only by Jew professors and instructors. Muslim students should not be forced to take education from Jews."
  • Require Jew students to wear some sort of identification so Muslim students can avoid them socially. Indicate Jew professors in the university course listings."
  • "Remove Jew names from college buildings, such as the Friedberg Center."
  • "Refuse to accept donations from Jew sources for scholarships, programs, buildings, etc."
  • "Cease Jew-Zionist and Christian activities in the Breezeway, such as the Hillel desk, the Rabbi and the ministries. It is offensive to Muslims to be solicited by other faiths."

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which looked into the matter, deemed the flyer a "hoax," as no one admitted to having any knowledge of the offending group. [What's amusing (and foreboding) is that the ADL web page that discusses the matter, instead of being titled "Flier," was accidentally titled "Flier Found at Florida Atlantic University a Hoax."]

According to the ADL, representatives of the FAU Muslim Student Organization (MSO) "strongly condemned the flyer and distanced themselves from its message" and said that "the message [ran] counter to everything the group [had] worked toward." But did it?

Part 1: Florida Atlantic Islamic Jihad

The website of the Muslim Student Organization (MSO) at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) is, at the moment, barren. All that's left is one line on the bottom of the page paying tribute to a past when the school could get away with overlooking that which threatens us all. The line reads, "founded by Drs Hamza & Alhalabi as a window to an innovative world of possibilities and imagination." But this window is now shattered with shards of glass that cut into the hearts of everyone that has ever suffered the effects of terrorism.

Mohammad Khalid Hamza and Bassem Abdo Alhalabi, while being the founders of FAU's MSO, also co-founded (through the MSO) the Islamic Center of Boca Raton (ICBR). Numerous reports have since come out exposing the ICBR's connection to extremism and hate, including having a website that featured links to terrorist charities and an essay that stated Jews "are known for their treachery and corruption throughout the world"... words eerily similar to the FAU hate flyer that stated "Jews are the most corrupt and violent people on Earth." (see above)

The radical connections of the ICBR have not skipped over either Hamza, Alhalabi or the MSO.

Recently, Khalid Hamza was one of the main speakers at the Texas Dawah Annual Conference, an event featuring "addresses broadcast from Riyadh by clerics who have praised holy war and Osama bin Laden."

Khalid Hamza used a Texas A & M University internet forum to defend Sami Al Arian. Al-Arian was taken into custody by the United States government for his role as the North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization, was found to have aided in the murder of Americans, and has in the past screamed "Death to Israel."

Hamza wrote (complete with anti-Jewish imagery), "[sic] technology advances were used but they weren't the reason behind the poisoning of people's minds, it is the power behind the media, the power that controls the american media and had been controlling it since early 1900s. for example, what happened to Dr. Sami Alaryan just recently... is unheard of in the 3rd world, but it can only happen now in US and only to the ones who do not belong to the power line."

Hamza was the author of a novel entitled The Veil, which was being heavily promoted on the FAU MSO website. The book is about a Muslim family living in Boca Raton. The first member of the family, as listed in the forward, is fittingly named Jihad.

Prior to being denied tenure from FAU for "misstating his qualifications on his resume and behaving unprofessionally in the classroom," Hamza was an advisor to the MSO. He took over for FAU Professor Imadeldin "Imad" Mahgoub, who served from '93 till '99.

Mahgoub, the President of Boca's Assalam Center, was featured on a panel discussion with Alhalabi and Raed Awad, the former fundraiser for the Holy Land Foundation, a Hamas charity that was closed down by the United States government. Awad is also said to be the imam responsible for dirty bomber Jose Padilla's conversion to Islam. The video of this panel event is found at FAU.

Under Khalid Hamza's "leadership and guidance," the group brought numerous radicals to speak at the university. This normally happened under the guise of an annual event called "Scholars' Night," which was originally founded by Hamza, in his words, "to help our community of learners to come together to better the world they live in."

On April 21, 2001, the MSO had its second annual Scholars' Night, an affair the MSO touted as featuring "several scholars, heroes and heroines." Of this event, Hamza declared, "Let us build in solidarity a world of peace and harmony; a world of humanity! 

One of the speakers representing that "peace, harmony and humanity" was the Vice Chairman of the Islamic Assembly of North America (IANA) Rafil Dhafir, a man that now sits behind bars for raising money for terrorist organizations in the guise of an Iraqi children's charity called 'Help the Needy.' [On November 16, 2002, Dhafir was also a featured speaker at a fundraiser for the ICBR.] He is quoted as saying, "The United States and England are vicious in their war with Iraq."

In a lecture entitled 'Dealing with Non-Muslims,' Dhafir unequivocally states that "Muslims must not befriend Jews and Christians." In addition, Dhafir has said, "Islam has permitted female circumcision... and none has the right to forbid that what Allah, the Creator, has permitted." He claimed that those that call female circumcision "a form of genital mutilation" are practicing "misinformation."

Also speaking at this event was Kathy Kelly, the co-founder of Voices in the Wilderness, an anti-war organization that fervently denounces the U.S. government, while cavorting with the enemy (including those that America has imprisoned). She describes the war on Iraq as "unjust, illegal, and immoral." Kelly is, herself, currently serving a three-month term in federal prison for trespassing onto the Ft. Benning military base in Georgia.

The contact for this event was David "Da'ud" Johnson, who at the time was the President of the FAU MSO. According to the FAU website, Johnson and Alvira Khan, the registrant and technical contact for the MSO website, make up the two highest ranking offices of the Boca Raton student government. Johnson as the Boca Raton Campus Senate Speaker, and Kahn as the Boca Raton Campus Governor.

Khan caused "outrage" on the campus, when she used her position - with the help of her Chief of Staff Farid Hamidzadeh - to appoint her political friends to university positions. This included the position of associate director of the campus trained escort service, which accompanies students around campus late at night. This action took away prior input into the position from the police department. The MSO's fourth annual Scholars' Night was held on April 21, 2003. Khalid Hamza was listed as the contact for the event, and he acted as moderator for it.

One of the "scholars" was Siraj Wahhaj, a man named by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White as a possible co-conspirator in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. Wahhaj, who is the Imam of Masjid Al-Taqwa in Brookyn and an advisory board member for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), testified as a character witness for convicted terror mastermind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. Wahhaj has been called "the 'spiritual leader' of the Islamist Sudanese in America." (Yossef Bodansky, TERROR! The Inside Story of the Terrorist Conspiracy in America, 1994)

The next "scholar" was William Baker. Described by many as a neo-Nazi, Baker was the past Chairman of the racist and antisemitic organization, the Populist Party.

As Jonathan Calt Harris, in his October 2003 expose in Frontpage Magazine, explains it: "Baker has a long record of anti-Semitism; for example, his self-published 1982 diatribe, 'Theft of a Nation,' called for the dismantling of the 'Zionist State.' In a 1983 speech to the racist Christian Patriot Defense League in Missouri, Baker referred to the Reverend Jerry Falwell as 'Jerry Jewry' (for his friendliness to Jews), and his disgust at traveling to New York City, getting off the plane to meet, 'pushy, belligerent American Jews.'"

Another speaker was Al-Haaj Ghazi Khankan, the Executive Director of the New York chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. As a Board Member of the American Muslim Alliance (AMA), Khankan renounced his group's support for then Senatorial Candidate Hillary Clinton, after she refused to accept the endorsement, and sent out a press release calling her opponent, Congressman Rick Lazio, a "racist" and "bigot."

Khankan has declared that "'Jihad' is known in the West as waging holy war, which is utter nonsense." Yet, at an anti-war rally held in Washington, D.C., where a previous speaker "called for the overthrow of the U.S. government," Khankan addressed the protesters by stating, "I bring you salaams and greetings from the Mujahadeen at CAIR." In Yossef Bodansky's book, BIN LADEN: THE MAN WHO DECLARED WAR ON AMERICA, Mujahadeen is defined as "Those who wage the jihad; Islam's holy warriors." At another anti-war rally, Khankan was a featured speaker along with Sami Al Arian.

On numerous occasions, Khankan has refused to acknowledge that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks on 9/11. And on a live chat hosted by ABC News, when asked the question, "What happened that these terrorists hate us so much?" Khankan answered that it was the United States' own fault. He stated, "I believe that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Look at what our government has done overseas to other countries."

In the November 15, 2001 edition of The Advocate, Ghazi Khankan stated the following: "We don't support Hamas and Hezbollah just to support them. I look at the issues. The reason there is a Hamas and a Hezbollah is that the Israelis have terrorized the poor Palestinian people for the last 53 years." When discussing possible Hamas targets, Khankan is quoted as saying, "Those who are below 18 should not be attacked."

Through CAIR, Khankan helped set up the Emergency Family Fund to raise finances, including legal funds, for families of possible terrorist detainees, whom the United States has taken into custody. This was done in association with other groups, including the Islamic Circle of North American (ICNA), which "openly supports militant Islamic fundamentalist organizations, praises terrorist attacks, issues incendiary attacks on Western values and policies, and supports the imposition of the shar'ia." (Steven Emerson, American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, 2002)

The Scholars' Night events took place right inside the university, in the Barry and Florence Friedberg Lifelong Learning Center Auditorium on FAU's Boca Raton campus. [Interesting that the only building mentioned in the FAU hate flyer is the Friedberg Center.]

Bassem Alhalabi, the other co-founder of the MSO, was charged with exporting a $13,000 thermal imaging camera to Syria. The Department of Commerce (DOC) restricts the export of the camera to foreign countries. The device is used to produce heat-sensitive images of buildings, landscapes and ground areas. According to the DOC report, "thermal imaging cameras are controlled for export to Syria for national security, regional stability, and anti-terrorism reasons.  Alhalabi claimed his brother wanted it, so that he could search for gold. The sentence he received was a one-year denial of export privileges.

Alhalabi was a colleague of Sami Al Arian's at the University of South Florida, and according to his resume, wrote various publications with Al Arian around the time that Al Arian was beginning to set the groundwork for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in America. Alhalabi gave Al Arian as a reference, when he sought employment at FAU.

Another person that Bassem Alhalabi wrote publications with is Hussam Jubara. Along with Al Arian, Jubara co-founded the ICP (Islamic Committee for Palestine a.k.a. Islamic Concern Project), a think tank that solicited funds for the express purpose of assisting families of suicide bombers. Alhalabi admits to having worked for Jubara and states that he is a "close friend." Jubara was indicted by a federal grand jury on three counts of lying on immigration forms.

FAU's connection to the North American leader of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad should raise suspicions. The school's relationship to Hamas should raise hell.

Part 2: Florida Atlantic Hamas

The year was 1998. A charity was set up, through the Florida Department of Corporations, using the designation Health Resource Center for Palestine (HRCP). The corporation transmittal letter was written in the name of Lamyaa M. Hashim, a well-traveled poet, journalist and all-around Islam activist who was to be the Chairman of the group. On January 14, 1999, the letter was amended as "Health Resource Center for Palestine, Inc. C/O SYED AHMAD."

Syed Khawer Ahmad, prior to getting involved with the HRCP, was taking courses at FAU. He was so proud of this fact that he created (and preserved) a web page on his personal website dedicated to his school. The link to the page (www.gate.net/~sahmad/fau.htm) states, "Visit FAU - Yep, My School in South Florida." But that wasn't the only page he made for his site.

Another page he created was devoted to the Islamic Society (Al Jamiya Al Islamiya) a.k.a. Islamic Association, the largest charitable foundation in the Gaza Strip. Ahmad's page (www.gate.net/~sahmad/islamic_association.htm) was, at the time, the official website to the organization.

The content on the page, at first glance, looks very amiable, if not commendable. It discusses a summer youth camp run by the foundation that includes "Educational activity, Sports, Arts, Fun & Entertainment, Scout & Civil [sic] defence, Field trips and even Marine trips.." And it gives details about Islamic Society orphan sponsorship and kindergartens.

There are messages on the page from the Director of the Islamic Society, Ahmad Bahar. He states that the goal of the camp "is to prepare an intellectual future generation," and the kindergartens "open for the child horizons of [sic] bright and flourishing future."

The page contains things that make you feel warm and fuzzy inside, warm enough to make the donations they're asking for ("We greatly appreciate your cooperation and generosity.") Then you lift the veil and find out what evil lies behind!

In the beginning of 2001, the Islamic Society created two new websites, one for its main headquarters in Gaza City (www.jislamia.org), which replaced Syed Ahmad's site, and one for its Nusirat location (www.islam-society.org).

On the main site, before it was shut down in June of 2002 [the Nusirat site is still up at its new location www.islamso.org], it contained on its homepage a picture of Sheikh Ahmad Yassin. Yassin founded the Islamic Society in 1976. That's eleven years before he founded the Hamas terror organization, to which he is currently the spiritual leader.

In a letter of request for funds, written by Yassin and found on the site, Yassin states [cleaned up English], "Islamic society in Gaza strip is a radical benevolent society," and it serves Palestinians in many fields, including "care of martyrs' families." He ends the letter by stating, "Allah is the greatest, so we in Jihad (holy war), Rebat (strength through fear) request from all sincere Moslems - in and out of Palestine - and all brothers in Islamic Ideology to help and support their brothers in Islamic society, in order to help and support our patient people in this crisis." And he signs it, "Your Brother Al sheekh / Ahmad Yasein Established The Islamic Organizational Resistance/HMAS Palestine."

The current head of the Islamic Society is, as stated previously, Ahmad Bahar. Bahar is also a leader in Hamas. It is not surprising then to find out that he, "along with masked armed men affiliated with the Qassam Brigades," the military wing of Hamas, "took part in the funeral procession of Reem Saleh Al-Rayashi who blew herself up at the Erez crossing to the north of Gaza Strip," killing four and wounding ten others. The camps and kindergartens that Bahar runs are, in reality, training grounds for future suicide bombers.

On the Islamic Society website, one finds various pictures of disturbing images taken from their 2001 kindergarten graduation ceremony. They include children dressed in military fatigues brandishing and aiming rifles and burning Israeli flags. One picture is of a child made to resemble Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, while reciting a speech made by the terrorist leader. And another is of a girl raising her red ink stained hands, "in imitation of the terrorist murderer who raised his bloodstained hands after the lynch of the IDF (Israel Defense Forces) soldiers in Ramallah."

At the graduation, the children acted out a series of plays, one of which had the children pledge their "duty to revenge the blood of the shahids (martyrs) and to continue the resistance and the Intifada."

The ceremony ended with a speech made by Bahar. In the speech, he praised suicide bombers, including Mahmud Marmash, a member of Hamas who blew himself up in the Sharon Mall in Netanya, killing five and wounding 74. In Bahar's words, Marmash "blew up the conquerors in Netanya."

On the Islamic Society website, you will find a link to what was then the official website of Hamas (www.palestine-info.org). You will find a photo (in the site's "Sport" section) of a soccer team posing for a team picture, holding a painting of a martyr. You will find how much money it takes for the Islamic Society to carry out "goat sacrifices." And you will find a summary of the foundation's activities, which include:

  • "Distributing about $60,000 to injury and martyrs families and some food boxes"
  • "Making fast breaking meals for martyrs families"
  • "Making Respecting party for martyrs families in beach camp... and other areas in Gaza... every martyrs family was given $1000 and gave some prizes as martyrs picture"

In February of 2002, Syed Ahmad removed two pages from his website. One was the Islamic Society page noted previously and one was the homepage for a non-profit organization established by the Islamic Society called Dar-ul-Qur'an Al-Karim (www.gate.net/~sahmad/daralquran/).

However, one page Ahmad did not remove was the homepage for the Sanabel Asthma-Allergy Society a.k.a. Sanabel Charitable Society (www.gate.net/~sahmad/sanabel.htm). According to the page, Sanabel was established in 1992 as "the first and only allergy-asthma society in Gaza."

Listed on the page as the "Representative in the USA" is Lamyaa Hashim, the Chairman of the Health Resource Center for Palestine (HRCP), and the center's name, address and e-mail is given as the "USA contact" for the Gaza charity.

In a report published in October 2003, the HRCP is said to have closed down due to its ties to the terrorist organization Hamas, which probably includes the HRCP's past affiliation with the Hamas front Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP). The HRCP website, which has in the past admitted to raising money for "shuhada" (martyrs), states that it was closed down for "unforeseen reasons."

Of course, none of this would matter much to someone who was creating Hamas related websites. While Syed Ahmad was with the HRCP, he took on many tasks, including that of Secretary, Treasurer and Webmaster. In May of 2002, Ahmad gave up his jobs as Secretary and Treasurer to Karina "K.A." Rahim, who also was a student at FAU.

On October 14, 2000, Rahim found herself at a rally in Miami where Israeli flags were burned and where "pro-jihadi slogans" were chanted, "such as 'We don't want negotiation, with jihad we'll claim our nation,' and 'With jihad we'll claim our land, Zionist blood will wet the sand.'"

In addition, the Imam of the ICBR, Ibrahim Dremali, told the crowd "not to be sad for those who were martyred and to not be afraid to die for what they believe in." Rahim, herself, had what to say at the rally. She stated, "I think what the Israeli Jews are doing is a crime against humanity. They [the Israelis] need to get out of that land [Palestine]."

This information is found in an article written for www.islamonline.net, a site that "publishes religious/legal opinions in support of suicide bombings" and a site that has sponsored a live internet chat with Hamas leader Ahmad Yassin. After negative press, some of the material found in the article was deleted. The piece was written by Lamyaa Hashim (under her alter ego "Um Ahmad").

Syed Ahmad was a Director for the HRCP, up until the charity's dissolution on April 18, 2003. And Syed Ahmad was also a Director for the Islamic Center of Boca Raton, from its inception in 1998 till April 30, 2002.

Question: What has come of Syed Ahmad, following his departure from the HRCP and ICBR?

Soon all was quiet at FAU. Talk about Professors Hamza and Alhalabi (see Florida Atlantic Terror University Part 1) had died down, and Syed Ahmad was little more than an afterthought. But something happened to change all that.

On October 3, 2003, Matty Cohen, the Deputy Consul General of Israel stationed in Miami, sent out a letter conveying the fact that one of FAU's professors was tied to Hamas. It stated, "I can confirm to you that Dr. Abu Sway is known as an activist in the framework of the Hamas organization."

The information reached Middle East expert Daniel Pipes, who promptly followed it up with an article exposing the professor to the public. Indeed, there was and is much to expose.

In 1998, Mustafa Mahmoud Abu Sway was the co-editor of the book Islam in Focus, which is distributed by Amana Publications, a company that publishes a Koran - whose editor was raided by the FBI - that describes Jews and Christians with such incendiary terms as "arrogant," "illiterate," "cursed" and "treacherous."

Abu Sway is not only an editor, but an author as well. In a recent essay he wrote, entitled "Said Nursi and the People of the Book," Abu Sway works diligently to explain and expound upon the statements made by "religious scholar" Bediuzzaman Said Nursi.

Abu Sway undoubtedly holds a fondness for Said Nursi, stating in the introduction that Said Nursi's ideas are "attractive." And Abu Sway describes him as being like that of a prophet, where his ideas "hold up a light to the future."

Some of Said Nursi's "attractive" and "futuristic" ideas that Abu Sway chose to highlight in his essay are as follows:

  • "The Dajjal (Islamic Anti-Christ) will draw his main strength from the Jews. The Jews will follow him willingly... both Dajjals will win the assistance of a secret Jewish society which nurtures a terrible desire for revenge on Islam and Christianity..."

  • "And there is no question, after it [Judaism] has been purified of corruptions, of Judaism acting together with Christianity in the future? As for the second group [Christians], being overcome by the power of anger they become aggressive, and abandoning the precepts of religion they fall into sin and wrongdoing. Like the Jews in their obduracy."

  • "It is because of these fearsome rules governing the destiny and character of this nation [Jews] that the Qur'an acts so severely against them. It deals them awesomely punishing slaps."

  • "These two statements of the Qur'an directed at the Jews, comprise the two fearsome general rules, that that nation hatches plots in human social life with their trickery, which shake human society... and through usury and compounded interest, made the poor clash with the rich, and caused the banks to be founded, and amassed wealth through wiles and fraud; so it was again that nation who, in order to take its revenge on the victors and governments under which it always suffered deprivation and oppression, was involved in every sort of corrupting covert organization and had a finger in every sort of revolution."

  • "For the Jews, who have been persecuted by every state, gathered in large numbers in Germany in order to take their revenge. Then, due to the important role he played in the founding of the revolutionary communist party, the terrible Trotsky, who was a Jew, took over the leadership of the Russian Army, then the government after the famous Lenin, who had trained him, and they [the Jews] set fire to Russia and laid waste whatever it had achieved over a thousand years."

  • "In the human kingdom, the Jews have clung to the world more greedily and have loved its life with more passion than any other people, but the usurious wealth they have gained with great efforts is merely illicit property over which they exercise temporary stewardship, and it benefits them little. It earns them, on the contrary, the blows of abjection and humiliation, of death and insult, that are rained down on them by all peoples."

  • "He it is Who sent His Messenger with guidance and the Religion of Truth, to proclaim it over all religion predicts with complete certainty that "the religion which the Noble Messenger brought would triumph over all religions'" The future confirmed this prediction, with the sword of Islam extending from the Pacific Ocean in the east to the Atlantic Ocean in the west... It is Islam that will be the true, and spiritual, ruler over the future."

In the course of the essay, Abu Sway, who seems in agreement with everything Bediuzzaman Said Nursi states, makes his own opinions known:

  • "The Qur'an addresses the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] saying: 'O People of the Book! O People of the Book!' Bediuzzaman did the same. It seems that the Qur'an addresses the People of the Book in this way because they are the people who are in most need of its guidance."

  • "If considered analytically, it is seen that Said Nursi expressed views similar to those of other Islamic scholars, for he believes that the Jews have been the object of Divine wrath and chastisement because of the corruption they have caused on the face of the earth. As for their stand on the Palestine question, it is tied to Zionist ideology. In reality this is corruption of another sort. For which reason most people are expecting the Jews to again be chastised. For up to the present, Divine wisdom has never delayed in meting out chastisement. In the above passage, Said Nursi is indirectly criticizing the Jews, because the Arabs are more numerous and possess more land. However, in my opinion, while referring to the future of the Muslim Umma, these words hint that he wants Muslims to make wide preparations in order to foil the enemies' plans."

In 2001, Abu Sway co-wrote a seventh-grade school textbook for the Palestinian Authority entitled "Kitab Al-Tarbiyah Al-Islamiyyah, whereby Jews are portrayed as the enemy. He writes, "The Jews adopted a position of hostility and deception towards the new religion. They called Muhammad a liar and denied him, they fought against his religion in all ways and by all means, a war that has not yet ended until today, and they conspired with the hypocrites and the idolaters against him and they are still behaving in the same way." (Kenneth R. Timmerman, PREACHERS OF HATE: Islam and the War on America, 2003)

Furthermore, in the textbook, Abu Sway states a fundamental position of Hamas: "If the enemy has conquered part of its land and those fighting for it are unable to repel the enemy, then Jihad becomes the individual religious duty of every man and woman, until the attack is successfully repulsed and the land liberated from conquest..." In another passage, he writes: "These noble verses prove the virtue of jihad... and warn against evading a jihad in the path of G-d... and warn Muslims not to defy His word nor refrain from jihad." And "This religion will defeat all other religions and it will be disseminated, by Allah's will, through the Muslim Jihad fighters." And "Martyrdom is when a Muslim is killed in the path of G-d... A person who dies thus is called a 'martyr'... Martyrdom for G-d is the hope of all those who believe in G-d and have trust in His promises... The martyr rejoices in the paradise that G-d has prepared for him."

In a debate concerning the motives of suicide bombers held on September 17, 2001, Abu Sway said that there are verses in the Koran which "clearly state that there is a place in heaven for... martyrs."

On April 28, 2000, Abu Sway participated in a Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) event, entitled 'The Evolution of Islamic Movements in the Arab World,' along with Jordanian Abdul Latif Arabiyat. Arabiyat is the president of the Shura Council (the legislative body) of the Islamic Action Front (IAF). According to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the IAF is "an Islamist party affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas" and "articulates support for terrorism vocally and actively." The IAF "hailed the June 1, 2001 Tel Aviv suicide bombing that killed 20 Israelis, most of them teens, as a 'heroic martyrdom operation.'" About the videotape the Bush Administration released showing Osama bin Laden gloating over the September 11th attacks, Arabiyat flippantly asks, "Do the Americans really think the world is that stupid to think that it would believe that this tape is evidence?"

From 1997 till 2002, Abu Sway is documented as participating in a series of PASSIA dialogues and roundtable discussions with various terrorists, including Hamas leaders Sheikh Jamil Hamami and Sheikh Hassan Yousef (who is currently in prison). Others that Abu Sway participated with included:

  • Muzaffar Iqbal ("These Jews are absolutely devoid of any respect for the faith and religion of others. But it should not surprise anyone, since they learn such abusive and dirty tricks from their own SCRIPTURES, which are filled with shameless stories of incest and pornography.")

  • Fatah leader Hatem Abdel-Qader ("If we have the choice of an Israeli presence or Hamas in Gaza, of course we would choose Hamas or any other Palestinian faction.")

  • Grand Mufti Ekrima Sabri ("The younger the martyr, the greater and the more I respect him... I talked to a young man who said, 'I want to marry the black-eyed women of heaven.' The next day he became a martyr. I am sure his mother was filled with joy about his heavenly marriage. Such a son must have such a mother.")

  • Waqf director Adnan Husseini ("We'll not let Jews, Christians on Temple Mount.")

  • Al Aqsa mosque director Mohammed Hussein ("We, as Moslems, are serious about protecting the Haram as-Sharif. We will not allow any non-Moslems here.")

  • Mahdi Abdul Hadi ("If we do not want to lose everything, we must send a message to the Israeli public that we are in favor of a peaceful solution. If this does not happen, we will all become Hamas...")

On June 5, 2002, ABC News Nightline held a forum in which Abu Sway acknowledged that there is an acceptable "darker interpretation" of the term "jihad," a definition "used by militant Muslims to justify everything from the battles against the crusaders to the mujahideens' first Afghanistan war against the Soviets." Abu Sway stated, "We have to admit that at one point it is permitted for Muslims to have self-defense and this is the equivalent of a 'Just War' in Christian theology."

At a 2002 interfaith conference, Abu Sway "remarked, to audible gasps from Jews in the audience, that he wished the state of Israel 'would disappear'" and that "Islamic law proscribes war against any nation in dar-el-islam, land once occupied by Moslems, including Spain and Israel."

In a report published in September 2003 by the United States Institute of Peace (USIP) entitled 'Healing the Holy Land,' Abu Sway is quoted as saying, "When traditional Muslims find themselves as a minority in society [in Israel or Western countries], their aspiration is to restore or establish sovereign majority status. To imagine shared sovereignty or dual sovereignty is not being faithful to Islamic tradition." The report goes on to say, "For Abu Sway, the idea of two states existing side by side is unrealistic... He advocates a single state, governed in accordance with Islamic principles..." Abu Sway calls this a "utopian position."

This position is not out of the ordinary for someone like Abu Sway who, in a March 2003 interview with the Islamic Broadcasting Network, claimed that Al Jezeera, also known as "Jihad-TV," was more "fair" in its coverage of the "war on terrorism" than Fox News!

In December of 2003, Abu Sway participated in a Chicago conference that was organized by the Muslim American Society (MAS) and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), two organizations said to have ties to Hamas.

In a July 2003 interview of Abu Sway done by the MAS - an interview where he admits that he was at the al Aqsa mosque "the first day of the new Intifada" - Abu Sway again discusses his dream of an annihilated Israel. He states that he "wishes to reclaim the holiness of the land" and that even though the Arab gambling casino in Jericho "almost exclusively destroys the lives of Jewish families," even then he "cannot accept it Islamically." He declares that it is his belief that "the future rule has to be a post-Zionist entity."

In the same interview, Abu Sway described Israeli self defense as "state terrorism" and then touted the Hamas line that "ultimately, if one targets the military forces of the occupier, then I don't think that it is terrorism." In an interview with Islam Online, the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, stated, "My brother, certainly we don't target women, children or the elderly in our operations. But the 'Mujahed' goes out to find a concentration of soldiers and military men, whether in civilian or military clothes and attack them. This is our first and last target..."

And in the interview, Abu Sway repeated an often told lie that Arabs were driven out of Israel in 1948. He states, "What I hope for the future is to see the Palestinians going back to their homes from which they have been uprooted, from which they were driven by force in 1948." From BATTLEGROUND: FACT & FANTASY IN PALESTINE, by Samuel Katz, "The Arab refugees were not driven from Palestine by anyone. The vast majority left, whether of their own free will or at the orders or exhortations of their leaders, always with the same reassurance - that their departure would help in the war against Israel... Their victory was certain, they claimed, but it would be speeded and made easier if the local Arab population got out of the way. The refugees would come back in the wake of the victorious Arab armies and not only recover their own property but also inherit the houses and farms of the vanquished and annihilated Jews."

This was certainly a big lie... but not as big as the one Abu Sway would later tell when he made the claim that he has "no connection to Hamas."

As reported by Daniel Pipes and Asaf Romirowsky in January of 2004, according to Israeli sources, Abu Sway:

  • was a board member and raised funds for two Jerusalem-based Hamas-related organizations shut down by the Israeli government, the Heritage Committee and the Foundation for the Development of Society.
  • has worked with the Palestinian "Charity Coalition" that includes such organizations as Al-Aqsa Foundation of South Africa and France's Comite de Bienfaisance et de Secours aux Palestiniens, both known Hamas fund-raisers which have had their assets frozen by the American government.
  • is connected to Sheik Raed Salah's Islamic Movement in Um al-Fahm, Israel, 14 members of which were arrested in May 2003 for Hamas fundraising.

Florida Atlantic University has claimed that it has not ignored the situation concerning Mustafa Abu Sway. The school insists that it has asked the State Department to investigate the matter, and it cannot be said enough just how serious this matter truly is. However, with all the radicals that have either been hired by FAU or have passed through the school, one would think that FAU itself should not be ignored.

Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate. You can visit the group's website, at www.americansagainsthate.com. And you can view all of Joe's archived articles, at www.joe4rep.com.

Posted by David Frankfurter, February 24, 2004.
Reports of presentations to the International Court of Justice over Israel's anti-terrorist barrier remind me of the show trials of the Spanish Inquisition. Don't mention the facts (like terrorism), just find a way to accuse the Jews of our ills. Mel Gibson's passion play depicting Jews as responsible for killing Jesus is gaining momentum - with 'Passion jewellery' the latest hit, even before the movie is released. And now a report that even before seeing the movie, 25% of Americans think that the Jews killed Jesus - and unbelievable 10% of Americans blame Jews living today for the death of Jesus. Egypt is pushing an Arabic translation of the Russian forgery of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion'. Syria beams to Europe movies of Rabbis preparing the blood of non-Jewish children to put in Matzoh for Pesach. European surveys reveal that Israel is seen as 'the greatest threat to world peace', that the majority of Britons think that Jews have made no positive contribution to society, have too much influence and that a Jewish Prime Minister would be 'objectionable'. Judaism is an intolerant religion. European Jews are not loyal citizens, and have a 'particular relationship with money', according to these same surveys.

And you ask why Jews need a country of their own?

David Frankfurter sends "Letters from Israel" emails to subscribers. Contact him at David.Frankfurter@iname.com

Posted by Marilyn Ginsburg, February 24, 2004.
Thomas Friedman, who is syndicated and whose column appears in many publications has his own ideas about how to settle the crisis in the Middle East. He is very verbal and even as I was writing this, he hosted a mini series about the Middle East on the Discovery Channel.

I am concerned that people will think this agenda is unbiased. They may feel that he is representative of the majority of American Jews because he has received a great deal of exposure and he, himself, is Jewish. I have not noted any reaction to his views by his fellow Jews and I fear because he is Jewish he is not recognized as the dangerous person he is.

His views are not anchored in reality. I do not know if he supports a one-state solution but he talks about the threat from this solution by the Palestinians. He places this in the fore ground of the negotiations. He warns the Israelis that if they don't solve the Middle East crisis soon, this one state solution will take hold. He seems to feel right or wrong, a solution is necessary. The option of one state may be satisfactory to all who do not care about Israelis existence and have already forgotten as to why Israel was mandated to the Jews in the first place but it should be recognized, as the threat it really is. If the Palestinians can not live with the settlements, how does he expect them to live with in peace with Jews. If that ever came about the Holocaust would be a minor event and the international community would not react any better then they did when Hitler was slaughtering the Jews of Europe.

Friedman has always been an apologist for the Palestinians. They have no future. They have no jobs. They have had their dreams destroyed. One of the recent suicide bombers was a woman, a lawyer, and a mother of two. The most recent suicide bomber was a Palestinian police man. The Arab who drove his plane into the Twin Towers came from a wealthy family and was well educated. His hatred of Americans was his beacon of light. The Palestinian terrorist are driven by their hatred of Jews. The threat to the disenfranchised that he is giving his support to comes from the control of their lives by a very active totalitarian religion. The lack of separation between religion and the state.

His hope that the Palestinians and the Arabs will join the main stream of society and in this way will become enlightened is unreal. Their leaders are not ready to give up control to a secular and more enlightened society. He sees what he would like to see but this does not make him a good man, an understanding man. His misdirection makes him a threat to Israel. He is saying things without creating any reaction from the main stream because he does not openly attack Israel. He just says things like the settlements are the base of the trouble. The difficulties in movement within their borders are part of the problems. The wall is now a new cause for him.

When Barak and Arafat were negotiating peace, Tom Friedman was one of those who believed peace was just around the corner. He was disillusioned when Arafat walked away from the table. For a while I thought his eyes were opened by this. But even though he was wrong, he has been able to again readjust his thinking. He is back to the settlements and now the wall is his driving force for the injustice done to the Palestinians. He continues to minimize the Palestinian reactions, the refusal to control their terrorists, the suicide bombers. He continues to blind himself to the fact that the real problem is the one that started the wars in the first place. The one that made the Palestinians refuse to accept the land that was given to them in 1947. The two state solution was theirs in 1947. What makes him think that anything has changed for the better.

In reality things have changed for the worse. The people in the West Bank and Gaza hate the Israelis more then they did then. There were no settlements. There were no fences. So how is he able to ignore the facts and continue to think that his solution will help the Palestinians feel less hatred, that the world will think more positively if the Israelis do everything that the Arabs say they want. He knows that their right of return which is the end of Israel is what will satisfy those supporting Palestinian rights. The European community will not think more kindly of Israel if they do what the Palestinians want. That feeling of anti-Semitism will come right back, the first time Israel doesn't comply with Palestinian wishes.

Marilyn Ginsburg is a reader from Boynton Beach in Florida.

Posted by Arutz-7 Editor, February 24, 2004.
This was written by Yedidya Atlas and was on http://IsraelNationalNews.com today.

US President George W. Bush is running for reelection. What seemed a certainty just six months ago is now in serious question. Although his almost certain Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, is currently leading Mr. Bush in the latest opinion polls, this is no doubt due to his sweeping primary victories, and following the excitement generated by their respective party conventions, the polls will simply show a tight presidential race which can go either way.

In such an election, key voter blocs are all the more important in swinging crucial states with their commensurate Electoral College votes to a particular candidate. For incumbent President Bush, the Evangelical Christian vote is particularly vital if he is to succeed in the Southern and Southwestern states. The Orthodox/politically conservative Jewish voters could play a far lesser, but no less decisive factor in a close election in more than one state including Florida.

One of the primary issues that will influence these voter blocs, is the Bush administration's Middle East policy, and specifically if it pressures Israel, or even is perceived to pressure Israel, to make concessions to the Palestinian Authority commanded by arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat. It's not that these voters will necessarily crossover to vote for the Democratic candidate, it's enough if they simply stay home on Election Day because they feel betrayed by Mr. Bush's policy behavior.

These hardcore supporters of Israel oppose any Israeli territorial concessions in general, and particularly so while Israel is under fire from an aggressive and brutal terrorist enemy. Mr. Bush fully comprehends the moral and strategic ramifications of making any, and especially ill-advised, concessions to a ruthless terrorist enemy while waging a War Against Terror.

The new diplomatic initiative proposed by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to unilaterally evacuate 17 Jewish towns and villages with thousands of longtime Israeli residents from Gaza, is a political hot potato. While in reality, not a serious proposal, it could, if backed by the Bush White House, be the issue that would lose Mr. Bush the support of dedicatedly pro-Israel voters in what promises to be a singularly tight election.

For those who believe the Sharon proposal is serious - either because they oppose it, or because they believe it has merit - have not examined the practicalities - or perhaps, the impracticalities - inherent in such a proposed course of action. So let's look a bit closer at this dramatic diplomatic scheme of Mr. Sharon's.

Conceptually, it goes against everything Mr. Sharon has said and done for most of his life. And in fact, it is claimed that when the plan was suggested to Mr. Sharon at a meeting at his ranch, he immediately opposed it on strategic and logical grounds. So why then has the former general turned politician suddenly made an about face? It is alleged that his advisors soon convinced him that only a "dramatic diplomatic initiative" such as this would force the police investigations against his sons and himself to be placed on the back burner. Moreover, should he not adopt such a plan, the investigation would ultimately force him out of office and possibly even worse. Hence, it is alleged, Mr. Sharon decided to promote, for personal reasons, the very plan he initially opposed on national interest grounds. A prominent member of Mr. Sharon's own government has passed on what he considers to be proof of these allegations to the Attorney General for review. Whether or not the foregoing is a true reconstruction of the meeting in question will be determined by the State Attorney General's investigation.

Yet the prime minister will face near-insurmountable difficulties, in several areas, should he attempt to implement his unilateral plans.

The Political (Israel): Domestically, although Mr. Sharon may feel like a king, he is only the Prime Minister of his coalition government by virtue of his being the head of the Likud Party. The Likud, is Israel's largest party in the Knesset, Israel's parliament, with 40 seats (out of 120). Now, Mr. Sharon must first get a majority of his cabinet ministers to vote to support his scheme. His coalition government is comprised of five different parties - two of which openly oppose such a decision (representing 13 Knesset seats out of his 69 seat coalition). Then he has to bring it to a vote in the Knesset. In addition to the 13 Knesset seats of the National Union Party and the National Religious Party (NRP), a majority of his own 40-seat Likud Party is on record as opposing the plan to the point of splitting the party if necessary. In fact, only 4 of 11 Likud ministers have endorsed it. So for him to personally survive politically, he must also get the Likud to approve such a radical departure from its own party platform, upon which he was elected. The likelihood of all these things happening is seriously in doubt.

Moreover, should he succeed somehow in browbeating a majority of his cabinet to vote in favor, his coalition government would fall because the National Union and NRP would leave the Government. Mr. Sharon's political threat to bring in the Labor Party to fill the void is a hollow threat. The odds that, one, his key Likud Ministers would agree to vacate their cabinet seats for Labor candidates, and two, that his own Likud Party would agree to so boldly betray its voters' trust, and become, in effect, a minority party in the government coalition, is between nil and none.

One of his own Likud Ministers, Natan Sharansky, in a media interview stated his opposition most succinctly: "A unilateral move on this scale is not logical. I simply don't see what we gain, except for encouragement for more terrorism. The area from which we retreat will turn into a center of terrorism against us. International pressure upon us will not decrease, and no one in the world will agree to an Israeli annexation of even one square meter of Judea and Samaria... It is not healthy or correct to advance matters among United States officials before doing so in the government."

The Security issue: In addition to the IDF Chief of Staff, Lt.-General Moshe Ya'alon's public statement against the wisdom of such a unilateral move in today's circumstances, IDF Intelligence Chief General Aharon Ze'evi-Farkash, in testimony before the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, declared that Prime Minister Sharon's statement of intent to withdraw from Gaza would instigate more terrorism and attacks against IDF Forces. "The Palestinians see [this plan] as a victory for terrorism," Farkash said. He further emphasized the likelihood that the plan will "[prove] the effectiveness of terrorism in the view of Islamist elements in Gaza. [The terrorist groups] see it as a surrender to terrorism, and this gives them motivation to perpetrate more terrorism in order to achieve more diplomatic gains."

Following the Military Intelligence Commander's blunt statements, Israel's Chief of the GSS (General Security Service, or Shabak), Avi Dichter, also publicly declared his professional opposition to Prime Minister Sharon's unilateral withdrawal plan. Dichter said he agrees with the assessment of IDF Intelligence Chief General Ze'evi-Farkash that the Palestinian terrorist organizations interpret Mr. Sharon's offer to retreat and destroy the Jewish settlement enterprise in Gaza as their victory and, as such, a catalyst for more terrorism. He further pointed out that the terrorist organizations, seeing this as an Israeli surrender, have begun an internal war for the "credit" for this achievement, and "this is manifest by their stepping-up of terrorism against the Jews of Gaza and IDF soldiers."

The Financials: The estimated cost of such an evacuation, reconstruction- relocation, and military redeployment, is estimated at between US$10-15 billion. This kind of money simply does not exist in Israel's current and foreseeable government budgets - and if Mr. Sharon's advisors think this money is going to come from Uncle Sam, they'd better think again. Going into a really rough election year, and with the US Congress cutting budgets, it would not be Mr. Bush's smartest move to pledge $15 billion to a Prime Minister with serious political problems to blow on a scheme that has little chance of actual implementation and no chance of success.

The Human Element (Gaza): Aside from significant political and public support, the thousands of longtime Jewish residents of these Gaza communities have not, nor will they (according to their own declarations), agree to just pack up and leave. So in addition to the moral dilemma of deliberately transferring three generations of Israeli pioneering families, Mr. Sharon has yet to solve the legal issues involved. Thousands of upstanding citizens with legal rights that can't be wished away - not by Mr. Sharon and his advisors, and not by his fellow travelers on Israel's liberal-left. Simply put, no actual legal solution has been conceived that can make these citizens move from their homes and property against their will.

But even if all the improbable and impossible can be overcome, the planning and implementation of such a grandiose scheme would take at least five to six years to carry out. So unless the Palestinian Arabs suddenly choose to exercise remarkable restraint, way out of historical character, Mr. Sharon's political gamble will be doomed to early failure for that reason alone.

Given the minefield Mr. Sharon must morally, politically, strategically, financially and legally cross, it would not be Mr. Bush's best move to invite him to The White House and declare his support for Mr. Sharon's private political initiative. If he does, Mr. Bush should not be surprised to find himself with an Israeli Albatross around his neck through the final months of the upcoming US Presidential elections.

Yedidya Atlas is a senior correspondent and commentator for Arutz Sheva Israel National Radio who specializes in geostrategic and geopolitical aspects of the Arab-Israel conflict and Middle Eastern affairs. A reserve officer with the rank of Major in the Israel Defense Forces, Mr. Atlas resides in the town of Beit El north of Jerusalem with his wife Batya, a sixth generation Israeli, and their seven children.

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 24, 2004.
This was distributed by Elizabeth Greene. It was posted on the Jihad Watch website and is archived at http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/000966.php

Joel Mowbray has more insight on the Ryan Anderson case. From the Jewish World Review, with thanks to Nicolei: To those who worry about the extremism that Saudi influence can foster here in the United States, the joint Muslim community at Washington State University and the University of Idaho - just nine miles apart - might provide a classic case study.

It also happened to be the home of detained National Guardsman Ryan Anderson, aka Amir Talhah, when he converted to Islam five years ago.

Anderson, who was nabbed while allegedly trying to pass secret information on to al Qaeda through an Internet chat room, graduated from Washington State University in 2002. Though the strength of his ties to the local Muslim community is unclear, there is no denying that it could have provided the perfect breeding ground for a radical Islamist.

And perhaps not coincidentally, there is a strong Saudi influence.

Last year, the FBI made several arrests while investigating alleged terror activity in Pullman, Washington (home to WSU) and Moscow, Idaho (home to UI). Because of the close proximity and the relative small numbers of Muslim residents (fewer than 200 total), the two towns have essentially a single Muslim community, according to many local Muslims.

Four people total were arrested. Two were affiliated with WSU and two with UI. Three were arrested as material witnesses and have since been released.

Still at large, though, is Saudi national Abdullah Aljughaiman, who was a lecturer at UI and received his religious training King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Investigators have been unable even to speak with him, however, because he is most likely in Saudi Arabia, where he's off-limits to U.S. authorities.

At the probe's center was Sami Omar al-Hussayen, a graduate student and computer whiz at UI who was also seen as a leader in the local Muslim community. The Saudi national, who goes to trial this spring, is charged with visa fraud, making false statements, and providing material support of terrorism.

The terrorism charge does not seem to have adversely affected al-Hussayen's popularity in the local Muslim community. Several Muslims in the Pullman-Moscow area contacted by phone spoke favorably of the alleged abettor of terrorism. One who had attended the preliminary hearings opined, "The evidence against him doesn't seem that strong."

In addition to allegedly designing web sites for two radical sheikhs with direct contact with Osama bin Laden, al-Hussayen is charged with handling financial and administrative functions for supposed charities that allegedly supported terrorism.

The most chilling part of the indictment, though, is a section describing an e-mail group managed and edited solely by al-Hussayen, in which an appeal was made for information from Muslims in the U.S. military that would aid terrorist attacks on American personnel, including the murder of a "specifically identified high-ranking American military official."

Although the charges do not tie the Saudi national to 9/11, some evidence surrounding al-Hussayen is troubling. Reportedly found on his computer hard drive were thousands of photos of the World Trade Center, both before and after September 11.

Then there's the family connection.

According to court documents, al-Hussayen's uncle traveled to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia and "stayed in the same hotel in the Herndon, Va., area as three of the Sept. 11 hijackers of Flight 77 that crashed into the Pentagon."

Though northern Idaho or eastern Washington might seem like a strange destination for students from the Middle East, roughly one-half of the Muslims in Moscow, Idaho and one-fourth in Pullman, Washington are Saudis, according to estimates of several local Muslims.

The Saudi ties appear to be longstanding. When the mosque at WSU was built in the late 1970's, most of the funding came from the Gulf - principally from Saudi Arabia - according to a longtime Muslim resident in the area.

What remains uncertain at this point is what role the local Muslim community had in impacting Anderson's Islamic development. Several local sources claim he was a member of the Muslim Students Association, whose national organization was Saudi-created and funded. (Al-Hussayen was president of Idaho's MSA chapter.)

Several members of Washington State's MSA deny that Anderson was an active member, however, including past MSA president Irshad Altheimer. Altheimer said that he accompanied Anderson to mosque services for a month during Ramadan in 2000, but that he never saw much of the now-detained National Guardsman after that.

Investigators are not ruling out a connection to the local Muslim community in eastern Washington and northern Idaho. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in Boise, Idaho said that no ties have yet been found, but quickly added, "Our investigation is still ongoing."

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 24, 2004.
Rep. Weiner submitted a bill that finds Egypt not a reliable ally against terrorism. The government is an openly and extensively anti-American dictatorship that persecutes Christians, promotes hatred of Jews, and violates its peace treaty (that the US sponsors). It even endorses suicide bombing (IMRA, 2/16).

The bill prohibits US military aid to Egypt, and recommends it be converted to economic aid. However, the bill offers the President a waiver in the prohibition if he deems it in the US "national security interests" to continue the military aid.

No means are beneath the Arabs, even supposedly moderate Arabs such as Egypt, and even such means as terrorism and torture.

Rep. Weiner specializes in fine-sounding bills that leave it to our dissembling Presidents to waive Weiner's therefore toothless prohibitions. Then he claims credit with Jewish and other American audiences for taking action that does not result in action. Let us not be taken in by these supposed friends of Israel, much less laud them for deceiving us.

The military aid will continue, even if the bill is passed. Now suppose the military aid were converted to economic aid, as the bill proposes. The US would be giving economic aid to an openly and extensively anti-American dictatorship that persecutes Christians, promotes hatred of Jews, violates its peace treaty, and endorses terrorism. How repugnant!

Meantimes, this is the role the U.S. envisions for Egypt

When the pro-US Shah fell, the State Dept. turned to Egypt to guard S. Arabia against take-over by radical states. The US armed Egypt so that it could invade S. Arabia and continue the oil supply. If Egypt did occupy S. Arabia, it would acquire its fabulous wealth and huge stockpiles of arms (and then tell the US it doesn't need the US anymore). The US would want Israel to provide a land route for Egyptian forces, and not attack those forces. Those forces have obtained about $60 billion in US aid. They pose a danger to Israel.

Why did Israel play along? The US enticed Rabin, Pres, Netanyahu, Barak, and Sharon with the notion that Israel would become a major factor, a country of importance, and that the rest of the Mideast would be democratized and mellow. Israelis want other countries to like them, so it is eager to please the State Dept.. (It forgets that the State Dept. is anti-Zionist). The lure overcame any sense of caution those leaders may have had. They believed the promises. They failed to realize that big countries usually exploit small ones, then discard the alliance when it becomes inconvenient. (Such is the history of the Bible, but those Prime ministers do not take the Bible seriously, though its historical lessons remain useful.) Israel cannot trust the State Dept. or Egypt.

If Israel balked, it actually would be considered more important. It does not see that such is the role of Syria and its relationship to the US, that usually courts it. Without nuclear capability, Israel would be taken for granted.

PM Sharon probably thinks he still is a brilliant tactician. No, the State Dept. has the brilliant tacticians; he is their dupe. In going along with the State Dept., he refuses to explain to his government, Party, and people his grandiose plans (lest they reject them and him). He is like the Bush Administration and the State Dept., which keep their policies from the knowledge of Congress as long as they can. The US government tries to avoid checks and balances.

The US may try to have Egypt take over Gaza and Jordan take over Judea-Samaria (as they once did via aggression). The US would have to arm Jordan, first. (It already is arming it somewhat.) While Israelis may be pleased that it wouldn't have the P.A. to contend with, it would have well-armed neighbors equally hostile (Winston Mid East Analysis, 2/17, e-mail).

It was reported late last week that Prime Minister Sharon has invited the Egyptian Army to deploy in Gaza in place of the IDF. Was he acting on his own initiative?

Maariv correspondent Ben Caspit wrote that Sharon revealed his proposal when meeting recently with top Israeli military leaders, who were not enthusiastic over the idea, and has even already made the offer to Egypt. Egypt, however, has thus far rejected the idea. Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA notes that the proposal "removes the key element of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty completed in 1982: a series of progressively more restricted limited-force zones spanning the Sinai Desert to protect Israel against surprise Egyptian invasion." Egyptian forces in Gaza would be only some 40 miles of Tel Aviv.

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

Posted by Judy Lash Balint, February 24, 2004.
This was posted by the Hadassah Medical Organization yesterday. News Update From the Hadassah Medical Organization Monday, February 23, 2004

Both Hadassah Medical Center at Ein Kerem and Hadassah Hospital at Mount Scopus treated the wounded of yesterday's suicide bombing of bus No. 14 near Liberty Bell Park; it was the second suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem in less than a month. The blast took place in the early hours of the day, killing eight and wounding over 70, many of them young students on their way to school.

28 of the wounded were brought to Ein Kerem; 6 were brought to Mount Scopus. As of this afternoon, fourteen remain hospitalized at Ein Kerem, one still in severe condition. Two remain at Mount Scopus, both in mild condition.

The following is a more detailed report provided by Ron Krumer, Director of External Affairs of the Hadassah Medical Organization:

Yesterday morning, workers were dismantling the C.T. scan at Mt. Scopus in order to make room for a new one. It was pretty much dismantled when the alert about the Bus no. 14 explosion came. The workers reversed action and succeeded to re-assemble it, so that it was ready for action when a C.T. scan would be needed for one of the wounded. 3 weeks passed since the bus no. 19 explosion, yet I enjoyed playing with the thought that it was much longer. The news reached me while I was doing something that perhaps couldn't be further removed - I was sitting in the cafeteria hosting the administrative director of the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, meeting with Dr. Martine Toledano, head of the department of complementary medicine.

34 of the wounded were brought to our two hospitals.

Below are accounts of three patients who were affected by yesterday's tragedy:

Oz Iluz (age 12) - Oz is the goalkeeper of the children's team of Beitar Yerushalayim, the most popular soccer team in Israel, who was riding bus No. 14 on his way to school. (He is the third player of that team that was injured in a terror attack). Oz was hurt in his face and his eye. When he was checked upon arriving at the hospital, doctors noticed a bulge near his wrist and thought he had a fracture. Only after looking at an x-ray, they could see that it was a piece of someone else's bone that penetrated his hand.

Ron Cohen (age 24) - injuries to his eyes. He was operated on yesterday for more than 5 hours. Ron is the son of a senior official of the municipality of Jerusalem. His brother is a well-known news photographer. He discovered him on the site of the explosion as he arrived to take pictures there.

Chanan Michael (age 90!) - Chanan's life was saved yesterday because he refused to sit down as another passenger offered him his seat, and he remained standing by the driver. Chanan is still working 5 days a week at a large travel agency that brings many groups to Hadassah.

by Lessa Roskin from Alon Shvot

The 14 bus
to and from Beit haKerem
our bus line for 23 years
the first stop - the last stop
going to the central bus station
going to the shuk
going down town
going to a meeting
going to meet a friend
going to Talpiot
going to a doctor
going to dinner with Michael
going to --------DEATH!

Even though we weren't on that bus
Even though our best friends weren't blown up
Even though we may not know the people who have been injured
We saw the photos of another 8 innocent people murdered
We saw the wreckage of another mangled bus
We saw the agony of the injured
We saw the terror of the passengers
We saw the dismay of the bystanders
We feel - again and again - the pain and anguish of all the families

Could have been me or you
on any busline in Israel
in any city or countryside bus stop
living or visiting here
in our promised land
our G-d given land
our land of the Bible - flowing with milk and honey
the fragrant scent of the white-pink almond tree blossoms

Jews are being murdered here
Pograms in eretz yisrael
by Arabs nurtured on HATE
Palestinian children are being taught to hate:
from their parents
from their schools
from their relegious teachings and beliefs
from their cultural activities
from their childhood games
from their political leaders
from their TV shows
They are being taught to become "shahids"
suicide bombers
Hate the Jews, hate the Israelis, hate America, hate democracy
the hate is spreading
the hate is becoming legitimate
the hate is rampant in Europe
the hate is raising its ugly head in America

Jews are being murdered here in Israel
We'll cry, we'll suffer, we'll mourn
we'll be angry, frustrated, disappointed, disillusioned, distraught
BUT we'll SURVIVE and somehow begin
Rosh Chodesh Adar with joy - "marbeem b'simcha"
we'll build and strengthen our faith in Ha Shem
and continue to pray and learn Torah
and walk our historic pathways
and visit our forefathers and mother's graves
and speak our ancient unique Hebrew language
and teach our heritage to our grandchildren
and touch the stones of the Kotel
and hike in the biblical landscape
and REMEMBER who we are, where we came from,
and why we're living in Israel
and we'll continue to observe meaningful shabbats and holidays
with family and friends

BUT what will you do? living so far away?
Don't feel guilty if - G-d forbid - someday
we take that final bus ride
to the last stop of life
Don't have regrets that you didn't do enough to help fight this war

Be an activist - NOW
for your people, for yourself, for your family
don't be apathetic
fight anti-semitism whereever it is
monitor the media and get them to tell the truth
boycott products from countries who don't support Israel
don't visit those countries
contact your Congressman and emphasize that
Israel's fight against terrorism and
our stable democracy
are in America's best interests
come and visit us soon (maybe consider making Aliyah)

That 14 bus is
your bus
your people
your country
your life and ours

Am Yisrael Chai !

With blessings from Israel
Lessa, Alon Shvut

"Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" by Judy Lash Balint (Gefen) is available for purchase from www.israelbooks.com.

Posted by Deb Kotz, February 24, 2004.
This essay was written by David Bedein, who is Bureau Chief of the Israel Resource News Agency, Beit Agron International Press Center in Jerusalem. It comes by way of Tova to Nancy Karkowsky to me. Please share it with others.

Ever since the restaurant at the Beit Agron Press Center in Jerusalem closed a while ago with the fall in tourism, Yehudah Haim's sandwich business for us at the corner grocery store had been booming.

He would make each pre-prepared sandwich with healthy fresh bread and any condiments that the customer would ask for.

He knew exactly many pickles I liked with my tuna fish, and just how much maonaise I liked with my egg salad. And he carefully cut each fresh vegetable to order. I had a special need, since I would wash my hands at Beit Agron and make the blessing over the bread only when I got to the store. I got used to hearing Yehudah's "Amen" to the first bite in my sandwich, before he would fill it with his goodies.

On Sunday morning, I was on the bus to work, passing the old Jerusalem train station when we heard the bus in front of us blow to bits.

My first insinct was to run to the bus, and don my press badge to report what I saw. My friend with me had a digital camera, and he quickly snapped shots and got them in real time to the media.

Yehudah Haim was on that ill-fated bus in front of us, also on his way to work.

Except that Yehudah was catapulted lifeless from the bus that was supposed to take him to another day of making nourishing lunches at the corner grocery store.

All I can think of for the past 24 hours is Yehduah's smiling face on Friday, when he said Amen to my blessing on a tuna bagel, when he wished me a good Shabbas.

A smiling face that the PLO turned into a lifeless body on Sunday morning.

Today at lunch, I felt that I had lost my lunch partner.

Maybe Yedudah said Amen to my blessing from heaven above.

The reality of media reporting continued, as Yehudah was being buried.

Fanny Haim, Yehuda's widow, had the presence of mind to write an open letter to the judges in The Hague, in the hours before she buried her husband, which she published in the daily Yediot newspaper in Israel. [Click here to read her letter.]

Deb Kotz is an active member of the Brandeis Chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and maintains an email list to distribute articles of interest to the local community. She can be reached at DebKotz@aol.com

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 24, 2004.
When Mr. Wallerstein says that; "There is no plan merely to withdraw from Gaza. Sharon plans to uproot, in stages, most of the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza." He is correct but does not really go to the heart of the issues. The true goal of all of the Oslo traitors is to destroy Israel. Without acknowledging this, no serious effort to challenge or change the situation can occur. All this dancing around the issue only strengthens the enemies of the Jewish people and causes more death and destruction. This news item appeared on Arutz-7 and is archived as http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=58356

Yesha Leader: "PM Sharon Plans to Uproot Most of Judea and Samaria"

Vice Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the first outspoken Likud promoter of the unilateral withdrawal from Gaza, visited the southern Shomron community of Ofrah last night and met with some of the residents. He arrived at the invitation of a former colleague of his from their days in the Jerusalem Municipality, Chaim Falk. "It was most definitely not a regular work meeting," recounted Yesha Council leader Pinchas Wallerstein this morning, "but much more tense, charged and difficult."

When Arutz-7's Emanuel Shilo asked a question about "Sharon's withdrawal-from-Gaza plan," Wallerstein interrupted and said, "You see how you fell into the trap? There is no plan merely to withdraw from Gaza. Sharon plans to uproot, in stages, most of the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Even now, in the first stage, he doesn't talk only about Gush Katif, but rather about the communities in Gaza and a few other isolated ones in Samaria [Shomron]. He will start with the smaller ones, and will then continue, when the public has gotten used to it, to the others. And all this will be in unilateral steps that will not require or bring an end to terrorism. He talks about a withdrawal from Gush Katif - but the threat hanging over Judea and Samaria is no smaller than that hanging over Gush Katif."

Speaking with Arutz-7 today about the meeting last night, Wallerstein said, "Olmert first tried to convince us that there was no choice because of the demographic issue between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. He did not explain, however, how the arrival of many Arabs from Lebanon and Jordan to the new Arab state would alleviate that problem - nor could he convince us why only Jews need be uprooted from their homes, and why Um el-Fahm should not be included in the new Arab state. We mainly complained to him - I'm speaking calmly to you now, but there was great anger, outbursts and frustration last night - about the fact that Sharon had deceived the public in the last election; Sharon said that Amram Mitzna of Labor was a political rookie for proposing a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - and is now presenting that exact plan as his own. We also asked him about the split that this plan would cause in the nation and to the army, and how would our sons be expected to behave if given such orders, etc. - and of course he had no answers to any of these questions."

"Let there be no mistake," Wallerstein said. "If the State of Israel decides to give in hopes that someone will like us if we withdraw to a new border, no one will suffice with anything less than the whole thing: The border will be the Mediterranean. For sure, they will make do with nothing less than all of Gaza and all of Judea and Samaria. We could not hold back from reminding him of the verse in the Book of Esther that we will soon read on Purim, 'Who knows if just for this reason you have attained the kingdom... and if not, salvation shall come from elsewhere and you and your house will be lost.' We have no sentiments towards this government. Sharon will have to understand once and for all that our reactions will not be just calm discussions sitting around a tea table..."

"We must make it clear to the public: This government must not exist any longer. We have to emphasize to the public that something has changed, that it's no longer business as usual. Because if not, then the People of Israel will enter a very dangerous state of despair and apathy, with no one showing leadership and vision, and no one pointing out the dangers. People will say, 'OK, it's just Gaza,' etc. - But do they think that there will be any fewer Arabs in Gaza if we leave, or that it will be any harder for the terrorists to get around?"

Wallerstein said he has no complaints against the National Religious Party or National Union for not having initiated the toppling of the government, but added, "My opinion is that we must not remain quiet, we must go out to the streets and present the Nation of Israel with a challenge. I am almost certain that if the NRP and NU show that they are serious about leaving, Sharon himself will start explaining why his plan is no good. But if they vacillate, then it will be too late - because Sharon will continue pushing his plan, and then he'll say that he already promised the Americans, etc."

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.

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 24, 2004.
Background: Ted Belman posted a review of Ronald Gross's book "Socrates Way" yesterday on IsraPundit. The allusion is to Socartes' allegory "The Cave." Gross wrote:
"Each of us harbours a myriad of ideas, attitudes, and opinions that have been 'programmed' into us by our upbringing, schooling, culture, and social and media environment. The 'chains' that bind us to these ideas are our understandable desire to please others, to be accepted, and to save ourselves the effort of thinking things through ourselves."

"Israel today finds itself in such a cave. Its received beliefs include the inevitability of the two state solution, the need to have US approval for all its actions, the absence of a military solution, world opinion matters and finally that settlements must be evacuated in order to affect a disengagement plan. As a result Israel has accepted a very narrow range of available options to resolve the conflict." He suggests both Israel and the USA need to rethink these beliefs.

These are comments on the article posted by David S.

Here's my out-of-the-box Zionist thinking for the day: Let's push for an immediate end to US aid to Israel, and to Israel's status as an American client-state. While significant in dollar terms, and as a percentage of the US foreign aid budget, US aid to Israel amounts to approximately 2% of Israeli GNP. Surely, there are worse things in life than a 2% pay cut.

Now let's consider the benefits of an end to the client-state relationship for both the US and for Israel:

1. Israel could no longer be plausibly positioned as a US surrogate in the Middle East. If America wants Israel to do things that America perceives to be in the American national interest, it can apply to the Israeli government the same way it would apply to Pervez Musharaf in Pakistan - without any of this nonsense about the "mutual self-interest" of the American and Israeli states. Israel can start to regain its national sovereignity, and begin to make hard rational decisions in its own national self-interest - no more settlements in Gaza, or giving up territories that it needs for its own self-defense, or embarking on other lunatic projects emboldened or enabled by the idea of a great-power protector.

2. Israel would no longer have to buy expensive weapons systems and advanced machinery from American manufacturers at full price. It is an open secret that a very large percentage of US aid to Israel comes right back to the United States in the form of government-sponsored profits for US arms manufacturers, aircraft and high-tech companies, etc.. Why should Israel pay a political price so that American companies can profit?

3. Instead of buying advanced American weapons systems at full price, Israel would be able to use its own advanced arms industry to partner up with European, Russian and Indian manufacturers and compete directly with American companies. As a first world country located in the middle of the third world, and under constant military pressure from its adversaries, Israel's weapons industry is in an unparalleled position to blow bigger, slower and dumber US companies out of big portions of the worldwide arms market. Even better, the ability to buy weapons and technology and partner up with non-American companies around the world should do wonders for Israel's diplomatic standing with potential allies - and perhaps even some of its enemies.

4. Break the link between the new anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism. Virulent anti-Semitism has been a problem for Jews for the last millenium and a half through the Christian and Moslem worlds. Just as traditional Christian anti-Semitism has largely quieted down, however, it has been replaced by a peculiar brew of anti-Israeli and anti-American feeling in Europe and especially throughout the third world.

While some of the current anti-Israel feeling in the world may be purely anti-Semitic or ignorant in its origins, there can be little question about the role that anti-American feeling plays in hatred for Israel. Anti-Israeli sentiment is a useful cover for those interested in attacking America for its role as world hegemon; traditional anti-Semitic attitudes, combined with the tiny size of the Jewish people, make Israel a much more appealing target than big, strong, populous America. While conquering America seems impossible even to bin Laden, conquering Israel does not. Severing the client state relationship between America and Israel would make a victory over Israel much less symbolically significant or appealing, while giving Israel the room it needs to manuever in a bloodthirsty region of the world.

5. End the welfare state mentality among Israel's leaders and voters alike. Generations of Israeli political leaders - like many of the voters who elect them to office - have had their judgement blurred by the habit of living on handouts from others. The Israeli political system is a mess, and it has been years - since Yitzchak Rabin, or arguably, since Menachim Begin - that we've seen an Israeli government give any signs of being able to think ahead. Israel is also a country in need of deep economic reform, with a pool of very well educated and technologically literate people who need to throw off the shackles of Soviet-style thinking - if Taiwan can succed, then so can Israel.

6. Restore the deterrant power of the Israeli military. Thanks to the dependent relationship created by American aid, Israel is now in the ludicrous position of having the world's 4th or 5th most powerful army - the dominant military power in the Middle East - while being unable to launch small-time anti-terrorist raids within its own borders without asking permission from America. Worse, Israel must stand idly by while the United States ships ever-more advanced weapons systems to Saudi Arabia and Egypt at discount prices, eroding Israel's advantage in the event of another conventional war in the region. Why should Israel submit to the managed destruction of its prime strategic resource - regional military superiority - instead of being able to leverage that resource in the service of Israel's national self-interest? Without the perceived - and actual - ability to bomb Syria and Iran when they sponsor terrorist attacks that murder and maim Israeli citizens, and to blow up open Hizbullah training camps in Southern Lebanon, Israel may as well sell all those fancy American jet-fighters for scrap.

7. Israel's strategic needs have changed since the end of the Cold War. The transformation of Israel into an American client-state was clearly in the national self-interest of both the United States and Israel in the days when Cold War conflict with the Soviet Union shaped the order of the world. Without American backing, and the American nuclear umbrella, the State of Israel might well have been destroyed by its Soviet-backed neighbors. In exchange to extending its military (including nuclear) umbrella over Israel, America gained a superb listening post in the Middle East, forward bases close to Iraqi and Iranian oil fields, and a theatre in which to try out new weapons systems against their Soviet counterparts.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the benefits of the client-state relationship have declined for both sides - but especially for Israel, a country with a comparatively thriving economy that can easily defeat any combination of its neighbors in a conventional military conflict, but has been hamstrung in recent years by the shifting demands of US diplomacy in the region, most of which still seem to be tied to the Rogers plan - a State Department position paper whose premise is clearly that a strategically weakened Israeli state is in the American national self-interest. Ironically, as long as direct military conflict with the Soviet Union in the Middle Eastern theatre was still possible, the US never dared to weaken Israel's strategic position relative to its neighbors. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, American and Israeli state interests have again diverged, and the Rogers plan has become the apparent basis of US state policy for the past fifteen years - under Presidents Bush, Clinton and Bush.

A further irony here is that a weak Israel may actually cause even greater problems for the US than a strong Israel, increasing Israel's value as a target for proxy humiliation of the US, while increasing volatility in the region. This will be true as long as the current client-state relationship stays in place. Clearly, a relationship that requires Israel to sacrifice its own strategic self-interest on behalf of another state is not in Israel's national self-interest, any more than it has been in Lebanon's self-interest to have its policy choices influenced by Syria.

8. Why not transform a relationship of momentary convenience and arm-twisting into a relationship that's about values and national self-interest? A relationship founded on actual, demonstrable self-interest, accompanied by deeply shared values, is much more stable and advantageous for both sides than a shallow relationship built on arm-twisting and propaganda. I believe that the strategic relationship between Israel and the US is real, and that this relationship tilts heavily in America's self-interest - so why not put that relationship to the test? As long as America is presumed to be carrying water for Israel, the rest of the world will continue to attack Israel as an American proxy - and domestic American support for Israel will be increasingly difficult to maintain. Why sacrifice Israel's capacity to pursue its own national self-interest - political, strategic and economic - for a few billion dollars a year?

In the absence of a powerful and successful Arab state or a great-power country willing to give the Arabs advanced weapons for nothing, the Israelis lose more than they gain from the client-state relationship with the US. In the last ten years, the escalating nature of the price Israel has paid - at home and abroad - for becoming an American client-state has become clear. Continuing to fill such the client-state role, against Israel's clear national self-interest, is a sign of the ghetto mentality that Zionist leaders once deplored. It makes American Jews feel comfortable to believe that American and Israeli national self-interests will somehow always the same. Close, yes - at times. But the same? Not unless we make it so - and the results so far have not been encouraging.

So enough already.

Ted Belman is a major contributor to IsraPundit (http://IsraPundit.com), a pro-Israel activist website.

Posted by Jock L. Falkson, February 24, 2004.
Reports say Gibson has placed responsibility for the death of Jesus without ambiguity, on the Jewish people. Not only on those who were alive at the time, or a generations later, but on all Jews for all time. Jews must contest this view.

In this we are assisted by a recent Papal encyclical repudiating the anti-Semitic reading of the relevant verse, stressing instead that Christ's death was part of his God-ordained mission. And for which Catholics of our times should not blame Jews.

Gibson has appeared in many TV interview's saying that he has done nothing except tell the Gospel truth. However, the medium is the message and the message of his movie is in the eye of the beholder.

Early reviews of Gibson's film stress Christ's death as a Jewish responsibility. He certainly overlooks the fact that it was God ordained - as Jesus clearly foretold on 3 different occasions in Mark, Matthew and Luke. And as John also recorded.

The Christ-killer charge was a base Christian accusation which finally led to the inhuman annihilation of six million Jews of Europe, largely at the hands of the German people. It was a holocaust without precedent in the appalling history of anti-Semitism. Let us examine the sources.

Was Jesus tried by Caiaphas?

The circumstantial evidence surrounding Jesus' trial point to Gospel writers and embellishers who were unaware of Sanhedrin* rules and procedures. (* Highest judicial council of the Jewish nation, with 70 to 72 members.)

We read that Jesus was arrested and taken to the house of Caiaphas, the high priest (who also served as head of the Sanhedrin). But this was Passover eve, the night of the Seder. The high priest would certainly have been busy with the Seder tradition for a large number of people, family, friends, and guests.

There is no way he would have conducted a trial - any trial - let alone an important one, at his home. Certainly not on Passover eve. It just could not have happened.

Was Jesus Tried By the Sanhedrin?

Another version has Jesus taken to the Sanhedrin where an official trial was held. Here Jesus is found guilty of blasphemy and delivered to Pilate for the application of Roman justice.

Again credibility problems indicate there was no Sanhedrin trial. Because the Sanhedrin never sat on a Jewish holiday. It never held night hearings. It would never have sat on a Seder night. The mandatory interval of 24 hours between hearing and sentence was not observed.

The conclusion is inescapable - there was no such trial.

Was Death of Jesus Decreed by God?

Mark, Matthew and Luke each relate that Jesus foretold the exact details of his approaching death - on three separate occasions. Jesus told his disciples he would be betrayed, tried, then crucified. Three days later he would be resurrected and appear again before being taken up to heaven to sit at the right hand of God.

Since this was clearly God's divine plan, neither the Jews nor the Romans could have done anything to frustrate it. So how come the Jews were accused of the crime of deicide?

Romans Crucified 220,000 Jews

The Gospels were written 70 to 100 years after the death of Christ. (Earliest date deduced because Gospels do not mention sacking of the Temple in 70 A.D.)

To give the Gospels a more authoritative Christian and pro-Roman slant many changes and amendments were made to the texts over time. Had the Passion narrative been written immediately after the crucifixion and not been changed thereafter to suit circumstances, the blame would undoubtedly have fallen on the Romans.

Role of Pilate in Death of Jesus

The Romans had already crucified over 220,000 Jews during their rule in Palestine. Putting another Jew to death on the cross was no big deal for Romans. Jews however had not crucified one person throughout their history.

Gospel writers portray Pilate as a rather nice gent who was reluctantly involved in the trial of Jesus. Philo, a contemporary of Pilate however, described him as cruel and unbending, full of antipathy to Jews.

It was entirely out of character for Pilate to have taken a liking to one particular Jew brought to trial. Nor was it the business of the Romans to try Jews for breaches of religion. Conversely it was not the business of the Sanhedrin to try Jews for political crimes.

The Gospel writers had a need to curry favor with their Roman rulers. In relating the story of The Passion it served their Christian purpose to minimize the Roman role and to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus.

Nevertheless, the Romans did not in fact try Jesus for his alleged blasphemy, but for sedition. They claimed Jesus admitted to being "King of the Jews." They saw Jesus as a political threat to their rule.

The Barabbas story was another invention. For there never was a custom of releasing a Jewish prisoner at Passover. No trace of any such custom has ever been found in Jewish sources. The hand washing episode too was an emendation.

Jesus Pleads For Mercy

Jesus believed that what God had destined for him could not be undone. God had ordained his crucifixion and all the players in this tragedy (Judas included) would have to enact their roles in the unfolding tragedy the way God intended.

Yet suddenly and unexpectedly Jesus hoped he might be spared his cruel fate. He pleaded for mercy, not to the Jews or to the Romans. He pleaded, correctly, with God, as related in these verses:

Mark 14:36: "Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt."

And later, near to death when Jesus says:

Matthew 27:46: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Jesus did not want to die. God however did not permit him to live. Since this was a divine plan why was anyone or any group blamed for his death?

Tragic Consequences of Matthew 27:25

This single sentence: "And all the people answered and said, "His blood be on us and on our children", is responsible for Christian persecution of Jews throughout the centuries. Only given in Matthew 27: 25, the irony is that this apparently self-inflicted curse was nothing more than another editorial insertion! Let us analyze this passage in more detail:

According to Matthew "a multitude of people" were present at the Roman trial. But "All the people" could not possibly have exclaimed these words, in an unrehearsed response. It is indeed difficult to visualize even 2 or 3 people together shouting this utterance - unless they had previously arranged to do so. The incident could not have happened.

In any event the Jews present at the Roman trial could not have spoken for the immense majority of the nation who were not. And who, in an age where news moved at the speed of donkey or camel, might have heard about it - if at all - only well after the event.

This curse was one of many embellishments inserted into the Gospels to show Jews as baddies and Romans as goodies.

"On us and our children"?

Notice Matthew's verse only places blame "on us and our children." Not on "our children's children." Nor does he add: "forever more."

Even assuming this punishment was valid as Matthew has it, it should therefore only have extended to those present, and their progeny, for one generation. Yet Christianity blamed the entire Jewish nation, for over 2000 years, for the alleged crime of deicide.

"Our children's children?" "Forever more"?

Why did the church Fathers seize on this one sentence to wreak such unjustified vengeance on all Jews forever more?

A Google search in the New Testament for "our children's children" and "forever more" brought up 1680 and 442 references respectively. So these terms were used frequently and whenever necessary.

It is therefore reasonable to assume that if Matthew intended to extend this punishment to "our children's children"... "forever more", he would have written so unequivocally. But he did not. What justification did church Fathers have to preach and teach this uncalled for, unceasing revenge?

(We believe Gibson agreed to remove this scene from his film. If so Jews will certainly appreciate this indulgence.)

While Gibson's right to make his film is not denied, the consequences look bad for Jews. There is every reason to fear his film will fan the flames of anti-Semitism - not so much in America - but in Europe, where sad to say they are once more burning brightly.

Radical Islam too will undoubtedly and cynically, exploit The Passion to further damage the Jewish people. As it has demonstrated in reviving and disseminating the notorious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" forgery.

Jock Falkson is an Israeli writer and translator. He can be reached by email at falkson@barak-online.net.

Posted by Israel BenAmi, February 24, 2004.
The other day while lying in my bath, agonizing on what is happening daily, the terror, death and destruction visited on us by suicide bombers, a distracting thought entered my head.

Aware of Moslem attempts of get rid of us by this means, the thought stuck me, that they too have a problem.

Each successful mission entitles the new entry to heaven to enjoy the connubial bliss of 72 authenticated virgins. With so many thousands of volunteers standing in line applying for entry, there is bound to be a forthcoming shortage of genuine virgins.

The Moslem clerics are aware of this and are still searching for some solution to this vexing problem.

If however they were to issue a Fatwa, that some of these could be re-cycled after first use and provide similar services, that would solve a problem. By attaching small stickers to bums stating "Slightly used but still serviceable" they would overcome this holy problem.

Those not satisfied, would be given the option to return to earth as Jews.

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 24, 2004.
This appeared today on the IMRA and is archived at http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=19916

The Palestinian propaganda offensive against Israel in the Hague is being led by two lawyers - Michael Tarazi and Diana Butto, who are employed by Arafat's PLO and whose salaries are being paid by the taxpayers of Britain and Sweden via the Negotiations Support Unit.

The European Institute for Research on the Middle East has completed a study of the Palestinian Negotiations Support Unit, created in 1998 and funded by British and other governments, for technical assistance in its preparations for permanent status talks. The NSU is officially part of the PLO and therefore under the direct control of Arafat. After the collapse of the Oslo framework and negotiations, the NSU has continued to operate, primarily as an information and propaganda arm of the Palestinian Authority. In particular, the NSU, which continues to receive British and other European funding, and its personal, have been central in the campaign to demonize Israel regarding the construction of the separation barrier, including in the UN General Assembly and the case brought to the International Court of Justice. The text is available at www.europeaninstitute.info/Publications.htm

For additional information, contact
Dr. Nick Lambert
Director of Research
European Institute for Research on the Middle East
Brussels, Belgium
Tel: + 32 2 7882 802
GSM: + 32 495 272 555
Website: www.europeaninstitute.info/>www.europeaninstitute.info info@europeaninstitute.info

Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review and Analysis), which tracks the media, polls and events of importance in the Middle East. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il

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.

Posted by Ken Heller, February 23, 2004.
This was written by Russell Grayson and appeared on Arutz-7 (http://www.israelnationalnews.com) on february 11, 2004.

A notorious Middle Eastern country is actively in the midst of settling a decades-old border dispute through the construction of a high, concrete wall along its long-disputed border with a neighbor. Despite vigorous protests from this affected neighbor, the project goes on without hitch, construction having been underway for weeks now.

The builder insists that the wall is designed to stop the infiltration of terrorists. The neighbor, allegedly victimized, insists that this wall is being built upon disputed territory, further insisting that the transgressor must build it - if at all - outside of the parameters of the area in dispute. The concern is that constructing the wall in its present location will result in the de facto seizing of disputed land, and the unilateral imposition a new border. This would negate any rudimentary gains made heretofore in the long, tortuous, ongoing effort at a negotiated border settlement.

Tensions are rapidly escalating between these two neighbors, and area observers are seriously concerned that the possibility of all-out war is becoming more likely.

This wall, however, is not one being built by the Israelis - it is the product of Saudi Arabia's effort to seal its frontier with Yemen.

Moreover, what makes this news even more shocking is that this ongoing construction could not possibly have escaped knowledge or detection by any of the various intelligence agencies and news services of the many powerful nations that have more than ample economic and political interests in the area, the United States included. However, not so much as the merest scintilla of news about this offending wall has made it into the coverage of any mainstream news bureau. Passing notice, in one or two short paragraphs buried in their less-important news areas, appears in the Arab media - Gulf News, Al-Jazeera, Arabic News. A few other sites parroting these same insignificant blurbs is all that can be discovered.

Indeed, despite a total scouring of news sources, not even a bit of information is available regarding the height, length, or breadth of this wall on what is a 1,350-kilometer border. There is some slight mention that a German firm, which had been retained to survey and demarcate that border, has been sent packing in the midst of its work - an ominous sign.

Nowhere is there any public international outcry, or even the least glimmer of indignant criticism. No country - beside Yemen - is so much as whispering in protest at all. Not one nation has asked the U.N. to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. No one is raising the shrill shout of condemnation. What is all too noticeable is the booming volume of absolute silence on the issue upon the world stage. The U.N. Security Council is quite obviously far too busy using Israel as its whipping boy to give any consideration at all to what is a clearly parallel issue involving the construction, over vigorous protest, of a terror-barrier wall. Credibility is an absent commodity amongst the members these days, and it may long have been so.

This does not, by any stretch, imply that the Saudi wall should be inspiring, in equal share, the magnitude of obsessive, vitriolic opposition to that which is being hurled at Israel from nearly all quarters. Indeed, that a sovereign nation has the duty - the primary raison d'etre - to protect its citizens is self-evident. That included in the exercise of that duty is putting a stop to catastrophic assaults by the ideologically deranged with their nail-bombs, guns and love of murder, is equally fundamental. Israel has the inherent, inalienable right to seal its border in self-protection - as does the house of Ibn Saud - without being pilloried for doing so. However, Israel alone is condemned for choosing self-preservation over political appeasement.

It is well past the time that Israel was accorded the same international understanding and deference, when its government exerts its sovereign rights, that all others seem to enjoy without exception in the community of nations. Nevertheless, what is clearly obvious is that the team sport of nations and news media - near-reflexive Israel-bashing - just might stem from motives less than honorable.

The Arabs can't be that much better at presenting their "victim" status than the Israelis are. Nowhere after the murder-bombing on a rush-hour Jerusalem commuter bus was there any news coverage of the joy and pride openly articulated after the carnage by both beaming parents of the PA policeman who carried out the crime. That it was cause for a general public celebration in the Arab streets around his home was ignored. That his equally proud uncle was one of those deported by the Israelis after last year's siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, during which the altar was used as a commode, also escaped mention. This, despite the images of street-dancing, singing, candy-distributing support for the September 11 massacre, Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and others, which have managed to flicker briefly upon our TV news screens.

That the so-called human rights organizations count as civilian "Palestinian" deaths those who are killed while engaged in armed combat, those murdered without any due process by the PA for any perceived offenses of "collaboration" - some as small as daring to sell their own land to Jews - and even the murder-bombers themselves, is information nowhere provided in any mainstream medium.

Where the media bias lies is obvious, from the placement of stories in major newspapers and television newscasts, to the language chosen to describe the news, to the images that accompany that news. Israel is demonized relentlessly. It is high time that some basic fairness was instilled back into the process.

Israel cannot be expected to just wring its hands whilst the Arabs continue to ignore, support, or lionize the murderers in their midst and do nothing to impede their heinous mission. That Israel restrains itself to its own detriment in asserting its right to protect the safety of its citizens is painfully and sanguinely obvious, or else the demographics on the ground would have changed significantly long ago, and there would be no need for a wall.

Ken Heller is founder of  "Citizens Against Giving-up Eretz Yisrael," a grassroots, worldwide network of Jewish and Christian pro-Israel activists. He was a major organizer of the world-wide demonstrations on July 20th against the Road Map.

Posted by Leo Rennert, February 23, 2004.
I wrote this to Ha'aretz.

Your newspaper is performing a great service by listing which nations are arguing this week before the International Court of Justice in The Hague for a ruling that Israel's security fence is illegal.

I notice that Saudi Arabia was on the opening-day list of speakers. You have to admire the Saudis' chutzpah. After all, they're building a security barrier along their disputed border with Yemen to keep out terrorists - a threat that Saudi Arabia only recently and belatedly seems to have recognized. What is so wonderfully delicious about the Saudis' gall is that they have had a running dispute for decades with Yemen over huge swaths of land claimed by both sides. And it is exactly in that disputed corridor that the Saudis' have been erecting their barrier. Yet, surprise, surprise, the U.N. General Assembly seems not to have rushed into a vote requesting the International Court of Justice to insert itself in this dispute between Saudi Arabia and Yemen. With the UN and the ICJ, what's good for the good apparently doesn't apply to the gander.

Actually, the Saudi barrier is not the only other security fence in the world. India is building a security barrier in disputed Kashmiri territory to keep Muslim terrorists from infiltrating and killing its civilians. Again, who's protesting at the U.N. or in The Hague?

On Tuesday, The Hague will witness another parade of presumed law-abiding and freedom-loving countries opposed to the fence who will be hammering Israel. They will include, inter alia, Cuba and Malaysia. Will any of the eminent jurists ask Cuba's representative whether Fidel Castro's brutal repression of dissidents might perhaps violate the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights and whether Havana's credentials on enforcement of international law might therefore be a tiny bit suspect? Or will Malaysia's representative be asked whether his legal brief is just a teensy bit tainted by his prime minister's anti-Semitic diatribe at a recent summit of Muslim nations?

With adversaries like that, Israel's case looks better every day, even as the court's prestige evaporates amid a self-inflicted grand spectacle of having to sit through the testimony of the likes of Saudi Arabia, Cuba and Malaysia.

Posted by IsrAlert, February 23, 2004.
Isralert's source for this item: http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/ also

TEL AVIV - The United States plans a review of Israel's economic performance to determine whether another $3 billion in loan guarantees should be issued to the Jewish state.

Envoys from the two countries will meet in Jerusalem on Monday under the Joint Economic Development Group in an effort to review Israel's spending policy, including that in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The panel was established to review Israel's economic plans and ensure that they met the terms of the loan guarantee agreement.

The U.S. delegation will be led by Undersecretary of State for Economic Affairs Alan Larson, who will also visit Egypt, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. Officials said the U.S. delegation will urge Israel to reduce spending in Israeli communities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

In 2003, the United States approved the first portion of the $9 billion of loan guarantees. Israel used $1.6 billion to obtain loans at preferred rates.

U.S. officials said the loan guarantees have been dependent on the implementation of an economic recovery plan approved by Washington that would encourage competition, accelerate privatization, and bring public spending under control. Another condition stipulated the bolstering of intellectual property rights protection.

U.S. ambassador to Israel, Dan Kurtzer, said Israel's economy has become much healthier over the past year. He cited an improvement in Israel's credit rating, the reduction of long-term interest rates and the doubling of direct foreign investments.

"Some problems remain, especially Israel's high poverty and unemployment rates, and a stubborn budget deficit," Kurtzer said on Feb. 10. "Deeper cuts on spending in some sectors - for example, settlement activity - are necessary."

Kurtzer urged Israel to streamline and improve the tender process, including increasing transparency and shortening the time for an award. He said government tenders have been revised to favor Israeli companies.

IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is hosted by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, February 23, 2004.
This was written by Mitch Albom, a columnist for the Detroit Free Press; it appread on the Free Press website (www.freep.com).

My sister married a wonderful guy. His father was a Hungarian Jew. During World War II, he and his eight brothers and sisters were imprisoned in German concentration camps. Some were killed in gas chambers. Others were put on a boat that was deliberately sunk. By the war's end, my brother-in-law's father was the only one left. For years, his wife would find bread stuffed under his pillow, a habit from Nazi starvation.

Every now and then some nut case says the Holocaust was faked. Usually, you dismiss him as pathetic. Last week, however, a man named Hutton Gibson told a national radio host that the Holocaust never happened, that there were no concentration camps, only "work camps," and that Jews basically made the whole thing up. Hutton Gibson is Mel Gibson's father. So this nutcase must be addressed. He must be addressed because his son has made a movie called The Passion of the Christ depicting Jesus' last hours. There are fears the movie will stoke anti-Semitism. I have not seen the film yet - it opens this week - so I can pass no judgment on it. But I have heard his father. And he needs no movie to spew hatred.

Jews "are after one world religion and one world government" Hutton Gibson declared. He said Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, who is Jewish, should be hung. He said Holocaust museums were "a gimmick to collect money." In fact, he called the entire Holocaust "fiction." He said Jews weren't killed, "they simply got up and left! They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney and Los Angeles. They have to go where's there's money."

That would be news to my brother-in-law's aunt, another Holocaust survivor who, thanks to Nazi experiments, was left sterile, unable to have children. She still bears a Nazi number burned into her arm. I suppose Hutton Gibson would call that "a tattoo she got in the Bronx." Now the elder Gibson is not new to this stuff. He writes books and magazine articles denying the Holocaust and scorching the Jewish faith. And, I am not saying that Mel Gibson believes what his father does. But, he has to say so himself. Instead, to date, Gibson has refused to fully refute his father. He acknowledges the Holocaust, but says, "Nothing can drive a wedge between me and my blood. He's my father. I love him."

That's fine. But denying hatred does not cancel love. By his own doing, Gibson has put himself on a stage where he has new obligations. He's not promoting a "Lethal Weapon" movie here, where he's a crazed cop who swears and drinks and sleeps with women (all pretty non-Christian stuff, by the way). No. He has made a deeply religious movie, a lightning rod for Christians and Jews, and one he claims was inspired by his faith, including "going back to the things I was raised with." One presumes his father did some of that raising. Mel Gibson insists he is not anti-Semitic. He can prove it by declaring his father's words are wrong. How would Gibson feel if his father had been gassed, shot or hung in Auschwitz or Dachau instead of his luckier fate, enjoying a good, long life hurling insults at others?

The reason Nazism existed is because people lived in denial. If you visit the site of concentration camps today, you will be astounded by how close neighborhoods were to the gates. Yet no one did anything - even as innocent people were murdered a stone's throw away.

No one asked Mel Gibson to become a spokesman on faith. He did that himself. Now that he has hopped on center stage, he can't simply hear what he wants. He has an obligation to publicly shoot down his father's words. After all, Gibson said he made his movie because he could no longer deny his faith. Imagine someone denying your existence.

Jerome S. Kaufman runs the Israel Commentary website (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel-Commentary) or (http://www.israel-commentary.org).

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, February 23, 2004.
Dear friends,

Yet another Palestinian manipulative lie:

The news services report from The Hague that in the International Court of Justice the Arab-Palestinian delegation is arguing that the fence Israel is building to separate terrorist murderers from their Israeli victims, renders impossible a viable Palestinian State. How very interesting that suddenly a few square kilometers make such a huge difference...

If cutting a few square kilometers from Judea and Samaria renders a Palestinian state there impossible, would the addition of those few kilometers make it possible? Think about it!

I have been claiming for a long time that the territory of Judea and Samaria (The West Bank) is much too small for an independent viable country (squeezed between Israel and Jordan). Surely it is not a question of a few kilometers either way. Now the Arab-Palestinian delegation admits it and agrees with me.

There is only one solutions to the Mideast conflict: Jordan is already a viable Arab-Palestinian independent state, built on most (75%) of the historic British Mandate of Palestine.

Yuval Zaliouk write the Truth Provider essays. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

Posted by Beth Goodtree, February 23, 2004.
It has always galled me that when an Arab is convicted of terrorism in some way shape or form, he or she is then housed, fed, clothed, and given medical attention courtesy of the very people he/she tried to murder. Better this criminal with genocide in his or her heart be made to give back to the society they plotted to destroy.

First off, the majority of terrorists or terrorist-abettors in Israeli jails are not the ones who wish to murder and commit suicide at the same time. They merely wish to murder. Nor do their unincarcerated comrades-in-genocide wish to see their fellow henchmen killed. Therefore, these terrorist felons can be employed to prevent future mass murders.

As part of their sentence, the terrorist would be given 'community service,' to be fulfilled during his or her incarceration. This terrorist would be assigned to either the police or anti-terrorism forces to assist in the prevention of terrorism. Here's how it would work.

First, before the program is instituted, there should be massive publicity about it warning the public in both Israel and her territories (now occupied by Arabs) that such a program will be under way. Once the public has been duly notified, the real program can begin.

Let's take a 'typical' terrorist I'll call Abdul. (Funny how one can speak in terms of 'typical terrorist' - it just shows how far decent, civilized people have let the situation deteriorate.) Abdul has just been convicted of recruiting homicide/genocide bombers and scouting potential locations for them to commit their acts of mass murder. Abdul,as part of his punishment, has been assigned to the terrorism prevention unit of the police.

On Abdul's first day doing his community service, he is dressed up as an Orthodox Jew, including beard and payess. Then, accompanied at all times by one or two police representatives in plain clothes, Abdul will ride the Jerusalem buses. All day. He and his 'handler' will randomly go from one bus to another for an eight hour period. In between, they may stop and eat at some restaurant that might be a popular target for terrorism. They may even go for a stroll through some malls or markets that have been targeted by terrorists. The whole point will be that if his fellow terrorists know that one of their own might be killed in an attack, they very well might not do it.

Even Abdul himself might help in the terror prevention. Once he is sentenced to community service, he may tell his conspirators not to do any attacks because they might kill him too. Or his loved ones might contact his former terror group with the same appeal to cease and desist.

On another day, Abdul may also be dressed like an observant Jew and be ridden in a car along some of the roads where shooting attacks have occurred. On yet another day, he may be kept in a house in a community that comes under frequent rocket attacks.

Never would Abdul be put in the deliberate line of fire per se, but he will be out there - just like a typical Jew - who is most often the target of terrorist murder.

Now multiply this by hundreds of Abduls (and Abdullahs) and you have hundreds of very good reasons for the terrorist organizations to stop their murderous attacks.

To those who would say this is cruel and unusual punishment, I pose the following question. If forcing Abdul to dress like a typical observant Jew and do normal things like riding a bus, eating in a restaurant and shopping in a mall is cruel and unusual, then what does it say for the circumstances under which the innocent Israeli population must live their lives on a daily basis? Are the critics of my plan saying that it is okay to be a terrorist but it is not acceptable to make a terrorist experience what it is like to be his or her potential victim? Are you saying that living life as an Israeli is cruel and unusual? If that is the case, then each and every terrorist should be tried for crimes against humanity under the genocide laws. And if found guilty, they should be executed, as this international law provides. Also, their leaders, starting with Yasser Arafat, should be captured and tried and, if found guilty, punished in a like manner.

Meanwhile, this plan will not only be utterly fitting of the crime, it may actually be rehabilitative. Forcing these criminals to live their lives like the potential victims of their genocidal intents may actually change their way of thinking. If there is any shred of humanity left in them, it may make them see their victims not as 'the Zionist entity,' but as human beings. And the eventual release of a rehabilitated prisoner, who is no longer a threat to society is the best outcome possible.

Beth Goodtree is an essayist who writes both serious and satirical political commentary.

Posted by Leo Rennert, February 23, 2004.
This was written by Etgar Lefkovits and Kerb Keinon. It appeared on the Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com) today.

Israel continued on Monday to bury the victims of Sunday's suicide attack in Jerusalem in which eight people were killed.

On Sunday, a Palestinian suicide bomber wearing a bag of explosives on his back boarded a crowded Jerusalem No. 14 bus and blew himself up, murdering eight people and wounding more than 60 others. It was the second bus bombing in the capital in just over three weeks.

The victims of the attack were identified as Lior Azulai, 18, a senior at Jerusalem's Gymnasia Rehavia high school; St.-Sgt. Natanel Havshush, 20; Benayahu Jonathan Zuckerman, 18, a senior at Jerusalem's Experimental High School; Yuval Ozana, 32, of Jerusalem; Ilan Avisidris, 41; Yafe Ben-Shimon; and Yehuda Haim, 47, of Jerusalem, the brother-in-law of Israel's consul-general to The Hague.

The eighth victim of the attack was identified Monday as Rahamiam Rami Duga, 38, from Mevasseret Zion.

Yaffa Ben-Shimol and Yehuda Haim were laid to rest Monday noon in Givat Shaul, Jerusalem. Rahamiam Rami Duga was buried in Shamgar cemetary in Jerusalem. Ilan Abisidris will be buried in Be'er Sheva Monday.

The al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, an offshoot of Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat's mainstream Fatah movement, claimed responsibility for the morning rush-hour attack, and identified the bomber as Muhammad Za'al, 23, from the village of Husan near Bethlehem.

The previous suicide bus bombing in Jerusalem last month was also carried out by the same group, with the bomber also coming from the Bethlehem area.

Israel's reaction to the attack will be to speed up construction of the anti-terrorist fence around the capital and to focus sustained military efforts on apprehending terrorists in the Bethlehem area, senior officials said Sunday night.

They said the continuous IDF actions against the terrorist infrastructure will continue, and there is unlikely to be one dramatic action in direct response to Sunday's attack.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said, "There is no doubt this is a horrible attack that cannot go unanswered."

The 8:30 a.m. blast ripped through the Egged bus opposite the capital's Liberty Bell Park as it was making its way toward the city center.

"There was a tremendous explosion and then everything fell in on me - the windshield, pieces of the bus, blood, and human flesh," said passenger Meir Aharon, who managed to extricate himself from the carnage and was lightly wounded in the attack.

The force of the explosion, which thundered throughout central Jerusalem, scattered body parts and glass all over the major thoroughfare.

"There were pieces of human bodies all over the bus and all around the bus," said Jerusalem city councilman and opposition leader Nir Barkat, who was driving across the street at the time of the blast and helped treat the wounded.

"Would that the whole world could see the horrors that were in that bus," he said, his hands, trousers, and shoes covered in blood. For an hour after the blast, the bodies of the dead lay on the ground as rescue workers picked through the wreckage. Bit by bit, fighting a biting-cold winter wind, the remains of the victims were collected in large white bags for identification and burial.

Police said the bomber likely boarded the bus, which began its cross-city route in the city's new southeastern neighborhood of Har Homa, in Jerusalem's Talpiot industrial zone.

The bomber took a seat toward the middle of the bus, escaping the notice of two security guards who got on and off the bus minutes later. Then, with the bus approaching the gas station that lies adjacent to the park, he detonated his medium-sized explosives, which were laced with pieces of iron and metal shards to maximize casualties.

"People were screaming 'mommy' and 'daddy.' There were body parts everywhere, including some hands and feet scattered outside the bus," medic Reuven Pohl said.

"You could see the debris rising up from the nearby Scottish Church, and then within seconds the smell of explosives came waffling up in the air," recalled eyewitness David Hazan.

Jerusalem police chief Cmdr. Mickey Levy said there were no "specific alerts" at the time of the attack, aside from what security officials said were some 50 general intelligence warnings about impending attacks.

Israel Police Insp.-Gen. Shlomo Aharonishky said it was unnecessary to draw a connection between the bombing and Monday's court debate over the security fence being at The Hague, reiterating that Palestinian terrorist organizations strike at Israeli civilians "whenever and wherever they can."

"Our working assumption is that the Palestinian terrorist organizations are consistently trying to carry out attacks whenever and wherever they can," he said, adding that the security forces are operating on heightened alert this week nevertheless.

Aharonishky said the bombers' successes in repeatedly penetrating Jerusalem were the result of "dozens of kilometers" where the security fence that is being built around Jerusalem has not been completed. To date, only one third of the planned 80 km.

Jerusalem-area barrier has been completed.

The barrier, a network of electronic sensor fences, concrete walls, observation posts, and other obstacles is aimed at preventing Palestinian bombers from entering Israel from the West Bank.

About one-third of the roughly 730 km. security fence going up across the country, which zig-zags in and around the West Bank to incorporate Jewish settlements, has been completed since construction got under way last year.

The attack took place as a group of American Jewish leaders from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations was holding a five-day conference at a hotel just down the block from the scene of the attack.

Deploring the world's "double standards" for criticizing Israel for building the security barrier, Barkat, the Jerusalem council opposition leader, said that "Our right not to be blown up is more important than the quality of life of people whose lives will be disrupted as a result of... the fence."

In a statement issued hours after the bombing, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei condemned the attack and called for "an immediate halt to these actions," which he said gave Israel an excuse to continue building the barrier and to carry out military raids.

On Sunday night, 38 people remained hospitalized, including a 15-year-old in critical condition. Among the seriously wounded were a teenage brother and sister who were originally evacuated to different Jerusalem hospitals, and were reunited later in the day at the same hospital to make it easier for their parents to be at their bed-sides together. Eleven students were wounded in the attack, the Education Ministry said.

Sunday's bombing came less than a month after another Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up on a city bus near Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's official residence on January 29, murdering 11 passengers.

Before the demolished bus in Sunday's attack was hauled away by late morning, the bloodstained cellphones of passengers rang persistently from the wreckage. A bloodied book of psalms lay amid the destruction, as did a notebook with Bugs Bunny on the cover, and a civics text entitled To Be Citizens in Israel.

About two hours after the attack, the charred skeleton of the bus - a twin of the No. 19 bus targeted last month that was sent to The Hague - was towed away, and the newly cleaned street was reopened to traffic.

The bombing on the No. 14 bus was the second time in just over half a year that the route was targeted by a suicide bomber. On June 11, 2003, a bomber on a bus on the same route going in the opposite direction murdered 17 passengers on Jaffa Road.

The attack took place about 45 minutes prior to the weekly cabinet meeting, where Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz said it is possible the bombing was timed to coincide with the International Court of Justice hearing in The Hague, in order to prove to the world that the fence doesn't work.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon dismissed Mofaz's analysis, saying the Palestinians don't need to look for reasons to kill Jews. "They've been doing it for years and haven't stopped for a single day," Sharon said. One of the ministers said the timing of the attack was bad for the Palestinians, since it would detract from their arguments at The Hague, and that PA officials are probably "pulling their hair out" because of the timing.

Sharon responded that the Palestinians "do not pull their hair out" when Jews are killed.

Mofaz opened the cabinet meeting with a survey of the overall security situation. He said that despite the morning's attack, Israel has been able to foil numerous other suicide attempts, and added that the security fence has proven itself highly effective in reducing the number of successful terrorist attacks.

According to police figures, there have been 101 successful suicide attacks since September 2000, the beginning of the current violence, and another 149 that failed. Failed attacks refer to terrorists who either blew only themselves up or were apprehended while on the way to carrying out a suicide attack.

Of the 934 people killed over the last 41 months, 584 have been killed by suicide bombers - a figure government officials are using to point out the necessity of the fence to keep them from infiltrating Israel.

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 23, 2004.
The Temporary International Presence in Hebron comprises mostly human right activists from Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Switzerland, and security personnel from Turkey and Italy. They followed the Hebron Accords to "assist in monitoring and reporting the efforts to maintain normal life in the City of Hebron, thus creating a feeling of security among Palestinians in the City of Hebron." They don't care about disrupted lives and insecurity among Hebron Jews (from the Arab snipers, rioters, inciters, and molesters).

A Norwegian TIPH observer wrote home,  Hebron has always been a Palestinian city with a small Jewish population. (Actually, it was a Jewish city before the Arab influx, and is the second holiest city of Judaism. Size of population is a poor criterion for entitlement, considering that the Arabs kept down the Jewish population by driving it out more than once.)

Asked about Arab violence, he replied, "Would you have liked to be checked three times a day by foreign soldiers... Or that your city is occupied by a foreign power?... If we compare with the German occupation of Norway during the 2nd WW, we called the sabotage and attacks on Germans resistance fighting." How unfair! (Hebron is part of the Jewish homeland, into which Arabs came as conquerors and immigrants. The Nazis were occupiers; Israelis are not. The Nazis employed brutality; the IDF does not, not against the Arabs, that is. The Norwegian resistance attacked Nazi control, whereas the Arabs attack all Israelis, including civilians at worship, on school buses, in baby carriages, or wearing dresses.)

Haaretz  interviewed the director of TIPH. He condemned the curfew on Hebron Arabs and the demolition of terrorists? houses. He fails to condemn terrorist murder. Although the Arabs shot at Jews in Hebron every day and night for a two-year period, he called these security measures ethnic "cleansing." That slanders the Jews but describes Arab warfare. P.A. terrorist leader Jibril Rajounb confirmed this, upon the Israeli withdrawal from 80% of Hebron. It was confirmed partially by the Arab deputy mayor's assertion that, as under previous Muslim rule, only Muslims should be allowed to pray in the Cave of the (mostly Jewish) Patriarchs, in a structure built by a Jewish king 600 years before the Arabs arrived.

Sympathizing with this TIPH prejudicial malice, Haaretz suggested that Israel reexamine "its forgiving policies toward the extremist settlers in Hebron." Far from 'forgiving,' the government stations more than 10 times as many police per resident in the Israeli zone of Hebron than within the State of Israel, and indicts a much higher percentage of the population, but has a conviction rate of less than a third of that in the State of Israel. (The government loses its frivolous harassment cases despite the bias of the justice system against Jews and especially religious ones or ones in conflict with the Arabs.) So much for government 'forgiveness' and Hebron Jewry being 'extremist.'

The Norwegian said, "I ask myself all the time what we are dong in Hebron." Answer: TIPH is a terrorist-serving organization, offering daily support to Jew-killers. They have no place in Hebron or in Israel. They, not Hebron's Jews, must be expelled from the city. (They interfere physically with Israeli security forces fighting terrorists. That is not peacemaking but complicity with murder. The only thing Israel has to be ashamed of is not having expelled them.)

The editor claims, "It's not the armed, warmongering settlers who need protection, but the thousands of helpless Palestinians." How false and irresponsible! The Arabs advocate war and shot, stabbed, and stoned Jews for years. The Jews do not commit aggression. Hebron is Hamas country! What is wrong with the TIPH for feeling sorry for them!)

The editor urges "properties returned to the lawful owners." How can he not know that the Arab market, now housing Jewish families, is on land taken by the Arabs from Jews? Many other properties seized from the Jews are occupied by Arabs or possessed by the Israeli Custodian (Hebron_today, 2/17).

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

Posted by Judy Lash Balint, February 23, 2004.
Fanny Haim, whose husband Yehuda was killed on Bus #14 in Jerusalem yesterday, appeals to the judges in The Hague:

"Today, in The Hague, you will sit in judgment. Today, I will bury my husband, my heart - which has been cut in two.

I am not a politician. I am appealing to you as someone who has lost her husband, a woman whose heart has been silenced - and a woman whose tragedy the separation fence could have prevented. I was married to Yehuda for 21 years. He was the love of my youth, since I was 15.

Yehuda's sister is Israel's Economic Attache in The Hague and works in the Embassy there. For months, she, her husband and the Embassy staff have been trying to open the world's eyes. For months, they have been fighting for the rights of the State of Israel.

As for me, what could I have asked for? Only for my small right, my husband's right, the right to see our children grow and prosper, go to school and serve in the army.

I will no longer receive this right. But today, you can see to it that other Israeli families will merit this basic thing - to raise a happy family, to get up in the morning without bereavement, without gravestones, and without cemeteries.

Today, as you begin your deliberations with open eyes, think, just for a moment, about the ordinary people behind this bloody conflict. Think for a moment about the golden heart of my husband Yehuda, and about our young son, Avner. Maybe you can explain to him - he's only 10-years-old - why in God's Name he doesn't have a father any more.

People will enter your hall today, who will speak, who will accuse. Mourners will enter my home and I will be unable to understand and I will certainly not be consoled. This evening, you will go home, kiss your spouses, hug your children - and I will be alone.

True, the politics are far from me, but now as the pain is far too close to me, I think that I have acquired, with integrity and with tears, the right to appeal to you and say: If there had been a fence all along the length of the state, then maybe I, just like you, could kiss my husband this evening.

Do not judge my country; do not restrain it from preventing additional people from becoming victims. Today, I am burying my husband; don't you bury justice. Fanny Haim, Jerusalem

"Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times" by Judy Lash Balint (Gefen) is available for purchase from www.israelbooks.com
Return to "Murder of Our Sandwich Man in Jerusalem"

Posted by Arlene Peck, February 23, 2004.
Recently, while transferring some of my past television shows (Wow! It's Arlene Peck!) From tape to DVD's I had a chance to review some I had done with Irv Rubin. For those of you who don't know who he is, Irv was the Director of the Jewish Defense League which was founded by Rabbi Meir Kahane who was also murdered. I knew both of these men well and it's ironic how in those days the words of both men which were considered 'radical' and 'crazy' have become mainstream thinking today.

I remember Rabbi Kahane telling me repeatedly how "We Jews are the only ones stupid enough to give our enemies the ability to vote. Tell me? Which Arab country would Jews be allowed to visit, much less vote. They aren't going to beat us with bullets, but with ballots!"

Irv was another story. Although he didn't have the same charisma as Kahane, he was a powerful force. I have no doubts that he was killed in prison on his way to arraignment. The official story of suicide was ludicrous. Knowing Irv as I did, there is no way he would have killed himself. Especially, after waiting a year in jail for his case to come up.

The reason I mention this now is because there is a terrible void of the kind of 'rabble rousing' that these men represented that is needed in the Jewish state.

Leaders come and go, (usually the same half dozen) and ten minutes in office capsulate to the demands and whims of our State department. Most of which officials, I believe, to be firmly in the pocket of the various Arab countries that they once represented. Israel is not a banana republic yet is treated like one. Unfortunately, most times its leaders respond as such which doesn't help the situation. Instead of opening the jails and tearing down the fence, they might want to show a little backbone. Any other country would, at this point in time, bombing the hell out of the Palestinian Authority. Yet, the current logic is, "Let's tear down the fence so Arafat can go bomb another bus and we can keep the guys in Hague happy."

Aside from the lack of leadership, where are the public relations from the Israeli government that they are in sorely needed? Far too often, I see issues being buried under 'quite diplomacy' which should be shouted from the roof-tops. Stories, which should be placed in the national newspapers totally ignored by the local consulates. If necessary, full page ads should be taken out on a regular basis to get the point across.

A case in point is Walid Shoebat who was recently a guest on my television show. He was once a former PLO terrorist who is now a strong supporter for Israel. Under great danger to himself, he is speaking out about the violent culture which he was raised under.

A week or two before the taping, I called the Consul General, Yuval Rotan's office to invite him, or a representative to appear on the show. As usual, I was rebuffed. I then contacted the Press Office to see if they would like to send someone to the studio to go on with him. Nobody was interested. What are those people doing over there?

Incidentally, I contacted the good people at Jerusalem Front Page, a Christian Broadcasting station with over a hundred outlets and they jumped right on it. He was even invited to North Carolina to attend the Christian Coalition meeting.

When speakers like he or Daniel Pipes, Tovia Singer, or most any controversial person, who happens to be Jewish are booked to speak at a University, the Arabs are there in full force. They intimidate. They threaten. And, usually are able to shout the Jewish speaker down. Like the hi-jacking and "suicide" bombings this violent culture has besieged upon the world, they have been very effective. So, now the unthinkable, Anti-Semitism, is given full reign and nobody is there to combat them.

I spoke with Dr. Pipes on his way to the Berkley campus and he told me his reactions afterward. "It was a carnival atmosphere but, I also expected the university to do a much better job of controlling the outbursts, the insults and the general atmosphere of intimidation." He is a guy who can handle that, however, most speakers can't and the students are the ones who suffer.

In the old days, my friend Irv Rubin would have traveled there just as he did to Idaho to confront the Nazis. Where are the backups to combat these Arabs who are out there at our universities? Shouldn't the Israeli consul be doing less plaque taking and more

When I was in Israel reporting, I went to that bastion of Arab anti-Semitism, in Jerusalem, Orient House where the press seemed to like to gather and have drinks in the evening. The Arabs were out in full force socializing with the members of the press. Maybe it's time for the Israeli Consul to do a little of their own promoting.

"Anti-Zionist" Film festivals are becoming the norm at our universities and the students are being taught regularly about the "siege and occupation" of Israel by the Jews. Anti-Semitism is running rampant at our schools. What is being done to combat it? The Irv Rubin that I remember would have been outside with a bullhorn reminding these planned "demonstrators" that they were not allowed to do all that they are getting away with today. He took his own "troops" to Idaho to confront the Nazis. Where are the backups to combat these Arabs who are out there at our universities?

Like the hijacking and "suicide" bombings this violent culture has besieged upon the world, they have been very effective. So, now the unthinkable, Anti-Semitism, is given full reign and nobody is there to combat them. Maybe the Israeli consulate should be doing less 'plaque taking" and a little more of the basic public relations?

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

Posted by David Wilder, February 23, 2004.
Yesterday was a normal Sunday - the beginning of the week. In Israel we live a five and a half to six day work week which begins on Sunday and ends Friday afternoon. We have a one-day weekend.

Sunday morning - the kids go to school, the parents to work. Nothing out of the ordinary. Sitting at the computer, drinking coffee, running a tour, the same old stuff. Listening to the radio, half-watching the beeper, everyday events. Sirens screeching, ambulance-lights flashing, news bulletins, blood on the street, twisted metal, crushed cars, a bus exploded. Nu, so what's new? Identifying murdered family members at Abu Kabir, bodies wrapped in a tallis, funerals, cemeteries, weeping and wailing, mourning. Nothing out of the ordinary. Soft, quiet music broadcast on Kol Yisrael radio, a blood-stained text book - "How to be an Israeli citizen," strewn on the ground amongst body parts. The fate of every good school book, right?

Gruesome? Nauseating? No, no!! This is the mundane existence of every Israeli, the way it's been now for years. Within two hours after the 14A bus exploded near the Inbal Hotel, across the street from Liberty Bell Park, life had returned to normal. The bus had been towed away and the street cleaned of the wretched remains of a bus-bombing. Israel radio announcers dutifully broadcast the chronology of the day. Reports from the hospitals, how many injured, their condition, identification of the dead, their names, time of the funerals, which cemetery. Pictures in the newspapers, stories of their lives - and a new, added attraction: others from the same family wounded or killed in previous terror attacks. For example, among yesterday's victims was Lior Azulai, an 18 year-old 12th grader, whose aunt Iris Azulai was killed in a terror attack in Jerusalem 12 years ago. Thirty one year old Yuval Ozana's uncle was killed four years ago during a Yesha terror attack. Two of his nephews were seriously wounded in the Ben Yehuda bombing two years ago.

Hours later, news headlines: no major reaction expected to morning terror attack; Parts of security fence dismantled. This morning: Sharon in the Knesset: "I will take my 'disengagement plan' to Washington and present it to President Bush in March." And only days ago, "the "Disengagement Plan" is a security measure and not a political one." "We must be realistic, and prepare for the option that the current situation, in which the Palestinians do not implement their part of the President's vision, will continue. This will create a security and political vacuum. In that case, Israel will take the unilateral security step of disengagement from the Palestinians... This will include the redeployment of IDF forces along new security lines and a relocation of some settlements. Security will be provided by IDF deployment, the security fence and other physical obstacles. These steps will increase the security of the citizens of Israel and make it easier for the IDF and security forces to do their difficult work... Obviously, the "Disengagement Plan" will leave the Palestinians with much less than they would have if they had followed the requirements of the Roadmap."

In other words, Israel's present surrender to Arab-Arafat terror is being forced on us. If only the terrorists would cooperate, Israel is prepared to give them more!

This is one side of the coin: Israel vs. Israel. Our own stupid blunders. At the same time there is the other side: Israel vs. the world.

A few days a foreign journalist, interviewing me, scoffed when I remarked that Arabs desiring to leave Israel (including Yesha) have somewhere to go - there are 22 Arab states surrounding us. Yet there is only one Jewish state - we have no where else to go. This is it. She claimed that we all have somewhere to go. "After all," she said, "you came from New Jersey."I asked her about my wife, who was born here, or my children and she shrugged it off, saying, "you all came from somewhere." My response: "you know, sixty years ago, when six million Jews were slaughtered during the holocaust, the world sat and watched. The Europeans and the Americans knew exactly what was happening, yet they did nothing to stop it. They could have bombed the railways or the crematoriums, but preferred not to. As far as I'm concerned, that says only one thing. Jews were being told, "We, the rest of the world, don't want you living with us. Leave." So we tried to leave, to come back to Israel. Yet we were told then, and still today, "Eretz Yisrael, the land of Israel really doesn't belong to you, it belongs to someone else, the Arabs, the 'palestinians.'" So I ask: the world tells us not to assimilate into their cultures, but we have no right to live in our own land. So where would the world like us to go? To disappear into the sea?

Months ago (in truth, years ago) the Israeli government has decided that the best offense is a good defense. This is, of course, an illogical philosophy, in direct contradiction to rational strategic policy which says that the best defense is a good offence. So much for Ariel Sharon's legendary military genius.

One of the results of this policy was the decision to build a 'fence,' 'separating' us from the 'palestinians.' The Arabs, fearing that the fence will be the border of a 'palestinian state' are fighting its construction and have taken their cause to the nations of the world.

The present 'Hague Hearings' are allegedly 'the case against the fence.'- In reality, the fence question is a smokescreen for a much broader topic: is Israel a legitimate, autonomous state with the right to protect its citizens and ensure its survival, or not? This is the real issue.

Israel decided, rightfully so, not to officially participate in the Hague hearings, claiming that the international court has no jurisdiction over internal security measures implemented by a sovereign state. However, the number 19 Egged bus, bombed a month ago in the heart of Jerusalem, is adorning the street adjacent to the court proceedings. This, a living (or better termed, dead) example of the terrorist war declared against Israel by Arafat three and a half years ago. The terrorist representing Arafat, Nasser al-Kidwa, said this morning that he hoped a decision by the court would result in international sanctions against Israel.

Let there be no mistake - in my opinion the fence is a dreadful mistake. It is not the way to stop terrorism and will be an appalling failure. However, that is a mistake we should be free to make on our own, without international intervention. Our security must be in our hands, not controlled by others. An Arab victory in the Hague is only the first step towards establishment of an 'international observer force' stationed in Yesha, resulting in a serious abridgement of Israel's ability to defend itself against continuing terror. And of course, this is only the beginning.

The Hague Hearings are not about the fence, rather, the State of Israel is on trial.

With blessings from Hebron.

David Wilder is spokesman for the Jewish Community of Hebron (http://www.hebron.org.il). You can contribute funds to help the Community by going to http://www.hebron.org.il/contrib.htm. Or contact The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com, 718-677-6886.

Posted by Robert G. Samet, February 23, 2004.

The Washington Post's anti-Israel bias shows no sign of letup. As a result, EyeOnThePost Inc. has initiated an ad campaign in which we'll regularly publish "Open Letters to the Washington Post." In these "Open Letters" we'll do our best to expose the Post's one-sided and often untruthful reporting. We've never before made a public appeal for help, but we need your financial assistance now. Our first ad ran this week in the Washington Jewish Week on the subject of a recent Post article, discussed below, that was widely viewed in the community as slanted and inaccurate. The Jewish Week also ran a story about this article, and in the story mentioned the launching of our "Open Letters" ad campaign. You can see the Jewish Week article at .

Our plan is to publish these "Open Letters" in the Washington Times, and if funds are sufficient, in The Washington Post as well.

Many of you saw the horrendous article on the front page of The Washington Post on February 10, 2004 with the headline "Israel Hems in Sacred City, Encircling Jerusalem Complicates Prospects for Peace." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27078-2004Feb9.html

This massive article was obviously designed to coincide with the impending hearing in the International Court of Justice at The Hague. It occupied 1/3 of the front page and two full interior pages, with 6 color photos and 3 maps. The thrust of the article was that Israel has for many years been involved in a massive land grab with respect to Jerusalem. The article asserts that the Security Fence is a part of that plan and that it not only oppresses and inconveniences Palestinians, but it also makes a peace agreement difficult.

The purpose of the Security Fence and other construction around Jerusalem is for security and to keep out terrorists, but security needs are mentioned only briefly in the article.

The historical context was completely inaccurate. The article refers to both the War of Independence and the '67 War but nowhere mentions that Israel was attacked by the surrounding Arab nations in 1948 and nowhere mentions that East Jerusalem was captured in 1967 after Jordan, despite repeated warnings to stay out of the war, joined the other Arab nations in attacking Israel. Israel's history of having been attacked and of having been forced to fight defensive wars are facts that are necessary for an understanding of Israel's conduct.

This is how the article described Israel's War of Independence. Note that there is no mention of Israel being attacked, and note that the War of Independence becomes the "war for independence," as though it was just something Israel had to do to gain independence: "Under the agreements that ended British rule in Palestine in 1948... Jerusalem was to be an international city. But Israel's war for independence ended the following year with Israel in possession of the western part of the city."

This is how the article describes the '67 War. Note the failure to mention the defensive nature of that War and that Jordan attacked Israel. "In the 1967 Middle East war, Israel captured the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and shortly thereafter annexed East Jerusalem and the lands around it - 27 square miles in all."

The article, in a manner that has become typical of The Washington Post, places heavy emphasis upon the impact of The Security Fence on Palestinians, with no mention of the thousands of dead and wounded Israelis that prompted the construction of The Fence. In doing so, it shamefully ranks inconvenience to Palestinians above Israeli lives and security.

The following letter to The Post effectively exposes the article for its anti-Israel slant:

Dear Editor:

If the object of "Israel Hems in Sacred City" (p. A1, 2/10/04) was to give readers a balanced understanding of Israel's defensive wall, you failed miserably. The wall is there to keep out suicide bombers, yet the term "suicide bomber" appears only twice, toward the end, and one of these in a quote of an Israeli. Nor is there any mention of the death toll in Jerusalem from these deadly attacks, nor of the even larger number of lives ruined by permanent injury from suicide bombers. Yet would this wall have been built if there had been no attacks? Of course not.

On the other hand, if your object was to give a one-sided presentation of the negative effect of the wall on Palestinian life, you did a brilliant job. If your object was to make readers think that the wall was built for territorial expansion and to oppress Palestinians, you were superb. And in such a prominent position, too (front page above the fold)! Would you write a similar article about the hardship to Mexicans caused by fences along the US-Mexico border without mentioning their raison d'etre? Would you implicitly question that reason by saying "American officials say it is there to keep out illegal immigrants". (Of course that's a bad analogy because you can't compare people seeking work with suicide bombers.)

I will be happy to restart my subscription to the Post when you become a true newspaper, and not a Palestinian propaganda organ. Name Withheld

But these letters are rarely published, and they don't have a substantial impact on The Post. We need your financial help in order to continue what we're doing. We've been in existence for almost two years now, and, for the most part, we've been funding our own activities. This is the first time we've sought funding from the public. The display ads (Open Letters to the Washington Post) and other activities we are planning are expensive, and if we're going to be able to focus public attention on The Washington Post for its unethical and slanted reporting, we're going to need funding. Any help you're able to provide for this worthy cause will be put to good use. Your tax deductible contributions to Eye On The Post, Inc. can be mailed to the following address. Thanks.

EyeOnThePost, Inc.
Carol Greenwald, Treasurer
5600 Wisconsin Ave, Suite 108
Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815

Robert G. Samet is Co-Chairman of EyeOnThePost, Inc.

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, February 23, 2004.
Another random bus bombing. This one a day before Israel is to be "brought to court" to defend itself for building a fence designed to keep Arabs from disemboweling its kids.

More incinerated and maimed innocents whose only crime was their existence in a land where their ancestors have lived for over three thousand years. Another hollow condemnation by the alleged "good half" of the Arafatian / Hamas-Islamic Jihad good cop / bad cop team. Not that they really object, but it's "bad publicity" for their own cause.

I believe it was Martin Niemoller, a German theologian, who wrote something like the following: "First they came for the Communists, and I did nothing. Then they came for the Jews and I remained silent. And by the time they came for me, it was too late."

Coincidentally, on the same day a while back on August 19, 2003 that another Arab bought his ticket to "paradise" and its seventy or so virgins by blowing Jews apart on a bus, yet another was doing likewise to United Nations workers in Iraq. Now, what was the lesson regarding Reverend Niemoller's remarks again? This is the same U.N. that, at best, has seen a "moral equivalence" between Jewish babes and grandmothers being deliberately and wantonly slaughtered and Israeli steps taken to try to stop that slaughter. The latest Arab suicide bomber claimed he did this to avenge Israel's killing of armed Hamas fighters in Gaza.

What I am writing is admittedly being written in anger, but there is no doubt regarding the truth of the words: Israel has become too darned predictable. Sharon is caving in himself to pressure from so-called friends...the same ones who would have leveled the source of these atrocities had it been done to their own peoples.

Arabs, who refuse to dismantle their terrorists and who still do not accept the permanency of a Jewish State, also demand that Israel stand by and do nothing while Jews get butchered. They can't seem to figure out why Israel must have such things as a security fence or real borders instead of armistice lines which made it, among other things, a mere 9-miles wide...a constant temptation to those aiming to destroy it. As if the answer wasn't obvious. How many other nations would continuously tolerate such horror without exacting just and devastating retribution? Think about the daisy cutter and bunker buster bombs, etc. America used against our own enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq as just a few recent examples.

Despite all that the Arabs say, they know that the Jews will try their best to just kill the rats in their dens. They'll go house to house, endangering their own sons, and try to target the exact murderers and plotters as best as possible. That's what happened in Gaza a few weeks ago...the Arabs' excuse for the latest bus bombing in Jerusalem. Yet the Geneva Conventions make perfectly clear that militants are not permitted to use their own non-combatants as human shields, that those non-combatants do not prevent an army from pursuing terrorists, and that any harm occurring to the civilian population as a consequence falls on the heads of the cowards using their own people this way. But you'd never know this by listening to the accounts in the press or given even by our own State Department from time to time. Given all of the above, there is, again, only one conclusion...Israel has indeed become too predictable.

Arabs know that their own wives and children will not be deliberately targeted on buses, in restaurants, shopping centers, etc. So what I will state next, I regret, but will say anyway.

It's time, given the Arab track record of barbarity, for them to reap what they have sown. It's time for massive Israeli retaliation. It's time for Israel to do what is necessary to protect its citizens, regardless of how much aid the U.S. decides to suspend. And many a U.S. citizen will convey the proper message to politicians come November if Foggy Bottom is allowed to have its Arabist-dominated way with Israel over this.. Poll after poll among Arabs have shown that even if Israel withdrew to the 9-mile wide armistice lines imposed upon it after the 1948 fighting (having been invaded by surrounding Arab countries immediately upon its rebirth) - something UN Resolution #242 expressly does not require it to do - Arabs would still reject its right to exist. So who's kidding whom here regarding the fence. And Israel's "friends" know this as well.

It's time for Arabs to know that Israel will tell the hypocrites around the rest of the world (much of which has also had plenty of Jewish blood on its hands) that it doesn't care what they think and act to protect its own people - as any other nation would - as best as it can.

It's time for Israel to not worry about being too precise in its targeting...for it's time that Arabs fully understand that if they harbor and support terrorists as heroes, they'll share in their fate. President George W. Bush said almost those exact words regarding America's own fight not long ago. When dealing with their own "problems" - a la Assad's "Hama Solution" in Syria (in which ten times more people were killed in a month than Israel killed in two years of intifada), King Hussein's Black September in Jordan, Saddam's murder of Kurds in Iraq (5,000 in Halabja alone), the slaughter of millions of Black Africans in the Sudan, etc., Arabs have murdered literally millions by poison gas, bombs, and artillery from afar...and without a peep out of the United Nations. And no hearing before an international court of justice either.

It's time for Israel to make it clear that it will use its own air force, tanks, and such - the way America has - to target the rats' dens instead of risking the lives of its own nineteen year old infantrymen by futilely trying to do the job as "morally correct" as possible. This has gained it nothing among the world's hypocrites and cost it the lives of more of its own soldiers instead.

Israel is fighting a war it didn't want. It repeatedly offered more than fair compromises to its enemies...far more than Arabs ever offered to any of their own national competitors. But nothing short of its own suicide will satisfy most Arabs. Arabs don't worry about "ethical choices" when disemboweling Jews. On the contrary, the more innocent the victim, the more preferred he is for shock value as a target. It's time for Arabs to get massive doses of at least a modified version of their own medicine.

While I don't advocate blowing up Arab buses, restaurants, schools, and such any building, town, etc. harboring murderers and their collaborators must be recognized for what the Geneva Conventions recognize it as: a fair military target.

Listen to Article #51/7:

"The presence of the civilian population shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attack..."

Article #58b:

"The parties to the conflict shall...avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas." The rats' dens are typically set up in or adjacent to civilian apartment buildings, hospitals, schools, etc., as America has learned for itself in Iraq.

Article #51/2:

"The civilian population...shall not be the object of attack. Acts of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited...Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited." Arabs typically target Israeli civilian targets.

And those famous funeral processions showing hundreds of the dead butcher's colleagues firing weapons into the air? It's time that Israel sees that for what it is: one big, legitimate military target. It's time for Israel to stop letting Arabs dictate how the game will be played. If mothers and infants are fair game for Arabs, then what are the murderers' collaborators?

It's time for Israel to send the press packing, tell the UN to drop dead, build the security fence as quickly and as strongly as possible with an adequate buffer (permitted by U.N.#242) so it doesn't have its absurd suicidal 9-mile wide existence again, and ask its friends in the United States to stop having one set of standards for themselves and another one for Jews in their sole, microscopic state. When we thought we knew where Saddam was dining, we bombed the restaurant to smithereens... innocent diners present and all.

And the more unpredictable the Israeli response to Arab barbarity, the better.

I wish it had not come to this. But when volumes of Arabs start dying relatively randomly (Arabs outnumber Jews 50 to one...they know this...so do the math), as Jews are doing, perhaps they'll be less likely to treat their own terrorists as heroes. And yes, this may also not be the solution, but Israel has tried everything except consenting to its own demise, and nothing else worked either. Arabs simply replaced a pre-'67 "one fell swoop" strategy for Israel's destruction with a "destruction in stages" strategy instead.

It's time for Israel to lose its predictability and for Arabs to get a megataste of what they've been dishing out. And it's time for Israel to draw its own lines in the sand and let all know it...including and especially its alleged friends.

Gerald A. Honigman is a contributing writer for Jewish Xpress magazine (http://www.jewishxpress.com), a monthly publication based in southern Florida. His background is in Middle Eastern Affairs. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world.

Posted by Ariel Natan Pasko, February 22, 2004.
Another terrorist outrage has occurred in Jerusalem. "The Holy City of Jerusalem," is my latest article.

Mother Rachel is still crying for her children - the Jewish People (Jeremiah 31:14). Not because they've been dragged off to Babylon in servitude, that ended long ago. They've since returned to their borders (Jeremiah 31:16), rebuilt their cities and towns, and re-established their national life. But, Mother Rachel - buried not far from Jerusalem, just outside Bethlehem - cries because of the horrendous bus bombings and murders perpetrated on her children in these times.

Islam claims that Jerusalem is their "third holiest city," one hears that phrase ad nauseum, in the media. It's based on a mythological flight of fancy of Muhammad. But serious scholars - Islamic and otherwise - know better, that Muhammad never set foot in Jerusalem. The Arabs that live in the Land of Israel, who call themselves "Palestinians," claim Jerusalem is so important to them; they want it to be their capital city, for a state that never was.

And yet, they blow it up. Peace by piece...

Jerusalem the Holy, has yet again suffered another outrage. The second bus bombing in just over three weeks and the 23rd bombing in Jerusalem - that's almost 200 people killed and over 1,500 injured - since the Oslo War began in October 2000. Imagine if an American city - say New York or Los Angeles - suffered 10,000 dead and over 75,000 injured. It has ripped apart bodies, it has ripped apart lives, it has ripped apart families, it has ripped apart dreams, and it has ripped apart the "Peace of Jerusalem" that King David exhorts the whole world to pray for (Psalms 122:6).

One can debate "rights" and wrong, "occupation" and suffering, who has suffered more, and to whom does Jerusalem belong. But these are futile efforts, because the truth is crystal clear. Just look at the second part of the verse in King David's holy song.

"...They who love you [Jerusalem] shall prosper" (Psalms 122:6).

Since 1948, with the return of Jewish political independence in the land of their forefathers, the Jews have prospered. They have built a modern economy and society; they have ingathered exiles; they have rejoiced in the L-rd. The children have returned to their borders (Jeremiah 31:16).

Since the liberation of the eastern part of Jerusalem, including the Old City in 1967 - all previously ethnically cleansed of Jews, by the brutal Jordanian occupation - Jerusalem has grown and prospered. Jews from all over Israel and all over the world have flocked to her, built her, loved her...

But the latest usurpers, the "Palestinians" have not prospered. As they work harder and harder to steal what is not theirs, they descend into further poverty and degradation. The Arabs in Gaza today - under the Palestinian Authority - are much worse off economically than when they were under Israeli rule, and this, in spite of the infusion of billions of donor dollars to help them. The same situation exists in the "seven cities" - in Judea and Samaria, the West Bank - which Israel turned over to Arafat's rule.

And in Jerusalem?

The Arabs of Jerusalem are also suffering. Although under Israeli rule, they've identified with the PA and they've been allowed to vote in the one election - for Arafat - the PA has held since taking power over 10 years ago. They've spurned the "Peace of Jerusalem". The Arabs of Jerusalem want to liberate themselves - or be liberated - from the Jews, i.e. Rachel's children, that's why they suffer. And when a suicide bus bomber blows up another bus in "Jewish" Jerusalem; I'm sure they secretly rejoice, as do their brothers, who openly party in Gaza and the West Bank.

Like in the story of King Solomon and the two mothers claiming the same baby as theirs (I Kings 3:16-28), the "Palestinians" as the false mother, would rather see the baby cut in half [Jerusalem] rather than given to it's rightful guardian [the Jewish People]. More than they love Jerusalem, the Arabs hate to see it in the hands of the Jews.

Jerusalem, their "third holiest city" and they are killing it.

But Jerusalem, the Holy City, City of Gold, City of G-d, is beloved by the Jews. In spite of the bombings, the slow economy, the lack of tourists, the very high rent and real estate prices - because Jerusalem is in such demand - Jews struggle to live there.

Jerusalem is our Holiest City!

But "Holiness" doesn't mean separation from life, in Jewish thought. Holiness means the fullness of life, a G-D centered life, full of joy and truth. Jerusalem thrives in spite of those who attack her. Truth is on the Jewish People's side. Jerusalem grows and awaits the return of her king and her house, the Messiah and G-D's Temple.

King David in his near infinite wisdom continues, "For the sake of my brothers and friends, I shall speak of peace in your [Jerusalem] midst" (Psalms 122:8).

He then concludes, "For the sake of the House of the L-rd, our G-D, I will seek your [Jerusalem's] good" (Psalms 122:9).

More than the Jewish People need Jerusalem, Jerusalem needs them. Of what value is the Holy City and House of G-D, if there are no people to take in their sacred spirit? G-D's Spirit dwells only where there are those who will benefit from His Presence.

As G-D told Moses in the desert, "Make me a 'Mikdash' [Temple] and I will dwell 'Bitucham' [among them]" (Exodus 25:8). On the surface it means in the sanctuary. But more deeply, "I will dwell within them," within those who are prepared for G-D's Presence.

Murderers, and those who help them; thieves and their minions; oppressors and occupiers, yes, all the Arabs in the Land of Israel, are not prepared for His Presence, and are not worthy of Holy Jerusalem.

If Jerusalem is their "third holiest city," what about numbers one and two?

Let them go to Mecca and Medina to blow up. Let them worship their god of blood lust, murder, and mayhem in "their holiest cities". Why settle for number three?

But we and our children will go up to the mountain of the L-rd. Jews will continue to live and thrive in Jerusalem, bombers and their hate will not stop that. Jerusalem is the Jewish People's Holiest City and that will never change...

riel Natan Pasko is an independent analyst & consultant. He has a Master's Degree in International Relations & Policy Analysis. His articles appear regularly on numerous news/views and think-tank websites, in newspapers, and can be read at: www.geocities.com/ariel_natan_pasko

Posted by Yashiko Sagamori, February 22, 2004.
[A scene from The Passion of the Christ] Let me begin from afar. At Yad Vashem, during my first trip to Israel, I encountered a large group of German tourists meticulously taking pictures of exhibits documenting their grandfathers' deeds. They did it seriously and methodically, as only Germans can do things even when on vacation, and their faces expressed very little besides the usual concentration on the task at hand. I tried to imagine how I would feel at Yad Vashem if I were German - and could not. I tried to decide if I would even consider it possible to go there if I were German - and could not. It's not easy, after all, for a Jew to imagine being German, or vice versa, I suppose. But there they were, stepping from one exhibit to the next, not looking guilty, busily snapping picture after picture. I tried to imagine what they would do with the photographs they were taking: "Here is Hans floating in the Dead Sea like a piece of ham. And this is Grandpa Fritz about to shoot a Jewish woman with an infant in her arms."

Unlike Germans, I don't need to be reminded of the Holocaust, so I didn't go to see Shindler's List or The Pianist. I am not planning to see The Passion of the Christ either, although for a totally different reason. Mel Gibson has made a few wonderfully entertaining movies and starred in many more. However, as far as I am concerned, none of his movies could be called profound. Depth is not really his forte; his version of Hamlet, for instance, was little more than a fencing contest accompanied by declamation from Shakespeare. The Most Rev. Stefan Soroka, Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in USA and Archbishop of Archeparchy of Philadelphia, added to my skepticism. In his review of The Passion of the Christ, he wrote:

If you want to see over two hours of cruelty, intense torture, and lots of blood, with tidbits of informing scenes of who this Jesus is, you might want to sacrifice your time and money to see this movie... There is very little offered to help the viewer to come to know and appreciate Jesus in his humanity and in his divinity.

There is no need to guess whether the movie is going to hurt the Jews. Our 2,000 years of experience have taught us that whenever there is a reason to ask such a question, the answer is invariably "yes". Meanwhile, Christians all over the world, blissfully oblivious to the Jews' worries, eagerly anticipate the day they will see the gory details of the last hours in the life of the Jew they worship: the gospel according to Mel.

This indifference of one part of Judeo-Christian civilization to the anxieties of the other makes me think that if our civilization were a marriage, it would be a terribly unhappy one. Why? Your marriage cannot be happy if you have no clue whatsoever how your significant other feels about you. Do you have any idea how Christians feel about Jews? I know I didn't, even though some of my best friends are Christian. A sheer incident unexpectedly provided an insight into the mystery.

Here's what happened. A friend sent me the Most Rev. Soroka's review of Mel Gibson's movie. I found it interesting and promptly forwarded it to my subscribers. There are Christians among my subscribers. One of them wrote to me that he had never believed Jews were responsible for Jesus' death and even offered a reference to the New Testament intended to support his position; nevertheless, he couldn't wait to see the movie. And then he mentioned something about some guilt that I, in his opinion, wasn't supposed to feel.

I do not succumb to guilty feelings readily, which is one of the many things that make me a terribly non-orthodox Jew. Even my own mother doesn't easily succeed in making me feel guilty. I have certainly never thought that anyone might expect me to feel guilty about the terrible fate of Jesus Christ. That's why I didn't immediately comprehend the meaning of my reader's remark and decided to disregard it.

A few days later, without any apparent reason, I suddenly remembered a West German immigrant to the United States I had met several years ago, when there were still two Germanys. Out of curiosity, I asked him what caused him to leave his comfortable, prosperous country. He complained that the feeling of collective guilt for the wartime atrocities was so pervasive in his country that it turned his life there into a constant mental torture. I thought that such mental torture might give us hope that Germany would never start another war, but I didn't say that. Instead, I asked him how old he was at the end of World War II; he was five. I told him I didn't believe he had to feel guilty about something in which he did not personally participate, nor could have influenced one way or the other.

It wasn't obvious to me at first why that particular memory surfaced at that particular moment, but it finally dawned on me: unless I was terribly mistaken, my reader meant exactly what I had said to that German immigrant. Having been born long after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, I couldn't be held personally responsible for the terrible crime my folks committed 2,000 years ago. I was probably supposed to experience the sense of tremendous relief, but that didn't happen. Instead, I realized that, in the eyes of Christians, Jews look pretty much like those German tourists at Yad Vashem looked in my eyes, and it scared the bejesus out of me.

Most of Christians are not anti-Semites. They don't hate us. They don't discriminate against us. They don't blame us, but they do expect us to feel guilty. If we don't feel guilty, where is the guarantee we don't kill another god as soon as the opportunity presents itself?

What I have said so far has probably made some people feel uncomfortable. What I am about to say will probably make them angry. Nevertheless, I would like to offer to them my own perspective on history and guilty feelings.

You see, there is no historical evidence that Jesus Christ has ever existed. None whatsoever. None of the contemporary historians mentions him. In all the works of Josephus Flavius, there is one sentence describing rumors of the Messiah's arrival. Our primary source of information about him, the Gospels, were written decades after Jesus' supposed death (the earliest, by Matthew, in 70CE), and it is hard to imagine they were based on any kind of solid evidence. If they were, they should've mentioned it and they didn't.

The shroud of Turin is roughly 1200 years old; obviously, it is not historic evidence of Christ's existence.

Last year, archaeologists found a very old ossuary in Israel with an inscription that read "James brother of Jesus". If they could prove that James, whose bones had been stored in the box, was the brother of Jesus Christ rather than some other Jew with the same first name, it would be the first scientific evidence of his actual existence. Obviously, it would also raise questions about Mary's virginity. But so far there is no such proof, so Virgin Mary is still a virgin.

I support the right of Christians to believe, along with Tertullian, that something is certain because it is impossible, which is usually misquoted as credo quia absurdum est. However, my life, and lives of 14 million Jews around the world might be a bit less worrisome if our Christian friends would stick to the principle "innocent until proven guilty" not only when OJ Simpson is tried for double murder, but also when it comes to our collective guilt in the crucifixion of your God. Because no matter how much the prosecution says that the absence of the body demonstrates the divine nature of our alleged victim, any unprejudiced jury would agree with the defense that doubt is cast about the fact of the crime, not to mention the very existence of the victim.

This perfectly reasonable doubt has not stopped our Christian significant others from torturing us for 2,000 years, and, unlike the crime for which we are still being daily punished all over the world (although the severity varies significantly from one place to another), the crimes of punishing us are a historical fact. Actually, it is probably the longest historical fact in history. Think about it: anti-Semitism had been an integral part of every single Jewish life in the last two millennia. Christians had been persecuting Jews for 19 centuries before the Holocaust; then the Holocaust came, Germany lost and things went back to normal: a desecrated cemetery here and there, a rabbi or a yeshiva student beaten up in the street - small things, really. Of course, things like that happen mostly in Europe. In this country, we usually get by with anti-Semitic rallies on campuses. But if you want to talk about collective guilt, do you really think it is a Jewish prerogative? Don't you think it might be actually healthy for your collective psyche to try it? Or to ask yourselves, how come Jews who are usually so quick to learn, have never learned to hate in return? Are we being in some ways more Christian than Christians?

Back to the Germans at Yad Vashem. Think how you feel about Germans every time you watch a movie about World War II. Now ask yourselves again whether Gibson's movie will hurt the Jews.

I am not going to ask you to boycott the movie: I am not that naive. This is what I am suggesting instead. When you watch the details of Christ's suffering, imagine a Jewish friend of yours (aren't some of your best friends Jewish?) in place of that devastatingly handsome actor. Imagine him or her covered with his own blood instead of ketchup. And if you succeed, multiply it by 250,000. That's how many Jews were really crucified by Romans around the time you believe Jesus was killed by the Jews.

Enjoy the movie.

Yashiko Sagamori is a New York-based Information Technology consultant. To read other articles by the author, go to http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/

Posted by Honest Reporting, February 22, 2004.
This morning (Feb.22) a suicide bomber on a Jerusalem bus killed 8 Israelis - including two teenagers on their way to school - and injured over 60.

The attack was perpetrated by a member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. While it is generally accepted that this terrorist group is connected to Yassir Arafat's Fatah party, most major news agencies continued to downplay that relationship in today's reports:

Associated Press: "The Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a militant group loosely affiliated with Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement, claimed responsibility for the attack and identified the bomber as Mohammed Zool, 23, from the village of Hussan near Bethlehem."

Washington Post: "Hezbollah television station Al-Manar reported that the bombing was carried out by the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the militant group that associates itself with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement..."

CNN: "The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades - the military offshoot of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement - claimed responsibility for the blast in a statement."

Agence France Presse: "The bombing, claimed by the radical Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed offshoot of Arafat's Fatah movement..."


The evidence, however, clearly indicates that the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade is not some "loose offshoot," but rather has a direct and ongoing bond to the Fatah party, which holds a majority of seats in the Palestinian Parliament. The Palestinian government, therefore, bears direct responsibility for the group's heinous terrorist acts:

  • In November, 2003 a BBC investigation found that up to $50,000 a month was funneled by Fatah directly to the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades. When BBC reported on today's attack, their terminology was consistent with these findings - unlike the outlets above, BBC described the relationship between Fatah and the terrorists in an entirely accurate manner:
    The militant al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, part of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Fatah faction, has claimed responsibility for the suicide attack.

  • Documents captured by the IDF in 2002 indicated Fatah's "systematic, institutionalized and ongoing financing" of the Al Aqsa Brigades, including a special allocation to the Bethlehem branch of the organization (the very group that dispatched today's bomber). After inspecting these documents, President Bush called for Arafat's removal in June, 2002.

  • The leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades in Tulkarm told USA Today on March 14, 2002: "The truth is, we are Fatah, but we didn't operate under the name of Fatah...We are the armed wing of the organization. We receive our instructions from Fatah. Our commander is Yasser Arafat himself."

  • Last week, British MP Jenny Tonge went to visit Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades' Bethlehem branch. BBC's Radio 4 carried a report in which the terrorists themselves admit they are "part of Fatah...the militant part." (Click here to hear the report - the statement regarding Fatah is about 2:50 in.)

HonestReporting calls on other media outlets to follow the BBC's lead and specify the integral connection between Fatah and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.


This is not merely a semantic matter. The close ties that bond the Fatah-led PA to terrorist groups are the fundamental problem that prevents progress toward peaceful reconciliation. The dominant political party in the PA remains a direct sponsor of ongoing terrorism - the ruling politicians and the terrorists are one and the same.

If media outlets fail to convey this, their readers and viewers certainly can't understand Israel's position in the raging debate over the security fence, which tomorrow reaches the world court at The Hague.

One paper that clearly doesn't "get it" is The Chicago Tribune, which published today three op-eds (1,2,3) railing against the security fence, all under the theme "Build Bridges, Not Walls."

Israel has been attempting to build bridges with her Palestinian neighbors for over fifty years. But as a terror-free Palestinian leadership has never emerged, and Israeli families continue to be torn apart by senseless terrorist murder, no other option currently exists. Until there's a Palestinian partner who forsakes terrorism, Israeli citizens deserve the protection of an imperfect wall.

In reporting on today's attack, did your local paper indicate the direct connections between the perpetrators of the horrific attack and Yassir Arafat's ruling Fatah party? If not, write a letter to the editor, using the talking points above, and stressing the significance of accuracy on this particular issue - which cuts to the heart of the entire conflict.

Thank you for your ongoing involvement in the battle against media bias.

Honest Reportng monitors the media for inaccuracy and unfairness in how they report the news about Israel. Ther website address is http://www.honestreporting.com. It has produced a documentary film "Relentless: The Struggle For Peace in Israel" that has now been been seen by thousands of people at over 100 public screenings across the globe.

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, February 22, 2004.
1) On the building of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Holland, there is an impression of the ten commandments with the sixth - Thou Shalt not Kill - clearly evident. The purpose of defensive fence Israel is building is to prevent the massacres perpetrated by the Palestinian terror organizations with the direct or tacit blessing of the Palestinian Authority. Yet, it is Israel that will tomorrow sit in the accused dock, not the Palestinians.

2) The Palestinian suicide assassin this morning was a member of El-Aqsa Brigades, an off-shoot of Fatah, Arafat's organization.

3) In a statement to the media, following the latest bus massacre this morning, Ahmed Qurei, the Palestinian Prime Minister, condemned the mass murder in Jerusalem because it is against the Palestinian national interests. Pay close attention: The Palestinian PM does not condemn the murder because it is murder. He condemns it because politically this is not an opportune moment for the Palestinians.

4) About eight months ago, during the reign of Abu Abas (remember him?), Israel made several goodwill gestures to him and the Palestinians. Among them Israel withdrew the IDF from Beit Lehem and handed the PA control over the security there. Guess what, both the latest suicide bombers came out of Beit Lehem...

5) Building the security fence is not Israel's right. It is Israel's OBLIGATION!!!

If the above facts are unfamiliar to you, you are not using the right media. It is your obligation to demand from your media provider accurate reporting and complete attention to all the facts. For instance, did any of the TV networks you are watching today, show the Palestinian street celebrations, including distribution of free candies and cakes to passers by, in the wake of today's bus massacre?

Yuval Zaliouk write the Truth Provider essays. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

Posted by Ruth and Nadine Matar, February 22, 2004.
Ariel Sharon's policies have totally failed and he must be replaced immediately.

The latest Arab bus bombing in Jerusalem is merely the latest of a long line of intolerable conditions which our citizenry has been required to "live with" for an extended period of time. It is time we call a halt to this despairing situation.

Sharon's policy of restraint towards Arab terror and violence is inexcusable. Steps should have been taken long ago to wipe out the infrastructure of Hamas and the other terror groups, including the destruction of the so-called Palestinian Authority, leaving Arafat without a base from which to operate.

His recently announced policy of abandoning the Jewish settlements in Gaza is another inexplicable posture which defies reason. If there is today firing of mortars and other destructive missiles into Israel from the Gaza area, how much more so will it continue in the future. Furthermore, there would be no possibility of a proper response by Israel to such Arab attacks, that does not invoke worldwide criticism. Then, of course, there is the question of rewarding Arab terror which would rightly be seen as such by the terrorists. The example of Barak's withdrawal from Lebanon was seen as a victory for terrorist action, and Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza is identical to the mistake we made in Lebanon.

The whole concept of two states living side by side in peace with each other is a fantasy which Sharon has adopted by virtually endorsing "the Road Map". Sharon has not been in any way critical of this preposterous plan, which does not deal with reality. Nor does the hatred which the Palestinian Authority continues to foster. This is evident in the unchanged PA educational system, and in the daily hostile propaganda against the very existence of the Jewish State of Israel.

The Jewish People deserve better leadership than what it presently has. Arab Terror will not cease unless the structures from which it operates are totally rooted out and destroyed. Further additional action is required, but at least the fundamental rooting out of Arab terror is the first necessary step.

The Jewish People presently are without hope and are sorely disillusioned. They require a leadership that will restore their confidence and pride in themselves and in their government. Sharon's dictatorial policies must be halted. Israel's very existence is threatened, and public morale is at an all time low. The only solution is for Ariel Sharon to step down, either voluntarily or be removed from office. Are the Jewish People wise enough to take such action?

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

Posted by Dr. Mike Gropper, February 22, 2004.
I am praying at the 8 o'clock morning minyion in our synagogue. It is Rosh Chodesh Adar. I felt good. Soon we will celebrate Purim. During the davening, the guy in front of me leaves and goes outside as his portable telephone is ringing. He returns - he is a British guy. His son is in the army. I ask him if everything is okay. He says no, another bus just blew up in Jerusalem. We finish praying. Everyone starts to talk as the news spreads through the shul. This is an all too familiar experience, a tragic one. You immediately think of where it happened, who do you know who may have been in that area. This happened on the #14 bus, right near Liberty Park Bell. The terrorists have struck again, killed and maimed innocent people as the world waits to have another shot at going after Israel for its security fence.

It disgusts me. But I am more disgusted with our leaders who don't have faith in our right to punish those people who are slaughtering the Jews of the Promised land. The leaders in Israel are in fact very cowardly. There is no diplomatic or political consideration that can justify what these Palestinian nazis are doing - nothing. Its time that someone stands up and punishes them severely to a point that they are the ones that are terrified. This is our right. If only our leaders understood this. If only they believed in HaShem. If only they understood that our freedom here is not because of Bush, the U.N., or the European Union. It is a gift from HaShem. Someone who understands this would act quite differently. They would let these terrorists and their people know that Jewish blood is costly.

I hope that day comes soon. I pray it will.

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 22, 2004.
This was written by Tal Yamin Wolowitz and Arik Bender. It appeared on the Ma'ariv International website (http://www.maarivintl.com

Gerald Nadler, US congressman from Long Island was overwhelmed by what he saw this morning: "it is simply horrifying to see it up close, to see the pieces of human flesh on the ground", he told Maariv Online.

Israel's restraint is remarkable to Nadler: "Any other nation on earth under attack as Israel is would have already begun bombing the Palestinian Authority. If this had happened in America, you would already see the B-52's in the air, blowing up the place where the terrorists were sent from. It is sheer hypocrisy on the part of those who say that Israel must not build the security barrier?. Nadler added that the images of what he saw remind him of the period of the Holocaust.

Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations (COP), Malcolm Hoenlein witnessed the aftermath of the attack. At the time of the attack Hoenlein and members of the COP were in a meeting with the Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon at the nearby Inbal hotel. "During [Yaalon's] speech, we heard the blast", said Hoenlein.

"Yaalon was handed a note by one of his assistants that it was a terrorist attack... we all ran out of the hotel to see what happened and what I saw, those images will stay with me for the rest of my life. I will never forget the horrific images I saw this morning. The bodies lying on the sidewalk and inside the wrecked bus, the pieces of human flesh scattered everywhere and the shock and pain of the casualties", he told Maariv Online.

Hoenlein went on to say that members of the COP would use this personal experience to help strengthen Israel in its fight against terrorism. "The absurd part of all this is that at the same time that we are witness to the destructive and deadly effects of this attack on Israel, she sits as defendant in The Hague tribunal... we must put an end to this farce immediately. The one who should stand accused is Arafat, not the State of Israel."

Nir Barkat, opposition leader in the Jerusalem Municipality was also a witness to the attack. He was on his way to visit a school when the bus blew up right in front of his eyes. "I ran to the bus to help people," he told Maariv Online. "There were body parts strewn all over, the condition of the bodies was awful. I tried to ignore the body parts and ran to help the injured. There was an 18 year-old girl covered in blood. I tried to stop the bleeding until the ambulances came."

Barkat says he thought of going to The Hague hearings, but decided against it. "We must finish the barrier in order to prevent these terrible attacks. It is simply horrifying. The first thing to be done is to stop these killings, the killing of innocents."

Posted by Judy Lash Balint, February 22, 2004.
About an hour after the #14 bus blew up at the corner of Bethlehem Road and King David Streets just below the Inbal Hotel this morning, a delivery arrived from Cafe Hillel, a few bus stops back on Emek Refaim. In solidarity with the new latest crop of Jerusalem terror victims, the Cafe where seven people lost their lives last September, sent refreshments for the ZAKA workers and police.

The bodies of the eight people whose lives had just ended had been quietly loaded onto ambulances and driven away. It took three ZAKA workers, dressed in white plastic, to get each body into a bag. Police photographers documented everything, as their colleagues combed the interior of the blown out bus, carefully extracting whatever personal material remained. Backpacks, pocket books, shoes, coats, books all emerged and were taken for investigation.

The ZAKA crew fanned out in all directions scraping the sidewalk for pieces of flesh. Where I was standing in the gas station opposite, glass littered the ground, along with a saucer-size piece of scalp.

Apart from the press, no more than a few hundred people stood quietly around, watching the well-oiled clean-up process. There was no yelling, no wailing, no one offering solutions.

Someone's cell-phone rang and a conversation ensued about the best place to get a car fixed. Another woman called her dentist to say she'd be a little late. Border police did their best to keep the press photographers behind the barricades, but a few self-important Jewish leaders visiting from abroad pushed themselves in front and were led closer.

At the gas station, the owner of a vehicle that had pulled up for gas at the moment of the explosion was allowed to return to get his belongings out of his undamaged car. A friend hugged him as he got in and pulled out a few things - they both looked across the street at the carnage a few yards away.

Mayor Uri Lupolianski showed up an hour after the bomb went off. He obediently went through the ritual of Channel I and 2 interviews, but had nothing significant to say. Jerusalem Police Commander Mickey Levy announced that the police had informed the hospitals treating the 40 wounded, that some kind of toxic material had been used in the bomb.

A little more than seventy minutes after the "event" as it's known in Hebrew, an Egged truck pulled up and hauled off the bus, allowing ZAKA to complete their flesh search among the glass that had been underneath, before the bitter cold wind blew pieces of paper and plastic all over the place.

Oh, I almost forgot - today is the start of Tourism Week. Tonight is the official opening of the Prime Minister's Conference on Tourism, at Binyanei Haooma just across town. Of course it's going ahead as planned, with 500 foreign guests arriving today from all over the world.

One event was cancelled - Transport Minister Avigdor Lieberman had scheduled a ceremony at noon today in Jerusalem, to deliver the first specially fitted buses equipped with a "protection system" against homicide bombers to Egged.

Judy Lash Balint is a Jerusalem based writer and author of "Jerusalem Diaries: In Tense Times". Her website address is www.jerusalemdiaries.com

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 22, 2004.
We've been trying to conform to the dictates of the never seen, but loudly heard, "International Community" led by George of Carlisle, and closely monitored by U.S.State Dept. enforcers. Honest we have.

We began dismantling an eight-kilometre stretch of the separation fence east of Baka al-Sharkiyeh this morning. Just as the Americans and their United Nations allies have demanded.

The Israeli government is in the last stages of logistical planning for the forced relocation of Jews from Gaza, and the West Bank. To ensure that the absolutely sovereign PLO-Hamas regime in Gaza will not have to waste any effort in developing their economy and providing a decent living for their subjects, we in Israel have stepped up our efforts to provide employment for the Palestinians and tax revenues for their terror regime. We have been "creating jobs" for the PLO-Hamas subjects by hunting down non-Muslim foreign workers on the streets of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashkelon, and Jerusalem, and deporting them en-masse.

We've been doing our best.

Police investigations and threats of prosecution have silenced the majority of would-be dissenters in the State of Israel. We have also made foreign travel difficult if not impossible for those who could organise protests in the USA or elsewhere.

Of course as George Bush and the shadowy "International Community" claim, we "could do more".

We have not yet arranged to bomb our own cities and citizens in the fashion of Joseph Heller's "Catch-22", but we have made it easier for our "Peace partners" to do so.

And so they have.

7 killed, 60 injured in Jerusalem suicide attack

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 22, 2004.
The following are the basic principles upon which all public debate must be conducted if you wish to be a true progressive leftist and politically correct: 1. Leftists should be free to call everyone else nasty names, but no one should be permitted to call leftists back nasty names.

2. For a leftist to call someone nasty names shows social concern and awareness. For someone to call a leftist a nasty name back is immature and impolite and avoiding the issues.

3. Leftists need never document their claims.

4. Whenever a leftist is presented with documentation of facts that contradict the leftist's theology, the leftist must insist that no facts have been presented at all.

5. No scientific sources that presents facts contradicting leftist theology are admissable.

6. All arguments may be settled by telling a non-leftist that he reminds you of Rush Limbaugh.

7. Never ever take an economics course.

8. Never recognize the fact that every idea of Marx's was debunked over 150 years ago. Never read any social science written since Marx. Never admit that you know that Marx was a racist and anti-Semite.

9. Never visit the library.

10. Never study statistics or public policy analysis.

11. Insist that you truly believe 10% of humans are gay and that gay people are not abnormal.

12. Always say "people of color" so everyone will know you care.

13. Recycle.

14. Pretend that you do not care about material things, but never sell your VCR or cellular phone or condo.

15. Never admit that life ever involves tradeoffs. After all, when there are tradeoffs it is harder to feel righteous.

16. Always support proposals that make real problems of the world worse as long as they make you feel caring and righteous.

17. Never admit that anything could be positive about the United States.

18. Always insist that there are few world problems that could not be improved through the destruction of Israel.

19. Always insist that you have no idea what political correctness is.

20. Always use the female pronouns half the time or more. That way everyone will know you are egalitarian.

21. Insist that you are more caring and compassionate than anyone else.

22. Remember, you would rather that poor people in the Third World starve, rather than that they should embrace capitalism and live like you do.

23. Other people must always be required to relinquish their material things so that you may feel idealistic.

24. Your property is sacred; other people's property is to be used for social engineering and doing good.

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.

Posted by Israel BenAmi, February 22, 2004.
The latest suicide atrocity in Jerusalem has been a rude but necessary wakeup call for peaceloving Jews and, hopefully, Arabs as well.It is doubtful whether Abu Mazzen will cooperate with Zahal in eliminating the Moslem fundamentalists. He definitely cannot do it with his forces and needs the help of Zahal.In spite of his vehement declarations of today,it can be assumed that Zahal will continue to rely mainly on its own Arab 'stinkers' and sophisticated intelligence apparatus. Here and there, some genuinely peace-loving Arabs,who sensed Israel's readiness for compromise will offer their services, but, all in all, it will be up to Zahal.

Conflicts between nations have, historically, been resolved when one side has been convincingly defeated and is is a state of shock. Thus it was for Germany, Japan, Yugoslavia, etc. We can go back further and take the soutern American states, the Boers and many other situatins of conflicts and their settlement. We can also remember the Yom Kippur war and Egypt. Perhaps Jordan also can be taken as an example.

We need, unfortunately, to send the Palestinians into a state of shock.I suggest the following steps:

1] Bomb Arafat and the terrorists sheltering inhis Mokato complex.

2] Demolish the houses of the suicide bombers and their relatives and banish them to the lebanon.

3] Take back control of the cities in the West Bank.

4] Inform Europe and the U.S.A. that we are willing to discuss a final peace settlement and a possible palestinian state only afte a complete dismantling of the terrorist infrastructure and only in direct talks with peace-loving palestinian leaders.

2,500-Year-Old Jewelry Israel
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 22, 2004.
This is a new item by Gavin Rabinowitz, an Associated Press writer. It appeared in Newsday.com yesterday. Ask Arafat and he'll tell you these people were palestinians.

JERUSALEM --Israeli archaeologists excavating caves near the Dead Sea discovered jewelry, a makeup kit and a small mirror - 2,500-year-old fashion accessories for women.

The trove apparently belonged to Jews who returned from exile in Babylon in the 6th century B.C., said Tsvika Tsuk, chief archaeologist for the Israel Nature and Parks Authority.

"This find is very rare. Both for the richness of the find and for that period, it is almost unheard of," Tsuk said on Friday.

Using metal detectors, archeologists found the treasures under a stone-like accumulation of sediment thrown up by a nearby spring. They included a necklace made of 130 beads of semiprecious stones and gold; a scarab; an agate medallion of Babylonian origin; and a silver pendant with an engraved crescent moon and pomegranates.

What appears to be a makeup kit contained an alabaster bowl for powders, a stick to apply the cosmetics and a bronze mirror. They also found a pagan stamp showing a Babylonian priest bowing to the moon.

"These finds confirm the (biblical) accounts of Jews returning from exile in Babylon," Tsuk said.

When the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar conquered the Kingdom of Judah in 597 B.C., he sent many Jews into exile in Babylon. These Jews and their descendants were later allowed to return by the Persian monarch Cyrus in 538 B.C.

Tsuk said the find shows that there was a wealthy and flourishing community of returnees living in the area. "These are not the belongings of a simple person," he said.

The archaeologists were part of a joint team from Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Bar Ilan University in Ramat Gan, near Tel Aviv. They have been excavating caves near the Dead Sea for the last three years.

Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, February 21, 2004.
While it keeps getting shoved onto the back burner for fear of the intense heat that it will generate, there's no doubt that Jerusalem will be one of the most difficult issues to resolve in any so-called "peace process." It's time to take a look at some blunt facts regarding this issue, despite the risk of ruffling even some friendly feathers.

While Christians, Muslims, and Jews all have ties to Jerusalem, these ties are in no way "equal." In religious Jewish sources, for instance, Jerusalem is mentioned over 600 times, but it is never mentioned even once in the Koran. It is alluded to in the latter in passages about the Hebrew Kings, David and Solomon, and the destruction of the Temples of the Jews. Arafat and Co. deny a Jewish Temple ever existed there. They call the Temple Mount "Buraq's Mount," after Muhammad's supposedly winged horse. But a mention of Jerusalem itself is no where to be found in the Muslim holy book...interesting, since it was recorded in many other places besides the writings of the Jews themselves for over 1,500 years before the rise of Islam.

Religious claims of both Christians and Muslims to Jerusalem exist primarily because of both of their links to the Jews. Political claims - based upon facts on the ground - are, admittedly, more complicated. Even so, throughout over three millennia since King David conquered it from the Jebusites, renamed it, and gave it its Jewish character, no other people except the Jews has ever made Jerusalem their capital, despite its conquest by many imperial powers, including that of the Arab caliphal successors to Muhammad as they burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E. and spread in all directions. Damascus and Baghdad were the capital seats of caliphal imperial power, and Mecca and Medina the holy cities. This is not to say that Jerusalem was ignored by its Muslim conquerors (i.e. the Umayyads built the Dome of the Rock/Mosque of 'Umar on the Temple Mount making it Islam's allegedly third holiest city), but it is to say that Jerusalem was and is in no way the focus for Islam that it is for Jews and Judaism.

Since David made Jerusalem his capital and it became the site of his son Solomon's Temple, Zion became the heart and soul of Jewish national and religious existence. Jews from all over the early diaspora made their pilgrimages and sent offerings to its Temple. "By the Rivers of Babylon we wept..." and "If I forget thee O Jerusalem, may my right hand forget its cunning..." were just a few of the many Biblical expressions of the Jews for Zion. Such yearning persisted throughout subsequent millennia in the Diaspora as well. "Next Year in Jerusalem" sustained the Jew throughout countless degradations and humiliations culminating in the Holocaust. There is no Muslim parallel to these claims, regardless of efforts to portray Palestinian Arabs (many of whom were new arrivals in the land themselves) as the "new Jews." Jews, from a hundred different lands, didn't have twenty-two other states to potentially choose from and suffered dearly for this statelessness. Most Muslim Arabs want sole rights over Jerusalem the same way they want sole rights over Tel Aviv: In their eyes, only they have legitimate political rights anywhere in what they regard as the Dar al-Islam.

Regardless of whatever theology one clings to, Jesus' historical experiences in Roman-occupied Judaea and Jerusalem were those of a Jew living under very precarious conditions. Thousands of his countrymen had already been killed, crucified, etc. in the subjugation/pacification process. The contemporary Roman and Roman-sponsored historians themselves - Tacitus, Josephus, Dio Cassius, etc. - had much to say about all of this. Listen to just this one telling quote from Tacitus: " Vespasian succeeded to the throne... it infuriated his resentment that the Jews were the only nation who had not yet submitted."

These oppressive conditions led to open revolts and guerilla warfare to rid the land of its mighty pagan conqueror - wars which would eventually lead the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, to rename the land itself from Judaea to Syria Palaestina in 135 C.E. in an attempt to stamp out any remaining hopes for Jewish independence and national existence. Judaea was thus renamed after the Jews' historic enemies, the Philistines, a non-Semitic sea people from the eastern Mediterranean or Aegean region, to drive home the point.

For a modern analogy, imagine little Latvia as it was engulfed by the Soviet Union in the latter's heyday of power. Or a Hungarian freedom fighter or Greek partisan taking on the Soviets or the Nazis. Think of the sympathy and admiration normally given to such situations... Now think about the treatment the Jews have received over the ages for longing for this same freedom and dignity. Whatever Jesus did or did not mean in his alleged statement, "render unto Caesar...," this passage and others in the New Testament have been used to belittle this same desire for freedom and independence among the Jews.

Judaea Capta (not "Palaestina" Capta) coins were issued, and the towering Arch of Titus was erected after the first major revolt in 70 C.E. and shows, among other things, the Romans carrying away the giant Menorah and other objects from the Jewish Temple that at least many if not most Arabs and other Muslims claim never existed. It stands in Rome to this very day to commemorate Rome's victory over the Jews and Jewish Jerusalem.

When Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, fled Mecca to Medina in 622 C.E. (the Hijrah), the inhabitants welcomed him. Medina had been developed centuries earlier as a thriving date palm oasis by Jews fleeing the Roman assault (the banu-Qurayzah and banu-al-Nadir tribes, etc.), and its mixed population of Jews and pagan Arabs had thus become conditioned for a native prophet speaking the word of G-d.

Muhammad learned much from the Jews. While the actual timing of his decision on the direction of prayer may never be known, during his long sojourn with the Jews of Medina, his followers were instructed to pray towards Jerusalem. Early prominent Arab historians such as Jalaluddin came right out and stated that this was done primarily as an attempt to win support among the influential Jewish tribes (the People of the Book) for Muhammad's religio-politcal claims.

It is from the Temple Mount in Jerusalem where Muslims believe Muhammad ascended to Heaven on his winged horse. A mosque, the Dome of the Rock, would later be erected on this Jewish holy site after the Arab imperial conquest of the land in the 7th century C.E.

There is no doubt among objective scholars that Jews had an enormous impact on both Muhammad and the religion that he founded. The holy sites for Muslims in Jerusalem (i.e. the mosques erected on the Temple Mount of the Jews) are now deemed "holy" precisely because of the critical years Muhammad spent after the Hijrah with the Jews. The Temple Mount had no prior meaning to pagan Arabs. While there was some early Christian influence as well, intense scholarship has shown that the Holy Law (Halakha) and Holy Scriptures of the Jews had a tremendous influence on the Koran, Islamic Holy Law (Shari'a), etc. Muhammad's "Jerusalem connection" was most likely not established until after his extended stay with his Jewish hosts. This was no mere coincidence...Muslim religious beliefs regarding Muhammad's conversations with the Angel Gabriel, etc. notwithstanding.

When the Jews refused to recognize Muhammad as the "Seal of the Prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance. Before long, with the exception of Yemen, there were virtually no Jews left on the Arabian Peninsula. And the direction of prayer was changed away from Jerusalem and towards the Kaaba in Mecca instead. To say that Jerusalem has the same meaning for Muslims as it has for Jews is to simply tell a lie.

In modern times, Jews constituted the majority of Jerusalem's population from 1840 onwards. When Jordanian Arabs - whose nation itself was formed from 80% of the original mandate for Palestine issued to Britain on April 25, 1920 - seized East Jerusalem after their invasion of reborn Israel in 1948, they destroyed dozens of synagogues and thousands of Jewish graves, using tombstones to pave roads, build latrines, etc. When the Jews were denied access to their holy sites for almost two decades, the whole world remained silent. After Israel was forced to fight a defensive war in 1967 due to its being blockaded by Egypt's Nasser at the Straits of Tiran (a casus belli) and other hostile acts, Jerusalem became reunited. Access to all peoples and faiths subsequently became unhindered. It was at this moment that much of the world next chose to rediscover Jerusalem...demanding its redivision, internationalization, etc. Now there's justice for you! Sickening... but, unfortunately, not really shocking or unexpected in the Jewish experience.

For centuries, Jews were forcibly converted and/or expelled, massacred, humiliated, demonized, inquisitioned, ghettoized, declared the "deicide people," etc., to one extent or another, in both the Muslim East (where they were also known as kelbi yahudi - Jew dogs) as well as the Christian West. They are determined that their rights in the sole capital of the sole, microscopic, reborn state that they possess will not be sacrificed on behalf of any 23rd state created for Arabs.

Gerald A. Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs. He has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated many Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world. This article is archived at New York Jewish Times (http://nyjtimes.com/Heritage/News/2004/Feb/ThinkingJerusalem.htm).

Posted by Leo Rennert, February 21, 2004.
Please join in sending e-mails to the ambassador of the Netherlands to condemn the outrageous position of the mayor of The Hague on the eve of the International Court of Justice (Injustice?) hearings on Israel's security barrier. The mayor has demonstrated outrageous anti-Semitic chutzpah by criticising victims of terrorism for daring to show pictures of Israelis killed by Hamas & Co. as part of a planned peaceful protest in The Hague. Suggest you use your own words. I got the e-mail address from the ambassador's CVs on the Dutch embassy website. To get maximum impact, please also ask your friends to join in. Shalom. Leo

To The Hon. Boudewijn Johannes van Eenennaam
Ambassador of the Netherlands
Washington, DC

Dear Ambassador:

I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms the outrageous statement of the mayor of The Hague that the Israeli Embassy in your country threatens public order by providing pictures of Israeli terror victims to people who plan to demonstrate peacefully against attempts to misuse the International Court of Justice as a political tool to condemn Israel's security barrier along the West Bank.

This barrier is solely a security measure to prevent terrorists from killing hundreds of innocent civilians in Israel. Israel has made it amply clear that it will take down the barrier as soon as there no longer is a threat from terrorist groups bent on murdering Jews.

I would hope that Dutch authorities, instead of impeding free expression, would uphold the right of peaceful protest, including the use of pictures of people killed by terrorists to underscore the fact that the security barrier is needed to save lives. I would think that this is an elemental right in a free, democratic society and I'm shocked that a Dutch official would object to free expression by victims of terrorism.

I'm afraid the mayor of The Hague has disgraced not only himself but your country in this matter by his totally repellent conduct. I would hope that your government would immediately dissociate itself form his perverse attitude in this matter, issue an apology and reaffirm strongly the right of peaceful protest.


Posted by Israel BenAmi, February 20, 2004.
This was written by Gerald M. Steinberg, who is the director of the Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation at Bar Ilan University, and editor of www.ngo-monitor.org. It appeared in the "National Post," yesterday. It was distributed by the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research (CIJR) as a Isranet Daily Briefing.

As the International Court of Justice's consideration of Israel's separation fence draws closer, the political and propaganda aspects of this battle are gaining strength. For the Palestinians and their supporters, this is a mega-opportunity to put Israel on trial and a milestone in the demonization process. They can hope to build on the achievements of Durban, where thousands of powerful NGOs turned the September 2001 UN Conference on Racism into a rally against Israel. From Durban, they moved to Jenin, condemning the Israeli anti-terror operation that followed the Passover bombings as a war crime, and repeating the false Palestinian claims of a massacre. And now, instead of accepting the Israeli separation fence as a legitimate response to terror, the demonization coalition is attacking the "apartheid wall."

The fact that this case is being heard at all is a farce that further erodes any remaining moral authority of the UN and the.court. In a very partisan vote, the UN General Assembly gave the court a highly loaded mandate, essentially telling the judges to find Israel guilty without considering the history of terrorism and hatred. In agreeing to hear such a pre-cooked case, the ICJ.will be weakening its standing even further.

But for the anti-Israel.campaign, the main event will take place outside the court. The media campaigns will be led by Arafat's representatives, including.the anachronistic European-funded Negotiation Support Unit, as well as the Arab League, and the Conference of Islamic States. [T]his highly partisan version of reality, amplified through the doctrine of Palestinian victimization, will be supported by powerful NGOs, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.This group led the way by spreading the use of the term "apartheid wall" and other incendiary language. As a result, these organizations, despite their claim to further the principles of human rights, have become active participants in the conflict.

Given this framework of warfare by other means, the challenge for diplomats, journalists, and for the international court itself is to be able to separate the massive hype from the substance. In particular, the question is whether the Israeli case will even be given a hearing. The proceedings should be widely recognized as a kangaroo court, with no claim to moral or legal legitimacy.

From the perspective of the Israeli consensus - and, it should be recalled, Israel is a vibrant democracy - this separation barrier is not only legitimate but a vital necessity. The reports that refer to unilateral disengagement.as Ariel Sharon's plan to avoid making peace with the Palestinians, miss the point entirely. Sharon resisted this approach for a long time, but the logic has become inescapable. If he had not announced this move, another leader would have.

The logic and morality of unilateral separation begins with the understanding that the status quo - based on a Swiss-cheese map of intertwined Palestinian cities and Israeli settlements left over from the failed Oslo process - is intolerable for all. Israeli military responses to three years of terror have been quite effective, but sporadic attacks continue. The multiple checkpoints, frequent closures and other sources of daily friction between individual Palestinians and Israeli soldiers contribute to the tension. And the political status quo poses a demographic threat to the survival of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

At the same time, efforts to negotiate an end to the conflict have failed completely. Until there is a credible Palestinian leadership to disarm the terror factions and implement a lasting accord, negotiations, however well intended, are not going to end the conflict. The evolution of a pragmatic Palestinian leadership will take many years or decades. Until then, unilateral disengagement is the least bad option, as many Israelis, including Sharon, now recognize. Israel needs to define pragmatic de facto borders, and build its defensive shield along these lines. The section that has already been built has proven effective in protecting northern coastal cities such as Netanya and Hadera from terror attacks.

In some cases, while the logic of these arguments is accepted, the campaign to demonize the separation plan focuses on the route. Indeed, on this issue, there is an active debate within Israel, and the route has been changed a few times to reduce the impact on Palestinian villages located along the seam. At the same time, the political accusations that Israel is stealing territory are not supported by the facts on the ground. Demands that Israel ignore security and other factors, and build the fence along the 1949 ceasefire line - the Green Line - are without foundation, and the massive efforts to rewrite history and turn these lines into sacred international borders are entirely fraudulent. And if the Palestinians were to receive all of their demands as a result of terror, the lesson would be that murder pays. By registering its formal opposition to the procedures at The Hague, Canada may be signalling its unwillingness to any longer tolerate Palestinian efforts to abuse the international institutions that are central to the Canadian ethos.

In attempting to get these arguments into the public debate, the main arena will not be in the International Court of Justice, but rather the television screens, Internet sites, and newspaper headlines. Previous experience in the cases of Durban, Jenin and in much of the press coverage and NGO reporting on the Israeli separation policy to date has shown that the urge to join in demonizing Israel for protecting its citizens from terrorism is hard to resist. Perhaps this time, some lessons will have been learned.

Posted by Tamar Bush, February 20, 2004.
This article was written by Barbara Sofer and appeared on the Jerusalem Post Online website (http://www.jpost.com) yesterday.

Tamar Ben-Zvi, 24, is as excited as any bride could be a week before her wedding. Blonde and blue-eyed, she is often mistaken for a foreigner. She couldn't be more of a sabra, growing up working in the kibbutz cowshed on Mount Gilboa.

And then the milkmaid fell in love with a soldier - robust and darkly handsome and, best of all, with a nurturing soul. His army comrades told her how he would cover their exposed feet whenever he came back last at night. She even liked his name, Shai Haim, literally "gift of life."

From listening to Tamar speak about her husband-to-be, you'd never suspect the great difficulty with which Shai will break the glass under the canopy. Shot by a terrorist, he no longer walks.

Likewise, it's hard to imagine the bittersweet emotions of the officiating rabbi. Even as he rejoices for Shai and Tamar, the rabbi cannot possibly forget that his own son was killed in the same attack that paralyzed Shai. That rabbi is Jerusalem Post columnist Stewart Weiss from Ra'anana.

Tamar's friendship with Shai began when she phoned another soldier in his unit. Shai picked up a ringing cellphone for his absent army bunkmate with the intention of taking a message. Instead, he and Tamar talked for two hours. Their May romance blossomed.

By happy coincidence, Tamar already knew Shai's best friend, Ari Weiss, whose cousins lived on Ma'aleh Gilboa. Although Tamar and Shai were just getting to know each other, Ari foresaw their marriage and promised to make merry at their wedding. It was one of the few promises the sincere and kind-hearted staff sergeant wouldn't keep.

On September 30, Ari Yehoshua Weiss was on guard duty in Nablus. Shai hadn't been scheduled to guard, but he decided to join Ari.

Shots rang out. Shai went down. Ari ran toward him and took the second, fatal bullet himself. The medics found them lying side by side.

Shai's parents phoned Tamar with the grim news. Ari was dead. Shai had survived, but he was seriously injured. He was already in surgery when Tamar arrived at the hospital.

"Abdominal injury" didn't sound too bad at first.

BUT AS the hours passed, Tamar's fears escalated. She remained alone with Shai in the intensive care unit. She wept all night for Ari and prayed for Shai. She realized then that she would do anything to get Shai back, no matter the condition in which he came back to her.

At dawn Shai finally opened his eyes. He motioned that he wanted to write.

"My friend is dead," he scrawled. He made Tamar promise to attend the funeral for both of them.

At the funeral Ari's mother, Susie, sought Tamar out among the thousands of friends. Susie hugged Tamar and wanted to know how Shai was.

"I wondered how she could be so large of spirit to care about someone else at a time like that," Tamar said. "What a remarkable family."

In the last year-and-a-half, Shai and Tamar have become part of that family. They speak to the Weisses daily. They couldn't imagine any other rabbi marrying them.

"He's a son to me," says Stewart Weiss of Shai. Nonetheless, as their son's friends from his unit gather next week, Ari's absence has to be excruciating. Had he lived, Ari would have been a witness at the wedding.

As for Shai's paralysis, acquaintances are quick enough to remind Tamar of "what she's getting into." Tamar answers that she knows many walking persons who are emotionally paralyzed and aren't nearly as "open, loving, and beautiful" as her Shai.

"There are tests in life," says Tamar. "We've passed this one."

Their own families have never uttered a word of discouragement. After the wedding, the couple are combining their honeymoon with one of those Israeli post-army wanderings: six months in the Far East.

In eulogizing Ari, his father asked those at the funeral to return home and sing "Am Yisrael Chai" - "the people of Israel lives." Anyone who knew the family well understood why.

Rabbi Weiss saw as a role model Chaim Shapiro, a Holocaust survivor whose only surviving son died with honor fighting in the War of Independence. Shapiro buried his son to that song of Jewish survival. The Weisses, in turn, have become role models for us all, may we never be tested.

The indomitable spirit of Israel will be very much alive next week as Rabbi Weiss pronounces the blessings under the bridal canopy. The soul of Israel will live in the embrace of a bereaved mother who finds it in her heart to dance with a young bride.

The determination of our people manifests itself in the courage and dignity of a young couple going on with their lives despite the terrible price defending our country has cost them. We are humbled and inspired by their ability to find the roses among the thorns.

May their lives always be filled with the sounds of joy and gladness. May they be blessed with the peace of their own holy canopy.

Posted by Yashiko Sagamori, February 20, 2004.
When anti-Semitism all over the world reaches the catastrophic levels of the latest (but, probably, not the last!) Holocaust, when the world willingly mistakes "Jenin Jenin" by Arab propaganda and "Jesus Jesus" by Mel Gibson for documentaries, what we need is a quiet reminder of the truth, both modern and ancient.

Here is a timely and eloquent one, thanks to Gabrielle Goldwater's newsletter (http://goldwater.mideastreality.com).

This essay was written by Gerald A. Honigman; it initially appeared on the Jewish Xpress Magazine website and is archived at http://www.jewishxpress.com/issue/28/ArafatJe.html.

"Now Jesus, having been born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of King Herod..." is how the account of Jesus' birth begins in the second chapter of the Gospel of Matthew.

Notice, please, the location is Bethlehem of Judea... not the "West Bank"... not "Palestine"... but Judea.

As the year 2003 began, Greek Orthodox Metropolitan Irineos sought appointment as Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Letters with his signature on them to Yasser Arafat contained, among other things, the following:

"You are aware of the... disgust... all the Holy Sepulchre fathers feel for the descendants of the crucifiers of our Lord Jesus... crucifiers of your people... Jewish conquerors of the Holy Land of Palestine."

Irineos claims that his 6/17/01 letter, published in Maariv, was a forgery. Unfortunately, there are evidently many other documents of the same flavor making the rounds as well.

Irineos's attitude, unfortunately, is not uncommon among many Christians in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Indeed, the quote above is virtually the same as words often spoken by the Greek Catholic Archbishop of Jerusalem, Hilarion Capucci, a few decades earlier.

So it's safe to assume that many people still share these beliefs.

Some have simply inherited and modified them from traditional Christian teaching.

Others, feeling exposed and vulnerable themselves living among real or potentially hostile dominant Muslim populations, seek common ground with their own off again/on again persecutors by turning the focus on a common demon, the Jew.

Christians played an important role in the nascent Arab nationalist movement in the late 19th and 20th centuries (does the name George Habash and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine sound familiar?), and the above explanation was certainly one of the main motivating factors.

This was not unlike some Jews seeking to be absorbed under the potentially protective, inclusive umbrella of various socialist movements in Christian Europe around the same time.

A few years ago, during the Pope's visit to Israel, the media reported one of many of Arafat's own frequent comments on this subject.

Speaking of the Apostle Peter, Arafat explained the "Palestinian" - i.e. non-Jewish - identity of Peter & Co. The Arabs have constantly tried to portray themselves as the "originals" in the land.

Now for a reality check...

There was no country or nation known as "Palestine" during the time of Jesus.

The land was known as Judaea and its inhabitants were Judaeans... Jews.

Tacitus and Dio Cassius were famous Roman historians who wrote extensively about Judaea's attempt to remain free from the Soviet Union of its day, the conquering Roman Empire.

They lived and wrote during, or not long after, the two major revolts of the Jews in 66-73 C.E. and 133-135 C.E.

They make no mention of this land being called "Palestine" or its people "Palestinians."

And they knew the differences between Jews and Arabs as well.

Listen to this quote from Vol. II, Book V, The Works of Tacitus:

"Titus was appointed by his father to complete the subjugation of Judaea... he commanded three legions in Judaea itself... To these he added the twelfth from Syria and the third and twenty-second from Alexandria... amongst his allies were a band of Arabs, formidable in themselves and harboring towards the Jews the bitter animosity usually subsisting between neighboring nations.."

After the 1st Revolt (see also the contemporary accounts of the Roman-sponsored Jewish historian, Josephus, in his extensive Antiquities of the Jews and Wars of the Jews), Rome issued thousands of Judaea Capta coins which can be seen today in museums all over the world.

Notice, please... Judaea Capta... not "Palaestina Capta." Additionally, to celebrate this victory, the Arch of Titus was erected and stands tall in Rome to this very day.

When, some sixty years later, Emperor Hadrian decided to further desecrate the site of the destroyed Temple of the Jews by erecting a pagan structure there, it was the grandchildren's turn to take on their mighty conquerors.

The result of the struggle of this tiny nation for its freedom and independence was, perhaps, as predictable as that which would have occurred had Latvia taken on the Soviet Union during its heyday of power.

Listen next to this quote from Dio Cassius:

"580,000 men were slain, nearly the whole of Judaea made desolate. Many Romans, moreover, perished in this war (the Bar Kochba Revolt). Therefore Hadrian in writing to the senate did not employ the opening phrase commonly affected by the emperors, ' I and the legions are in health.'"

The Emperor was so enraged at the Jews' struggle for freedom in their own land that, in the words of the esteemed modern historian, Bernard Lewis, "Hadrian made a determined attempt to stamp out the embers not only of the revolt but also of Jewish nationhood and statehood... obliterating its Jewish identity."

Wishing to end, once and for all, Jewish hopes, Hadrian renamed the land itself from Judaea to "Syria Palaestina" - Palestine - after the Jews' historic enemies, the Philistines, a non-Semitic sea people from the eastern Mediterranean or Aegean area...

Sorry Yasser...trying to hijack the latter's identity won't work either.

All of this did not occur until after 135 C.E., with the defeat of Judaea's charismatic leader, Shimon Bar Kochba.

And, as with the breathtaking discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls practically at the moment of Israel's rebirth almost six decades ago by an Arab shepherd boy, Bar Kochba's letters to his troops, his minted coins "For the Freedom of Israel," and other archaeological treasures were also soon unearthed.

"Palestine" became largely "Arab" the same way that most of the twenty-two states that call themselves "Arab" today did... by the conquest, occupation, settlement, and forced Arabization of other native, non-Arab peoples and their lands... Berbers, Copts, Black Africans, Jews, Kurds, etc. Muhammad's and his successors' imperial caliphal armies burst out of the Arabian Peninsula in the 7th century C.E. and spread in all directions.

The Ottoman Turks were the latest in a long series of imperial conquerors to rule the land since the Jews fought for their freedom against Rome.

They did so for some four centuries up until World War I.

From the 10th century onwards, the Arabs lost control of the land themselves.

And when the Arabs' own caliphal empires ruled, it was from Damascus or Baghdad.

There was never an independent entity of Arab Palestine then either.

During the Mandatory period following the break up of empires after World War I, the League of Nations Permanent Mandates commission recorded scores of thousands of Arabs pouring into a largely depopulated Palestine from surrounding countries to take advantage of the economic development going on because of the Jews.

Many more entered under cover of darkness and were never listed.

All of these folks were preceded in the 19th century by many thousands of Egyptians who came with Muhammad Ali's invading armies and never left... more Arab settlers in Palestine.

Arafat himself was one of them. So was Hamas' "patron saint," Izzadin al-Qassam... coming from Aleppo, Syria.

And so much for Arafat's "Palestinian" Jesus

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 20, 2004.
Here are three essays on Jenin. The first by Paul Martin, written soon after the 'Massacre', makes clear that the only massacre was the attack on truth by Arab propagandists and their friends. But, as the next two make clear, the distortions and lies about Jenin continue; anti-Israel inflammatory articles and films continue to maintain that a massacre happened in Jenin.

by Paul Martin, Washington Times (http://www.WashingtonTimes.com).

JENIN, West Bank - Palestinian officials yesterday put the death toll at 56 in the two-week Israeli assault on Jenin, dropping claims of a massacre of 500 that had sparked demands for a U.N. investigation.

The official Palestinian body count, which is not disproportionate to the 33 Israeli soldiers killed in the incursion, was disclosed by Kadoura Mousa Kadoura, the director of Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement for the northern West Bank, after a team of four Palestinian-appointed investigators reported to him in his Jenin office.

[Two weeks ago, when European and particularly London newspapers were reporting estimates of "hundreds" massacred, Israeli sources in Washington said they expected the Palestinian toll to reach "45 to 55."]

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan suggested yesterday, in the wake of the Palestinian body count, that he may disband a U.N. fact-finding team that was to visit the camp to determine whether a massacre had taken place.

Mr. Annan was responding to a decision by the Israeli security Cabinet earlier in the day not to cooperate with the U.N. team.

The U.N.-Israeli dispute appeared unrelated to the Palestinian admission there had been no massacre.

The Palestinians had suggested that most of the bodies were buried beneath the rubble of houses bulldozed by Israeli troops. No digging for bodies was taking place here, and there was no stench that could have come from decaying human flesh.

The earlier Palestinian claims had sparked international outrage and prompted the Bush administration to press Israel to accept a fact-finding mission by the United Nations, an organization that the Jewish state regards as having a pro-Palestinian bias.

Mr. Kadoura yesterday showed a reporter for The Washington Times the official Palestinian list of those who died. It contained 50 names. Six additional bodies, he said, had not been identified.

He no longer used the ubiquitous Palestinian charge of "massacre" and instead portrayed the battle as a "victory" for Palestinians in resisting Israeli forces. "Here the Israelis, who tried to break the Palestinian willpower, have been taught a lesson," Mr. Kadoura said.

He insisted that Israel had tried but failed, thanks to the heavy fighting, to destroy the entire warren of homes in the camp that had housed 11,000 people.

The destruction, pictured graphically on television, appeared linked to Israeli bulldozing of the houses from which the remnant of the resistance forces were firing.

In fact, it covers the size of a large football field and constitutes only about 10 percent of the housing in the camp, and a far smaller proportion of the housing in the city, which was largely left untouched by the Israeli incursion.

The figures shown to The Times included 233 injured persons, mainly men. The figures revealed that 18 persons had been injured and one had died after the fighting had ended, the result of accidentally detonating either shells left after the fighting, or booby traps that were set by Palestinian gunmen throughout the camp.

A British expert attached to the International Red Cross said these booby traps were almost identical to those used by the Irish Republican Army.

The British claim suggested to analysts that IRA guerrillas were schooled in terrorist weaponry and irregular warfare, as were many radical guerrilla movements, in Palestinian, Syrian and Iranian training camps in Lebanon.

From behind a desk bedecked by portraits of Mr. Arafat, a string of past "martyrs" and of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, the Palestinian chief official in the city, who is also the Fatah leader, portrayed in an interview the events as another chapter in a long saga of resistance to foreign invaders - from Crusader times onward - that, he said, had made Jenin "the heart of Palestine" for centuries.

The propaganda war continues, meanwhile, in the refugee camp itself. Families whose homes had been destroyed were ordered to sit and lie inside tents pitched near the destruction, to be available for interviews and filming with foreign reporters and photographers. At dusk, with the press opportunities concluded, they returned to houses offered to them in the undamaged city or in the rest of the refugee camp.

Other young men, members of various factions, have been on duty in the camp's narrow streets, eager to conduct foreign correspondents to places where they say Israelis killed militants after they surrendered or had been captured.

Others in the city say the resistance to the Israeli incursion had been carried out by only about 10 percent of the militants who had originally been in the area. Most had retreated into the hills or into city back streets as the Israelis entered the area, they said.

Families living in houses directly opposite the destroyed area have told The Washington Times that Israeli soldiers, who temporarily occupied their houses just before the final battle began, treated them without violence and assured them: "You will not be harmed."

They confined the 36 members of the Abu Khalil family to two rooms, allowing them out one by one, and set up a snipers' point upstairs through two holes in the wall - under a family framed message in Arabic: "There is No God but Allah and Mohammed is His Messenger."

They confiscated identity cards but left them on the table before slipping out during the night.

At the United Nations in New York, Undersecretary-General Kieran Prendergast said "a thorough, credible and balanced report on recent events in Jenin refugee camp would not be possible without the cooperation of the government of Israel."

"Since it appears from today's Cabinet statement by Israel that the difficulties in the way of deployment of the fact-finding team will not be resolved anytime soon, the secretary-general is minded to disband the team," he told reporters after briefing the U.N. Security Council.

Diplomats said Mr. Prendergast told council members that Mr. Annan was leaning toward disbanding the three-member team, which has been joined by numerous advisers. The team, which was to have arrived in Jenin on Saturday, remained in Geneva yesterday.

The Security Council is to take up the issue of whether or not to disband the mission at a meeting today.

The United States put forward the resolution adopted by the Security Council welcoming the dispatch of a U.N. team to find out what happened in Jenin during the Israeli military's attacks.

Israel initially agreed to the idea, but subsequently raised questions over the composition of the team, its scope of inquiry, who could be called as a witness and what documents would be presented to the panel.

Mr. Prendergast said that "with every passing day, it becomes more difficult to determine what happened" in Jenin. U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Mr. Annan was considering whether to let the fact-finding team begin its work in Geneva or "simply abandoning the mission on the assumption that satisfactory terms of reference could not be worked out."

* This article is based in part on wire service reports.

PLO PROPAGANDA FILE "JENIN, JENIN" by Lee Kaplan, FrontPage Magazine (http://www.frontpage.magazine.com).

From San Francisco State to Columbia University, "Palestinian film festivals" are becoming one of the major propaganda venues for those seeking to dismantle Israel.[1]

The most widely seen of these films is "Jenin, Jenin," shot by an Israeli-Arab actor named Mohammed Bakri. "Jenin, Jenin" purports to be a documentary on the aftermath of the Jenin battle between the Israel Defense Forces and PLO terrorists that took place in `Jenin in 2002. The film has become standard fare at such screenings. There's one major problem: the film is a fraud.

A common misrepresentation used by the Palestinians is that Jenin is a "refugee camp." It is, in fact, a city. And its casbah has been a hiding and breeding ground for terrorists whose goal is to murder Israelis. Even the Palestine Authority Police was afraid to enter it.

Besides various armed individual terrorists, such as members of Islamic Jihad, the PFLP and Hamas, the area housed many of the bomb making factories where suicide bombers obtained their lethal cargos. In April, 2002 one suicide bomber from Jenin blew up a hotel in Netanya where Israelis were celebrating Passover, killing 29 Israelis - including many Holocaust survivors - and maiming many more.[2] Up to that point, the West Bank and Jenin were not occupied and Israel had withdrawn all troops as a demonstration of goodwill. Following this incident, the IDF went into Jenin to close down the bomb factories.

But to an uninformed audience (the kind the Palestinians prefer), Jenin would appear to be a place where simple Arabs live, some even in tents. The film instructs viewers that these noble "natives" are besieged by Jews, who want to deprive them of their homeland. The Passover Massacre isn't mentioned at all, just that the Jews won't let the Arabs live in peace, and for some unknown reason attacked them. It should be noted the word "Jew" is used consistently throughout this film, rather than "Israeli" or the euphemism "Zionist." The reason is that the word "Jew" will elicit a more violent response from the rest of the Arab world where this film is screened - thus earning Bakri a fortune.

The film opens with a shot of an elderly Arab man in a hospital with a bandaged hand and foot. He claims the Israeli soldiers held out his hand then shot it. When he protested, they shot him in the foot. The old man, however, is lying. He was treated by an IDF doctor in Jenin, and the old man's wounds were not bullet wounds, nor were they caused by activities in any way related to the battle. They weren't even inflicted by Israeli soldiers. It is, in short, a staged scene. The entire film consists of Palestinians claiming events and atrocities that did not occur.

For example, multiple claims are made of F-16's attacking the city and of killing thousands of people. But no F-16's or jet fighter aircraft attacked Jenin. In fact, the Israeli government, eager to avoid civilian casualties, insisted that the IDF use young infantry soldiers in house-to-house fighting instead - to avoid the risk of bombing the city by air. This is a job one F-16 could have done. Instead, young men risked their lives to destroy the bomb factories. The result? Twenty-three Israeli boys died in close hand-to-hand combat.

Another "eyewitness" describes the carnage as worse than Vietnam. Hardly. Despite claims that there was "not a single person in the camp who did not suffer," aerial photographs show the combat zone where the bomb factories were destroyed as roughly the size of a football field - a very small section of Jenin.

Another interview subject is a ten-year-old girl who tells the filmmakers she wants to "go home," but the "Jews won't let her." She is referring to a once Palestinian area inside Israel's 1948 borders. Obviously, she was not alive in 1948 (nor, most likely, were her parents). In what sense was a village two generations removed her "home"?

But the tour de force performance is done by Dr. Abu Rali of the hospital in Jenin. Interviewed on camera, he claims the Israelis "attacked the hospital and completely destroyed its west wing with F-16's."[3] As mentioned, no F-16's were used to attack Jenin. But of even more interest is the fact that the hospital in Jenin has no west wing, nor was any part of the hospital building attacked or destroyed during the battle; Bakri's film shows no such damage post-battle.

The good doctor further accuses the Israelis of cutting off water and electricity to the hospital when the IDF brought water in for the hospital and even set up a portable generator to assure the hospital had electricity. What he doesn't say on film is that he rejected the blood supplies the IDF brought in from Israel on the grounds that he refused to mix "Jewish blood" with "Arab blood." The Israelis to solve the impasse actually had to import blood from Jordan to supply the hospital.[4]

Numerous "eyewitnesses" then tell tales of women being raped, of parents being stripped naked and summarily executed, and then having their children executed. They say that Israeli soldiers went into kitchens and urinated into cooking pots (a terrible insult in the Arab world); another claims the Israelis "did not leave one building standing." (A mere 99.9 percent of the city of Jenin remained.)[5]

Of course, attacking President Bush and America is de rigueur. One "witness" states that President Bush, through Israel, has killed "hundreds of millions of Arabs." Other than such first person accounts, the only other actual battle footage in the film shows Israeli tanks guarding captured terrorists at the close of the battle. Another Palestinian then claims, minutes after the footage ends, that his people were all run over and crushed by the tanks, "killing thousands."

The Palestinian Authority's official death toll from the Jenin battle was 56, of whom 48 were armed combatants.[6] In their own media, the Palestinians claim the battle was a great example of their bravery against the Jews. But in the Western world, they suffered a massacre.

This film makes its way around the Arab world inciting hatred against Jews and Israel. Rather than promoting peace, it merely serves to intensify the conflict. That is the real goal of "Jenin, Jenin": to slander Israel in the eyes of the international community, to isolate and weaken her, and ultimately to destroy the Jewish minority in the Middle East. To that end, the film is now being widely circulated on American campuses. And by inflaming its uneducated viewers, it may one day succeed in achieving its goal.


1. http://www.dafka.org/NewsGen.asp?S=4&PageID=57


3. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2240

4. http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/blood.htm

5. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ll60

6. http://www.rense.com/general24/dt.htm

edited by Ramzy Baroud, Cune Press, Seattle, 2003. The review of the book was written by Steven Plaut.

Imagine if someone were to publish a book about how Germans were brutalized and terrorized by American racist GIs who unjustly occupied their country in 1945 for no reason at all besides anti-German bigotry. Imagine that this same book never quite got around to mentioning that the brutal Americans had occupied Germany only after Nazi Germany launched World War II, which produced 55 million deaths. Imagine that this book ignored Auschwitz and Dachau.

Well, if you can imagine such a book, then you are only partly on your way to understand "Searching Jenin", a vile shallow propaganda screed that makes the PLOs Covenant look like a masterpiece in cool impartial analysis. The book is published by Cune Press, a small propaganda outfit based in Seattle that produces the sorts of Far Left anti-American and pro-Arab books of which Osama bin Laden would approve, and with a special interest in printing sycophantic volumes about Syria.

Following the waves of suicide bombings in Israel and especially the Netanya Passover Seder massacre, Israel at long last launched Operation Defensive Wall in 2002. As part of that military operation Israeli forces entered the towns of the West Bank and Gaza to flush out terrorists. In most cases the operations went smoothly and with few casualties to either side, other than to the terrorists being hunted down and killed or captured. In Jenin, whence many of the suicide bombers had come, the fighting was more severe and a relatively large number of Israeli troops were killed there in an ambush in an alley.

After the battle of Jenin, the Arab propaganda machine went into high gear and issued bloodcurdling reports of mass atrocities by Israeli troops against Arab civilians in Jenin. The Arabs and their amen choruses referred to the events in Jenin as downright genocidal. The same people who cheer every time an Arab terrorist perpetrates a war crime suddenly denounced Israels incursion in Jenin as a war crime. Many in the Western media repeated these allegations credulously. Eventually a UN investigation reported what everyone in Israel already knew: There were no mass killings at all of Arab civilians in Jenin. Shimon Peres himself, hardly an Israeli rightwing settler, confirmed that - at most 20 - Jenin civilians had died in the house-to-house fighting, far less than in the single Netanya suicide bombing that had triggered the incursion in the first place.

But Israel-bashing propagandists have never let facts get in their way. A series of books and a movie came out, repeating the medieval blood libels about the Israeli war crimes during the incursion into Jenin. In Jenin Jenin by Israeli film producer Muhammed Bakhri, Arab witnesses describe how Israel destroyed a hospital wing that had never in fact existed. Another Arab describes how Israeli troops simply walked up to him and shot him in the leg for no reason, while the film ignored the Israeli MD who had treated the same Arab at the end of the battle when he had no bullet wounds. And so on.

"Searching Jenin" is an even more pathetic and a less believable hodgepodge of anti-Israel testimonies by alleged residents of Jenin than Bakhris documentary. The book is written by Arab propagandist Ramzy Baroud, contains a foreword by the Khmer Rouges apologist Noam Chomsky and a jacket endorsement by professional Arab propagandist James Zogby. On the back cover is an endorsement by Norman G. Finkelstein, where he demands to know What exactly happened in Jenin?, this from the very same historian whose research is routinely cited by Neonazis and Holocaust Deniers to prove that there was never any Holocaust of the Jews and that all Jews claiming to be Holocaust survivors are lying thieves.

As one would expect from this genre of propaganda, one never learns in the book why Israel launched Operation Defensive Wall in the first place, although if you search very carefully with a magnifying glass in the chronology contained in one section, you can find the odd mention of a handful of Palestinian suicide bombings. You will of course never hear how the UNs own investigators proved there was no massacre at all in Jenin. You will never hear about how so many Israeli troops were killed there because they were risking their lives NOT to harm any innocent Palestinians. And you will never learn that Jenin was crawling with mass murdering terrorists and those who had organized suicide bombings against Jewish civilians.

The book begins by telling us the tragic saga of photojournalist Mahfouz Abu Turk, who - Baroud insists - mysteriously disappeared in the middle of the Jenin battle, implying that he was murdered by the rampaging Israelis. Only in the appendix will you discover that Abu Turk is alive and well, was never injured, and I guess disappeared only in the sense that Baroud did not know where he was for a few hours. I suspect Baroud's next project is to prove that the brutal Americans attacked the innocent al-Qaida and Taliban in Afghanistan for absolutely no reason at all except their racism and blind aggression.

Posted by Bryna Berch, February 20, 2004.
This article was written by Lee Chottiner, Executive Editor of the Pittsburgh Jewish Chronicle, and it appeared in the Chronicle today.

Shmuel Sackett's movement in Israel isn't necessarily about a one-state solution and transference, he'll tell you; it's about "spreading the message of hope that new leadership is on the horizon for Israel."

Once that leadership takes power, then his movement will be about a one-state solution and transference.

Sackett, a Likud Party Central Committee member, belongs to a bloc within the party called Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish leadership). That bloc controls 135 seats on the 2,800-seat central committee.

That's less that 5 percent of the total seats, but it's enough to make them the biggest voting bloc on the panel.

Their goal is to wrest control of the Likud Party establishment in the next election, whether Ariel Sharon runs or not.

They're starting to attract attention. In a December internal party poll, 50.6 percent of the respondents said Moshe Feiglin, leader of Manhigut Yehudit, should lead Likud. Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was a distant second with 25.4 percent.

That's music to the ears of Sackett, 42, who visited Pittsburgh last week to garner U.S. support for this movement. "We're talking about Jewish values," he said when asked about Manhigut's new popularity. He said his movement is less concerned with building a state for the Jewish people than building a Jewish state.

Still, not everyone in Likud is thrilled with the rise of Manhigut.

Education Minister Limor Livnat, during the Likud convention in January, recently referred to the movement as right-wing extremists who infiltrated the party, the Jerusalem Post reported. Judging from Manhigut's platform, Livnat may be right.

Though Manhigut calls for Jewish education, a Jewish economy, fighting Jewish wars and using Jewish values - things all Jews can agree on in some form or another - it also calls for a Jewish state where only Jews may hold citizenship and where transferring Palestinians out of the West Bank and Gaza becomes a high priority.

Ariel Sharon and President Bush have no problem with moving 7,500 settlers out of the Gaza Strip, Sackett said, "so we're going to implement the American policy of transfer."

Sackett brushed aside concerns that such a move could lead to all-out war. "I'm a supporter of an all-out war," he said. "In case you haven't heard, there's a war in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Afula; it's a blood bath.

"If they want a war, they will have one," he added. "And this time it won't take six days, it will take half that time."

As for Arab-Israelis, their citizenship would be stripped, including their right to vote and have representation in the Knesset.

"They have proven themselves disloyal to the Jewish state," he said. "We will maintain and protect their human rights, but not their political rights."

Such a sweeping move would even include Bedouins who serve in the Israel Defense Forces. One of them - Omar Souad - died in action against Hezbollah. His body was one of three returned to Israel in the recent prisoner swap.

Sackett acknowledged that some Arab-Israelis may have done good things; nevertheless "our army will be exclusively Jewish."

Born and raised in New York, Sackett, his wife and children made aliyah in 1990. He co-founded a civil disobedience movement with Feiglin to oppose the Oslo process before they started Manhigut in 1996.

If Manhigut takes control of Likud and does all it says it will do, Sackett predicted the world would not protest. "The world will be very positive," he said. "When the Israeli population stands up and behaves like Jews, the world respects this."

Manhigut Yehudi (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Feiglin has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudi website address is http://www.manhigut.org.

Lee Chottiner can be reached online at lchottiner@pittchron.com.

SMALL BITS, BIG FACTS: Muslims, Israel and America
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 20, 2004.

Illegal Arab construction is a major problem in Israel (as well as in Yesha). A Member of Knesset went to Ramle, an Israeli city with a mixed Jewish and Arab population, to check on the situation there. Masked Arabs threw stones at her.

There are an estimated 30,000 illegal Arab buildings in the Negev, alone. In Jaffa, about 350 illegal buildings are in the early stages of construction. The problem, he reports, is rampant in Lod, Jerusalem, and elsewhere. The police do not enforce the law there, for fear of the Arab population.

"'The State of Israel is being stolen away from us even within the Green Line,' MK Avraham said. 'Between Be'er Sheva and Dimona, motorists can clearly see the shocking illegal Arab construction going on there... The Arabs are trying to create territorial contiguity to block off our development. They're trying to turn Jaffa into the capital of 1948 Palestine.'" The MK is requesting a public inquiry before the problem turns into a worse flare-up than the Arab riots of October 2000. She wants to end the silence about the "large theft of lands" by the Arabs (Arutz-7, 2/11).

This theft of land often is by illegal aliens.


For a second time in February, Arafat's own organization's gunmen murdered someone whom they called a suspected operative for Israel. He was the father ofn one murdered by Al-Aqsa Brigade terrorists lastyear. They murdered another one in January. One in October, one in Sepember, and one in July. Hundreds since 1993.

Shuarat HaDin Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner depicted these murders as a preview of what PLO statehood would be like. She demanded a UN investigation.

International groups believe that only a mall portion of the accused were employed by Israel. Most fell in disputes with other clans or with terrorist organizations (IMRA, 2/13).

Calling them "collaborators" is an excuse. The Arabs have an excuse for every crime.


After the Gulf War military success, the US government adopted a policy of global domination. Among US policy objectives are to ensure acceptable oil prices and military superiority for Israel. The American people were not told that S. Arabia maintained the oil supply for the past 30 years and kept the price stable, according to a formula agreed with consumer countries. IMRA notes there is no such formula - OPEC is a cartel (IMRA, 2/13 from Arab News).

How do the Saudis know that domination is US policy? It wasn't announced and isn't practiced.

Neither is there a known basis for asserting that US policy seeks acceptable oil prices or military superiority for Israel, as it arms the Arabs more than Israel.

Before 30 years ago, S. Arabia declared an oil blockade of the US. Is that why the Saudi "Arab News" refers to "for 30 years?" S. Arabia does want a stable price, but at a high level. It seeks a level to exploit the world but not bankrupt it into inability to buy Saudi oil. That policy is not a virtue but self-interest and not in the US interest.


Pakistan has turned out to be a potential menace requiring monitoring, "as India has been saying for some time. Even if Gen. Musharraf is a friend of the US, no one knows who will succeed him. Pakistan has undergone four coups since its establishment, and all the country's prime ministers have been ousted by the army before serving their full term. Do the Americans know, for example, where the nuclear bombs in Pakistan are stored and who the guards are? Islamist groups are becoming stronger in the country and are infiltrating the army, too. It's more than possible that the affair of Abdul Qadeer Khan was only the first act in a drama that is still being played out." (IMRA, 2/13 from Ze'ev Schiff of Haaretz.)

Yes, I think Musharraf is an Islamist, doing just enough Anti-terrorism to deceive the US about his buildup of Islamist nuclear forces.


The P.A. is presenting a non-logical case against the accused. The FBI team in Gaza has evidence that a lookout watched the convoy before exploding the bomb, by remote control. The explosion was not accidental as the P.A. claims (IMRA, 2/13 from Nitsana Darshan-Leitner in the Jewish Week) or mistaken identity.


With financing from Hizbullah and Iran, Arafat's Tanzim members in his office in Ramallah, are planning attacks on Israel (IMRA, 2/13 from Jerusalem Post).

Israel doesn't storm that headquarters, because the US demands that it not harm Arafat. Arafat stays there, because his presence protects the terrorists inside. Why do Israelis so one-sidedly admire the US? It leads to policies that enable many of them to be murdered.

He is urged to "try harder" to fight terrorism. How about his not sheltering them?


In the P.A., rival Arab gangs still are exchanging gunfire (IMRA).


Meretz MK Zahava Gal-On told interviewers that Israel should wait for terrorists to enter Israel, before attacking them (IMRA, 2/13).

Once terrorists enter Israel, they would not have to go far to murder Israelis. It would be difficult to prevent them. This policy would cost innocent Israeli lives in order to spare the lives of Arabs who live amongst, and support, the terrorists whom the IDF otherwise would pursue into their lairs. It is an unjust, impractical, unpatriotic policy.


Arabs do not become terrorists out of desperation. They do so out of a cult of death and a culture that glorifies murder and genocide. It has nothing to do with territorial aspirations or the Arab-Israel conflict. It is a strategy, as in Iraq, where Israel is not involved and Muslims are killing Muslims (Robbie Friedmann, Ph.D. from Freeman Center for Strategic Studies, 2/17 in National Unity Coalition for Israel e-mail).


The IDF has been relying for its authority to dismantle outposts on a Cabinet decision it misinterprets. The chairman of the Knesset Law Committee advised the IDF regional legal advisor that this Cabinet decision authorized "freezing" but not "dismantling" or "evacuation." The decision was to freeze them until at least the P.A. fulfilled its ant-terrorist obligations. (It never did). The IDF interpretation is not logical and not acceptable.

It is the Cabinet that has authority over that issue, as it does over illegal building in general. This has been the practice for decades (IMRA, 2/15).


The Saudis find US policy backtracking. Therefore, they are puzzled over what US policy really is

For example, for two years, the US had called Arafat irrelevant. It refused to deal with him, because he was "tainted by terrorism." It demanded that he appoint a prime minister with whom the US could deal.

Now, Sec. Powell asserts that Arafat has "moral authority," which he should use to suppress terrorism. Now he is a leader responsible for Arab attacks against Israelis. Which is it?

Arab News asks how can someone under virtual house arrest and bypassed by the US and Israel, pursue terrorists with P.A. security forces, and be blamed for failing to stop terrorism.

IMRA notes that Arafat has no moral authority, but he commands P.A. forces with at least 40,000 security personnel (IMRA, 2/16) plus the Fatah militia that he pays.

I agree that the US is backtracking. Hypocritically, the US did not refuse to work with appointed prime ministers likewise tainted by terrorism. Nor did the US ever really insist that Arafat suppress terrorism, not during the decade of Oslo. Neither does it insist now. Its policy amounts to, "Here, Arafat, is a billion dollars covering many projects the P.A. needs, and training for the forces with which you commit terrorism instead of repress it, but please repress terrorism that our gift frees you to spend your own revenues on."


Foreign Min. Shalom praised Egypt for trying to broker a new cease-fire and for trying to arrange high-level meetings between the warring parties.

He failed to note that a cease-fire would enable to P.A. to smuggle arms from Egypt through the tunnels without IDF interference. He failed to note that high-level meetings have been, so far, mere photo-opportunities. He did not comment that Egypt is not halting the smuggling from Egypt and the incitement against Israel (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 2/16). Why does he flatter Egypt?


The U.S. and Israel tout a "two-state" "solution" for Israel and the P.A.. What does the P.A. say about it? Ahmad Nasser, Sec. of the P.A. Council broadcast that Israel has no right to exist because it is "Satan' offspring." (Arutz-7, 2/16.) The P.A. also encourages Western hope.

Just because Israel accepts such an outcome does not mean that the Arabs do. The Arabs are in a jihad. Just because the US proposes such an outcome, does not mean that the Arabs would abide by it. Those diplomats who propose what the fanatics already reject are unrealistic.

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 20, 2004.
As the mainstream media is busy "tampering with the jury in the Court of Public Opinion", the illegitimate "International Court of Justice" is preparing hear oral arguments on "the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall" to separate Israel's almost 6 million Jews from 2 million West Bank Palestinians.

In this article Ted Belman has confronted the media with their lies and misrepresentation of the facts in the "Ridiculous Case of the Great Wall" trial at the World Court, published on the IsraPundit website (http://israpundit.com) today.

The Toronto Star, Canada's largest circulation newspaper, had an outrageous editorial entitled "Israel's barrier gets day in court" This was Ted's Letter to the Editor of the Toronto Star. Please read on.

Dear Editor. (From Ted Belman)

Your editorial purports to be "even handed" yet in reality it portrays a view that equates the terrorists with their victims and supports the Palestinian narrative regardless of the facts.

You blindly take the view that Arafat "tolerated the suicide uprising" rather than to accuse him of financing and encouraging the terrorist infrastructure on the West Bank.

You write that "Palestinians will condemn Israel's "apartheid wall" and "land grab" as the acts of a pariah state" giving such views legitamacy rather than to advise that the use of the word "aparthied" in these circumstances is totally inappropriate, that it can in no way be a "land grab" as the Israelis are already in possession of the lands and are not annexing them and finally you repeat their smear that Israel is a "pariah state". I am surprised that you didn't also call it a "Nazi state".

You argue that Bush should "push both sides to end the suicide bombings, dismantle settlements" knowing full well that only the Palestinians have to end suicide bombings and that the Israelis are in fact making plans to dismantle settlements. Yet you present it as an equivalence.

More equivalence is seen in the sentence "Left to their own devices, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Arafat seem destined to let their peoples drift into ever more desperate violence." How outrageous. Sharon is doing everything he can to stop the violence even if it takes violence to do so whereas Arafat is doing everything he can to foster the violence.

No where do you acknowledge that Israel has a valid claim to these lands or that it is entitled to secure borders pursuant to Res 242 which is part of the Roadmap.. Yet you condemn it for enclosing 15% of the lands to protect its citizens.

While you acknowledge that there is no magic in the green line you allow only that "A few metres either way shouldn't matter." The fence is attempting to protect as many Israelis as possible and keeping as many Arabs as possible on the other side. Does that not make sense. The Act of Partition in 1947 did the same thing by drawing a very crooked line between populations centres as best it could.

Underlying your editorial is the argument that Israel has no right to any of these lands and you expect the Court to rule likewise. In a fairer world, Israel would be able to keep much more of the land as a result of winning a defensive war. The aggressor when it is defeated historically loses some of its land. That principal should apply here. The Arabs should not be allowed to attack Israel time and again without consequences to them.

The fence is not an obstacle to peace as you put it, the terrorism is. The terrorism predates the fence by thirty years. No terrorism, no fence. No terrorism, no targeted killings. No agressive war, no "land grab".

Posted by IsrAlert, February 20, 2004.
This was an article in Arutz-7 (http://www.IsraelNN.com) today.

Israel fears that the body of a Jew may have been mistakenly transferred to Hizbullah in the recent prisoner/hostage exchange deal - and Hizbullah is already making new demands.

It was just three weeks ago that Israel dug up the bodies of several dozen terrorists and other Arabs, in preparation for their transfer to Lebanon or Europe in the framework of the Tenenbaum exchange. Israel received abducted Israeli civilian Elchanan Tenenbaum, and the bodies of three killed soldiers, in exchange for over 400 terrorists and the bodies of several dozen others.

Shortly afterwards, the family of one of the Arabs - Muhammed Biru, a 70-year-old drug dealer who died in Israeli prison - complained that the body returned to them was not the one they were expecting, but rather that of "an elderly religious Jew." A few days later, the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute confirmed that it had identified Biru's body, and that it was in fact in Israeli hands. Israeli sources said, however, that the body that mistakenly arrived in Lebanon had long been unidentified and unclaimed, and was not necessarily that of a Jew. Hizbullah now demands the return of 30 other bodies, as well as Biru, in exchange for the one it received by mistake. [emphasis added]

Blame for the error is already being freely apportioned, with most of it going to Abu Kabir and its head, Dr. Yehuda Hiss. It has been explained, however, that as the graves were marked only by a stick and a number, the rainy and muddy conditions at the time the bodies were removed may have caused the confusion

IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 19, 2004.
1. Maariv today reports that there have been nine (!!) separate attempts by the PLO and its affiliates to shoot down a jetliner landing or taking off from Ben-Gurion airport near Tel Aviv, and each has been prevented by intelligence services.

I would like to remind you that even Hannuka itself celebrates only eight incidents of miracles (actually, strictly speaking, seven). How long do Israeli politicians think they can count on miracles? How long do they think they can avoid the inevitability of going to war against Palestinian nazism? There is no alternative to R&D = Re-Occupation and Denazification!

2. In the spring of 1974, a few months after the Yom Kippur War, leftist students at the Hebrew University, where I was at the time a grad student, published a newspaper calling for meetings and talks between Israeli leftists and Naif Hawatme, the head of the Popular Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PDFLP). They liked Hawatme because he was giving lip service to Marxist mantras, The idea however was dropped a few days later. It seems that Comrade Hawatme had given the orders personally to a crew of his terrorists to infiltrate northern Israel from the Lebanese border and to take over a school building and massacre the children inside. The result was the Maalot massacre of children. So much for the wonderful peace plans of those lefties. These leftist students are today in many cases tenured leftist professors in Israel.

Years later Hawatme was an exception to the rule of terrorist leaders willing to pretend to be negotiating with Yossi Beilin and his Spanky-and-Alfalfda-Make-Peace crew of negotiators. Hawatme wanted nothing of pretense. He demanded that the Jews be annihilated. Even Shimon Peres would not let him enter "Palestine" to give speeches in Ramallah.

I mention all this because Moti Raz, one of the chiefs of "Peace Now", just ran to Jordan to pay his respects to the great Marxist hero Naif Hawatme, the butcher of the children of Maalot (Haaretz Feb 20). At the Palace Regency Hotel in Amman. No doubt, good room service. Hawatme has been also meeting with several of the Arab fascist Knesset Members in recent weeks.

3. Mel Gibson's father gave an interview to a NY radio station this week and insisted the Holocaust was a hoax and never took place. (Haaretz Feb 20)

4. So the whole world thinks it is ok for Israel to build a security fence but they just do not like its lines and want it to follow the pre-1967 Green Line - to signal that the entire West Bank and Gaza are to be turned over to the PLO and its allied armies to use as a launching pad for the next war to destroy Israel. The Israeli Left wants the fence along the Green Line for the same reasonbs.

Now frankly, I myself do not like the lines for the fence either. I repeat what I earlier suggested. Replace the Security Fence with Security Cages. Place large Palestinian towns behind closed cages, and move remote villagers inside these cages. When the world whines, tell them that when people behave like animals they must be placed in cages like animals. Fence the Palestinians in, do not fence out the Jews!

5. Meanwhile, the Olympian (http://www.theolympian.com), a daily published in the Washington state capital, reports that Rachel Corrie, the terror advocate from the International Solidarity Movement (ISM - which REALLY stands for "I Support Murderers"), who died in a bulldozer accident last year while challenging an Israeli army bulldozer and while trying to protect Palestinian weapons-smuggling operations, has won a posthumous award from a "housing rights group":

On Monday evening, the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions presented Corrie's parents with the first Housing Defender Award given by the group... Previously, the group gave awards only to national governments. Saint Pancake was the first indivivual to be so honored. Her honored work on behalf of housing rights was apparently her defense of Palestinian terrorists devoted to blowing up houses with Jews inside.

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.

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, February 19, 2004.
The Likud Convention was supposed to hold a session in February in order to vote on the proposed amendments to the Constitution, including 19c which obligates ministers and MKs to obey the orders of the Central Committee, and 156, which obligates the Prime Minister to bring the list of ministers and the basic program of the government for approval by the Central Committee. (The latter amendment will make it difficult for the prime minister to replace the Rightist and religious parties by the Labor Party.)

Since it appears that the prime minister doesn't want these amendments to be approved, the Convention is not being held. Five appeals were submitted to the Likud court on Tuesday, in order to force the Presidency of the Convention to hold a session for voting.

These appeals reveal a very sad situation. The ruling party is being managed atrociously, without even a minimum amount of control and supervision of its current activists, even though tremendous sums of money are involved, or of its political activities. Tremendously important decisions are being made by a single person, without debate by the appropriate institutions, whether in the party, the government, or the Knesset, and without any proper public monitoring.

The timetable will apparently be influenced by the appeal regarding the World Likud Organization, since in accordance with the recommendation of the WLO court both the voting, and the elections for the WLO, should be held before the end of March.

We hope that the Likud Court, headed by retired Judge Avidgor Mishali, will put an end to this chaos. If we are unsuccessful in the Likud Court we will appeal to the Tel Aviv District Court. Obviously those responsible for the delay are aware that they cannot prevent the holding of a session of the Convention. However, it seems that we will have to fight for this, just as we did for the last session.

Reminder: Please help us expand Manhigut Yehudit's membership list. Send our updates to your list as well.

Moshe Feiglin began Manhigut Yehudi (Jewish Leadership) a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Feiglin has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The Manhigut Yehudi website address is http://www.manhigut.org.

Posted by Leo Rennert, February 19, 2004.
A European friend with whom I have gotten into a friendly debate about rising anti-Semitism sent me an article by Uri Avneri. I think he may have clipped it from the International Herald-Tribune, Avneri is identified as head of the Israeli peace movement Gush Shalom and a former member of the Knesset. Herewith my reply to my Europen friend:

Returned from a 10-day trip to Southern California, Palm Springs and Los Angeles, and found Uri Avneri's article on anti-Semitism. Many thanks for sending it.

I agree with Avneri's statement that all critics of Israel are not anti-Semites as well as with his argument that it is important not to confuse political differences with racism. But after that I part company with Avneri.

For example, he starts by saying that all countries should be judged by the same standard, but then in the very same paragraph concludes that a higher moral standard is required of Israel. I happen to believe that Israel's human-rights record is superior to most countries despite obvious shortcomings in treating its Arab population. As a Jew, I am proud of Israel's performance under unremitting Arab hostility and terrorism. But that it my subjective feeling. In terms of international legitimacy, Israel deserves to be judged the way we would judge the United States, Russia, China or Belgium.

To the question of whether Europe has become anti-Semitic again, Avneri offers a far too rose-tinted answer. He understates the extent and scope of rising anti-Semitism, brushing it off as a response to the Israel-Palestinian conflict and the strong pro-Palestinian bias of European media. I happen to think that today's anti-Semitism in Europe is deeper and wider. For example, Avneri fails to address the question of why many (perhaps most) European intellectuals and media are so virulently anti-Israel, blinding themselves to Palestinian corruption and terrorism, while jumping on Israel for every real (or frequently imagined) wrong. It's important to understand that these are Europe's opinion-shapers and the depth of their hostility to Israel often veers into anti-Semitism.

Avneri also makes light of anti-Semitism in the Arab world. It's not just that typically anti-Semitic remarks have crept into Arab discourse. That doesn't begin to tell the story. Sermons by Muslim clerics throughout the Arab world are reminiscent of the worst anti-Jewish diatribes in Hitler's Germany and they actively fuel terrorism. Avneri also goes overboard in his roseate view of Jews' historic experience in the Muslim world. He is right in arguing that Christian Europe has a far worse record than the Muslim world in the treatment of Jews. But he's too quick to swallow the notion that Muslim Spain was a "paradise" for Jews. There certainly was a level of co-existence and civility unknown in non-Muslim parts of Europe. But Jews, while not subjected to systematic persecution, knew their place was not as equals. Avneri's treatment of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir is much too gentle. Mahatir's anti-Semitic remarks at a conference of Muslim nation drew thunderous applause.

Finally, Avneri ends with a disturbingly cavalier answer to the question of how to deal with anti-Semitism. You rightly put a question mark next to his statement quoting Jean-Paul Sartre as saying that we are all racists. What I remember from my extensive readings of Sartre is his essay on anti-Semitism published after World War 2. Sartre distinguished between two types of anti-Semitism, considering both an equal threat to Jews. He put in one category anti-Semites who would preserve the "Jew" but kill the person (the Hitlerian kind) and in another category the anti-Semite who would preserve the person but kill the "Jew" (I.e. so-called enlightened Westerners who happily would like Jews to shed their Jewishness and become assimilated). Under either anti-Semitic formula, there would be no "Jews" left.

Sartre's views aside, Avneri totally distorts the danger of anti-Semitism by declaring that Israelis are just as racist as everybody else and that the real danger in Israel is represented by Arab-haters. He proposes that Israel should concentrate exclusively on Arab-haters in its midst and leave it to the Europeans and the Arabs exclusively to deal with their anti-Semites. That I totally reject. By all means, Israelis are doing and should do more to wipe out discrimination against Arab citizens. But Israel is also the Jewish homeland and its mission today, while defending itself against forces sworn to its extermination, is not just to look inward but to rush to the aid of co-religionists when they come under anti-Semitic assaults, whether in France, Belgium, Russia or anywhere else.

The bottom line with Avneri is that he puts a higher priority on a peace-at-any-price formula for solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, since he needs European support in that endeavor, is willing to overlook or minimize European discrimination and attacks against fellow Jews. All the best. Leo

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 19, 2004.
This was written by Hal Lindsey and appeared on the World Net Daily website (http://www.worldnetdaily.com) today. Hal Lindsey is the best-selling author of 20 books, including "Late Great Planet Earth."

According to the Bible, in the last days, several events regarding Israel would occur in a particular order in a short time frame.

The first, of course, would be the return of the Jews to their ancient homeland of Israel. "Say to them, 'Thus says the Lord God, "Behold, I will take the sons of Israel from among the nations where they have gone, and I will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land ..." (Ezekiel 37:21, New American Standard)

The second, the Jews would regain sovereign control over Jerusalem. The following verse necessitates that they would do this as the times of Gentiles drew to a close: "And they will fall by the edge of the sword, and be led away captive into all nations. And Jerusalem will be trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." (Luke 21:24, New King James)

The rebirth of the state of Israel and the recapture of Jerusalem signal that the times of gentile world dominance is coming to a close, according to the Bible.

Following on the heels of these events, the Bible says the Jews will rebuild their ancient Temple on the exact same place where it stood until destroyed by the Romans in A.D. 70. Several prophecies speak of the Temple and the reinstitution of Mosaic ceremonies. According to the Law of Moses, these can only be practiced in a Temple restored to its original foundation.

Paul writes to the Thessalonians concerning a very important event the Antichrist will perform in the Temple shortly before Christ's return. He writes, "Who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the TEMPLE OF GOD, displaying himself as being God." (2 Thessalonians 2:4 NAS) This also necessitates that there be a Temple rebuilt on its ancient site in Jerusalem.

While the Jews have returned to their homeland, and have been in possession of their holy city since 1967, the Temple Mount is dominated by the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa Mosques. Muslims claim the entire Temple Mount as their third-holiest site.

The mosques have stood there for 1,400 years. But the Bible predicts that, in the last days, the spot will again be occupied by a Jewish Temple. Unthinkable?

Of course, the restoration of the Jews to the Land of Promise was unthinkable for centuries. Who could have dreamed in 1944 that four years later the Jews would have a state in their ancient homeland? Impossible! It certainly seemed so at the time. The world was just learning of the massacre of 6 million Jews in German concentration camps.

But against all odds, in 1948, the Jews, having existed for centuries without country, land or flag, declared the existence of the state of Israel. This was the most important single fulfillment of prophecy concerning the last days. It set in motion the whole scenario of predicted events.

The Jews brought to this new nation a culture unchanged by thousands of years of being scattered. Hebrew was resurrected as the official language of Israel - even though it had been a dead language for nearly 20 centuries.

They restored the land, changed the climate and created a garden spot out of an utterly desolate Middle Eastern desert.

Then, again against impossible odds, they won four wars aimed at their annihilation. In the process of winning the third one, they recaptured their holy city of Jerusalem.

But the Muslim Waqf retains religious authority over the Temple Mount. Still, the Bible says that eventually, somehow, during the generation that saw the first two fulfillments, Israel and Jerusalem, will also see the third fulfilled, a Jewish Temple on the Temple Mount.

Following a moderate earthquake and a weekend snowstorm, the walkway leading to the Temple Mount from the Old City collapsed.

This news follows the news of the bulge in the southern Wall of the Temple Mount, which forms one of the outside walls of the Old City.

Israeli archeologists have repeatedly warned that the retaining walls and understructure of the Temple Mount have been so weakened by unauthorized Muslim excavations that they are in danger of a catastrophic collapse.

The Israelis have offered to do the work, but have been rejected out of hand.

No matter what happens, Israel will get blamed. If the wall collapses completely, Israel will be blamed for not fixing it. If Israel tries to fix it, it will be accused of tampering with an Islamic holy site. Most religious authorities realize that a collapse could trigger apocalyptic events.

But despite all of these circumstances, the Bible predicts that Israel will soon rebuild its Temple on its ancient site. Again I ask: Impossible?

In the light of all the prophecies that have been fulfilled in this land in the last 50 years - all of which were considered equally impossible - I believe the Temple will soon be built.

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 19, 2004.
Microsoft installed the Encarta Encyclopedia on the Internet. Shaul Cohen of the U. of Oregon wrote some distorted and erroneous sections. His "Arab-Israeli Conflict" equates the violence by both sides, so that it is not clear that the Arabs are the aggressors, especially in the riots of 1929 and 1936. Those riots were murderous rampages by the Arabs, led on by false claims of Jewish designs on Islamic shrines. The Peel Commission noted that the Jews are the law-abiding ones, and behaved with restraint under provocation. (The British had disarmed them.)

Cohen charged both sides with having rejected Resolution 242. "The Arab states continued to call for the destruction of Israel, while Israel for its part refused to withdraw from the territories it occupied." No, Israel accepted 242, but was not obliged to withdraw from any land until the Arabs acknowledged Israel's right to sovereignty in peace and negotiated that peace.

Describing the violence after Oslo, he put it, "Palestinians (Arabs) conducted attacks on Israeli citizens, and on a number of occasions Israeli extremists responded in kind.  "In kind?" No, Israelis did not bomb Arab buses, cafes, and malls, nor did their leadership urge them to do so. There was one attack, at the Hebron mosque.

Ariel Sharon is described as controversial, hardline, disobedient, deceptive, and reckless. Arafat is descried as a Nobel laureate who is sometimes accused of failing to prevent terrorism (IMRA, 2/10 from Andrea Levin of CAMERA).

Sharon has not been hardline as Prime Minister. Arafat pays for, and exhorts to, terrorism.

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARDS? A Commentary on the Kurdish Situation
Posted by Tamar Rush, February 18, 2004.
Gerald Honigman's article exposes yet another example of the "International Community" led by the United Nations, the U.S. State Dept. and the Council on Foreign Relations, placing Arab oil interests before logic and the long term strategic interests of the West.

The forced arabization of non-Arab peoples in the Middle-East, North and Central Africa, and elsewhere will only strengthen and embolden the forces of Anti-Westernism the world over. America's tendency to reward its enemies, and screw its friends is a danger to the security and well-being of its citizens.

One must wonder just whom the U.S. Administration believes it is serving: the American people and their friends and allies, or the Arab nation that has become the greatest threat to the United States since Hitler? - Tamar

While the world's media still debates whether or not Arabs who deliberately blow up civilian busloads of innocents are militants or terrorists, Mr. Ignatius has no problem using the "T" word for Kurds. And while the same media insists that there be a 23rd Arab state, somehow 30 million stateless Kurds are still considered undeserving of one.

David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote on September 16, 2003 of the danger in playing America's Turkish card in Iraq. In the course of the article, when mentioning the Kurds, he referred to them only as terrorists or rebels.

Now think about that for a minute. At a time when most media folks are still debating whether or not Arabs - who deliberately blow up busloads of Jewish innocents in buses, pizza parlors, teen nightclubs, etc. - are "militants" or "terrorists," folks like Mr. Ignatius have no problem using the "T" word for Kurds.

Let's say, right from the start, that I support a strong Turco-American alliance, but it's not a good idea to have the Turkish military join us in Iraq. I'll get into this issue a bit later on. For now, consider the following...

Just imagine if Israel was to say that under no circumstances would another Palestinian Arab state be permitted to be created (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).

Could you envision the outcry around the world? Yet this is precisely what our friends, the Turks, have stated over and over again regarding the Kurds. And besides David Ignatius' comments, this has been echoed elsewhere as well such as in Thomas Friedman's March 26th article in the New York Times. Friedman advised that the Kurds should be told point blank, "what part of 'no' don't you understand? ...You Kurds are not breaking away."

Nauseating. These are the same authors who, along with many others, have written volumes espousing the creation of that 23rd Arab state, While the Turks' nervousness over such a thought is understandable, their position (as well as Ignatius', Friedman's, etc.) is morally indefensible... if that means anything these days. We'll return to this issue as well later on. At this time, however, we need to take a good look at the plight of some 30 million perpetually used and abused Kurds. Think about all of the journalistic, political, and other energy which has been devoted to the creation of that 23rd Arab state. Now ask yourselves how much has been devoted to the plight of stateless Kurds? Think of Mr. Ignatius' and Mr. Friedman's comments for starters.

For several decades now, in the study of Middle Eastern Affairs, some subjects have appeared to be taboo while others never seem to leave center stage. Perhaps one reason for this state of affairs lies in the perpetual quest for Arab petro-dollars by financially hungry academic institutions. Another possibly related reason has something to do with those who have hijacked an intolerant control of Middle Eastern Studies in academia. Israel, constantly in the spotlight's glare, is thus frequently picked apart (all in the name of "objective scholarship" of course), and every real and/or imaginary sin is repeatedly exposed for all to see and pass judgment upon. Indeed, many academics have taken the lead recently to single Israel out and treat it as a pariah in their attempts to have their institutions cut all ties to it.

The mere suggestion that Pan-Arabism or Arab nationalism has problems with Jewish nationalism/Zionism for at least some of the same reasons it has had similar problems elsewhere - Berber North Africa, Lebanon, Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistan, the Sudan, etc. - can elicit harsh rebuke. In the classroom, however, such subjects are more often than not simply not dealt with at all. Rare is the classroom, for example, that gets into a discussion of the "other side" of the Middle East refugee problem, the one half of Israel's Jews who fled Arab/Muslim lands as a result of the war Arabs launched against the nascent Jewish State. Even more rare is the class that puts the 1947 partition plan for Palestine into the broader context of another partition going on at the very same time between Hindus and Muslims over the Indian subcontinent. The double standard frequently reigns supreme, and while students are often left with the impression that one national movement holds a monopoly on evil and injustice, the other is in line for imminent canonization.

Not surprisingly, therefore, revealing and provocative subjects such as Arab treatment of the Kurds have, until recently, simply been ignored. It took Saddam's gassing of them a little over a decade ago in Desert Storm to finally get some interest aroused...but not much. Yet these same voices, mostly silent on the decades' old subjugation and slaughter of Kurds, loudly protest that Arab nationalism has been eternally wronged because it has manifested itself to date - largely via conquest and forced arabization of other peoples and their lands - on "only" twenty-two states, including one on over 80% of the original Mandate for Palestine issued to Britain on April 25, 1920 and today known as Jordan.

Some thirty million proud, much abused, and beleaguered people - still not in possession of one state let alone two dozen others - are thus simply disregarded in a grotesque display of moral bankruptcy and hypocrisy by the very same circles promoting an Arafatian state. What's even worse, outside of academia, an Arabist-dominated State Department perpetuates this problem for its own largely oil-tainted reasons. And most of the media engages in this double standard as well.

The story of Kurdish nationalism is a depressing one when compared with that of other nationalisms in the Middle East. Arab and Iranian nationalisms, for example, are replete with events causing anger, frustration, setbacks, and the like, but their futures remain alive with the promise of a better tomorrow. Not so, however, for the Kurds...That is, not until recently. While great forces are still working against this - not the least being those at Foggy Bottom - the war in Iraq has the potential to, at long last, right an historic wrong. It is time...

The Kurds are a native, non-Arab people who have lived in the Middle East for thousands of years. Their name derives from the ancient Guti (Guti-Gurti-Kurdi), conquerors of Babylon. They were the non-Semitic Hurrians of Mesopotamia and the Medes of Persian history. Their home covers mountainous regions now part of Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and other countries as well. But the heartland of ancient Gutium, the domain of later autonomous Kurdish mirs, had been in what is now - thanks to the British - Arab Iraq.

The area around Mosul and Kirkuk, vast in petroleum deposits, was traditional Kurdish land. Add to this an ironic twist. While Syrian Arabs (as well as Saddam) like to sing praises to the medieval warrior Saladin's name, Saladin was, in fact, a Kurd who joined in the fight against Christendom's advances in the Middle East. Had he known what would be in store for his people at the hands of Syrian Arabs centuries later, he might have had second thoughts. A reading of the Kurdish nationalist Ismet Cherif Vanly's book, The Syrian 'Mein Kampf' Against The Kurds (Amsterdam 1968), gives some good insight into how Arabs have dealt with any and all potential rivals in the region.

The Ottoman Turks controlled most of the Middle East for over four centuries. With the pending collapse of their empire, numerous peoples had their dreams for independence once again reemerge. President Wilson encouraged this himself in his famous Fourteen Points and his calls for self-determination for all former subject peoples. The Kurds were among those whose aspirations were addressed.

The best and most reasonable chance for Kurdish independence was sacrificed, however, in the immediate post-World War I era on the altar of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism. What was promised as "Kurdistan" became Arab Iraq instead. The odds against a favorable outcome to such aspirations grew immensely from then on. Among other things, Arab nationalists feared that if such a state arose it would become the focus of immigration for millions of Kurds living in Turkey and Iran. Arabs also wrote that they would see the birth of an independent Kurdistan as equivalent to the creation of another Israel, i.e. it would permanently separate lands from what Arabs claimed solely for themselves.

In order to maintain any credibility in the strategically important Arab world, the British - who had recently switched from a coal to an oil-powered imperial navy - decided that they had to ignore previous promises made to the Kurds and included the oil-rich Kurdish areas in what was being formed as Arab Iraq instead. Britain decided that its long-term interests required keeping the Arab world as friendly as possible. Besides backing off from promises to the Jews in Palestine (including chopping off all of the land east of the Jordan River and handing it over to the Arabs in 1922 with the creation of the Emirate of Transjordan), this also meant passing another litmus test, the abandonment of the Kurds.

A newly invigorated Turkish Republic under Ataturk and Iran's Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled out, respectively, the potential western and eastern options as well - despite numerous and continuing revolts in the former and the brief Mehabad experience in the latter. Rebellion in these areas represented/represent acts of desperation by a repeatedly exploited and abandoned people. In an era in which former victims of imperialism and oppression were struggling for recognition and gaining national rights, the Kurds were alternately tantalized with intimations of independence and crushed by the withdrawal of these promises at the very moment their realization appeared to be within reach. The explosive results were inevitable. "Rebels," indeed, Mr. Ignatius...

Even more troubling for those of us who love America and care about what our nation represents to the world, the United States replaced Britain as the primary user (abuser?) of the Kurds, using them to hammer away at our own enemies in the region, and repeatedly abandoning them to their own fate when our own immediate goals were reached. So, that brings us up to the present and our current problems with post-Saddam Iraq.

We hear from the folks at the State Department that Iraq must not be dismembered because it will lead to instability in the region. Talk of a unified federal state had prevailed for a while, but even that seems now to be fading fast. The dominant Shia have other things in mind, and Arabs of any religious stripe do not look kindly upon the prospects of any kind of autonomy for Kurds.

Funny, these same Foggy Bottom folks don't think twice about what the creation of a second Palestinian Arab state will do to both a miniscule, 9-mile wide Israel and a Jordan whose majority population is Palestinian Arab. Repeated partitions are legitimate for Palestine, but not even one is permissible for Mesopotamia/Iraq. There will be no "Road Map" for Kurdistan... What's wrong with this picture?

The real reasons for our State Department not wanting this, of course, are quite different. One of the main issues is the same one that Britain had when it aborted an independent Kurdistan in the first place: fear of angering the Arab world. But think of what could happen if Mosul and Kirkuk's oil became part of a long overdue, friendly Kurdish State with America as its main ally...

The other major concern is more noble and has to do with our friends, the Turks. With the collapse of their empire after World War I, when the dust finally settled, Ataturk pulled together a reinvigorated (if much constricted) Turkey. The eastern portion of what was left of the Turkish domain, however, largely consisted of Kurds, but the Turks had drawn their line in the sand and were not about to permit the dismemberment of any more of their territories due to a Kurdish nationalism frustrated with the loss of the one best chance it had at independence in Mesopotamia. So the Turks and Arabs (and others as well) have all harshly suppressed the aspirations of this stateless people. Additionally, Kurdish language, culture, and other aspects of Kurdish identity have been periodically outlawed.

So here's our current challenge - if we can overcome the Arabists who too frequently call the shots at the State Department. We now have a chance to right an historical wrong. If Arabs can, after all, have twenty-two states, and very possibly a 23rd in the future, on lands mostly conquered and forcibly arabized from other, non-Arab peoples, how can thirty million Kurds be forced to forever remain stateless and usually at someone else's mercy?

What will happen to America's Kurdish allies, who fought and died side by side with our troops to overthrow Saddam, when America leaves the area due to any number of potential reasons? Arabs will not hesitate to take "revenge" on this people whom they have a long history of massacring.

Turks fear that an independent Kurdistan in northern Iraq will cause and/or support a similar move to independence in the adjacent Turkish lands. This is, in reality, extremely doubtful. More likely - and with proper cultivation most probably - what will occur is that those Kurds ( like those Greeks or those Jews or those Armenians, etc.) who wish to live in an independent state of their own will migrate to that state in northern Iraq. Indeed, Turkey stands to lose many of its own potential "problems" this way. The odds of that new state - born as a result of American and possibly Turkish assistance by dismantling Saddam's Iraq - purposely biting the hands that fed it are not very likely.

Turkoman tribes in the north and Sunni and Shia Arabs in central and southern Iraq will have a loosely federated state as well, and a formula can be reached whereby the oil wealth can be shared - including with the Turks who feel that they lost the Mosul fields due to Britain's earlier influence with the League of Nations after World War I. It was good that the Turks said "no" to our using their border with Iraq as a springboard for our troops during the overthrow of Saddam. Part of the price tag for such permission would have likely been granting the Turks permission to occupy Iraqi Kurdistan...a moral nightmare...again, if that means anything these days. Talk of inviting Turkish troops to now "help out" in Iraq falls into this same mold.

Since we went to war and once again called upon our strangely loyal friends, the Kurds, to assist us in ousting Saddam, we have to be sure that this time we hold the moral high ground. We've not done this before with them. Indeed, after President George Bush (senior) called on them to revolt against Saddam in Desert Storm, he watched and did nothing while these people were massacred by the thousands. They had been gassed to death just a bit earlier. Secretary of State Powell's September 2003 visit to Halabja was thus a bit ironic. He was one of those who had a say in this earlier policy. Remember that the full force of America's war machine was nearby and could have acted...but didn't. And this was not the first time we abused them this way. It is time to right a long overdue historical wrong.

Gerald A. Honigman is a Florida educator who has done extensive doctoral studies in Middle Eastern Affairs. He has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated many Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in dozens of newspapers, magazines, academic journals and websites all around the world. http://radicalacademy.com/studentrefpolitics22gah.htm

THE ODD COUPLE: Israel and Russia Challenge OPEC
Posted by IsrAlert, February 18, 2004.
The author of this article, Ed Blanche, is a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, and a Beirut-based journalist who has covered Middle Eastern affairs for three decades. He is a regular contributor to "The Daily Star (http://www.dailystar.com.lb), where this article appeared today." It is archived at IMRA (http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=19843)

IMRA comments: The loading point of the pipeline is already within range of the Qassam rockets that the Palestinians have developed. If and when Prime Minister Sharon's retreat is executed, the Palestinians will be able to easily import longer range missiles to put the Ashdod port under the same threat that Israel's other main port, Haifa, faces from the 12,000 missiles in South Lebanon - all formidable threats that will deter Israel from taking action to prevent an IDF-free Gaza Strip from developing even greater threats against the Jewish state (and even preventing Israel from responding to attacks).

BEIRUT: Israel's vice-premier and trade minister, Ehud Olmert, was in Moscow last week with a particular message: "We want more Russian oil."

Moscow is only happy to oblige, because a 250-kilometer pipeline running from Ashkelon on the Mediterranean to Eilat on the Gulf of Aqaba has become a vital artery for Russian oil exports to the Far East, the fastest-growing energy market in the world and one Moscow wants to dominate. By sidestepping the Suez Canal, the Trans-Israel Pipeline, known as the Tipline, opens up a shorter and cheaper route for Russian oil exports to Asia and thereby threatens Arab exports from the Gulf.

The first tanker to sail from Israel with a cargo of Russian crude pumped through the Tipline left Eilat, bound for Asia, in November. According to British energy analyst Simon Henderson, an expert on the Gulf, that event "has the potential to greatly impact the international oil market. Russian oil exports are unconstrained by the quotas of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and a steady stream of expanded Russian shipments via the Tipline could lower prices worldwide."

The new route also puts Israel firmly on the oil industry map, but more importantly it will strengthen Russia's position in the global energy market, challenging Saudi Arabia's as the pre-eminent oil producer. These days, Russia and Saudi Arabia are jockeying for the No. 1 spot as a world oil supplier with around 8 million barrels per day (bpd). A confrontation between Saudi-dominated OPEC and Moscow seems inevitable.

With oil hovering around $30 a barrel, the Russians have little interest in aiding OPEC dampen prices, and it is expected to push up production this year. According to French energy analyst Francis Perrin: "Russia has no interest in collaborating with OPEC."

The Americans have long wanted to undermine OPEC and US control of Iraq's oil, wealth could go far to achieve that. But the Russians seem to be ones making the running right now, and want to overtake Saudi production levels within five years. According to Simon Kukes, chief executive officer of Russia's giant Yukos oil company, Russian output could reach 11 million bpd by 2009.

The Tipline connection also cements Israel's relations with Russia, a mortal enemy throughout the Cold War, at a time when many oil-consuming states are growing nervous about the security of energy supplies from the Arab world and are seeking ways to reduce their dependence on countries like Saudi Arabia. The Japanese, for instance, get 85 percent of their oil from the Gulf but want to cut that back to 65 percent.

It is possible that the Russians may at some point open another export route to the Far East through Iran's Gulf terminal at Bandar Abbas, which could also reduce Asian demand for Saudi crude. Russia, Iran and India signed an agreement to develop a north-south transportation corridor in September 2000 that would also rival the Suez Canal. But that involves investing of billions of dollars and years of work, and would thus seem to lie far in the future.

For now, the Tipline is the testbed for Russia's ability to pump up the volume of oil it ships to energy-thirsty Asia, where the market is being enlarged by China's growing demand for oil to fuel its burgeoning economic expansion.

The Tipline was built in 1968 to carry oil shipped up the Red Sea from Iran, then still ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to Eilat and on to the Mediterranean for transshipment to Europe. At that time, the Suez Canal was still closed following the 1967 war, with the Israelis holding the eastern bank and the Egyptians the western bank, so the Tipline saved tankers having to make the long and costly haul around Africa to reach markets in Europe and the US.

Israel took what it needed of the Iranian oil for its own consumption. But the 1979 revolution in Iran changed all that. The new regime cut off all links to Israel. The surge in Russian oil exports following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 gave the Tipline a new lease on life. By reversing the flow, with Eilat instead of Ashkelon as the loading terminal, the Russians found a new outlet as they drove to develop new markets.

So now tankers from the Black Sea carry the oil to Ashkelon. These are of necessity not large supertankers because Turkey prohibits ships of that size using the Bosphorus Straits. But big tankers can be used to carry shipments from Eilat. The Tipline has the capacity to handle 55 million tons of oil a year.

According to the Russian media, Moscow is expected to pump 20 million-30 million tons through Israel this year, as well as provide most of Israel's requirement of 240,000 bpd that formerly came for such diverse sources as Egypt and the North Sea.

"Even if the pipeline route was used to its full potential," Henderson says, "Russian oil transported to Eilat would only be enough to fill one Asia-bound oil tanker every two or three days." But boosting the line's capacity would increase exports. Henderson noted that Russian oil shipped through Israel is made more attractive to Asian buyers because it eliminates the so-called "Asian premium," the extra $1 per barrel arbitrarily imposed on Asian consumers by Gulf producers. This has caused considerable resentment against the Gulf exporters, and provides another incentive to reduce their dependence on Arab oil.

Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdel-Aziz of Saudi Arabia, the country's de facto ruler since King Fahd fell ill six years ago, made a landmark visit to Moscow in September 2003 hoping to improve relations, in large part because of the strains in Riyadh's relations with the US since Sept. 11, 2001. The Saudis signed a five-year oil and gas cooperation agreement, but the Russians, while cordial enough, were not inclined to curtail their campaign to boost oil exports that are the main driver of Russia's economic boom or to see prices cut back.

The Russians have not forgotten how in 1985 the Saudis used their excess production capacity to flood the market and drive down oil prices to $12 a barrel, which wrecked any hopes that the then-Soviet Union had of an economic revival and contributed to the collapse of communism soon after.

Yet the Saudis remain increasingly desperate for Russia's help, especially as the US agenda becomes more belligerent and insistent upon speedy political reform that the House of Al-Saud is reluctant to introduce.

Just how desperate Riyadh is was evident in January, when the pro-Moscow president of Chechnya, Akhmad Kayrov, said after visiting the Saudi capital that Riyadh had halted all funding for Islamic rebels in the war-torn republic and recognized his government. That can only bolster Al-Qaeda in its campaign inside the kingdom by convincing many Saudis that their government is collaborating with those who seek to crush fellow Wahhabis fighting the infidel.

Moscow's improving relations with Israel, despite some tensions, underline how Russia's policies in the region are changing. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has visited Moscow three times since his election in early 2002. Commercial relations are flourishing with trade running at several billion dollars a year. Russia and Israel are collaborating on programs that have strategic and military implications. Both states are threatened by Islamic extremists, and the Israelis, busy fighting suicide bombers, have been uncritical of Moscow's harsh measures against the Chechen separatists.

With Israel as a vital artery for oil exports, the relationship is bound to consolidate, undoubtedly at the Arabs' expense. /font>

Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA (Independent Media Review and Analysis), which tracks the media, polls and events of importance in the Middle East. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il

IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 18, 2004.
MK Tzvi Hendel claims to have proof that PM Sharon suddenly decided upon a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in order to avoid indictment on an unrelated matter of bribery.

Sharon is alleged to have met with his aides to figure out how to neutralize the pending legal action. In this they were following the precedent of other diplomatic initiatives coinciding with the closing of police investigations against prominent politicians.

MK Hendel urges the Attorney-General to decide promptly whether to indict PM Sharon. If indicted, Sharon would have to resign. If exonerated, Sharon would lose the incentive to save his freedom at the expense of expelling the Jews from Gaza Strip (Arutz-7, 2/9).

Although elected to be firm with the Arabs, the Prime Minister has taken it upon himself to expel "thousands of people from their homes, destroy entire communities, and declare an entire section of the Land of Israel off-limits to Jews." He said it costs to much to defend them in Gaza.

Could Sharon be more unethical and anti-democratic, as he discriminates against Jews? Suppose France declared that it cost too much to defend the Jews of Paris, and he would move out the Jews, rather than those who wantonly attack them. France would be declared antisemitic. Sharon is fulfilling the Arab dream of driving out the Jews, who sacrificed their lives for centuries to preserve their patrimony there. Sharon is doing more to advance the Arab cause than has Arafat. Sharon must be cashiered (Michael Freund, National Unity Coalition for Israel, 2/5, e-mail).

Most key figures in Israeli intelligence and Army have advised against PM Sharon's plan for unilateral withdrawal from Jewish communities. They explain that the Arabs would see this as a victory for terrorism and redouble that terrorism, not leave Israel alone. The public also opposes the plan. So does the Biblical injunction against surrendering God-given land. The rabbis are not protesting loudly, however. They seem to be awaiting a Divine signal about what to do.

Israeli Prime Ministers disregard the advice of the experts. They dance to foreign command.

Sharon contends that the withdrawal he plans would enable Israel to retain more strategic parts of Judea-Samaria. Problem is, he has not gotten a clear and formal understanding from Pres. Bush that the US agrees. Nor can Sharon count on Bush being re-elected. The Democrat who replaces him might not endorse the previous agreement, if any. He might hold the leftist position that Israel should withdraw all the way to the Green Line. (Indeed, Sen. Kerry's campaign manager is said to be from American Friends of Peace Now!) If such a Democrat were elected, he would find that Sharon's uprooting of communities set a precedent Sharon would be hard to refuse to continue. How would Sharon dispute him on that? (Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA, 2/12.)

When there is no good argument contradicting the experts, as in this case, the advice should be taken seriously. The politicians claim to have higher and strategic ends, but they usually are lower and non-strategic ends, such as poll ratings and pleasing US critics. Their advisors' dire predictions usually pan out, the polls are ephemeral, and the US remains unappeased.

One who agrees with Sharon is Labor MK Yatom, a former head of the Mossad. He said he sees no reason for maintaining IDF forces in the Gaza Strip. He said those forces could return, if terrorism resumes.

By what precedent does he base his assessment? Not on the recent experience with Lebanon. Since Israel withdrew from the security zone in southern Lebanon, Hizbullah positioned 12,000 missiles there. Hizbullah attacks Israel, which does not send forces back in and risk the missiles blanketing northern Israel. Instead, it mostly bombs empty buildings (in a pretense at retaliating).

If Israel abandoned Gaza, the P.A. could declare sovereignty. The Security Council, which may welcome excuses to act against Israel, would forbid Israeli invasion. Once sovereign, the P.A. would import heavy arms. It would liquidate Israel's agents in Gaza.

When attacked from Lebanon, at least Israel knows by whom. From Gaza, real or fictitious groups could claim to have made the attack, and Israel would not know whom to retaliate against. Gen. (Res.) Yatom's optimism sounds like a parody (IMRA, 2/11). Is he opining as a former intelligence chief or as a Labor politician? As chief, was he angling for the politician's job?

Last week, an earthquake struck the land of Israel, registering 5 on the Richter scale. Everyone felt the earth shaking and all wondered whether it were a bomb and would a building crash down on them. It left no damage anywhere except cracks in the wall and foundation of the Knesset, especially in Sharon's office. That, suggests "Voice of Judea," is the specific sign from above, not just a physical effect from below (2/11, e-mail). Interesting interpretation.

Another person who supports Sharon is MK Ezra, formerly in the secret service. He explained to Israel Radio why his support for PM Sharon's evacuation plan. He does not know why PM Sharon wants the withdrawal, but is confident that the PM and his security advisors must have a good reason. He sees his role as being to support the Prime Minister and the coalition. He would resign if he disagrees with the Prime Minister and thinks Sharon made a bad decision (IMRA, 2/8).

If the decision threatened the country's survival, as recent decisions about the Arab-Israel conflict do, then Members of Knesset should press the Prime Minister to resign, as the one making a mistake endangering millions of lives. Ezra is the stereotypical party hack. He thinks the Knesset is supposed to be a rubber stamp. Rubber stamps aren't democratic.

Even PM Peres objects to forcibly removing citizens from their houses. He quotes them, "We are connected with our place, we were born here, this is our land, we are citizens of the country." He was referring not to PM Sharon's plan to force the Jews out of Gaza, but to PM Sharon's thought of trading Um el-Fahm, an Israeli city of almost 40,000 Arabs, to the P.A. (Arutz-7, 2/8). Interesting that Israeli Arabs prefer being in the country they say oppresses them.

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 18, 2004.
When Prime Minister Ariel Sharon announced his Disengagement Plan, I jumped upon his bandwagon. In my article "Sharons Strategy and Why I Support It" (http://israpundit.com/archives/003825.html), I reasoned,
"He plans to build the fence in a path that is most advantageous for Israel. This will enable Israel to better protect its citizens and its economy. It will also enable Israel to strengthen its hold on the included lands during a very extended interim period. He is prepared to abandon some settlements on the east side of the fence and in Gaza and repatriate/transfer the Jews from them. This is a small price to pay for the opportunity to consolidate Israel's hold on a large and significant swath of land. One step back and two steps forward."

Much has happened since then, which has riddled his strategy and my support of it. The US is totally against Israel strengthening its hold and won't let Israel build the fence where it is most advantageous for it to do. Haaretz reports:

Senior U.S. officials have made it clear in recent conversations with Israeli officials that the U.S. opposes the annexation of West Bank territory and the construction of an eastern fence between West Bank Palestinian cities and the Jordan Valley.

It also opposes moving settlers from the Gaza Strip to the West Bank. The Americans have requested information on the 1982 relocation of evacuees from Sinai and asked whether they were resettled in the West Bank and Gaza.

Even before this clear diktat, Israel had capitulated and changed the location of the fence to exclude Ariel and other close by settlements and to forego a buffer for Ben Gurion Airport.

If yielding territory does not enable Israel to consolidate its hold on the remaining territory, then the rational for yielding it is totally destroyed.

His latest plan for disengagement in Gaza gave up a great deal for little in return. The Camp David Accords, which conceded "every inch" to Egypt, set a very bad precedent. To give up every inch of Gaza is an even worse precedent because Gaza is indistinguishable from Judea and Sumaria. Far better to retain the largest settlement block in Gaza when withdrawing from most of it, and announcing Israel's intention to annex it. In any event Israel will still be responsible to control the terrorists in Gaza even after they uproot some settlements so what is to be gained.

As Sharon has said many times, all his actions will first be approved by the US. While it is better to proceed with the agreement of the US, it is not a good policy to let the US call all the shots. Israel must have a made in Israel policy even if the US doesn't like it. If the US has its way with Israel, Israel will be forced back to the '67 borders with minor exchanges and will be responsible to assist the Palestinians to be economically viable.

The US holds that

...a final settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians must be achieved through negotiations. And neither side should impose final conditions on the other.

This is utter nonsense. Negotiations are never conducted in a vacuum. They are always affected by the relative strength of the parties. And strength is not just measured in terms of military power but also in terms of one's willingness to use it. Strength also reflects one's political support or lack thereof. Furthermore, all parties to a conflict attempt to impose "final conditions" on the other either by militarily defeating them or by gaining advantages in other ways. In the case of the Israeli/ Arab dispute the world is attempting to impose final conditions on Israel and criticizes Israel for doing anything to thwart its ends.

Israel is constantly accused of taking unilateral steps that prejudge negotiations. This right is reserved to the world powers alone. This condemnation must be utterly rejected. Every country without exception does what ever it can to serve its interests without waiting for agreement. Such condemnation is merely a tool to impose on Israel a solution and to prevent Israel from bettering its position. It has no basis in law or in any agreement.

Sharon is clearly a lame duck Prime Minister. His health is failing and he may soon be indicted. The US is already distancing itself from him and Sharon increasing is looking to the Left for support. He settled for holding the forces of terror at bay rather than defeating them massively. He has come out with many plans that involve concessions with little in return and even those plans, he cannot execute. He has refused to initiate legislation that would require a super majority before any settlements are uprooted or land given back. He has accomplished nothing. He has given the US a veto over all Israeli policies and this is a total abdication of Israeli sovereignty. He must go.

Sharon managed to get approval for the horrendous prisoner exchange for which I will not forgive him. This is more than a security issue. It goes to the heart of Sharon's willingness to fight and bodes ill for Israel.

The all-important question is, "Can Israel go it alone?" Does Israel have any choice but to comply with the demands of the US as Sharon is doing? Is Israel fooling itself to think that it can act independently and get away with it? Israel's choice is to accept like sheep, the demands of the world, or to get off the slippery slope of the "peace process" and stand and fight. Israel should not subject itself to the will of the Quartet but should set its own terms for settlement. To my mind, it can't be any worse off.

Posted by Honest Reporting, February 18, 2004.
On Feb. 16, the New York Times ran a highly sympathetic profile of Al Jazeera, the Qatar-based media outlet that became well-known in the West by broadcasting taped statements by Osama bin Laden. (This article was also published in the Times-owned International Herald Tribune.)

Under a headline declaring that Al Jazeera produces "Balanced Coverage," the Times article is filled with flattering quotes on Al Jazeera's effort to supply "comprehensive and accurate" news coverage, its lack of "ideological aim," and noble goal to "bridge the gap" between East and West. An Al Jazeera spokesman argues that since the station is criticized by both the Pentagon and Arab regimes, this "is a sign that what we are doing is right." The Times article supports that view - failing to cite any of the myriad examples of anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, and anti-Western material that characterizes Al Jazeera coverage.


  • On Feb. 13, the Al Jazeera website ran an article about "the danger of Jewish power," entitled "A Look at the Powerful Jewish Lobby." Author Mark Weber, director of the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review (of David Irving infamy) approvingly quotes a "scholar" who says "The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the greatest robbery in the history of mankind."

  • The Al Jazeera website has a special section on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, which amounts to a slick ideological assault against Israel and the facts. Among the countless examples: President Bush has given Ariel Sharon a "licence to kill" to eradicate "Palestinian nationalism," suicide terrorists are euphemized as "self-sacrificing fighters," and a review of "massacres" in the Arab-Israeli conflict contains only examples of Israeli acts, with no Arab acts mentioned. This is what the Times calls "balanced coverage"?

  • Far from "neutral," Al Jazeera journalists actively supported anti-American forces in Iraq: In November, US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced evidence that Al-Jazeera and another Arab media outlet cooperated with Iraqi forces to witness and videotape attacks on American troops. Al Jazeera's presentation of Americans as barbaric, and Saddam Hussein's regime as heroic, were so outlandish that when Hussein was captured in a hole, an Egyptian government official said, "We discovered that all what the [Iraqi] information minister was saying was all lies... Now no one believes Al-Jazeera anymore."

No one except the New York Times, that is.

As journalist and commentator Tom Gross says, "This New York Times story is an example of how the paper, through the myth of 'objectivity,' subtly misleads its readers on Mideast issues on an almost daily basis." Al Jazeera, with 35 million daily viewers and plans to enter North American cable, is a growing force in propagating anti-Israel and anti-American lies under the guise of objective "news." New York Times readers, unfortunately, are left in the dark regarding this aspect of the "balanced" Arab media outlet.

Honest Reportng monitors the media for inaccuracy and unfairness in how they report the news about Israel. Ther website address is http://www.honestreporting.com

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 18, 2004.
Europe and the US let their countries be used for planning, fundraising, and recruiting for terrorism against Israel and other foreign countries. The West lacked the imagination to foresee that the terrorists eventually would turn against it (just as they are turning against their mentor, S. Arabia). The West (like the Saudis) thought it was buying them off.

Now terrorists are talking about a jihad against Europe. The "British Observer," in reporting the growing network across Europe, still calls the terrorists "militants."

In London, Warsaw, Madrid, Oslo, etc., Europe's detectives pit themselves against the dedicated fanatics, but enjoy little publicity over it, and therefore less public support than otherwise. That is the price that the West pays for the political correctness, that doesn't admit certain types of reality. Security officials know they must not lose, but the people they arrest get replaced.

Britain is used for fundraising, credit card fraud, manufacture of false documents, and planning. Islamist ells are spreading into Eastern Europe, where organized crime is strong and governments are weak and easily bribed. Austria is a communications hub for the terrorists. France is the key recruiting ground for gunmen, but also where terrorists are trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction, one plot having been thwarted. In Germany, they arrange for Balkan gangsters to ship them weapons. S. Arabians continue to finance al-Qaeda and other terrorists. But the European cells are autonomous. They meet on an ad hoc basis.

The only way to deal with the Islamist terrorists is to eradicate them without defense lawyers, trials, and human rights. "Holding a calling card or a check issued by a terrorist groups should constitute sufficient justification to shoot the bearer dead. Moreover, the Muslim communities which give cover to these terrorists should also be shopped home. Innocent people's lives would be hurt, to be sure, but collateral damage has always been an unfortunate consequence of war." (MEPF, 2/6 from Miriam Gardner of American Yated Neeman, 1/23.)

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

Posted by Deb Kotz, February 18, 2004.
Check out this article by Paul Martin from yesterday's Washington Times. Wonder why this hasn't been reported in NY Times or other national news organizations? Bias also lies in what's not reported as well as in what is.

UMM-AL-FAHM, Israel - Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has won no friends in this sprawling Arab city with a proposal that the community and others like it might be ceded by Israel to a future Palestinian state.

Although Israeli Arabs of Umm-al-Fahm share much with their fellow Arabs in the neighboring West Bank, the former say they are more concerned about preserving the rights they enjoy as Israelis - including access to jobs, free speech, a democratic vote and a measure of political freedom.

"We have a saying here," said Shoaa Saad, 22, "that the 'evil' of Israel is better than the 'heaven' of the West Bank.

"Here you can say whatever you like and do whatever you want - so long as you don't touch the security of Israel. Over there, if you talk about [Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser] Arafat, they can arrest you and beat you up."

Mr. Saad spoke while serving sweet tea and cakes in father Nabil's family-run restaurant that, until the start of the Palestinian uprising in September 2000, catered equally to Arabs and Jews who wandered in from a nearby Israeli highway.

That business was jeopardized this month when a Sharon spokesman said the government - which has proposed unilaterally to draw a new border with the West Bank if there is no progress toward a negotiated peace - may cede some Israeli-Arab areas to Palestinian rule in exchange for Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

As many as 20 percent of Israeli citizens are ethnic Arabs, many of them concentrated in a so-called Arab Triangle of cities, towns and villages close to the West Bank.

The idea of ceding some of these population centers appeals to many Jewish Israelis, who fear that the Arabs, with their higher birthrate, eventually will outnumber the Jews in Israel. In 50 years, the Israeli-Arab population has increased from 160,000 to 1.2 million; there are 5 million Jews in Israel.

Palestinian political leaders were as quick to denounce the idea of a swap as were their Israeli-Arab counterparts. Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia said the scheme was "undebatable and unacceptable," and senior Israeli-Arab legislator Ahmed Tibi called it a "racist project" aimed at protecting Israel's Jewish majority.

In Umm-al-Fahm, many Arab Israelis see the proposal as part of a broader dilemma they face.

"The problem is we're treated here as B-class citizens, but we're seen [by West Bank Palestinians] as 'almost Jews,' " said Issam Abu Allo, 29, one of three young Israeli-trained lawyers who discussed their situation over a late-night dinner at a pizza parlor.

"Mr. Sharon seems to want us to join an unknown state that doesn't have a parliament, or a democracy, or even decent universities," said Mr. Allo, who studied law and social anthropology at predominantly Jewish colleges in Haifa and Netanya.

"We have close family ties in the West Bank, but we prefer to demand our full rights inside Israel. International law says neither Sharon or Arafat is allowed to make exchanges against the population's will."

Before the intifada, or uprising, residents of Umm-al-Fahm readily found jobs in Israeli cities, mainly in the construction industry. But the strains between Jews and Arabs during the intifada have left a legacy of deep distrust.

Many Jews recall that a group of hard-line Islamists was elected to the city council and that local youths at one point had blockaded the adjacent highway, leading to violence in which three young men were fatally shot.

Often overlooked is that Israeli Arabs also have died in the bus bombings targeting Jews. At least two Israeli Arabs acted heroically to help thwart or end terror attacks, one of them suffering injuries in a suicide explosion after calling police with a cell phone to alert them to the danger.

"The last three years of the intifada have made our position much worse," Mr. Allo said. "Israelis are suspicious of us now. Jobs are being closed to us. I was kept for two hours at the airport. I know a guy who was held several hours at the airport - just because his surname was Arafat."

The lawyers agreed that "blowing up buses is not the way to bring peace," but they also supported the Palestinian mantra that the attacks were the result of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Despite generally good experiences with Jewish classmates at Israeli colleges, the lawyers considered themselves culturally different and distant from the Jews.

The restaurant-owning Saad family expressed a far stronger affinity after years of trade with Jewish customers.

"We used to prefer Jewish customers because they really told us how good our food was and, unlike our Arab brothers, never argued over the price," Mr. Saad said.

"Now we get one Jewish customer a week on average - and I can see how scared he is as he walks nervously in and looks all around. I hope the good situation we had before the intifada comes back, but I doubt it."

Deb Kotz is an active member of the Brandeis Chapter of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and maintains an email list to distribute articles of interest to the local community. She can be reached at DebKotz@aol.com

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, February 18, 2004.
This frightening article - written by Cinnamon Stillwell, a contributing editor to ChronWatch - speaks for itself. It appeared on http://chronwatch.com February 16,2004. The "liberal" left has turned fascist. I wonder how professor Susan Ervin Tripp will justify the behavior described. [ed note: Tripp, a professor of psychology at Berkeley thought it appropriate to stage an anti-Israel protest on Yom Hashoa (Holocaust Rememberance Day).]

If reaction to Daniel Pipes' lecture on Tuesday (2/10) was any indication, fascism is alive and well at UC Berkeley. Pipes was invited by the Israel Action Committee and Berkeley Hillel to speak at the college campus known for its leftist politics. But ironically, the home of "free speech" and "tolerance" has shown itself to be distinctly intolerant to those who express political views other than their own. And Daniel Pipes happens to fit that description.

Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum, a member of the U.S. Institute of Peace, and a columnist for the New York Sun and the Jerusalem Post. But most importantly, he is pro-America, pro-Israel, and one of the foremost strategists of our time when it comes to the threat of militant Islam.

All of these combined make Daniel Pipes public enemy number one according to UC Berkeley leftists and especially radical Muslim students; Indeed, the Muslim Student Association (MSA) was out in full force on Tuesday, acting like the thugs and bullies they routinely accuse Pipes of supporting. There were about 50-70 of them, amidst a crowd of 700, and after failing to prevent Pipes from speaking, they did their best to try and disrupt the lecture and intimidate the audience.

Pipes had anticipated problems beforehand and had warned supporters that the Muslim Student Association was planning to make an appearance. They had posted an announcement about the lecture at the leftist website SFIndyMedia.org, raving that a "Zionist" was coming to town, and exhorting members to show up. In fact, the lecture was moved to another site on campus to accommodate a larger audience, but the MSA students still managed to sniff it out.

Outside the lecture a crowd of them were gathered, along with sympathetic leftists, many carrying the types of signs and slogans that have become all too familiar in recent years. Signs equating Zionism with Nazism, for instance. Others presented Pipes' quotes out of context in order to smear him. Then there was the guy who shows up at all Bay Area leftist events in an Uncle Sam outfit with a sign saying "Israel Wants You to Die for Her." Another nut-job hovered near the entrance shouting to anyone who would listen about how Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. "were against Zionism."

The Berkeley Police Department was out in full force, as were a private security team. People going inside were frisked three times and had their bags searched thoroughly as well. And a sign on the door warned that no banners, signs, shouting, or violence would be allowed. Yet all of this seemed rather futile because any and all were welcomed into the lecture, including the protesting MSA students and the guy screaming about Gandhi. The event was meant to be free and open to the public, but there's a point at which this type of inclusiveness becomes counter-productive. It was clear from the get-go that the protesters intended to try to disrupt the event, and once inside, that's exactly what they did.

It began as soon as Pipes stepped up to the podium. In fact, before he'd spoken one word, someone had to be escorted outside because he wouldn't calm down. Then jeering, giggling, hissing, booing, and finally, the orchestrated chanting of "racist" and "Zionist," (among other things) starting drowning out the lecture. However, the rest of the audience gave as good as it got and the event turned into a shouting and clapping match between Muslims and Jews.

The tension in the air was thick, tempers were rising, and yet amidst it all, Pipes kept his cool. He managed to deliver his lecture, which covered the War on Terrorism, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and Iraq, but he was forced to stop many times. Pipes spoke directly to the protesters on several occasions, pointing out the irony of their undemocratic behavior, as well as mentioning casually that it is only when he speaks at college campuses that he requires such heavy security. He even brought up the fact that members of the MSA are currently under investigation for possible ties to terrorism.

Their reaction to his speech was telling.

When Pipes brought up the need to support moderate Muslims over those who subscribe to militant Islam, they booed.

When he brought up the need to improve the status of women in Islamic countries, they booed.

When he warned that peace in the Middle East would never be achieved as long as the Palestinians continued to subscribe to a "cult of death," they booed.

When he mentioned Middle East Studies professors who have been arrested under terrorism charges, they booed.

When he discussed the need to combat Islamic terrorism, they booed.

When he referred to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as subscribers to militant Islam, they booed and shouted "Zionism" - no doubt a reference to the myth that Jews were behind the attacks.

When Pipes brought up CampusWatch.org, the website he founded to provide a voice for students feeling oppressed by their leftist professors, they shouted out "McCarthyism" and, of course, "racist" yet again.

And when he mentioned Iraqis? "liberation" from Saddam Hussein's tyranny, they booed even louder.

"I'm sure the Iraqis were much better off under Saddam Hussein," Pipes responded sarcastically.

When it came time for the question and answer period, the group of MSA students all got up together and left, chanting "racist" and "Zionist" over and over again. However, a few stragglers were left in the audience, and they eventually had to be escorted outside by the police because of their unruly behavior. One of these was the man who had been babbling about Gandhi. By this time he got down to basics, calling Pipes "a racist Jew." Sadly, it took several more of these epithets before he was forcibly removed.

After the lecture, many Jews in the audience were visibly shaken. For those who hadn't yet encountered Muslim hostility up close and personal, it was an eye-opening experience. Perhaps not all of UC Berkeley's Muslim students subscribe to the anti-Semitic views of the MSA, but if that's the case, they certainly didn't make their voices heard that evening.

The fact is, radical Muslim students and their leftist counterparts are the most domineering, destructive, and dangerous forces in higher education today. If we're to win the War on Terrorism, we may have to start with our own college campuses.

Yuval Zaliouk write the Truth Provider essays. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

Posted by Steven Plaut, February 18, 2004.
When Ariel Sharon and his people signed the insane "hostage exchange" recently, according to which Israel put some 450 murderers back on the streets in order to procure the bodies of three POWs who had been murdered by the Hizbollah and one civilian whom the Hizbollah was holding ever since he entered Lebanon illegally and with forged papers, I opposed the deal and denounced the moronic politicians who forged it. At the time it appeared that the live civilian was merely a common criminal, possible a drug runner.

In recent days, bits and pieces of a new picture are emerging. I emphasize that I have no inside information and am just forming this impression from gleanings from the press (for example, in Hebrew: http://nfc.msn.co.il/archive/001-D-40565-00.html?tag=14-05-19&au=True), it is sounding like the citizen Tannebaum, who forced Israel's hand into releasing the 450 murderers, may have entered Lebanon seeking to sell Israeli intelligence secrets to the Hizbollah terrorists. I have no independent source that confirms this and am only repeating what the press is winking and implying. If I am wrong, I will later issue an apology. If this impression is right, the decision by Sharon to capitulate to the Hizbollah and buy back Tannenbaum for hundreds of released terrorists is a hundred times even stupider than I previously painted

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.

Posted by Barry Chamish, February 18, 2004.
The battleground is now Gaza. The removal of the Jewish residents there will open a new front against Israel. No longer will Israel be able to contain the war being waged against it from Gaza without suffering heavy casualties. If the world wanted peace, the Gaza Strip would be extended into the nearly empty Sinai Peninsula, which would require Egypt to actually bring hope to the Palestinians for once. There is the space in Sinai to create a large and viable new nation, if anyone really wanted such a thing.

The Gaza pullout will be the next stage in the dismemberment of Israel and its advocates point to the success of the south Lebanon pullout as a precedent. During the recent insane prisoner-bodies exchange, former Health Minister Ephraim Sneh revealed why Israel no longer has any bargaining power with Hizbullah. They now have 12,000 missiles pointed at northern Israel and there is nothing we can do to prevent them from turning the Galilee into ashes. With Gaza firmly in enemy hands, the same will go for southern and central Israel.

Barry Chamish is the author of "Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin", "Israel Betrayed", "The Last Days Of Israel" and "Save Israel!". Write him at chamish@netvision.net.il

Posted by Barry Rubin, February 18, 2004.
In the midst of a "war against terrorism," three US government employees are murdered in a terrorist attack. The local authorities side with the terrorists, covering up facts, blocking an investigation and helping the perpetrators get away with it. Yet the US continues to give some financial aid and diplomatic support to that regime.

The story of the murder of three US security men in Gaza last October 15 is typical of the bizarre events in the Middle East, events that get taken for granted.

Here's the story. Let's examine some broader lessons drawn from it.

On October 15, 2003, a three-vehicle convoy of American SUV mini-vans drove into Gaza carrying US State Department personnel. Their mission was to interview Palestinians for Fulbright scholarships to study or teach in the US. They were escorted by Palestinian Authority police. But explosive charges laid in the road were blown up by terrorists watching from nearby. Three Americans were killed and one injured.

Lesson 1: It would have been reasonable to expect outrage in the Arab world against the terrorists, along with many articles on how the US has helped the Arab world, and so on.

While Jordan's government condemned the attack, there is a general rule in the state-controlled Arab media: Nothing positive can be said about America. By systematically ignoring or distorting US actions that help Arabs or serve Arab interests, the region's dictatorships deliberately construct anti-American attitudes.

The reaction: In highly-publicized actions PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei telephoned condolences to the US government, promising the perpetrators would be caught. PA leader Yasser Arafat condemned the attack as a "terrible crime." At the same time, of course, Arafat has been implementing a terrorist strategy ever since the year 2000, after he rejected a peaceful solution that would have ended the Israeli occupation and created a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem.

The PA made no perceptible effort to find out who had perpetrated the attack, and how. On the contrary, it let evidence be destroyed at the attack site and sabotaged American investigation attempts.

Lesson 2: The PA's attitude to this case is similar to the treatment of Israel in such matters. There are well-publicized public statements by PA leaders condemning terrorism, while no attempt is made to stop it. Indeed, incitement to commit such acts is daily carried on by schools, the media, preachers in mosques, and even PA officials.

Even Edward Abington, a former US diplomat who became the PA's American lobbyist, admitted American officials "were charging that Arafat is dragging his feet on [this] investigation because the people who did it may get too close to Fatah," the group he heads.

FINALLY, this month, the PA put four men on trial for relatively minor offenses - not first-degree murder - in connection with the attack on the Americans. It was a closed military tribunal, with no evidence made public.

But two points were clear: PA statements showed these were not the main perpetrators; and they tried to excuse the crime by insisting that the attackers' target was an Israeli tank.

How the person triggering the bomb confused a convoy of PA police vehicles and clearly marked diplomatic SUVs with a tank was left to the imagination.

Lesson 3: The trial was a cover-up. The real issues: Who financed and aided these people? Who were the masterminds? What relations do they have with PA officials? Obviously, the PA's main concern has been to hide its own encouragement and involvement in terrorism, as is its practice regarding terrorist attacks on Israelis.

The ultimate outcome may also be the same: Those convicted get quietly released after a few months to return to their terrorist activities.

The US complained, in the words of State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, that "[The PA] have not conducted a full, thorough and genuine investigation."

The people on trial are not all those who were involved, and the proceeding "doesn't really resolve the issue of who killed the Americans, and whether they are being punished."

Lesson 4: US experience during the peace process era as well as afterwards - as in this case - shows that the Palestinian leadership does not seek a peaceful resolution of the conflict even if that would provide them with a state.

President George W. Bush's immediate reaction to the October attack was to say: "Palestinian authorities should have acted long ago to fight terror in all its forms." Secretary of State Colin Powell told Prime Minister Qurei that US help on getting a Palestinian state would come if and when there was a really serious attempt to eliminate terrorism.

Yet even faced with this prize and the relatively simple task of proving their good intentions regarding the Fulbright murders case, the PA did not try to fulfill its commitments.

The bottom line: Like those responsible for murdering 1,000 Israelis since 2000, the murderers of the Americans will go free because the Palestinian leadership helps and protects them.

The writer is a former Fulbright scholar, director of the GLORIA Center, and co-author of the recently published "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography." This article appeared on the Jerusalem Post yesterday.

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 18, 2004.
About time someone in the Knesset showed some backbone.

This is a news item from Arutz-7 and is archived at http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=58047

"That Man Stole the Nation's Vote! He's a Liar!"

(IsraelNN.com) MK (National Union) Uri Ariel was visibly angered yesterday when he launched an unprecedented verbal assault on Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"That man stole the nation's vote! He's a liar!" exclaimed Ariel, demanding that Sharon step down from office over his planned removal of the Jewish community from their Gaza homes.

Ariel reminded the prime minister of his past statements, his absolute refusal to "negotiate under fire" and fierce opposition to "unilateral concessions to the PA".

Shortly after his unprecedented verbal assault against the prime minister on Tuesday, Ariel asked to have the word "liar" stricken from the minutes, then going on to explain when he labeled the prime minister a "thief"he was referring to the fact that he stole the vote from the people.

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.

Posted by CAMERA, February 17, 2004.
The Chicago Tribune published in its Sunday (Feb 8) paper two lengthy op-eds that contained information and context, from varying points of view, regarding Israel's motivation for building a security barrier. Many in the media continually harp on Palestinians' objections to the fence and the hardship it causes them. But they often ignore or downplay the terrorism and Israel's security concerns which led to the fence. The Chicago Tribune, however, ran two op-eds, "A buffer is needed between enemies" by Israel's consul general in Chicago, Moshe Ram and "Good walls build good neighbors" by Tribune reporter Ron Grossman, detailing the many reasons why most Israelis have concluded that the security fence is, unfortunately, necessary.

Highlights from the columns:

Moshe Ram (Israel's consul general in Chicago) wrote:

* "The real builders of this fence are the Palestinian terrorist organizations, which, with the approval and financial support of the political leadership, continue to carry out attacks targeting Israeli civilians."

* "Every effort is being made to minimize hardship to the Palestinian population by including a system of dozens of gates designed to provide access. But again, it cannot be stressed too strongly that while the fence can be moved or dismantled, lives lost cannot be restored. Israel must place the right of its citizens to live free from fear above any temporary inconvenience to local Palestinians."

* " The fence will be needed as long as Palestinian political and religious leaders continue to encourage hatred of Israel and Jews in their media, mosques and schools."

Ron Grossman (Tribune reporter) wrote:

* "More than 900 Israelis and foreigners have been killed by suicide bombers and in other attacks. Terrorists repeatedly have slipped into Israel from the West Bank - not just the authors of the carnage but others the Israeli military managed to intercept. Yet almost never have bomb-carrying Palestinians managed to cross into Israel from Gaza Strip, which already is surrounded by a fence on its land side."

* "During the early 1990s, the Israelis and Palestinians engaged in numerous negotiating sessions as part of the Oslo peace process.....By the end of the decade, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians were living in towns and villages administered by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority....Yet the violence never stopped. During the years of Oslo, 160 Israelis were killed and scores more wounded in car bombings, ambushes and other terrorist attacks. From the Israelis' perspective, they gave land but got no peace....The Palestinians make it clear that, should negotiations resume, they won't cut the Israelis a better interim deal. Two successive Palestinian prime ministers have said they won't disarm militant groups, even though that was a stipulation of the Bush administration's latest peace initiative, called the road map."

CAMERA - Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - monitors the media for anti-Israel bias. Its website address is http://www.camera.org.

Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, February 17, 2004.

No one understands Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plans to withdraw from Gaza without an iron-clad agreement with the Palestinian Authority to cease terror and keep Gaza free of being a fully operative terror mini-State.

Why was Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sent to Washington on a recent secret mission while Natan Sharansky was already in Washington and not told of this meeting, nor included? Did Sharon fear that the Knesset would learn of their collusive plans and object to another Oslo scam?


Is Gaza to be ultimately taken over by Egypt again? As a trade for - What? If Egypt takes Gaza, it would crush the terrorists with a brutal force - which is denied to Israel but, would draw no negative comment from the U.N., E.U., U.S. State Department, etc.

What is the trade-off? After the Shah of Iran fell, thanks to then President Jimmy Carter, the State Department shifted its allegiance to Egypt to act as America's watch dog over Saudi Arabia (or at least the Saudi oil fields). The State Department, among others in the oil loop, wanted back-up insurance that, if Syria, Iran or Iraq were to move to take over the rich oil sources, Egypt, with $60 billion in free American weapons, would plunge into Saudi Arabia as a "friendly occupying power" and pump oil for American interests.

To accomplish that, Israel would have to be recruited NOT to attack Egypt and to cooperate by giving them a land route around the Gulf of Aqaba, around or behind Eilat and into Saudi Arabia. Egypt does not have the sea lift capability to transport its coming across the Gulf of Aqaba with a full force - nor could it do so if Israel attacked it.

As it stands now, Israel already faces Egypt's military colossus to its South with a military juggernaut, wholly paid for by American free tax dollars, namely $60 Billion and growing.

Should Egypt be allowed to occupy Saudi Arabia, it would not only acquire the trillions of dollars in oil income but, also absorb one of the best stockpiles of American-made military equipment in the world.

Israel would then be facing Egypt to its South-east, with a military that would be doubled in power - not to mention its oil income. The Saudi Kings, Princes, etc. would be retired to the Mediterranean in France or - wherever.

Why would Israel go along with this sucker play? Quite simply, men like Yitzhak Rabin in his time, Peres, Netanyahu, Barak and now Sharon would be easily recruited IF they were invited to the "Big Game". That is, if these little men were lured by the idea that the Middle East nations of Arab and Muslims could be somehow subdued, democratized and Israel would be allowed to be a player with the U.S. and Egypt.

Far-fetched, impossible, imbecilic even stupid to have such misplace belief in glorious promises - not so! Little nations led by little men are often used as cannon fodder, lured by the promises of being "Big Players" on the Global Stage. They are invariably and inevitably sacrificed and disappear.

The Jewish nation not only wants to be loved, it wants to be a recognized player as if it really was a Big Nation.

Any observant Jew already knows that Israel is an important nation but, those who have been elected do not know this. They desperately want to be one of the "Big Boys" and, thus, they are too easily recruited to schemes.

Egypt can no more be trusted than the Arabist State Department or the oil-driven thugs who are such a powerful force at the State Department and a host of various Administrations.

We are awaiting more exposures of the Pakistani nuclear black market scandal. Don't be surprised to hear that Egypt has been one of the recipient's of Pakistan's nuclear technology bazaars. I would guess that there is a desperate effort at State and the Administration to keep Egypt's name out of the news. Some may recall that Egypt, along with Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria all pitched in donor funds more than 30 years ago to have Pakistan, the Islamic/Muslim nation of choice to make the Islamic Bomb.

The selection was based upon Pakistan's scientific ability, its agreement to provide either a nuclear weapon or technology to the investors and, because it was theoretically far enough away from Israel so it could not be easily hit.

Let us see if the U.S. State Department can keep a tight lid on the other nations that Pakistan provided with nuclear technology or even nuclear bombs - all of which are to remain hidden. (Note! I wrote about this at least 25 years ago.)

Sharon is clearly in America's pocket, at least for those institutions like the shadow government unto itself like the U.S. State Department, the oil maggots, the think tankers who are tasked to think 500 years ahead to insure the U.S. a steady supply of energy.


I still foresee a time in the not-too-distant future when Jordan will be armed by the U.S., as has been done with Egypt. Jordan will likely be handed the responsibility for taking over the uncontrollable Arab Muslim Palestinians on the West Bank of the Jordan River. This would be a reflection of Gaza going over to Egypt.

Some will think this bodes well for Israel but, in the end, Israel will be in a vise - on a slip of land between the military colossus of Egypt and a well-armed Jordan - with Syria/Lebanon poised on the North.


Sharon thinks he is a brilliant tactician - as he once indeed was as a General. But, now he is being played with - although he thinks he is one of the players. Naturally, Sharon like his predecessors, cannot share these grandiose plans with those in the government, his own Party - let alone the Israel people whose well-being for which he is responsible.

In that, he is not a great deal different from the Bush Administration or the State Department who share little with the Congress until they are caught. Mind you, governments need secrets but, there must be checks and balances so you do not have run-away dictatorships, disguised as democracies.

Let us continue with more bits and pieces.

Israel would like to be seen a an invaluable ally to America and, in reality, is the only outpost of Democracy in the Middle East. By and large, outpost democracies are not as valuable to U.S. interests as foreign markets and oil resources controlled by dictators, monarchies, etc. Israel is, indeed, a productive, valuable ally to America but not to the special interests nor the very anti-Semitic State Department.

If Israel were a "spoiler" like Syria, she would be held in higher esteem but, as a cooperative, submissive ally, her value is already pocketed and then discounted.

Presently, her only value in the "spoiler" category is that she supposedly has nuclear weapons for self-defense. Both Arabists in the State Department and Egypt, among other Arab nations, want that to change - so that when Israel is to be taken down, there will be no appreciable fuss.

While the State Department is deeply anti-Semitic, they are also thoughtful. They know that the Arab nations are similarly anti-Semitic through their observance of Koranic law and custom as practiced by Islamists. They know that the Muslims will never give peace to the Jewish State, "Hudnas" (false, temporary agreements) aside. So, for the practical reasons of oil and markets, Israel is slated to go, IF she agrees to be the proverbial sacrificial lamb. Which, of course, is why egoists like Sharon are courted with fanciful plans to pacify or control the Muslim "Jihadists".

Therefore, it is up to you, the reader, to mull over the "bits and pieces" of plans in operation - some on the shelf, some to be used, some to remain on the shelf. Sharon is engaged in the process of run-away government, with himself as the "democratic dictator" who knows best for "his" people. It is not that he is a traitor betraying the nation but, rather that he has been recruited by the best minds in the West to commit suicide in the name of Israel while thinking he is saving the nation. Think of him as Samson, seduced by Delilah (aka George W. Bush).

He cannot help himself until his mind clears and he pulls down the pagan temple of both his enemies and perfidious friends.


P.S. I recommend that you pull up Caroline Glick's column in the JERUSALEM POST of February 13th which relates to the above article. She speaks of Saudi Arabia's cut back of one million barrels per day in support of Arab Palestinian terrorists and other "Jihadists". Perhaps occupying Saudi Arabia to terminate its funding of Global Terror is the right idea.

Regretably, Egypt may not be a great deal better but, we can be sure that for, at least ten years, it would be filling its empty coffers for its own poverty stricken nation and NOT funding terrorists or the "Wahhabi Madrassa" schools all over the world.

Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel, Gamla (http://gamla.org.il/english) and the Freeman Center for Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm)

Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, February 17, 2004.
Dear friends,

BBC continues to outrage us with lies and Arab-Palestinian propaganda.

Here is a quote from today's (January 16, 2004) BBC World News, and from its Internet site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3495833.stm:

"Israel's government approves a $22m budget, mainly for building Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian land."

This is not even a misrepresentation. It is an outright lie and an outrage!

Here is why:

1) There is no such thing as "Palestinian Land" except lands owned privately by Palestinians.

2) Not one Israeli village or city is built on lands belonging privately to Palestinians. They are built on either government lands or lands bought legally by Jews from their Palestinian owners.

3) As long as the Mideast conflict continues, and the fate of it is not finalized by both sides in negotiations, Judea, Samaria and Gaza can only be referred to as disputed lands.

I therefore challenge the BBC to prove to me and to its listeners that Israeli villages and cities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are built on "Palestinian lands." If the BBC concludes that it erred in calling these lands Palestinian lands, it should admit its mistake on the air and immediately stop using this false terminology on its broadcasts.

BBC World News is carried in the US by PRI and NPR. I urge you to write to your station and express outrage at the continued lies propagated by the BBC. BBC lies contribute to worldwide feelings of hatred against the Jewish people and to anti-Semitism.

Yuval Zaliouk write the Truth Provider essays. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 17, 2004.
Dear Friends,

Did you know that over 618,000 Israeli children go to bed hungry each night?

Nearly one in five, 1,321 million Israelis, including 618,000 children lived below the poverty line in 2002. Some 74,000 of the families living below the poverty line were elderly couples and 61,000 families have at least four children. The situation is growing worse.

To address this growing problem, www.Meals4Israel.com, an organization formed in Los Angeles by concerned and caring individuals, has created an efficient method to feed the hungry in Israel. They are currently fundraising for over 24 soup kitchens in Israel, while they screen and monitor them regularly. Donations go directly to the soup kitchens, there are no intermediaries. They are currently feeding over 60,000 people a month. They are running out of food supplies and need to feed more people and open more soup kitchens, they cannot do this without our help.

Please visit the Meals 4 Israel website to learn more about Meals4Israel, and consider making a tax-deductible contribution of any amount to help feed the hungry in Israel. This is one thing all of us can do to help the people of Israel who are suffering on so many levels. You can donate through the internet at http://www.Meals4Israel.com. Or you can send a donation to Meals4Israel.com 11301 W. Olympic Blvd, Suite 580, Los Angeles, CA 90064 or call 1 888 4 israel (toll free).

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 17, 2004.
This article was written by Lee Wolf, a canadian who made aliyah 3 years ago. He lives in Jerusalem where he works in marketing and occasional freelance writing. The article is archived at: http://www.aish.com/jewishissues/israeldiary/Israels_Untold_Story.asp It was circulated by email by Elizabeth Greene.

No sound, no fury. The international silence once again thunders in Israeli ears.

You probably heard about the suicide bombing that brutally claimed the lives of eleven Israeli bus passengers two weeks ago. One of the victims was a young woman with whom I worked until just a few weeks ago. Her name was Dana Itach. She was completely blown to pieces. They identified her by her teeth.

There were dozens more who were pulverized, crushed, scalded and sliced open but who managed to survive. One of them is a friend with whom I only recently became acquainted. His is a story you may not have heard.

I visited him in the hospital the day after the bombing. Very weak, eyebrows singed off entirely, face splattered with blackened blood stains and red lacerations, he opened his eyes just after I walked into the hospital room.

When I saw him I tried to put on an appropriate expression that would hide my fear at seeing his wounds. And I had no idea what to say. But by the time I was by his bed, he relieved me of my inability to start a dialogue. He managed to focus his rolling, glassy, morphine-intoxicated eyes and, in a barely audible and scratchy voice, his words slowly leaked out.

"There was a great, bright, searing, yellow light. And the sound, it's something I can't describe. And then I was lying there and I realized it was a pigua (terror attack). And then I looked down and I thought, 'Oh no, my leg is gone from the knee down'. But it was just a piece of someone else's bloody flesh that had wrapped around my leg. And I thought 'Maybe I should finally leave this country.' You're lying there in absolute agony and there's no one there to help you. All these thoughts were going through my head. And I thought, 'If I leave it's a victory for the enemy.'"

For the next six months he will be recovering from a shattered knee cap, a severed vein in his leg, shrapnel wounds, severe internal contusions and a number of surgeries. In addition, he will be dealing with the psychological wounds as well. Two weeks after the bombing, he is notably stronger. He has taken several steps with a walker and he is actually able to move himself, very gingerly, within his bed in order to find a position which is a little less painful. But he is exhausted and mentally tormented. He confided, "Every day I'm fighting to keep my sanity... I'm not sleeping; the dreams keep me from sleeping."


Even if you did pay some attention to this latest genocide bombing, my friend's story, his agony, his long road of recovery ahead is probably a story of which you weren't aware. But it's only one of the stories to which you likely didn't hear. The other untold story follows.

Shortly after the bus bombing, a lone Israeli Mosad-trained operative, secretly and specifically trained for his mission, commandeered a private Palestinian truck just outside Ramallah in the West Bank. He flagged down the driver by the side of the road, and, when the driver stopped to help him, he climbed into the passenger seat of the truck's cab and withdrew a Walther P-22 rimfire handgun, specially fitted with a silencer. In the truck's payload area were some 25 local Palestinian passengers from the nearby West Bank town of Al-Hadiri, who were taking their regular weekly ride to Nablus.

The driver, now at gunpoint, followed the orders of the Israeli operative. He drove to within 150 meters of President Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah. At that point, he was coldly and silently murdered by a bullet to the head. The Israeli operative exited the truck's cab and walked around to the back of the truck where the passengers were reading, eating a quick morning bite and talking amongst themselves. Here, with his gun supporting his orders, the Israeli operative instructed 15 of the passengers to get out of the truck and lie on the ground, face down, ten meters away.

He calmly surveyed the faces of those remaining in the truck. Then, with the almost-imperceptible dexterity of the oft-practiced move, he reached under his jacket toward his belt with his free hand, unhooked a high-explosive fragmentation grenade, pulled the pin, held it momentarily, and then tossed it into the truck's payload area. He ran several steps hard toward the passengers whom he had forced to lay down on the ground, diving for cover beside them. The ten passengers in the truck were instantly vaporized, spewed into pieces and scorched to death, remains of limbs flying in all directions.

With the remaining passengers catatonically frozen in fear and shock, the operative calmly got to his feet, pulled out a ten-inch hunting knife, a shot gun and a hand-held flame thrower and methodically sliced, shot and scorched each of those whom he had forced to lie on the ground. Some were mortally wounded, some received moderate injuries (such as burns, shot wounds and severed veins) and others were lightly injured. Finally, the operative positioned the Walther P22 against his head and killed himself. The whole orgy of massacre took less than a minute.

How could it be that you did you not hear of this latter story? Within an hour, much of the world expressed its revulsion and outrage at the Israeli attack. Most European countries immediately cut diplomatic relations with Israel, banishing the respective Israeli ambassadors from their lands and closing all Israeli diplomatic missions. Most African nations vowed support for Yasser Arafat and sent senior diplomats to visit the poor, shaken man in his office (only 150 meters from the attack site).

Throughout the Middle East, hundreds of thousands of outraged citizens took to the streets decrying the barbaric violence and vowing to end Israel's reign of terror. Syria, Lebanon and Egypt massed troops along their respective borders with Israel. The United States censured Israel in harsh and unequivocal terms and cut 40% of its annual aid package to Israel. Israel was never so wholly isolated. How is it that you did not hear of this?

The reason you didn't hear any of this is because the second story contains two vital inaccuracies: First, the operative involved was not an Israeli Mossad agent; rather he was a Palestinian policeman from Bethlehem named Ali Muneer Jaara.

Second, the people he coldly murdered with shrapnel-packed explosives and those he cruelly injured were not Palestinian commuters within 150 meters of Arafat's headquarters; rather they were Israeli commuters who were attacked within 150 meters of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's home in Jerusalem.

With these two inaccuracies thusly corrected, you did, in fact, know all about the second story. It was, in fact, the same story I recapped at the start: the genocidal bombing of Israeli commuters in Jerusalem two weeks ago; the bombing in which my former co-worker was murdered and my friend was deeply wounded along with dozens of others.

In fact, the real untold story, the part that truly went unheard by definition, was the near total absence of international reaction against the Palestinian-supported policy of brutal violence and terror, a policy which manifested itself in almost exactly the same way as my fictional account of the murder of Palestinian commuters occurred. There was the same coldly premeditated plan of murder, the same surveying of the victims faces before the act; and the same rending of human flesh and bone with fire and iron. The same political statement by conducting the mass murder within 150 meters of the political leader's home. The fictional account, with Palestinian victims, lead to (fictional but not unexpected) worldwide outrage. The actual account, with Israeli victims, lead to worldwide silence.

The real untold story is untold because it made no sound, no fury, no ripples and no impression on those who control Palestinian strategy. It was the relative international silence - as Israelis were cut down and cut up, flesh shredded within 150 meters of their Prime Minister's residence - that once again thunders in Israeli ears.

Where were the forceful condemnations? Where were the morally correct governments of the West de-crying this crime against humans and following up with practical actions and consequences?

Where was the flood of foreign diplomats dispatched to Israel to show support? Where were the street demonstrations by morally upright and aghast citizens of the world bitterly condemning the barbaric violence against Israelis? Where was the cutback in financial support to the Palestinian government? Where was the expression of outrage? Where was your cry of revulsion, your scream for an end to the continual, purposeful, intended, directed annihilation and mutilation of simple Israeli commuters?

Would you have done so if my fictional account was true? If so, why didn't you do so this time?

The untold story is not new. But its duplicitous and silent continuance is a thunderous death-knell for more Israelis. Beyond Israel, as citizens of Bali and Moscow and New York and Istanbul know, your co-worker or friend could be next.

Posted by David Wilder, February 17, 2004.
The following text of the Hebron-Arutz 7/Israel National News commentary will be available on their web site archives - "On Demand Audio". http://www.israelnationalnews.org/metafiles/asx/shows/wilder.asx

HaAretz is at it again, playing its favorite game, "Hebron Bashing." Only a few days ago it was announced that David Landau, editor of the English edition of the newspaper, was appointed editor-in-chief of the Hebrew morning daily.

Landau, a religiously observant Jew, actually visited Hebron a few years ago and toured with Noam Arnon and myself. Upon his appointment, Landau stressed that the paper's traditional views, (extremely left-wing) would not change during his tenure. It seems that Landau set out to immediately prove his point. And what better a way than by viciously attacking Hebron's Jewish community.

Yesterday HaAretz newspaper printed a piece of journalist junk, an interview with the outgoing head of TIPH - the Temporary International Presence in Hebron. And today the paper's lead editorial is headlined "Hooligans in Hebron."

Let's start with TIPH. In order to understand this organization, let's start with a quote from a former TIPH observer from Norway, interviewed in an Oslo suburb newspaper, Nordstrands Blad, on April 5, 2000. The article begins, "Hebron has always been a Palestinian city with a small Jewish population." When asked about Palestinian violence, the observer, Yngvil Mortensen said, "Would you have liked to be checked three times a day by foreign soldiers" Or that your city is occupied by a foreign power?... If we compare with the German occupation of Norway during the 2nd World War, we called the sabotage and attacks on Germans resistance fighting."

There you have it: A TIPH observer comparing the Jews to Nazis and the Palestinians to resistance fighters.

TIPH is comprised of observers from six nations: Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Denmark, Turkey and Italy. Most of the Scandinavian observers are human rights activists, while most of the others, from Turkey and Italy, held security-related positions. They are stationed in Hebron as a result of the Hebron Accords, signed and implemented seven years ago. According to their mandate, they are in Hebron to... "assist in monitoring and reporting the efforts to maintain normal life in the City of Hebron, thus creating a feeling of security among Palestinians in the City of Hebron." A short glance at the TIPH homepage [www.tiph.org] as well as the rest of the site, quickly confirms that their presence in Hebron is strictly for "the palestinians." They care not what happens to the Jews.

This fact is enhanced during the interview with the outgoing TIPH director Jan Kristensen, who condemns curfews imposed on Hebron's Arabs and destruction of terrorist homes, but says NOT ONE WORD about the vicious attacks and murder of Jews in the Hebron region. Why does Kristensen ignore the killing of 10 month old Shalhevet Pass while sitting in her stroller, of Gadi and Dina Levi, while walking down the street in Hebron on a Saturday afternoon, of Rabbi Eli and Dina Horowitz, while enjoying their Friday night Shabbat meal in Kiryat Arba? Why does he conveniently forget the terror attack which cut down 12 men, soldiers and civilians between Hebron and Kiryat Arba on a Friday night just over a year ago? Why does Kristensen neglect to mention that fact that Hebron's Jews were shot at, every day and every night, for over two years. That, in the opinion of the 'head of mission,' is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, "the activity of the settlers and the army in the H-2 area of Hebron is creating an irreversible situation. In a sense, cleansing is being carried out."

On January 17, 1997, when Israel abandoned 80% of Hebron to Arafat and the PA terrorists, Jibril Rajoub, then head of PA security in Hebron said, "We have liberated 80% of the city. The other 20% is like a heavy weight around our necks, which we must cast off."

The Arabs have never been bashful about asserting what they view as their legitimate rights to Hebron and its holy sites. Ma'arat HaMachpela, the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs, the second holiest site to the Jewish people in the world, was off-limits to Jews for 700 years, from 1267 until 1967, because, according to the Moslems, 'it is a mosque and only Moslems can worship in a mosque.' This, despite the fact that the structure above the original caves was build by Herod, King of Judea, 2,000 years ago, i.e., 600 years before Muhammad was born.

A few years ago the deputy Arab mayor of Hebron, Kamel Dweck, in an interview with Aaron Lerner of IMRA reiterated this opinion that only Moslems may pray in Ma'arat HaMachpela, and that should that Arabs ever control the site, Jews would be forbidden from entering and praying there.

Despite these facts, despite the murderous aggression against Hebron's Jewish population, whose intended goal is the eviction of Jews from Hebron, despite the fact that the IDF actions in Hebron have been implemented strictly to offer protection to Hebron Jewish residents and visitors, while attempting to prevent the spread of Hebron-initiated Arab terror to other parts of Israel, HEBRON'S JEWS ARE PRACTICING ETHNIC CLEASING - NOT THE ARABS!

The Ha'aretz editorial gives full backing to Kristensen's verbal abuse of Hebron's residents, and his insinuated demand that Hebron's Jews be expelled from their homes because, "personally I don't believe that it is possible for normal life to exist in Hebron between the communities, even if there are agreements between the leaders."

The Ha'Aretz TIPH-supportive, anti-Hebron editorial demands: "The government must reexamine its forgiving policies toward the extremist settlers in Hebron." These 'forgiving policies' include over 100 criminal files opened by the police last year against Hebron residents and at least 50 cases presently before the court. (A few other interesting 'forgiving' statistics. In Netania, there is one policeman per 1,600 people. In Ma'ale Adumim, one policeman per 243 people. In Hebron, there is one policeman per every 138 people! In all of the State of Israel, only 20% of the police files opened are brought to court. In Hebron, 68% of the files are brought to court. Of all the cases brought to trial in Israel, there is an 86% conviction rate. According to attorneys handling Hebron cases, the conviction rate in Hebron is about 25%, and the conviction rate in all of the cases in Judea and Samaria is 54%.)

We fully agree with the editorial position that the Defense Minister must "order the properties returned to their lawful owners." The 'properties' mentioned in the editorial refer to the former 'Arab market' which presently houses young Jewish families. This market, which 'belongs' to the State Custodian for Abandoned Property, was built on Jewish-owned land, and rightfully belongs to the Jews in Hebron. It should be legally recognized as such by the State of Israel. (See: www.hebron.com/news/marketresponse.htm) In addition, many other properties, legally Jewish-owned but presently occupied by Arabs or in possession of the above-mentioned custodian, should be returned to its rightful Jewish owners.

Concerning TIPH, the Hebron Jewish community demands that these anti-Israel, Arab-biased foreigners be removed from Hebron immediately. According to Kristensen, "I ask myself all the time what we are doing in Hebron." He may not know, but we do. TIPH is a terrorist-serving organization, offering daily support to Jew killers. They have no place in Hebron or in Israel. They, not Hebron's Jews, must be expelled from the city. (See www.hebron.com/news/tipharticles.htm)

As for Ha'aretz, the editorial's bogus assertion that "it's not the armed, warmongering settlers who need protection, but the thousands of helpless Palestinians" borders on incitement. We call on the Ha'aretz Hooligans to open their eyes, examine the facts as they really are, not as they imagine them, and stop aiding and abetting the enemies of the State of Israel, who are attacking and murdering its loyal, patriotic citizens.

With blessings from Hebron.

David Wilder is spokesman for the Jewish Community of Hebron (http://www.hebron.org.il). You can contribute funds to help the Community by going to http://www.hebron.org.il/contrib.htm. Or contact The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, hebronfund@aol.com, 718-677-6886.

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 17, 2004.
Bias has been a staple of American education and media. In my youth, I studied the yellow journalism of the preceding era. In my schooling, the US was held above reproach. Now it is held beneath contempt. Neither extreme is justified.

Myth long has been another component of educational and media distortion. During WWII, movie newsreels emphasized "our brave Soviet allies," as if they weren't also our enemies. We thought FDR a friend of the Jewish people, and admired Winston Churchill, whereas their blocking of the Jews' escape from Nazi Europe doomed them to Holocaust. A new myth is being created about opposition to Communism being McCarthyism, whereas the Communists needed to be opposed but Sen. McCarthy failed to oppose them. He simply was demagogic.

Have you watched the myth being woven around Jonathan Pollard, employed by the US Navy but who spied for Israel? The many dirty tactics used by the government to sentence him excessively, to keep him from appealing, and to mistreat him in prison hardly are protested. For him, the vaunted American sense of justice, that brings the guardians of political correctness to outrage over a politician's possibly improper private joke, is largely silent.

The main dirty trick is to leak slander against him. They slander his motive. They imply that he committed crimes actually done by others or not done at all. The popularized damage assessment of his crime far exceeds the official one based on the evidence. These are threads in the weaving of a myth that demonizes him. His supporters try to explain the facts, but the general media is not interested in ascertaining the truth or correcting disinformation.

The impression has been formed that he committed terrible crimes against the US. He did not. The usual penalty for what he did is about 2-4 years, if I recall, not his life sentence or the 19 years he already served.

Pollard did not harm the US, in spying for that ally. He gave it information relating to its survival. His efforts probably spared Israel many thousands of casualties at the hands of Saddam Hussein (believed not to have put chemical weapons into the Scuds he launched at Israel because Israel was forewarned by Pollard - they prepared suitable civilian defense). This information, according to a US-Israel agreement, was supposed to be given Israel. US officials secretly violated that agreement. They were subversive, and should have been punished.

Personally, I don't break the law. However, when one weighs the harmless crime that Pollard committed, to overcome the subversion of US policy, thereby saving thousands of lives, who can deny the decency of what Pollard did? He feels contrite, but I think he has become a martyr. He is a martyr to the pro-Arab subversives whom Pres. Bush Sr. pardoned in advance of an investigation. One never came. Now Pollard is the butt of a slanderous myth.

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

Posted by Belle Fine-Cohen, February 17, 2004.
The story of Israel's super-spy, posted secretly to Damascus, is a real life Middle Eastern espionage thriller, which ended in shocking brutality for the region's most successful known agent, Elie Cohn. In private, Cohn bucked the typical profile of an isolated, cold, intelligence officer; he was also a beloved family man and young father-of-three.

Little is heard nowadays of one of the region's most controversial modern historical figures who, in his lifetime, assisted guerrilla war tactics against the British in Egypt before the Suez Crisis, then went on to provide priceless inside military information to Israel a decade later.

Cohn's double-life mirrors that of British double-agents Kim Philby, Guy Burgess et al. Exploiting his Arab-Jewish roots - he was born in Alexandria, Egypt in 1924 and his parents came from Aleppo, Syria - Cohn eventually infiltrated leading Syrian society as a tycoon, bon-vivant and soul-mate of the newly self-installed Ba'ath Party dictatorship which seized power in March 1963.

Cohn's adventures on behalf of Mossad saw him - through a convoluted but plausible route - move to Damascus February 1962. He infiltrated the highest possible echelons of Syria's emerging Ba'ath political and military elite. Cohn's information helped bequeath some of the region's most sticky territorial challenges facing Israeli and Arab leaders today.

Acting under his Arab pseudonym 'Kamel Amin Tabet' he is credited with partly rendering Syria's defences impotent as they went on to lose the Golan Heights, in just two days, to Israeli forces in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War.

While he lived near Tel Aviv, Cohn was recruited in 1960, then trained and bankrolled by Mossad - Israel's infamous, surgical and ubiquitous secret service. First off, he spent a year away from his family under his new Arab identity ingratiating himself and networking among migrant Syrian VIP's, including newspaper editors and top-level diplomats in Buenos Aries.

He 'returned' to his adopted homeland, Syria, in early 1962 with a reputation as an ardent patriot. Masquerading as a son of a conveniently-departed wealthy textile merchant, he quickly became best friends with defence ministers and military commanders - some stationed at the strategically-critical and lush Golan Heights, which overlooked youthful Israel and her Kibbutz settlements.

Providing an infinite supply of pretty female companions, alcohol, sheesha pipes and a relaxing ambience at his villa - a pied-a-terre to stressed captains of military and government - Cohn was quickly accepted as part of Syrian high-society furniture.

As part of his meteoric rise in Syria, Cohn was soon the only civilian allowed to visit Syria's Golan Heights. Via coded radio broadcasts, he was able to provide troop locations, strength, equipment inventories and morale assessments back to Israel. Helped greatly by this intelligence, Israel went on to defeat the combined invading Arab armies in 1967 in just six days, annexing the Heights in the process.

This was a controversial manoeuvre which drew a powerful sting from both Eastern and Western bloc superpowers, and still unresolved today continues to provoke bloody political disagreements and is the subject of United Nations' resolutions still waiting to be enforced.

Cohn's sangfroid knew few bounds. On one instance he suggested that Syrian commanders have trees planted to provide shade for their wilting troops. He then reported back to Israel that it could mark Syrian gun stations by merely identifying groups of Eucalyptus along the border.

On other occasions, Cohn so impressed his influential new friends that he was asked to moderate and censor a programme called "Emigrant Hour" by government-controlled Radio Damascus. Cohn reputedly stretched to inverting words from his favourite novel 'Robinson Crusoe', broadcasting them across radio channels and the national border with Israel, confirming his ongoing welfare to 'runners' back in Tel Aviv.

Cohn even befriended Syria's new president, Amin al-Hafez, a leader of the strongly-secular Ba'ath Party. The Ba'ath Party retain their stranglehold over Syrian society today. Al-Hafez became a strong acquaintance of Cohn during the spy's 1961 spell in Argentina - where Hafez was serving at the time as Syrian embassy defence attache - in effect, a political exile. Feeling bitterly betrayed, al-Hafez would sign Cohn's death warrant just two years later when it became clear his new Ba'athist government had been duped all along by Cohn.

Throughout his work in Damascus, Cohn relied on mid-twentieth century tools of the espionage trade, such as transistor radios with miniature transmitters, electric shavers attached to an antenna chords, concealed dynamite sticks in Yardley soap and more traditional methods, such as writing paper containing codes in invisible ink.

Despite his distant work, Cohn's love for his wife and young family never waned. He was spirited secretly back to his family three times between 1962 and on a final occasion in November 1964. It was then he reported his desire to come home, both homesick and in part motivated because he felt he was increasingly under suspicion... loose tongues were seizing up back in Damascus. And a mutual dislike of Syria's powerful, new intelligence chief, Colonel Ahmed Su'edani, unsettled Cohn. Within months Su'edani was to interrogate Cohn severely.

Cohn and Israel's luck did run out soon after his reluctant, fateful, final return. Cohn was caught red-handed transmitting secret reports. Cohn's transmissions back to Tel Aviv had become too regular and, thus, predictable. They were reportedly picked up by Soviet technicians - operating in Syria, a key Mid East client-state of Moscow - who were able to pinpoint Cohn's house as the location of coded broadcasts to Israel.

After months of harsh interrogation and a Stalinist televised show-trial, Cohn admitted his guilt. Despite mammoth international pressure (the resident West German ambassador left for Bonn in protest), the young father and government agent received a death sentence.

On May 18, 1965, in Martyr's Square, Damascus, Cohn was hung publicly before a vengeful mob who shouted "death to Kamel, death to the Zionist spy". His execution, broadcast live on Syrian television, was also received on radio in Israel. Cohn's hysterical wife Nadia, pregnant with their third child, smashed window panes in the family home, inconsolable with grief.

Cohn's aged wife, living in Israel since the 1950s, but born an Iraqi Jew, continues her long campaign calling for the return of her husband's remains from Syria along with Elie's older brother Maurice and the rest of the family.In a strange quirk of fate, an unwitting Maurice Cohn says he was one of the Mossad desk agents charged with encrypting and decrypting messages from his brother, known colloquially as "Our Man in Damascus".

The Cohn family battle with the Syrian authorities to have Elie's remains returned, and give their relation a proper Jewish 'Hadith' burial, has itself become an important subplot in the wider, bloody Israeli/Arab dispute. But the Cohn's are only ever likely to triumph when rapprochement between the two countries is brought about - and the lush heights of Golan, which Elie unwittingly and posthumously helped Israel to seize, begin to be handed back.

More information at: http://www.elicohen.org/ Contact: Richard Bingley, richard@humansecurity.org.uk, tel: 00+44 (0)7947 230426 & 00+44 (0)7947 751913



A Petition is being used as a tool to pressure the Syrian Government to release the Remains of Eli Cohen, Our Man in Damascus, an Israeli Spy who was executed 38 Years ago by the Syrians.

The Syrians hanged Eli Cohen in 1965; his body was never returned, preventing his Family from saying Kaddish, the prayer of mourning for the dead at his tomb. This Was also in violation of the Sanctions Policy in International Humanitarian Law.

Eli Cohen infiltrated the Syrian Government at an extremely high level. When he was about to be appointed as Defense Minister of Syria the Syrians uncovered him. His actions prior to his death helped the Israeli military in its defeat of Syria and other Arab countries in the Six-Day War in June 1967.

His family, American Friends of Eli Cohen Memorial, Inc., a 501 (c)(3) non-profit Organization, and Petition Online, one of the largest petition sites on the Web, aims to focus world attention on Cohen's story in order to put pressure on Syria's President Assad to release his remains by using the Internet as a medium. You can sign the Petition by going to: http://www.petitiononline.com/EliCohen/petition.html

The new Web site, http://www.elicohen.org is replacing the old site which was the idea of Eli Cohen's brothers, Maurice and Avraham Cohen. The new site is being redesigned and built by Charlie Kalech who is director of J-Town Productions Ltd. In Israel, and in cooperation with Eric and Hila Ralston, web engineers. Maurice Cohen, The other brother will be revealing new up-to-date facts not yet published. Facts surrounding the story of Mossad's espionage campaign in Syria will be told. Mossad Is the Israeli secret agency for which Eli and Maurice Cohen worked.

Belle Fine-Cohen is Administrator of American Friends of Eli Cohen Memorial, Inc.USA, 6 Bat Shua Street, RAMAT GAN 52336 ISRAEL, Tel: 972 3 674 4577, Fax: 972 3 676 5226, E-mail: mcohen65@012.net.il

JINSA Report #389
Posted by Eliezar Edwards, February 17, 2004.
Maybe we could start a 'Drop Bush, Rumsfeld for President' movement? This man is wise. This is JINSA Report #389, issued February 13, 2004.

At the Munich Conference on Security Policy, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made himself available to answer questions posed by journalists, military officials and politicians from a variety of countries. We cite the official DOD transcript:

Man identified as a Palestinian general:  You talked about countries that were trying to produce weapons of mass destruction... Iraq and Iran and North Korea. I have a question, a direct question for you. What are you doing with Israel? As far as Israel is concerned, Israel has more atomic weapons in the region than any other country. Why do you remain silent in regard to Israel?

Secretary Rumsfeld:  You know the answer before I give it, I'm sure. The world knows the answer. We take the world like we find it; and Israel is a small state with a small population. It's a democracy and it exists in a neighborhood that in many - over a period of time has opined from time to time that they'd prefer it not be there and they'd like it to be put in the sea. And Israel has opined that it would prefer not to get put in the sea, and as a result, over a period of decades, it has arranged itself so it hasn't been put in the sea.

Dr. Saleh Rusheidat, ambassador of Jordan to Germany:  Some of the Israelis...said they need 20 years more to solve the (Palestinian/Israeli) problem. My question to you, what should be done to solve this problem? How much time do we have to wait?

Secretary Rumsfeld:  It depends, I suppose to some extent on the - oh, what's the right word - the desire on the part of the people in the region to solve it. People in the region tend to look outside the region and say, my goodness, why doesn't somebody come in and solve this? Why don't they grab people by the scruff of the neck, push them together and make them agree? That lasts about five minutes... in the last analysis, a lasting solution in that part of the world is going to come because people are exasperated, exhausted and tired of seeing their opportunities for prosperity go down the drain and tired of listening to people shoot off their mouths and people shoot off their weapons and fire bullets and no one deliver a dad-burned thing for the people.

Senator Lindsey Graham, SC:  Could you please explain why the doctrine of preemption is a rational doctrine in the war on terrorism?

Rumsfeld:  If someone is going to throw a snowball at you, you may not want to act preemptively; you can afford to take the blow and live with it and do something after the fact. As you go up the scale from a snowball to a weapon of mass destruction, at some point, where the risk gets high enough that it is not going to be a snowball in your face, but it could be a biological weapon that could kill tens of thousands of human beings; and then you ask yourself, do you have an obligation to take the blow and then do something about it afterwards? Or if you've got at risk - not 3,000, but 30,000, or 300,000 (potential casualties) - do you have an obligation in that case to act somewhat differently?

The JINSA Reports are published by the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (http://www.jinsa.org). To subscribe, email info@jinsa.org

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 16, 2004.
"Political correctness" is a common term rarely defined. What is it? It is an amoral refusal to judge between different political movements and religions, on the assumption that all are equally valid. From that it has branched out to intimidate whoever makes judgmental distinctions about such movements or who take certain political positions of which the arbiters of this new fashion disapprove, and further, to dictate permissible vocabulary to describe certain afflictions and defects, now called "challenges." Upholders of political correctness constitute themselves a thought police to regiment expression. They not only demand that innocent, though sometimes thoughtless, remarks and jokes be retracted, but that those who express them be punished.

In the US, Islam benefits from political correctness. One may not describe Islam factually as an imperialistic faith seeking to subjugate others, without being criticized as intolerant. Political correctness trumps academic integrity and academic freedom. Even the US President describes Islam, despite its history of jihad, as a religion of peace. Whatever truth Islam may possess, it often has established itself by virtue of war. Indeed, it is not what Westerners conceive of as purely a religion. It also is a political movement.

Perhaps the West can reach some accommodation with what is called moderate Islam. Within Islam, however, the totalitarian ideology known as Islamism cannot be reconciled with Western civilization. The Islamists want to destroy Western civilization and Islamic regimes that do not adhere to radical Islam. Despite the danger of Islamism to Western society, it often is not politically correct to warn of the menace it poses. Leaders of Islamist terrorist fronts get invited to regular political functions, some held at the White House. This undermines our war on terrorism.

One measure against terrorism is terrorist profiling. Profiling is a traditional and effective police tactic. Under it, police make the most surveillance against those whose characteristics most resemble those of the criminals, so as to apprehend the likeliest suspects. Unfortunately, profiling came under disrepute because prejudiced police, taking advantage of the fact that for a certain period, certain types of crimes were most likely to be committed in certain areas by black men, picked on black men for nothing and insultingly. Profiling per se was not objectionable but it was abused by prejudiced police. Distinctions like that, the politically correct do not make.

Insult and prejudice were not part of the airport inspector's profiling of Arab men. Arab men were the likeliest ones to commit airplane hijacking, though of course not all Arab men were likely to do it. Likewise, Muslim converts in the US Army were the likeliest to pass military information to terrorists. Nevertheless, in the politically correct crowd's reaction to this type of profiling, the federal government, at least for a while, felt pressured to check all passengers and soldiers equally, including ones least likely to commit the crimes. It was an unproductive use of resources that terrorists take advantage of.

Ironically, political correctness is monitored by antisemites, who allow abuse of Jews on campus. Thus political correctness, originating in a desire to be considerate, is inconsiderate of Jews. Another form of censorship, it defeats efforts at self-defense. It is a danger to our republic.

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

Posted by Israel BenAmi, February 16, 2004.
Even if only a minority of Muslims are what we call fundamentalists, they set the agenda, not only of the other Muslims, but of the world at large. Anyone who enters an airport faces the intrusive security and other scrutinies he didn't have to face just a few years ago, when he could come to the counter 15 minutes before departure and board unmolested. Now Islam casts a shadow over so many things.

This article was written by John Parker and appeared in the Oklahoma Gazette Online (http://www.okgazette.com), February 12, 2004.

Oklahoma City (OKC) Pastor Jim Vineyard has told thousands of Christians nationwide that Islam has sinister aims against Christians and Jews. His controversial claims recently hit a little closer to home.

A humble servant of the Word, Pastor Jim Vineyard describes himself simply as the short, baldheaded pastor of Windsor Hills Baptist Church on N.W 23rd Street. But although he has led that flock for more than a quarter-century, he also preaches in front of pews in cities like Jacksonville, Ark, Long Beach, Calif, and Bourbonnais, Ill. He spreads the message about the "real" Threat against America and Israel, Christians and Jews. From his research of books and newspapers, he said he believes Islamic law gives Muslims three choices in dealing with nonMuslims: Convert them, subjugate them, or kill the men and enslave the women and children. He says he stands ready to take on the misleading arguments of Muslims and other Christians who claim otherwise.

"When you believe in something, like I do, you put your life on the line or your money on the line for what you believe in," he said.

Saad Mohammed has a message to spread, too. As director of information for the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City, he's on the defensive in a Bible Belt state, in a nation still deeply shaken by believers in an Islamic-based philosophy who slaughtered nearly 3,000 people in September 2001.

When Mohammed read Vineyard's full-page ad Jan. 26 in the Oklahoman newspaper, he feared for Muslims' lives. "We believe that it is a very evil, deadly article," he said. "It's filled with hate. It's filled with lies and prejudice, and a letter like that could influence people to do bad things toward Muslims."

The $18,105 ad - a simple, large block of text - was titled, "An open letter to President George W Bush." It was credited only to "Oklahoma Citizens Standing in Solidarity with Israel," with an incorrect phone number (a typo, according to church officials).

Windsor Hills Associate Pastor Joe Finn said Brother Vineyard withheld his name because "he's a controversial figure here in this city. And if he put his name on it, there'd be a lot of people, Christian people, who wouldn't read it."

Vineyard said he ran the ad because President Bush may force Israel to allow a Muslim state inside its borders, which goes against the Bible. God gave that land to the Jews and charged Christians with being a "blessing to the Jews" by supporting them, he said. "America is at war and it's a war between Islam and the ideas of the West," Vineyard told the Gazette. "Everything that you and I hold dear in this country is at stake in how this war is settled."

The ad said Islamic leaders in other nations refer to Christians as infidels and to Jews as "the children of pigs." It says Allah is a false "moon god, the war god," and tells Bush that "we are in a religious war! It is a war of Islamic terrorism against us and it is a war against God's chosen people - the Jews."

It urges Bush, as a Christian, to follow the will of Jehovah, "our God."

"One side or the other, in this war, a religious war, will have to be defeated," the ad said. "We do not want it to be Israel or the United States."

Mohammed takes offense at the ad's characterization of Allah, an Arabic word. "The same God that the Christian community worships, and the Jewish community worships, we worship. It's the exact same god. We just call him Allah," he said.

He said the ad also falsifies passages in the Koran about killing "infidels." "This verse was revealed to the Muslims to fight those who were practicing paganism - atheists," Mohammed said. "It has nothing to do with fighting against Christians or Jews because the Holy Koran tells us that the Jewish community and the Christian community are people of the Book.

"A Christian and a Jewish person cannot fit the description of an infidel. They have faith in same God." Mohammed said Muslims have been physically attacked in New York and Chicago based on ideas like Vineyard's.

"A letter like that could be very influential in a bad way," he said. Vineyard said he is a peaceable man, but that "we will one day lose our peace in America, if we don't get our head out of the sand." The ad's intent was only to enlighten people about Islam, he said.

Mohammed and Jeff Hamilton, pastor of the First Christian Church and president of the Interfaith Alliance of Oklahoma, along with two other men upset about the ad, met Feb. 3 with David Thompson, publisher of the Oklahoman.

Mohammed and Hamilton said Thompson was cordial and apologetic. Mohammed said Thompson stated that newspaper policy does not allow publishing ads that spread prejudice or hatred. The men gave Thompson a response letter (which ran Feb. 5 in the Gazette).

Thompson told the Gazette the company has no written policy on handling political or advocacy ads. The company tries "to use good judgment on whether we feel, No. 1, the ad is factual and true, and/or misleading," he said.

According to archives, the Oklahoman has a history with Vineyard. On June 15, 2002, an editorial by the newspaper congratulated Vineyard on his 25th anniversary at the church. "He is a passionate defender of the nation and people of Israel," the editorial said. Thompson said the newspaper's editorial support of Vineyard had "absolutely" nothing to do with approving the ad. "Every ad that you run is subject to criticism ... and certainly the advertisement that ran in our newspaper does not reflect the opinions or the views of this newspaper," he said.

As for inciting violence, Thompson said Mohammed can "opinionize on any viewpoint that he would have. I certainly don't know whether it would or would not."

Hamilton said the ad gave all religions a bad name. "The last paragraph is, obviously, the implication is who should we wipe out, and the implication is the Muslims. You certainly wouldn't want the Americans and the Jews wiped out. The thing is so blatant. It's almost advocating doing harm, and it's just taken so much stuff out of context."

Vineyard said the solidarity group named in the ad is a loose association of Christians across the nation with similar views. The group does not have a headquarters, leadership or member rolls, he said. Donations for the ad came from people in several states, he said. Vineyard said the Interfaith Alliance and Muslim groups want to pressure journalists into keeping his kind of ideas away from the public. "They don't want the American people to know what the little short, fat, baldheaded fellow who pastors that church on 23rd Street has to say," he said.

Posted by Moshe Feiglin, February 15, 2004.
The magic solution of a referendum frightens the settlers. Sharon is preparing this Doomsday weapon in order to remove the opposition of the ideological Right in general, and of his own party in particular. "If there is no progress within six months we will have elections", Sharon added, hinting to the rebellious MKs in the Likud that it is not certain which of them will be re-elected.

On the face of it, what could be more democratic than a referendum? Who can continue to oppose the uprooting of settlements after the nation has expressed its will so clearly?

In the past some settlers demanded a referendum when it seemed that Rabin was bringing back Arafat contrary to public opinion. Hanan Porat declared at that time: "Only the nation will decide". It is now the turn of Likud MK Gilad Arden, one of the opponents of uprooting, to propose this idea.

"Why not?", Sharon is now saying to his opponents on the Right, "I think it's a good idea to hold a referendum".

However, the issue in question is neither democracy nor the wishes of the nation, but a corrupt kind of manipulation of public opinion. This has become a commonplace method of government, a kind of democracy based on media spins.

Democracy is just a method of government. It is not itself a value, and Churchill once said that it was a very bad method, but all the others were even worse. Clearly democracy cannot come in place of leadership. It is simply intended to formalize the arrangements for changing the people ruling the country, and the relations between them and the citizen. It would apparently be possible in the modern age to dispense with the government altogether and conduct Internet referendums. For each issue the citizens could press a button in their homes and immediately decide how to act.

Obviously such a method of government would lead to total chaos. If a kindergarten teacher were to hold a referendum amongst the children whether they want a piece of cake, obviously those in favor would form the majority. The same thing would happen if a referendum were to be held regarding the abolition of the speed limit on the roads.

So what's the alternative - dictatorship? No, we want to democratically elect a leadership, not a PR agency. What will be the role of such leadership? To act against the public's wishes?

Here we must clarify the meaning of the term "the public's wishes". There are apparently two kinds of wishes: the foam on the waves, and the deep currents. When the nation has proper leadership, it expresses its deep, collective wishes, the divine presence within it. When the nation lacks such leadership, it becomes a rabble. Real leadership expresses the real wishes of the nation, while worthless leadership smothers its internal nature and turns it into a rabble. In the issue facing us, those who propose abandoning Eretz Israel, the rock on which the nations' existence is founded, and replacing it by illusory tranquility, do not intend to express the deep wishes of the nation but are relying on it becoming a rabble.

Churchill promised the British nation only blood, sweat, and tears. He kept his word.

At times Britain's defeat by Nazi Germany seemed certain. The US refused to send Britain even a single rifle, which they feared would in the end fall into the hands of the Germans. While London burned Churchill received peace offers from Hitler. What would have happened if the British leader had brought those offers for a referendum?

The answer is obvious: The waitresses in the Champs Elysees would today be serving the croissants in German. No-one would have halted Rommel on his way to Eretz Israel, and we leave the rest to the reader's imagination. Churchill addressed the nation's values, called on its real internal wishes, and saved the Free World.

Democracy is not therefore populist abandonment of values in the guise of carrying out the nation's wishes. On the contrary, real democracy creates a leadership which expresses the nation's values and realizes its internal wishes - even if this is not always popular.

Perhaps you don't agree with the definition of democracy presented above, and you still think a referendum should be held. Clearly for this purpose the facts must be presented to the public. The question is whether this is actually possible. The answer is that the only people currently capable of presenting reality to the public are the Arabs. As far as it depends on the Jews, the Israeli media will continue to dazzle the public with a blaze of false facts and unceasing deceitful propaganda. Even if the opponents of uprooting settlements are given the opportunity of expressing their views, this will be just a drop in the ocean of daily brain-washing absorbed by the average Israeli through all the media channels. The Israeli educational system has caused the average Israeli to be unaware of who he is and what he is doing here.

Obviously he has no answer to the question what is the Gaza Strip and why we need to fight for it. At the same time the Israeli media have caused de-legitimization of the pioneering settlers. This is an on-going process that began more than twenty years ago. The majority of middle-aged Israelis (and certainly not younger people) do not know any other reality. Does anyone really think that a few minutes of TV time will change anything?

The celebrated female terrorist, who stars in the artistic presentation in Sweden, and who blew herself up in the Maxim Restaurant in Haifa, possessed an Israeli ID card.

Obviously no-one would suggest that her brothers be prevented from taking part in the referendum. Every intelligent Israeli understands that 20% of the Israelis have no connection with the nation. On the contrary, they blatantly identify themselves with its enemies.

To sum up, this is neither a referendum nor democracy. We are at most witnessing an example of corrupt manipulation. But don't worry. The defeatist voices amongst the Jews have always produced amongst the Arabs a desire that cannot be overcome. All the withdrawals have always been accompanied by waves of terror. The Arabs will explode for the Jews the false bubble that the Left has blown up around them. They have the most effective methods of propaganda to return the Jews to reality.

But what a terrible price we will have to pay for this despicable populism.

Moshe Feiglin began Manhigut Yehudi (Jewish Leadership) a group of people inside the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character. Feiglin has emphatically said he does not want a theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values.

Posted by Yashiko Sagamori, February 15, 2004.
Shahsay Vahsay

Sadly, our ignorance of Islam is overwhelming. Here is an example.

A letter attributed to a Marine chaplain serving in Iraq has been widely circulated over the Internet, hailing glorious accomplishments of the US-led coalition in that country. The chaplain leaves military victories to other historians, concentrating instead on the improvements the occupation has brought to the lives of ordinary Iraqis. Among those, he lists the lifting of restrictions on Shiite religious practices: "Shia religious festivals (all but banned [under Saddam Hussein]) are no longer illegal. For the first time in 35 years, in Karbala, thousands of Shiites celebrate the pilgrimage of the 12th Imam."

To an innocent eye, this looks like restoration of religious freedom, and religious freedom, as every American will agree, is a precious thing. Of course, the question remains whether the religious freedom of Iraqi Shiites is precious enough for the American people to be paid for with the lives of American soldiers. Personally, I'd rather see every single one of them get home in one piece, even if it meant continued suppression of Shiite observances in Iraq. The vehement opposition of the Iraqi Shiites, led by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, to the US presence in their country does not alleviate my doubts. But, most importantly, our invasion in Iraq is a part of the War on Terror. Unless those newly restored freedoms somehow contribute to the safety of my country, I do not see a reason to consider them a victory for us. Rather it's a victory for the Iraqi Shiites who have managed to manipulate the occupiers into granting them previously denied liberties, which they are now (ab)using trying to snatch power for themselves. Do we want Iraq to be ruled by the ayatollahs?

Unfortunately, the chaplain does not even attempt to explain the connection between Shiite rituals in Iraq and the terror level indicator in the United States. He does not describe those rituals either, although they definitely present an insight into the world of Islam.

Few Westerners know that those celebrations culminate in a rampage of mass self-flagellation. Mobs of fanatical followers of the twelfth Imam roam the streets, covered with blood from self-inflicted wounds, chanting "Shahsay! Vahsay!" ("Shah Husayn! Alas Husayn!"), beating and cutting themselves with chains, swords, and whatever else can be used to inflict injury. Men and youths ecstatically mutilate themselves. Parents ecstatically mutilate their toddlers. Regardless of the price the United States had to pay for the freedom of such barbaric expression of religious fervor, any sane person should ask whether a cult allowing such festivals should be outlawed altogether in every civilized country.

Try to imagine a young American in the military uniform watching such a parade of the most primitive cruelty, thinking, "Yes! This is worth dying for." Try to imagine a mother or a widow of an American soldier recently killed in Iraq, watching such an orgy of religious fanaticism and saying to herself, "Now it makes perfect sense."

Try to imagine what those people, given a chance, would do to you.

These festivities present an example of the senseless blood lust and flair for gratuitous violence inherent to Islam. However, I don't want to mislead my readers into thinking that such tendencies are unique to Shiites only. Two recent news items, both related to the just ended period of hajj, present an opportunity to demonstrate that these traits are common for all varieties of Islam.

Traditionally, at the conclusion of the hajj, the participants "stone the Devil," which is symbolically represented by three pillars. (This year, by the way, one of the pillars had "USA" inscribed on it.) A stampede that somehow began during the ceremony killed more than 250 pilgrims and wounded scores more. This may sound like a freak accident, until you get the (partial) statistics of the hajj:

  • last year, 36 pilgrims were trampled to death under similar circumstances;

  • in 2001, the number was 35;

  • in 1994, 270 pilgrims died in a stampede;

  • in 1990, 1,426 pilgrims died in a stampede;

  • in 1989, a bomb exploded outside the Great Mosque in Mecca, killing one pilgrim and injuring 16;

  • in 1987, roughly 400 people, mostly Iranians, were killed in clashes with the local security forces.

These numbers may seem terrifying, but not to Muslims who believe that death during the hajj erases one's sins and guarantees him or her a place in heaven.

Think for a second about the implications. Religious people often refer to their "fear of God" as a major factor preventing them from sinning. All a Muslim sinner has to do to be forgiven is to arrange the circumstances of his or her death appropriately. To make it easier for them, Islamic teachings offer a variety of ways to die that guarantee them eternity in Paradise regardless of the life they lead. Here is what the Hadith says on the subject:

Volume 4, Book 52, Number 82:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle said, "Five are regarded as martyrs: They are those who die because of plague, abdominal disease, drowning or a falling building etc., and the martyrs in Allah's Cause."

This gives a "faithful" an easy way to erase all his or her misdeeds: a drowning, for example, whether accidental or arranged, entitles any villain to eternity of fornication with a platoon of indestructible virgins. Please note the reference to "Allah's Cause" in the quotation above. This is one hell of a loophole. If you fail to see a direct justification of suicide bombings here, you probably believe they are caused by economic hardships inflicted by cruel Israelis. I am not sure if Muslim women are entitled to any pornographic pleasures in what the Muslims mistake for heaven, but they are admitted there under some conditions. Not so long ago, a married Arab woman, a mother of two young children, was caught in an adulterous relationship with a local Hamas leader. The penalty for such crime is, of course, death, and the woman died, but in a way that got all her digressions annulled: she blew herself up along with four Israelis who happened to be nearby. Her lover provided the belt with explosives; her husband did not object.

To a civilized person, such lack of respect to human life is clear evidence that Islam is in fact a death cult, rather than a legitimate religion. My drastic conclusion is corroborated by another item distributed by the Associated Press and posted on several news sites. On CNN, it was titled Top Saudi religious authority condemns terrorists.

There is no shortage of condemnations of terrorism these days. Terrorist acts have become an almost daily occurrence, and every one of them is usually followed by a string of tepid condemnations. Yasser Arafat used to condemn every single terrorist act he ordered, but now he has a prime minister to do it for him. Kofi Annan used to do it routinely, but eventually grew tired of it; he refused to condemn the latest suicide bombing in Jerusalem. Colin Powell seems to have a few carefully worded versions of such condemnations prepared for him in advance, like obituaries for aging celebrities. He rotates them from one occasion to the next, every time looking his gravest and noblest, although you have to agree that he sounded more sincere when he was assuring the Security Council that Iraq had stockpiled weapons of mass destruction. In the past, Europe used to present an off-key chorus of half-hearted condemnations, but now Europe is united and speaks with a single voice, which doesn't sound too convincing either.

However, Islamic religious authorities do not condemn terrorism on a regular basis. I remember how, in the aftermath of September 11, desperate attempts were made to extract at least a marginally appropriate statement from any Islamic figurehead in the United States. The imams heroically withstood the pressure and refused to compromise themselves or their religion with an opposition to the slaughter of the infidels unless it was perpetrated by combined efforts of the CIA and Mossad. Americans with hateful eyes and unbelievable names, like Ibrahim Hooper, politely, but insistently grilled in front of the cameras, employed convoluted syllogisms striving to prove that the attack that was organized, financed, and perpetrated by Muslims as one of many battles of jihad, was nevertheless unrelated to their religion, did not amount to a terrorist act, and did not warrant a condemnation either as un-Islamic or for any other reason. Those of them who were forced to admit, however reluctantly, that killing innocent people is wrong, inevitably brought up Zionist aggressors murdering innocent "Palestinians".

Don't you find it strange that Islam became widely known as a "religion of peace and love" only after September 11? Considering all the facts, we have to agree that either all Muslims are lying in unison, or, in the Islamic culture, the concepts of peace and love are very different from ours. It's quite possible, of course, that we are witnessing a combination of the two.

That's why the headline made me curious. To my utter disappointment, it was blatantly misleading. The article quoted Sheik Abdel Aziz al-Sheikh, whom it described as "Saudi Arabia's top cleric", as saying, "Is it holy war to shed Muslim blood? Is it holy war to shed the blood of non-Muslims given sanctuary in Muslim lands? Is it holy war to destroy the possession of Muslims?" In his sermon attended live by millions of pilgrims and transmitted to millions more in Saudi Arabia and other countries of Persian Gulf, the sheik specifically condemned acts of violence against fellow Muslims. He quoted Mohammad, the founder of the cult: "Know that every Muslim is a Muslim's brother, and the Muslims are brethren. Fighting between them should be avoided." The good sheik kept on preaching that Muslims should not harm other Muslims. Non-Muslims were eligible for protection only as dhimmis. Not a single word was uttered about the sanctity of human life, regardless of the person's faith. Not a single word was uttered in defense of the "infidels" in general or Americans or, Allah forbid, Jews specifically.

In effect, the cleric publicly confirmed that, according to Islam, no act can be deemed terrorist if the victims are not Muslim. Therefore, in my humble opinion, the cleric's "condemnation" amounted to incitement of religiously motivated murder, which is, after all, the essence of jihad. For Muslims, peace means an alliance against the "unbelievers", and whatever passes for love among them is only possible between members of their own cult.

Just to conclude on an upbeat note, here is another news item related to the Muslim holiday of Eid, which marks the end of the hajj and is traditionally celebrated with the slaughter of sheep. The Paris suburb of Evry, which, thanks to its predominantly Muslim population, represents the accurate image of France in the near future, decided to televise the ritual slaughter of the sheep. The number of sheep they are planning to slaughter in front of the cameras: three thousand, three hundred. Municipal officials promise to try this novelty in other places in France if it works out in Evry. That's what I call a reality show! As long as they don't install TV cameras in American slaughterhouses, I say, Vive la Difference!

Yashiko Sagamori is a New York-based Information Technology consultant. To read other articles by the author, go to http://www.middleeastfacts.com/yashiko/

Posted by IsrAlert, February 15, 2004.
Originally published by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute in November 2002, written by Irwin Cotlar, currently serving as Canada's Minister of Justice. Isralert's source for this item: http://www.tzemach.org

What we are witnessing today is a new, virulent, globalizing and even lethal anti-Jewishness reminiscent of the atmospherics of the 1930s, and without parallel or precedent since the end of the Second World War. Anchored in the "Zionism is Racism" resolution, but going beyond it, the new anti-Jewishness can best be defined as the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon, national particularity and peoplehood anywhere, whenever that national particularity and peoplehood happens to be Jewish. In its more benign form (if it can be called benign), it finds particular expression in the singling out of Israel and the Jewish people for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena where United Nations human rights bodies are used as the mask or protective cover for this anti-Jewishness (e.g. The 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban). In its most lethal form, it refers to the singling out of Israel and the Jewish people for existential or genocidal assault, as evidenced by the suicide-bombers -or what I prefer to call genocide-bombers - the convergence of both politicide and genocide.

In a word, classical or traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, or denial of, the right of Jews to live as equal members of a free society; the new anti-Semitism - incompletely, or incorrectly, [referred to] as "anti-Zionism" - involves the discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations. What is intrinsic to each form of anti-Semitism - and common to both - is discrimination. All that has happened is that it has moved from discrimination against Jews as individuals - a classical anti-Semitism for which there are indices of measurement (e.g., discrimination against Jews in education, housing, or employment) - to discrimination against Jews as people - a new anti-Semitism - for which one has yet to develop indices of measurement.

I would like to propose a set of indices by which we can identify and monitor the nature and meaning of the new anti-Jewishness. These indices are organized around a juridical framework and draw upon principles of discrimination and equality as they find expression in both domestic and international law. There are thirteen indices that may serve to illustrate this new anti-Jewishness.

Genocidal Anti-Semitism

The first and most lethal is existential or genocidal anti-Semitism. I am referring here to the public call for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. Examples include the covenants of terrorist organizations like Hamas which publicly call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews anywhere; religious fatwas - or execution writs - issued by radical Islamic clerics, which not only call for the destruction of Israel and the killing of Jews, but proclaim it also as a religious obligation and calls by member states of the international community - such as Iran or Iraq - for the destruction of Israel and its people, as evidenced in the statements by their respective political leadership that call not only for the destruction of Israel but also express the intent to use nuclear weapons to accomplish this genocidal purpose.

In a word, Israel is the only state in the world today, and the Jews the only people in the world today, that are the object of a standing set of threats from governmental, religious, and terrorist bodies seeking their destruction. And what is most disturbing is the silence, the indifference, and sometimes even the indulgence, in the face of such genocidal antisemitism.

Political Anti-Semitism

There are three manifestations of this phenomenon. The discrimination against, denial of, or assault upon the Jewish people's right to self-determination which, as Martin Luther King, Jr. put it, "is the denial to the Jews of the same right, the right to self-determination that we accord to African nations and all other peoples of the globe. In short, it is anti-Semitism." To the extent that Israel has emerged as the "civil religion" of world Jewry - the organizing idiom of Jewish self-determination - this new anti-Semitism is a per se assault, in contemporary terms, on the religious and national sensibility of the Jewish people.

[I]f classical anti-Semitism was anchored in discrimination against the Jewish religion, the new anti-Jewishness is anchored in discrimination against the Jews as a people - and the embodiment of that expression in Israel. In each instance the essence of anti-Semitism is the same - an assault upon whatever is the core of Jewish self-definition at any moment in time.

There is yet another, and third, variant of political anti-Semitism. I am referring here to the "demonizing" of Israel. This is the contemporary analogue to the medieval indictment of the Jew as the "poisoner of the wells." In other words, in a world in which human rights has emerged as the new secular religion of our time, the portrayal of Israel as the metaphor for a human rights violator is an indictment of Israel as the "new anti-Christ" - as the "poisoner of the international wells".

Ideological anti-Semitism finds expression not only in the "Zionism is Racism" indictment but the further criminal indictment of Israel as "an apartheid state," and the calling for the dismantling of this "apartheid state" - a euphemism for Israel's destruction. If the proclamation of "Zionism as Racism" gave anti-Semitism the appearance of international sanction, the calling for the dismantling of the apartheid state of Israel is even more toxic and virulent, once again giving anti-Semitism the appearance of international sanction. Indeed, the increased characterization or libeling of Israel as a "Nazi state" is tantamount to transforming ideological anti-Semitism into a duty-the obligation to remove this Nazi state, Israel.

Theological Anti-Semitism

This refers to the convergence of state-sanctioned Islamic anti-Semitism, which characterizes Jews and Judaism, let alone Israel, as the perfidious enemy of Islam.and which finds expression in the proclamation made by Yasir Arafat-appointed and funded Imam, Ahmed Abu Halabiya, from a mosque pulpit and broadcasted on Palestinian state television - "The Jews must be butchered and tortured: Allah will torture them with your hands. Have no mercy on the Jews.... wherever you meet them.... kill them.".

As for cultural anti-Semitism, I am referring here to the melange of attitudes, sentiments, innuendo and the like-in academe, in parliaments, among the literati, public intellectuals, and the human rights movement - as found expression in the remarks of the French Ambassador to the U.K. to the effect of, why should the world risk another world war because of "that sh**ty little country Israel"; or as British journalist Petronella Wyatt put it, "Anti-Semitism, and its open expression, has become respectable at London dinner tables" once more - not just in Germany or Catholic Central Europe.

[W]e are witnessing an explosion of European anti-Semitism without parallel or precedent since World War II. Some examples, to which I can personally attest to, following my visits to European capitals these past two years, include assaults upon and desecration of synagogues, cemeteries and Jewish institutions; attacks upon identifiable Jews; convergence of the extreme left and the extreme right in public demonstrations calling for "death to the Jews"; atrocity propaganda against Israel and Jews (e.g., Israel injects the AIDS virus into Palestinians); the ugly canard of double loyalty; the demonization of Israel through the escalating ascription of Nazi metaphors; indifference or silence in the face of horrific acts of terror against Israel and the threatening of sanctions against Israel for exercising its right of self-defense against these acts of terror.

In the words of Joel Kotek of the University of Brussels: "One's position on the Arab-Israeli conflict has become a test of loyalty. Should he become a supporter of Israel, he becomes a supporter of a Nazi state."

Denying Israel Equality Before the Law

I am referring here to the singling out of Israel for differential, if not discriminatory, treatment amongst the family of nations. Some examples include the World Conference Against Racism in Durban, which turned into a conference of racism against Israel, where Israel was the only state singled out for indictment; the UN Commission on Human Rights, where Israel is the only country singled out for a country-specific condemnation even before the annual session begins, where 30 percent of all resolutions condemn Israel alone, while the major human rights violators enjoy exculpatory immunity; the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions, where Israel became the first country in fifty-two years to be the object of a country-specific indictment, while the perpetrators of horrific killing fields - be it Cambodia, Sudan, etc. - have never been the object of a contracting party's enquiry; the systemic and systematic discrimination against Israel in the major d ecision-making bodies of the United Nations and its specialized agencies; the exclusion of Magen David Adom, Israel's humanitarian aid agency, from the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies; the conversion of refugee camps under UNRWA's management into bases and sanctuaries of incitement and terror, in breach of fundamental principles of international humanitarian and refugee law.

The denial of international due process to Israel and the Jewish people in the international arena refers to the disenfranchisement of Israel in the international arena, where, for example, Israel emerges as the only country denied "standing" in any regional grouping in the United Nations, which resulted in Israel (and Jewish NGOs) being excluded from the Regional Conference in Iran, where the regional Asian position for the World Conference Against Racism was prepared.

"Legalized" anti-Semitism refers to the international "legal" character of this anti-Semitism, in which, in a kind of Orwellian inversion of law and language, United Nations human rights bodies become the mask under which this "teaching of contempt" is carried out.

Economic Anti-Semitism

Classical economic anti-Semitism involved discrimination against Jews in housing, education, and employment; the new economic anti-Semitism involves the extra-territorial application by Arab countries of an international restrictive covenant against corporations conditioning their trade with Arab countries on their agreement not to do business with Israel (secondary boycott); or not doing business with another corporation which may be doing business with Israel (tertiary boycott); or even conditioning the trade with such corporations on neither hiring nor promoting Jews within the corporation (I was able to document this in the course of my chairing a Commission on Economic Coercion and Discrimination).

The cutting edge of this new anti-Semitism is Holocaust denial, which moves inexorably from denying the Holocaust, to accusing Jews of fabricating the "hoax" to indicting Jews for extorting false reparations from the innocent German people, to the building of their "illegal" State of Israel on the backs of the real indigenous owners, the Palestinians. Let there be no doubt about it, those who would seek to deny the Jewish people their past are the same people who, if given the chance, would deny the Jewish people their future.

Racist terrorism against Jews refers to the state-orchestrated incitement to violence and terrorism against Jews. This racist terrorism has been ratcheted up into an alarming case of "mega" or "catastrophic terrorism" as exemplified by the recent attempts to literally incinerate thousands of Israelis by blowing up fuel and gas storage facilities in the Herzliya area and blowing up the Azrieli office towers in Tel Aviv; the attempted use of cyanide poison in a Jerusalem restaurant; the attempted blowing up of residential apartment areas in Haifa; and the recent disclosure of Hezbollah and Al-Qaeda connected plans to target Israeli institutions and Jewish nationals in the Western hemisphere.

State-Sanctioned Anti-Semitism

This refers to the state-sanctioned "culture of hate"-integrating both old and new forms of anti-Jewishness-that finds increasing expression in the incitement to hatred in state-controlled mosques, media, schools, and other institutions, including such recent examples as the broadcasting of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the appropriation of symbols and motifs from classical anti-Semitism to demonize Israel and the Jewish people today. In the words of Professor Fouad Ajami: The suicide bomber of the Passover massacre did not descend from the sky, he partook of the culture all around him - the glee that greets those brutal deeds of terror, the cult that rises around the martyrs and their families.

None of this is intended to suggest that Israel is somehow above the law, or that Israel is not to be held accountable for any violations of law. On the contrary, Israel is accountable for any violations of international law or human rights like any other state; and the Jewish people are not entitled to any privileged protection or preference because of the particularity of Jewish suffering. But the problem is not that Israel as the "Jew among Nations" seeks to be above the law, but that it has been systematically denied equality before the law; not that Israel must respect human rights - which it should - but that the human rights of Israel have not been respected; not that human rights standards should be applied to Israel - which they must - but that these standards have not been applied equally to anyone else.

Israel and the Jewish people have been singled out for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena - and worst of all - singled out for destruction. The time has come to sound the alarm - not only for Israel and the Jewish people whose safety and security is under existential threat and attack - but for the world community and the human condition as a whole. For as history has taught us only too well, while the persecution and discrimination may begin with Jews, it doesn't end with Jews.

IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, February 15, 2004.
This was written by Cal Thomas and was published today on the Washington Times website and archived at http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20040214-112850-5661r.htm

What is so difficult to understand about the Middle East that Western diplomats and politicians continue to play with scenarios that have no hope of succeeding?

The so-called "road map" created out of wishful thinking by the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations states there must be two prerequisites before Israel relinquishes more land. One is that the Palestinian side must forswear violence, and the other is the infrastructure that produces the violence must be dismantled. Neither has even begun to happen.

Quite the opposite.

This does not deter the wishful thinkers, however, including Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharo n. Mr. Sharon has announced a unilateral withdrawal of forces protecting Jewish "settlers" in Gaza, a strip of land Israel seized from Egypt when Egyptian forces used it to invade Israel during the Six-Day War in 1967. Partly, the announcement is for domestic political reasons.

Mr. Sharon is involved in a bribery scandal investigation. Some believe a withdrawal might "pressure" Yasser Arafat and his band of serial killers to respond by eschewing terror.

Those who believe such things haven't been paying attention to history. Mr. Arafat doesn't give. He takes. That's because his objective differs mightily from everyone else's. The West thinks a formula can be constructed that will, in the words of Secretary of State Colin Powell, help the Palestinians realize the "legitimate aspirations" of a state of their own. What Mr. Powell and so many others will not recognize is that Palestinian aspirations are for a state that replaces Israel, not one that co-exists with it.

Reaction to the wall Israel is building to protect itself from encroachment by homicide bombers and others interested in its destruction is only the latest evidence Mr. Arafat and company remain a threat and have no intention of modifying their objectives. If their plans have changed from regular incursions into Israeli territory for the purpose of killing civilians, why would they oppose a wall?

A Palestinian state without proof Palestinian intentions have changed would assure an unprecedented base for terrorism that currently does not exist. It would be a threat not only to the entire Middle East and U.S. objectives to democratize the region, but to the United States itself.

Such a nation-state would serve as a breeding ground and launching pad for terrorism worldwide. As a sovereign nation, a Palestinian state would be difficult for the United Sta tes and the toothless United Nations to control as it exports terror throughout the world.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) already is the largest anti-American terrorist entity and enjoys diplomatic protection from much of the world. Imagine what it would be like as a full-fledged state, absent a change in purpose and direction. These people are playing for keeps because they claim a mandate from their "god." "Infidel" diplomats are not likely to deter such fanatics from their divinely ordained rounds.

President Bush is right in his assertion the United States is fighting a war with worldwide terrorism. The Palestinian Authority is part of that war. The PA's allies have included Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein (whom Yasser Arafat praised for sending Scud missiles into Israel during the Persian Gulf war), the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini of Iran, and other rogue nations in the region and beyond. Ideological mentors of the PA allied themselves with the Nazis and their goal of exterminating Jews (a goal that remains unchanged if one considers sermons, Palestinian TV and textbooks that are training a new generation of haters and terrorists). Mr. Arafat was trained by the Soviet Union's KGB.

Any progress toward peace and stability in the Middle East begins with abandoning the fantasy that what America and Israel do or don't do affects the actions and goals of Mr. Arafat and company. Anti-democratic forces understand only two things - power and resolve.

A memo recently seized in a coalition raid in Iraq proves the point. It indicates growing frustration by al Qaeda operatives in Iraq at America's resolve to remain in Baghdad until the stated objectives of free elections and a stable society are achieved.

Such resolve - and not unilateral measures by Israel and the West, or "confidence-building acts" - is more likely to protect American and Israeli interests and create conditions under which Palestinians and Israelis can have better lives - together.

Posted by Arlene Peck, February 15, 2004.
Lo-d, Honestly, I truly believe that with some of our friends, we don't need enemies. And, if the truth be told, we, as Jews are often our worst adversaries. What makes those self-haters the way they are? Did their mothers not breast feed them? Did they never have a date for the prom?

I am often called upon to speak to groups, both Christian and Jewish. Frankly, it sometimes amazes me just how naive Jews can be when it comes to "getting it". Lately, I've been privileged to go on Front Page Jerusalem radio which has a Christian audience. These good Christians, who, are receptive to learning who the enemy are and what can be done to combat the raging waves of Islamic fundamentalism that threaten the very core of our way of life.

Given our past history, why are we, as Jews, so prone to putting our heads in the sand when it comes to the meaning of "peace" in the Middle East? The issue isn't one of land. No matter how much Israel cuts the Jewish state into pieces, like salami, for this illusive peace, it won't matter. The majority Arabs don't want to live side by side with anybody. The neighbors of Israel want the Jews dead and gone. After they've finished with the Saturday people, the Sunday people are next.

Frankly, I wasn't aware how big of a problem the brain washing and cult of death had become until I recently had the opportunity to spend a few days with Walid Shoebat. He had flown in to be a guest on my television show. This amazing man was once a PLO terrorist who despite the time he's spent in Israel jails is now an ardent Zionist.

I sat in awe while Walid told me, along with a room full of Los Angeles Jewish community leaders, how violent a culture he once belonged to. He reaffirmed how fundamental changes need to take place in the Palestinian society before any "negotiations" can begin.

"The hatred has always been in the minds of the Palestinians," said Showbat. "However, under the direction of Arafat, the books the children study in school have been filled with fallacy concerning the Jews for at least a full generation." Imagine all this coming from a (saintly) Arab who was on the inside of it all.

The key word is education and when a Jewish kid is born the college fund is usually started at the bank. Unfortunately, when Muslim children are born they are trained as toddlers that the Jews are the enemy and must be killed. I've long known this basic fact.

Yet, here comes an articulate man like Walid to tell us that "fundamental change needs to take place in Palestinian society, as an entire generation of Palestinian youth has been taught to hate the Jewish state."

This makes an impression, especially since it comes from a man who grew up and acted on the hate filled background he was taught day after day.

Yet here comes Walid saying, "The occupation is not Israel occupying the land which supposedly belongs to the Arabs," Walid says. "The true occupation is of the minds of Palestinians, of teaching them hatred for Jews. That is the real occupation." This, folks, is the message this amazing and very brave man is taking on the road.

Later, at his lovely home, I had dinner with his family. His wife, and their children were terrific and after spending time with them I was even more impressed. I had no doubts about the genuine and meaningful transformation of this former Palestinian terrorist.

Walid told me he used to raise funds for the Palestinian Authority in order to finance bomb making and other terrorist activities. "I even walked to the Temple Mount one time with bombs but changed my mind when I saw Arab children playing in the yard." He said he did however, serve time in Israeli jails and came close to lynching an Israeli soldier who miraculously got away.

There are others trying to educate the Jewish community about such dangers, however futile their efforts may be. Recently, I heard Rabbi Tovia Singer speak to a large group of Hillel kids about the dangers of anti-Semitism and the lure of cults facing them when they got to college. He was impressive and seemed to make an impression on their young minds.

Itamar Marcus from Palestinian Media Watch spoke to a rapt audience at the Museum of Tolerance a few nights later when he showed the actual footage of the outrageous lies the Muslim youth are fed in order to indoctrinate them as adults.

Even Walid, who incidentally, has an American mother with her own horror stories to tell, told me that when he was finally shown footage of the Holocaust on Israeli television he thought it was a fabrication. He related how he and his friends sat around eating popcorn and laughing and wondering how the Jews found skinny actors to fall into the graves.

It's great when I, as well as my fellow journalist and activists such as Jack Engelhard, Trudy Gefen, Noami Ragen, Steven Plaut and so many others beat the drums to get out this message.

But, we are usually preaching to the choir. How encouraging it is, when a Walid Shoebat comes onto the scene, along with a Joseph Farah and Tisbah Said, who publishes the newspaper Pakistan Today. They are telling the truth about Israel with great personal danger in doing so. They have been there from the inside and speak out with the same message. They make an impression that we just can't.

Walid told me, "The Jews don't speak up as they should. So, I've taken it upon myself to speak out for them." He's doing a great service. It's a shame that we can count on one hand, out of a billion Muslims who are doing the same. Have I missed their marches protesting the violence and senseless homicide bombings?

It's a disgrace that there are so many leftist Jews out there who think the way to solve any problem is to stand by the roadside and paint peace signs on vans and give the peace sign as people drive by.

Even this sometimes outrageous columnist was fired from the Jewish Post & Opinion after thirty years of being a featured writer because the New Leftist owners of the paper decided that my columns were "mean to the Arabs" and they only wanted to print "words that were kind and not words that hurt".

Well folks, we are hurting. I'm thankful that there is a former PLO terrorist like Walid out there who now strongly considers himself a Zionist. http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/search.html

I wish that there were more like him who felt the same way, especially in the Jewish community. I wish the Israeli government would try to combat the problem with a massive public relations campaign instead of the usual "quiet diplomacy."

Walid told me that he would like nothing better than to be able to return to Israel to de-program as many of those brainwashed as he can. Let's hope he stays safe and we should do what we can to help him finish his mission.

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

Posted by IsrAlert, February 15, 2004.
In a column published January 14th in the Saudi daily Al-Watan, columnist Abdallah Nasser Al-Fawzan criticizes Saudi payments given to foreign journalists in order to write pro-Saudi media reports. The following are excerpts from the column. The article was translated and archived by MEMRI, The Middle East Media Research Institute, is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East.

Bribing Journalists - A Rumor or the Sad Truth?

"For quite some time I have been hearing rumors that we [the Saudis] are paying journalists in Arab and non-Arab capitals, and that these payments are not in the hundreds of thousands but in the millions. I did not believe it, because first of all it was in complete contradiction to our ethics, our values and dignity, our self-respect, and our reverence to our nation and country. Secondly, I found nothing in the publications abroad about the Kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] that justified such practices. [In fact] there has been an Arab regime that used to pay [journalists], and that was manifested clearly in media publications about it. For example, we remember the media festivals organized by Arab media outfits [to hail] this regime and we remember the odd propaganda efforts on its behalf. But when it comes to comparing ourselves with that regime we deserve epic poems of praise ... because we find no evidence to the [bribery] rumors. Furthermore, sometimes we are the target of organized m (HW: balance of this paragraph missing from original)

"Such was my impression, and that is why the rumors did not sink in and did not leave me any reason for further contemplation. But the rumors persisted, and two days ago I was surprised by a trustworthy Saudi journalist and a media personality with considerable credence, Mr. Turki Al-Sudairi, editor-in-chief of the Saudi daily Al-Riyadh, who published an article that changed my mind about the rumors I heard, and made me reconsider them seriously."

The Need for 'a Home-Grown Strong and Honest Media'

"In his regular column 'Meeting,' published last Monday(January 12) ... he talked about our dire need for a home-grown strong and honest media, free of domestic and social shackles, able to stand up to other provocative and destructive media, rather than having to rely on crippled and suppliant foreign media... Mr. Al-Sudairi went on to say that: 'Having a crippled and suppliant media cannot benefit us,' and he added even more bluntly that 'we have had the most bizarre relationship with newspapers in other Arab countries ... which to this time receive annual payments and subsidies, although they are insignificant in their own countries, let alone in the Arab world...'"

The Price for Silence

"I said at the beginning of this article that for various reasons I used to dismiss what I heard about paying Arab journalists... And although I do not support such payments under any circumstances, it would [be safe to] assume that they were given in exchange for taking certain positions and for defending us from attacks. However, this did not happen. On the contrary, the opposite has sometimes occurred.

"Mr. Al-Sudairi confirms that payments were made, but why haven't we seen the desired effect? Mr. Al-Sudairi provided a heartbreaking answer in his article. He said that those who receive payments from us 'do not write one word to refute Western media campaigns, as if the payments are made to prevent them [too] from writing against us ... i.e. they are the price of their silence.

"So, the problem is far worse than just making annual payments to Arab journalists, because these payments are the 'price of silence...

"Finally Mr. Al-Sudairi said that those who receive bribes to spare us their harm do not have the ability to harm us with their words or to safeguard us with their silence. In the words of Mr. Al-Sudairi himself: 'They are insignificant ingrates ... and some of them even use pseudonyms to publish articles against us.' What a shame... What a tragedy...

"I thank Mr. Turki Al-Sudairi for his obvious patriotic concern and I join him in condemning this sorry affair, and urge everyone to support him. If we are paying the price, as he said, to insignificant ingrate journalists who consider them a price for their silence, and still publish articles against us using pseudonyms, then the matter is truly scandalous and calls for investigation and proper remedies, not just for the end of the payments."

IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 15, 2004.
The US has provided most of the funding for Israeli development of the Arrow missile defense system. The money was given on condition that US approval was needed for Israeli sale of the system to third countries. This veto was intended to prevent commercial motives from inducing Israel to sell to countries that the US believes would damage US security.

Now the US legislative and executive branches are concerned that the Arrow-2 would compete with a US system, PAC-3 lower-tier, being marketed to US allies and Mideastern states. The US reportedly will block an Israeli sale to India and Turkey (IMRA, 2/2).

The veto was not supposed to be used so that US corporate lobbyists could get the US government to restrict the free trade that the US hypothetically promotes.

US aid costs Israel financially and politically far more than it is worth. Its few billion dollars a year do not constitute a major part of Israel's $80 billion budget. Israel would be wise to discontinue it, and expand its own industry. To do that, it would have to free its own, largely government-owned and government-regulated industry. Perhaps it first should request the same treatment by the US that Jordan and Egypt enjoyed, of having their debt to the US canceled. (Initially, the US lent Israel annual subsidies, then granted it. Grants barely exceeded the interest due on past, high-interest loans.) Israel needs the debt canceled, due to the extraordinary costs from terrorism, which continue because the US has demanded that Israel not sweep out the terrorist P.A. regime.

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

TOM FRIEDMAN: Protector Of His People
Posted by Jeff Dunetz, February 15, 2004.
Most of the time I enjoy my monthly lunches with my friend Phil. He always makes me laugh. Phil is the type of person who never has a mean word to say about anybody. Today's meal was very different. When he walked in today he was practically frothing at the mouth, going on and on, ranting about Tom Friedman, the NY Times Pulitzer Prize winning columnist.

"Phil calm down," I urged, "this isn't like you. You will get reflux or something. Why are you so angry?" He had a newspaper in his hand and slammed it down on the table. "Here, read this," he demanded.

So I picked it up and saw that it was a copy of the NY Times from a few days ago. It was open to the latest offering from Mr. Friedman. It was the typical offering from the Pulitzer Prize winner, the usual political slant and eloquent prose. In his column Friedman was basically implying that the Jewish people in America control the President's policy, saying "Sharon has had Mr. Arafat under house arrest in Ramallah and He has had Mr.Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office." He goes on to say "Vice President, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates..." Then he announced that Sharon's plan to take the settlements out of Gaza were part of a bigger plan to annex 50% of the West Bank. (this must have been an exclusive because I didn't read about that anywhere else).

I looked over the top of the paper and saw Phil glaring and me. "Well?" He said, waiting for my review.

"I gotta admit this guy is good." I said. Phil's face got dark purple, he looked like a shofar blower at the end of a very long note. "Good?" he yelled. "GOOD? HE HAS DONE SO MUCH HARM TO ISRAEL! NOT ONLY HAS HE GIVEN PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR THE TERRORISTS, BUT HIS WORDS ARE USED BY PEOPLE TO ATTACK ISRAEL... THAT IS GOOD? The deli got very quiet, except around poor Mr. Rosenberg's table. He got so startled he jumped, knocking over a delivery guy causing him to spill a case of frozen kenaydloch all over the place.

"Calm down Phil, you'll get us thrown out of here," I whispered, hoping that he would copy my tone. "Don't you get it? Tom Friedman is misunderstood. He's just trying to protect Israel and the Jews." Phil looked at me like I had just grown a third eye, but I kept on going. "Why would he perpetuate stereotypes about Jews controlling the world" Why do you think he would say those horrible things about Israel? No Jew would really say that about his own people. He blames all the violence on Sharon government, even though this violence started under the watch of a more liberal Prime Minister. Tom Friedman is just trying to show how wrong those Anti-Israel sentiments are. This over the top article must be trying to show the world that the old Jewish stereotype can't be true. Let's face it if the Jews can't control one of their own, how can people think we control the world?"

Phil seemed to calm down a little. "Really?" he asked.

"Of course," I answered, "look at some of the things he's said. Like the time he said that the only reason President Bush supported Israel was that he didn't want to alienate the Jewish vote. "Mr. Bush blinked because he didn't want to alienate the Jewish Voter." (NY Times June 30th 2002) Does that really sound like someone who's last name is FRIEDMAN? No that sounded like it came from the Prime Minister of Malaysia. It's like he is ignoring Palestinian terrorism totally. He can't really believe that, he must be acting like an Anti-Semite to make a point."

"Look at his statement this past January 18th that Israel is standing in the way of the Arab/Muslim world modernizing." Could any sane man really believe that? Totally ignoring the repressive regimes such as Iran and Syria refuse to modernize because it will lead do democratization... and the end of their power. Come on! He even uses terms like 'vicious cycle of violence,' putting the blowing up of a bus and the killing of terrorist on the same moral plane. I bet that Tom Friedman hates saying that. Surely every time he describes a West Bank settler a "fanatical Jew" a tear come to his eye! But he is taking one for the team, fighting Anti-Semitism by taking it to the extreme. What a nice guy that Tommy is!"

One of his columns from last November is a particular favorite of mine. It really shows to what extent he will make himself look like he hates Israel, just to protect the Jewish people, "last three years of Palestinian uprising, suicide bombs and Israeli settlement expansion have blown away any remnants of understanding between Israelis and Palestinians" "The current government in Israel behaves as if country is weak little victim" "Israel should use its overwhelming strength to take some initiative; says it should work with new Palestinian prime minister, make tough demands but not expect perfection overnight, not allow itself to be goaded by Hamas into freezing everything, take its own initiative to dismantle settlements and tap Palestinians' interest in improving their lives" "The Bush administration has done nothing to stop Israel's ideologically driven leaders from squandering country's great strength rather than channeling it into creative options"

"Isn't he wonderful? Blaming the victim! Wow what style. He calls Israel's leaders ideologically driven (although I have never seen one of them call for someone to blow themselves up) and then the cool part: he says that Israel should take the initiative to dismantle settlements. Look for creative options and then when she does, like last week's Gaza announcement, he rips it to shreds saying it's a plot to take over the West Bank. So you can't say anything bad about Tom Friedman. He is a hero, getting called a traitor because he's spewing Anti-Israel and Anti-Jewish hatred. And he is doing it just to prove how mean spirited that position may seem."

Phil was dazed. "You really think that he is doing it all on purpose, just to combat anti-Semitism?"

?Isn't it obvious! As a matter of fact, I hear rumors that for his next project he is working with Pat Buchanan co-writing a screenplay for Mel Gibson. It is called: The Jews Killed Kennedy, Mr. Rodgers and Captain Kangaroo.

Jeff Dunetz is a 20-year marketing veteran, and a freelance writer. He can be reached at http://www.jeffdunetz.com

Posted by Marion Dreyfus, February 14, 2004.
I think these are remarkable, almost incredible, achievements - given the stresses and grief the world visits on this small country.

Israel, the 100th smallest country, with less than 1/1000th of the world's population, can lay claim to the following:

The cell phone was developed in Israel by Israelis working in the Israeli branch of Motorola, which has its largest development center in Israel.

Most of the Windows NT and XP operating systems were developed by Microsoft-Israel.

The Pentium MMX Chip technology was designed in Israel at Intel. Both the Pentium-4 microprocessor and the Centrino processor were entirely designed, developed and produced in Israel.

The Pentium microprocessor in your computer was most likely made in Israel.

Voice mail technology was developed in Israel.

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

The technology for the AOL Instant Messenger ICQ was developed in 1996 by four young Israelis.

Israel has the fourth largest air force in the world (after the U.S., Russia and China). In addition to a large variety of other aircraft, Israel's air force has an aerial arsenal of over 250 F-16's. This is the largest fleet of F-16 aircraft outside of the US.

According to industry officials, Israel designed the airline industry's most impenetrable flight security. U. S.officials now look to Israel for advice on how to handle airborne security threats.

Israel's $100 billion economy is larger than all of its immediate neighbors combined. Israel has the highest percentage in the world of home computers per capita.

Israel has the highest ratio of university degrees to the population in the world.

Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other nation by a large margin - 109 per 10,000 people - as well as one of the highest per capita rates of patents filed.

In proportion to its population, Israel has the largest number of startup companies in the world. In absolute terms, Israel has the largest number of startup companies than any other country in the world, except the US (3,500 companies mostly in hi-tech).

With more than 3,000 high-tech companies and startups, Israel has the highest concentrationof hi-tech companies in the world - apart from the Silicon Valley, US.

Israel is ranked #2 in the world for venture capital funds right behind the US.

Outside the United States and Canada, Israel has the largest number of NASDAQ listed companies.

Israel has the highest average living standards in the Middle The per capita income in 2000 was over $17,500, exceeding that of the UK.

On a per capita basis, Israel has the largest number of biotech startups.

Twenty-four per cent of Israel's workforce holds university degrees - ranking third in the industrialized world, after the United States and Holland - and 12 per cent hold advanced degrees.

Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.

In 1984 and 1991, Israel airlifted a total of 22,000 Ethiopian Jews at risk in Ethiopia, to safety in Israel.

When Golda Meir was elected Prime Minister of Israel in 1969, she became the world's second elected female leader in modern times.

When the U. S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya was bombed in 1998, Israeli rescue teams were on the scene within a day - and saved three victims from the rubble.

Israel has the third highest rate of entrepreneurship - and the highest rate among women and among people over 55 - in the world.

Relative to its population, Israel is the largest immigrant-absorbing nation on earth. Immigrants come in search of democracy, religious freedom, and economic opportunity.

Israel was the first nation in the world to adopt the Kimberly process, an international standard that certifies diamonds as "conflict free."

Israel has the world's second highest per capita of new books.

Israel is the only country in the world that entered the 21st century with a net gain in its number of trees, made more remarkable because this was achieved in an area considered mainly desert.

Israel has more museums per capita than any other country.

Medicine... Israeli scientists developed the first fully computerized, no-radiation, diagnostic instrumentation for breast cancer.

An Israeli company developed a computerized system for ensuring proper administration of medications, thus removing human error from medical treatment. Every year in U. S. hospitals 7,000 patients die from treatment mistakes.

Israel's Givun imaging developed the first ingestible video camera, so small it fits inside a pill. Used to view the small intestine from the inside, the camera helps doctors diagnose cancer and digestive disorders.

Researchers in Israel developed a new device that directly helps the heart pump blood, an innovation with the potential to save lives among those with heart failure. The new device is synchronized with the heart's mechanical operations through a sophisticated system of sensors.

Israel leads the world in the number of scientists and technicians in the workforce, with 145 per 10,000, as opposed to 85 in the U.S., over 70 in Japan, and less than 60 in Germany. With over 25% of its work force employed in technical professions. Israel places first in this category as well.

A new acne treatment developed in Israel, the ClearLight device, produces a high-intensity, ultraviolet-light-free, narrow-band blue light that causes acne bacteria to self-destruct - all without damaging surroundings skin or tissue.

An Israeli company was the first to develop and install a large-scale solar-powered and fully functional electricity generating plant, in southern California's Mojave desert.

All the above while engaged in regular wars with an implacable enemy that seeks its destruction, and an economy continuously under strain by having to spend more per capita on its own protection than any other country on earth

Marion D.S. Dreyfus is a journalist, and is currently in Wuchan, China, where she teaches at the University and does a radio talk show.

Posted by Beth Goodtree, February 14, 2004.
It has just been revealed that the European Union has been funding terror. In an article in Arutz Sheva* dated Feb. 13, 2004, "... the European Union's Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concludes that tens of millions of dollars in humanitarian aid donated by the EU to the Palestinian Authority were actually used for terrorism against Israel. Remarkably, the conclusions are based on papers that Israel discovered almost two full years ago, during Operation Defensive Shield, and which it presented to the world immediately afterwards."

These documents were displayed in Jerusalem on April 11, 2002 - almost two years ago. Included among them were some with Arafat's signature approving expenses for terrorist activities by 11 different terrorist leaders. Included in the papers were documents showing that the PLO headquarters in Jerusalem - Orient House - served as a center for terrorist activities. Orient House was the venue to disburse payments to terrorists' families as well as issuing Fatah membership forms. It also had an itemized report on terrorist activities in Jerusalem, Palestinian Authority salary slips for Orient House officials, proof of ties between the Palestinian Authority and Israeli-Arabs, and much more.

When an official body provides money to a group or organization, they are responsible for how it is used. This is true whether it is America, the UN, any Arab nation or the European Union, for example. If the money is used to commit genocide and terrorist acts, then the financial sponsor is ultimately responsible. And if the financial sponsor was given proof of this and continued the funding, then that sponsor must be held accountable. Also, foot-dragging on the part of a financial sponsor must be punished. When it comes to preventing murder and genocide, only the swiftest action is acceptable.

While suing the EU for a huge amount of money might be the first reaction, it will not necessarily create the desired effect. The best outcome would be to have a precedent-setting victory as a warning to future financial supporters of genocidal and/or terrorist regimes, while not alienating a group who is trying, apparently sincerely, to clean up its act.

Therefore I propose that all the victims of Palestinian-Arab violence since the release of the incriminating documents two years ago, sue the European Union for one dollar. The court victory will be priceless. And it can be used by victims and their families to sue for monetary retribution from other supporters of terror who contributed to their suffering. Also, it can be used to deter or bankrupt anyone else who dares to willfully give money to genocidal monsters like the Arafat regime. Are you listening to this Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and especially, the UN?

In the case of the European Union, even though it is ultimately responsible for its members and employees, it may be that certain employees wield enough power to stymie legitimate inquiries and investigations in order to further their personal political agendas. In this instance, it might be reasonable to hold these civil servants personally responsible.

Chris Patten, the EU's Commissioner for External Affairs, refused to accept the legitimacy of the documents presented to him. Nor did he even open an investigation into their legitimacy, as was his responsibility. Instead he dragged his feet, while each month more babies, children, parents, and the elderly were slaughtered or maimed. It was only under extreme pressure from European parliament members that Patten was forced to order an OLAF (the EU's anti-fraud office) investigation into the Israeli allegations and proofs of terror funding.

Chris Patten, by deliberately stonewalling any meaningful inquiry into the use of EU funds to commit genocide and terror, was an active accomplice in these acts. He also put the European Union in the position of continuing to fund anti-Semitic terror and genocide against its will.

It is time for all the victims of the terrorists acts, (after Chris Patten was presented with the evidence and before he did anything about it), to sue him for every Euro he ever made. The plaintiffs may also include the EU itself, since his deliberate inaction made them unwilling financers of terror and murder. It is also time for Chris Patten to be tried as an accomplice to mass murder as well as serial murder, terror and genocide. A case can be made that he prevented any investigation with malice aforethought. Let him be an example to a previously uncaring world and to future bureaucrats with personal genocidal and anti-Semitic agendas: NEVER AGAIN!

(On a happier note, a big TRES BON! to France for investigating Yasser Arafat's money trail.)


Beth Goodtree is an essayist who writes both serious and satirical political commentary.

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 14, 2004.
This is not a spoof. It was written by Khaled Al-Awadh, and appeared in today's Arab News, which bills itself as "the Middle East's Leading English Language Daily."

The Little Green Footballs (http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php) website spotted the news item and said this: "The ruling oil ticks of the House of Saud, in the world center of the Religion of Peace and Tolerance, are cracking down hard on any Saudis caught celebrating St. Valentine's Day... The article doesn't say which body part gets lopped off for violating this edict."

BURAIDAH, 14February 2004 - Saudi religious authorities have warned the public against celebrating Valentine's Day or selling gifts related to the feast, Al-Riyadh reported yesterday.

"It is a pagan Christian holiday and Muslims who believe in God and Judgment Day should not celebrate or acknowledge it or congratulate people on it," an edict issued by the Fatwa Committee said.

"There are only two holidays in Islam - Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha - and any other holidays, whether to celebrate an individual, group or event, are inventions which Muslims are banned from," said the committee, headed by Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh.

Some Friday prayer leaders gave sermons warning of the dangerous effects of the day on young Muslims.

"Celebrating such an event will create an identity crisis in the minds of our youngsters," said one religious leader.

"Any Muslim who celebrates this day is not fully aware of the first chapter of the Holy Qur'an we read in every prayer," he added.

"A Muslim is prohibited from celebrating, approving or congratulating on this occasion," said the ruling issued by the Fatwa Committee. Supporting others to celebrate the day such as buying or selling Valentine's items, presenting gifts or making festival food falls in the category of approval.

Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Ghaith, president of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, has also issued a warning against celebrating Valentine's Day or the 'feast of love.'

Al-Ghaith has instructed his officials all over the Kingdom to keep a watch on shops selling roses and other gift items to celebrate the occasion.

"You should also enlighten Saudi citizens on the danger of this custom, which is alien to our society, and make them aware of its negative effect," Al-Madinah daily quoted the religious police chief as saying.

The late Sheikh Muhammad Al-Othaimeen had issued an edict against celebrating the day and the edict had been widely circulated among Muslims. "A Muslim should be proud of his religion and do not imitate others blindly," Al-Othaimeen said.

The occasion seems trivial to youths in Qasim. "I know it but I disdain it," said a 23-year-old Ahmad Al-Mutairy. "The Internet is full of such triviality. Only fools will fall into such traps," he added.

"Our religion is very clear in this matter. We only celebrate two occasions every year at the end of Ramadan and during pilgrimage. Anyone who adopts another culture is very weak and misguided," said another young man.

Waleed Al-Anazi attributed the spread of such un-Islamic attitudes to the information age such as the Internet and satellite television. "We have a great need to create an awareness of the importance of identity and self-respect among the young," he said adding it is the responsibility of parents and schools.

Posted by Ellen W. Horowitz, February 14, 2004.
When it comes to Mid-East reporting, more often than not, it appears that AP (the Associated Press) is nothing more than a a mirror image of the PA (Palestinian Authority). This is reflected in both the writings and photographs being disseminated by the "reputable" news service.

One simple sentence found in an AP story that was carried by Foxnews.com on February 12th, contained five gross inaccuracies. The sentence reads as follows:

In more than three years of fighting, 455 people have died in homicide bombings carried out by Hamas and other militant factions. (the full article can be found at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111193,00.html)

Using the term "fighting" as opposed to "terrorist activity" levels the playing field and neutralizes the sinister nature of what has clearly been, and continues to be, a campaign of terror launched against the Jewish citizens of the State of Israel. Is AP implying that Israeli civilians are active participants/fighters in a battle which marks them as fair game for homicide bombings? Are terrorist tactics aimed at civilians an accepted and legitimate military strategy - If that's the case, then I guess this is just a bloody but equitable contest between compliant Jewish bus passengers and determined Arab combatants. No terror, no victims, no guilt.

The staff at AP have serenely embraced and, at times, seem to subliminally encourage the violence of the region - at least when it's directed towards the Jews. Nobody ever gets killed here in Israel. People simply "die". The impact of 500 pounds of explosives and shrapnel ripping through human flesh never kills. Life just gently passes away from dismembered and burnt bodies. I guess if people were "killed", then there would have to be killers. Well, far be it for AP to paint the Palestinian Arabs as guilty of murderous outrages against innocent Israelis.

By the way, the "people" who have simply "died" in that ambiguous sentence, happen to be Israelis, but AP is loathe to tell you that. People are people, right? No good guys, no bad guys, no victims, no aggressors - just "people". Ain't life beautiful? Not so fast...AP is being neither PC nor liberally humanistic, as the same article mentions some form of the word "kill" six times in reference to what Israeli's have done to Palestinians.

455 "people" have not "died" in more than three years of "fighting". But, close to 1000 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian Arab terrorists since the escalation of violence which began in September 2000. Israel's Ministry of foreign affairs puts the figure at 934. If AP has any doubt, they can go to http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0ia50 and count the names, review the ages and read the particulars.

Perhaps AP employs an accountant from the PA who specializes in damage control. I suppose, in theory, one could slash in half the number of Israelis killed and arrive at a figure of 455 by deducting those who were murdered in standard non-suicidal bombings or shootings, stabbings, grenade attacks, etc... But why would AP find it necessary to compartmentalize the methods of violence or, for that matter, itemize the various Palestinian terrorist factions? It adds nothing to the article other than minimizing and whitewashing the truth. More and more Palestinian terrorist groups are launching joint atrocities, so the meticulous divisions of labor don't really matter -they never did. Is AP in the business of reporting the news or do its interests lie in confounding the public and obscuring the facts? One has to wonder.

The last word of the sentence is "miltary factions". I perused the article and desperately looked for a term that closely resembled  terrorists". I came up empty- handed. But I did manage to find the following highly creative list: militant, groups, cells, militant groups, militant factions, military wing, and my personal favorite (sic) is "masked men in military-style uniforms."

It's time AP took a good look in the mirror. They may be surprised to see a keffiyah-draped ugly face - with a stubbly beard and trembling lips - staring back and smiling at them.

"Mirror Mirror on the wall, who's the fairest one of all?" You can be sure it's neither the AP nor the PA.

Ellen Horowitz lives in the Golan Heights, Israel with her husband and six children. She is a painter, writer and co-founder of helpingisrael.com. She can be contacted through her website http://www.artfromzion.com

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 14, 2004.
The Arabs in Beirut and Gaza not only rejoiced at their men's return from Israeli prisons, but they celebrated a victory over the Israelis, who swapped about 429 live and 59 dead terrorists, for one live and three dead Israelis.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese terrorists being flown to freedom in an Israeli Air Force jet deliberately ripped apart their seats, without repercussions (or much publicity).

Thus, while the Arabs show themselves bestial and defiant, the Israelis show themselves too timid to tame them. Israel is in a dangerous, self-destructive state of mind. Actually, only a minority of Israelis thinks that peace with Israel's Arab neighbors can be achieved, but that minority is running the country (Steve K. Walz, Jewish Press, 2/6, p.70).

Israel missed the opportunity to cancel the deal, amid great publicity, because the terrorists still are too violent to be permitted to go at large. Israel rarely uses opportunitis to show the Arab terrorists for what they are. Israel lacks the imagination and the combativeness. It is too civilized to deal with barbarians. Its leadership is suborned by friends of the barbarians. Who are those friends of the barbarians? One calls itself the honest broker.

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

Posted by Tamar Rush, February 14, 2004.
This essay is taken from "Myths and Facts Online - A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict" by Mitchell G. Bard, http://www.JewishVirtualLibrary.org. A paperback edition of Myths and Facts can be ordered directly at the Jewish Virtual Library website (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/mythsorder6.html).

MYTH #131

"Israeli policies cause anti-Semitism."


Anti-Semitism has existed for centuries, well before the rise of the modern State of Israel. Rather than Israel being the cause of anti-Semitism, it is more likely that the distorted media coverage of Israeli policies is reinforcing latent anti-Semitic views.

As writer Leon Wieseltier observed, "the notion that all Jews are responsible for whatever any Jews do is not a Zionist notion. It is an anti-Semitic notion." Wieseltier adds that attacks on Jews in Europe have nothing whatsoever to do with Israel. To blame Jews for anti-Semitism is similar to saying blacks are responsible for racism.

Many Jews may disagree with policies of a particular Israeli government, but this does not mean that Israel is bad for the Jews. As Wieseltier noted, "Israel is not bad for the Jews of Russia, who may need a haven; or for the Jews of Argentina, who may need a haven; or for any Jews who may need a haven" (Leon Wieseltier, "Israel, Palestine, and the Return of the Binational Fantasy," The New Republic, October 24, 2003).

As noted in the fact about criticism of Israel, taking issue with Israeli policies is acceptable if you do so because you believe that a) Israel has the right to exist, and b) that changes will make Israel a better place. In fact, such criticism, by Israelis, can be found in the Israeli media every day. Criticism crosses the line, however, when it delegitimizes Israel and is intended to weaken rather than strengthen its institutions.

Posted by Communade Juive France, February 13, 2004.
This was written by Adar Primor and appeared in Haaretz.

If you are planning to visit Paris next week, maybe you should reconsider. Because of the "rising tide of anti-Semitism?" On the contrary. Because of the "I love Israel" parade. Next Monday, President Moshe Katsav will be arriving in Paris for a state visit. His counterpart, Jacques Chirac, intends to greet him with a big bear hug and even halt all the traffic in the busy downtown area.

In the 16th century, the Protestant King Henri IV declared that "Paris is well worth a Mass" (i.e., conversion to Catholicism). The sovereign sitting in the capital today believes that warmer relations with Israel are well worth giving irritable Parisian drivers a nervous breakdown.

Israeli officials who flew to Paris recently to handle the logistics of the visit say that the French carpet has never been redder, and it's been a long while since the smiles of their colleagues have been so broad and their handshakes so firm. Chirac is apparently anxious to play the role of Jacques I, the leader of a monarchy that wants to show its esteem for the Jewish state. The president-king has sent for his royal horsemen, ordered the Israeli flag to be flown on the Champs Elysees and placed his private jet at the guest's disposal. The entire French leadership will take part in this rare display of hugs and smiles.

Katsav will take advantage of these warm sentiments to convey a message in three main spheres:

Bilateral relations - Katsav will emphasize the importance Israel attaches to strengthening ties with France. He will express appreciation for France's efforts to build a new relationship that is no longer a hostage to the ups and downs of the peace process. Chirac will remind us that since the inauguration of the Raffarin government in the spring of 2002, the two countries have launched a whole series of projects and binational accords involving collaboration in science, commerce, education and culture. He will point out that the French still have more to offer. These projects and your visit here today, he will tell Katsav, are proof that whatever the disagreements, France is a true friend of Israel. Chirac will remind him of his country's role in establishing the State of Israel and its commitment to Israel's security. Internally, he will no doubt be asking himself how long it will take for this heating up of the "bilateral relations highway" to gain France some political leverage in the Middle East.

The political process - Katsav will ask Chirac to use his considerable clout with the Arab countries and the Palestinians, and make his political support contingent on the cessation of terror. That is the only way to move forward on the road map you hold so dear, Katsav will say. Chirac may nod in agreement, but he will save the real dialogue on this subject for his talks with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whose upcoming visit to Paris is now being worked out.

Anti-Semitism - Katsav will express concern and warn against allowing legitimate criticism of Israel's policy to slide into views that imply a denial of its right to exist. The president will convey his appreciation for the vigorous action taken by the French authorities to deal with the scourge of anti-Semitism. Chirac will thank him for having faith in France and note that contrary to reports published in Israel, anti-Semitic incidents actually decreased in 2003 by 36 percent, also according to the figures of the Jewish community.

Proportionally speaking, there are fewer anti-Semitic incidents in France than in the United States, Britain and other European countries. But this has not made France any less determined to fight the phenomenon, Chirac will say. A special interministerial committee that was established in November meets every month to discuss the issue from three angles: punishing offenders; promoting education and awareness of the Holocaust; and international cooperation.

Katsav's visit will not spur France into changing its policies on Israel and the Middle East. In the long run, the future of French- Israel relations will be determined by the peace process. But the powerful message that the Chirac administration is trying to pass on to the people of Israel is one that is hard to ignore. While Muslim women in France are being ordered to remove their head scarves, flags emblazoned with the Star of David are being hoisted in the streets of Paris. And symbols, as we all know, have a tendency to penetrate deeply.

This email was distributed by Communaute-Juive-France-owner@yahoogroupes.fr

Posted by Beth Goodtree, February 13, 2004.

The United States is so busy these days, what with the war in Iraq, the mop up operations in Afghanistan, the economy and such, it apparently has forgotten its obligations regarding a certain peace treaty. Likewise, Israel is so concerned with her own immediate problems, she has probably overlooked the many treaty violations willfully committed by Egypt. In fact, if I read my treaties correctly, Egypt is due for some heavy applications of these treaties in action. Here are the facts.

On March 26, 1979, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty. The United States also signed a document that same day called US-Israel Memorandum of Agreement*. In it, the US spelled out its commitments to Israel in case the treaty is violated, the role of the UN and the future supply of military and economic aid to Israel

In essence, this agreement guarantees that the US will take appropriate measures to ensure the full enforcement of the Egypt-Israeli Peace Treaty. It also guarantees that the US will take appropriate measures (to include military options) if Egypt violates the treaty. And, critical to current events, the US guarantees that it would not supply or authorize transfer of such weapons for use in an armed attack against Israel, and will take steps to prevent unauthorized transfers. Keep this thought in mind...

Meanwhile, The actual Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty** states that the parties involved will respect each others rights to live within secure and recognized borders, will ..."refrain from organizing, instigating, inciting, assisting or participating in acts or threats of belligerency, hostility, subversion or violence against the other Party, anywhere, and undertakes to ensure that perpetrators of such acts are brought to justice." This peace treaty further states "The Parties shall seek to foster mutual understanding and tolerance and will, accordingly, abstain from hostile propaganda against each other."

In the past few years, both Egypt and the US have reneged on their obligations - Egypt has had numerous flagrant violations of the peace treaty and the United States has failed to do anything about it - as guaranteed by the US-Israel Memorandum of Agreement. Here are but a mere few of the more recent egregious violations:

1.) As reported by Arutz Sheva***, a late January 2004 edition of the Egyptian government daily Al-Masaa ran an editorial glorifying and encouraging the homicide/genocide bombing of Jews. In part it stated "We have no argument regarding the question of the legitimacy of these operations, because they are considered a powerful weapon used by the Palestinians against an enemy with no morality or religion.... [e]ven if during [a martyrdom operation] civilians or children are killed...."

2.) An article in the January 23, 1997 issue of the Egyptian government newspaper Al Ahram asserted that "Israel is behind an attempt to intentionally infect Palestinians with AIDS." (Ha'aretz, January 24, 1997)

3.) In May of 2000 Egypt joined with the other members of the Arab League in a statement demanding a halt to all Jewish immigration to Israel and justifying Arab violence against Israel. ****

4.) As reported in the October 23, 2002 edition of the Jerusalem Post, Egyptian State television planned to broadcast a 30-part series based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This is a rabidly anti-Semitic tract which the show's creator and star said "reveals the Zionist schemes to seize Palestine." Egyptian state-run television timed the series to air during the first half of Ramadan.

5.) In September of 2003, Nabil Hilmi, dean of the law school at Egypt's University of Al-Zaqaziq, announced he was suing "all the Jews of the world" for trillions of dollars for allegedly 'stealing' Egyptian gold and goods during their escape from slavery. Hilmi, who is an employee of the Egyptian government, also claimed to have used Egyptian police to do an 18-month investigation.

While the above examples are but a few of the flagrant violations of the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty, a recent news announcement may be a dangerous escalation of violations. In November of 2003, Raytheon was awarded a contract to supply Egypt with 414 Sidewinder missiles. These are highly accurate, short-range air-to-air weapons. Who is Egypt planning on attacking? It's not as if anyone has threatened to attack Egypt. It has warm relations with all of its Arab neighbors.

What is even more disturbing is America's failure to fulfill any of her obligations under the US-Israel Memorandum of Agreement. Instead, the US approved the sale of these missiles to Egypt and made feeble and impotent protests about only the most publicized violations by Egypt of the peace treaty.

Since neither the US or Egypt seems to be honoring their obligations, it seems that both the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty and the US Memorandum of Agreement are dead. It also seems that the United States cannot be trusted to fulfill its obligations. Israel should now act accordingly.


Posted by Voice of Judea, February 13, 2004.
According to a poll published in Yediot Achronot a majority of Israelis support the surrender of Gaza. In another survey published in Yediot Achronot, a majority of Israelis feel that Israel is self-destructing and that Israel is on the verge of economic and social collapse.

Voice of Judea Commentary:

Yes, the social, economic and security fabric of the state of Israel is rapidly unraveling. Only a society that is fully corrupt socially could support the expulsion of thousands of fellow citizens. The answer to Israel's economic and social woes is not to expel fellow Jews. The answer is to expel the Arab enemies. By doing so, Israel will restore security to the land. By restoring domestic peace and security, Israel will gain billions of dollars annually that are now wasted building walls and deploying troops. Not to mention the billions that Israel will gain when tourists return to Israel and regain their confidence in Israel. Much of the internal strife and stress created by constant fear of Arab terrorism would be extinguished. And the security pressure-cooker that causes so much domestic violence would be replaced with a calm and normal social climate.

No, the answer is not to reward the terrorists by surrendering more land to them and by expelling our brothers and sisters. The answer is to unite and fight our common enemies.

The website address of Voice of Judea is http://www.voiceofjudea.net. Subscribe by writing listmaster@voiceofjudea.net

Posted by Dr. Richard L. Benkin, February 13, 2004.
Dear friends,

As many of you know, I have been working over the past few months for the Release of my friend and colleague, Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, a Bangladeshi jounalist whose only crimes are the advocacy of peace with Israel and understanding among Jews and Muslims.

He was arrested as he was about to board a plane and make an historic flight to Israel, and has spoken out against the those who try to demonize the Jewish people.

Despite international efforts on his behalf (which I do believe secured better living conditions and prevented the worst aspects of such an incarceration), the government now has seen fit to bring a charge of sedition.

The fundamentalist press is again charging him with being a spy for Israel (Some even named me a member of the Israeli Mossad - to which I replied that if I'm all the Mossad has, the Mossad is in big trouble).

The other day, Shoaib's brother called me from Bangladesh. (Sohail Choudhury has been our principle contact and has led the legal efforts on his brother's behalf). His home was attacked, and the police refused even to file a report.

We must bring additional international focus on this case of injustice.

Shoaib spoke up and stood up for us, at considerable personal risk.

We must stand up for him.

I have been in contact with my own and several other US congressional representatives, and they have gotten the U.S. State Department to "observe" the situation.

If anyone can help galvanize their own representatives or others in the government or media, you will be doing a great mitzvah.

I have been asked to speak to a few groups on this matter and certainly can provide (either as a speaker or via email) background material if you or others want.

The other thing you can do is to sign the petition, CLICK HERE

[Note: if the direct click doesn't work, the link is http://www.petitiononline.com/IFLAC102/petition.html ]

And please pass it to everyone you know. It asks the U.S., U.N., E.U., and Canada to help free this captive. Bangladesh accounts itself as a democracy.

As a participant in the writings and activities that are being used as the basis for my friend Shoaib's persecution, I can tell you that there is nothing there that any free country would consider worthy of its official time.


Telephone: 847-922-6424
Email: mailto:drrbenkin@comcast.net

Mr. Choudhury is a senior journalist, a political analyst and editor of the Bangladash newspaper, "Weekly Blitz" (www.weeklyblitz.com). His soon-to-be-published book "Confession" investigates the rise of radical Islam in the Muslim countries.

[Ed note: See also "Islamic Moderates," posted by Aryeh Zelasko, December 20, 2003 (the December 2003 Blog-Ed page) and "Another Suicide Bomber and a Question About Time," posted by Mr. Choudhury, October 14, 2003 (the October 2003 Blog-Ed page).]

Posted by Bryna Berch, February 13, 2004.
This was an Op-Ed piece written by Yossi Ben Aharon; it appeared in Maariv International (http://www.maarivintl.com).

The settlements in Gush Katif serve an important military function against terror. Furthermore, a thin Israeli army presence at the border with Egypt will invite pressure to put an international force in its place.

Yisrael Galili was a Minister without Portfolio in Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin's government in the Seventies. He was also a stalwart of Achdut Ha'Avoda party - later a component of the present Labor Party - who identified strongly with the activist left. "At any point in our relations with Egypt,", Galili would say, "whether it be at war, a cease-fire, or a full peace, it is essential, of critical importance, that we control the border at Rafah, from the sea to the desert sands in the south. We must prevent, at all cost, the creation of territorial continuity from Egypt through the Sinai and Gaza Strip, up to Ashkelon. We were already in that situation once before, and we almost lost our country."

Galili emphasized the strategic danger that could arise from Egypt through the Strip. What he didn't foresee was that the Strip would, with its 1.25 million Arab residents, turn into a demographic time bomb. Galili envisioned Jewish settlements in the area, a permanent civilian presence, not a permanent garrison.

He knew what Sharon and Mofaz have apparently forgotten. That a military deployment in the area of Rafah, without the buffer of the Gaza settlements, would let the enemy surround IDF soldiers front and back. Evacuating the settlements will give terrorist organizations in the Strip an enormous boost in morale. Weapons smuggling through the Sinai, and the terrorist war of attrition on our soldiers will make their lives hell. Furthermore, a thin military presence on the border with Egypt, where confrontations have already taken place, will invite Arab and international pressure to replace IDF soldiers there with an international force. The complete ineffectiveness of any force of this kind has proven itself time and time again.

Officers who have served in the Gaza Strip are well aware of the important military purpose the settlements in Gush Katif serve, but they must keep their opinions to themselves, because the authorities above them say: "You can't see the forest for the trees.". I once heard an officer, speaking in a private forum, say that the Gaza settlements are of critical importance to the army in fighting Palestinian terror. The Jewish settlements provide a commanding position over main arteries and vast open spaces = providing an important defense on the ground; they prevent freedom of movement for enemy agents; they sometimes provide a launch pad for army activities or a cover for operations, and they make it easier for the army to blend in with the terrain. They suffer constant terrorist attacks that would otherwise be directed at targets within the Green Line. The settlers pay a heavy price and face daily risk to their lives. And most of them do this out of their own free will, despite the daily defamation and de-legitimization they are subjected to by the Left.

Recently, Israel appears in the foreign press - and not necessarily in hostile countries - as a country that was once a self-confident regional superpower with a clear policy, but that has now become a weak entity, whose leaders have lost their way. Withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, even if it is accompanied by a chorus of praise for the "peace of the brave", will put Israel's citizens in existential danger and will bring Israel's reputation and standing to the lowest ebb.

Posted by Dror Vanunu, February 13, 2004.
In keeping with tradition, the cultural center of Gush Katif, (Hamatnas), organized the annual Tu B'shvat nature event for the children of Gush Katif. The children took part in baking 'pitot', squeezing fruits, planting virtual trees in the computer and creating wall paintings. The main innovative event this year was the preparation of the biggest insect-free vegetable salad in the country! Many of the region's agriculturists contributed their produce to this giant salad. Afterward, the salad was packed in personal boxes and was delivered to the I.D.F. soldiers who serve in our area.

Reuven Rivlin, the chairman of the Knesset, came to Gush Katif on February 12, 2004, to show his support for the Gush Katif inhabitants. During his visit he planted a tree in Neve Dekalim, accompanied by dozens of the village children. The secretary of the Knesset's visit is part of the Hof-Aza Regional Council program, which plans to put pressure on Ministers and Knesset members to oppose Sharon and his dangerous plan.

In Israel in the past few days, the resistance to the Sharon plan has increased. The Chief of Staff, Moshe (Bugi) Yaalon's made a determined declaration to the effect that the evacuation of Gush Katif will add fuel to the fire of terror. In the past few days, many more people have also spoken out against the plan. Avi Dichter, who is head of the GSS; Aharon Zeevi Farkash, who heads the intelligence branch; as well as some American and European politicians have also made statements against the plan. Astoundingly, even Yossi Beilin described this program as a prize for Hamas.

The cultural think-tank of Gush Katif is already planning some original activities to commemorate Tu Bishvat next year,including an invitation to the Guiness Record Judges to view and record the most enormous salad ever prepared This will be possible in light of the many families that are planning to move to Gush Katif this coming year

Dror Vanunu lives in Gush Katif in the Gaza Strip. He is a member of the Hof-Aza Regional Council.

Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman, February 13, 2004.
It comes as somewhat of a surprise that both political parties are so intent upon obtaining the Arab vote in this country. Of course, every vote and every ethnic group is important - either because of their numbers or the amount of funds they contribute to the political party.

Evidently, some of the political strategists mentioned have been mislead by notoriously inflated numbers as to the number of Arabs there are in the country and specifically in the Metro Detroit area. Coincidentally, Larry Witham, in the Washington Times, reported the results of an independent, extremely reliable survey conducted of the Religious Congregations and Membership of 2000. The every-decade survey, a project since 1966 of the Glenmary Home Missioners, a Catholic organization in Cincinnati, is considered the most reliable database on religious affiliation at the county level. Its findings were based upon the number of Muslims affiliated with America's more than 1000 mosques. The number came to 1.6 million, far below the estimates of 7 million put out by Islamic groups. Understandably, the pro-Arab Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) took great exception to these numbers that negates a great deal of their supposed political influence. In fact, Mr. Witham reported that other national surveys have also argued that the U.S. Muslim population is below 2 million.

In the Detroit, Michigan area a similar situation transpires with a serious inflation of supposed population numbers. The Detroit Free Press in May 2001 reported on an Arab American, Abed Hammoud, possibly running for Mayor of Dearborn - the area where we have been told repeatedly is the home to 200-300,000 Arabs. The article surprisingly reported that the area has in fact only 59,000 Arab residents with just 17% are registered to vote. What percentage of these voters actually vote is another consideration.

For people interested in accuracy, the United States Census for 2000 came out with the following numbers. The census states that the Arab population of the United States is 1.25 million people, up from the 940,000 of the 1990 census but not quite the 3-7 million claimed. Metro Detroit has 92,328 up from 59,029 in 1990 but not quite the 400,000 claimed! Dearborn, Michigan, the epicenter of the Arab population is up to 29,344 from 14,000 but not to the 200,000 claimed.

Finally, there is always the question of the reliability of polls. Has the pollster a political agenda of his own? Zogby International polling mentioned in the News article opines that 450,000 Arabs live in Michigan and that of these, 150,000-160,000 are registered voters. John Zogby, who runs Zogby International, also happens to be the brother of James Zogby, well known Arab American politically savvy propagandist. It would seem only prudent to have less politically attached pollsters run surveys on issues in which the Arab vote or reaction is involved.

Jerome S. Kaufman runs the Israel Commentary website (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Israel-Commentary).

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 13, 2004.
The Israeli secret service warns that potential threats against PM Sharon are increasing from "extremist Israeli settlers." Were any threats actually made? No!

Instead, the government is making threats against settlers, especially the Kahanist ones. This seems to be the old government ploy of intimidating opposition to its policies. As Israel concedes more, it inspires the Arabs to attack more. The more the Arabs attack, the more the Israeli people see that it is not the Jews who should be expelled. The more the people reject government policy, the more they accept the opposition policy. The more attractive opposition policy becomes, the more the government tries to intimidate it. The government may be relying upon administrative arrests and re-arrests, without trials.

"Maariv" reports that the secret service warned the girl friend of Kach activist Itamar Ben-Gvir to break off her relationship with him. She did. That is how the secret service protects Jewish women. It does not protect Jewish women from Arabs who masquerade as Jews, lure them into their villages, and turn them into sex slaves (Voice of Judea, 2/6, e-mail).

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

Posted by Michael Freund, February 13, 2004.

A former Palestinian terrorist who took part in attacks against Israelis in the mid-1970s has now become a vocal pro-Israel Christian activist in the United States as part of his "repentance" for his past actions.

"My first goal is to give strength to the Jewish people, to give encouragement, to get rid of this stupid idea of establishing a Palestinian state," Walid Shoebat told The Jerusalem Post in a telephone interview from his West Coast home. "I had a change of heart, and I am now very Zionist. I tie myself to the God of Israel," he said.

Shoebat, who was born in 1960 to a Palestinian Muslim father and an American Christian mother, was raised as a Muslim and spent much of his youth in the village of Beit Sahur, outside of Bethlehem, and later in Jericho. As a child in school, he says, he was indoctrinated to hate Jews.

"I remember singing in school: 'Arabs are beloved, Jews are dogs.' We were taught that Jews are descendants of monkeys and pigs," he recalls.

As a result of his education, Shoebat also refused to believe that the Holocaust had occurred.

"I used to watch the Holocaust shows on Israeli television on Yom Hashoah with popcorn and laughter, because I did not believe it was true. I thought it was a fabrication. I wondered where they found these skinny actors to portray the victims," he now says with regret.

Shortly thereafter, Shoebat began to take part in anti-Israel activities, proving adept at riling up crowds of demonstrators.

"As a teenager, I was involved in a lot of rioting and demonstrating, particularly between the ages of 14 and 18. I threw stones at rabbis at the Western Wall and protested on the Temple Mount." After being inducted into a Palestinian terrorist group, Shoebat agreed to take part in his first attack. "I carried a loaf of bread with explosives in it and my mission was to destroy the Bank Leumi branch in Bethlehem," he says.

But when he arrived at the site of his intended target, he saw a group of children playing outside and had second thoughts, "so I threw it on the roof of the bank. I walked away and a few minutes later heard an explosion. It shook me up greatly."

His other brush with terrorism occurred in the mid-1970s, when Shoebat and a group of friends nearly beat an Israeli soldier to death in Bethlehem. They set upon the soldier, who was attempting to catch a stone-thrower.

"We grabbed him, beat him with a club, and he was bleeding profusely. He was nearly killed," Shoebat says, his voice trembling with emotion. "He had a baton in his hand and swatted at us, and somehow he managed to get away."

Shoebat was later arrested on other charges and served a few months in an Israeli prison. At the age of 18, he moved to the United States, where he became a pro-Palestinian activist in Chicago and raised funds for the PLO.

But in 1993, after marrying a Catholic woman whom he had tried to persuade to convert to Islam, Shoebat's life took a sudden and highly unexpected turn.

When his wife insisted he prove his assertion that the Jews had distorted the words of the prophets, Shoebat purchased a Bible and sat down to read it. The experience, he says, was an eye-opener for him, leading him to abandon Islam and adopt evangelical Christianity.

"Muslims claim to believe in prophets such as Moses and David, but they do not know what they say. The only way to do so is to read the Bible," he asserts.

When his family learned of his conversion, he was disowned and received death threats, and Shoebat is certain the PLO is planning his demise.

Nevertheless, he is determined to make amends for his past actions. "I seek forgiveness for what I have done. My whole dream was to destroy Jews and to destroy the State of Israel." Now, he says, "I want to fight for Israel from both theological and political perspectives. Israel must never be divided," he insists, adding that, "I am very Zionist. I believe that Zionism is the process of Jews making aliya and going back to their land. I call myself a Christian Zionist."

Shoebat has begun to appear before Jewish and Christian audiences in North America, preaching support for Israel and its retention of Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip, while categorically rejecting the idea of establishing a Palestinian state.

"I pray for the continuation of the Israeli 'occupation' so that we can have peace. If we put our hands with Israel and say that we want to be part of Greater Israel, we could be a great people. The Palestinians could then be the greatest people in the Middle East," he says.

But in order for that to happen, Shoebat argues, fundamental change needs to take place in Palestinian society, as an entire generation of Palestinian youth has been taught to hate the Jewish state.

"The occupation is not Israel occupying the land which supposedly belongs to the Arabs," he says. "The true occupation is of the minds of Palestinians, of teaching them hatred for Jews. That is the real occupation.

"My goal is to go back to Israel and to live there, and to have a program for the Palestinians, to un-brainwash them." This, he says, is essential if there is ever to be peace in the region.

"The Jews don't speak up as much as they should, so I will speak up," says Shoebat. "Israel is a small state and the Muslim world is a giant. Nevertheless," he concludes, "if we, the Zionists, stand strong, then we will prevail. I am sure that we will win."

The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Prime Minister's Office under former premier Binyamin Netanyahu. This article was on the Jerusalem Post website (http://www.jpost.com) today.

Posted by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, February 12, 2004.
A top Palestinian Authority official insists that Israel has no right to exist because it is "Satan's offspring," founded on theft and racism.

In an interview broadcast Feb. 6 on PATV, Ahmad Nasser, Secretary of the Palestinian Legislative Council, asserts that Israel cannot exist "among human beings" because it was "founded on the basis of robbery, terror, killing, torture, assassination, death, stealing land and killing people."

His comments reflect the PA's continuing campaign to challenge and deny Israel's right to exist.

The interview also cites The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the infamous Russian forgery that was presented as the Jews' secret plan to rule the world, as the basis for the recent exchange of 400 Arab prisoners for one Israeli and the bodies of three soldiers. Nasser says the prisoner exchange is part of Israel's plan to show that a Jewish life is worth more than an Arab life, and proves that Israel is a "racist country" that "hates all the goyim, all the foreigners."

Here is the text of the interview:

Ahmad Nasser, Secretary of the Palestinian Legislative Council, as interviewed on PATV Feb. 6, 2004:

Nasser: "Israel is not deterred from anything. Israel was established on the basis of theft. Israel, the State of Israel, is the Satan's offspring, a Satanic offspring. Israel was founded on theft from the first moment. It was founded on the basis of robbery, terror, killing, torture, assassination, death, stealing land and killing people. On this basis, Israel was founded and will continue this way, never able to exist because its [Israel's] birth was unnatural, a Satanic offspring, and cannot exist among human beings... Only in this way can Israel exist. It is not capable of existing naturally as other nations in the world." Woman Interviewer: "The very existence [of Israel] is unnatural, is not logical. The root, the root itself is rotten."

Nasser: "This state is based on racism, biblical concepts, death, killing and destruction ..."

Nasser (on the exchange of 400 Arab prisoners for one Israeli and three bodies of Israeli soldiers): "... We see that Israel is trying to delude the world, and delude the Arabs and the Palestinians psychologically - that one Israeli will be exchanged for a thousand Palestinians. Meaning - Israel is interested in planting among the Palestinian, the Arab or the world the concept of value - the value of a Jew and the value of an Arab. But it is not true..." [Interrupted]

Interviewer: "This concept appears in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, that they [the Jews] are at a high level [of existence] and the rest are at a low level."

Nasser: "... It [Israel] does all it can to take as many prisoners of war as it can, for example, 10,000 Arab prisoners in exchange for the release of a hundred [Israeli] prisoners of war. By this, Israel is trying to put a value on an Arab and a value on an Israeli or Jew... Israel is an aggressive country, a racist country, an ideologically hostile country, which hates all the goyim, all the foreigners. Israel is a Satanic offspring."

Itamar Marcus is director of Palestinian Media Watch (http://www.pmw.org.il). Barbara Crook, a writer and university lecturer based in Ottawa, Canada, is PMW's North American representative. [Ed note: Item in Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNN.com), February 16: "U.S. President George Bush has long talked of his vision for "two states living side by side," and Prime Minister Sharon has given his assent as well - but the question is whether the Palestinian Authority agrees. A recent interview with a top Palestinian Authority official shows that Israel has still not earned the PA's respect for its right to exist."]

Posted by IsrAlert, February 12, 2004.
This was written by Edward I. Koch, former mayor of New York City and appeared in the Jewish World Review website (http://www.jewishworldreview.com) Feb. 12, 2003/20 Shevat, 5764.

Of all the anti-Semitic slurs, one of the most outrageous is that Jews secretly control the world.

This false and foolish accusation has been heard many times. In March, 1997, the black Muslim cleric, Louis Farrakhan, said on CNN's "Evans and Novak" that Jews "meet once a year or so in Hollywood or in Park Avenue to look at the trends of America and the world. And if there are trends they do not like, then they write scripts, they write movies, they write books. They do things to influence the trends. And that is why I intend to stay on this path until there's some change made. Black people are going to be free of Jewish control."

Farrakhan's fabrication about Jewish power and secret conspiracies is an updated version of the infamous "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a forgery created by the Russian Czar's secret police to incite pogroms - organized massacres against Jews. Even Henry Ford used the "Protocols" to support his well-financed rant against Jews during the days when he was rising to prominence through the production and sale of his Model-T Ford.

A comparable attack on Jews was made by Pat Buchanan in 1990, when he referred to Capitol Hill as "Israeli-occupied territory." On "The McLaughlin Group," Buchanan said, "There are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East - the Israeli defense ministry and its 'amen corner' in the United States" with a litany of Jewish names.

Last week we heard yet another version of the same old lie, this time from Tom Friedman in his February 5th column in The New York Times. Friedman, alleging that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are secretly controlled by Jews, wrote, "...Mr. Sharon has the Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat under house arrest in his office in Ramallah, and he's had George Bush under house arrest in the Oval Office. Mr. Sharon has Mr. Arafat surrounded by tanks, and Mr. Bush surrounded by Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists, by a vice president, Dick Cheney, who's ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates?"

There are those who say it's paranoid to accuse a fellow Jew of an anti-Semitic remark. I don't think so. Let me cite another example: Bob Novak, a Jew by birth who converted to Catholicism and now defines himself as a "cultural Jew." Over the years Novak's constant attacks on Israel have been, I believe, thinly disguised attacks on Jews.

To cite but one example, on his Nov. 24th show, Novak went ballistic on Israel. While discussing the Israeli assassination of Mahmoud Abu Hanoud, a senior military leader of Hamas who was directly responsible for dozens of Israeli civilian deaths, Novak denounced Prime Minister Sharon for ordering his execution. Novak's colleague, Margaret Carlson, called Hanoud a terrorist, and Novak defended him as a freedom fighter. Carlson responded, "Bob, ...you're the only person who would call Hamas freedom fighters." Novak rejoined with, "Oh, no; people all over the world do."

Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, put it well when he stated, "Those who only find fault with the Jewish people, the Jewish State and the actions of the Jewish sovereignty and never find anything that is positive are anti-Semites under the guise of anti-Zionism and anti-Israel."

Now comes Tom Friedman, often proclaimed as an expert on the Mideast. When President Bush, Vice President Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and, to a lesser extent, Secretary of State Colin Powell, come to the conclusion that it is in the national interest of the United States to support Israel, it must be, according to Friedman in his column of last week, because they have been brainwashed by "Jewish and Christian pro-Israel lobbyists."

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is so powerful, according to Friedman, that Cheney is "ready to do whatever Mr. Sharon dictates." Ridiculous. Dick Cheney is a man of enormous competence and intellectual ability with an established record of achievement and service to the nation. To suggest, as Friedman does, that he is selling out the country is an enormous disservice to Mr. Cheney and indeed to any public servant.

Did Friedman think President Bush was a puppet of the Arabs when, according to The New York Times, his father "telephoned Crown Prince Abdullah to assure him that his son's 'heart is in the right place' and that he was 'going to do the right thing' when it came to the Middle East?"

Tom Friedman, who is full of himself, believes he can resort to the anti-Semitic slur of secret Jewish control, and avoid criticism because he is a Jew. In reality, Friedman disgraced himself and his newspaper. His false words, coming at a time when anti-Semitism is skyrocketing worldwide, are particularly irresponsible and repulsive. If he is capable of feeling shame, I hope he feels it now

IsrAlert, a Jewish advocacy network, is run by Harv Weiner. To subscribe to IsrAlert, send an email to isralert@aol.com

Posted by Marco Delmar, February 12, 2004.

HASS, as in Amira Hass, supplier of material to other haters.

HASS - Amira Hass - the source for Islamo Arab militaristic agitators who tell us, "You Israelis are incriminating yourselves. See Amira Hass."

HASS - Amira Hass - the best rationalizer for Arab Muslims, ages 8-80, killing Jews.

HASS - Amira Hass - the best source for fanatical leftists all over the world "understanding" and "sympathizing" with Arab terrorists targeting innocent babies.

HASS - Amira Hass - All the hate websites pump fuel out of 'Haaretz's Amira Hess'.

HASS - Amira Hass - who has not learned from the Arab Muslim massacre on lefty 'Netzer' Kibbutz's kids that Arab Muslim militant couldn't care less if you are a 'Zionist', a 'right-winger,' a lefty, or a [so called, Why? Beats me!] "peacenick."

HASS - Amira Hass - the most Anti-Jewish spewing fountain Israel has ever had.

Does Haaretz even realize the damage it's doing?

A few questions:

1) What does "innocent palestinians" mean? Is it to suggest that Israel does not differentiate between the armed and unarmed?

2) Where are the missing words in this article? Amira Hass' life-endangering words sabotage the life-saving-FENCE by making ugly bloody political "statements."

3) Where are the items in the article about Israel's humanitarian projects as it walks a most difficult narrow line between saving Israeli babies and not hardening Arab Muslims' lives?

4) At this critical time when Islamo Arab radical propagandists use their most ugly tools - their despicable 'definitions,' labels out of WW2 and South. Africa - where's Ha'aretz, as a major Israeli newspaper, in all of this?

5) At a time that all the Arab Muslim media's united against humanizing the Israeli victims, where's Haaretz historic obligation in all of this?

6) Where's Haaretz when you need a voice for the victims of the Region, victims of the UN, victims of the media? Why does it only pour salt on the wounds of the injured!

Posted by Jock L. Falkson, February 12, 2004.
I wrote this letter to the Jerusalem Post.

"Don't hijack the security fence" is the title given to Jessica Montell's article in your issue of Feb. 10.

I was disappointed in your choice of the "fence" word for your headline. That designation is quite wrong because the fence is just one of 7 elements making up Israel's anti-terrorist barrier.

Strangely, Montell herself makes 17 references to "barrier" and only 3 for "fence." She carefully avoided "security barrier" to give the impression Israel's purpose was to make Arab lives miserable. As if the suicide terrorists were not the main factor in Israel's decision to build this costly, protective barrier.

Montell's title is "the executive director of 'B'Tselem: the Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories."

Having read her article I can only conclude B'Tselem has been improperly named. More properly it should be labeled "the Arab Center for Human Rights in the Disputed Territories."

Not that Israelis are all that enamored of "disputed territories" It is however, at least correct, whereas "occupied territories" is a wrong if clever PR ploy to befog the truth. For when Jordan withdrew from its so called "West Bank", after a drubbing by the IDF in 1967, the land naturally reverted to Israel, as originally intended by the League of Nations.

Allow me to recall that US Secretary of State, James Baker, specifically disparaged the usage of "occupied" as inaccurate. He made it clear that "disputed" was correct from the US view.

This should remain so until peace is signed between Israel, and Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. The Johnny-come-lately Palestinians were never party to these resolutions. This then is the legal position - upheld by UN resolutions 242 and 338.

Until Israel's future borders are mutually agreed in a peace agreement, Israel has every right to develop towns, villages, residential communities, and commercial and industrial areas there. And to build its anti-terrorist barrier where planned.

Israel's borders will not be defined by B'Tselem the way Montell and her Arab friends wish. Nor by the International Court of Justice. This is a political matter to be resolved between the UN specified parties in 242 and 338.

To reiterate, the Palestine Terrorist Authority is not one of these.

Jock Falkson is an Israeli writer and translator. He can be reached by email at falkson@barak-online.net.

Posted by Richard H. Shulman, February 12, 2004.
Gaza has been part of the Land of Israel since biblical times. Jews were prominent there for hundreds of years afterwards. Jews had to evacuate during the Greco-Syrian occupation, Napoleon's invasion, the British bombardment in 1917, the 1929 pogroms, and the war in 1948, when Egyptian armor moved up the coast along the Gaza Strip, destroying several Jewish towns in Gaza and reaching 15 miles from Tel Aviv. The Jews always returned and re-established communities there

The US Joint Chiefs of Staff reported that Israel had to keep most of the Golan Heights and Judea-Samaria and all of the Gaza Strip, in order to be able to defend itself. Possessing the Gaza Strip, Israel has eight miles of hostile border there. Without it, Israel would have 45 miles of hostile border to patrol. The Arabs would be able to introduce subversion and terrorism. The Gaza Strip is the traditional invasion route into the Land of Israel.

Like the freeing of Arab terrorists largely in exchange for the bodies of Israelis they murdered, the proposed withdrawal from Gaza is an invitation to murder more Israelis. "Come closer to the towns of Israel, that you may pick us off," PM Sharon seems to be singing to them.

Israelis should be preparing a case against Sharon (and others) for conspiracy to commit murder (Emanuel Winston, Jewish Press, 2/6, M4). The problem is, the conspirators run the country, and prepare cases against the patriots. There is no visible prospect of patriots gaining control, except when the catastrophic results of Labor-Likud policy strike Israel. Then the conspirators would flee the country with the millions of dollars they raked from it and from foreign paymasters. PM Sharon's confidante, Uri Dan, asserts that Sharon plans more "surprise" withdrawals, these from Judea-Samaria. PM Sharon's rationale is that he would withdraw less than other Prime Ministers would. That way he could retain the strategic Jordan Valley and half the settlements.

Sharon explains that the retreats he proposes now from Gaza would be temporary, as opening bargaining positions. That means he would retreat further. Self-contradictorily, he contends that by retreating now, Israel would not have to retreat as much, later (IMRA, 2/3).

PM Sharon argues that a unilateral, partial withdrawal would enable Israel to retain the rest of Judea-Samaria. He contradicts that by asserting that this scheme is the starting point for further withdrawals to be negotiated within the Road Map. Once Israel makes a partial withdrawal, foreign powers would take it as a demonstration that Israel can uproot more established communities. He argues that Israel should retreat before foreign parties impose an arrangement. However, since the foreign powers want Israel to retreat all the way to the Green Line, and let millions of Arabs into Israel rather than this new "state of their own," the foreign parties would continue to pressure Israel. The evacuated areas could provide a base for foreign forces and human shields to take up the terrorist side, without having to consult Israel.

Sharon claims that it is better for Israel to isolate itself from the chaos he sees coming to the P.A.. What isolation? However much the terrorists vie among themselves, they would acquire weapons that shoot over the security fence that is bankrupting Israel.

His plan is too grave to be accepted on the strength of his shallow justifications. Serious national discussion is needed (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 2/5).

By initiating withdrawals, Israel cedes the moral claim on Yesha and demoralizes its own people. The Arabs do not accept Israeli claims or credit its good faith - this is war, this is jihad, this is not gentlemanly bargaining. The Arabs would demand the rest of Yesha. The US agrees with them.

In sum, If Israel withdrew from Gaza, as PM Sharon proposes, it would be running away from the problem without solving it. Israeli withdrawal would lead to terrorist statehood, brutal persecution of other faiths, and an anti-American dictatorship with the right to import heavy arms with which to menace Israel. The Arabs would position their forces nearer to Israel. The Arabs would greatly be encouraged, as they were by the retreat from Lebanon. It would be wrong to reward terrorists, by withdrawing, and fitting to punish them, instead (IMRA, 2/3 from ZOA).

Mr. Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at ricshulman@aol.com.

THE WASHINGTON POST: Israel Versus Jerusalem
Posted by CAMERA, February 12, 2004.
A long and extensively-illustrated article by correspondent John Ward Anderson deploring Israeli policy in Jerusalem dominated the National and World News "A" section of the February 10 edition of the Washington Post ("Israel Hems In a Sacred City; Encircling of Jerusalem Complicates Prospects for Peace"). The feature, including eight color photographs and three maps, spilled onto a full two inside pages. The play given Anderson's report is extraordinary and the report itself is consistently misleading. "Israel Hems In a Sacred City" epitomizes journalist malpractice.

Major flaws:

1) Anderson's story omits essential information, suggesting throughout that Israel's malign policies in and around Jerusalem have crippled Arab population and community growth while Israel advances inexorably. Statistics showing the burgeoning of the Arab population would have cast the story in a dramatically different light. Thus, whereas in 1967, the non-Jewish population of Jerusalem was 26.6%, by December 2002, the percentage had grown to 34% in a total population of 680,400.

2) Anderson says "projects to cut off access to Jerusalem to Palestinians living in the West Bank, which borders the city on three sides, have accelerated since the start of the current Palestinian uprising in September 2000."

This language highlights the reporter's inversion of cause-and-effect, which implies Israeli bad faith and mistreatment of the Arabs. The projects are not "to cut off access to Jerusalem" but to control it, excluding terrorists like those who have murdered nearly 900 Israelis and wounded - in many cases maiming for life (see "Suicide Bomb Survivors Face Worlds Blown Apart," by Keith Richburg, Washington Post Foreign Service, January 31) - more than 5,000.

3) Anderson does not report that Israel offered the Palestinian Arabs a West Bank and Gaza Strip state, with eastern Jerusalem as its capital, in exchange for peace during negotiations at Camp David in 2000.

Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority rejected the proposal and walked out without making a counter-offer. Two months later they launched their continuing terror war against Israel, which includes repeated mass murders in predominantly Jewish western Jerusalem. Only after hundreds of casualties in its capital did Israel begin construction of the barrier. By emphasizing the latter over the former, however, the reporter inverts cause-and-effect.

4) Anderson's point of departure, that Israel denies Arab access, seems to follow a central allegation of one of his sources, Jeff Halper. The reporter misidentifies Halper as "an Israeli human rights activist" and quotes him to support the claim that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's goals probably are "to foreclose the possibility of any viable Palestinian state emerging ..."

Halper's position on Israel's anti-Zionist fringe is well-known. He advocates a bi-national "one-state solution" amounting to the destruction of the Jewish state. Inappropriately mainstreaming Halper and quoting his anti-Sharon dig without properly informing readers of Halper's radical views, sets up another manipulative omission:

Sharon has announced his willingness to negotiate establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that would exist in peace with Israel. He has warned of "painful concessions" by Israel, including withdrawal from nearly all of Gaza, provoking opposition within his governing coalition and his own Likud Party. Had the Palestinians kept their 1993 Oslo promises - including an end to violence, anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement, and dismantling the Palestinian terrorist infrastructure - they already would have the state Halper insinuates Sharon means to prevent.

5) Anderson reiterates that the security barrier under construction "is designed to cordon off the West Bank [and] has split some Palestinian neighborhoods and separated many Palestinians from their schools, jobs, families and lands."

The reporter does note that "Israeli officials say that several of the measures are designed to deter the movement of Palestinian terrorists ..." Deter terrorists, not "cordon off the territories"; numerous controlled crossing points are planned.

6) Palestinian allegations that Israel means to "break their religious, economic, political and cultural ties to the city and preempt negotiations over its final status" are repeated.

No hint is given that before they rejected the Camp David offer and returned to violence, in violation of their 1993 Oslo Accords commitments, Palestinians exercised "religious, economic, and cultural," if not political, ties to the city. No mention is made of an epidemic of illegal Arab construction in the Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem, documented by Justus Reid Weiner for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. This has taken place despite authorization of enough permits for new housing to more than meet the need. Anderson makes no mention that this illegal building has been subsidized by the Palestinian Authority and Arab governments as a political move to counter or deny Jewish claims in the city. Post readers do not learn that Arab housing construction in Jerusalem outpaced Jewish building after the city's reunification, growing at a rate of 122 percent compared to 113.5 percent("Arab Building in Jerusalem: 1967-1997," by Israel Kimhi).

Anderson also ignores that Jews were denied their own ties to much of the city during Jordan's illegal occupation of eastern Jerusalem, including the Old City, from 1948 to 1967. Unmentioned is the fact that Palestinian Muslim religious authorities have been busy, since the mid-1990s, physically destroying archaeological evidence of Jewish religious and cultural ties by unauthorized excavations on Temple Mount.

7) Anderson writes that "under the agreements that ended British rule in Palestine in 1948 and divided the region into Arab and Jewish areas, Jerusalem was to be an international city. But Israel's war for independence ended the following year with Israel in possession of the western part of the city ..."

This is historical revisionism. No agreements "ended British rule in Palestine in 1948 and divided the region into Arab and Jewish areas." The 1947 U.N. partition plan would have done so, but the Arabs rejected it and went to war to abort the new Jewish state. That is, rather than accept a second Arab country in what had been British Mandatory Palestine (Jordan was the first) in exchange for a tiny Jewish state confined to the eastern Galilee, coastal plain and part of the Negev, Palestinian Arabs and the Arab League rejected the proposed division. The Jews accepted it. The Jews ended up "in possession of the western part of the city" partly because they had built most of it and were already there, and partly because they successfully defeated Arab attempts to conquer them and force them out - as happened in the Jewish quarter of the Old City.

8) Anderson writes that "in the 1967 Middle East war, Israel captured the West Bank, including East Jerusalem ..."

The reporter does not mention that Israel acted only after informing Jordan it would not attack unless the latter joined Egypt and Syria in war against it; Jordan replied by shelling Jewish west Jerusalem. He does not mention that Jordan renamed Judea and Samaria "the West Bank" after illegally occupy